White House Knew Obamacare Abortion Funding "Ban" a Sham

[LisaA]

You haven’t shown any correlation between taking a “TRUE pro-life position” and voting against “Obamacare”. Did it ever occur to you that one can be pro-life and at the same time favor such insurance reforms as are enacted in “Obamacare”? That there isn’t necessarily a moral exclusivity between the two? I say necessarily because the only way that voting for the health insurance reform would be morally objectionable would be if it allowed public funding for abortion – something which did not happen with this law, thanks to Stupak forcing Obama to include the executive order.

Your response is a perfect illustration of what I’ve been saying about the tragedy of pro lifers being co-opted by one of the major political parties. Democrat Bart Stupak was a pro-life member of Congress. He also happened to favor passage of insurance reform. In partisan terms, that combination is unacceptable. In partisan terms, he became a traitor, he “caved” out of some venal ulterior motive that of course remains unclear.

gnjsdad, you apparently don’t know what was in or not in Obamacare that was of concern to us pro life people. Nothing in Obamacare as then proposed prevented tax dollars from being used to provide abortions. The pro-life contingent thus requested a specific provisions PROHIBITING abortion being funded with tax dollars either directly or through the back door which was obviously what was intended. What Stupak did was accept a worthless executive order in lieu of a specific prohibition.

The ‘ulterior motive’ was pressure that he couldn’t withstand. He was weak. Some of the Dems were bought off with goodies and some were arm twisted into voting for this law. They were led like sheep to slaughter. The executive order was a mere smokescreen that Stupak could hide behind because he couldn’t oppose his fellow Dems even in such a critical issue. I do not doubt that he is a sincere man and that this pained him but he sold out, simple as that.

Lisa A

 

[gnjsdad]

What Stupak did was accept a worthless executive order in lieu of a specific prohibition.

Executive orders are hardly “worthless”. They are not easy to overturn. It’s highly unlikely Obama will overturn his own order and no Republican successor would do so in this case.

 

[LisaA]

Executive orders are hardly “worthless”. They are not easy to overturn. It’s highly unlikely Obama will overturn his own order and no Republican successor would do so in this case.

It doesn’t need to be overturned to be circumvented. And that has already happened. Abortion Queen Kathleen Sebelius has already established funding of a “high risk pool” that covers abortion services in Pennsylvania. Oh they can say that the funds aren’t going directly TO abortion but as we know money is fungible and what isn’t spent on one area is available in another.

This doesn’t even consider the “free contraception for all” order that will then provide drugs that can cause abortion in the early stage of pregnancy. They are so determined to keep this hideous practice available. OTOH I think we are winning “hearts and minds” More abortion clinics are closing and not being replaced. Apparently the LAST such clinic in Santa Fe is closing right before Christmas. Perfect timing!

Lisa A

 

[Suudy]

Oh they can say that the funds aren’t going directly TO abortion but as we know money is fungible and what isn’t spent on one area is available in another.

I had this very same discussion back during the PP defunding debate, and others said they “don’t believe this to be true.” They apparently think the dollars given to them by the government have a different color and use than the dollars they get elsewhere.

 

[gnjsdad]

Oh they can say that the funds aren’t going directly TO abortion but as we know money is fungible and what isn’t spent on one area is available in another.

Then the question becomes whether this practice was in place under Federal law prior to the enactment of “Obamacare”. Was the Hyde Amendment air tight in not allowing Federal funds to go to abortion?

This article suggests the answer is no.

LisaA:

OTOH I think we are winning “hearts and minds” More abortion clinics are closing and not being replaced. Apparently the LAST such clinic in Santa Fe is closing right before Christmas. Perfect timing!

Lisa A

That is good news indeed.

 

[LisaA]

I had this very same discussion back during the PP defunding debate, and others said they “don’t believe this to be true.” They apparently think the dollars given to them by the government have a different color and use than the dollars they get elsewhere.

This is easily demonstrated by PP shrieking with hysteria if the abortion funding is threatened. When they claim that the majority of their services (funded by government) are breast cancer screenings, pap tests and other well woman care, when asked to then carve out abortion services into a completely separate organization so government funds cannot find their way in the door, they refuse. Similarly various insurance organizations and pools also refuse to remove abortion from covered services. This is exactly how Obamacare is and will in the future be able to fund abortion through the back door. Thus the executive order is worth little if anything. I guess they think we’re all stupid and can’t figure this out.

Lisa A

 

[LisaA]

Then the question becomes whether this practice was in place under Federal law prior to the enactment of “Obamacare”. Was the Hyde Amendment air tight in not allowing Federal funds to go to abortion?

This article suggests the answer is no.

On that we completely agree. As long as the federal government funds programs (Medicaid) or organizations (Planned Parenthood) that OFFER abortion as a covered service, money will indirectly flow to support abortion, if nothing else by freeing up funds that would have covered non-abortion services. It’s a shell game.

OTOH I believe the Hyde Amendment and other restrictions at least serve to reduce funding for abortions. So throwing up our hands and saying we give up is not an option either. We need to keep fighting, bringing sunlight to this horror and how our tax dollars are diverted to cover abortion services. The trend is in our favor and the public is becoming less and less supportive of abortion. I believe someday we will look at this the same way we look at slavery…

Lisa A

 

[Suudy]

Then the question becomes whether this practice was in place under Federal law prior to the enactment of “Obamacare”. Was the Hyde Amendment air tight in not allowing Federal funds to go to abortion?

This article suggests the answer is no.

I’m not sure what your point is. We all knew it hasn’t been airtight. Congress knew it wasn’t airtight. Which is why the entire discussion of “fungible” came up, and efforts to remove PP funding (ostensibly in the form of funding “women’s health”) from the omnibus bill. But as the article points out, Obamacare isn’t subject to the Hyde amendment, and thus can provide direct funding of abortion services. As the article points out:As expected, intense debate is often a major part of its reauthorization process. Obamacare, which does not include the Hyde Amendment, has helped reignite the issue, because as TheHill.com reports, “[What] we find in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” (PPACA) muscled into law by President Obama, Speaker Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Reid is an array of abortion-expanding provisions, concealed behind a hodge-podge of artful exercises in misdirection, bookkeeping gimmicks, loopholes, and provisions that are rigged to expire.” (The seat-losing – o.k. he retired before he could be voted out – symbolic, Stupak-extracted executive order has no weight. Federal law trumps an executive order).
So yeah, the executive order is worthless. All his executive order can do is instruct the executive branch (responsible for enforcing and implementing laws) from making efforts to fund abortion. If some federal agency decided to fund abortion directly (through provisions in Obamacare), they’d have the support of the law.

And Obamacare goes one step further. As pointed out in the article, the Hyde amendment only affects HHS expenditures appropriated in the bill to which it is attached (as well as a few other agencies). Obamacare directly appropriates monies for the CHC, which is a separate appropriation from HHS (and the earlier funding that prohibits expenditures on Obamacare).

 

[Swiss_Guy]

Everyone: Just vote Republican, and we won’t have this problem. Bcuz politicians have fall back on their party platform if they are in a jam, or else odds are there party won’t like them. Although too bad there aren’t more Zell Millers around…

 

[JimG]

Here is what the USCCB said about the use of the executive order instead of the Stupak Amendment which had been promised:

“PPACA Violates Both Principles of the Hyde Amendment, and the
Accompanying Executive Order Does Not Correct Those Problems”

usccb.org/_cs_upload/7977_1.pdf

 

[Swiss_Guy]

If no one had voted for Obama or all of the anti-life Democrats in Congress, we wouldn’t even be talking about this. But since this happened, I agree that if it wasn’t for Stupak, we could possibly have public funding for abortion.

I’m retracting my statement. I got my info from wikipedia, so, you can see where I was coming from.

 

[gnjsdad]

I’m not sure what your point is. We all knew it hasn’t been airtight. Congress knew it wasn’t airtight. Which is why the entire discussion of “fungible” came up, and efforts to remove PP funding (ostensibly in the form of funding “women’s health”) from the omnibus bill. But as the article points out, Obamacare isn’t subject to the Hyde amendment, and thus can provide direct funding of abortion services. As the article points out:
As expected, intense debate is often a major part of its reauthorization process. Obamacare, which does not include the Hyde Amendment, has helped reignite the issue, because as TheHill.com reports, “[What] we find in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” (PPACA) muscled into law by President Obama, Speaker Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Reid is an array of abortion-expanding provisions, concealed behind a hodge-podge of artful exercises in misdirection, bookkeeping gimmicks, loopholes, and provisions that are rigged to expire.” (The seat-losing – o.k. he retired before he could be voted out – symbolic, Stupak-extracted executive order has no weight. Federal law trumps an executive order).
So yeah, the executive order is worthless. All his executive order can do is instruct the executive branch (responsible for enforcing and implementing laws) from making efforts to fund abortion. If some federal agency decided to fund abortion directly (through provisions in Obamacare), they’d have the support of the law.

And Obamacare goes one step further. As pointed out in the article, the Hyde amendment only affects HHS expenditures appropriated in the bill to which it is attached (as well as a few other agencies). Obamacare directly appropriates monies for the CHC, which is a separate appropriation from HHS (and the earlier funding that prohibits expenditures on Obamacare).

It’s obvious you are more well-versed in the details here than I am.

What it boils down to is that there were ways to circumvent the Hyde Amendment (which I did not know before) and there are ways to circumvent Obama’s executive order. Whether the EO will result in an increased number of abortions than would othewise have taken place prior to “Obamacare” remains to be seen. I’m willing to allow for that possibility, and given the unabated desire in American culture for resort to abortion, I wouldn’t be surprised if it ultimately turned out to be true. Let’s pray not.

As to my point, let’s also not throw under the bus those who fought to the best of their ability to keep whatever protections were available through the Hyde Amendment in the new law. I’m speaking of course of Bart Stupak and the other pro life Democrats. Now we know Stupak has been vilified here, IMO, completely unjustifiably. He was a Democrat. He favored the health insurance reform. He was also pro life. That combination of views is perfectly compatible with faithfulness to the Church. IMO, the level of vituperation to which he was subjected by fellow pro lifers far outweighed any potential damages done with the new law from a pro life perspective.

In fact, it seems Stupak’s big crime was that he failed to become a Republican so that the new law could not come into efffect. We know the Republicans are hopping mad at the enactment of the new law for reasons which have nothing to do with abortion, so I don’t buy that abortion was the main reason for the derision he is getting. Too many pro life Catholics, are, in my opinion, thinking like Republican partisans rather than Catholics and that isn’t a good thing.

Stupak tried to the best of his ability to insure that every existing legal protection for the unborn was incorporated into the new legislation, which was inevitably going to pass BTW. Did he fail? Perhaps. Perhaps not. The very least he deserves from Catholics who believe strongly in charity is the benefit of the doubt. It is disgraceful that a former pro life legislator is being so viciously attacked by other pro lifers. Lord knows he’s gotten enough scorn from the pro choicers, as the OP makes plain. If this is the way we treat our own, no wonder they are laughing at us.

 

[LisaA]

As to my point, let’s also not throw under the bus those who fought to the best of their ability to keep whatever protections were available through the Hyde Amendment in the new law. I’m speaking of course of Bart Stupak and the other pro life Democrats. Now we know Stupak has been vilified here, IMO, completely unjustifiably. He was a Democrat. He favored the health insurance reform. He was also pro life. That combination of views is perfectly compatible with faithfulness to the Church. IMO, the level of vituperation to which he was subjected by fellow pro lifers far outweighed any potential damages done with the new law from a pro life perspective.

In fact, it seems Stupak’s big crime was that he failed to become a Republican so that the new law could not come into efffect. We know the Republicans are hopping mad at the enactment of the new law for reasons which have nothing to do with abortion, so I don’t buy that abortion was the main reason for the derision he is getting. Too many pro life Catholics, are, in my opinion, thinking like Republican partisans rather than Catholics and that isn’t a good thing.

Stupak tried to the best of his ability to insure that every existing legal protection for the unborn was incorporated into the new legislation, which was inevitably going to pass BTW. Did he fail? Perhaps. Perhaps not. The very least he deserves from Catholics who believe strongly in charity is the benefit of the doubt. It is disgraceful that a former pro life legislator is being so viciously attacked by other pro lifers. Lord knows he’s gotten enough scorn from the pro choicers, as the OP makes plain. If this is the way we treat our own, no wonder they are laughing at us.

I appreciate your call for charity and while Stupak does not deserve hateful personal attacks, I think you need to understand that he originally proposed a very specific provision to be included in Obamacare that would have limited government funding of abortions that were clearly intended by abortion proponents to be included therein. Stupak originally held out (along with his group of supposedly pro life Democrats) for this specific provision and threatened to vote no if it were not included. With some arm twisting, Stupak backed off of his original demand and settled for what is clearly an ineffective Executive Order.

Whatever his motivations, the reality is that he is not a stupid or uneducated man. He knew that the Executive Order would not have the same power to prevent government funding of abortion. He capitulated and as a result we have Obamacare with all its numerous problems, its abortion funding, its demands to provide “free” birth control including drugs that cause abortion (not even getting into the disaster this is overall).

Stupak could have held out for the original demand and would have been a hero. Maybe the law would not have passed. Maybe it would have been changed and improved after the original failure. What we got due to Stupak’s capitulation is the worst of all worlds. I suspect he greatly regrets his action. I do too.

Lisa A

 

[ishii]

In fact, it seems Stupak’s big crime was that he failed to become a Republican so that the new law could not come into efffect. We know the Republicans are hopping mad at the enactment of the new law for reasons which have nothing to do with abortion, so I don’t buy that abortion was the main reason for the derision he is getting. Too many pro life Catholics, are, in my opinion, thinking like Republican partisans rather than Catholics and that isn’t a good thing.
.

Just a possiblity, but perhaps the anger at Stupak’s capitulation has less to do with Catholics thinking like partisan Republicans and more to do with anger and frustration with having the most pro-abortion president in Obama and no real opposition to him in his own party.

Ishii

 

[estesbob]

It’s obvious you are more well-versed in the details here than I am.

What it boils down to is that there were ways to circumvent the Hyde Amendment (which I did not know before) and there are ways to circumvent Obama’s executive order. Whether the EO will result in an increased number of abortions than would othewise have taken place prior to “Obamacare” remains to be seen. I’m willing to allow for that possibility, and given the unabated desire in American culture for resort to abortion, I wouldn’t be surprised if it ultimately turned out to be true. Let’s pray not.

As to my point, let’s also not throw under the bus those who fought to the best of their ability to keep whatever protections were available through the Hyde Amendment in the new law. I’m speaking of course of Bart Stupak and the other pro life Democrats. Now we know Stupak has been vilified here, IMO, completely unjustifiably. He was a Democrat. He favored the health insurance reform. He was also pro life. That combination of views is perfectly compatible with faithfulness to the Church. IMO, the level of vituperation to which he was subjected by fellow pro lifers far outweighed any potential damages done with the new law from a pro life perspective.

In fact, it seems Stupak’s big crime was that he failed to become a Republican so that the new law could not come into efffect. We know the Republicans are hopping mad at the enactment of the new law for reasons which have nothing to do with abortion, so I don’t buy that abortion was the main reason for the derision he is getting. Too many pro life Catholics, are, in my opinion, thinking like Republican partisans rather than Catholics and that isn’t a good thing.

Stupak tried to the best of his ability to insure that every existing legal protection for the unborn was incorporated into the new legislation, which was inevitably going to pass BTW. Did he fail? Perhaps. Perhaps not. The very least he deserves from Catholics who believe strongly in charity is the benefit of the doubt. It is disgraceful that a former pro life legislator is being so viciously attacked by other pro lifers. Lord knows he’s gotten enough scorn from the pro choicers, as the OP makes plain. If this is the way we treat our own, no wonder they are laughing at us.

The best of his ability would have to vote against ObamaCare, as every single pro-life Republican did Nobody threw him under the bus. He betrayed his constituency and paid the price for it There is no courage involved in putting Party before Faith

 

[Ridgerunner]

Here is what the USCCB said about the use of the executive order instead of the Stupak Amendment which had been promised:

“PPACA Violates Both Principles of the Hyde Amendment, and the
Accompanying Executive Order Does Not Correct Those Problems”

usccb.org/_cs_upload/7977_1.pdf

Nor did the Stupak Amendment, in reality.

 

[gnjsdad]

Just a possiblity, but perhaps the anger at Stupak’s capitulation

About Stupak’s so-called capitulation…

The only way the actions Stupak and his pro life Democrat allies took could be regarded as a capitulation is that they failed to prevent the Affordable Care Act from being enacted. They “capitulated” in the sense that they allowed Obama to defeat a Republican POLITICAL goal. That is not a moral capitulation (the only type of capitulation deserving of criticism) at all.

As you’ll recall, the margin of the vote to pass the new law was razor thin. Both sides, particularly Obama and the Democrats, were scrambling for every vote. Stupak made it plain that he would NOT vote yes unless provisons were made to keep, as far as possible, public funding of abortion out of it. The House Democratic version of the bill had satisfactory provisions but the Senate version did not. It became clear that the Senate version would be the one to pass. Stupak and his confederates would not have voted for the Senate version of the bill as it then stood. Don’t underestimate how desperate Obama was to get his health care reform law enacted. Obama was forced by the pro life Democrats to include the executive order. So, it is Obama, not Stupak, who blinked.

If you want to accuse a Democrat of capitulation because he didn’t act like a Republican and defeat a bill he wanted enacted into law, well, I suppose you can, but the Affordable Care Act as it stands now, thanks to Stupak & co. is morally acceptable

Ishii:

has less to do with Catholics thinking like partisan Republicans and more to do with anger and frustration with having the most pro-abortion president in Obama and no real opposition to him in his own party.

Ishii

First, at that time, there were enough to stall Obama in his tracks until adequate provision against public funding of abortion was made.

Second, many of the pro life Democrats went down to defeat at the hands of the Republicans in the next election. I saw the press releases of the pro life groups allied with the Republicans against the pro life Democratic incumbents, and the spectacle of pro lifers working against each other was disheartening. It was a serious setback to the pro life cause.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

I have hope that there is one somewhere…

I also have hope that the Republican party will be able to do something about abortions this next election.

The pro-life movement goes on regardless…and we are making great strides in many arenas. The Personhood amendments have been put before voters in at least 2 states, both failed but no one is giving up. Here in Texas, the legislature almost passed a bill REQUIRING an ultrasound be given before an abortion and the woman would have to look at her baby. That form did not pass, but a bill requiring that the woman be given the option for an ultrasound did pass. It was stayed by the courts but every bill that we can put through is one more attack on abortion.

The main triumph from Texas this year was a de-funding of Planned Parenthood, resulting in 13 clinics being closed SO FAR.

There are other efforts being launched every day, one of which is bubbling through the black community - “Maafa 21,” which documents the racist founding and mission of Planned Parenthood.

If we waited for politicians to do something, we’d be waiting a long time.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

Explain to me why having a republican president reduced the abortion rate. I would venture to say that the birth control pill had more to do with the decline in abortions than either political party.

Wrong. Under a Republican administration, there is funding for abstinence education, crisis pregnancy centers, etc. Less premarital sex = fewer abortions. More contraception = more abortion. I know it might be hard for your brain to deal with it, but that really is how the stats play out.

 

[ishii]

About Stupak’s so-called capitulation…

If you want to accuse a Democrat of capitulation because he didn’t act like a Republican and defeat a bill he wanted enacted into law, well, I suppose you can, but the Affordable Care Act as it stands now, thanks to Stupak & co. is morally acceptable

But I think the point many have been making is that the Obamacare is not morally acceptable, that the Executive order will not prevent public funding of abortion when push comes to shove. You obviouisly are fine with the promise from Obama, that the Affordable Care Act will not allow public funding of abortion. But how hard is it for congress to change that? Now, with the new healthcare law, outright public funding of abortion is just a few votes away in the future from becoming a reality. Also, if Obama is truly sincere about not allowing public funding for abortion, then why did he threaten to veto the HR 358 which would ensure no federal funding of abortion in Obamacare?

Second, many of the pro life Democrats went down to defeat at the hands of the Republicans in the next election. I saw the press releases of the pro life groups allied with the Republicans against the pro life Democratic incumbents, and the spectacle of pro lifers working against each other was disheartening. It was a serious setback to the pro life cause.

My guess is that the pro-life movement has given up on “pro-life” Democrats. How serious could you take a party that does not allow a pro-life speaker at their national convention?

Ishii