|
 |  Los Angeles Times -
Nov-04-2009Abortion language complicates Democratic health efforts(topic overview)
CONTENTS:
SOURCES
FIND OUT MORE ON THIS SUBJECT
Abortion proponents want to obscure the fact that the bill allows private insurance plans to receive federal subsidies to cover abortions. In addition to the public option, the bill also ensures that at least one private plan in every area must include abortion coverage, for which they will be subsidized by the federal government via our tax dollars. Consider this message from Planned Parenthood's President, Cecile Richards to all Planned Parenthood supporters: 'Because of relentless pressure from dedicated supporters like you, every version of the bills out there right now is free of the dangerous amendments anti-choice members of Congress tried to attach to health care reform'.Tell your representatives to pass this crucial bill intact, and reject efforts to remove reproductive health care from health reform.' (E-mail dated October 30, 2009, via Jillstanek.com) The only thing that will prevent the federal funding of abortion is an effective amendment to the bill. That amendment is the Stupak/Pitts amendment. Nancy Pelosi knows this, and this is why she is doing everything she can to make sure the amendment never reaches the floor for a vote. She knows that if the full House is allowed to vote on the Stupak/Pitts amendment, it will very likely pass and abortion funding will be excluded from her plan. That's why it all comes down to the The Rule. [1] The letter says the amendment is merely a token change to the language that authorizes the massive abortion funding and will do nothing to prohibit it. The manager's amendment "will make additional changes in the abortion language of the bill, but those changes will be cosmetic -- because Speaker Pelosi and Chairman Waxman, among others, clearly are committed to attempt to establish a federal 'public option' that will fund elective abortions." NRLC notes how political observers have said the Stupak amendment would prevail if Pelosi and House Democrats would allow a vote on it -- which makes it clear they want the health care bill, the federal government and Americans to fund abortions. "It is possible to prevent the new federal agency program from funding elective abortions -- but only if the Rule is first rejected," the letter goes on to say. The letter backs up its abortion funding contention by pointing to language on page 110 of H.R. 3962 (lines 1-7) which explicitly says "nothing in this Act shall be construed as preventing the public health insurance option from providing for. coverage of services described in paragraph (4)(A)."[2] Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- House Democrats are working on yet another phony amendment that they claim will remove government funding of abortions from the health care reform bill. It appears the Ellsworth amendment does nothing to remove the massive new abortion-funding program in H.R. 3962. The new bill that Speaker Nancy Pelosi unveiled last week and that the House is expected to vote on later this week funds abortions with taxpayer dollars in two ways. It sets up the public option -- a government-run health care plan that will pay for abortions -- and it funds abortions by giving members of the public affordability credits that can be used to pay for abortions.[3]
The Hyde Amendment will not apply to the "public option," as the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service has confirmed -- which makes the Stupak amendment necessary. The letter also disabuses its readers of the misconception the media and pro-abortion lawmakers have put forward that the House health care bill would "segregate" federal funds away from the payments for abortions. "Those references are inapplicable or nonsensical with respect to the public option," NRLC says. "These news stories are talking about an entirely different program, the affordability credits program." Language in the bill concerning the credits currently allows this federal subsidy to help purchase private health plans that cover elective abortion -- which is abortion funding and which has been opposed by National Right to Life and pro-life groups.[2] With the new Pelosi health care bill including massive abortion funding and subsidies, pro-life advocates say Obama's pledge is clearly disingenuous. Douglas Johnson of National Right to Life says the pledge Americans can count on is the one Obama made to Planned Parenthood during a July 2007 speech where he said his health care legislation would create a public plan that would cover abortions. "Obama has never recanted his promise that the federal government plan will cover elective abortion -- he just wants to pretend that a federal agency could spend 'private' funds, an untenable claim," Johnson tells LifeNews.com. "The White House and top Democratic congressional leaders are trying to smuggle federal government funding of abortion into law, behind smokescreens of misleading, contrived language," he added.[4]
The bill includes the so-called government option or public option that expands abortion funding even further than do the subsidies that can be used to purchase health care insurance that pays for abortions. Douglas Johnson, the legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee, told LifeNews.com last week that A vote for this bill is a vote to establish a federal government program that will directly fund abortion on demand, with federal funds."[5] National Right to Life legislative director Douglas Johnson emailed LifeNews.com Tuesday morning. He confirmed that, even with the Pelosi-backed amendment, the new federal government insurance program, the "public option," would still be explicitly authorized to pay for all elective abortions by language on page 110 of the bill and the federal premium subsidies ("affordability credits") could still be used to purchase private health plans that cover elective abortion. "We are dismayed that Mr. Ellsworth yesterday apparently proposed language that in substance will allow the new federal government insurance program, the 'public option,' to pay for abortion on demand," he said.[3]
NRLC has one main message it hopes lawmakers and pro-life advocates will understand before the votes take place: "The bill would create a national federal agency health program, the 'public option,' and would explicitly authorize that federal agency program to pay for elective abortions." "This federal agency program will pay for abortions with federal funds (which are the only kind of funds that federal agencies can spend)," the letter, provided to LifeNews.com, spells out. NRLC notes that pro-life Representatives Bart Stupak and Joe Pitts have "proposed an amendment that would apply the long-established principles of the 'Hyde Amendment' to the federal 'public option' program, but Democratic leaders have made it clear that their Rule will not allow a floor vote" on it. NRLC is asking members of the House to vote against the Rule for debate on the health care reform bill and it will relay how lawmakers vote on those rules as either a pro-life or pro-abortion vote when it communicates those votes to its millions of members nationwide.[2] Democratic leaders have little choice but to make some concessions. As many as 40 Democrats have said they might oppose the health care bill without tighter restrictions on abortion ''' a potentially decisive number. Democratic aides said that Representative Brad Ellsworth, Democrat of Indiana, and a stalwart opponent of abortion, was working with House leaders on a deal that achieve two of his goals: prevent federal tax dollars from being used to pay for abortions, and guarantee the availability of insurance plans that do not cover abortions. Party leaders said they believed the deal would win over enough votes to advance the bill.[6]
Exceptions would be abortions performed in cases of rape, incest or when the mother's life is threatened. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland said Tuesday that he was "reasonably confident" the bill could be amended to satisfy Stupak and the other anti-abortion Democrats. Democratic Rep. Steve Driehaus of Ohio cautioned, "What they are calling a solution may not be acceptable to us." Republicans plan to offer their own health care bill this week.[7]
"I will continue whipping my colleagues to oppose bringing the bill to the floor for a vote until a clean vote against public funding for abortion is allowed," Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) said Monday in a statement. He said last week that 40 Democrats could vote with him to oppose the legislation -- enough to derail the bill. To be clear, Stupak and his colleagues are joining with Republicans in trying to prevent the bill from coming to the floor at all if their extreme anti-choice amendment is not allowed. Stupak wants to prohibit abortion coverage completely in the exchange, meaning that if a woman wanted reproductive health coverage that included abortion servcies, she'd have to purchase an additional insurance rider. That would mean that a young woman covered by her parent's plan would have to negotiate with her parents for the coverage. Or a woman in an abusive relationship would have to negotiate that with her partner. Women would have to plan in advance, think ahead to whether any circumstance in their future life might lead them to have an unplanned or unwanted pregnancy and buy that extra insurance, just in case. It's a backdoor attempt by Stupak and his colleagues to get abortion coverage excluded from private insurance, as well as public--which has been in place since 1976 with the Hyde Amendment, a rider that has been attached to appropriations bills for the past 33 years.[8] The new legislation combines three pro-abortion versions of the same bill and has been renumbered as H.R. 3962. Democrats hope to bring the measure to the House floor for a debate and vote this week and it appears that will happen without allowing pro-life Democrats and Republicans to vote on an amendment from Rep. Bart Stupak that would disallow abortion funding.[5] Antiabortion-rights Democrats argue that the bill's current language against federal funding for abortion coverage is not strong enough. Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), who is leading antiabortion-coverage efforts in the House, has threatened to vote against a rule allowing floor consideration of the bill providing he is not allowed to introduce an amendment imposing additional restrictions. Democratic leadership in the House is unlikely to allow Stupak to introduce his amendment, CQ Today reports (Ota, CQ Today, 10/30). Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.), chair of the House Democratic Policy Committee and one of the committees of jurisdiction, said on Friday that he does not expect that many amendments will be allowed, including those backed by abortion-rights opponents.[9] To stop the abortion funding, pro-life Democratic Rep. Bart Stupak of Michigan has proposed an amendment that would prohibit the federal government plan from paying for abortion but Pelosi will likely force the House to vote on the bill under a closed rule that prohibits amendments.[5] NRLC and other pro-life groups are urging House members to vote against imposition of the closed rule preventing the pro-life amendment. "Anyone voting to forbid amendments to this bill is in effect voting to set up a federal government program that will directly fund abortion on demand, with federal funds," Johnson said. For Pelosi, an initial survey of House Democrats her top lieutenants conducted reveals she is about 17 votes shy of the 218 she needs to get approval for a pro-abortion bill with the public plan.[5]
Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., has been working on the abortion compromise with Rep. Brad Ellsworth, D-Ind. At a Caucus meeting Monday night, Ellsworth circulated revised language to strengthen the outline drafted by Rep. Lois Capps, D-Calif., without writing into law the Hyde Amendment's prohibition on using federal funds for abortion. Rep. Baron Hill, D-Ind., said the language assuaged his concerns about abortion in the bill. "It makes it clear that no federal dollars can be used for abortion," Hill said. House leaders were still negotiating Monday with the bloc of Democrats concerned about abortion provisions in the legislation, saying that they could lead to public funding of the procedure. After an evening meeting of top House Democrats, Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (Md.) said, "We are making progress," but added that they had not reached an agreement. The outcome of those talks could be crucial in deciding the fate of the health-care bill. Democrats need the vast majority of their caucus to back the bill, since nearly all congressional Republicans have said they will oppose the legislation.[10] CongressDaily reports that Democrats are close to finalizing a compromise on the issue: "Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., has been working on the abortion compromise with Rep. Brad Ellsworth, D-Ind. At a Caucus meeting Monday night, Ellsworth circulated revised language to strengthen the outline drafted by Rep. Lois Capps, D-Calif., without writing into law the Hyde Amendment's prohibition on using federal funds for abortion" (Hunt and House, 11/3). The other: should illegal immigrants should be allowed to shop for insurance inside new insurance exchanges? "Some lawmakers say that even if they use their own money to buy private plans they would be getting a benefit from the federally established exchange. The White House does not want illegal immigrants to access the exchange, and the Senate bill would keep them out" (Werner, 11/3).[11]
The focus is on the role of conservative Democrats, led by Michigan Democrat Bart Stupak, in seeking language that would prohibit private plans from covering abortion care if in fact any federal funding were found in the same system. The abortion dispute centers both on federal subsidies that would be provided for people who cannot afford health-care coverage themselves and the much-debated government insurance alternative, which is included in the House version of the bill but is still being debated in the Senate.[12] ') ; }Democratic leaders early this summer backed a provision that would allow people to use subsidies under the bill to buy insurance plans that cover abortion, but only funds from individual or employer health-care premiums could go toward paying for an abortion. Effectively, insurance companies would be tasked with segregating money from government payments from those coming from private sources, and only the latter could be used for abortion. Stupak and some Democrats, along with congressional Republicans, have criticized this provision as an accounting distinction. They say the federal subsidies and the private payments are combined for a person to buy a health plan; therefore, federal dollars are helping fund insurance plans that allow abortions.[12]
Conservatives are simply looking to keep incrementally eroding Roe v. Wade through the political horse trade. The Hyde Amendment essentially bars federal funding for abortion services, with only narrow medical exceptions, under programs like Medicaid, which leaves poor women deeply disadvantaged when it comes to their freedom to choose. Conservatives basically have won this one, even though states can still use their own taxpayer funds to cover abortion, and the ban is subject to annual renewal in appropriations legislation. Anti-choice legislators and advocates will not accept that since some private insurers (well, most) cover abortion care for women, if we have a government-funded/government-run, public option of some kind, some Americans will need to rely on a combination of both private insurance and public insurance to meet their health care coverage needs. So, for instance, if a woman who receives federal tax dollars to assist her health coverage is also a part of the private insurance pool which covers abortion, this is essentially the same as the federal government paying for abortion services.[13] "As long as language in H.R. 3962 authorizes the public option to pay for elective abortions, a vote in favor of a Rule that protects that language will be regarded by NRLC as the most important House roll call on direct government funding of abortion on demand since the House last voted directly on the Hyde Amendment in 1997," the letter says. "In short, the record of each House member on whether a federal agency program should directly fund elective abortion (abortion on demand) will be defined by this roll call, possibly for many years to come," the letter adds. National Right to Life's letter, authored by its legislative director Douglas Johnson, indicates the pro-life group expects a "manager's amendment" brought by Pelosi and her top lieutenants.[2] Members of the House could hold multiple votes on health care as soon as Thursday -- with votes coming on the rules for debate, one massive amendment from Pelosi and ruling Democrats, and a vote on the bill itself. When they vote, the National Right to Life Committee says their decisions will affect the status of government funding of abortions for years to come.[2] Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- The pro-life movement is unified in its opposition to the House health care reform bill Speaker Nancy Pelosi unveiled last week because of its abortion funding. In a new letter to members of Congress, the National Right to Life more exactly spells out what is at stake in the votes expected later this week.[2] House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, a top abortion advocate who is responsible for the Capps amendment that allows abortion funding in the new health care reform bill Speaker Nancy Pelosi unveiled last week, confirmed to Politico that Obama has been lobbying for the bills. "He's making phone calls, meeting with members" and spending considerable time lobbying members of the Senate, Waxman confirmed. Politico notes that, earlier this month, Obama asked pro-abortion Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden to stay in the Oval Office after a key strategy meeting with Wyden and others in order to personally lobby him to support the Baucus bill, which funds abortions. He made it clear, it was important to him, Wyden said about the private meeting.[4]
Frank Pavone, the national director of Priests for Life, has also noticed the contradiction between Obama's rhetoric and actions. He points to a conversation Obama had with pro-life Rep. Bart Stupak, who is leading the charge for an amendment to remove the abortion funding from the bill, where Obama defended his statement by saying his plan hasn't been proposed yet. "Every time the President has spoken of not wanting to fund abortion in 'his' health care plan, no one has really known what measure he was talking about," Pavone said. "Now we know from his conversation with Congressman Stupak that the President's 'plan' has never seen the light of day. Or maybe, to paraphrase former President Bill Clinton, it depends on what the word 'plan' means," he said. While Obama has been lobbying members of Congress to support the pro-abortion health care bills, his top spokesman has been misleading reporters about how the Hyde amendment would supposedly stop abortion funding eve though it doesn't apply to the bills.[4] Led by Rep. Bart Stupak, a pro-life Democrat from Michigan, pro-life groups were hoping Pelosi would allow a vote on an authentic amendment that would curb all abortion funding in the bill. Pelosi has proposed rules for debate on the health care bill that prohibit Stupak from offering his amendment.[3] The procedural rule is a vote wherein the members of Congress decide which amendments can even be considered for a vote in relation to the bill. Pelosi wants a closed Rule ' meaning she wants the members to vote for the Rule and not even allow the Stupak/Pitts amendment to be presented for a debate or a vote. She intends to use the Rule to prevent a vote on the Stupak/Pitts amendment. Rep. Bart Stupak's amendment is our best and only hope right now of making sure abortion funding is explicitly excluded from this health care bill, and that's why time is of the essence. The vote on the Rule is expected by Thursday of this week.[1]
Despite Johnson's analysis, some lawmakers are already perpetuating the myth that the Ellsworth-DeLauro amendment would stop abortion funding. "It makes it clear that no federal dollars can be used for abortion," Rep. Barron Hill, an Indiana Democrat who is not pro-life, told National Journal. This is the second time House Democrats have promoted a phony amendment to the health care restructuring bills that doesn't truly prohibit abortion funding.[3] House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-California) has refused to add the Hyde Amendment abortion funding ban to the overall healthcare bill. Joy Yearout with the'' Susan B. Anthony List ''says Democratic leaders are doing everything they can to prevent a vote on federal funding of abortion. "Congress has had difficulty passing this Indian healthcare bill for the last three years, mainly because of the abortion issue," explains Yearout. "Democrats in leadership haven't wanted to have a battle on the House floor about federal funding for abortion, so they've avoided it.'' They were hoping no one would notice that they folded it into the healthcare bill."[14] Before that can take place, an impasse within the Democratic caucus over abortion ''' and its place in the healthcare reform legislation ''' must be resolved. Otherwise, the whole bill could go down. Rep. Bart Stupak (D) of Michigan is leading the charge among anti-abortion Democrats, who want to amend the bill to strengthen its prohibitions against the use of federal funds for abortions. Congressman Stupak has said he has 40 Democratic votes in his camp, just enough to keep the bill from reaching the minimum 218 votes needed for a majority. He has not released all the names, but some have appeared in letters to Speaker Nancy Pelosi asking for consideration of an anti-abortion amendment to the legislation.[15] Moderate Democrats, behind Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), have voiced concerns that the House bill doesn't go far enough to eliminate the possibility that federal funds could subsidize abortions, particularly for patients enrolled in plans on the exchange. Hoyer said he hopes to bring the Democrats' $894 billion proposal to the floor either Friday or Saturday of this week. "I am confident of prevailing before Veterans Day," he added.[16] Instead it may be included in the '''rule''' which is done the day before the vote. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said today he did not consider that a violation of his pledge to have the bill language available for three days before a vote. Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) has said he has the votes to use a procedural maneuver to block the bill from coming up if abortion opponents don'''t get an up-or-down vote on an amendment that bans abortion services from the '''essential benefits package''' and prevents individuals who receive affordability credits from using those credits to purchase a plan that includes abortion.[17] "I will oppose bringing the bill to the floor until an amendment can be offered or language agreed to that will prevent public funding for abortion," Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) said Tuesday, adding that negotiations with House leaders were ongoing.[18]
Real health care is about saving and nurturing life, not about taking life." According to the Washington Post, Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich) has whipped up support of 40 Democrats who would vote with him to oppose bringing the bill to the floor until a clean vote against public funding for abortion is allowed. Thank God some Democrats are at least listening to some of the people they represent and to moral sanity.[19] Fox News has learned that Elaine Olsen, the mother-in-law of Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) passed away unexpectedly Sunday in Escanaba, Mich. His unexpected absence could profoundly impact the ongoing debate on abortion access encompassed in health care legislation. Stupak signaled last week that unless the abortion impasse was bridged, he had enough votes to blow up the bill.[20]
The Pelosi bill contains a number of provisions that would improve women'''s access to affordable health care, including ending '''gender rating''''''in which insurers charge women more for coverage'''and making it illegal to classify C-sections, domestic violence, and even pregnancy as pre-existing conditions that disqualify women for health insurance. It includes new funding for comprehensive sex education, supplanting some of the abstinence-only programs favored by the Bush administration. The bill also aggressively expands Medicaid, the existing federal health-insurance program for low-income women and their children, which includes generous birth-control coverage. On the narrower issue of abortion access and affordability, the major pro-choice organizations aren'''t shy about expressing their disappointment: The legislation references abortion more than 25 times, mostly in an effort to restrict access to the procedure.[12] The issue of abortion coverage in the House health care reform bill ( HR 3962 ) continues to divide Democrats as House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) prepares to move the bill to the floor, CQ Today reports.[9] House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) says the House is headed for a debate and vote on the 1,990-page health care reform by '''either Friday or Saturday.''' Hoyer said that it was his intention to '''have that bill on the floor later this week.''' He also signaled that he would give Republicans a chance to offer their alternative health care reform bill as an amendment to the measure.[21] The healthcare bill has been bogged down in the Senate as Reid awaits cost estimates from congressional budget analysts and searches for an approach that could win the 60 votes needed to overcome Republican procedural hurdles. Democrats in the House pushed ahead with plans to take up a healthcare reform bill later this week, and Democratic leader Steny Hoyer said they had enough support to pass it. "I am confident that we are going to pass this bill," Hoyer told reporters, predicting passage before a planned recess begins in the middle of next week. A conference committee probably would need to work out differences in the two chambers' bills, meaning the Senate needs to pass its version by early December to allow time to reconcile the measures and get them to Obama to sign into law. The healthcare bills are designed to rein in costs, expand coverage to millions of uninsured and end industry practices such as refusing to insure people who are ill.[22] WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. House of Representatives will take up a broad healthcare reform bill later this week and it has enough support to pass, House Democratic leader Steny Hoyer said on Tuesday. The Democratic-controlled House plans to open debate on its 1,990-page version of a healthcare overhaul on Friday or Saturday, with a final vote expected before the start of a planned recess next Wednesday, he said. "I am confident that we are going to pass this bill," Hoyer told reporters. A sweeping healthcare overhaul is President Barack Obama's top domestic priority, with a goal of reining in costs, expanding coverage to millions of uninsured and ending industry practices such as refusing to insure the sick. The measure has been slowed by battles in Congress over its size and cost. Delays in the Senate, where Democratic leader Harry Reid has not unveiled his version, threaten Obama's goal of signing a bill by the end of the year.[23]
Two unsolved issues 'abortion and immigration' stand between House Democratic leaders and a landmark vote on President Barack Obama's promised remake of the nation's health care system. [24] Struggling to finish their big health care legislation, House Democratic leaders signaled Tuesday that they were prepared to make several changes to the bill to satisfy abortion opponents, including many Democrats, who had threatened to block it.[6] WASHINGTON - House leaders continued to work today to satisfy demands from some Democrats that health care legislation specifically bar the use of taxpayer money for abortions. Those Democrats say that if House leaders don't accommodate them, they will vote against the health care bill, which could doom its chances for passage.[7]
House Democratic leaders signaled willingness to change the health care bill to satisfy abortion opponents, including many Democrats, who had threatened to block it.[6] Democratic leaders may consider extending existing federal abortion restrictions, known as the Hyde amendment, to the health care bill.[13] Democratic Rep. Bart Stupak of Michigan has proposed adding language to the health care bill saying the Hyde Amendment applies to all plans offered through the health insurance exchange.[7]
The bill says that, in each market, the insurance exchange should offer at least one insurance plan that covers abortion and one that doesn't. Some House Democrats argue that such a structure effectively allows federal dollars to underwrite abortions, because the government would be subsidizing the insurance premiums for plans that cover the procedure. They are trying to tighten the language so the funding is more restricted and ban abortion services from the public option.[25] The bill authorizes the federal government insurance plan (the public option) to pay for elective abortions, and that is federal funding of elective abortion. It is that simple," he said.[26]
"The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service (CRS), in an October 9 memo obtained by NRLC, confirmed that all funds spent by the bill's public plan will be federal funds. Prominent Democrats who have claimed that the federal government could pay for abortion with 'private' funds have been engaged in a big snow job -- and in swallowing such a contrived, implausible claim, many journalists have been all too gullible," he explained.[5]
Hoyer said party leaders were still working to resolve the concerns of about 40 Democratic House moderates who want to strengthen the language in the bill to ensure no federal funds are used to pay for abortions.[23] The challenge is particularly great where abortion is concerned. House and Senate leaders already have adopted language that they say would prevent federal funds from being used to cover abortions.[18]
The legislation had already included '''conscience''' protections for doctors who object to abortion, and Mr. Ellsworth wanted similar protections for insurance carriers. Liz Farrar, a spokeswoman for Mr. Ellsworth, said he was seeking strict procedures to separate privately-paid insurance premiums from taxpayer funds, and also a provision that would bar any money that enters the Treasury from being used for abortions. That would essentially require a new government-run insurance plan, or public option, to set aside money from private premiums, to cover abortions. Or it could result in the public plan'''s not covering abortion, while allowing government-approved private policies to do so. For weeks, a group of Democratic abortion opponents led by Representative Bart Stupak of Michigan had vowed that they had enough votes to block the legislation. After trying with success to reach a deal with Mr. Stupak, Democratic leaders recently began attempting to develop an alternative that could lure enough votes from his anti-abortion group to undermine Mr. Stupak'''s threat.[6] A group of socially conservative Democrats are threatening to vote against the bill because the subsidies it offers to help people buy insurance could be used to buy plans that cover abortion. "I will continue whipping my colleagues…until a clean vote against public funding for abortion is allowed," said Bart Stupak of Michigan, who says he can get 40 Democrats to vote against the bill with him--enough to derail it.[27] "I will continue whipping my colleagues to oppose bringing the bill to the floor for a vote until a clean vote against public funding for abortion is allowed," Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) said Monday in a statement. He said last week that 40 Democrats could vote with him to oppose the legislation enough to derail the bill.[10]
Rep. Bart Stupak wants to make sure no public healthcare funds pay for abortions ''' and he says he has the votes to block the House bill.[15]
Douglas Johnson, the legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee, who already broke down the sham Ellsworth compromise amendment for LifeNews.com earlier in the day, says the amendment will be an eleventh-hour fraud. He noted Hoyer's comments saying House Democrats will likely circumvent a self-imposed 72-hour disclosure rule to offer the abortion amendment without giving lawmakers or the public much of a chance to fully review it. They will likely make the abortion amendment part of the rules for debate they will bring up just before the vote on the bill rather than including it in the manager's amendment that is expected to be revealed late today.[26] The trouble is, the immigration status check (starting on p. 228 of the bill) only applies to applicants for the taxpayer-funded insurance premium subsidy. The rest of the loopholes previously identified ''' assumed eligibility at enrollment in Medicaid, S-CHIP, or the so-called "public option," for instance ''' that will allow illegal aliens to benefit from these massive health giveaways are intact. The single verification addition has given Democrats pushing this legislation something to point to and deny that illegal aliens are any longer covered in their bill. Like their Senate Finance Committee colleagues, House Republicans who've been leading the charge will seek to offer an amendment package that would close the most egregious loopholes in the new bill.[28] Or, as Majority Leader Steny Hoyer put it when asked when the House would take up the health care bill, "Friday or Saturday or Monday or Tuesday." "We want to make sure it's correct," Hoyer, D-Md., told reporters Monday, The Associated Press reports. It was also reported, although the issues are small parts of the legislation, they have become flash points for Republicans and Democrats that could determine whether key lawmakers support the bill.[24] House sources tell FOX that Democrats could allay fears about abortion during a procedural vote that serves as a gateway to move the health care bill to the House floor.[21] We need at least 40 Democrats to vote against the Rule so Nancy Pelosi will be forced to allow a vote on Stupak/Pitts. The vote on this Rule will clearly define the position of every member of Congress related to abortion and the government's role in abortion. Those who will not vote against the Rule will be on record as supporting mandated abortion coverage paid for by you and me. We have only hours left to make our voices heard and stop this terrible bill from becoming law. We must tell our Representatives and Senators that we are watching and taking note, and we will hold them accountable for their vote on this Rule. We must tell them they have no right to make us complicit in the killing of preborn children through our tax dollars. We must tell them in no uncertain terms that abortion is NOT health care.[1] There is division within the Democratic Party, which has the numbers needed to easily pass the legislation, over the issue of abortion and whether the procedure should be covered by any bill that is passed. Many miles away from the Nation's Capital, in St. Louis, a Catholic priest who supports universal health care coverage is expressing his view that expansion of abortion rights will not be a part of any final bill.[29]
On health care, where the current bills promote massive abortion funding, Americans disapprove of Obama's handling of the issue by a 57-42 percent margin. That is the lowest total the CNN poll has recorded since the health care debate began and is a dramatic shift from the 51-47 approval rating Obama had on health care in mid September. The CNN poll found the number of people who say Obama's policies have been too liberal is up to 42 percent, its highest recorded total yet.[30] A friend of mine told me a flyer was distributed in all Catholic churches this past weekend to tell Catholics to call Congress to tell them to remove abortion funding from the health care reform bill.[10] Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- Now that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has introduced the latest version of the government-run health care reform bill that funds abortions, the latest polling data shows opposition increasing.[5] House Democrats are now huddled behind closed doors working out what'''s called a '''manager'''s amendment''' to the 1,990-page health care reform bill.[20] Senior House sources indicate to Fox that the manager'''s amendment is essentially complete and just needs to be written in parliamentary language. House leaders are pledging to post this final addendum to the health care bill online for three days before advancing the health care bill on the floor. A throng of reporters accosted Pelosi outside her office Tuesday night, asking the speaker when she'''d introduce the manager'''s amendment.[20]
An advisory council would determine which benefits to recommend, but the bill now specifically bars the council from requiring that abortion services be covered. Stupak has warned that he could keep as many as 40 House Democrats from supporting the bill if his terms aren't met -- a serious threat when leaders are worried about securing a bare majority. Abortion-rights activists maintain that Stupak's amendment would effectively prevent private insurance companies from offering abortion services through the exchanges, reducing the availability of those services to women nationwide.[18] Stupak also wants to prevent a "public option" plan from offering abortion services to women. Under the current version of the House bill, the government and private companies could market their plans through an insurance exchange that would require a minimum benefits package.[18]
Abortion opponents read language in the House bill that's moving forward differently, saying a public insurance plan would offer abortions and that private insurers would get subsidies to pay for the procedures.[31]
At issue is language in a House bill intended to neither expand or limit publicly funded abortions as part of President Obama's reform plan. It's an attempt to neutralize an issue that arises with any major piece of public health policy.[31] Opponents of the Democratic reform plan may not have to worry about abortion, as opposition to the public option may be enough to sink it. A new Congressional Budget Office study shows that the public option would increase costs, rather than lowering them as President Barack Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi have claimed.[32]
One reason premiums may be higher: Pelosi, seeking votes to pass a $1.055 trillion House health bill, decided against a 'robust' public option, which would peg doctor reimbursements to Medicare rates to cut costs. She proposed that the public option negotiate fees it pays providers, Bloomberg reports.[24]
The new 1,990-page healthcare bill not only authorizes federal funding for elective abortions, but it also allows abortion funding in the Indian Health Service. House Democrats have attached to the back of their healthcare bill a measure to reauthorize the Indian Health Service.[14] The threat from moderate House Democrats to derail health reform legislation over abortion funding concerns is a problem that can be worked out this week, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) told reporters Tuesday.[16] Abortion remains a top sticking point for House Democrats as they try to pass a health care reform package later this week, and it may have just gotten more complicated.[20]
The unexpected absence of a key lawmaker could profoundly impact the ongoing debate on abortion access encompassed in health care legislation being weighed this week in the U.S. House.[20]
The Democrats''' health care legislation had already included provisions aimed at preventing tax dollars from paying for abortion coverage. It specified that abortion coverage could not be included in the minimum benefits package that would be required of all private health plans offered for sale through new government-regulated insurance exchanges.[6] In the drafting of health reform legislation, members of Congress worked to keep the reform '''abortion neutral.''' In what is known as the Capps Amendment, named for its author, Rep. Lois Capps (D) of California, the reform would allow private healthcare plans included in a new insurance marketplace to cover abortion, as long as the funds were segregated.[15] The Capps amendment, proposed as a "compromise" measure in July by the radically pro-abortion Rep. Lois Capps, does three key things: it allows abortion-covering insurance plans to receive government subsidies, establishes a government-run insurance plan that must cover abortion, and requires all U.S. regions to offer at least one abortion-covering health plan. "They are wanting to make it as complicated as possible," said Americans United for Life President and CEO Charmaine Yoest, "in order to obscure the fact that there is a very simple truth underneath it all: this is a huge expansion in abortion funding and coverage by the federal government, which changes the way that we've approached abortion policy in this country for the last 30 years."[33] The amendment would ensure that federal funding to health insurance plans is kept in separate accounts from private premiums that would be used for abortion coverage. Capps said some liberal groups initially were reluctant to accept the proposal but were told it was necessary and "have come around and say they agree" with the compromise.[9]
The opponents are insisting that tax dollars not pay for health insurance that would cover abortion. That is a tricky proposition given that the health care bill would provide hundreds of billions in federal subsidies to help moderate-income Americans buy health insurance, mostly from private carriers.[6] The bill also has a second objectionable provision relating to abortion -- it would allow federal subsidies to help pay for the cost of private health plans that cover elective abortion, a departure from longstanding federal policy.[5]
Currently, the federal government doesn't pay for abortion in most cases, but many, if not most, private insurance plans do." Backers of the current proposal say "the federal government would be prohibited from directly funding abortion and that money for private insurance subsidies would have to be kept separate if it's going to be used to cover abortion."[11]
The fight is focused on the health insurance exchanges that would be set up to help uninsured consumers buy policies. Some would qualify for government subsidies if their incomes were close to the federal poverty line. Democrats in the House who are opposed to abortion are demanding tougher restrictions to keep those assistance funds from being used for abortion services.[18] Some questions and answers about the issue. Under the legislation, lower-income people who don't get insurance through an employer would get government subsidies to help them afford coverage through a health insurance exchange. Democrats who oppose abortion, as well as most Republicans, don't want those subsidies to be used to obtain abortions.[7] Democrats are still trying to reach a final agreement on how the bill addresses funding for abortions and insurance coverage for immigrants. Although the issues are small parts of the legislation, they have become flash points for Republicans and Democrats that could determine whether key lawmakers support the bill.[25]
If this were Republicans it would be a "civil war." Since it's Democrats it's just "a rich tapestry of viewpoints." These conservative social issues will kill the Democratic Party! They'''d better all line up behind Pelosi and vote for abortion coverage in the bill or they'''re doomed in the next election.[10]
Rep. Mike Doyle (D-Pa.) said the language in the bill is "sufficient," adding, "Many of us who care about the issue are convinced the protections are there." Stupak said that he does not have enough votes to block the bill but that "you've got to look at parliamentary ways to get your point across." He added, "I've got to have somewhere to responsibly express my opinion and that of my district." One option he is considering is working with members of the GOP to file a motion to recommit, a procedural move that would stop the bill from reaching a floor vote. Republicans have been "noncommittal" about how they would use such a motion and "whether it would offer a full substitute measure that goes far beyond abortion restrictions," CQ Today reports. Stupak said he will work with abortion-rights opponents in the Senate, such as Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.), to include language that could be offered in the Senate or conference committee ( CQ Today, 10/30).[9] Rep. Stupak, Rep. Chris Smith of NJ, and many others are well aware of the confusing and deceptive language of the bill. That's why they have been working so diligently to pass this amendment that clearly and explicitly excludes abortion funding. They must be allowed the chance to present the amendment for a vote.[1] The Ellsworth language is an update to the Capps amendment. Johnson is calling on pro-life advocates to contact Rep. Ellsworth and urge him to not go along with the phony amendment but to stick to his pro-life principles and support only the Stupak amendment. ACTION: Contact Rep. Ellsworth at 202-225-4636 and urge him to not participate in creating a phony amendment that does not stop abortion funding in health care.[3]
Kristin Day, the president of Democrats for Life, called Stupak a "hero." "Pelosi has made it very clear so far that she has no intention whatsoever of allowing a vote on the Stupak/Pitts amendment," said Rep. Smith, referring to the pro-life amendment. "She wants to keep this issue quiet, and silence the pro-life members of congress who oppose government funding for abortion."[33] "Stupak is basically saying you cannot even participate in the exchange unless your plan does not cover abortion," said Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America. "He's taking away coverage from women who already have it." Another member of the House's Pro-Life Caucus, Rep. Brad Ellsworth (D-Ind.), is negotiating with the leadership to toughen the funding restrictions and require at least one insurer in the exchange to offer a plan that doesn't cover abortion. House leaders said they expected a compromise to be reached with Ellsworth that would satisfy enough of the anti-abortion Democrats.[18]
House Democrats opposed to abortion may doom the healthcare reform bill that House leaders hope to bring to the floor soon.[32] WASHINGTON -- House Democrats are wrestling with how their health-care bill will deal with abortion and immigration issues as they prepare to bring the bill to the floor as soon as Friday.[25]
Democrats are feeling concerned over the abortion issue put in the Health Care bill? What a concept. They are actually arguing over the Government paid abortion part of the bill.[19] The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, which opposes any expansion of abortion rights, has urged parishioners across the country to contact Congress and demand that the health care bill bar the use of federal money for abortions.[7] Under a three-decade-old law, federal dollars for Medicaid can only pay for abortions in cases of rape, incest or when a woman's life is in danger. "This is not at all what the reproductive rights movement had hoped for in health care reform, and it's not a win for women," Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights tells NPR.[31] Generally speaking, Democrats had argued that the health care legislation would make no change to existing federal laws regarding how tax dollars could be used to pay for abortions.[6] Mr. Ellsworth and other lawmakers had expressed concerns that the Hyde Amendment is up for re-adoption each year as part of the federal budget. They wanted assurance that the abortion restrictions in the health care legislation would not depend on annual passage of the budget and the Hyde Amendment.[6]
Congressman Bart Stupak says that while he is leading the charge to eliminate abortion care from both private and public insurance policies, he will support health care reform legislation even if he loses.[12] Pro-choice advocacy groups such as NARAL believe that Stupak is seeking an outright ban on abortion in the new system health care reform would create. At the very least,' his efforts will reduce the reproductive health care coverage women currently have, as NARAL states 85% of private insurers cover abortion. Even USA Today supports abortion coverage ]] USA Today supports abortion coverage for women and decries its use as weapon against health care reform.[34]
In an opinion piece in USA Today published Nov. 2, Stupak says it departs from the Hyde Amendment in '''important and troubling ways.''' He says, individuals who receive '''affordability credits to purchase health insurance would have the option of purchasing a plan with public money that covers abortion.'''[15] Johnson referred specifically to language on page 110 of the new bill (H.R. 3962) which explicitly authorizes the "public health insurance option" to pay for all elective abortions.[5] "(The) proposed language will allow the new federal government insurance program ''' the 'public option' ''' to pay for abortion on demand," said Douglas Johnson, legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee.[35] Douglas Johnson, the legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee, focused on the public option and the "powerful legal formula" in the Capps amendment that protects the public option's coverage of abortion. "Will the Obama administration use that sweeping authority if Congress provides it? You bet they will," he said. "And will they use federal funds to pay for those abortions? Why, certainly they will.[33] "If you do not wish to go on record supporting creation of a national federal agency program that pays for elective abortions with federal funds -- which public opinion strongly opposes -- please vote No on the Rule, and insist on inclusion of the Stupak-Pitts Amendment in the bill," it says.[2] Stupak wants an up-or-down floor vote on language adopted from the Hyde Amendment, the far-reaching ban on using federal funds to pay for abortions that was adopted by Congress 33 years ago.[18]
NRLC and pro-life groups received the tentative language of the Ellsworth amendment and say it is an accounting gimmick that renames taxpayer funds as private and not government funds in order to say there is no federal funding of abortion. "We don't care what they call the funds," Johnson told LifeNews.com.[26] As LifeNews.com reported earlier today, pro-abortion Democrat Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut and pro-life Democrat Brad Ellsworth of Indiana are working on phony language that claims to ban abortion funding but doesn't. In comments late today, Hoyer said he's "reasonably confident" that these phony changes to the bill will make it "very clear that any money spent on the issue of termination of pregnancy will be spent not by the government but by individuals."[26] Democrats have failed to move the Indian health bill for the past three years because there were votes in the Energy and Commerce Committee to add an amendment preventing the Indian Health Service from funding abortions.[14] There is no agreement and I will oppose bringing the bill to the floor until an amendment can be offered or language agreed to that will prevent public funding for abortion.''' Stupak is in Michigan this week, following the death of his mother-in-law over the weekend, a development that could complicate negotiations. His press secretary, Michelle Begnoche, says he is '''still keeping an eye on things''' and '''having conversations''' from Michigan.[15] Smith warned that, included in the language of the "manager's amendment" that will be introduced to try to bridge divides in order to pass the bill, "will almost certainly be a new phony compromise that does nothing but put window dressing on the deadly abortion funding already in the bill."[33]
The only thing that will prevent the federal funding of abortion is an effective amendment to the bill called the Stupak/Pitts amendment. Nancy Pelosi knows this.[1] On whether the bill includes the allowance of federal dollars to be spent to fund abortions, Hoyer said, '''we'''re still working on that.''' Hoyer added that he is constrained by his and Speaker Nancy Pelosi'''s (D-Calif.) pledge to give a 72 hour window for lawmakers and the public to read the bill prior to a vote.[36] "Under H.R. 3962, abortionists will perform abortions and will be paid with funds drawn on a U.S. Treasury account (created on page 215 of the bill). This will be direct federal government funding of abortion, a complete break from the policy that has long governed Medicaid and other federal government health programs," the letter concludes.[2] Supporters of the current proposal say it is consistent with how other laws treat abortion funding, and that it includes protections to separate out the federal subsidies so no premium subsidies go toward abortions. Republicans are preparing to unveil their own health bill in the next few days.[25]
The House bill is designed to expand coverage to millions of uninsured people living in the United States, and offer subsidies to help the uninsured purchase insurance through newly created exchanges. It requires individuals to buy insurance and all but the smallest employers to offer health coverage to workers. It also would bar insurers from refusing to cover people with pre-existing medical conditions and eliminate the industry's exemption from federal antitrust laws.[23] On abortion, the House bill prevents federal money from being used to pay for abortions through the insurance exchange, except in the case of rape, incest or when the mother's life is endangered.[25]
Some Democrats are concerned that the House bill would allow illegal immigrants to participate in new exchanges designed to help individuals and smaller employers buy insurance. While those immigrants wouldn't have access to government subsidies to buy insurance, the bill leaves open the possibility that they could participate in the public health-insurance plan if they paid the premiums out of their own pockets. It is one area where the House bill contrasts with what the White House is seeking in the health-care overhaul.[25] Democrats, who control 256 seats in the 435-member House, need 218 votes to pass the measure. Both the House and Senate bills include versions of a government-run public insurance option, which has become a flashpoint in the debate.[23]
Reporting from Washington - House Democratic leaders, while insisting the finish line is in sight on their overhaul of the nation's healthcare system, have hit a last-minute snag over the abortion issue. Senate Democratic leaders, meanwhile, are continuing to have problems winning over moderates in their own party -- raising the possibility that the climactic votes on healthcare might be pushed into next year. The delays in both houses reflect the fact that even though Democrats hold solid majorities, significant divisions exist below the surface, making consensus-building a delicate task at best.[18]
Reps. Nathan Deal, Dean Heller, and Joe Wilson will beg the Rules Committee to allow their amendment to be offered during floor debate later this week. If the Democratic leaders were smart, they'd allow the Deal-Heller-Wilson amendment to get a vote. That's pretty much what some of their liberal thought leaders have been saying. If the Democrats were even smarter, they'd fight to close every single loophole through which an illegal alien can climb and grab health care at taxpayer expense, and then fight to keep the loophole-shutting measures in the Senate-House conference committee's report. Only then would they stand a chance at trying to neutralize the "inconvenient truths" being leveled at their health care initiative.[28] Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) said that leaders of the Democratic Party are still working on a compromise with antiabortion-rights representatives on language similar to the Capps amendment, adding that it is "one of the major issues" still being hashed out. Some antiabortion-rights Democrats have said that they will support the health reform bill and that they believe the Capps amendment's language is strong enough, according to CQ Today.[9]
Though House leaders say they'd like a health reform bill vote by Friday, some Democrats are threatening to block its passage over the issue of abortion. Rep. Bart Stupak says he has 40 Democrats who could vote with him to oppose the reform bill if abortion language doesn't change.[11] Democrats are close to finalizing an abortion compromise that would hopefully draw enough moderate anti-abortion Democrats to mitigate a threat from Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., to block the bill from coming to the floor.[10]
Democratic Rep. Bart Stupak, whose efforts at a pro-life amendment have posed a significant threat to the bill's abortion expansion, earned praise from the webcast speakers.[33] The Stupak amendment is much worse. He says he as some 40 Members with him to vote no on letting the bill onto the floor without banning abortion. It's not clear that he actually does have 40. We know of these 29 who are with him. Incidentally, 28 of them are men.[8] If the Democrat leadership refuses to allow the amendment to be offered, Stupak and 40 other Democrats have pledged to prevent the health-care bill from coming to the floor for a vote.[35] Stupak has threatened to arrange like-minded Democrats to block passage of the bill's rule - which must be passed before the bill can be considered by the House - unless Democrat leadership allows a vote by the full House on a Hyde-like amendment for the measure.[33]
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer predicted today that the House will approve a health care bill by next Wednesday, with a vote likely coming on Tuesday.[26] Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- A top House leader said today that lawmakers will likely push back a vote on the pro-abortion health care bill from Thursday or this weekend into the beginning part of next week.[26]
WASHINGTON, D.C., November 3, 2009 ( LifeSiteNews.com ) - Over 11,000 pro-lifers tuned in last night to an emergency webcast by StopTheAbortionMandate.com, where national pro-life leaders briefed listeners on the extent of the threat to human life posed by the House health care bill.[33]
Those of us who believe that every life has value from the moment of conception to the moment of natural death must not allow President Obama'''s nationalized health care policy to become the law of the land. It must not be approved until there is a mandate that abortion will not be included in this bill.[37] Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- During an address to Congress in September, President Barack Obama promised there would be no abortion funding in his health care plans.[4]
Some moderate, anti-abortion lawmakers want certain assurances that health care dollars, nor health care plans purchased with federal subsidies, could be used to pay for abortions.[21] The issue centers around federal subsidies for people who cannot afford health care coverage themselves and a government-run public plan.[11]
I guess your right, if this bill passes no one will want to spend the money on thier own health care. now not only do you have to fork over the cash for the irresponsible, you have to take on payment for the people who are, or rather used to be before the plan took effect, responsible.[27] Old, young, handicapped, diseased and pick your race. We must continue to fight this Government Health Care bill that has nothing to do with real health care, morals or rights. It is a redistribution of wealth scheme and a murderous vehicle for eliminating young and old people this regime finds in the way.[19]
Pelosi and the other liberal Democrats want to have our Government be the largest abortion provider in the country if not the world. With Pelosi and other Democratic leadership, there is no concept of the moral horror show they are trying to slam on the American people. They want to kill them coming in and kill them going out. Imagine the killing fields of babies being butchered in the name of 'health' and 'choice if this gets crammed into law. Imagine the growing abuse of our seniors as they are forced into mandatory end of life counseling every 5 years. The objective with these unconstitutional and invasive sessions is to get the senior to focus on their life. I'm certain, as a trained counselor myself that the language and exploration will be most empathetic and manipulative as the counselor puts pressure on the senior to explore and redefine quality of life, responsibility to their family, culture and cost of continued care. Maybe if they are lucky the volunteer, counselor type person will be an ACORN volunteer. They will bring up in a most patronizing tone, the importance of signing a DNR (do not resuscitate) contract as well as hear the option of assisted suicide thrown at them.[19] Over the summer, Democratic leaders favored a provision that allowed people to use government money to purchase private health plans that could pay for abortions.[20]
Democratic House leaders have developed a compromise they hope will resolve an intra-caucus dispute about whether the health bill allows tax dollars to subsidize abortions, and they'''re surveying abortion-rights opponents in the caucus to gauge support.[17] House Democratic leaders have unveiled their health reform bill.[28] It's getting to crunch time on Capitol Hill in Washington as the U.S. House prepares to bring its version of a health care reform bill to the floor for debate.[29] What the House health care bill really costs and other economic news from around the Web.[6] A Republican warns that Americans should be frightened of the health care bill nearing debate in the House.[6] The Repubes just want to try to throw a wrench into health care just one more time before we finally get a bill through the house that can be sent to Obama to get signed into Law hopefully before the end of the year. If the Repubes had any kind of a bill to contribute they would have already brought it out and pushed like he77 to get it through.They think if they make a loud enough noise someone will believe them,but they have blown smoke long enough and have lost face with their own constituents by dithering around and doing nothing.[38] A new Politico report issued today indicates that "in private meetings and chance encounters and during Air Force One flights, Obama has worked behind the scenes" to promote the current pro-abortion health care bills.[4]
The release of the manager'''s amendment would then trigger a clock that would count down to the earliest time Democrats could put the health care bill on the floor.[21] House Democrats have vowed to wait 72 hours between posting of manager'''s amendment online and the launch of the health care debate.[21] Rep. Joe Wilson cried out, "You lie!" during Barack Obama's speech to the joint session of Congress when the President insisted that illegal immigrants would not get services or subsidies under ObamaCare.'' Immigration continues to dog House Democrats in their push to unveil a manager's amendment today. The chairs of the Progressive, Black, Hispanic and Asian Pacific Islander caucuses sent a letter to House Speaker Pelosi Monday pushing back against attempts to exclude undocumented workers from buying insurance through the exchange even if they use their own money.[10] Not even nine months after President Obama, with much fanfare, signed into law a five year, $33 billion reauthorization of the popular Children'''s Health Insurance Program, House Democrats have proposed to dismantle it.[12]
The caucuses want to "ensure that no citizenship or residency verification is required for purchase of insurance in the Health Insurance Exchange," the letter says. They also want Pelosi to push for the House's version of the public option in a conference with the Senate and insist that it be included without a trigger or opt-out provision.[10] The Congressional Budget Office says a version of the so- called public option backed by House Democrats would charge'somewhat higher' premiums than the average private insurance policy offered on a government-sponsored exchange to be set up to sell coverage to small businesses and individuals.[24]
Democratic plans are far more ambitious and are aimed at bringing as many people currently without any health-care insurance into coverage. Hoyer said he believed the Democratic bill would be on the floor in the coming days, and that he was confident the House would have completed its work on the legislation by Veterans Day next week.[39] Republicans argue the provision would inject more competition into the market and help lower premiums. Hoyer said insurers would flock to states with the fewest consumer protections, sell their policies at low prices and that many consumers would discover in the middle of a health crisis that their policies don't offer adequate protection. Other provisions in the bill, as outlined by House Republican Leader John Boehner, would encourage insurers to "cherry pick" and enroll the healthiest people, Hoyer said.[38] Democrats, who have been on the defensive in a partisan battle over''their sweeping healthcare overhaul, are firing back now that Republicans are preparing an alternative in the U.S. House of Representatives. Hoyer, a Democrat, did not shy away from offering his own opinion about the Republican bill, saying it would allow insurance companies to sell policies across state lines and would "gut consumer protections and encourage a race to the bottom."[38]
Minority Leader John Boehner (R., Ohio) said Monday that the plan wouldn't seek to prevent health-insurance companies from denying sick people insurance -- a key plank of the Democrats' legislation. The bill would allow insurance firms to sell policies across state lines, permit small businesses to pool their risks to bring down costs, change medical-malpractice laws and give state governments more flexibility to pursue rule changes.[25]
In order to obtain enough votes -- because the legislation is short by as many as seven votes due to abortion funding -- Democratic leaders are working to craft a last-minute compromise to peel off enough pro-life Democrats.[26] There is talk, in Washington, that many of the moderate and conservative Democrats known as Blue Dogs will vote with Republicans to oppose the legislation if it includes public funding for abortions.[29]
The leaders are negotiating with a group of Democrats who are worried that the bill would allow public funding of abortion.[32] This past weekend the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops instructed pastors at parishes across the country to distribute material urging Catholics to oppose the health reform bills they say allow public funding for abortion.[12]
In the pending House bill, anti-choice advocates are preemptively striking down any hint at the possibility of a woman getting an abortion while using a government-supported health plan.[13] "You know as well as I, ladies and gentlemen, that killing human babies by abortion is not health care," said Congressman Smith of New Jersey, the chairman of the House's pro-life caucus.[33] "The new abortion 'compromise' now being worked up by House Democratic Leaders (currently associated with Rep. Brad Ellsworth) may be unveiled at the last possible moment," Johnson says. "Of course -- because they don't want to allow time for its utter phoniness to be dissected by pro-life critics."[26] Democratic leaders in the House warned members that debate on the floor may stretch through the weekend and into next week so the House can vote on the bill before the Nov. 11 Veterans Day holiday.[25] Although they're confident they'll succeed, Democratic leaders have yet to nail down the votes they'll need to pass their sweeping bill. They're aiming for floor action to begin as early as Friday and finish before Veterans Day, Nov. 11.[24]
He's whispering parts of the article. These conservative social issues will kill the Democratic Party! They'd better all line up behind Pelosi and vote for abortion coverage in the bill or they're doomed in the next election.[10] The Senate Finance Committee's version of the bill prohibits undocumented workers from buying insurance through the exchange. The Blue Dogs may have two big fights on their hands.'' If Republicans win today's elections, they will have even more motivation to stick to their guns.'' A radical Democratic agenda that funds abortions and provides access to a government-run health-care system to illegal immigrats will spell electoral disaster for them in 2010.'' They can't afford to be seen as acquiescing to Nancy Pelosi on either if they expect to remain competitive in their home districts next year and even if they do push back, they may not stand much of a chance anyway.[10] President Barack Obama has pledged that the health overhaul won't apply to people who are in the U.S. illegally. While the Senate has yet to unveil its most recent bill, the measure that passed through its Finance Committee last month prohibited illegal immigrants from participating in the insurance exchanges.[25]
A health care vote is planned by the Senate Finance Committee; military spending bills and Iran sanctions also will be debated.[6] A nay vote could keep the health care bill off the floor unless the demands of the anti-abortion lawmakers are met.[21]
Deirdre McQuade from the USCCB affirmed that the U.S bishops are "responding clearly and vigorously" to the health care bill. The USCCB recently began an all-out campaign against the abortion-laden bill, and asked all American U.S. prelates to join the effort to stop the abortion mandate earlier this month.[33] I don't think passing this bill is a good idea. they still haven't clarifies 2 things: 1) We will all have to buy insurance or face penalties upon penalties (choice should also include the choice of not buying insurance), 2) The bill rewards states that treat doctors poorly by not limiting the amount for medical malpractice lawsuits (this is a big reason health care costs so much right now. doctors are treating like crap).[27] As long as abortion is a legal medical procedure, it should be covered by ALL health insurance, and should not matter more than any other costs related to health care.[15] I can insure my $350,000 house for $1,000 a year…but it costs me $15,000a year for health insurance? Doesn't make any sense. Abortion has literaly allowed the blacks to impose genocide on their own kind.[17]
Double standard yet again…should we get rid of the tax break that the government gives corporations when a corporation offers health insurance? Most would say No. However, 87% of employer based health insurance provides for Abortion services…especial ly in case of rape and danger to the mother's health.[17] Looks like federal money goes toward funding abortions now. I think we should get rid of employer based health and allow individuals to get the tax credit to buy whatever insurance they want to buy…just like home, life, and auto insurance.[17] The "services described in paragraph (4)(A)" are elective abortions (i.e., all abortions, abortions without any limitations whatever). "The language makes it explicitly clear that this authority extends to the entire universe of elective abortions that would NOT be eligible for funding under the federal Medicaid program, because the Hyde Amendment currently strictly limits coverage of abortion under the Medicaid program," Right to Life notes.[2] Father Kavanaugh would maintain what is known as the Hyde Amendment, named after former Congressman Henry Hyde. It stands in the way of federal funding for abortion unless the health of the woman is at risk.[29] Currently, a federal law known as the Hyde Amendment already prevents the federal funding of abortion.[15]
The Stupak-Pitts Amendment would prohibit federal funding of abortion except in rare cases.[35]
Anti-abortion Democrats want language added that would specifically prohibit any federal funding of abortions, meaning that plans bought using government subsidies would not be able to cover the procedure.[13] The moderate Democrats argue federal subsidies would help pay for insurance plans that include abortion coverage, which means government money would be going toward abortions.[23]
Abortion-rights supporters say the bill as written maintains the status quo ''' that federal funds cannot be used for abortion. They say Stupak'''s proposal goes too far in preventing people from buying coverage that includes abortion.[17] A provision in the bill tasks insurers with making sure public money doesn't fund abortions, but Stupak's contingent says that's just an accounting distinction.[27]
A new report today indicates Obama has been personally lobbying members of Congress to vote for the current bills, all of which fund abortions.[4]
Dr. David Stevens, CEO of the Christian Medical & Dental Associations, said that the bill's conscience language protecting doctors objecting to abortion was weak, and liable to be scrapped when the House and Senate bills undergo a merging process. "I don't think it's any time to relax or celebrate," Stevens said.[33] Hoyer said two additions to the bill in the Senate to extend a home buyers' tax credit and open a one-off window for all businesses to write off losses incurred in the past two years against profits earned in earlier years would likely be acceptable to House lawmakers. The lawmaker has previously expressed misgivings about the home buyer credit due to both its cost and allegations of fraud against some claiming it. He repeated that concern Tuesday, saying he would have preferred that Senate lawmakers hadn't extended the credit as part of the unemployment benefit legislation. "I would prefer they did not do the changes they had affected, but they did, and I think they will be acceptable," Hoyer said.[40] Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said the House is expected to back a Senate plan to extend a popular homebuyer tax credit through April and expand its scope beyond first-time buyers. The Senate is expected to vote on the measure this week.[41] U.S. House of Representatives Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said on Tuesday he expected the lower chamber to back a Senate plan to extend and expand an $8,000 housing tax credit due to expire at the end of this month, which is aimed at jumpstarting the struggling housing market. "I would prefer that they had not done the changes that they affected, but they did and I think that they'll be acceptable and I was pleased that April 30th is their date for eliminating this program," Hoyer told reporters on Capitol Hill.[42]
"I am pretty confident that we can get there," House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said Tuesday, "essentially making very clear that any money spent on the issue of termination of pregnancy will be spent not by the government, but by the individuals." House leaders had hoped to begin debate, and even vote, on the final bill this weekend.[18] Hoyer said Democrats hope to file the final changes to the bill on Tuesday, and would put it online for 72 hours before kicking off the debate on either Friday or Saturday. Democrats also will allow a vote on a Republican alternative, he said. Republican leaders say their bill, which they have not published yet, would focus on reducing costs and would not bar insurers from dropping the sick or refusing to cover those with pre-existing conditions.[23] Last week he said that 40 Democrats may vote with him to oppose the legislation, which would be enough to torpedo the bill if all Republicans joined them.[32]
Congressional Democrats and the White House are starting to worry that major health care legislation will not be completed by the end of the year.[6] A former member of the Reagan White House who now criticizes Republican economic policy answers questions on supply-side economics, health care reform and what it means to be conservative.[6]
A large group of Republicans wrote: "The U.S. government should not be in the business of promoting abortion as health care.[19] However including it in a "national" health care plan (1) imposes the religious views of others on me and (2) forces me to monetarily support it. -Government funded abortions by choice are not seperation of church and state. it is Government forced desecration of my religious values.[27]
The opposition's philosophical leap from health care reform to national abortion trust fund might not be all that shocking to pro-choice advocates.[13] Being morally against abortion is not a valid reason to exclude it from any kind of health care coverage. It is only a reason to protest (which is an American right) or not have an abortion yourself.[15] Various articles today report on the continued threats to women's rights to basic sexual and reproductive health coverage in health care reform.''[12]
Obama has come under fire from some liberal activists for not doing enough to push through the current health care reform bills.[4] The democrats are having an incredibly difficult time getting this bill passed. If the democrat Corzine loses in NJ today, and all indicators say he will, you dems can kiss this health care bill good bye as it is toxic to the reelection hopes of many democrats.[27] A Rasmussen Reports survey shows opposition up from 6 to percent since before the Pelosi bill. Rasmussen had opposition to the pro-abortion health care bill pegged at 51-45 percent during the latter part of October.[5] '''We think all reproductive health care should be treated just like other health-care services,''' said Cecile Richards, the president of Planned Parenthood. '''Unfortunately, in this bill, it isn'''t.[12] How much a health care bill will cost or save depends on the assumed baseline, which is already built largely on a foundation of debt, an economist writes.[6] There was no flyer in our bulletin or any other advice about the health care bill.[10]
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- A new poll shows that, on the day voters head to the polls in several states for off-year elections, Americans would vote against pro-abortion President Barack Obama for president. Another survey shows his approval rating down as well as his rating on handling health care.[30] President Obama says the voice of Senator Edward M. Kennedy is "sorely missed" in Congressional debate on overhauling the health care system.[6]
A draft of health care legislation by Republicans in Congress would make the following changes in the insurance market.[6] The full Republican health-care legislation is not yet available but party leaders have released a broad outline of the plan. It would allow health insurers to sell across state lines, something currently prohibited. Hoyer said this could "gut consumer protections" and "encourage a race to the bottom." He said insurance firms could establish themselves in states with the lightest regulatory burden.[39] Boehner argued that the Republican plan aims to rein in soaring insurance premiums, but Hoyer and other Democrats say it would do little to expand coverage or make healthcare more affordable. "It doesn't provide for insurance availability for all Americans," Hoyer said. "It does little to expand access to coverage or address the $1,000 to $1,100 extra that every American is paying for people who do not have coverage and therefore add to the uncompensated care in hospitals."[38] WASHINGTON -(Dow Jones)- House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D., Md.) Tuesday criticized details of an alternate House Republican health-care plan, saying it would do little to extend insurance to those who don't have it or bring costs down for those currently with coverage.[39]
'''The fundamental issue here is, we are trying to make sure abortion coverage that women presently have is not lost,''' says Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America. She says she believes Mr. Stupak'''s ultimate goal is an '''outright ban''' on abortion services in insurance plans included in the new marketplace, or '''exchange.'''[15] In a statement released by the congressman'''s office Tuesday afternoon, Stupak said: '''I have had some serious conversations over the past few days with the White House and House leadership and I will continue to make every attempt to resolve the issue of public funding for abortion.[15] A senior House leadership aide who didn'''t wish to be identified indicated that Stupak'''s absence wouldn'''t hurt talks on the abortion issue. Another key Democrat involved in the abortion discussions saw it differently.[20]
Democrats have begun whipping on the procedural vote ''' the "rule." That means they are asking fellow House Democrats, particularly abortion opponents, if they will back leadership on the procedural rule.[17]
When the vote, members of the House will likely be considering a last-minute phony compromise on abortion funding.[26] Contact your member of Congress and urge opposition to the Ellsworth amendment (or the manager's amendment) and ask for a vote on the Stupak amendment to truly ban abortion funding.[3]
Stupak and other Democrats who oppose abortion are calling for a '''vote against using public funds for abortions. Stupak is not expected to be in Washington this week.[20] It seems to me that the difficulty in drafting language that would satisfy Pro-Life Democrats proves that the Pro-Choice Dems want to use Federal Funds for abortion. It would be quite simple to write a simple prohibition against the use of Federal money for abortionthe problem is writing a loophole sufficiently subtle to trick (or allow willful blindness by)the pro-Life Dems. This whole process is one fraud after another. It seems to me that the difficulty in drafting language that would satisfy Pro-Life Democrats proves that the Pro-Choice Dems want to use Federal Funds for abortion. It would be quite simple to write a simple prohibition against the use of Federal money for abortion'''the problem is writing a loophole sufficiently subtle to trick (or allow willful blindness by)the pro-Life Dems. This whole process is one fraud after another.[10] "Under a 1976 law, federal funds are generally barred from being used for abortions, except in cases of rape or incest or to ensure the life of the mother" (Bacon, 11/3). NPR : "What lawmakers decided instead was to try to craft what they called abortion-neutral language. They tried to freeze in place the status quo.[11] Already, federal funds generally can't help pay for abortions, except in cases of rape or incest or to save the mother's life.[32]
Because the federal agency can spend nothing other than federal funds." "The claim which has been disseminated by pro-abortion lawmakers and by some of their apologists in the media, that this federal program would pay for abortions but with private funds - although accepted and repeated with a straight face by some gullible journalists - is absurd on its face," he added. "It's a political hoax."[33]
Advocates of abortion rights argue that the Capps Amendment'''s provision that separates public from private funds succeeds in keeping the legislation '''abortion neutral.'''[15] NARAL Pro-Choice America opposes the Stupak amendment as an attempt to restrict private insurance companies from covering abortions.[7] The Hyde Amendment, adopted in 1976, bars the government from covering abortion through Medicaid, the state-federal insurance program for the poor.[6] The Hyde Amendment, enacted in 1976, bars Medicare and Medicaid from paying for abortions.[7]
Van Hollen told reporters that the leadership could move ahead with the manager'''s amendment and '''work (abortion) out later.''' Others differed with Van Hollen. '''Obviously (abortion) has to be worked out before they pass the bill,''' said Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-VA).[20] U.S. Rep. Brad Ellsworth, D-Ind., who has a consistent pro-life voting record, reportedly has proposed an amendment to the House health-care reform bill that would undercut a pro-life amendment to the bill.[35] The leaders noted that the pro-life lawmakers have a formidable opponent in House Speaker Pelosi, who, according to Rep. Smith, has "no intention whatsoever" of allowing the House an opportunity to vote on the pro-life amendment. "Indeed, Speaker Pelosi believes that if the full House were allowed to vote on the Stupak/Pitts amendment, it would pass, and so she is determined not to allow that vote," noted Johnson.[33] "The pro-abortion House Democratic leadership is using Ellsworth's phony language to undercut the real pro-life amendment, proposed by Reps.[35] "The pro-abortion House Democratic leadership is using Ellworth's phony language to undercut the real pro-life amendment," Johnson added.[3]
Democratic leaders will put forward a manager's amendment that will contain language crafted jointly by Rep. Rosa DeLauro, a pro-abortion stalwart from Connecticut, and Rep. Brad Ellsworth, a pro-life Democrat from Indiana who is in jeopardy of losing that descriptor.[3] Pelosi and Democratic leaders, aware of the political divisiveness of the issue, have accepted the need to compromise with abortion-rights opponents and included an amendment sponsored by Rep. Lois Capps (D-Calif.).[9]
At a caucus meeting on Monday night, Democratic leaders presented the draft text of Ellsworth-DeLauro amendment and the changes it makes in the abortion-funding provisions of the bill are strictly cosmetic.[3] WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid left open the possibility on Tuesday that work on a healthcare overhaul bill could drift into next year, as the House of Representatives pushed to take it up later this week.[22] If the version of HR 3548 moving through the Senate is approved by the House and signed into law, the tax credit -- equal to 10 percent of a home's purchase price, up to a maximum $8,000 -- would be available to a larger pool of borrowers. As amended, the bill would allow homeowners who have owned and used their principal residence for any five-consecutive-year period during the past eight years to claim a credit of up to $6,500 if they sell that home and buy another.[43]
The Capps amendment was added to one of the committee-approved bills and part of it remains in the new Pelosi measure the House will consider.[3] The proposed House bill already goes much further in restricting access to abortion services than pro-choice advocates like, and in many ways marks a significant step back for choice.[8]
Page 110 of the bill explicitly authorizes the public option to pay for abortions.[1] The problem with the "public option," is separate and distinct, and it would be equally acute even if the "affordability credit" program was not part of the bill, NRLC explains. The public option in the bill makes it so the so-called "premiums" that will be paid to the government by citizens who enroll in this government program become federal funds when the government assumes control of them.[2]
The "public health insurance option" or "public plan" would be a health insurance program operated directly by the federal government, through the Department of Health and Human Services.[5] An agreement hasn't been reached yet. The disagreement centers on both federal subsidies that would be provided for people who can't afford health insurance and the public option.[32]
How the Main Street Alliance encouraged a Blue Dog Democrat to support the "public option" for health insurance.[6] Poor and uninsured Kansans are likely to be most affected by a proposed Kansas law that would, if passed, likely prevent Kansas from participating in a public health insurance option.[12]
Abortion is (1) a health issue covered by health insurance (2) the law of the land. for some to oppose what America needs because of their own minority views is insane. Dear Guava: we knew what the opinion of the WSJ would be. and they are nay sayers like the party they support.[27] The $1.055 trillion measure would expand health insurance to 36 million Americans and create a new government health-insurance plan to compete with private insurers, among other things.[25] President Barack Obama has pledged that the health overhaul won't apply to people who are in the U.S. illegally, The Wall Street Journal reports. Economists skeptical about a U.S. government-run health-insurance plan received new evidence to support their argument that it won't force private insurers to cut premiums.[24]
The House of Representatives, which have to approve the measure before sending it to President Barack Obama for his signature, is expected to take up the measure next week. Some House Democrats, including Hoyer, had expressed concern about the cost of expanding the $8,000 tax credit, which now applies only to first-time homebuyers and is set to expire at the end of this month. Under the new language, homeowners who have lived in their home for five of the past eight years would be eligible to receive the $8,000 tax credit. That's intended to boost the so-called step-up home market.[42] A group of House Democrats are working with Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, the assistant to the speaker, to add language that would bring the House's treatment of the issue closer to the Senate.[10]
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer says he expects his colleagues will support legislation now moving through the Senate to extend and expand the first-time homebuyer tax credit currently scheduled to expire at the end of this month.[43] House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, (D., Md.) said at a weekly press conference that the legislation extending the benefits is a "critically important issue" and said the House will take it up as soon as possible.[40]
A manager'''s amendment contains the final tweaks and alterations to legislation before it hits the House floor. Hoyer said he was '''hopeful''' the manager'''s amendment would be ready by the end of the day.[21]
As Congress heads toward floor debate of major health care legislation, check this space for the latest updates from Washington and beyond.[6] Van Hollen serves as special assistant to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and is intimately involved in all health care conversations.[20] YOUR OPINION: Abortion services must not be part of health care overhaul - Quincy, MA - The Patriot Ledger Your browser either has JavaScript disabled, or does not support it.[37] Once again, the health care debate is stuck on abortion.[13]
Janey. If you knew what you were talking about, you would realize that the democratic led congress doesn't need on single republican vote to pass their health care fiasco.[38] Republicans are holding up a vote to confirm Surgeon General nominee Regina Benjamin because, basically, of arguments over health care reform.[12]
"We want health care reform very, very much, but we cannot do that over children's dead bodies, to put it most bluntly," Richard Doerflinger of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops tells NPR. "There is a fundamental issue here about whether taking life should be treated the same way as supporting and healing life."[31] Polytricks: If there are no penalties for spending money to cover one's own health care, why would people spend the money to do it? Without the penalty, we--you and me--will still be paying for their care in the emergency room. 2) We have limited the amount awarded for medical malpractice lawsuits in Texas. It has NOT made healthcare more affordable. The price keeps going up here exactly as it does in states with out this so-called reform.[27] Expect a full plate of foreign policy and health care reform on Sunday morning, with news out of Iran and Afghanistan dominating the talk shows.[6] The latest news, developments, resources and multimedia on efforts to revamp the health care system.[6]
If you are young, healthy, and take care of your body, why should you be forced to purchase health insurance? There is no "burden" on anyone if you take care of yourself, and one benefit of taking care of yourself is not having to spend money on health care. This whole thing is about choice.[27] An economist explains why requiring individuals to purchase health insurance is a necessary part of expanding Americans' access to care.[6]
Conservatives continue to seek elimination of women's rights to abortion care coverage in private insurance; Catholic Church opposes efforts to reduce unintended pregnancies in Wisconsin; Clinic buffer zone law struck down.[12] An individual'''s private funds would be used for abortion coverage, not federal monies.[15] In another example, federal Medicaid funds and state matching funds may not be used for abortion, but states have the option of providing supplemental abortion coverage.[15]
Stupak and others argued that federal dollars shouldn'''t be used at all to buy coverage that could potentially cover abortions.[20]
Wendy Wright of Concerned Women for America noted President Obama's ambiguity on the abortion mandate. Though claiming that he is personally opposed to federal funding for abortion, Wright reports that Obama "has been personally and aggressively lobbying members of Congress to vote for the current bills," all of which include such funding.[33] The congressman noted that prohibiting federal funding of abortion has been the status quo "across the board," including for the Medicaid Program, the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program, SCHIP, the Department of Defense, and even the Veterans Health Administration.[33] TAKE ACTION Ask your representative and senators to oppose any government-mandated health-care plan that allows federal funding of abortion.[35]
Father Kavanaugh believes the question of funding for abortions will be addressed in the coming days and will not stand in the way of passage of a bill. "I just don't think it's going to increase abortions or increase any kind of federal payment for it," said Father Kavanaugh.[29] The leaders once again made clear the bottom line regarding the 1,990-page bill's treatment of abortion funding.[33]
Don't be fooled or lulled into complacency. We can still defeat this murderous provision in this bill if we act now. CHESAPEAKE, Va. (Catholic Online) ' It all comes down to 'The Rule.' That's what I learned Tuesday night during the nationwide webcast hosted by Stop the Abortion Mandate.com. The vote expected this week in Congress is historically critical ' and it's not the vote you might think. Let me say this as bluntly as I can: The time is NOW. This very minute! If you have not made calls to your Senators and Representatives, if you have not sent e-mails and faxes, this moment in history is calling out to you for action.[1] Lawmakers have said the abortion compromise may not be included in the final version of the bill to be released as soon as today, called the '''managers amendment.'''[17] According to a National Right To Life review the Ellsworth Amendment doesn't address the key issues re:abortion in the dems bill.[10] The Senate on Monday voted 85-2 to place limits on further debate of HR 3548, a bill extending unemployment benefits that includes an amendment that would allow homebuyers to claim the credit on sales under contract before May 1.[43] The Senate is considering extending popular housing amendment as part of a larger piece of legislation aimed at extending insurance benefits for jobless workers.[42]
In limited cases in which abortion could be covered, as allowed under existing federal law, the legislation would require that any abortions be paid for only from privately paid portions of insurance premiums ''' not from any federally subsidized portion.[6] The question of whether the subsidies for poor and middle-income people can pay for plans that cover abortion is one of the final, major sticking points in the healthcare legislation.[17] Currently, about 85 percent of private insurance plans cover abortion, NARAL says.[15] As long as abortion remains a legal, constitutionally protected medical procedure, it ought to be covered by insurance plans, private or public.[34]
Health reform is running into an old foe: abortion. Democrats' attempts to make health reform "abortion neutral" are distasteful to both sides of the debate, stirring a controversy that threatens to upend the entire plan.[31] I read through every page of the bill where the word abortion appeared, and I found a lot of confusing double-speak. It's prohibited here and permitted there, 'based on the law as in effect as of the date that is 6 months before the beginning of the plan year involved.' Phew. It's meant to be complicated and misleading, and it is.[1] We do not want our tax dollars paying for abortions. As the bill stands, doctors and nurses would be forced to violate their consciences by performing abortions, and pro-life hospitals would have no choice but to start performing them. The only way to stop this from happening is to specifically add language that excludes abortion, or defeat ObamaCare altogether.[37] Yearout says there are no protections in the healthcare bill for pro-life taxpayers.'' She also notes that as the current legislation stands, government funds will be used to write checks for abortionists.[14]
House Minority Leader John Boehner of Ohio said that proposal will clearly state that no taxpayer funds could be used for abortion.[7] House leaders unveiled their revised 1,990-page bill last week after months of negotiations.[25] The new bill, H.R. 3962, represents the latest iteration, and combines three separate House committees' bills.[28]
Many of the healthcare changes would not become law until 2013 under the bill, although some new insurance regulations and prescription drug coverage would be effective immediately.[23] The Republican proposal also leaves out major market reforms contained in the Democratic bill that would bar insurers from denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions or charging more based on medical history.[38] As Chris says, this makes just 30 members along with Stupak, not enough to stop the bill from coming to the floor unless he can find nine more. He says he has 40 some, so it's possible. If you happen to recognize any of those above names as being your Representative, give them a call and let them know that you don't appreciate they're working with Republicans to attempt to derail this reform.[8]
The old saying that once went "a chicken in every pot" is now for liberals since 73', "an abortion for every womb". This healthcare bill is a pelosi abortion. [17] Pelosi has promised to make public the final version of the bill three days before debate begins to ensure that members have time to examine it. That pledge, plus the lagging negotiations, threatens to push debate and a vote into next week, though it remains possible that a deal could be struck in time to avoid that.[18] A vote on final approval of the bill could occur on Wednesday in the Senate.[40]
After critics attacked an earlier draft of the health bill during the August recess, Democrats are wary of letting it languish during a break.[25] A bill to be debated in the state Assembly in Madison today would require that schools which teach sex education provide students with accurate information on the use of birth control.'' Under the measure, if schools opt to teach sexual education, they would be required to address the health benefits, side effects and proper use of contraceptives and other methods to prevent pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases.[12]
I mentioned in a previous article last week that the only reason abortion is still a 'right' in America today is because people who know better lack the will to put an end to it. In this moment, it is our responsibility to use our civic power ' our voices and our votes ' to help end abortion in our nation. [1] I am sick to hear that people still believe that abortion is a woman's right. If that were the case, then why is it murder if a woman drowns her babies, or otherwise ends their lives -- no matter what the age?''I don't buy the "it's just a fetus" any more than I would buy "it was only 2 mos. old".[12] Abortion is not only sick and wrong, it is NOT a woman's right and it should NOT be paid for with tax money. This is the indisputable truth no matter how many people are bound together against it.[12]
Father John F. Kavanaugh, S.J., a Professor of Philosophy and Medical Ethics at Saint Louis University, supports a single payer system in which every American is covered. He does not want to see anyone forced to pay for abortion. "It's one thing, in conscience, to think that other people who come out of a different philosophical or religious tradition should have the option," said Father Kavanaugh in an interview with the Missourinet. "But it's quite another to think that people who feel that this is really the taking of an innocent human being's life should pay for it that's the problem."[29] Insurance should never pay for an abortion unless the mother's life is at risk. I am as liberal as they come.[27]
Federal employee insurance plans also are prohibited from covering abortions.[7] Most employer-based insurance plans have coverage for abortions, according to the Guttmacher Institute.[31] Pro-choice groups counter that doing more would effectively ban private insurance coverage for abortions.[27]
In Germany, birthplace of social health insurance, public and private systems co-exist.[6] If you do not want to purchase health insurance, you should not receive the benefits of health insurance, nor should you be levied with the costs of health insurance. There are certain people who do not need health insurance - why should they be punished for not needing a product or service? There can be no such thing as a "mandatory customer" for a particular industry when individuals are not a direct liability to other individuals.[27] We will be forcing the entire country to purchase a product, in essence. Those who are healthy and do not need health care will be subsidizing those who are victims of their genetics, make bad health decisions, or are victims of chance. There is no guarantee that this will lower health care costs. If it is like any other well-intentioned but poorly-implemented government program, we will lose lots of money via fraud (Medicare loses $60-90 billion annually) with no accountability, and we will have this massive behemoth in place that will only continue to grow larger.[27] Democratic women take the lead in offering a dividing line on health care and other policies.[6] The controversy is splitting the U.S. Catholic church, which has long supported health care reform, NPR reports.[31] Regardless of how the issue plays out in Congress, though, it mustn't be allowed to scuttle the urgently needed effort to overhaul the nation's dysfunctional health care system.[34] Brett Chase covers health care for Portfolio.com and writes the blog Heavy Doses.[31] I am not entitled to any of your money to support my health care needs. And vice versa.[27] Any medical information published on this website is not intended as a substitute for informed medical advice and you should not take any action before consulting with a health care professional.[9] Here we go. it comes down to the wire after nearly a half century of attempts to bring our citizens up to the health care standards of every other industrialized - first world country and the United States will once again shoot itself in the foot and declare what great marksmen we are.[27] Robert Reich and others weigh in on the weaknesses and strengths of the health care address.[6]
NPR notes that the abortion issue is a sticky one for the Catholic Church, "where a long-standing opposition to abortion is running headlong into the church's equally long-standing support for a comprehensive health overhaul" (Rovner, 11/3). [11] '''It makes it clear that no federal dollars can be used for abortion procedures. Those words are in there,''' Rep. Baron Hill (D-Ind.) said Monday night. He had been given a copy of the language, but hadn't fully reviewed it and hadn't decided if it was sufficient.[17] Under existing law, federal dollars typically can be used for abortions only in cases of rape or incest or when a pregnant woman'''s life is endangered by illness, injury or other physical disorder.[6]
Especially if a senior is dealing with long-term illness or fighting something deemed terminal. Why don't we just line up everyone over 70 and shoot them in the head? This President and most of congress wants to fund and do that with abortion and plans to walk boldly in that direction with end of life counseling for our seniors. There is not only a horrifying shift to neo Marxism and communism with this administration but a worldview clash regarding the worth of individuals. To this administration, the worth of life is only viewed as valuable if a baby is wanted and planned for at a certain moment.[19] Nancy Keenan, NARAL's president, said people who have coverage for abortion services now could lose it. This copyrighted material may not be re-published without permission.[7]
Aides indicated that Obama and Pelosi have numerous phone calls each day -- giving Obama considerable opportunity to press for a ban on abortion funding. [4] Abortion funding in particular shows a chasm between party liberals and moderates.[18]
When asked by reporters whether it was essential to solve the abortion question before introducing the manager'''s amendment, Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) responded '''not necessarily.''' [20] Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) said the issue of Stupak's amendment "is being addressed" and "will unfold in the next couple of days" (Soraghan, The Hill, 10/30).[9]
The House Democratic leadership team is now drilling down on what'''s called a '''manager'''s amendment.'''[21] Divisions in the majority party in the House and Senate could delay legislation into the new year.[18] "We're not violent" anti-choice extremists are holding a contest that includes asking supporters to burn Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in effigy.[12]
In the Senate, meantime, Democratic leaders are awaiting cost estimates from the Congressional Budget Office and struggling with centrists over including a version of the public option.[18] Winning over even a few of Mr. Stupak'''s votes would seem to allow Democratic leaders to advance the legislation.[6]
"We're not going to be bound by any timelines," Reid told reporters, casting doubt on President Barack Obama's often-repeated goal of signing a bill on reforming the $2.5 trillion U.S. healthcare system by the end of the year. "We're going to do this legislation as expeditiously as we can, but we're going to do it as fairly as we can," Reid said.[22] House lawmakers would then need to approve the changes before the legislation is sent to the White House for President Barack Obama's signature.[40]
Following the unveiling of the Pelosi bill, HR 3962, late last week, the number now stands at 54 percent opposed and 42 percent who favor the legislation. [5] Why does pelosi's bishop warn her of the grave sin this woman is pushing in this bill? she should be excommunated,She will have the blood of millions of the unborn on her hands. Is Nancy Pelosi still allowed to receive Holy Communion? and if so why has some one not contacted the Vatican to have her (1) cautioned) and (2) If that has been done why has she not ben ecommunicated? Her very bad example to all Catholic people and all non-Catholic people is just scandalous.[1]
Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, told The Daily Beast: '''It'''s a disappointment there isn'''t more in the bill to proactively further women'''s rights.[12] Yet Rep Wilson's outburst actually got the Dems to consider whether or not they want to have their bill cover illegals which they are still pondering.[10] I'm confident the bill will prevail, and prevail before Veterans Day," said Hoyer during an early morning pen and pad session. "Our intention either Friday or Saturday to have this bill on the floor."[36]
Hoyer said it would lead to cherry picking of the healthiest people by insurers. He said the Republican proposal was vague when it comes to encouraging states to enact changes and on pursuing meaningful medical malpractice overhaul. Republicans have argued their proposals would be far cheaper to the taxpayer than Democratic plans, and that it would bring costs down over time.[39] Why is this not shocking? Republicans offer absolutely nothing that actually takes care of people. I'm amazed that this is the best they can come up with, and don't even try to 'pretend' to care about the people. For those who argue that the Dems need only "get their act together" need to consider that the Democratic party has individual thinkers in it, not a bunch of lemmings like we see on the right side of the aisle.[38]
I wish I was counting ways to improve women'''s access to abortion. Right now, we'''re counting ways to keep women from losing the coverage they already have.''' [12]
It'''s illegal to use federal money to pay for abortions except in rare instances.[20] It'''s currently against federal law to pay for most abortions with federal money.[21] Looks like the war on choice is turning into a war of attrition. While legislators spar, tens of millions of Americans who won't be getting abortions anytime soon, with or without federal money, just want to know how they're going to pay for their next check-up.[13]
The language is not yet publicly available, but lawmakers familiar with it say it strengthens an existing provision intended to prevent abortion from getting any federal dollars.[17]
Some in Congress questioned whether the new proposal would make any difference. '''It looks like they are splitting hairs,''' said Representative Steve Driehaus, an Ohio Democrat who opposes abortion.[6] One of the most nettlesome issues facing Democrats revolves around an abortion dispute.[21] WaPo reports today that a number of anti-choice holdouts among Democrats are "threatening to oppose the measure over the issue of abortion to create a question about its passage."[8]
No flyer in my parish this week, although October was Respect Fo Life month in the Catholic church and homilies leaned heavily on the issue of abortion and resect for life "at all stages".[10] If abortion is to be legal, or paid for with MY taxes (God forbid!) then let's make it for the entire life of the mother and child. This would add plenty of creedence to what my mother used to say to me: "I brought you into this world, and by God I'll take you out of it".[12]
During the speech, Obama said, "One more misunderstanding I want to clear up -- under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions."[4] "The public plan will be a federal agency program, and all funds spent by the agency are federal funds," Johnson said.[5]
What some are really doing in the health reform debate is projecting their own vision of what is moral onto those who will be most affected by distorted views and limited coverage: the taxpayers who will fund and use whatever system emerges. [12] I guess Mr. Gayson's description of the Republican health plan was, indeed, correct. Boehner's not even interested in covering pre-existing conditions, and still allows insurance companies to drop you when you get sick, using the same tactics they do today.[38] The N.A.A.C.P. and more than 50 other civil rights groups plan to unveil a "war room'' in Washington on Thursday to push for a government-run health plan.[6]
Or their objection to subsidies which may help pay for abortion procedures is really a smoke screen to cover up their allegiance to the corporations. Its one thing to object over principal, but something entirely else to be a puppet. [27] The number two House Democrat was also critical of a proposal by the Republicans to allow individuals and small businesses to pool together to exert greater pressure on insurers to bring costs down.[39]
SOURCES
1. Special Report/Call to Action: Act Now to Prevent Funding of Abortion in Health Reform Bill - Catholic Online
2. Pro-Life Group: House Health Care Bill Would Fund Abortions "For Years to Come"
3. House Democrats' Phony Amendment Claims to Remove Abortion From Health Care
4. President Barack Obama Violating Pledge For No Abortion Funding in Health Care
5. Opposition to Pro-Abortion Health Care Bill Jumps After New Pelosi Bill Introduced
6. Democrats Near Deal on Abortion Coverage - Prescriptions Blog - NYTimes.com
7. Q&A: Abortion and health-care reform | HoumaToday.com | The Courier | Houma, LA
8. Daily Kos: The Anti-Choice Democrats Wiling to Derail Healthcare Reform
9. Abortion Coverage Splits House Democrats As Health Reform Heads To Floor
10. Hot Air » Blog Archive » Are Democrats heading for abortion showdown?
11. Democrats still face roadblocks to health reform: Abortion, immigration
12. Roundup: Conservatives Continue to Threaten Womens Rights to Abortion Care in Private Insurance | RHRealityCheck.org
13. Wrangling Over Abortion Hinders Health Care Reform - Politics - Air America
14. Abortion funds leak into Indian Health Service (OneNewsNow.com)
15. Abortion issue could unravel House healthcare reform bill | csmonitor.com
16. Hoyer 'Reasonably Confident' of Abortion Deal in Health Bill « The Washington Independent
17. Democrats whipping on abortion compromise to save health bill - TheHill.com
18. Abortion language complicates Democratic health efforts -- latimes.com
19. Is the Health Care Bill in trouble over abortion?
20. Abortion Part of Health Care Reform Still in Question - FOXNews.com
21. » Health Care Debate to Start Later This Week The Speakers Lobby « FOXNews.com
22. Senate delays threaten healthcare deadline | Health | Reuters
23. U.S. House makes headway on healthcare bill
24. Problems of Abortion and Immigration to Be Solved Before Landmark Health Care Vote - Pravda.Ru
25. Flash Points Linger in Health Bill - WSJ.com
26. Vote on Health Care Likely Next Week With Fake Last-Minute Abortion Compromise
27. Dems Threaten to Kill Health Care Bill Over Abortion - Politics News Summaries | Newser
28. Trust, but Verify? Not There Yet on Health Care | Center for Immigration Studies
29. SLU priest expects no abortion provision in final health care bill
30. Americans Would Vote Against Obama Now, Health Care Rating and Approval Down
31. Abortion Complicated Health Reform Debate - Heavy Doses - Portfolio.com
32. Democratic Abortion Foes May Sink Healthcare Bill
33. 11,000 on Abortion Mandate Webcast Warned against Phony Compromises in Healthcare Bill
34. Anti-Choice Democrats Use Abortion to Hold Health Care Reform Hostage
35. CitizenLink: Amendment to Health-Care Bill Would Undercut Pro-Life Proposal
36. Hoyer: Health Care Bill Will "Prevail" By Veterans Day Talk Radio News Service
37. YOUR OPINION: Abortion services must not be part of health care overhaul - Quincy, MA - The Patriot Ledger
38. Front Row Washington » Blog Archive » Democrats fire back at Republican health plan | Blogs |
39. Rep. Hoyer Critical Of Republican Health-Care Plan - www.capital.gr
40. Rep Hoyer: House To Take Up Jobless Benefits Bill
41. Investors.com - House set to back home tax credit
42. House Seen Expanding Home Buy Tax Break: Hoyer
43. House leader: Tax credit a go | Real Estate and Technology News for Agents, Brokers and Investors | Inman News
GENERATE A MULTI-SOURCE SUMMARY ON ANY SUBJECT
Enter your search query below. WAIT 10-20 sec for the new window to open.
Get more info on Abortion language complicates Democratic health efforts by using the iResearch Reporter tool from Power Text Solutions.
 |
|  |
|
