The Ellsworth dodge fails to fool pro-life ObamaCare critics

posted at 12:15 pm on November 6, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

Rep. Brad Ellsworth (D-IN) will get a vote on his amendment that ostensibly blocks federal funds from directly funding abortion services, while Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) has been denied a vote on his.  Ellsworth has gotten token opposition from Planned Parenthood over his amendment, which would supposedly force people to pay for abortion coverage with their own funds — but still allows the sale of abortion coverage through government-run exchanges, which apply subsidies for overall coverage.  Stupak and pro-life forces see the Ellsworth amendment as a dodge that offers no barrier to federally-funded abortions at all:

Eighth District U.S. Rep. Brad Ellsworth, D-Ind., might have expected that his amendment to the health care reform bill, which he says will ensure no federal funds are used to provide elective abortions, would be opposed by Planned Parenthood.

The abortion rights group weighed in with a statement of opposition on Tuesday.

But the Ellsworth amendment, which House leaders have said they may incorporate into the bill, also has sparked a furious backlash among national, state and local anti-abortion groups who typically support Ellsworth.

Pitted against the Ellsworth amendment are the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the National Right to Life Committee, Indiana Right to Life and Vanderburgh County Right to Life.

Why has Ellsworth generated so much opposition?  His amendment doesn’t address the core problem of the bill.  The language contained in Section 221, on page 110 of the 1990-page behemoth, which states:

Nothing in this Act shall be construed as preventing the public health insurance option from providing for or prohibiting coverage of services described in paragraph (4)(A).

Paragraph (4)(A) reads:

(A) ABORTIONS FOR WHICH PUBLIC FUNDING IS PROHIBITED.—The services described in this subparagraph are abortions for which the expenditure of Federal funds appropriated for the Department of Health and Human Services is not permitted, based on the law as in effect as of the date that is 6 months before the beginning of the plan year involved.

In other words, it’s a placemarker for the Hyde Amendment.  If the Hyde Amendment gets repealed, then the public option will fund abortions.  Even without it, the exchanges can offer abortion coverage as long as it doesn’t involve the direct payment of services by the federal government.  The exchanges would subsidize the abortion coverage by either forcing private insurers to offer it as part of their comprehensive plans or in riders, either of which would be subsidized for families at 400% of the poverty line or below — with federal dollars.

Stupak’s amendment strikes this language and clearly forbids the use of federal monies to support abortion or abortion coverage.  Ellsworth’s plays a shell game, a 3-card Monty that hides the subsidies through misdirection.  Pelosi allowed Ellsworth a vote because Ellsworth’s amendment doesn’t impact the bill’s ability to fund abortion coverage — but gives Pelosi enough political cover to strip away a few nominally pro-life Democrats to vote for her bill.

This may explain why the Democrats can’t get to 218.  This, combined with the unemployment numbers and the utter failure of Porkulus, undoubtedly has moderate Democrats very skittish about voting for another massive and costly government program.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Mom just dumped AARP for AmericanSeniors.org

Reality Check on November 6, 2009 at 12:27 PM

Shell games and card tricks by our “representatives.”

throw over the card table and start openin’ cans o’ whoop ass

ted c on November 6, 2009 at 12:27 PM

Hello?

Dire Straits on November 6, 2009 at 12:28 PM

This is some serious business. Usurping the will of the people.

ndulik on November 6, 2009 at 12:29 PM

Stupak’s amendment goes beyond prohibiting the use of federal funds for abortions. It would prohibit the use of any federal funds being paid to any plan that allows for abortions, even if those funds were not used to pay for abortion:

No funds authorized under this Act (or an amend3
ment made by this Act) may’be used to pay for anyabor4
tion or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan
5 that includes coverage of abortion, except in the case
6 where a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical
7 injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a phy8
sician, place the woman in danger of death unless an abor9
tion is performed, including a life-endangering physical
10 condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself,
11 or unless the pregnancy is the result of an act of•••
12 rape or incest.

Jimbo3 on November 6, 2009 at 12:31 PM

“If the Hyde Amendment gets repealed, then the public option will fund abortions.”

In fact, it doesn’t even need to get repealed; every year it must be renewed, otherwise it will expire, without any vote to repeal.

notropis on November 6, 2009 at 12:31 PM

I’m amazed that Dems are literally willing to blow their big chance to take over healthcare by sticking to their support of abortion.

It clearly illustrates what their priorities are, and it has nothing to do with healthcare. It’s all about control, power and death.

Niere on November 6, 2009 at 12:31 PM

Defeat Ellsworth… here’s his republican challenger…

http://www.bucshonforcongress.com/

The pro-life movement in Ellsworth’s district is huge.

dforston on November 6, 2009 at 12:32 PM

Patient A applies thru the public option for chemotherapy, and radiation, to purge cancer from their body.

Patient B applies thru the government option to purge her body, of her unborn child.

Which patient is guaranteed to be approved?

capejasmine on November 6, 2009 at 12:34 PM

OMG, I can’t even read that garbage.
They might as well just be honest. They want abortions, free and easy for all, and the ability to raise taxes to raise 1 trillion dollars.

Theey could state their healthcare bill in one page. Washington DC really is DisneyWorld on the Potomac.

ORconservative on November 6, 2009 at 12:35 PM

WHY is killing babies on demand so damn important to libs? Is it truly just money?

Ris4victory on November 6, 2009 at 12:36 PM

The depths of their deception & depravity knows no bounds.

rbj on November 6, 2009 at 12:36 PM

(1) PROHIBITION OF REQUIRED COVERAGE.—
10 The Health Benefits Advisory Committee may not
11 recommend under section 223(b), and the Secretary
12 may not adopt in standards under section 224(b),
13 the services described in paragraph (4)(A) or (4)(B)
14 as part of the essential benefits package and the
15 Commissioner may not require such services for
16 qualified health benefits plans to participate in the
17 Health Insurance Exchange.

–Looks to me that the goverment cannot require any of the plans to offer abortion services.

Jimbo3 on November 6, 2009 at 12:36 PM

The whole damned “Heath Care Reform Bill” is a shell game.

GarandFan on November 6, 2009 at 12:37 PM

capejasmine on November 6, 2009 at 12:34 PM

I’ve never been so angry to see someone be right…

angelwing34215 on November 6, 2009 at 12:37 PM

Mom just dumped AARP for AmericanSeniors.org

Reality Check on November 6, 2009 at 12:27 PM

I’d love to see them lose 50% of their members but the sad thing is that Obama will just takeover/bailout AARP and put a new Czar in charge of it.

A Conservative option to AARP would be awesome. I dont know much about AS.org, but I ‘Hope’ that they are the option!

OSUBuciz1 on November 6, 2009 at 12:39 PM

Stupak’s amendment goes beyond prohibiting the use of federal funds for abortions. It would prohibit the use of any federal funds being paid to any plan that allows for abortions, even if those funds were not used to pay for abortion:

Jimbo3 on November 6, 2009 at 12:31 PM

You liberals really tick me off with your hypocrisy and double standards. No matter what you think of the details, Stupak’s plan is straightfoward and clear. All Dem versions of this issue come up with trickery, odd accounting practices, and outeright lies in order to further the cause of killing off unborn life.

Yet you get all indignant when somebody wants to protect life. I don’t care what you think about the issue of abortion, the ways the Dems have presented workarounds to the law should be enough to make anyone very angry. Yet instead it’s all about demonizing the pro-life crowd.

highhopes on November 6, 2009 at 12:40 PM

–Looks to me that the goverment cannot require any of the plans to offer abortion services.

Jimbo3 on November 6, 2009 at 12:36 PM

Until the Hyde Amendment is allowed to expire. At which point paragraph (4)(A) becomes void.

notropis on November 6, 2009 at 12:42 PM

WHY is killing babies on demand so damn important to libs? Is it truly just money?

Ris4victory on November 6, 2009 at 12:36 PM

It is an important ritual in their religion – rather reminiscent of the Phoenicians, in fact, who sacrificed their children to their gods as well.

Also, it is a good way for them to push eugenics on the sly. Rather then sterilizing those they see as “inferior” as the left’s ancestors did 100 years ago, they just get them to abort their children.

18-1 on November 6, 2009 at 12:43 PM

.

If you are incapable of Dazzling ‘em with Brilliance; Baffle ‘em with Bull$hit! -Barackus Hubris Maximus *hail caesar* et. al.

.

SilverStar830 on November 6, 2009 at 12:43 PM

It clearly illustrates what their priorities are, and it has nothing to do with healthcare. It’s all about control, power and death.

Niere on November 6, 2009 at 12:31 PM

That and too many of the Dems radical supporters have made this a non-negotiable issue. They pumped money into the DNC for generations and have considerable influence within party politics. They see this as payback time for all that support and they will not tolerate anything less than the ability for a woman to go in and say “abortion me” on demand.

highhopes on November 6, 2009 at 12:43 PM

Well, I’ll leave this thread alone, but I wouldn’t feel at all comfortable letting other people have the right to tell me what I can or cannot do in case of pregnancy.

It’s none of your business.

AnninCA on November 6, 2009 at 12:45 PM

If the Hyde Amendment gets repealed, then the public option will fund abortions.

This is wrong. Even if the Hyde Amendment isn’t repealed, the public option will fund all elective abortions, because the Hyde Amendment doesn’t apply to the expenditures included in this bill.

http://www.nrlc.org/AHC/TalkingPointsAbortionHealthCare.pdf

jdp629 on November 6, 2009 at 12:45 PM

OSUBuciz1 on November 6, 2009 at 12:39 PM

Just a question. Why do seniors need AARP or any similar organization to begin with?

highhopes on November 6, 2009 at 12:45 PM

Stupak’s amendment goes beyond prohibiting the use of federal funds for abortions. It would prohibit the use of any federal funds being paid to any plan that allows for abortions, even if those funds were not used to pay for abortion:

Jimbo3 on November 6, 2009 at 12:31 PM
You liberals really tick me off with your hypocrisy and double standards. No matter what you think of the details, Stupak’s plan is straightfoward and clear. All Dem versions of this issue come up with trickery, odd accounting practices, and outeright lies in order to further the cause of killing off unborn life.

Yet you get all indignant when somebody wants to protect life. I don’t care what you think about the issue of abortion, the ways the Dems have presented workarounds to the law should be enough to make anyone very angry. Yet instead it’s all about demonizing the pro-life crowd.

highhopes on November 6, 2009 at 12:40 PM

–If you want to prohibit federal funds from being used to provide abortions, then write it that way. Don’t write it as prohibiting federal funds from being used to make any payments to any plan that provides abortion coverage and say that all you’re doing is prohibiting federal funds from being used for abortions. You’re being dishonest IMHO.

Jimbo3 on November 6, 2009 at 12:46 PM

Yet you get all indignant when somebody wants to protect life. I don’t care what you think about the issue of abortion, the ways the Dems have presented workarounds to the law should be enough to make anyone very angry. Yet instead it’s all about demonizing the pro-life crowd.

highhopes on November 6, 2009 at 12:40 PM

If only they would do some research on abortion. Google partial birth abortions, and do an image search. If that doesn’t get a person thinking as to the morality, and wrongness of abortion, then I question the mentality. Anyone that can view it, and not be affected by it, is a cold blooded person.

capejasmine on November 6, 2009 at 12:46 PM

Thanks, Ed. I copied this and sent it on to Dipsh*t Donnelly (D-IN, 2nd). Will it change anything? I don’t know, but at least he is on notice that he has one less rock to hide behind.

SKYFOX on November 6, 2009 at 12:46 PM

Yes, I just got done reading The Fountainhead recently, and Ellsworth does twist the meaning of words to convey different meanings from the clear text of what he writes.

Why are we having a literary discussion?

Oh, this is a different Ellsworth, not Ellsworth Toohey? Well that’s just a weird coincidence isn’t it?

gekkobear on November 6, 2009 at 12:46 PM

It would prohibit the use of any federal funds being paid to any plan that allows for abortions, even if those funds were not used to pay for abortion:

Jimbo3 on November 6, 2009 at 12:31 PM

If by “allows for” you mean “pays for,” yes. That provision has to be in there, for his amendment to have any teeth at all. Otherwise it’d just be a government shell game.

notropis on November 6, 2009 at 12:46 PM

It would prohibit the use of any federal funds being paid to any plan that allows for abortions, even if those funds were not used to pay for abortion:

Jimbo3 on November 6, 2009 at 12:31 PM
If by “allows for” you mean “pays for,” yes. That provision has to be in there, for his amendment to have any teeth at all. Otherwise it’d just be a government shell game.

notropis on November 6, 2009 at 12:46 PM

–Why? Funds can be segregated.

Jimbo3 on November 6, 2009 at 12:48 PM

Well, I’ll leave this thread alone, but I wouldn’t feel at all comfortable letting other people have the right to tell me what I can or cannot do in case of pregnancy.

It’s none of your business.

AnninCA on November 6, 2009 at 12:45 PM

That’s not the point with this particular discussion. The immorality of aborting life is a completely different topic than the fact that your side is demanding that taxpayer funds are used to allow you to rid yourself of the consequences of having one too many drinks on a Saturday night. It’s a life not a choice no matter what and somebody has to has to look out for that body if the mother isn’t willing to do so.

highhopes on November 6, 2009 at 12:48 PM

Trying to push through same sex marriage, tax funded abortion and the rest of their Godless Liberal agenda. There was a time in this country’s history when Americans focused on earning a living and trying to better themselves. Now we appear to have to spend time taking these clowns to the woodshed every time they try to pull a slippery one.

Who got these people elected? They should take them, suceed from the Union, and create their own third world nation called Sodom or Abortiah.

Hening on November 6, 2009 at 12:49 PM

OT

Hope this turns out to be a false alarm:

DEVELOPING: Florida police are responding to a possible shooting at a downtown Orlando office building, MyFoxOrlando reported.

beachgirlusa on November 6, 2009 at 12:50 PM

–Why? Funds can be segregated.

Jimbo3 on November 6, 2009 at 12:48 PM

I’m glad you ‘-’ your comments yourself. Makes it so much easier.

The answer is no, they really can’t be segregated.

lorien1973 on November 6, 2009 at 12:51 PM

jdp629 on November 6, 2009 at 12:45 PM

That’s fascinating, and not especially surprising. Thanks.

And when the sources are those right-wing crazies, FactCheck.org and the Associated Press, I’m tempted to take it very seriously.

More seriously than our resident expert on interpreting Congressional law, Jimbo.

notropis on November 6, 2009 at 12:52 PM

Why stop at infants? Let’s abort toddlers, and pre-schoolers, and kindergarteners, when the midnight feedings become to much to handle, or the teething, and whining, and tantrums get overbearing. Let’s off them all!

(note the sarcasm)

It makes me so damned angry that my tax dollars would go toward this fiendish practice, and I’m forced to have the blood of these babies on my hands.

capejasmine on November 6, 2009 at 12:52 PM

–Why? Funds can be segregated.

Jimbo3 on November 6, 2009 at 12:48 PM

Bad public policy and a complete sham put forward by you liberals. Everybody knows that these funds would not be segregated and the whole premise would quickly break down because it is impossible to differentiate between co-mingled funds.

Far better to let the whores who think they might need abortion services to counteract sexual promiscuity to purchase abortion insurance and let the government run this as a completely separate program from healthcare. After all, abortion has nothing to do with health, wellness, or life. It all about murder.

highhopes on November 6, 2009 at 12:52 PM

WHY is killing babies on demand so damn important to libs? Is it truly just money?

Ris4victory on November 6, 2009 at 12:36 PM

Also, it is a good way for them to push eugenics on the sly. Rather then sterilizing those they see as “inferior” as the left’s ancestors did 100 years ago, they just get them to abort their children.

18-1 on November 6, 2009 at 12:43 PM

Bingo. You win the cookie. Just read Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s own words:

Speaking of something that maybe “didn’t get out quite right” (but maybe did): As part of her broad-ranging discussion of abortion, Ginsburg offers this, er, interesting comment why the Court’s 1980 decision in Harris v. McRae, which ruled that the Hyde Amendment’s exclusion of nontherapeutic abortions from Medicaid reimbursement was constitutionally permissible, “surprised” her:

“Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion. Which some people felt would risk coercing women into having abortions when they didn’t really want them. But when the court decided McRae, the case came out the other way. And then I realized that my perception of it had been altogether wrong.”

Phil-351 on November 6, 2009 at 12:53 PM

highhopes on November 6, 2009 at 12:52 PM

Jimbo thinks government has the power to make you buy toothpaste. So put everything he says in perspective.

lorien1973 on November 6, 2009 at 12:53 PM

Ann – you can have your body – but you can’t have my tax dollars to support your inability to make intelligent decisions.

Carolina Kat on November 6, 2009 at 12:53 PM

Jimbo3 on November 6, 2009 at 12:48 PM

If a government subsidy reduces the overall cost of a plan, then it doesn’t matter much which parts the government is paying for. The entire plan, including abortion services, is effectively subsidized.

notropis on November 6, 2009 at 12:53 PM


Why? Funds can be segregated.

Jimbo3 on November 6, 2009 at 12:48 PM
I’m glad you ‘-’ your comments yourself. Makes it so much easier.

The answer is no, they really can’t be segregated.

lorien1973 on November 6, 2009 at 12:51 PM

–So if I send my mortgage payments to a lockbox, those funds can’t be segregated from other funds in the bank? You’ll make a bunch of secured creditors nervous if that’s the case. (And thank someone yesterday for telling me about the “quote” button. I wouldn’t have thought of it and it’s pretty easy to use. Just highlight and hit the button).

Jimbo3 on November 6, 2009 at 12:53 PM

WHY is killing babies on demand so damn important to libs? Is it truly just money?

Ris4victory on November 6, 2009 at 12:36 PM

The natural end of liberalism.

AN outspoken Kiwi politician has proposed a new solution to the country’s child abuse problem – pay the “appalling underclass” not to breed.

lorien1973 on November 6, 2009 at 12:54 PM

Great headline and pic, Ed.

John the Libertarian on November 6, 2009 at 12:55 PM

Why stop at infants? Let’s abort toddlers, and pre-schoolers, and kindergarteners, when the midnight feedings become to much to handle, or the teething, and whining, and tantrums get overbearing. Let’s off them all!

(note the sarcasm)

capejasmine on November 6, 2009 at 12:52 PM

Obamacare will lead to ‘abortions’ for the elderly. And certainly as we have seen in other countries with socialized health care, ‘abortions’ for born children are not unheard of.

Oh, and people say Obama never accomplished anything as a legislator – that isn’t quite true. He kllled a bill that would have protected born children that survived abortion attempts while a state senator.

18-1 on November 6, 2009 at 12:56 PM

We should cut Jimbo3 a break. I mean it’s obvious that Liberals have no money sense at all. I mean look at the stimulus debacle.

MobileVideoEngineer on November 6, 2009 at 12:56 PM

–Why? Funds can be segregated.

Jimbo3 on November 6, 2009 at 12:48 PM
Bad public policy and a complete sham put forward by you liberals. Everybody knows that these funds would not be segregated and the whole premise would quickly break down because it is impossible to differentiate between co-mingled funds.

Far better to let the whores who think they might need abortion services to counteract sexual promiscuity to purchase abortion insurance and let the government run this as a completely separate program from healthcare. After all, abortion has nothing to do with health, wellness, or life. It all about murder.

highhopes on November 6, 2009 at 12:52 PM

–You’re right. Of course, we then can’t provide any funds of any type to religiously-affiliated institutions (schools, hospitals, churches, among others) for education, medical care, after school activities, subsidized food, etc. because those funds could be used for religious purposes.

Jimbo3 on November 6, 2009 at 12:56 PM

Hey AnninCa, I agree its none of my business. Its so none of my business that I don’t even WANT to consider paying for it. How’s that for choice?

DanMan on November 6, 2009 at 12:57 PM

you can have your body – but you can’t have my tax dollars to support your inability to make intelligent decisions.

Carolina Kat

A+

beachgirlusa on November 6, 2009 at 12:57 PM

Jimbo3 on November 6, 2009 at 12:53 PM

Wow, now that’s a retarded comparison, isn’t it? That’s really stretching it.

If Dicover gets a payment for $50 from me, which clears my account. They don’t use that $50 to pay the merchant whose debt discovered covered for me. That’s not how it works. I’m sorry if you don’t understand accounting. I really feel bad for you.

lorien1973 on November 6, 2009 at 12:57 PM

highhopes on November 6, 2009 at 12:48 PM

That’s precisely the whole point. Well said.

TXUS on November 6, 2009 at 12:57 PM

Well, I’ll leave this thread alone, but I wouldn’t feel at all comfortable letting other people have the right to tell me what I can or cannot do in case of pregnancy.

It’s none of your business.

AnninCA on November 6, 2009 at 12:45 PM

This isn’t about the legalization of abortion, but the public funding of it. You want an abortion, pay for it out of your own pocket.

Phil-351 on November 6, 2009 at 1:00 PM

lorien1973 on November 6, 2009 at 12:57 PM

What, you mean when a business gets $50 in the mail, they don’t put it in a special drawer that says “this money can’t be used for abortions” ?

Why. No. No they don’t.

lorien1973 on November 6, 2009 at 1:00 PM

Jimbo3 on November 6, 2009 at 12:53 PM
Wow, now that’s a retarded comparison, isn’t it? That’s really stretching it.

If Dicover gets a payment for $50 from me, which clears my account. They don’t use that $50 to pay the merchant whose debt discovered covered for me. That’s not how it works. I’m sorry if you don’t understand accounting. I really feel bad for you.

lorien1973 on November 6, 2009 at 12:57 PM

–It’s not accounting; it’s legal and finance. Your payments to Discovery probably go to a general account, not one dedicated for use only to make payments to one merchant. In a lockbox situation, the funds that go into that account are segregated for use to creditors or specific creditors. A secured lender may have a lien (mortgage) over that account and the right to have all those amounts paid to it if you default. You need the segregation to have a valid lien (mortage) under the law.

Jimbo3 on November 6, 2009 at 1:01 PM

WHY is killing babies on demand so damn important to libs? Is it truly just money?

Ris4victory on November 6, 2009 at 12:36 PM

#1: It is the holy sacrament in the church of liberalism. Ex: If you tried to tell me that I cannot partake of the Eucharist at mass, I’d be pissed. Same thing.
#2: It is the most aggressive way to exert power for historically oppressed feminists. “See, I can kill your babies, you vile males, and there’s nothing you can do about it”.

SKYFOX on November 6, 2009 at 1:02 PM

but I wouldn’t feel at all comfortable letting other people have the right to tell me what I can or cannot do in case of pregnancy.

AnninCA on November 6, 2009 at 12:45 PM

Then you’ll hate this bill, because it lets the secretary of HHS decide when someone can get an abortion or not.

You’d think liberals would hate the idea of a future republican president having the power to dictate to people who can and can’t get an abortion. I guess not. They are just dying for a republican to have that power.

lorien1973 on November 6, 2009 at 1:02 PM

–You’re right. Of course, we then can’t provide any funds of any type to religiously-affiliated institutions (schools, hospitals, churches, among others) for education, medical care, after school activities, subsidized food, etc. because those funds could be used for religious purposes.

Jimbo3 on November 6, 2009 at 12:56 PM

You are correct. The LETTER that was written regarding the “separation of church and state” was in regards to the fact that the state needs to stay out of the church, not the other way around. If churches take money from the government, then the government can tell them what to do and that needs to stop.

MobileVideoEngineer on November 6, 2009 at 1:02 PM

Why stop at infants? Let’s abort toddlers, and pre-schoolers, and kindergarteners, when the midnight feedings become to much to handle, or the teething, and whining, and tantrums get overbearing. Let’s off them all!

(note the sarcasm)

capejasmine on November 6, 2009 at 12:52 PM

Let’s not forget that one of the architects of Obamacare advocated giving parents a two-year period of time to terminate life. That’s right if you got tired of your one-year-old you could “do something about it.” It’s not a stretch to think that death panels are merely on hold until the filthy lying coward gets control of the system.

highhopes on November 6, 2009 at 1:02 PM

Well, I’ll leave this thread alone, but I wouldn’t feel at all comfortable letting other people have the right to tell me what I can or cannot do in case of pregnancy.

It’s none of your business.

AnninCA on November 6, 2009 at 12:45 PM

If it’s none of my business, then it should require none of my tax dollars.

Goldenavatar on November 6, 2009 at 1:03 PM

In a lockbox situation, the funds that go into that account are segregated for use to creditors or specific creditors

Lockboxes are a myth. Just like the social security lockbox. It’s a lie used by politicians to make idiots (like you!) feel good.

lorien1973 on November 6, 2009 at 1:03 PM

Call your representatives and remind them that the Stupac ammendment is the only true way of keeping abortion funding out of the healthcare bill.

Vera on November 6, 2009 at 1:05 PM

If it’s none of my business, then it should require none of my tax dollars.

Goldenavatar

Exactly.

beachgirlusa on November 6, 2009 at 1:06 PM

The fact that they have to resort to scams like this, all the time, proves that they know they cannot win at the ballot box.

The real question is, what lenghts will they go to now that Tuesday has proved their electoral weakness once and for all.

The times of greatest opportunity pose the greatest risks.

notagool on November 6, 2009 at 1:08 PM

You are correct. The LETTER that was written regarding the “separation of church and state” was in regards to the fact that the state needs to stay out of the church, not the other way around. If churches take money from the government, then the government can tell them what to do and that needs to stop.

MobileVideoEngineer on November 6, 2009 at 1:02 PM

Well, more specifically, a Baptist group was concerned that Conn would discriminate against them because of their religious views, specifically in holding government office.

Pretty much the same thing we saw recently when the Democrats wanted to keep observant Catholics out of the judiciary.

18-1 on November 6, 2009 at 1:08 PM

–It’s not accounting; it’s legal and finance. Your payments to Discovery probably go to a general account, not one dedicated for use only to make payments to one merchant. In a lockbox situation, the funds that go into that account are segregated for use to creditors or specific creditors. A secured lender may have a lien (mortgage) over that account and the right to have all those amounts paid to it if you default. You need the segregation to have a valid lien (mortage) under the law.

Jimbo3 on November 6, 2009 at 1:01 PM

Your analogy doesn’t make sense. When you charge something on your “Discovery” card, you incur an obligation to pay and that is chalked up to your account. In other words you specifically have an outstanding bill which is paid by the company to the merchant with the understanding that you will re-pay the company.

Abortion on demand from federal co-mingled funds would not work that way. The only payout is when somebody wants to kill off a baby.

highhopes on November 6, 2009 at 1:09 PM

Ann – you can have your body – but you can’t have my tax dollars to support your inability to make intelligent decisions.

Carolina Kat on November 6, 2009 at 12:53 PM

Right. No one’s telling you you’re not still legally allowed to whack your own child in utero, just that you can’t do it on CK and my dime.

T.D.D. on November 6, 2009 at 1:10 PM

Call your representatives and remind them that the Stupac ammendment is the only true way of keeping abortion funding out of the healthcare bill.

Vera on November 6, 2009

A better way is to kill the whole damned bill.

SKYFOX on November 6, 2009 at 1:10 PM

If it’s none of my business, then it should require none of my tax dollars.

Goldenavatar

Very well said.

When it comes to these bills, it is what is not said that is often very important. If anyone opposes an amendment which specifically states that tax dollars going to fund any abortion taking place under this “reform”, then they are looking for a loophole that can later be exploited.

Daemonocracy on November 6, 2009 at 1:10 PM

If it’s none of my business, then it should require none of my tax dollars.

Goldenavatar on November 6, 2009 at 1:03 PM

This has got to be the best rebuttal evah.

I might steal this…

MobileVideoEngineer on November 6, 2009 at 1:13 PM

Goldenavatar on November 6, 2009 at 1:03 PM

Fantastic point.

T.D.D. on November 6, 2009 at 1:13 PM

Stupak’s amendment goes beyond prohibiting the use of federal funds for abortions. It would prohibit the use of any federal funds being paid to any plan that allows for abortions, even if those funds were not used to pay for abortion:

Jimbo3 on November 6, 2009 at 12:31 PM

You cannot truly be this retarded. If the federal funds subsidize the premiums for a plan that allows abortions, then THE FEDERAL FUNDS ARE PAYING FOR AN ABORTION if there is a claim paid. Just because the Insurance Company is paying the provider, it’s still federal funds.

My head hurts.

uknowmorethanme on November 6, 2009 at 1:14 PM

From the proposed Ellsworth amendment:

The segregation of funds will be done in accordance with “generally accepted accounting requirements, circulars on funds management of the Office of Management and Budget, and guidance on accounting of the Government Accountability Office”.

Jimbo3 on November 6, 2009 at 1:14 PM

highhopes on November 6, 2009 at 1:02 PM

Do you have a link for this? I am in no way doubting you, I ask because I’d like to send that info to some people. Is it Ezekiel Emanuel who espouses this?

Niere on November 6, 2009 at 1:14 PM

If it’s none of my business, then it should require none of my tax dollars.

Goldenavatar on November 6, 2009 at 1:03 PM

Debate. Over.

uknowmorethanme on November 6, 2009 at 1:15 PM

Stupak’s amendment goes beyond prohibiting the use of federal funds for abortions. It would prohibit the use of any federal funds being paid to any plan that allows for abortions, even if those funds were not used to pay for abortion:

Jimbo3 on November 6, 2009 at 12:31 PM
You cannot truly be this retarded. If the federal funds subsidize the premiums for a plan that allows abortions, then THE FEDERAL FUNDS ARE PAYING FOR AN ABORTION if there is a claim paid. Just because the Insurance Company is paying the provider, it’s still federal funds.

My head hurts.

uknowmorethanme on November 6, 2009 at 1:14 PM

–So, if I give my daughter a check for $300 to buy an iPod that costs $300 dollars (which she does) and then I give her $1000 to help her out with rent and stuff, I’ve paid for her iPod with the $1000?

Jimbo3 on November 6, 2009 at 1:16 PM

The real debate is this: The Hyde Amendment since the late 1990s prohibited the use of federal funds to make any payments to any plan that provided abortion services. Before then, the Amendment just prohibited the use of federal funds to pay for abortions. The Catholic Church and others argue that the “Hyde Amendment” is long standing. It is, but not the provision that prohibited payments from going to any plan that provides for abortions, even if they weren’t used for that purpose.

Jimbo3 on November 6, 2009 at 1:21 PM

You’re right. Of course, we then can’t provide any funds of any type to religiously-affiliated institutions (schools, hospitals, churches, among others) for education, medical care, after school activities, subsidized food, etc. because those funds could be used for religious purposes.

Jimbo3: what on earth is your point??

chai on November 6, 2009 at 1:25 PM

–So, if I give my daughter a check for $300 to buy an iPod that costs $300 dollars (which she does) and then I give her $1000 to help her out with rent and stuff, I’ve paid for her iPod with the $1000?

Jimbo3 on November 6, 2009 at 1:16 PM

Wow you’re an idiot. Large finance is not the same a personal finance.

MobileVideoEngineer on November 6, 2009 at 1:27 PM

It clearly illustrates what their priorities are, and it has nothing to do with healthcare. It’s all about control, power and death.

Niere on November 6, 2009 at 12:31 PM

That’s it.

rrpjr on November 6, 2009 at 1:27 PM

–So, if I give my daughter a check for $300 to buy an iPod that costs $300 dollars (which she does) and then I give her $1000 to help her out with rent and stuff, I’ve paid for her iPod with the $1000?

Jimbo3 on November 6, 2009 at 1:16 PM

Also say I give someone money and say, here you can have this money, but you can’t use it for McDonald’s. How in the world would I know if they used it for that or not? They can show me all the receipts that they want to try and “prove” that they didn’t, but I don’t know which purchases were made with their money and which were made with my money.

MobileVideoEngineer on November 6, 2009 at 1:32 PM

You’re right. Of course, we then can’t provide any funds of any type to religiously-affiliated institutions (schools, hospitals, churches, among others) for education, medical care, after school activities, subsidized food, etc. because those funds could be used for religious purposes.
Jimbo3: what on earth is your point??

chai on November 6, 2009 at 1:25 PM

–My point is that if the principle established is that no federal funds can be paid to an entity that provides services or facilities that could offend someone, even if those funds aren’t used for that purpose, you’ll end up hurting religious and other organizations. People could then say that no Medicare funds should be provided to Baptist or Catholic hospitals because a very small portion of their general funds are used for prayer rooms/pastors. Similarly, no governmental funds can be used to subsidize the meals of poor children who attend religious schools, or provide assistance to Catholic or other charities, even if they’re not used for religious purposes.

Jimbo3 on November 6, 2009 at 1:34 PM

–So, if I give my daughter a check for $300 to buy an iPod that costs $300 dollars (which she does) and then I give her $1000 to help her out with rent and stuff, I’ve paid for her iPod with the $1000?

Jimbo3 on November 6, 2009 at 1:16 PM
Also say I give someone money and say, here you can have this money, but you can’t use it for McDonald’s. How in the world would I know if they used it for that or not? They can show me all the receipts that they want to try and “prove” that they didn’t, but I don’t know which purchases were made with their money and which were made with my money.

MobileVideoEngineer on November 6, 2009 at 1:32 PM

–See my note above on the Ellsworth amendment.

Jimbo3 on November 6, 2009 at 1:35 PM

Well, I’ll leave this thread alone, but I wouldn’t feel at all comfortable letting other people have the right to tell me what I can or cannot do in case of pregnancy.

It’s none of your business.

AnninCA on November 6, 2009 at 12:45 PM

I don’t give a damn whether you choose to flush your baby down the toilet (God will determine your fate), just don’t make me pay for it.

True_King on November 6, 2009 at 1:49 PM

If it’s none of my business, then it should require none of my tax dollars.

Goldenavatar on November 6, 2009 at 1:03 PM

Let me add my kudos!

INC on November 6, 2009 at 1:52 PM

Until the Hyde Amendment is allowed to expire. At which point paragraph (4)(A) becomes void.

notropis on November 6, 2009 at 12:42 PM

Good Point I reminded my rep of that yesterday!

xler8bmw on November 6, 2009 at 1:53 PM

but I wouldn’t feel at all comfortable letting other people have the right to tell me what I can or cannot do in case of pregnancy.

It’s none of your business.

AnninCA on November 6, 2009 at 12:45 PM

Ann wants the government out of her bedroom so they can get into your checkbook and to pay for what goes on in her bedroom.

Makes perfect sense.

NoDonkey on November 6, 2009 at 1:57 PM

Ellsworth – another good pro-life “Catholic” per his biography. A conservative blue dog! Yet here he is, trying to aid and abet the huge pro-abortion constituency in his party by offering this sham, dishonest amendment. Disgusting phony.

I have much more respect for straight, unapologetic pro-choice democrats.

chris999 on November 6, 2009 at 2:17 PM

–It’s not accounting; it’s legal and finance. Your payments to Discovery probably go to a general account, not one dedicated for use only to make payments to one merchant. In a lockbox situation, the funds that go into that account are segregated for use to creditors or specific creditors. A secured lender may have a lien (mortgage) over that account and the right to have all those amounts paid to it if you default. You need the segregation to have a valid lien (mortage) under the law.

Jimbo3 on November 6, 2009 at 1:01 PM

I’m confused…

Is this anything like the Social Security “lockbox” what went into effect with the original Dem law… and then removed when the Dems changed the law… and then was looted to pay for bribe earmarks… and now they LIE about it still being in a lockbox?

Is that what it will be like?

dominigan on November 6, 2009 at 2:22 PM

–My point is that if the principle established is that no federal funds can be paid to an entity that provides services or facilities that could offend someone, even if those funds aren’t used for that purpose, you’ll end up hurting religious and other organizations. People could then say that no Medicare funds should be provided to Baptist or Catholic hospitals because a very small portion of their general funds are used for prayer rooms/pastors. Similarly, no governmental funds can be used to subsidize the meals of poor children who attend religious schools, or provide assistance to Catholic or other charities, even if they’re not used for religious purposes.

Jimbo3 on November 6, 2009 at 1:34 PM

Fairly weak slippery slope argument, Jimbo.

You’re wrong on the economics of money segregation. Let’s say Joe’s Abortion Service has only two expenditures per month – $50 for electricity, and $50 to pay abortionists.

The government then gives Joe $50 and say, “You can’t use this to pay for abortions; you must segregate the money and account for it.”

The following month, Joe shows us his receipts. He paid the $50 electricity bill using the government money, but doubled his abortion output and paid $100 to abortionists. He’s met the government requirements, but because money is fungible, it’s a shell game. Bottom line, if we give economic support to someone who provides abortion, we support abortion.

However, you are correct on the point of logical consistency. Support for a Catholic hospitals (even nicely segregated) necessarily frees up Catholic funds for other purposes. It’s an accounting fiction, but folks live with it because religious hospitals provide a great public benefit.

If you want to try to convince Congress to stop support for religious hospitals because it may aid religion, go for it :) It’s been tried, and failed. (Though I don’t think you’re suggesting that.)

Abortion’s a different beast. Many people view the abortion industry as as morally repugnant as the slave trade. By contrast, not many folks care that they may be indirectly aiding a religious institution in carrying out religious practices.

It’s a very important practical distinction, but you are correct about the underlying economics.

Pavel on November 6, 2009 at 2:45 PM

Why in the world would someone choose a health insurance plan just because it covers abortions? I don’t know too many people who actually plan to have an abortion when choosing a policy.

hippieforlife on November 6, 2009 at 2:46 PM

I don’t care if you are a D or an R, if you vote against PelosiCare and Cap and Tax you are alright by me.

Angry Dumbo on November 6, 2009 at 3:02 PM

*rolling eyes*
I’m done with all these stories about what someone said at some academic gathering.
I saw an article about how McCain quoted Mao, too. LOL*
Good grief. Great people are often quoted, regardless of their politics.
AnninCA on October 19, 2009 at 2:58 PM

We must all remember that ann thinks mao was a great person, so the idea of murdering babies doesn’t bother her at all. After all, mao murdered 60 MILLION of his own people. Ann, like mao, is a monster devoid of all humanity.

runawayyyy on November 6, 2009 at 3:36 PM

As legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), I can tell you that the reality is even worse than outlined in the post.

The language on page 110 of H.R. 3962 explicitly says that “nothing in this Act shall be construed as preventing the public health insurance option from providing for” all abortions. Of course, the “public health insurance option” (the “public plan”) is a nationwide health plan that will be run directly by the federal government. The Obama Administration will surely use this authority and will pay for elective abortions (when running for President, Obama promised Planned Parenthood that his public plan would pay for abortions.) When the public plan pays for elective abortions, it will pay for them with federal funds, because that is the only kind of funds that a federal agency can spend. As the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service (CRS) has confirmed in its October 9 memo (confirming what we pointed out much earlier here), ALL of the funds that the “public plan” spends will be FEDERAL FUNDS. This will be direct federal funding of abortion.

And all of this will occur even while the Hyde Amendment remains in effect with respect to the separate, existing Medicaid program. If renewal of the Hyde Amendment is blocked in a future year, the authorization for the public plan to cover elective abortion becomes a mandate to cover elective abortion.

The authorizing language on page 110 uses the powerful formula “nothing in this Act” precisely to remove any possibility that any other language in the 1990-page bill could ever be construed to limit it. The Ellsworth Amendment did nothing to disturb this language. Instead, Ellsworth proposed language to require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to hire a contractor who would collect “premiums” from citizens and make payments to abortionists. Ellsworth’s staff actually argued that this money-laundering scheme would mean that the federal government was not funding abortions — a truly absurd argument. Medicare already uses contractors to process claims and payments — so Medicare is not federal funding of medical services?

I must underscore that this problem with the public option is entirely separate and distinct from the affordability credits issue. The question of whether the “public plan” can pay for abortions would be equally important if the bill contained no affordability credit program at all.

The problems with the bill and with the Ellsworth Amendment are explained in detail in letters sent by NRLC to House members, and in press releases, posted here: http://www.nrlc.org

Douglas Johnson
Legislative Director
National Right to Life Committee
202-626-8820
legfederal // at // aol-dot-com

Douglas Johnson on November 6, 2009 at 3:53 PM

Why? Funds can be segregated.
Jimbo3 on November 6, 2009 at 12:48 PM
I’m glad you ‘-’ your comments yourself. Makes it so much easier.

The answer is no, they really can’t be segregated.

lorien1973 on November 6, 2009 at 12:51 PM

–So if I send my mortgage payments to a lockbox, those funds can’t be segregated from other funds in the bank? You’ll make a bunch of secured creditors nervous if that’s the case. (And thank someone yesterday for telling me about the “quote” button. I wouldn’t have thought of it and it’s pretty easy to use. Just highlight and hit the button).

Jimbo3 on November 6, 2009 at 12:53 PM

This is why the government should not fund any organization that provides abortions either. If you choose to donate to an organization that performs abortions so be it, that is your choice. Why am I being forced to provide tax dollars for any organization that performs a service I consider to be murder? You can tell me my tax dollars go to ketchup research, but it doesn’t matter. And, federal dollars are still helping organizations who perform abortions even if it is not “designated” for abortions. I am not stupid. My tax dollars going to these organizations keep them in the abortion business no matter how you want to spin it and tell me that is not how it works. The government needs to stay out of stuff like this!

truetexan on November 6, 2009 at 4:15 PM

Don’t write it as prohibiting federal funds from being used to make any payments to any plan that provides abortion coverage and say that all you’re doing is prohibiting federal funds from being used for abortions. You’re being dishonest IMHO.

Jimbo3 on November 6, 2009 at 12:46 PM

Nope, not being dishonest. That’s exactly what I mean. Anyone who gets federal assistance to pay for their health insurance must buy a plan that does not cover abortions, period.

alwaysfiredup on November 6, 2009 at 4:39 PM

alwaysfiredup on November 6, 2009 at 4:39 PM

I imagine if there’s a lot of demand for abortion coverage then insurance companies will offer a rider for such coverage that may be paid for out-of-pocket. At least, as long as ObamaCare allows markets to work like this.

alwaysfiredup on November 6, 2009 at 4:41 PM

Instead, Ellsworth proposed language to require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to hire a contractor who would collect “premiums” from citizens and make payments to abortionists. Ellsworth’s staff actually argued that this money-laundering scheme would mean that the federal government was not funding abortions — a truly absurd argument. Medicare already uses contractors to process claims and payments — so Medicare is not federal funding of medical services?

–So why is this an absurd argument, Doug? If payments for insurance premiums come in from individuals, how does they become “federal funds” simply because they are in the hands of a contractor? Medicare may use contractors to process claims and payments–most companies do–but the issue of who handles the processing is different from the issue of whose money is being used. I’m missing your point.

Jimbo3 on November 6, 2009 at 6:01 PM

The problem with allowing the abortion clauses is they will then be used to attack any physician who refuses to do abortions.

davod on November 6, 2009 at 6:21 PM

Comment pages: 1 2