Republican going after private insurance coverage for abortions

[Thurnez Isa]

It's a long blog, so I'll just link it not quote it.

http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/sarahposner/4567/the_republicans%27_dangerous_quest_to_end_nonexistent_taxpayer-funded_abortion/

[The Good Reverend Roger]

It's a long blog, so I'll just link it not quote it.

http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/sarahposner/4567/the_republicans%27_dangerous_quest_to_end_nonexistent_taxpayer-funded_abortion/

Well, there's just another case of the nanny state getting in the way of the free market, right?

[Thurnez Isa]

It would bar women from using federal tax credits to purchase private insurance, through the federal exchange, if their selected insurance plan covers abortion -- even if they are using their own money, as required by the Affordable Care Act, to pay for the abortion coverage. Experts believe this could cause insurance companies, for economic reasons, to drop abortion coverage altogether, leaving women without a way for paying for an abortion, even in situations in which a continued pregnancy poses severe health risk. In addition, the Smith bill would prohibit women from using flexible savings or medical savings accounts -- which are funded by their own money, not taxpayer money -- to pay for an abortion, and would impose tax penalties on small business which provide health insurance to their employees, if the insurance includes abortion coverage. In other words, not only does the bill restrict access to abortion, and may ultimately cause insurance companies to drop abortion coverage altogether, it would result in higher taxes for women and their families, as well as small business who provide health coverage to their employees.

The bill has 227 co-sponsors, mostly Republicans, and is supported by the Family Research Council, American Family Association, National Right to Life Committee, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Concerned Women for America, Priests for Life, the Susan B. Anthony List, and the Latino Partnership for Conservative Principles, an affiliate of the American Principles Project, which was launched by Manhattan Declaration author and Princeton professor Robert George. It's a bill driven by a particular religious view, one that is undergirded by an ideology not just about the fetus (that abortion is murder) but about women and their divine role as wives, mothers, and members of society.

This actually pretty scary.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

In addition, the Smith bill would prohibit women from using flexible savings or medical savings accounts -- which are funded by their own money, not taxpayer money -- to pay for an abortion, and would impose tax penalties on small business which provide health insurance to their employees, if the insurance includes abortion coverage.

Woooooooow!

[Adios]

In the old days, this would not stand in the face of a constitutional challenge. Since we have done away with that useless rag it might get by now.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

In the old days, this would not stand in the face of a constitutional challenge. Since we have done away with that useless rag it might get by now.

Well, let's see it get past the insurance lobby.

After all, a few hundred bucks for an abortion, vs all the bills that come with a pregnancy?

[Adios]

In the old days, this would not stand in the face of a constitutional challenge. Since we have done away with that useless rag it might get by now.

Well, let's see it get past the insurance lobby.

After all, a few hundred bucks for an abortion, vs all the bills that come with a pregnancy?

Good point. At any rate this bill will never clear the Senate of the presidential veto.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

In the old days, this would not stand in the face of a constitutional challenge. Since we have done away with that useless rag it might get by now.

Well, let's see it get past the insurance lobby.

After all, a few hundred bucks for an abortion, vs all the bills that come with a pregnancy?

Good point. At any rate this bill will never clear the Senate of the presidential veto.

Meh, it's pandering.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/118399/More-Americans-Pro-Life-Than-Pro-Choice-First-Time.aspx

What's really interesting is that now 49% of women want abortion banned, vs 47% that want it legal, but that 75% of women who have abortions consider themselves to be "religiously affiliated"/conservative.

Sounds like a Georgia preacher expounding on the evils of alcohol, between bouts of retching on the pulpit.

[Luna]

Precisely, Roger.

http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org/articles/anti-tales.shtml

"I've had several cases over the years in which the anti-abortion patient had rationalized in one way or another that her case was the only exception, but the one that really made an impression was the college senior who was the president of her campus Right-to-Life organization, meaning that she had worked very hard in that organization for several years. As I was completing her procedure, I asked what she planned to do about her high office in the RTL organization. Her response was a wide-eyed, 'You're not going to tell them, are you!?' When assured that I was not, she breathed a sigh of relief, explaining how important that position was to her and how she wouldn't want this to interfere with it."

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Precisely, Roger.

http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org/articles/anti-tales.shtml

"I've had several cases over the years in which the anti-abortion patient had rationalized in one way or another that her case was the only exception, but the one that really made an impression was the college senior who was the president of her campus Right-to-Life organization, meaning that she had worked very hard in that organization for several years. As I was completing her procedure, I asked what she planned to do about her high office in the RTL organization. Her response was a wide-eyed, 'You're not going to tell them, are you!?' When assured that I was not, she breathed a sigh of relief, explaining how important that position was to her and how she wouldn't want this to interfere with it."

Yep.  Humans are a pack of hypocritical scum.  That's why I refuse to hang out with them, or let them use my bathroom, no matter how urgent their plight.

[Luna]

Isn't this the same bill that's going to have the IRS audit abortions?

[Thurnez Isa]

If most of what is in this article is true I'm really impressed with this maneuver.

http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/04/redefine-rape-hr-3-abortion-stealth?page=1

In February, Republicans drew widespread condemnation for their "forcible rape" proposal, which legal experts said would have excluded statutory rape victims and others from obtaining abortions through Medicaid. Amidst public outcry and a protest campaign by left-leaning groups, Republicans abandoned the language, which had been included in the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act," a bill the GOP leadership numbered H.R. 3 to signify its high priority to the party. But while they've amended their legislation, which faces a floor vote in the House on Wednesday, Republicans haven't stopped trying to narrow the already small exception under which federal funding for abortions is permissible. They've used a sly legislative maneuver to make sure that even though the language of the bill is different, the effect remains the same....
..In this case, the committee report for H.R. 3 says that the bill will "not allow the Federal Government to subsidize abortions in cases of statutory rape." The bill itself doesn't say anything like that, but if a court decides that legislators intended to exclude statutory rape-related abortions from eligibility for Medicaid funding, then that will be the effect...
...Republicans argue that they're not changing anything. They say that an existing law, the Hyde Amendment, already prevents Medicaid from paying for abortions in cases of statutory rape. They even claim as much in the committee report. But that's just not true, according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), which works with state agencies to administer Medicaid...
...Both Richard Doerflinger of the US Council of Catholic Bishops and the NRLC's Johnson, arguably the two most influential anti-abortion lobbyists on Capitol Hill, have offered the same explanation for why the "forcible rape" language was originally introduced: Johnson said it was intended to fend off a "brazen effort," by abortion rights groups to exploit the rape exception in Hyde...
Here's the bottom line: all of the most important anti-abortion groups and lawmakers oppose the exceptions that allow for federal funding of abortions in cases of rape and incest. They believe that abortion is an absolute moral wrong. Supporters of H.R. 3 argue that the "forcible rape" language made no practical difference at all, and was just meant as a clarification to fend off a secret effort by Planned Parenthood and others to get the government to pay for tens of thousands of abortions for teenagers. But there's another possibility: abortion foes have been fighting the rape and incest exceptions for years, and this was just another attempt to narrow them. In the case of H.R. 3, they first tried a frontal assault. That failed. This is their sneak attack

[Succulent Plant]

Precisely, Roger.

http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org/articles/anti-tales.shtml

"I've had several cases over the years in which the anti-abortion patient had rationalized in one way or another that her case was the only exception, but the one that really made an impression was the college senior who was the president of her campus Right-to-Life organization, meaning that she had worked very hard in that organization for several years. As I was completing her procedure, I asked what she planned to do about her high office in the RTL organization. Her response was a wide-eyed, 'You're not going to tell them, are you!?' When assured that I was not, she breathed a sigh of relief, explaining how important that position was to her and how she wouldn't want this to interfere with it."

I've encountered this kind of shit among people in the area I live in.  A 40 year old Pentecostal woman who was in charge of her church's letter campaign addressed to Bill Clinton and Al Gore during the Clinton presidency.  She and her 'committee' sent hundreds of anti-abortion letters to them with subjects that generally ran along the lines of "Why are you saving the whales and killing the babies?".  Then she divorces her husband, experiences casual sexual relationships for the first time, doesn't have sense enough to take birth control precautions, gets pregnant and decides that her situation is some exception to her beliefs - and continues her anti-abortion activities.

[Suu]

Make abortion illegal.

Forcibly knock up all those women who were pro-life.

Watch the lulz ensue.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Precisely, Roger.

http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org/articles/anti-tales.shtml

"I've had several cases over the years in which the anti-abortion patient had rationalized in one way or another that her case was the only exception, but the one that really made an impression was the college senior who was the president of her campus Right-to-Life organization, meaning that she had worked very hard in that organization for several years. As I was completing her procedure, I asked what she planned to do about her high office in the RTL organization. Her response was a wide-eyed, 'You're not going to tell them, are you!?' When assured that I was not, she breathed a sigh of relief, explaining how important that position was to her and how she wouldn't want this to interfere with it."

I've encountered this kind of shit among people in the area I live in.  A 40 year old Pentecostal woman who was in charge of her church's letter campaign addressed to Bill Clinton and Al Gore during the Clinton presidency.  She and her 'committee' sent hundreds of anti-abortion letters to them with subjects that generally ran along the lines of "Why are you saving the whales and killing the babies?".  Then she divorces her husband, experiences casual sexual relationships for the first time, doesn't have sense enough to take birth control precautions, gets pregnant and decides that her situation is some exception to her beliefs - and continues her anti-abortion activities.

Lets see what else is going on in there... the Christian Bible condemns: divorce, fornication, and erm, well, hypocrisy. 4 sins in a go. Nice. But at least she didn't offend her god by using that devil birth control stuff.