Skip to comments.Subsidizing Health Plans That Cover Abortion Is Not Federal Funding of Abortion, Democrats Say
Posted on 02/09/2011 9:29:25 AM PST by jazusamo
(CNSNews.com) -- Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) said on Tuesday that providing individuals with subsidies under the health care law to purchase health insurance plans that cover abortion services is not considered federal funding of abortion.
VIDEO 2:16 minutes
Its not federal funding, she said at a press conference on Capitol Hill. Were saying people have the right to get insurance, whatever insurance they want, and they get a tax credit for providing insurance. Were not spending federal funds on abortion. So, what they are doing is twisting and turning what the meaning is of federal funds that has never been contemplated before.
Boxer gathered with other Democratic senators at the press conference to "express their opposition to legislation being pushed by House Republicans this week that would endanger women's health by severely limiting their access to affordable health care and reproductive health services, they said in a statement.
Boxer continued: I mean, if you start using their [Republicans] definition, I can tell you right now theres no end to it. They can say, Were going to raise taxes for any family whose daughter ever had an abortion. I mean, lets get real here. Theyre twisting the meaning. It is not federal funding.
Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) also remarked, When your company -- before the health care reform -- when your company bought health insurance for you and it was not considered income and, therefore, you werent taxed on it and it did cover all reproductive services, you could make the exact same argument. So, this is no change, right? You dont have to agree with me, youre a journalist, but I think that my logic is impeccable.
The proposed "Protect Life Act," sponsored by Rep. Joe Pitts (R-Pa.) would prevent federal funding of abortion services under the health care legislation passed last year by the Democrat-led Congress and signed into law by President Barack Obama in March.
The Pitts bill would also prohibit the federal government from suspending federal funding from institutions that choose not to provide abortion services.
Boxer said that subsidizing health insurance plans that cover abortion services is not direct federal funding of abortion.
Look, they [Republicans] tried to redefine rape for purposes of reimbursement under Medicaid, she said. They tried to redefine incest for purposes of reimbursing under Medicaid and now theyre redefining what federal funds are. There are no direct federal funds and thats what is contemplated under Hyde [Amendment] and weve had this decades-long compromise, and we stand by it. Its bipartisan. Its decades long.
She continued, Its worked well and theyre trying to just frankly destroy it, and theyre doing it in a partisan fashion. Its not what we came here to do and theyre twisting and turning every way they can in order to get what they want, which is essentially not allowing anyone, anyone, even someone whose life is threatened, even someone whos a victim of incest or rape to have access, but not only to abortion but to health care.
The Hyde Amendment, created in 1976, is attached each year to the annual appropriations bill for the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and prevents any program under HHS, such as Medicaid, from paying for abortion except in the cases of rape, incest, or where the life of the mother is at risk.
Hey, apparently giving $500 million to Planned Parenthood doesn’t either.
Snorting cocaine rather than smoking cocaine isn’t really drug abuse.
Yes it is Babs, because dollars are fungible.
I wonder which Senator will have the guts to stand on the floor of the Senate next to a TV Monitor showing a video of a Partial Birth Abortion?
Show the Country and those bastards exactly what they support with our Tax Dollars. Nothing like a visual aid to stir the debate.
Then using school vouchers at a Christian supported private school is not a violation of the separation of church and state.
And it's getting closer than we could have imagined. Got some of them in my own family.
WE HAVE A WINNER!!! NO MORE CALLS,PLEASE!!!
I hear you, it’s getting old. I doubt there’s many extended families that don’t have them, fortunately some see the light.
Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) also remarked, When your company — before the health care reform — when your company bought health insurance for you ..and it did cover all reproductive services, you could make the exact same argument. So, this is no change, right? You dont have to agree with me, youre a journalist, but I think that my logic is impeccable.”
No federal funding for private insurance...duh.
I hope Minn voters doe the right thing next time.
No question, the dem’s are delusional to say in effect, black is white and fully expect people will believe it.
Al is definitely no rocket scientist. Private companies don’t spend taxpayer dollars, well, at least until Hussein Obama came on scene.
So what she's saying is that Obama's executive order about prohibiting funding of abortion using Obamacare dollars is meaningless? Won't Barack be upset about her nullification of his diktat? I'm sure we'll hear from him shortly with a scathing response. /sarc