Taxpayer funded Abortions now a reality under ObamaCare in Pennsylvania

Melensdad · Jul 14, 2010

This will be interesting to see if this story turns out to be true. The source is obviously biased, but I've always found it to be accurate. So I highly suspect it is accurate again this time.

Obama Administration OKs First Tax-Funded Abortions Under Health Care Law
by Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com Editor
July 13, 2010
http://lifenews.com/nat6531.html

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- The Obama administration has officially approved the first instance of taxpayer funded abortions under the new national government-run health care program. This is the kind of abortion funding the pro-life movement warned about when Congress considered the bill.

The Obama Administration will give Pennsylvania $160 million to set up a new "high-risk" insurance program under a provision of the federal health care legislation enacted in March.

It has quietly approved a plan submitted by an appointee of pro-abortion Governor Edward Rendell under which the new program will cover any abortion that is legal in Pennsylvania.

The high-risk pool program is one of the new programs created by the sweeping health care legislation, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, President Obama signed into law on March 23. The law authorizes $5 billion in federal funds for the program, which will cover as many as 400,000 people when it is implemented nationwide.

"The Obama Administration will give Pennsylvania $160 million in federal tax funds, which we've discovered will pay for insurance plans that cover any legal abortion," said Douglas Johnson, legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee.

Johnson told LifeNews.com: "This is just the first proof of the phoniness of President Obama's assurances that federal funds would not subsidize abortion -- but it will not be the last."

"President Obama successfully opposed including language in the bill to prevent federal subsidies for abortions, and now the Administration is quietly advancing its abortion-expanding agenda through administrative decisions such as this, which they hope will escape broad public attention," Johnson said.

The abortion funding comes despite language in the bill that some pro-abortion Democrats and Obama himself claimed would prevent abortion funding and despite a controversial executive order Obama signed supposedly stopping abortion funding.

The pro-life community strongly opposed the executive order and said Rep. Bart Stupak and other House Democrats who voted for the pro-abortion health care bill in exchange for it were selling out their pro-life principles. This first case of forcing taxpayers to pay for abortions under the new law appears to prove them right that the bill language and executive order were ineffective.

Proving the point further that the abortion funding comes from federal taxpayer dollars, Johnson explained that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) has emphasized that the high-risk pool program is a federal program and that the states will not incur any cost.

On May 11, 2010, in a letter to Democratic and Republican congressional leaders on implementation of the new law, DHHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius wrote that “states may choose whether and how they participate in the program, which is funded entirely by the federal government.”

Johnson says that on June 28, Pennsylvania Insurance Commissioner Joel Ario (a member of the appointed cabinet of Governor Edward Rendell, a Democrat) issued a press release announcing that the federal Department of Health and Human Services had approved his agency's proposal for implementing the new program in Pennsylvania.

"The state will receive $160 million to set up the program, which will provide coverage to as many as 5,600 people between now and 2014," according to the release. "The plan's benefit package will include preventive care, physician services, diagnostic testing, hospitalization, mental health services, prescription medications and much more, with subsidized premiums of $283 a month."

Johnson says the "much more" Ario refers to is abortion funding.

The section on abortion (see page 14) asserts that "elective abortions are not covered," though it does not define elective -- which Johnson calls a "red herring."

The proposal specifies coverage "includes only abortions and contraceptives that satisfy the requirements of" several specific statutes, the most pertinent of which is 18 Pa. C.S. § 3204, which says abortion is legal in Pennsylvania. The statute essentially says all abortions except those to determine the sex of the baby are legal.

"Under the Rendell-Sebelius plan, federal funds will subsidize coverage of abortion performed for any reason, except sex selection," said NRLC's Johnson. "The Pennsylvania proposal conspicuously lacks language that would prevent funding of abortions performed as a method of birth control or for any other reason, except sex selection -- and the Obama Administration has now approved this."

Big Dog · Jul 14, 2010

Rendell's on board cause he's gonna need a job next year. He can't run for governor again and he's been sucking BO ass since the election. He a tool looking out for himself. Can't wait for the sparks to fly!

JEV · Jul 14, 2010

Big Dog said:
Rendell's on board cause he's gonna need a job next year. He can't run for governor again and he's been sucking BO ass since the election. He a tool looking out for himself. Can't wait for the sparks to fly!

I wondered where he got the fecal smear around his lips...now we know. Oh, and wasn't that lying piece of human excrement (Obama) supposed to eliminate the abortion part after he signed the bill into law? Add yet another lie to the list for the punk from Chicago. Integrity? Not on Barry's resume.

mak2 · Jul 14, 2010

OK, just a couple of little points about this thread:

1. Biased, but accurate, what the hell does that mean?

2. When I said teabagger and wing nut I was rounded chastised and apoligized because I realized the error of my ways and how classesless I was by saying ti. I cant imagine saying anything about Palin or the wing nuts and shit smeared lips or racist ways. I would expect to be pounced on by the mods and would deserve it. Course there is no double standard. Right?

By the way, I am very very anti abortion, so is this true or not? How bout some fact instead of "Obama sucks, ya,ya."

Big Dog · Jul 14, 2010

mak2 said:
OK, just a couple of little points about this thread:

1. Biased, but accurate, what the hell does that mean?

2. When I said teabagger and wing nut I was rounded chastised and apoligized because I realized the error of my ways and how classesless I was by saying ti. I cant imagine saying anything about Palin or the wing nuts and shit smeared lips or racist ways. I would expect to be pounced on by the mods and would deserve it. Course there is no double standard. Right?

By the way, I am very very anti abortion, so is this true or not? How bout some fact instead of "Obama sucks, ya,ya."

It's on Drudge too, has to be true ........... :whistling:

mak2 · Jul 14, 2010

Big Dog said:
It's on Drudge too, has to be true ...........

Actually I do read and trust Drudge.

jpr62902 · Jul 14, 2010

mak2 said:
OK, just a couple of little points about this thread:

1. Biased, but accurate, what the hell does that mean?

2. When I said teabagger and wing nut I was rounded chastised and apoligized because I realized the error of my ways and how classesless I was by saying ti. I cant imagine saying anything about Palin or the wing nuts and shit smeared lips or racist ways. I would expect to be pounced on by the mods and would deserve it. Course there is no double standard. Right?

By the way, I am very very anti abortion, so is this true or not? How bout some fact instead of "Obama sucks, ya,ya."

Assuming this is sarcasm, you either have a short memory, or don't read everything that's posted here. And for the record, I don't like JEV's comment either. I'll say it again. Posts like his in this thread add nothing to the discussion, and serve simply to provoke folks with differing political views.

JEV · Jul 14, 2010

I edited my post after mak2 made me recognize the error of my ways. In the future I will refrain from calling a piece of shit a piece of shit. That should level the playing field.

mak2 · Jul 14, 2010

JEV said:
I edited my post after mak2 made me recognize the error of my ways. In the future I will refrain from calling a piece of shit a piece of shit. That should level the playing field.

Thank you, I have learned to do the same.

JEV · Jul 14, 2010

jpr62902 said:
Assuming this is sarcasm, you either have a short memory, or don't read everything that's posted here. And for the record, I don't like JEV's comment either. I'll say it again. Posts like his in this thread add nothing to the discussion, and serve simply to provoke folks with differing political views.

I've never been called provocative in a forum before. I'm not sure if I should be flattered or cautious.

mak2 · Jul 14, 2010

I really do like you guys, you are a lot of fun.

Melensdad · Jul 14, 2010

mak2 said:
OK, just a couple of little points about this thread:

1. Biased, but accurate, what the hell does that mean?

I said the site is biased. It is. Its a pro-life site so obviously it is biased in what it reports.

I also said the site has historically been accurate it what it posts and that I suspect this story may also be accurate based on the cites historic accuracy.

It can be both biased and accurate and the two do not have to be mutually exclusive. I don't understand your question in your point #1.

jpr62902 · Jul 14, 2010

Melensdad said:
I said the site is biased. It is. Its a pro-life site so obviously it is biased in what it reports.

I also said the site has historically been accurate it what it posts and that I suspect this story may also be accurate based on the cites historic accuracy.

It can be both biased and accurate and the two do not have to be mutually exclusive. I don't understand your question in your point #1.

Wow, Bob. I didn't think you liked lawyers. Now you're posting like one. :whistling:

For those that care, the referenced article indicates that abortion is legal in Pennsylvania. Here are the texts of the cited Pennsylvania statutes:

Title 18 Pa.C.S. CRIMES AND OFFENSES

Part II. DEFINITION OF SPECIFIC OFFENSES

Article B. Offenses Involving Danger to the Person

Chapter 32. ABORTION

Current through Act 2008-80 (Laws approved to July 11, 2008)

§ 3204. Medical consultation and judgment.
(a) Abortion prohibited; exceptions.--No abortion shall be performed except by a physician after either:
(1) He determines that, in his best clinical judgment, the abortion is necessary; or
(2) He receives what he reasonably believes to be a written statement signed by another physician, hereinafter called the "referring physician," certifying that in this referring physician's best clinical judgment the abortion is necessary.
(b) Requirements.--Except in a medical emergency where there is insufficient time before the abortion is performed, the woman upon whom the abortion is to be performed shall have a private medical consultation either with the physician who is to perform the abortion or with the referring physician. The consultation will be in a place, at a time and of a duration reasonably sufficient to enable the physician to determine whether, based on his best clinical judgment, the abortion is necessary.
(c) Factors.--In determining in accordance with subsection (a) or (b) whether an abortion is necessary, a physician's best clinical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors (physical, emotional, psychological, familial and the woman's age) relevant to the well-being of the woman. No abortion which is sought solely because of the sex of the unborn child shall be deemed a necessary abortion.
(d) Penalty.--Any person who intentionally, knowingly or recklessly violates the provisions of this section commits a felony of the third degree, and any physician who violates the provisions of this section is guilty of "unprofessional conduct" and his license for the practice of medicine and surgery shall be subject to suspension or revocation in accordance with procedures provided under the act of October 5, 1978 (P.L. 1109, No. 261), known as the Osteopathic Medical Practice Act, the act of December 20, 1985 (P.L. 457, No. 112), known as the Medical Practice Act of 1985, or their successor acts.

Title 18 Pa.C.S. CRIMES AND OFFENSES

Part II. DEFINITION OF SPECIFIC OFFENSES

Article B. Offenses Involving Danger to the Person

Chapter 32. ABORTION

Current through Act 2008-80 (Laws approved to July 11, 2008)

§ 3205. Informed consent.
(a) General rule.--No abortion shall be performed or induced except with the voluntary and informed consent of the woman upon whom the abortion is to be performed or induced. Except in the case of a medical emergency, consent to an abortion is voluntary and informed if and only if:
(1) At least 24 hours prior to the abortion, the physician who is to perform the abortion or the referring physician has orally informed the woman of:
(i) The nature of the proposed procedure or treatment and of those risks and alternatives to the procedure or treatment that a reasonable patient would consider material to the decision of whether or not to undergo the abortion.
(ii) The probable gestational age of the unborn child at the time the abortion is to be performed.
(iii) The medical risks associated with carrying her child to term.
(2) At least 24 hours prior to the abortion, the physician who is to perform the abortion or the referring physician, or a qualified physician assistant, health care practitioner, technician or social worker to whom the responsibility has been delegated by either physician, has informed the pregnant woman that:
(i) The department publishes printed materials which describe the unborn child and list agencies which offer alternatives to abortion and that she has a right to review the printed materials and that a copy will be provided to her free of charge if she chooses to review it.
(ii) Medical assistance benefits may be available for prenatal care, childbirth and neonatal care, and that more detailed information on the availability of such assistance is contained in the printed materials published by the department.
(iii) The father of the unborn child is liable to assist in the support of her child, even in instances where he has offered to pay for the abortion. In the case of rape, this information may be omitted.
(3) A copy of the printed materials has been provided to the pregnant woman if she chooses to view these materials.
(4) The pregnant woman certifies in writing, prior to the abortion, that the information required to be provided under paragraphs (1), (2) and (3) has been provided.
(b) Emergency.--Where a medical emergency compels the performance of an abortion, the physician shall inform the woman, prior to the abortion if possible, of the medical indications supporting his judgment that an abortion is necessary to avert her death or to avert substantial and irreversible impairment of major bodily function.
(c) Penalty.--Any physician who violates the provisions of this section is guilty of "unprofessional conduct" and his license for the practice of medicine and surgery shall be subject to suspension or revocation in accordance with procedures provided under the act of October 5, 1978 (P.L. 1109, No. 261), known as the Osteopathic Medical Practice Act, the act of December 20, 1985 (P.L. 457, No. 112), known as the Medical Practice Act of 1985, or their successor acts. Any physician who performs or induces an abortion without first obtaining the certification required by subsection (a)(4) or with knowledge or reason to know that the informed consent of the woman has not been obtained shall for the first offense be guilty of a summary offense and for each subsequent offense be guilty of a misdemeanor of the third degree. No physician shall be guilty of violating this section for failure to furnish the information required by subsection (a) if he or she can demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he or she reasonably believed that furnishing the information would have resulted in a severely adverse effect on the physical or mental health of the patient.
(d) Limitation on civil liability.--Any physician who complies with the provisions of this section may not be held civilly liable to his patient for failure to obtain informed consent to the abortion within the meaning of that term as defined by the act of October 15, 1975 (P.L.390, No.111), known as the Health Care Services Malpractice Act.

Click to expand...

Title 18 Pa.C.S. CRIMES AND OFFENSES

Part II. DEFINITION OF SPECIFIC OFFENSES

Article B. Offenses Involving Danger to the Person

Chapter 32. ABORTION

Current through Act 2008-80 (Laws approved to July 11, 2008)

§ 3206. Parental consent.
(a) General rule.--Except in the case of a medical emergency, or except as provided in this section, if a pregnant woman is less than 18 years of age and not emancipated, or if she has been adjudged an incapacitated person under 20 Pa.C.S. § 5511 (relating to petition and hearing; independent evaluation), a physician shall not perform an abortion upon her unless, in the case of a woman who is less than 18 years of age, he first obtains the informed consent both of the pregnant woman and of one of her parents; or, in the case of a woman who is an incapacitated person, he first obtains the informed consent of her guardian. In deciding whether to grant such consent, a pregnant woman's parent or guardian shall consider only their child's or ward's best interests. In the case of a pregnancy that is the result of incest where the father is a party to the incestuous act, the pregnant woman need only obtain the consent of her mother.
(b) Unavailability of parent or guardian.--If both parents have died or are otherwise unavailable to the physician within a reasonable time and in a reasonable manner, consent of the pregnant woman's guardian or guardians shall be sufficient. If the pregnant woman's parents are divorced, consent of the parent having custody shall be sufficient. If neither any parent nor a legal guardian is available to the physician within a reasonable time and in a reasonable manner, consent of any adult person standing in loco parentis shall be sufficient.
(c) Petition to court for consent.--If both of the parents or guardians of the pregnant woman refuse to consent to the performance of an abortion or if she elects not to seek the consent of either of her parents or of her guardian, the court of common pleas of the judicial district in which the applicant resides or in which the abortion is sought shall, upon petition or motion, after an appropriate hearing, authorize a physician to perform the abortion if the court determines that the pregnant woman is mature and capable of giving informed consent to the proposed abortion, and has, in fact, given such consent.
(d) Court order.--If the court determines that the pregnant woman is not mature and capable of giving informed consent or if the pregnant woman does not claim to be mature and capable of giving informed consent, the court shall determine whether the performance of an abortion upon her would be in her best interests. If the court determines that the performance of an abortion would be in the best interests of the woman, it shall authorize a physician to perform the abortion.
(e) Representation in proceedings.--The pregnant woman may participate in proceedings in the court on her own behalf and the court may appoint a guardian ad litem to assist her. The court shall, however, advise her that she has a right to court appointed counsel, and shall provide her with such counsel unless she wishes to appear with private counsel or has knowingly and intelligently waived representation by counsel.
(f) Proceedings.--
(1) Court proceedings under this section shall be confidential and shall be given such precedence over other pending matters as will ensure that the court may reach a decision promptly and without delay in order to serve the best interests of the pregnant woman. In no case shall the court of common pleas fail to rule within three business days of the date of application. A court of common pleas which conducts proceedings under this section shall make in writing specific factual findings and legal conclusions supporting its decision and shall, upon the initial filing of the minor's petition for judicial authorization of an abortion, order a sealed record of the petition, pleadings, submissions, transcripts, exhibits, orders, evidence and any other written material to be maintained which shall include its own findings and conclusions.
(2) The application to the court of common pleas shall be accompanied by a non-notarized verification stating that the information therein is true and correct to the best of the applicant's knowledge, and the application shall set forth the following facts:
(i) The initials of the pregnant woman.
(ii) The age of the pregnant woman.
(iii) The names and addresses of each parent, guardian or, if the minor's parents are deceased and no guardian has been appointed, any other person standing in loco parentis to the minor.
(iv) That the pregnant woman has been fully informed of the risks and consequences of the abortion.
(v) Whether the pregnant woman is of sound mind and has sufficient intellectual capacity to consent to the abortion.
(vi) A prayer for relief asking the court to either grant the pregnant woman full capacity for the purpose of personal consent to the abortion, or to give judicial consent to the abortion under subsection (d) based upon a finding that the abortion is in the best interest of the pregnant woman.
(vii) That the pregnant woman is aware that any false statements made in the application are punishable by law.
(viii) The signature of the pregnant woman. Where necessary to serve the interest of justice, the orphans' court division, or, in Philadelphia, the family court division, shall refer the pregnant woman to the appropriate personnel for assistance in preparing the application.
(3) The name of the pregnant woman shall not be entered on any docket which is subject to public inspection. All persons shall be excluded from hearings under this section except the applicant and such other persons whose presence is specifically requested by the applicant or her guardian.
(4) At the hearing, the court shall hear evidence relating to the emotional development, maturity, intellect and understanding of the pregnant woman, the fact and duration of her pregnancy, the nature, possible consequences and alternatives to the abortion and any other evidence that the court may find useful in determining whether the pregnant woman should be granted full capacity for the purpose of consenting to the abortion or whether the abortion is in the best interest of the pregnant woman. The court shall also notify the pregnant woman at the hearing that it must rule on her application within three business days of the date of its filing and that, should the court fail to rule in favor of her application within the allotted time, she has the right to appeal to the Superior Court.
(g) Coercion prohibited.--Except in a medical emergency, no parent, guardian or other person standing in loco parentis shall coerce a minor or incapacitated woman to undergo an abortion. Any minor or incapacitated woman who is threatened with such coercion may apply to a court of common pleas for relief. The court shall provide the minor or incapacitated woman with counsel, give the matter expedited consideration and grant such relief as may be necessary to prevent such coercion. Should a minor be denied the financial support of her parents by reason of her refusal to undergo abortion, she shall be considered emancipated for purposes of eligibility for assistance benefits.
(h) Regulation of proceedings.--No filing fees shall be required of any woman availing herself of the procedures provided by this section. An expedited confidential appeal shall be available to any pregnant woman whom the court fails to grant an order authorizing an abortion within the time specified in this section. Any court to which an appeal is taken under this section shall give prompt and confidential attention thereto and shall rule thereon within five business days of the filing of the appeal. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania may issue such rules as may further assure that the process provided in this section is conducted in such a manner as will ensure confidentiality and sufficient precedence over other pending matters to ensure promptness of disposition.
(i) Penalty.--Any person who performs an abortion upon a woman who is an unemancipated minor or incapacitated person to whom this section applies either with knowledge that she is a minor or incapacitated person to whom this section applies, or with reckless disregard or negligence as to whether she is a minor or incapacitated person to whom this section applies, and who intentionally, knowingly or recklessly fails to conform to any requirement of this section is guilty of "unprofessional conduct" and his license for the practice of medicine and surgery shall be suspended in accordance with procedures provided under the act of October 5, 1978 (P.L. 1109, No. 261), known as the Osteopathic Medical Practice Act, the act of December 20, 1985 (P.L. 457, No. 112), known as the Medical Practice Act of 1985, or their successor acts, for a period of at least three months. Failure to comply with the requirements of this section is prima facie evidence of failure to obtain informed consent and of interference with family relations in appropriate civil actions. The law of this Commonwealth shall not be construed to preclude the award of exemplary damages or damages for emotional distress even if unaccompanied by physical complications in any appropriate civil action relevant to violations of this section. Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the common law rights of parents.

Big Dog · Jul 14, 2010

I didn't read it but there is a difference in allowing abortion and federally funding that legal abortion!

Melensdad · Jul 15, 2010

jpr62902 said:
Wow, Bob. I didn't think you liked lawyers. Now you're posting like one.

I beg to differ. MSNBC is obviously biased and their talking heads support Obama. FOX News is obviously biased and their talking heads criticize Obama. But both can report that the deficit exceeded $1 Trillion and those reports are accurate. So it is very possible that a biased site can simultaneously be accurate in what it reports.

Not sure why people are making a federal case out of something so obvious :hammer:

Big Dog said:
I didn't read it but there is a difference in allowing abortion and federally funding that legal abortion!

And there you go injecting sense.

There is a reasonably large % of the population that objects to abortion.

There is a reasonably large % of the population that supports abortion.

But there is an overwhelming majority that that opposes taxpayer funding of abortions.

This article is all about the fact that advocates supporting ObamaCare fell all over themselves proclaiming that taxpayers would not be paying for abortions . . . yet, if this article is correct, this is proof that we are, in fact, paying for abortions. It was claimed during the debate by everyone from the Catholic Bishops to various taxpayer groups that the bill would allow for taxpayer funded abortions. Obama and the Democratic leaders claimed it would not. Seems they lied to us.

Melensdad · Jul 15, 2010

Appears we have another source suggesting that the ObamaCare claim that taxpayers would not pay for abortions was a lie.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/69384

Obama Administration Approves First Direct Taxpayer Funding of Abortion Through New High-Risk Insurance Pools
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
By Susan Jones, Senior Editor

(CNSNews.com) - If you want proof that President Obama's Executive Order on taxpayer-funded abortion was a sham, look no further than Pennsylvania, says House Republican Leader John Boehner (Ohio).

Boehner and other Republicans point to reports that the Health and Human Services Department is giving Pennsylvania $160 million to set up a new high-risk insurance pool that will cover any abortion that is legal in the state.

"The fact that the high-risk pool insurance program in Pennsylvania will use federal taxpayer dollars to fund abortions is unconscionable," Boehner said in a statement on Tuesday.

“Just last month at the White House, I asked President Obama to provide the American people with a progress report on the implementation of his Executive Order, which purports to ban taxpayer-funding of abortions. Unfortunately, the President provided no information, and the American people are still waiting for answers."

President Obama pledged that under his health care plan “no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place.”
In a May 13 letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, Boehner asked if her department has provided guidance to the states on how to implement the president’s Executive Order on abortion funding. Boehner also asked Sebelius if the new federal high-risk pools would exclude abortion coverage.

He says his questions remain unanswered.

"Millions of Americans care deeply about this aspect of the new law and its implementation, and no progress report is complete without detailed information about it,” Boehner wrote to Sebelius.

The conservative Family Research Council says the $160 million in taxpayer funds for Pennsylvania is the first known instance of direct federal funding of abortions through the new high-risk insurance pools.

The abortion funding for pool participants validates the arguments pro-life groups made throughout the health care debate – that taxpayer dollars will fund abortions, said Tom McClusky, senior vice president of the Family Research Council’s political action arm.

“For our efforts to remove the bill's abortion funding, we were called 'deceivers' by President Obama and 'liars' by his allies. Now we know who the true deceivers and liars really are,’ McClusky said.
"This action by the Obama Administration also exposes the worthlessness of President Obama's Executive Order that supposedly would prevent federal funding of abortion, but which both sides, including Planned Parenthood, agreed was unenforceable.

"While the American people deserve an apology from President Obama for his deception, we should only be satisfied when this Pennsylvania abortion funding is rescinded and the health care law repealed.

McClusky noted that the new health care law also includes $12.5 billion for community health centers, and $6 billion for co-ops, both of which can fund abortions. And some people will use tax credits to help them pay for plans that cover abortion.

Even before it’s fully implemented, the Democrats’ health care plan “is already being exposed as a high-taxing, poorly thought-out, and taxpayer-funding-of-abortion monstrosity,” McClusky said.

Republican leader Boehner says House Republicans would codify the Hyde amendment, thus prohibiting all authorized and appropriated federal funds from being used to pay for abortion. Under the Republican plan, any health plan that includes abortion coverage would not receive federal funds.

jpr62902 · Jul 15, 2010

I beg to differ. MSNBC is obviously biased and their talking heads support Obama. FOX News is obviously biased and their talking heads criticize Obama. But both can report that the deficit exceeded $1 Trillion and those reports are accurate. So it is very possible that a biased site can simultaneously be accurate in what it reports.

Like I said. You're posting like a lawyer.

mak2 · Jul 15, 2010

Fair and balanced.

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2010/July/14/npr-health-law-abortion-fight-pennsylvania.aspx

This story comes from NPR's health blog, Shots .

You knew this was just bound to happen.

Abortion opponents say the administration is already breaking the promise it made as part of the new health law not to fund elective abortions. It was that promise — in the form of an executive order by President Obama issued in March — that helped secure the last few votes needed to win final approval of the landmark measure in the House.

Only their complaints appear to be a bit, well, premature.

The National Right to Life Committee, Family Research Council, and House Minority Leader John Boehner, (R-OH) are up in arms about what they contend is Pennsylvania's plan to provide abortion coverage to people who sign up for the state's new high-risk health insurance plan.

According to the NRLC's Douglas Johnson, the program approved for Pennsylvania "will cover any abortion that is legal in Pennsylvania." He says that's because while the proposal itself states that "elective abortions are not covered," in practice that's an obstacle easily surmounted.

That's because language elsewhere in Pennsylvania law allows a doctor to perform an abortion if that physician believes it "'necessary' based on 'all factors (physical, emotional, psychological, familial and the woman's age) relevant to the well-being of the woman.'"

According to the abortion foes, that means basically abortion on demand, for any reason, except sex-selection (which is specifically cited as impermissible). Or, as Rep. Boehner put it, "This is the boldest admission yet from the Obama administration that the President’s Executive Order on taxpayer-funded abortion was a sham."

Only there's one problem. Both Obama Administration and Pennsylvania officials say the NRLC's interpretation is simply incorrect — elective abortions will NOT be allowed in the new program.

"Pennsylvania has not signed a contract yet to start operating their Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan," said HHS Spokeswoman Jenny Backus. And when they do, she added, "our contract that states are signing says clearly that we will be issuing guidance on the administration of Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan so they know they will have to live by our guidance per the contract" when it comes to abortion coverage.

And that's no problem, says Rosanne Placey, of the Pennsylvania Department of Insurance. "Very simply, federal law controls. We know that," she said. "We absolutely do not cover elective abortions.
"We are drawing down federal money. We do that in more that one program," she said, including Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Programs, which similarly ban abortion. "We understand that."

Meanwhile, the assault has drawn complaints from some unexpected quarters.

Democrats for Life, which opposes abortion but supported the health law, was quick to praise Pennsylvania for being quick to get its program up and running, and chide those who would attack it. "While Republicans continue to find reasons to criticize and mischaracterize aspects of the reform bill, we will work to ensure the law will provide affordable and accessible health care for millions of Americans while upholding the longstanding ban on public funding of abortion," said DFL Executive Director Kristen Day.

The more abortion-rights leaning Faith in Public Life blog also took the complainers to task. "Rather than checking the facts, National Right to Life Committee, Family Research Council and John Boehner chose to spread misinformation on the sensitive topic of abortion," wrote Dan Nejfelt. "Once again we see the issue of abortion used as a political weapon serving partisan ends."

Melensdad · Jul 15, 2010

mak2 said:
Only there's one problem. Both Obama Administration and Pennsylvania officials say the NRLC's interpretation is simply incorrect — elective abortions will NOT be allowed in the new program.

"Pennsylvania has not signed a contract yet to start operating their Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan," said HHS Spokeswoman Jenny Backus. And when they do, she added, "our contract that states are signing says clearly that we will be issuing guidance on the administration of Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan so they know they will have to live by our guidance per the contract" when it comes to abortion coverage.

And that's no problem, says Rosanne Placey, of the Pennsylvania Department of Insurance. "Very simply, federal law controls. We know that," she said. "We absolutely do not cover elective abortions.

Well at this point we have 2 articles saying YES they cover abortions and 1 article saying NO.

It will be interesting to watch this develop over time. We have a clause selectively revealed in this story, but we don't know about others that may have been selectively omitted. At this point we are not even sure both sides are using the same evidence to make their points.

JEV · Jul 15, 2010

NPR is about as fair and balanced as MSNBC. I have listened to them for years (some of the programming is actually enjoyable), and find that their commentary regarding politics is very left leaning. Just because THEY say something, is no more reason to believe them than the president or any of the other liars in politics who say one thing and do another. In my short 60 years on this planet, I cannot remember a president who so blatantly says one thing and then does another...repeatedly! I can see if a situation changes and he would have to reverse a decisions, but his record stands for itself as to not fulfilling his promises.

But hey, I'm just an Obama hater according to some here, and a mindless follower of right-wing extremists by you, so just take these comments as the ramblings of a madman, and believe whatever you read and hear from NPR.

mak2 · Jul 15, 2010

Biased but accurate? :smile:

Melensdad · Jul 15, 2010

mak2 said:
Biased but accurate?

We don't know. Just as I said in the first post when I introduced the first article making the claim.

It will be interesting to watch this develop.

Big Dog · Jul 15, 2010

If the NPR article is right, any seeking an abortion will just find a liberal doctor for approval. All abortion considerations should go beyond the primary care physician and on to the "rationing board" ............ I mean it is a life!

SShepherd · Jul 15, 2010

jpr62902 said:
Like I said. You're posting like a lawyer.

OOOOOOooohhhh. I'm SO reporting you to a moderator.....you can't say bad things about people like that !!

:yum:

Taxpayer funded Abortions now a reality under ObamaCare in Pennsylvania

Jerk in a Hawaiian Shirt & SNOWCAT Moderator

Large Member

Mr. Congeniality

Active member

Large Member

Active member

Jeanclaude Spam Banhammer

Mr. Congeniality

Active member

Mr. Congeniality

Active member

Jerk in a Hawaiian Shirt & SNOWCAT Moderator

Jeanclaude Spam Banhammer

Large Member

Jerk in a Hawaiian Shirt & SNOWCAT Moderator

Jerk in a Hawaiian Shirt & SNOWCAT Moderator

Jeanclaude Spam Banhammer

Active member

Jerk in a Hawaiian Shirt & SNOWCAT Moderator

Mr. Congeniality

Active member

Jerk in a Hawaiian Shirt & SNOWCAT Moderator

Large Member

New member