“You fail to recognize that the absence of a prohibition against abortion funding in the current legislation is the equivalent of funding it. You also fail to recognize that the Hyde Amendment does not apply to the substantial monies being budgeted for community health clinics that provide abortions.”
I just re-read the bill and it is pretty clear on at least two points:
- That the Federal exchange must have at least one policy that doesn’t cover abortion, and at least one which does.
This provides for choice within the exchange for people who want abortion coverage, and those who do not. If you want a Health Care Bill which is neutral on Abortion, this is what you want. If you want a Health Care bill which is really an Anti-Abortion bill, you will not be happy with this.
- That in no way shape or form should federal funds be used to subsidize the coverage of abortion services.
In part it says this:8 (2) PROHIBITION ON THE USE OF FEDERAL
9 FUNDS.–
10 (A) IN GENERAL.–If a qualified health
11 plan provides coverage of services described in
12 paragraph (1)(B)(i), the issuer of the plan shall
13 not use any amount attributable to any of the
14 following for purposes of paying for such serv15
ices:
16 (i) The credit under section 36B of
17 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (and
18 the amount (if any) of the advance pay19
ment of the credit under section 1412 of
20 the Patient Protection and Affordable Care
21 Act).
22 (ii) Any cost-sharing reduction under
23 section 1402 of thePatient Protection and
24 Affordable Care Act (and the amount (if
25 any) of the advance payment of the reduc122
O:\BAI\BAI09M01.xml [file 1 of 9] S.L.C.
1 tion under section 1412 of the Patient
2 Protection and Affordable Care Act).
There is no “absence of a prohibition against abortion funding.”
Mr Stupak wanted a bill which was not Abortion neutral, but Anti-Abortion. That is why it could not get through the House.