Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: The Pack Knight

Is there a difference between ‘requires’ and ‘provides for’? That’s the language I’ve been hearing used.


51 posted on 03/20/2010 5:57:42 PM PDT by Track9 (A good education is knowing what truly sets you free.. and then crushing liberals with it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies ]


To: Track9
After reading the text of the "Nelson Compromise" part of the Senate bill, I really don't see anything there that can be changed by Executive Order. The Senate bill as it stands (and as I'm reading it) requires anyone wanting to purchase a plan that covers elective abortion (the type prohibited by the Hyde Amendment, which is effectively incorporated into the bill) to purchase that additional coverage separately using their own money (with no tax credit or federal subsidy), and requires insurers to keep that money segregated.

If an insurer covers elective abortions and complies with the separate payment and segregation of funds requirements, I don't think the President can deny funds to that insurer by executive order under the Youngstown Sheet & Tube rule. If the Senate bill passes, that means Congress has spoken on the issue and the President would not have much discretion to contradict Congress's will.

As an aside, there's also some weird rules on "notice" that I've read multiple times and still can't figure out - and, having worked in bankruptcy law, I'm no stranger to reading confusing statutes. It seems to prohibit insurers from publicly disclosing the amount they pay for elective abortions.

Also, I should add as well that any restrictions on funding abortion in this bill is contingent upon the continued addition of the Hyde Amendment to DHHS appropriations. If Congress stops passing the Hyde Amendment every year, then that would also undo any restrictions on funding of abortion under the health care bill.

Finally, I should say that there may be other places where abortion might be funded by the bill that I haven't seen. The bill is a huge, complicated, confusing mess, and there's no way I or anyone else could tell you everything it actually does. Hell, I spent two semesters at law school learning the Bankruptcy Code, and I've never studied Chapters 9 or 12. This bill is much longer and more confusingly written than the Bankruptcy Code. That alone should be evidence that this is not a subject Congress ought to be involved in.
56 posted on 03/20/2010 8:59:57 PM PDT by The Pack Knight (Duty, Honor, Country)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson