"Obamacare" does NOT pay for abortions, and it could LOWER the abortion rate

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jerry_Miah
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Jerry_Miah said:
And the Politifact article simply shows how this rule is being intentionally misconstrued to repeat the “$1 abortion” falsehood. The ACLJ bears false witness.
Click to expand...
PolitiFact article, which was written 2 years ago has nothing to do with the recently announced HHS mandate.
 
And here is what Richard Doerflinger of the USCCB has said about abortion funding in the Affordable Care Act:

“If people are surprised, that is because they believed false and misleading accounts of the Act two years ago, instead of the accurate descriptions by the bishops’ conference and other groups,” Doerflinger said.
He explained that the funding of abortion was among the bishops’ reasons for opposing the final law, despite their “longstanding support for health care reform.”

Source: cathnewsusa.com/2012/03/abortion-funding-still-required-under-health-care-law
 
Julian0404 said:
Whoa, there is a well recognized liberal tactic of denying all sources of facts except their own - which of course is pure as the driven snow and crystal as a mountain stream. Anyone can win if you tie the others persons hands behind their back. If you cannot address an oppossing fact, espcially from a well organized and practiced legal firm who MUST have the facts correct to win cases, except for denying its valid, then you have just painted yourself as an disingenuous liberal.
Click to expand...
Whoa, yourself. From FOX TV to the Washington Times, from Jonah Goldberg to Breitbart.com, the right wing is trying to make an “alternative reality” system where they can cite themselves, cite their own invented sources, to “prove” any false assertion they want. But that doesn’t fly in the real world. The ACLJ, as I believe they would admit, is a very partisan group. They are not a credible source or a credible human/civil rights organization, though they try to confuse people with their name, making themselves sound like ACLU. It was founded by TV preacher Pat Robertson! Need I say more?
 
Big_Ro said:
Sorry Jerry, but you have seriously misunderstood the purpose of this forum. Any “fact” which conforms to the teachings of the Holy Republican Catholic Church are to be taken a absolute fact. Especially when uttered by the Bishops and Cardinals at Fox News. To questioon or suggest that a more reasonable position exists is to commit grave sin. As a member of the Roman Catholic Church, I am probably considered an apostate by many members of this forum and Mods in particular. You see a truly pro-life position, according to the Holy Republican Church is one which politicians provide only lip-service to the issue without really espousing policies which may result in fewer or maybe render abortion un-neccesary. Furthermore, we are to ignore many relevant Church teachings (Roman Catholic Church that is) that specifically teach that all of the issues regarding respect for life are to be taken in to consideration as we function in the world. Instead, we are to ignore and trade in the totality or Compendium of (Roman) Catholic Social Teachings in favor rantings of Ayn Rand. My friend you are seriously in error. You have committed, as have I, the sin of disagreeing with the Holy Republican Church. And, in particular, to suggest the Health Care reform Act may actually work more affirmatively to reduce and possibly eliminate abortion in our society may border on heresy. Remember, only lip service will do.
Click to expand...
This was a disgusting post. Shame on you.

:mad:
 
Jerry_Miah said:
No it wasn’t, it was written March 12th, 2012. politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/mar/21/blog-posting/does-barack-obamas-health-care-bill-include-1-abor/
Click to expand...
I was referring to this PolitiFact article you posted:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=602702

PolitiFact:
The claim that the Obama administration has issued rules for “$1 abortions in ObamaCare” is ridiculous; the administration has simply set a floor for how much money per month of the premiums paid by those who have chosen plans that include abortion must be placed in a segregated account in order to make sure that there’s enough money available to pay for abortion services incurred by people enrolled in that plan.
Click to expand...
They are not disputing there is abortion funding in the health care bill. What PolitiFact does not say is the fact that there are two separate payments, one the abortion surcharge and other payment for other services allows the federal government to claim that no tax dollars is funding abortion, even if the premium ends up subsidized some way, they can claim it is funded through premiums, not taxes. It is a scam.

PolitiFact:
The bigger charge – that the Obama health care law “requires all persons enrolled in insurance plans that include elective abortion coverage to pay a separate premium from their own pockets to fund abortion” – is also incorrect.
Click to expand...
The provision in question only affects people who purchase insurance plans that cover abortion and who do so on the exchanges – a much narrower group than the claim suggests. And people who make such purchases will be paying their private dollars into abortion coverage accounts voluntarily. Despite some puzzling wording, ultimately the law allows for full disclosure of its abortion rules at the most obvious time, when someone is signing up for coverage. On balance, we rate this claim False.
Click to expand...
Congressman Chris Smith, Richard Doerflinger (USSCB Pro life associate director), ‘World over live’ on EWTN, National Right to Life etc. have all said similarly of the difficulty in how it would be recognized that a plan does not cover abortion. If plans do exist that do not have abortion surcharge we have no idea how many of those plans exist. People will not know about the abortion surcharge until time of enrollment because the rule contains a secrecy clause that means the abortion surcharge can not be promoted in the marketing.

PolitiFact:
Since 1976, the federal government has been guided by the Hyde Amendment, a law that prohibits the use of federal funds for abortions except in cases of rape, incest or when the mother’s life is in peril. Due to that amendment – which must be renewed every year – abortion services are not provided in health care plans offered to federal employees and for active and retired military.
Click to expand...
PolitiFact is either lying or the writer(s) behind the article have not enough research - the article claims the Hyde amendment restricts federal funding of abortion under ObamaCare. This is false. Obamacare does allow for federal funds to be used to cover abortion because the Hyde amendment only applies to funds set apart through the appropriations bill that funds the Department of Health and Human Services. No funds that would be expended by ObamaCare, and no funds that will subsidize the buying of private insurance plans will go through the HHS appropriations bills.

Hyde does not apply to ObamaCare because Obamacare is funded outside of Health and Human Services appropriations.

PolitiFact:
For starters, when the exchanges begin operating in 2014, some states will ban all abortion coverage entirely for any plan selling on that state’s exchange. Doing so is allowed by a state “opt-out” clause that was passed as part of the health care law. According to the National Right to Life Committee, 15 states have passed such laws so far, with other legislatures considering similar measures.
Click to expand...
Beyond that, every state must offer at least one plan on its exchange that doesn’t cover abortion, and that plan will include the same minimum benefit package for non-abortion services that is required of every other plan sold on the exchanges. In addition, no private insurer will be forced to cover abortion; doing so will be their choice, at least in states that choose to allow it.
Click to expand...
However, unless and until opt-out laws are passed by the other 35 states, insurers will be allowed to sell policies on the exchanges that include abortion coverage. To allow this yet still abide by the Hyde Amendment, sponsors of the bill drafted a special procedure to differentiate between dollars spent on abortion coverage and dollars spent for everything else. (Anti-abortion advocates have consistently argued that the approach doesn’t offer strong enough protections to prevent taxpayer funding of abortion. More on that later.)
Click to expand...
The PolitiFact ‘claim’ that the states that have opted out of abortion funding will be allowed to continue with their opt out is inaccurate, pages 364-365 of the final rule say that states that have passed laws opting out of abortion coverage could be forced to provide that coverage.

I did not trust PoltiFact much before this, and now I definitely do not trust PolitiFact for accuracy.
 
Jerry_Miah said:
Whoa, yourself. From FOX TV to the Washington Times, from Jonah Goldberg to Breitbart.com, the right wing is trying to make an “alternative reality” system where they can cite themselves, cite their own invented sources, to “prove” any false assertion they want. But that doesn’t fly in the real world. The ACLJ, as I believe they would admit, is a very partisan group. They are not a credible source or a credible human/civil rights organization, though they try to confuse people with their name, making themselves sound like ACLU. It was founded by TV preacher Pat Robertson! Need I say more?
Click to expand...
No, your statements speak for yourself. The fact that a legitimate legal institution was founded by a person of faith, immediately disqualifies it based upon your prejudices - yeah, i was right the first time, disingenuous liberal - forget the facts - I am the only source - listen to me or shut up.
 
Why’re we even having this conversation? Even if it didn’t touch abortion, it’d still mandate coverage of contraception, which is also a moral abomination. As the Church has been teaching for, like, a thousand years. (Well, at least for a century or so, but its teachings against contraception follow logically from its traditional teachings about sex).

For myself, I don’t care enough to pay attention to these technicalities. It is enough for me to know that a large group of ordained holy men have declared this thing to be a moral abomination, and that they are opposed mainly by enthusiasts for infanticide and sexual degeneracy. Is it a stretch to think consequentialists would lie in order to advance their agenda? I don’t think so. So to Hell with the latter group (perhaps literally); I’ll trust the bishops.
 
_Abyssinia said:
I was referring to this PolitiFact article you posted:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=602702

PolitiFact:

They are not disputing there is abortion funding in the health care bill. What PolitiFact does not say is the fact that there are two separate payments, one the abortion surcharge and other payment for other services allows the federal government to claim that no tax dollars is funding abortion, even if the premium ends up subsidized some way, they can claim it is funded through premiums, not taxes. It is a scam.

PolitiFact:

Congressman Chris Smith, Richard Doerflinger (USSCB Pro life associate director), ‘World over live’ on EWTN, National Right to Life etc. have all said similarly of the difficulty in how it would be recognized that a plan does not cover abortion. If plans do exist that do not have abortion surcharge we have no idea how many of those plans exist. People will not know about the abortion surcharge until time of enrollment because the rule contains a secrecy clause that means the abortion surcharge can not be promoted in the marketing.

PolitiFact:

PolitiFact is either lying or the writer(s) behind the article have not enough research - the article claims the Hyde amendment restricts federal funding of abortion under ObamaCare. This is false. Obamacare does allow for federal funds to be used to cover abortion because the Hyde amendment only applies to funds set apart through the appropriations bill that funds the Department of Health and Human Services. No funds that would be expended by ObamaCare, and no funds that will subsidize the buying of private insurance plans will go through the HHS appropriations bills.

Hyde does not apply to ObamaCare because Obamacare is funded outside of Health and Human Services appropriations.

PolitiFact:

The PolitiFact ‘claim’ that the states that have opted out of abortion funding will be allowed to continue with their opt out is inaccurate, pages 364-365 of the final rule say that states that have passed laws opting out of abortion coverage could be forced to provide that coverage.

I did not trust PoltiFact much before this, and now I definitely do not trust PolitiFact for accuracy.
Click to expand...
You got confused because there were two different issues, the one about the Affordable Care Act providing for abortions, and the separate one about the “$1 abortions” thing. There were separate links for both. I take it that you now accept the fact that the $1 abortion thing was a falsehood?
 
Julian0404 said:
No, your statements speak for yourself. The fact that a legitimate legal institution was founded by a person of faith, immediately disqualifies it based upon your prejudices - yeah, i was right the first time, disingenuous liberal - forget the facts - I am the only source - listen to me or shut up.
Click to expand...
No, not at all. Pat Robertson is not considered a scholar or even a reputable person. Do you want a list of the reasons why, his sad history of irresponsible, ridiculous and totally false statements?
 
sw85 said:
Why’re we even having this conversation? Even if it didn’t touch abortion, it’d still mandate coverage of contraception, which is also a moral abomination. As the Church has been teaching for, like, a thousand years. (Well, at least for a century or so, but its teachings against contraception follow logically from its traditional teachings about sex).

For myself, I don’t care enough to pay attention to these technicalities. It is enough for me to know that a large group of ordained holy men have declared this thing to be a moral abomination, and that they are opposed mainly by enthusiasts for infanticide and sexual degeneracy. Is it a stretch to think consequentialists would lie in order to advance their agenda? I don’t think so. So to Hell with the latter group (perhaps literally); I’ll trust the bishops.
Click to expand...
Actually, the Church has been teaching against contraception for the full 1978(+/-) years of its history.

Contraception is not a new beast, its just taken on different forms. Ancient Greco-Romans practiced contraception via withdrawal, animal skin “condoms”, herbal remedies, etc. All of these practices were addressed and condemned in the early Church.
 
Jerry_Miah said:
Well it’s not as bad as www.catholicforum.com, which banned me for less than I have already posted here. Do you know any progressive Catholic forums?
Click to expand...
I’ve searched for same, but they’re woefully lacking in adherence to Catholic teaching. They are just as guilty of forcing the Holy Roman Catholic Church to conform to many liberal views that are difficult to swallow. Extremeism is the problem.
 
People can cite and dispute what an authority says on a website until the cows come home. Let’s apply a little logic to the argument:

ObamaCare covers the HHS contraception mandate.
HHS mandate == more contraception
More contraception - moral guidance + relaxed societal views on sex == more sex.
A certain percentage of contraceptive measures fail.
More sex + more contraceptive failures = more unintended pregnancies.
More unintended pregnancies - moral guidance == more abortions

Why do you think that organizations like Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider, pushes “safe sex” and contraception? Their entire business model is based on failure percentages. If the percentage of failure is low, that means you need a large number of people to participate to make money. It’s like spam – a small percentage from a large base yields a lot of profit. So any law or mandate that doesn’t get Planned Parenthood enraged is one that probably won’t lower abortion rates in the slightest. And I don’t see PP getting too upset by ObamaCare.
 
youtube.com/watch?v=9d0jhhWgUio
starting at 12 minutes in and goes till 40 minutes in
Click to expand...
There is no need to guess. This is a clip of an interview with the actual lawyers involved in the case at the Supreme Court level. They break down exactly how this will affect you and how the government is circumventing the law.
 
PrayHarder said:
People can cite and dispute what an authority says on a website until the cows come home. Let’s apply a little logic to the argument:

ObamaCare covers the HHS contraception mandate.
HHS mandate == more contraception
More contraception - moral guidance + relaxed societal views on sex == more sex.
A certain percentage of contraceptive measures fail.
More sex + more contraceptive failures = more unintended pregnancies.
More unintended pregnancies - moral guidance == more abortions

Why do you think that organizations like Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider, pushes “safe sex” and contraception? Their entire business model is based on failure percentages. If the percentage of failure is low, that means you need a large number of people to participate to make money. It’s like spam – a small percentage from a large base yields a lot of profit. So any law or mandate that doesn’t get Planned Parenthood enraged is one that probably won’t lower abortion rates in the slightest. And I don’t see PP getting too upset by ObamaCare.
Click to expand...
Bent logic at best. Epic fail.
 
Big_Ro said:
Bent logic at best. Epic fail.
Click to expand...
Actually claiming its ok to support contraceptive funding in the interest to have less abortions is fail whether its true or not.
1759 “An evil action cannot be justified by reference to a good intention” (cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Dec. praec. 6). The end does not justify the means.
Click to expand...
Contracepting is intrinsically evil. Thus no end, no matter how good, can be used to justify it, period. I’m sorry if Church teaching is too “extreme” for you.
 
Nate13 said:
Actually claiming its ok to support contraceptive funding in the interest to have less abortions is fail whether its true or not.

Contracepting is intrinsically evil. Thus no end, no matter how good, can be used to justify it, period. I’m sorry if Church teaching is too “extreme” for you.
Click to expand...
Masturbation is also an intrinsic evil according to you paradigm. Why not a law against that? Extremeism galore. God Bless.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top