| Moderate Democrats Leaning Against Subsidized Abortions |
|
|
|
| by Tom McGregor | Wed, Sep 30, 2009, 01:49 AM |
 Pro-life members in both the House and Senate are seeking to halt the millions of lower- and middle-income people who may receive federal insurance subsidies to help them purchase heath coverage by using cash on plans that cover abortions. And the pro-life group is getting enough support from moderate Democrats that both sides believe the outcome is too close to call. Pro-lifers cite as precedent, a 30-year-old ban on the use of taxpayers’ money to fund elective abortions.
According to the New York Times, “abortion-rights supporters say such a restriction would all but eliminate from the marketplace private plans that cover the procedure, pushing women who have such coverage to give it up. Nearly half of those with employer-sponsored health plans now have policies that cover abortion, according to a recent study by the Kaiser Family Foundation.” The question looms as a crucial test of President Barack Obama’s campaign pledge to endorse the pro-choice movement, but produce a middle ground for those who do not. President Obama has vowed for months that the healthcare overhaul would not offer federal cash to pay for elective abortions, but White House officials have refused to define what he means. As reported by the NY Times, “Democratic Congressional leaders say the latest House and Senate health care bills preserve the spirit of the current ban on federal abortion financing by requiring insurers to segregate their public subsidies into separate accounts from individual premiums and co-payments. Insurers could use money only from private sources to pay for abortions.” Yet, opponents claim that is not sufficient enough, since only a line on insurers accounting ledger would divide the taxpayers’ cash from the payments for abortions. The subsidies would still assist people in paying for affordable health coverage that included abortion. The NY Times reports that, “lawmakers pushing the abortion restrictions say they feel the momentum is on their side, especially because the restlessness of other Democratic moderates is making every vote count.” To read the entire article from the New York Times, link here: This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
Bookmark
Email This
Comments (2)
...
written by Jason K , September 30, 2009 While I'm not for subsidized abortions for a gov't run health care plan, what do you do if a public health care company does subsidize abortions? And in order to get more people insured, the government helps subsidize health care for the poor to buy it themselves and they choose a public provider that does provide abortions?
...
written by Pete Wrench , October 30, 2009 A Democratic Congressman recently told me that the Hyde Amendment would prohibit federal taxpayer dollars from subsidizing abortion procedures. However, according to this article, there are "at least two dozen" DEMOCRATIC U.S. representatives who say the exact OPPOSITE, that the Hyde Amendment would NOT ban such subsidies: http://apnews.myway.com/article/20091023/D9BGMCP00.html And the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops refuse to support the health-care bill because they say the same thing. In deciding whom to believe here, rather than the New York Times and the fork-tongued politicians, I think I'll side with the Catholic Bishops and the Blue Dog Democrats, at least one of whom, Bart Stupak, has said he would be willing to sacrifice his seat in Congress to see the abortion funding defeated. Write comment
|
|
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
