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

Skip to comments.

FactCheck.org Confirms: Obamacare Dollars Were Set to Fund Abortions before Controversy
LifeSiteNews.com ^ | July 23, 2010 | By Kathleen Gilbert

Posted on 07/23/2010 11:10:07 AM PDT by topher

Friday July 23, 2010


FactCheck.org Confirms: Obamacare Dollars Were Set to Fund Abortions before Controversy

By Kathleen Gilbert

WASHINGTON, D.C., July 23, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The non-partisan fact-checking site FactCheck.org has vindicated the National Right to Life Committee's (NRLC) claim that federal monies were on the brink of funding abortions in state high-risk insurance pools before the matter was exposed by NRLC, prompting the Obama administration to retroactively enforce Hyde-amendment restrictions.

The controversy erupted a week and a half ago, when NRLC revealed that abortions would be funded under a $160 million Pennsylvania program, a fact that contradicted the repeated assurances of President Obama and pro-life Democrats that abortions would not be funded under the federal health care law. The pro-life organization also unearthed similar funding problems in New Mexico and Maryland.

The Health and Human Services Department (HHS) responded to the concerns raised by NRLC by suggesting that an abortion funding ban for the high risk pools was already implied in the health reform law. However, Planned Parenthood and NARAL both expressed shock at the HHS’s subsequent "clarification" that only abortions in cases of rape, incest, and threat to the mother's life would be federally subsidized under the high-risk plans, and both groups condemned such a funding ban as a clear change in the law.

Now Brooks Jackson of FactCheck.org has agreed with both NRLC and the pro-abortion groups that nothing in the law would have prevented abortions from being funded under the high-risk pools.

In the case of Pennsylvia’s proposed plan, which purported to ban coverage for “elective abortions,” Jackson concurs with NRLC that because the program proposal failed to define the meaning of "elective abortions," it would have opened the door to coverage for any abortion that is legal in the state.

"The term 'elective' isn’t defined, and so isn’t very meaningful," wrote Jackson. "So — when all the verbal smoke is cleared away — the solicitation states that the program 'will' cover 'only' abortions that are legal. That doesn’t leave out much."

Shortly after the HHS announced that it would apply Hyde restrictions to the high risk pools after all, NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson said that, “It is certainly clear that [HHS officials] were not imposing any abortion restrictions until now, until it became a matter of controversy.

“[HHS officials] were not applying any kind of guidance that would keep states from submitting such a plan [approving abortion coverage], and they weren’t denying approval when a state did submit such a plan,” he said.

Jackson wrote that the Pennsylvania Insurance Department’s spokeswoman Melissa Fox responded to further questions from Factcheck.org by justifying the proposal's vague language, saying that the "aggressive timeframe to submit proposals" required that the writers of the proposal “insert ‘placeholder’ language absent specific guidance from the federal government on the benefit package.”

"So the story now is that in the haste to meet a deadline, 'placeholder' language was inserted, to be adjusted later," Jackson concluded. "But whatever Pennsylvania officials intended, the stated federal policy is now clear: No abortions will be covered by the temporary risk pools except for those in cases of rape or incest, or to save the life of the mother."

The FactCheck.org article does not address in depth the New Mexico plan, whose Federal High Risk Pool initially listed “Routine Maternity/Elective Termination of Pregnancy” as a covered benefit under the section “Hospital/Facility Services.” When the Associated Press contacted the agency about that plan, a spokesperson initially claimed the coverage would remain unchanged, before calling the AP back to say that officials had begun "correcting the package so it will not have elective abortion coverage."

NRLC also discovered earlier this week that a third high-risk pool proposal in Maryland had not applied Hyde restrictions on abortion funding, and that no guidelines were given by the HHS to do so.


See related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:

Maryland Plan Indicates HHS Approved High Risk Pools With No Abortion Requirements
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/jul/10071909.html

HHS Moves to Block Abortion Funding in High-Risk Pools Following Controversy
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/jul/10071511.html

NARAL Enraged, USCCB Cautiously Pleased with HHS 'Clarification' on High-Risk Pool Abortion Funding
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/jul/10071606.html

URL: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/jul/10072302.html


Copyright © LifeSiteNews.com. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivatives License. You may republish this article or portions of it without request provided the content is not altered and it is clearly attributed to "LifeSiteNews.com". Any website publishing of complete or large portions of original LifeSiteNews articles MUST additionally include a live link to www.LifeSiteNews.com. The link is not required for excerpts. Republishing of articles on LifeSiteNews.com from other sources as noted is subject to the conditions of those sources.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Extended News; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: abortion; healthcare; hhs; hydeamendment; naral; nrlc; obamacare; prolife
From the article:

Now Brooks Jackson of FactCheck.org has agreed with both NRLC and the pro-abortion groups that nothing in the law would have prevented abortions from being funded under the high-risk pools.

Basically, OBAMACARE from the start was set to provide funding for abortions.

Apparently, it was only the outrage over what was going to happen in Pennsylvania that prevented abortions from being covered by ObamaCare.

The HHS Department of the US Government intervened to state that abortions would not be covered and to re-instate the HYDE Amendment.

Thank God. Thanks for not wasting Government money on abortions.

Now to the business of getting rid of Obamacare...

1 posted on 07/23/2010 11:10:09 AM PDT by topher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: topher

Liars who are corrupt waste inhabit this Regime and this Congress.


2 posted on 07/23/2010 11:12:57 AM PDT by ExTexasRedhead (Take back our country on November 2, 2010.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: topher
Any time Planned Parenthood and NARAL are upset -- it must be something good that is happening!
3 posted on 07/23/2010 11:13:42 AM PDT by topher (Let us return to old-fashioned morality - morality that has stood the test of time...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: topher
the "aggressive timeframe to submit proposals" required that the writers of the proposal “insert ‘placeholder’ language absent specific guidance from the federal government on the benefit package.”

The entire bamaCare program is "placeholder language." It means whatever they want it to mean.

4 posted on 07/23/2010 11:22:41 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o (God has set a limit on man's intelligence, but none on his stupidity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ExTexasRedhead

Where’s the statement from that lying sack of shiite Stupak?


5 posted on 07/23/2010 11:37:22 AM PDT by jmaroneps37 (Conservatism is truth. Liberalism is lies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: topher

Why is factcheck.org suddenly credible?


6 posted on 07/23/2010 11:43:00 AM PDT by BigGaloot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: topher
Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Someone alert Bart Stupak.

7 posted on 07/23/2010 11:48:18 AM PDT by Recovering_Democrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: topher

This was their intention from the beginning. The public is seen as just a bunch of dummies who don’t deserve the truth.


8 posted on 07/23/2010 11:49:54 AM PDT by Leftism is Mentally Deranged (My goal in life is to annoy as many liberals as possible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: topher
I did not need FactCheck.org to tell me that JOE WILSON WAS RIGHT............................
9 posted on 07/23/2010 12:08:11 PM PDT by cranked
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BigGaloot

Factcheck.org is funded by the Annenberg Foundation, who has ties to Obama, Ayers, et al.


10 posted on 07/23/2010 12:36:13 PM PDT by gura (If Allah is so great, why does he need fat sexually confused fanboys to do his dirty work? -iowahawk)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith; Arthur Wildfire! March; Berosus; bigheadfred; blueyon; Convert from ECUSA; dervish; ...
The non-partisan fact-checking site FactCheck.org has vindicated the National Right to Life Committee's (NRLC) claim that federal monies were on the brink of funding abortions in state high-risk insurance pools before the matter was exposed by NRLC
just wait.
11 posted on 07/23/2010 6:59:27 PM PDT by SunkenCiv ("Fools learn from experience. I prefer to learn from the experience of others." -- Otto von Bismarck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv; topher
Here's how I predict it will proceed: the President will mumble "no," citing the Incredibly Stupak Exec. Order; some chop shop will recruit a Jane Doe and sue; then it becomes the Justice Dept's business to defend the Exec Order in court; Eric Holder will do so in a predictably perfunctory and intentionally incompetent manner; the clinic and "Jane Doe" will triumph; and voila, from sea to shining sea, abortion funded by you and me. Prenatal baby disposal as a public service.

Watch.

I predict it will be in time for Christmas.

Please, somebody, tell me I'm wrong.

12 posted on 07/25/2010 10:09:11 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o ("A paranoid is someone who knows a little of what's going on." William S. Burroughs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

It looks plausible, alas.


13 posted on 07/25/2010 7:24:51 PM PDT by SunkenCiv ("Fools learn from experience. I prefer to learn from the experience of others." -- Otto von Bismarck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

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