When Obama's Buddies in the MSM Admit It, Then It Must Include Abortion
When the Main Stream Media begins to admit it, then ObamaCare must cover abortions. So President Obama, who is the 1 "bearing false witness"? It looks to me like you are. (OBAMA CONTINUES SAYING PRO-LIFE ADVOCATES LYING ABOUT HEALTH CARE, ABORTION) & while I am not so convinced that FactCheck is as neutral as it claims, when it is backed up by so many other Pro-Obama sources, I tend to suspect that FactCheck is correct in this case.
To some extent, what we are seeing is semantics. In his last weekly address last Saturday Obama said: "Some are also saying that coverage for abortions would be mandated under reform. Also false. When it comes to the current ban on using tax dollars for abortions, nothing will change under reform."
It is true that the health care bills do not overturn the current protections found in the Hyde amendment & federal laws. But, as Time explains, an end run arround them is set up. The health care bills do it by setting up a new scheme that would not be subjected to those provisions against abortion funding. As Time points out, the main House bill, HR 3200, "does find a way for the Federal Government to expand the coverage of abortion services through a government-run program — the so-called public option — without spending what it defines as federal dollars on abortion." Instead it does it by using "money collected from members dues" to pay for abortions. As the article mentions, Obama et al fail to point out 1 little fact, once these dues (or insurance premiums as they really are) are in the government hands, they are government funds.
Again we see the smoke & mirrors being used by Obama to cover up the truth.
by Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com Editor
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- Time magazine joins the Associated Press and the nonpartisan FactCheck web site in confirming that the health care bills in Congress allow taxpayer-funded abortions. The weekly publication takes Obama to task saying he "does not tell the whole story" on how the bills fund abortions.
"The health-care reform proposed by House Democrats, if enacted, would in fact mark a significant change in the Federal Government's role in the financing of abortions," Time explains.
Although the health care bills do not overturn the time-honored protections found in the Hyde amendment and federal laws (though they could be easily overturned by a Democratic-controlled Congress, Time explains how the health care bills set up a new scheme that would not be subjected to those provisions against abortion funding.
The main House bill, HR 3200, "does find a way for the Federal Government to expand the coverage of abortion services through a government-run program — the so-called public option — without spending what it defines as federal dollars on abortion."
Although awkwardly-worded, Time explains that "money collected from members dues" could be used to pay for abortions.
Abortion advocates like to claim that means taxpayer-funding of abortion isn't present, but the dues become federal dollars once the federal government collects them.
Time explains how the money Americans pay in to the system is put in a segregated account but "the problem is that all those who sign up for the public option would have to pay into the account for abortion coverage, an amount 'not less than $1 per month'" under the bill.
"So in effect, anyone who wanted to sign up for the public option, a federally funded and administered program, would find themselves paying for abortion coverage," Time magazine explains.
Time also explains how "private insurance companies, which could receive taxpayer subsidies to cover low-income individuals" could decide to use those taxpayer funds to pay for abortions. Pro-life advocates have tried to amend the bill to stop that, but have been unsuccessful so far.
Ultimately, "the new system differs markedly from the old federal policy of not involving the government in abortion services," the magazine says
Time also cites Glen Halva-Neubauer, a political scientist at Furman University, who confirms that the bill "does represent a policy shift in favor of the abortion-rights community that it would not have received under George W. Bush's Administration."
LifeNews.com talked with Douglas Johnson, the legislative director of the National Right to Life Committee, about the Time magazine piece.
Johnson said Time "helps dispel some of the White House disinformation" about abortion funding supposedly not appearing in the health care bill. He says the article's confirmation about how the health care bill will result in taxpayer-funding of abortions is "certainly accurate although understated."
"The article is somewhat muddled, however, in that the writers still seem to think that there might be some way that a federal agency can write checks to abortionists without it being 'federal' or 'government' funding of abortion, in some sense," Johnson adds.
"Let's be clear on this: Federal agencies receive funds from many sources, but once the government has the money and is writing the checks, they are public funds, federal funds. And if they are spent on abortions, then that is government funding of abortion," Johnson concluded.
Marjorie Dannenfelser, the president of the pro-life women's group Susan B. Anthony List, also noticed the Time article and its confirmation of what pro-life groups have been saying.
She said it is another reason why Congress must include language making it clear that the health care plan should not result in abortion funding.
“President Obama recently argued that our concerns about abortion coverage are a fabrication, but we respectfully disagree," the told LifeNews.com. "Without language to exclude abortion coverage, the current legislation will allow abortion coverage in health plans backed by the United States Government.”
"The health-care reform proposed by House Democrats, if enacted, would in fact mark a significant change in the Federal Government's role in the financing of abortions," Time explains.
Although the health care bills do not overturn the time-honored protections found in the Hyde amendment and federal laws (though they could be easily overturned by a Democratic-controlled Congress, Time explains how the health care bills set up a new scheme that would not be subjected to those provisions against abortion funding.
The main House bill, HR 3200, "does find a way for the Federal Government to expand the coverage of abortion services through a government-run program — the so-called public option — without spending what it defines as federal dollars on abortion."
Although awkwardly-worded, Time explains that "money collected from members dues" could be used to pay for abortions.
Abortion advocates like to claim that means taxpayer-funding of abortion isn't present, but the dues become federal dollars once the federal government collects them.
Time explains how the money Americans pay in to the system is put in a segregated account but "the problem is that all those who sign up for the public option would have to pay into the account for abortion coverage, an amount 'not less than $1 per month'" under the bill.
"So in effect, anyone who wanted to sign up for the public option, a federally funded and administered program, would find themselves paying for abortion coverage," Time magazine explains.
Time also explains how "private insurance companies, which could receive taxpayer subsidies to cover low-income individuals" could decide to use those taxpayer funds to pay for abortions. Pro-life advocates have tried to amend the bill to stop that, but have been unsuccessful so far.
Ultimately, "the new system differs markedly from the old federal policy of not involving the government in abortion services," the magazine says
Time also cites Glen Halva-Neubauer, a political scientist at Furman University, who confirms that the bill "does represent a policy shift in favor of the abortion-rights community that it would not have received under George W. Bush's Administration."
LifeNews.com talked with Douglas Johnson, the legislative director of the National Right to Life Committee, about the Time magazine piece.
Johnson said Time "helps dispel some of the White House disinformation" about abortion funding supposedly not appearing in the health care bill. He says the article's confirmation about how the health care bill will result in taxpayer-funding of abortions is "certainly accurate although understated."
"The article is somewhat muddled, however, in that the writers still seem to think that there might be some way that a federal agency can write checks to abortionists without it being 'federal' or 'government' funding of abortion, in some sense," Johnson adds.
"Let's be clear on this: Federal agencies receive funds from many sources, but once the government has the money and is writing the checks, they are public funds, federal funds. And if they are spent on abortions, then that is government funding of abortion," Johnson concluded.
Marjorie Dannenfelser, the president of the pro-life women's group Susan B. Anthony List, also noticed the Time article and its confirmation of what pro-life groups have been saying.
She said it is another reason why Congress must include language making it clear that the health care plan should not result in abortion funding.
“President Obama recently argued that our concerns about abortion coverage are a fabrication, but we respectfully disagree," the told LifeNews.com. "Without language to exclude abortion coverage, the current legislation will allow abortion coverage in health plans backed by the United States Government.”
Labels: ObamaCare
posted by Al @ 6:03 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home