From Verum Serum:
As you are probably already aware, Democratic Senator Ben Nelson caved over the weekend on his objections to the Senate health based on abortion coverage.
...The “compromise” Nelson ultimately agreed to is virtually identical to the much weaker language from the original Senate Finance committee bill, with the most notable exception being that individual state insurance exchanges will be able to opt-out from including plans which cover abortion. (But this will require state legislatures to pass new laws restricting this coverage, setting off a perpetual battle between pro-life and pro-abortion activists across the country.)
The basic compromise however is an accounting gimmick, where the federal government will require that all participants in the new insurance exchanges – men and women of all age groups – contribute a separate “abortion premium” to cover the cost of elective abortion services. In other words, the federal government will legally compel you to contribute funds exclusively designated to pay for abortion into the new government-run system. Regardless of whether you have any personal need or desire for abortion coverage, and regardless of whether you have any religious or moral objections to abortion.
Video.
Transcript
KATHLEEN SEBELIUS: And I would say that the Senate language, which was negotiated by Senators Barbara Boxer and Patty Murray, who are very strong defenders of women's health services and choices for women, take a big step forward from where the House left it with the Stupak Amendment; and I think do a good job making sure there are choices for women, making sure there are going to be some plan options, and making sure that while public funds aren't used, we are not isolating, discriminating against, or invading the privacy rights of women.
There would be an accounting procedure, but everybody in the exchange would do the same thing. Whether you're male or female, whether you're 75 or 25, you would all set aside a portion of your premium that would go into a fund, and it would not be earmarked for anything. It would be a separate account that everyone in the exchange would pay.
MORRA AARONS-MELE: Hmm. It's a bit confusing, but OK.
SEBELIUS: It is a bit confusing but it's really an accounting measure that would apply across the board and not just to women and certainly not just to women who want to choose abortion coverage.
AARONS-MELE: Oh, that's good. That's good.
What the Democrats are doing regarding health care reform and the funding of abortion is unconscionable.
The language in the Senate's version of the bill dilutes the Stupak Amendment. Sebelius sings the praises of the Senate for "[taking] a big step forward from where the House left it with the Stupak Amendment."
From Wisconsin Right to Life:
"Right-to-life Democratic Congressman Bart Stupak (D-Mi.) calls the Senate Reid/Nelson compromise on abortion 'unacceptable' and Wisconsin Right to Life is in complete agreement with him," said Susan Armacost, Legislative Director of Wisconsin Right to Life.
Also on board with Stupak's analysis is the National Right to Life Committee, the Conference of Catholic Bishops and countless other national organizations.
Stupak said he remains adamant that the Stupak language will be in the final version of Obamacare or it fails.
The Senate bill would allow the federal government to subsidize private insurance plans that cover abortion on demand, to oversee multi-state plans that cover elective abortions, and to empower federal officials to mandate that private health plans cover abortions even if they do not accept subsidized enrollees. There is no conscience protections for health care providers.
In addition, the Senate bill contains provisions that would place substantial restrictions on the ability of Americans to spend their own money to obtain lifesaving medical care.
The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops believes that the bill should not go forward.
The Senate health reform bill should not move forward in its current form, Cardinal Daniel DiNardo of Galveston-Houston, Bishop William Murphy of Rockville Centre, New York, and Bishop John Wester of Salt Lake City said December 19, as senators proceeded closer to a vote. Cardinal DiNardo chairs the bishops’ Committee on Pro-life Activities. Bishop Murphy chairs the bishops’ Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development. Bishop Wester chairs the bishops’ Committee on Migration.
“Yesterday the bishops commented on good-faith efforts by Senator Robert Casey (D-PA) to improve the pending Senate health care reform bill on the issues of abortion and conscience rights,” Cardinal DiNardo, Bishop Murphy and Bishop Wester said. “Today a Manager's Amendment was proposed to make final changes in that bill. The amendment includes some improvements from Senator Casey's proposal, including adoption tax credits and assistance for pregnant women, but differs from that proposal in other ways: It does not seem to allow purchasers who exercise freedom of choice or of conscience to "opt out" of abortion coverage in federally subsidized health plans that include such coverage. Instead it will require purchasers of such plans to pay a distinct fee or surcharge which is extracted solely to help pay for other people's abortions. Further the government agency that currently manages health coverage for federal employees will promote and help subsidize multi-state health plans that include elective abortions, contrary to longstanding law governing this agency.
Therefore, while we appreciate the good-faith efforts made by Senators Robert Casey and Ben Nelson (D-NE) to improve the bill, our judgment is the same as it was yesterday: This legislation should not move forward in its current form. It should be opposed unless and until such serious concerns have been addressed. The bishops' conference continues to study that 383-page amendment's implications from the perspective of all the bishops' moral concerns -- protection of life and conscience, affordable access to health care, and fairness to immigrants. We will continue to work vigorously for authentic health care reform that clearly reflects these fundamental principles because such reform is a public good, moral imperative and urgent national priority.”
Ben Nelson sold out the unborn for $100 million. It's difficult for me to agree with the bishops that he made a "good-faith effort."
Nelson was playing politics.
Bottom Line: As Sebelius points out, the Senate's health care reform bill contains an accounting trick requiring EVERYONE participating in the government-run system to contribute to a fund that will be used exclusively for slaughtering the unborn.
I can't stand the way the Democrats speak out of both sides of their mouths.
They tell the pro-abortion crowd one thing and they tell the anti-abortion side another.
They're telling the pro-abortion proponents the truth.
_________________
From the National Right to Life Committee, details on the abortion language in Harry Reid's bill.
Does the Church have any sanctions more serious than excommunication for Sibelius? If not, they should consider a new category.
ReplyDeleteNot that the Bishops seem to even know what's going on. Or care.
The USCCB has been outspoken in its opposition to the health care bill in its current form.
ReplyDeleteAs for excommunication, there is no sanction worse than that.