Bart Stupak Abortion Claims Debunked: Health Bill Would NOT Force Federal Spending On Abortion

[laughingliberal]

ABC News found that one of Rep. Bart Stupak's (D-Mich.) biggest contentions in his fight against health care reform legislation -- that federal money will go to "directly subsidize abortions" -- is not true in all cases.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has repeatedly asserted that there is "no federally funded abortion" in the bill.

According to ABC's Jonathan Karl: "Pelosi is right in that the bill makes it clear, there can be no federal money for abortion, except in cases of rape, incest, or to protect the life of the mother."

Stupak argued that "when you read the legislation, $1 per month for all enrollees must go into a fund for reproductive care which includes abortion coverage."

Karl's research of the wording of the bill finds this statement to be false. "That's actually wrong," Karl reports. "In fact, you only pay the $1 abortion fee if you choose a plan that covers abortion. To anti-abortion advocates like Stupak, the only acceptable solution is a complete ban on abortion coverage by any insurance policy that accepts any federal money at all."

Video of ABC report at link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/05/bart-stupak-abortion-clai_n_488085.html

Alternate headline: Network news backs Pelosi's facts against right wing asshole. Earth tilts on axis.

[Warpy]

1. Of course he's wrong about it all

but that has never stopped a Christian Soldier before, going off to war against women.

[spanone]

2. perhaps someone could explain this to him?

[laughingliberal]

3. He doesn't care. He serves his masters. nt

[ArcticFox]

4. WTF is the big deal if it did?

Hasn't the Supreme Court ruled abortions are legal? Why then are they only selectively available? The Federal restriction on funding abortions is a federal restriction on abortion. It is a discrimination against women.

I would hope to never be in a position of having to decide whether abortion were a proper choice in my life, and I would hate to make the decision for abortion even in the face of serious risk to the mother otherwise, but people like Bart Stupak seriously make me sick.

If you ask me, this is where Democrats lose the issues. Instead of arguing the "what's wrong with federal funding abortion" question, they get caught up in the "whether this bill allows federal funding of abortion" question. Take any other issue and I think you see the same pattern.

Health care for example: Democrats argue "it's not socialized medicine," rather than saying "what's wrong with socialized medicine, it works in like 99% of the rest of the industrialized world," and then pointing out the benefits (including: there would be an incentive for everybody to to get their neighbors to eat healthy, exercise, etc. because it would lower health care costs and thereby taxes).

[pscot]

5. Someone should shove

a coathanger up his ass and extract his brain.

[conservdem]

6. If this is true, then why would it be a problem to make it more clear?

[Me.]

7. How Much Clearer Would It Need To Be For Him To Understand What Everyone Can Clearly Read ?

He's just trying to get rid of a legal right that women have and he's trying to blackmail his way to that goal.

[conservdem]

10. You may be right, and I follow the point of the article above,

but I think the abortion issue comes up in the in another part of the bill:

Richard Doerflinger, the associate director of the U.S. bishops Pro-life Secretariat, told CNSNews.com that the “abortion problems in the Senate bill are so serious that, despite our strong support for expanding access to health care, we will have to oppose the bill unless they are resolved.”

According to Doerflinger, the Senate health care bill contains some language limiting the direct use to subsidize abortion coverage, but still violates “longstanding precedent on abortion funding.”

The Senate bill limits only the use of tax credits for abortion in qualified health plans, and not other funding in the bill.

Doerflinger cited the $7 billion for services at community health centers, whose funding is increased to $11 billion in President Obama’s proposal.

“The Hyde amendment does not prevent direct use of these billions of dollars for elective abortions (because the funds are not provided through the appropriations bill governed by Hyde), nor does any provision in the Senate bill,” he told CNSNews.com

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/rep._stupak_prepared_to_strike_down_healthcare_reform_over_abortion/


Is this part of the issue that needs to be clarified?

[Me.]

11. The Exceptions Are For Rape, Incest & The Life Of The Mother

And please let's remember, abortion is legal in this country. And frankly, quoting Catholic bishops does not bring any credibility to the argument as far as I'm concerned. I'm familiar with the the church, having been raised in it, and their concern for the rights and welfare of women is non-existent. Better they should occupy themselves with the problem of pedophile priests.

[WillyT]

8. K & R !!!

:kick:

[ck4829]

9. K&R