Healthcare Bill: Abortion Inclusion Will Cost Hundreds Per Taxpayer
By Jeffrey Paulsen on March 9, 2010, 6:00 am Posted in Economy NewsDespite assurances by the President and leaders of Congress, Americans are now faced with a sobering reality. Beneath all the rhetoric and spin, the simple fact is that the healthcare reform bill that is being foisted on American taxpayers against the wishes of the majority contains numerous provisions which either directly or indirectly (and expressly or otherwise) fund the practice of elective abortion on demand. Casting aside clear evidence that Americans broadly oppose the use of federal funds to subsidize abortions (A Quinnipiac University poll in December of 2009 showed that 72% of Americans oppose such funding), the Senate version of the healthcare bill (and the revised Obama proposal drafted for passage via reconciliation) introduces an entire litany of spending items without any restrictions related to abortion.
The Short List
The most egregious example of direct abortion funding is the $7 billion directed towards Community Health Centers’ operating costs. Over 1200 of these centers are already authorized to receive federal funds under the Public Health Service Act of 1944, and are not subject to abortion funding restrictions under the Hyde Amendment. There is also an additional sum of $3 billion designated for renovation and construction of these centers, and for National Health Service Corps appropriations- all of which can be used to pay for abortions and abortion facilities.
Next, $5 billion is targeted at temporary high risk health insurance pools (Sec. 1101) and $6 billion is set aside for grants to health co-ops, all of which may provide abortion coverage to those enrolled under them (Sec. 1322). Last but not least is the Mikulski Amendment’s coverage of “Preventive Services” (to be defined by the HHS Secretary in Sec. 1001) offered by private plans receiving federal subsidies, despite Republican opposition to the measure.
Furthermore, the additional reauthorization of federal funding for Native American health programs (Sec. 10221) does not bar funding for abortion procedures, as has been the case in years past.
In short, the bill falls dismally short of ensuring that federal funds are not used for the support of abortion. In fact, it appears calculated to ensure that such funding will take place, as opposed to the former House version of the bill with stringent anti-abortion language. The result will almost surely be that Americans will be coerced into paying for thousands of abortions, without their consent, and by and large without their knowledge. The cost to the taxpayer, in their pocketbooks and their principles, will be dire.
Related posts:
- Unions Blast Reid’s $15B Jobs Bill As A “Band-Aid”
- MN Gov Pawlenty To File Healthcare Bill Lawsuit On His Own
- Postal Service Plan: 58% Of Americans Favor No Saturday Service
- The True Long Term Cost Of The Obama Healthcare Plan Fiasco
- America Not Looking: Dems Sneak Student Loans Into A Healthcare Bill
72% of Americans oppose subsidizing abortions. I wonder if those same people were polled, how many of them are against their tax dollars going to “welfare moms” who pop out additional kids for more benefits? I bet the percentage would be even higher. Some say they dislike both of those subjects so many of them will say “if you don’t want a baby, don’t have sex!” To that I say yeah right and do you only have sex with the intention of procreating? If you answer yes, then again, I’ll say yeah right. How about birth control? Most people in this poll would likely be in favor of paying their hard earned dollars to keep “these loose women” (notice that there is never any mention of the men in this discussion) from getting pregnant. Well for one, we can’t force people to take drugs. These pills have many undesirable, and sometimes deadly effects. Weight gain, mood changes, decreased libido, and the increased risk of blood clots and stroke. Hey, but who cares about that as long as we don’t ask the men in our male-dominated society to wear a condom because “sex isn’t as pleasurable” for them. Not to mention the number of STDs it would cut down on. But I digress. Where can women without insurance get birth control? Ding ding ding, that’s right, health centers! You know, what people don’t want their tax money going. Most health centers don’t provide abortions or even encourage them. Family planning has become a bad phrase by the Christian Right when in actuality more women AND MEN should do it. Family planning includes birth control and also resources that women can turn to for donated goods to help with the costs of an unintended pregnancy that they want to keep. And your evil health centers see scores more of this then women who choose abortion but you don’t mention that do you? They also provide no or low cost pap smears and breast exams, infant immunizations, flu shots, WIC, blood pressure checks and more! I myself can’t think of many things I’d rather see my tax dollars go to!
I don’t agree with abortion or like that my tax dollars go to “welfare moms”. But there’s a lot of things I don’t like my taxes paying. I don’t agree that it goes to pay millions every year for health care for people who chose to eat whatever, smoke, drink, never exercise and now they cannot work because of the numerous health problems they now have. I don’t agree that child molestors and murderers get free healthcare because of the acts they committed. Abortion isn’t even illegal and never will be. It is a tactic the republicans use to get people out to vote. Most of them could probably care less about it. But it brings out the voters! I am not for it, but what a woman (anyone) does in their life is not for me to judge. Someone higher up then you and the other conservatives will be the only judge that matters.
If and when you do find a way to pick and choose what your tax money goes to pay for, please let me know. Until then we have to let the people we elect do that job. There is good and bad in all programs. However Health Centers’ good far outweighs the bad.
It doesn’t seem constitutionally possible that Americans who disagree with abortion could be forced to pay for abortions through mandated health care. That would be barbaric. Non-payers would be lining up to go to prison.
Health Care Reform is Easy
The republicans have used reconciliation on health care before plenty of times – heck they created the whole CHIP program – via reconciliation. Dear lord stop swallowing the kool-aid – this isn’t a sporting event my side versus your side (do you think the status quo might be aware of the concept of divide and conquer – don’t be such dupes)
People, people, people – this is about getting our dollars back from the richest 1% that hoard them at the top (there is no such thing as trickle down) or For Profit insurance wouldn’t be killing the middle class, driving people with health insurance into bankruptcy, and tying a dead weight around small business and even the bigger national corporations – this has to get done – our politicians are playing games to get elected….
They are not “governing” but manipulating voter sentiment to whip up turn out to try and win elections – not based on any specific philosophy of governing but for plain old self interest.
Actual governing takes a huge back seat to “will I get re-elected” – the easiest way to solve the health care debacle of for profit health care is simple – but handing a success to the other party – isn’t how the political “game” is played.
Unfortunately our lives are caught in the cross fire of their STUPID GAME. And because of game playing we deregulated everything and created the global financial meltdown – ooppps – maybe proper management would have prevented that – but politics has never been about properly managing our resources – its about GETTING RE-ELECTED.
Healthcare is easy – here’s how –
“Use Senate reconciliation and expand Medicare via the Senate’s buy-in provisions. The CBO has already signed off on this as a means of saving money.
More importantly, if more Americans can do a buy-in with Medicare, it creates more cost control (because there’s a genuine competitor to for-profit healthcare).
It also helps to solve the problems of pre-existing conditions, because Medicare does not deny coverage on this basis.
Allowing a Medicare buy-in to Americans under 65 would give people a genuine alternative to private insurance and thereby render the pre-existing question moot.
It would also lower Medicare costs by expanding the risk pool of patients (the great bulk of medical expenses are accounted for by a small number of people, mostly the elderly, requiring very expensive treatment).
And it would substantially enhance the global competitiveness of American corporations. After all, in what other country in the world is health care a marginal cost of production for business?” – Roosevelt Institute Marshall Auerback
Now get out there tell your neighbors, your friends, pick up the phone and email your representatives – because whether you like it or not we are all in this together – and it’s us versus the politicians – not each other.
Paul Burke
Author Journey Home
Democracy For America