The Senate Finance Committee bill has provisions that prohibit government funds from being used to pay for abortions (sorry for the numbers, but I cut and pasted off the Senate website).

‘‘(b) PROHIBITION OF USE OF FEDERAL FUNDS.—
14 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—If a qualified health bene-
fits plan provides coverage of services described in
16 subsection (a)(2)(A), the offeror of the plan shall
17 not use any amount attributable to any of the fol18
lowing for purposes of paying for such services:
19 ‘‘(A) The credit under section 36B(b) of
20 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (and the
21 amount of the advance payment of the credit
22 under section 2248 of the Social Security Act).
23 ‘‘(B) Any cost-sharing subsidy under section 2247.
1 ‘‘(2) SEGREGATION OF FUNDS.—In the case of
2 a plan to which paragraph (1) applies, the offeror of
3 the plan shall, out of amounts not described in para4
graph (1), segregate an amount equal to the actu5
arial amounts determined under paragraph (3) for
6 all enrollees from the amounts described in para7
graph (1).

It also contains some similar language to ensure that any subsidies aren’t used to pay for plans that provide assisted suicide:

(a) PROTECTING AMERICANS AND ENSURING TAX10
PAYER FUNDS IN GOVERNMENT HEALTH CARE PLANS
DO NOT SUPPORT OR FUND PHYSICIAN-ASSISTED SUI12
CIDE.—The Federal Government, and any State or local
government or health care provider that receives Federal
financial assistance under this Act (or under an amend15
ment made by this Act) or any health plan created under
this Act (or under an amendment made by this Act), shall
not pay for or reimburse any health care entity to provide
for any health care item or service furnished for the pur19
pose of causing, or for the purpose of assisting in causing,
the death of any individual, such as by assisted suicide,
euthanasia, or mercy killing.

The issue that Bart seems to be pushing is to prohibit government funds from being paid for any reason to plans that allow abortion, even if the funds themselves are not used for that purpose.

Jimbo3 on October 28, 2009 at 11:20 AM

So, NoDonkey, if I don’t agree with the Baptist church, should I require that no Medicare funds be paid to Baptist hospitals, because a portion of those funds will likely be used for relgious purposes?

Jimbo3 on October 28, 2009 at 11:35 AM

still don’t see how an “elective” procedure is allowed in an insurance policy.

Can you imagine if made a claim on your auto policy to upgrade to satellite radio, not because your radio broke or was stolen. It is working just as it is expected to, but because you want something else.

Babies are the product of a disease or accident, they are a product of the body working just as anticipated (I really wanted to say intellegently designed.)

barnone on October 28, 2009 at 11:42 AM

–Almost all procedures covered by insurance are considered “elective” if medically required. You wouldn’t have to go to the doctor for a shot or drugs if you had the flu, so that would be considered elective.

Jimbo3 on October 28, 2009 at 11:45 AM

because a portion of those funds will likely be used for relgious purposes?

Jimbo3 on October 28, 2009 at 11:35 AM
What portion is that?

Itchee Dryback on October 28, 2009 at 11:42 AM

–Most hosptials have prayer rooms and pastors/priests/whatever on duty for critical situations.

Jimbo3 on October 28, 2009 at 11:46 AM

This is OT (and I do apologize for that, Ed and Allah), but it’s too good not to share:

“Texas has no shortage of amazing criminal justice stories. Here’s the latest to hit my radar screen: State law says it’s OK to show pornography to children — as long as they’re your children and the stuff is otherwise legal (no kiddie porn, in other words).
Now a Panhandle prosecutor wants the Texas attorney general’s office to check his reading of the penal code section on showing harmful material to minors. An AG’s spokesman said the matter is under review and declined further comment.

Randall County District Attorney James Farren’s request grew out of a divorced Dallas-area woman’s experience. Her three grade-school-aged daughters were living with their dad earlier this year when he allegedly got liquored up late one night and showed two of them porn on his computer. They later told a counselor, who alerted authorities. Amarillo police investigated, found the girls believable and sought advice from the DA’s office before proceeding.

Farren concluded that that his hands were tied. No search warrant ever got issued, so there’s been no independent look at evidence.

“We have to convince the Legislature to review this issue,” Farren told me.

State Sen. Bob Deuell, a Republican from Greenville, said he will push for change in the next legislative session.

“It’s not going to be an easy issue,” he warned. Why? There will be talk that the state is trying to dictate what parents can teach their children.

Such concerns influenced the writing of the law in 1973, said former state Sen. Tati Santiesteban. The El Paso Democrat, who still practices criminal defense law, said he chaired the subcommittee that did the writing.

“Our discussion was about the invasion of privacy into the home” and “being a parent and wanting to teach my child about sex,” he told me. “Who in the hell is the government to come and tell me what I can show to my children?”

Sexual material that parents show their children needs to have a legitimate educational purpose, said Deuell, who’s a family practice physician.”

Jimbo3 on October 28, 2009 at 3:26 PM