It is sad but unsurprising to see how President Obama and others pushing the health care reform bill are so aggressive in saying that abortion coverage is a myth. It is a classic word game where they don’t explicitly mention the word abortion but it is obvious that they plan for it to be covered.
Let’s just use our reasoning skills here. If the bill didn’t have (barely) hidden abortion coverage, why wouldn’t these pro-abortion groups be lobbying for its inclusion? This is the mother-of-all-health-care-bills and we’re to believe that these groups who live for unrestricted abortion rights are going to sit idly by and not have any coverage? They have always insisted that abortion is part of “reproductive health,” so why would they sit out this discussion? I’m insulted that they expect us to believe that.
If it doesn’t cover abortions, then why was there opposition to an amendment to have abortions explicitly excluded? If what Obama & Co. said was true then the worst one could say about such an amendment is that it would be redundant.
Go read LTI Blog: Busting Myths About Abortion & Health Care Reform for a thorough analysis. Here’s an excerpt. Read it carefully.
PP [Planned Parenthood] says, “All versions of the health care reform bill would expand coverage, protect women’s access to reproductive health care, and allow women to continue to see the health care providers they know and trust (like Planned Parenthood).”
Planned Parenthood isn’t the only abortion advocacy group that seems to agree that abortion would be covered under the health care reform bill:
• President Barack Obama: “Well, look, in my mind reproductive care is essential care, basic care so it is at the center, the heart of the plan that I propose…insurers are going to have to abide by the same rules in terms of providing comprehensive care, including reproductive care…that’s going to be absolutely vital.” Source: During Q&A session at a Planned Parenthood Action Fund Event on July 17, 2007.)
• Secretary of State Hillary Clinton: “Reproductive health includes access to abortion…We are now an Administration that will protect the rights of women, including their rights to reproductive health care.” Source: In front of House Foreign Affairs Committee on April 22, 2009. YouTube video here.
• National Abortion Federation:“NAF supports health care reform as a way to increase access to comprehensive reproductive health care, including abortion care, for all women.” Source: NAF website.
• Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice:“Let there be no mistake, basic healthcare includes abortion services.”
Source: An email action alert regarding health care reform issued July 1, 2009 from RCRC President Reverend Carlton W. Veazey.
• NARAL (National Abortion Rights Action League): “(I)f, indeed, we can advance a panel or commission, then I am very optimistic about reproductive health care being part of this entire package.” Source: NARAL President Nancy Keenan spoke to the American Prospect about the health care debate.
• RHRealityCheck: “health reform is the issue to insist upon for Obama for his first term–he needs the victory. ‘He needs us. Public option is key, and using “medical standard of care” in language instead of listing reproductive services that will siphon off votes.” (sic) Source: A RHRealityCheck blogger wrote this about what Wendy Chavkin, former Board chair of Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health said in a forum.Of course, if that’s not enough evidence, than check out FactCheck, TIME magazine, Obama supporter Jim Wallis and the Associated Press confirming that the current health care reform bills include abortion coverage.
Reproductive health care, in the minds (and pens) of the current administration includes abortion access.
Those denying that the bill will cover abortions are not telling the truth. Those claiming that pro-lifers are spreading myths about the abortion coverage are even bigger liars, and they think you are either glad to be complicit with their lies or are stupid enough to believe them.
Update: Here are some particulars on deadly games they are playing to try and hide the elephant:
Republicans on the House Energy and Commerce Committee were able, by one vote, to include specific language in H.R. 3200, the Democrats’ health-care legislation, prohibiting funding of abortions. Henry Waxman, chairman of the committee, recessed the committee, then, upon reconvening, held the vote again, and the amendment died by one vote.
The Democrats now hide behind the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits government funding of abortions specifically funded through the Department of Health and Human Services. What the Democrats fail to mention is they have structured H.R. 3200 so that any funds for their health-care plan will not come through the Department of Health and Human Services’ appropriations process. Therefore, the Hyde Amendment would not apply, and abortions can be funded.
This administration knows that by federal law, unless the bill specifically excludes abortion, that abortions will be covered. The bill doesn’t specifically have to say it covers them for it to cover them.
Just like with everything else, Obama is being a sneaky snake.
Of course this is the same Obama who said abortions were necessary because if his daughter got pregnant he wouldn’t want her to be “punished” with a baby.
He was talking about contraception there, not abortions. He said that abstinence should be taught to kids, but they also need to know about contraception, so they are not punished with an STD or a baby if they make a mistake.
Criticize his wording if you like, but YOU added abortion to that. He said no such thing.
Ryan
So are trying to tell us that this bill absolutely will not fund abortions? Are you really trying to do this?
No, I didn’t say that. Honestly, I think this bill probably will allow for abortion funding.
The title and point of this post are that tax payers will pay for abortions. Glenn’s comment, the one you responded to, also supported that notion. In light of all that, and your agreement to that fact, what exactly are you arguing? How old are you?
Glenn’s comment was not true, regardless of what it supports. He said “Obama who said abortions were necessary because if his daughter got pregnant he wouldn’t want her to be “punished” with a baby.” That is clearly untrue if you watch the video of the speech. He was talking about contraception, not abortion, and he said so. I would argue this even if I completely agreed with Glenn’s opinions. Arguments must be true to be entered into a debate, and both sides must agree on this.
I’m 35, not that it’s any of your business.
touché
Obama wasn’t using his teleprompter at the time and therefore made his typical stumbling remarks. Either side can choose to read meanings into it. What is clear about his abortion views are that he is doing nothing to decrease them. Requiring taxpayer funding of abortions here and abroad does not reduce abortions.
So baby = STD to Obama. Got it.
Do you use that same math to balance your chequebook? if so, you’d better hope for a public option.
“so they are not punished with an STD or a baby”
Your words, not mine. Both are the result of unprotected sex. He considers both a punishment. The math was easy to do.
And actually that is logic, not math. If you use logic to balance your checkbook then must be an arduous process.
in math and logic, I’m sure you’re familiar with the “OR” operator, and the difference between it and the “IS” operator.
Yes, both are a punishment, one in all scenarios, the other in only some scenarios. And before you cry foul over my calling a baby a punishment, I’m not. I’m calling an early, or unwanted pregnancy a punishment. May it be a blessing in disguise? Certainly it could be, but unless you are willing to say that all women are better off pregnant as soon as they can bear a child, you must agree that it can be a punishment.
If I say “I can take my car or my bike to work”, I imply that both are methods of transportation, but I make no equality statement.
You would rake me over the goals for such bad logic, so with respect, (and I do have respect for you) you can take the medicine yourself as well.
The OR was between STD and baby, not punishment and baby. Therefore from the statement you could rewrite it:
“so they are not punished with a STD OR so they are not punished with a baby”
He clearly views babies as punishment. Not sure why you are fighting on that point. This is a guy that wouldn’t even vote for the born alive act. He has never voted for anti-abortion bills, nor against pro-abortion bills.
Ryan as far as respect, I am trying but you make it difficult.
P.S. My original comment was not trying to say he was saying a STD WAS a baby, or that a baby WAS a STD, only that they were equally punishments. That is where you made your error in logic.
You are getting closer. I admitted he said they are both punishments – I actually had a whole paragraph on that.
That they are equal punishments is not a claim anyone has made. There’s nothing equal about the two situations. I said that too – quite explicitly. I don’t think I’ve made an error in logic.
It’s quite bad enough that this “brilliant” man described a baby as a punishment.
My comment didn’t go where I thought it should go, but no matter. As I read further I see that Ryan believes a baby CAN sometimes be a punishment. More accurately is that the child will be burdened with an unresponsible parent, a punishment the child did nothing to deserve.
But to say that a child could be anything like a punishment says a lot more about one’s view of sexuality and personal responsibility. What it says is not good.
I’m so sick of explaining myself as thoroughly as I can only to have someone completely misquote me.
A baby is not a punishment, a baby is a wonderful little person. In some cases a pregnancy is not a good thing. In cases where a unplanned pregnancy occurs, the mother can be burdened. She may be 14 years old. She may be an astronaut about to go on a once in a lifetime mission. She may have terminal cancer. In all of these cases, a pregnancy is not a good thing for the mother, and in some cases, the baby. Since the timing is bad, and the pregnancy takes away something from the mother, this can be considered a punishment.
The child is not the punishment. The situation is. If you take the position that having a child is always something that improves one’s life, then it stands to reason that women should pretty much remain pregnant from age 15 to 50, and have 40 or so kids each.
I think the term “logical consequence” would be a far better term than “punishment.” The punishment language does more to dehumanize the unborn and makes it easier to rationalize their slaughter (sort of like saying they are human beings but not “persons,” so get out the knives).
Neil, I was just getting ready to add “logical consequence” myself.
And if the timing was bad, it was the timing of action resulting in the pregnancy. If it is a bad time to get pregnant and you know it (cancer would be the exception as it might not yet be diagnosed), just don’t have sex.
Pingback: iPandora » Government Successes
Pingback: Joe Isuzu and the health care plan « 4Simpsons Blog – Eternity Matters
Pingback: Obama & Pelosi lied, the unborn will die — funded by your tax dollars! « Eternity Matters
Pingback: More TRUTH Links « Heart Treasures