Does Healthcare Bill Really Ban Federal Funding For Abortion?
The Capitol Hill debate over abortion in the healthcare bill has kicked up a lot of confusion yesterday and today. Conservative antiabortion forces say the bill mandates federally subsidized abortion coverage. Democrats, including some abortion foes, say that's a mischaracterization.
Democrats claim an amendment to the healthcare bill adopted last night ensures that the tradition of denying federal funds for abortions—except in cases of rape or incest or if the pregnant woman's life is in danger—will continue. Republicans and traditional antiabortion advocates say that's bogus.
What's the reality?
The amendment, proposed by Democratic Rep. Lois Capps, prohibits the federal government from compelling private providers participating in the federal healthcare exchange to cover abortion. But it also bars the government from prohibiting those plans from offering such coverage. And it requires that at least one of the private plans participating in the exchange cover abortion—and at least one of the plans to not. Read the amendment here.
Democratic defenders of the Capps amendment say it applies the Hyde Amendment, which for more than three decades has prohibited Medicaid from funding abortions except in very limited circumstances, to the new government-controlled healthcare. Private healthcare providers are free to cover abortion, but not with federal funds. The public plan would cover abortion, but not with federal funds; a Capitol Hill aide tells me money for abortions would come from what participants pay into the public plan.
Antiabortion advocates say this purported segregation of private money, which could pay for abortions, from taxpayer money, which could not, is meaningless. The plan, they say, would effectively subsidize abortions with government money. Antiabortion activists note that the Hyde Amendment goes further than banning federal funds for abortion by actually barring any federal healthcare plan—from Medicaid to the private plans available to federal employees—from offering abortion coverage at all.
What do you think? Is it OK for the government to include abortion coverage in the public healthcare option and in federally subsidized plans, as long as federal funds aren't used? Or should the government prohibit the public option and the private, subsidized plans, from offering abortion at all?
Or perhaps you think the government should fund abortions as part of reproductive health. Interested in your comments on this thorny debate.
Tags: abortion | healthcare | Barack Obama | religion
Tools: 
Share
|
| Comments (28) | Print
Reader Comments
Family Planning
It is amazing how many people are completely ignorant to what Family Planning does! Rather than talk about the issue you have outlined in your very fair article, people insist on leaving comments slamming Family Planning!
Services Offered by Family Planning Clinics-
Women's Health
Birth Control
General Health Care
Pregnancy Testing & Pregnancy Services
Sexually Transmitted Disease (STD)
HIV Testing Services
Hepatitis Vaccines and HPV Vaccine Services
Men’s Health Services
Patient Education
Many thousands of young women that are working low wage jobs seek Family Planning out for annual exams and birth control pills. Without Family Planning these women would not have health care. The vast majority of people that go to Family Planning clinics are uninsured and do not qualify for Medicaid. Sixty-seven percent have family incomes at or below the federal poverty level. Every dollar spent to provide services at Family Planning clinics saves $4.02 in pregnancy-related costs to Medicaid.
Family Planning services help to prevent 1.4 million unplanned pregnancies each year, which would result in 600,000 abortions!
The health providers at Family Planning care about a woman’s health when she is pregnant and care that she will deliver a healthy baby!
Do some homework people before spitting out your lies about Family Planning and stop for just one second and think about someone other than yourself!
Indirect Accounting Scheme with Vague Language to Line the Pockets of a Perverted Organization Like Planned Parenthood!
Its an accounting scheme!!! Pelosi is blocking & then burying any real amendment, the Pitts-Stupak amendment, that would truly ban abortion & bring this matter to a CLOSE. Why shelve this amendment, because so-claimed Catholic Nancy is vehemently forcing this bill down even her our caucus to include abortion by claiming the Ellsworth amendment will make everything all better. NOT TRUE Nancy! Making a deal to increase funding for Planned Parenthood is going to increase abortions, look at the numbers from previous increases. Go figure!
-------------------------------
My Dearest Planned Parenthood,
Here's a big pot of money we set aside just for you to do whatever you'd like, but don't spend it on abortions. We trust you to keep the finances separate because we know you are good people & look the other way when you have broken the law time & again with cases of covering up rape & incest. We wrote the bill with vague language to confuse the US citizens so you don't have to worry about any pro-lifer meddling to see if you did break this rule. We even got a so-called 'pro-lifer' & wrote the Ellsworth amendment, it will silence the masses until we vote this weekend & then reveal that it bans no such thing. Abortions for everyone! Keep up the good work but do you think you could move from aborting 1 in every 3, to 1 in every 2 pregnancies? I know you can do it, especially with this money you are restricted from using for abortions. Wink, Wink.
Sincerely,
The US Government
Whatever it is -- Tell the truth
If abortion is to be covered, Obama should be honest about it.
What is not right, and likely to result in his being called a liar (yet again), is for Obama to say it won't be covered while a provision in the bill can, and will, be interpreted otherwise.
Like his illegal alien assertion, will it take his being called out on cable to result in his words reflecting what's in the bill?
advertisement
