Posted on 12/12/2011 8:12:59 PM PST by hocndoc
The Obama administration has turned down a request from Texas to run its Title X family planning program, funded with federal taxpayer dollars, without funding the Planned Parenthood abortion business.
The adminsitration sent a letter to inform the Texas Health and Human Services Commission of its intent to deny a request to extend the Medicaid Women’s Health Program if Texas complies with its law banning contractors “that perform or promote elective abortions or affiliate with entities that perform or promote elective abortions.”
Earlier this year, Texas yanked about $64 million in funding from Planned Parenthood and directed the funds to agencies that do not do abortions. In conjunction with that, the Texas Health and Human Services Commission submitted a request to the Center for Medicaid and CHIP Services to continue its family planning program without funding Planned Parenthood or other abortion agencies.
As it has in Indiana and New Hampshire, the Obama administration denied the request and, according to the Texas Tribune, Cindy Mann, director of the federal agency, wrote a letter to Texas officials today saying its request is a violation of the federal Social Security Act.
“We want to be very clear [that] Medicaid does not pay for abortions and will not pay for abortions,” Mann told the Tribune. “We indicated to the state today [that] their proposal violates the longstanding law.”
Mann told the newspaper the Obama administration would allow Texas to continue de-funding Planned Parenthood until March, by which the state would have to work with federal officials to determine how to move forward.
“We’re very much interested in continuing discussions with them on having a longstanding renewal of the family planning demonstration program,” Mann said. “…The issue here is not whether Medicaid funding is involved but whether the state can restrict access to a qualified health provider simply because they provide other services Medicaid doesn’t pay for.”
Gov. Rick Perry told the newspaper he was uspet by the Obama administration’s decision, “I am concerned the Obama Administration is playing politics by holding women’s health care hostage because of Texas’ pro-life policies,” saying Obama is “sacrificing the health of millions of Texas women in the name of their pro-abortion agenda.”
Joe Pojman, the director of Texas Alliance for Life also condemned the decision in comments to LifeNews.
“We believe the State of Texas has every right to deny millions of tax dollars to Planned Parenthood, which is what the Texas Legislature and Governor Perry has chosen to do,” he said. “Senate Bill 7, passed last summer during a special legislative session, prohibits Medicaid tax dollars under the Women’s Health Program from going to abortion providers and their affiliated organizations.”
“This bill excludes several dozen Planned Parenthood sites from the Women’s Health Program, but it does not exclude any other hundreds of Women’s Health Program providers in Texas. Many of the other providers offer comprehensive primary and preventative care to low- income women in addition to family planning, which Planned Parenthood is unable or unwilling to provide,” he continued. “By threatening to cancel the Women’s Health Program in Texas, the Obama Administration is showing it would sooner deny tens of millions of dollars of medical services to low-income women rather than allow the State of Texas to cut off tax funding to Planned Parenthood.”
On February 17, 2011, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott issued an opinion affirming that the state may exclude providers that perform abortions or are affiliates of abortion providers from a Medicaid program.
The Texas de-funding has already resulted in the closing of 12 Planned Parenthood centers.
“A new confirmed total of 12 Planned Parenthood facilities have been shut down in Texas since the end of the 82ndlegislative special session, which dealt the abortion industry a $64.2 million blow. Without government funding, Planned Parenthood facilities are withering on the vine. New funding priorities set by the legislature detail that any facility associated with the abortion industry is given the lowest priority for family planning funds. As a result, three Planned Parenthood affiliates have been forced to close several of their facilities in order to reduce operating costs,” said Elizbaeth Graham of Texas Right to Life.
In September, the Obama administration made a decision to force New Hampshire taxpayers to fund the Planned Parenthood abortion business after the state’s Executive Council voted to revoke a $1.8 million contract. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announced it will provide the contract for family planning with Planned Parenthood directly from the federal government to the abortion business rather than routing the money through the state and letting New Hampshire officials determine who should receive the Title X grants. The council voted against funding because Planned Parenthood does abortions and its top officials earn big six-figure salaries.
The decision came after the Obama administration sent the state a strongly-worded letter to complain. The Health and Human Services Department is claiming the state broke federal rules in denying the Planned Parenthood contract and it alleges the state must provide family planning services to low-income women and that de-funding Planned Parenthood puts it at risk of losing federal funding by supposedly denying women access to family planning — even though other alternatives are available from other agencies.
After Indiana’s decision to de-fund Planned Parenthood, the top Medicaid official in the Obama administration denied Indiana’s use of its new state law that would cut off anywhere from $2 million to $3 million the Planned Parenthood abortion business receives in federal funds via the Indiana government through Medicaid. The Obama administration told the state it can’t implement the new law, with Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Administrator Donald Berwick denying a request to deny funds saying the federal Medicaid law stipulates that states can’t exclude providers based on the services they provide.
Indiana refused to comply and is standing its ground against a lawsuit Planned Parenthood filed and is appealing the Obama administration’s ruling that it can’t determine who receives the Medicaid tax dollars the state is given to dole out. But Marcus Barlow, a spokesman for Indiana’s Family and Social Services Administration, told National Journal, “The way the law was written, it went into effect the moment the governor signed it. We were just advised by our lawyers that we should continue to enforce Indiana law.”
“The definition and punishment for the various forms of homicide is most certainly a State’s right, but whether or not abortion is homicide is not. The 10th does not justify or permit Parties’ ‘acceptance of the pro-abort.’”
On the contrary if killing is not murder it is simply killing. By defining murder the State implicitly must define what killing is murder.
The Federal Goverment no where in the Federal Constitution is authorized to define when life begins for the States.
This question in its most pure form is a religious question. The Catholics have long maintained that life begins at conception. Other religions both in and out of Christianity hold different positions.
But for the propose of the Protection of the laws of the State. the Question of where human life begins and thus when killing becomes murder is invariably that of the State.
To give you a little perspective, the Roman Empire did not regard it as murder until you became the family paternal.(oldest male) That the rest of the family was effectively the Paterfamilies property. Thus the killing of any family member by anyone else was a bit like a property crime against the Paterfamilies.
None of us have any right to object to any state of theses united States from adopting the same stance in the extreme. Likewise any State can recognize the individual(independent of family) as becoming subject to direct state protection and subornation by defining such a beginning at conception.
To discriminate as to which human beings are *human enough* to deserve protection from killing ignores science, which gives us more information about embryology and human development than the Romans had.
Nevertheless, this is not the Roman Empire. This is the United States of America, where the law is not based on a right not to be killed that is given and taken away by the State. It is endowed on all human individuals, independent of the opinion or decisions made by other individuals, including the States.
The States may have different levels of punishment and criteria for self defense, neglect or non-intentional homicide, but all of those laws are based on the right to life.
“To discriminate as to which human beings are *human enough* to deserve protection from killing ignores science, which gives us more information about embryology and human development than the Romans had.”
Who is and is not *human enough* is as I said is a religious question of morality not that of scientific hypothesis.
It is no different then for you to say this is mine and that is yours. Nature (science) cares not to whom we humans judge an object belongs but only that the object exist. We humans on the other hand make that judgement based upon our cultural(religious) values & understandings of property rights.
I know this because there exist species & cultures that do not understand property rights.
My friend hocndoc, you confuse 2 different aspects, one of moral in judgement & qualification, the other physical.
It is akin to trying to mix the dictionary’s of two different languages.
The definition of life in the agreed language of scientist is not necessarily the same same as the definition of human or (Insert citizenship) life in the opinion of the State.
Nor is either necessarily the same as the definition of human life in religion.
Our books were not written by the same people looking for the same things & agreeing upon the same values.
You know had the Federal cot left row vs. wade well enough alone we wouldn’t have to bother with this. But no they had to insert themselves into a clearly state affair. Question whether or not the State of Texas regarded the unborn as living humans, and decide on that basis whether or not it could protect them as one of its citizens.
But instead we are forced by Federal injustice system into splitting the hairs between the moral qualification of human life and the scientific qualification.
I and (I beleive) my State naturally is in agreement with your position on the definition of life. New York, New & Old England, China, and Vermont are not.
It is not a matter of personal opinion that embryonic humans are humans. It’s a matter of taxonomy, and scientifically documented that the offspring of a given species are members of that species.
It’s you who are confusing morality and science.
Break the egg of a bird, turtle, or lizard on the Endangered species list and it won’t matter that the animal couldn’t survive or was an embryo or fetus. The Feds know that an embryonic pelican is a pelican.
We don’t have the same protection for our own children of tomorrow that we give lesser species, although we are the only species having the conversation in the first place.
Discrimination between members of a species is much more a “religious” or moral decision than whether or not a given individual is a member of that species.
It is interesting that you should expose federal hypocrisy in this matter.
Even thou as in the case human life the protection of animal life is also not legitimately subject to the jurisdiction of Washington D.C.
Nor is their a completion to protect all animal life only that select animal life which the goverment selects. Indeed your example of the endangered species list provides an excellent example of the discrimination of goverment in the domain & extent of its active protection of even matters such as life.
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.