Reformed Chicks Blabbing

Reformed Chicks Blabbing


Factcheck.org: Tax money will pay for abortions under ObamaCare

posted by Susan Johnson

So now that Factcheck.org said it, will you believe it?

The House leadership’s bill (H.R. 3200) actually made no mention of abortion when it was introduced. Johnson refers to an amendment to the bill adopted by the House Energy and Commerce Committee July 30. Abortion rights proponents characterize it as a compromise, but it hasn’t satisfied the anti-abortion side. Offered by Democratic Rep. Lois Capps of California, the amendment was approved narrowly by the committee, 30 – 28, with most but not all Democrats voting in favor and no Republicans backing it. The Capps amendment states that some abortions “shall” be covered by the “public option” plan, specifically those types of abortions that Congress allows to be covered under Medicaid, under the so-called “Hyde Amendment,” which has been attached regularly to appropriations bills for many years. These are abortions performed in cases or rape or incest, or to save the life of the mother.
As for other types of abortions, the Capps amendment leaves it to the secretary of Health and Human Services to decide whether or not they will be covered. It says, “Nothing in this Act shall be construed as preventing the public health insurance option from providing” abortion services that would not be legal for Medicaid coverage. Says the NRLC’s Johnson: “The Capps Amendment MANDATES that the public plan cover any Medicaid-fundable abortions, and AUTHORIZES the secretary to cover all other abortions. … [F]rom day one, she [Secretary Kathleen Sebelius] is authorized to pay for them all. And, she will.”

So will the Secretary do so? Of course she will. Obama promised this to his pro-abortion supporters:

Obama, July 17, 2007: We’re going to set up a public plan that all persons and all women can access if they don’t have health insurance. It will be a plan that will provide all essential services, including reproductive services, as well as mental health services and disease management services, because part of our interest is to make sure that we’re putting more money into preventive care.

The plan also would subsidize premiums to private healthcare insurance that covers abortions.
(via)



Advertisement
Comments read comments(58)
post a comment
Moonshadow

posted August 23, 2009 at 10:39 am


Back in the day when employers were big on their workers contributing to annual United Way campaigns, I recall conservative Christians designating that their donations not go for abortion services. I didn’t think I had the right to tell a charity how to use my money and I figured if they didn’t use my money, they’d use someone else’s because of budgeting.
But then a United Way big wig embezzled a million dollars and I lost faith in the organization. And I haven’t donated since.
If I had to make a distinction, it would be based on legality.
I wonder, would you feel the same if we were talking about paying for divorce proceedings?



report abuse
 

anonymous reincarnate

posted August 23, 2009 at 1:38 pm


LIAR!

The Capps amendment does contain a statement – as we noted in an earlier article – that prohibits the use of public money to pay for abortions, except in cases of rape, incest and to save the life of the mother. That would still allow the public plan to cover all abortions, so long as the plans took in enough private money in the form of premiums paid by individuals or their employers.

politifact.org has a different take than you (calling republican claims “false”):

Abortion coverage would not be part of the required minimum benefits package. In other words, insurers would not be required to offer, or be prohibited from offering, abortion services in order to participate in the exchange.

The public plan could include abortion coverage, but the cost of the additional coverage could not be paid through public subsidies (tax dollars), only through the premiums paid by the insured. And with private plans in the exchange, again, federal subsidies could not be used for abortion coverage.

covered yes. paid for with taxpayer money, NO. learn how to read.
fyi: i am completely okay with abortions being covered by any healthcare plan, even if it was taxpayer funded. it is after all a health issue and i’m pro-choice. until you right-wingers and especially “pro-life” right-wingers can guarantee that my taxes do not fund wars that i disagree with, you can suck a fart out of my butt.



report abuse
 

Julie

posted August 23, 2009 at 1:50 pm


It is amazing that Michele ignores FactCheck.org until she thinks it proves her point, which it does not in this case. FactCheck is only correct if considering the current law (Hyde Amendment) that allows abortions for rape, incest and to save the life of the mother. The Capp Amendment does NOT change current law on federal funding for abortions.
The Capps amendment bars the public option from using federal funds to cover abortion, but allows for private plans in the exchange to cover them.
Facts do not get in the way of some people, such as Douglas Johnson, legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee. He will say anything in an attempt to prohibit abortion coverage for everyone. Several of his statements on the FactCheck link are blatant lies.
I read that currently about 50% of heath insurance policies cover abortion. Remove the number not covered that receive federal funded health insurance – Congress/federal employees, military, Medicaid, Medicare, etc – and the number of private heath insurance policy currently covering abortions is considerably higher.
FactCheck:
“The Capps amendment does contain a statement – as we noted in an earlier article – that prohibits the use of public money to pay for abortions, except in cases of rape, incest and to save the life of the mother. That would still allow the public plan to cover all abortions, so long as the plans took in enough private money in the form of premiums paid by individuals or their employers.”
The following statement by FactCheck is NOT accurate and contradicts what they said in the previous sentences: “The Capps language also would allow private plans purchased with federal subsidies (“affordability credits” for low-income families and workers) to cover abortion.”
Read the Capps Amendment: http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090730/hr3200_capps_1.pdf
Page 2-3
Allows Federal funds for abortions allowed under current law, which means the Hyde Amendment would have to be overturned. The Hyde Amendment allows payment for abortions to safe the mother’s life, incest, and rape.
Page 4:
(2) SEGREGATION OF FUNDS.-If a qualified health benefits plan provides coverage of services described in section 122(d)(4)(A), the plan shall provide assurances satisfactory to the Commissioner that-
(A) any affordability credits provided under subtitle C of title II are not used for purposes of paying for such services; and
(B) only premium amounts attributable to the actuarial value described in section 113(b)
are used for such purpose.
Page 6:
“(3) PROHIBITION OF USE OF PUBLIC FUNDS FOR ABORTION COVERAGE.
-An affordability credit may not be used for payment for services described in section 122(d)(4)(A).



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted August 23, 2009 at 2:36 pm


Michele caught in another lie.
That’s news?



report abuse
 

Tom

posted August 23, 2009 at 5:07 pm


COVERAGE UNDER PUBILIC HEALTH INSURANCE OPTION.-The public health insurance option shall provide coverage for services described in paragraph (4)(B).  Nothing in this Act shall be construed as preventing the public health insurance option from providing for or prohibiting coverage of services described in paragraph (4) (A).
So, what am I missing here?  It’s at the discretion of the HHS Secretary, somebody not well known for her sturdy pro-life stance.
PS I was against the Iraq War and I won’t be sucking any farts out of anyone’s posterior.
Have a nice day :-)



report abuse
 

Julie

posted August 23, 2009 at 6:17 pm


It means that insurance plans not purchased with federal funding can cover abortions.
The HHS Secretary determines whether the language in the health insurance policy complies with the law. She cannot override the law to provide federal funding for abortions.



report abuse
 

Ellie Dee

posted August 23, 2009 at 6:35 pm


How could it not be in the bill, its the law of the land! Abortions are funded, thanks to RoeVs Wade. Where is the outrage there, when it comes to mixing Church and State? Its fine as long as its State,dictating to Church, what they should believe.
Thanks Michelle for doing the fact finding!



report abuse
 

Karen Whitaker

posted August 23, 2009 at 8:58 pm


Isn’t it odd that all these Christians who believe in Heaven don’t want the unborn to go there?



report abuse
 

Tom

posted August 23, 2009 at 8:58 pm


The public option is synonymous with the government option (mere euphemism). There is NO difference between the two.



report abuse
 

New Age Cowboy

posted August 23, 2009 at 10:42 pm


Michele, You’re part of the FAMILY, aren’t you?



report abuse
 

anonymous reincarnate

posted August 24, 2009 at 12:24 am


“Abortions are funded, thanks to RoeVs Wade.”
roe v. wade does not make it such that abortions are funded by taxpayer dollars. how in the world did you come up with that? roe v. wade makes it such that abortions were not illegal.
holy crap! i can’t understand how it is that you people cannot read and understand very plain language.



report abuse
 

Kevin

posted August 24, 2009 at 6:58 am


Read the amendment.
(A) ABORTIONS FOR WHICH PUBLIC FUNDING IS PROHIBITED.-The services described in this subparagraph are abortions for which the expenditure of Federal funds appropriated for the Department of Health and Human Services is not permitted, based on the law as in effect as of the date that is 6 months before the beginning of the plan year involved.
The DHHS cannot permit federal spending or subsidies on abortions that are not medically necessary, in rape and incest, because there is a law against federal spending on such abortions.
The issue is not even abortions in the public plan. They wont be covered (except medically necessary/rape/incest). The issue is the subsidies they provide when American’s choose a private plan. As many private insurers cover abortions(all), the government can either not subsidize those plans and limit the choices of American’s, or they can segregate the spending, in which subsidies will not be used to fund elective abortions. And this is what the amendment deals with.
The DHHS is restricted by law in what they can and cannot permit tax $$ on. Abortion is one of those.



report abuse
 

Tom

posted August 24, 2009 at 9:12 am


The DHHS cannot permit federal spending or subsidies on abortions that are not medically necessary, in rape and incest, because there is a law against federal spending on such abortions.
This is true for now, but there is no guarantee the Hyde Amendment will be left standing.  This is why it is based on the law as in effect as of the date that is 6 months before the beginning of the plan year involved.  Every year is a new plan year or enrollment year, which is why the House voted down a proposed amendment that would exclusively prohibit federal funding of (elective) abortions.  This is also why the bill doesn’t specify which abortions are prohibited and which are allowed under federal funding.  It just breaks it into (A) prohibited and (B) allowed.



report abuse
 

anonymous reincarnate

posted August 24, 2009 at 11:29 am


“there is no guarantee the Hyde Amendment will be left standing”
true, but the capps amendment makes this bill neutral to the abortion issue. it does not make any change to the current laws regarding the use of tax dollars for abortions.
from politifact.com:

Chris Korzen, executive director of Catholics United, which opposes abortion, said his group doesn’t want to see an important health care plan derailed by a “misleading campaign” that claims the health care plan would mean taxpayer-subsidized abortions.

“The goal should be to maintain the current policies,” Korzen said. “That Capps amendment accomplishes just that. It specifically prohibits taxpayers’ funding of abortions. It disappoints me that there are people who are still making that claim.



report abuse
 

RevPauli

posted August 24, 2009 at 12:13 pm


When is this blog going to be correctly re-named “Republican Chicks Blabbing”? When, in the ENTIRE course of this blog, has she ever ONCE spoke of something from a theological or religious perspective,m rather than purely a political one? I have no problem with political blogs, but there should at least be SOME religious aspect to a blog on Beliefnet, ESPECIALLY one that claims to be coming from a religious perspective!



report abuse
 

Jackie Payton

posted August 24, 2009 at 12:36 pm


LOL! You know that is right!
“When is this blog going to be correctly re-named “Republican Chicks Blabbing”? When, in the ENTIRE course of this blog, has she ever ONCE spoke of something from a theological or religious perspective,m rather than purely a political one? I have no problem with political blogs, but there should at least be SOME religious aspect to a blog on Beliefnet, ESPECIALLY one that claims to be coming from a religious perspective!”



report abuse
 

Julie

posted August 24, 2009 at 12:47 pm


Tom said, “This is true for now, but there is no guarantee the Hyde Amendment will be left standing.”
Beside the point that the House has never voted on HR 3200 and it will not be the final bill, there is no guarantee that Congress will not change any law after it is enacted. Congress frequently changes laws. It is also typical to cross-reference to another law to prevent having to change multiple laws when one law is changes.
RevPauli said, “I have no problem with political blogs”
I have considerable problem with political blogs that distribute false information, especially on an issue as important as health care. People are working against their own best interest based on lies being spread by Republicans. There are far too many members of Congress (Republicans & Democrats) that line their pockets with health industry money.
Michele writing her blog in the name of a Christian greatly harms the ability to convey God’s true word. She gets lumped in with all Christians, which does significant damage to the reputation of all Christians.
NRLC’s Douglas Johnson lied continuously throughout the campaign about the abortion issues. Michele continued his lies. They are a small sample of many that cause statements like the ones made by Ellie Dee (above comment). Jesus did never said the end justifies the means. In fact, he said the opposite. Jesus was very clear about lying.



report abuse
 

Julie

posted August 24, 2009 at 12:53 pm


Without Reform – How many employers will eliminate your health insurance or reduce your wages to pay for the insurance?
Commonwealth Fund, a 90-year-old non-profit health care charity:
New Report: Employer-Sponsored Health Insurance Premiums Increase 119 Percent from 1999-2008; Projected to Double Again by 2020
“Paying the Price: How Health Insurance Premiums Are Eating Up Middle-Class Incomes,
Employer-sponsored family plans will rise from an average cost of $12,298 in 2008 to $23,842 in 2020 (the same coverage would have cost close to $9,200 in 2003) if health-care costs continue to rise at the current rate.
The analysis presents state-by-state data on premium costs for 2003 and 2008, as well as projections, using various assumptions, for costs in 2015 and 2020.
http://tinyurl.com/mjcj47
Not only has the cost of health insurance increased, many/most health insurance companies have increased the deductibles or percentage that the individuals has to pay.



report abuse
 

Moonshadow

posted August 24, 2009 at 1:16 pm


She gets lumped in with all Christians, which does significant damage to the reputation of all Christians.
No she doesn’t. Julie, you know better.
Is the unspoken concern that the category of “medical necessity” may swell to include nebulous diagnoses like mental health of the mother … or her postpartum waistline? Women are not that shallow, thoughtless or frivolous about medical procedures.



report abuse
 

anonymous reincarnate

posted August 24, 2009 at 1:46 pm


She gets lumped in with all Christians, which does significant damage to the reputation of all Christians.
“No she doesn’t. Julie, you know better.”
i have to disagree with you, moonshadow. while i hate to stereotype people, right wing christians have done considerable work in branding all christians in their image. in my opinion, that’s not a good thing. i think that many people don’t have good opinions of falwell, dobson, haggard and the like, especially with their dabbling in political issues. every where you turn, there are more leaders in the christian community who are nutjobs, liars, rapists, and hypocrites.
when too many people of a given group are chanting the same rhetoric, it’s easier to stereotype the group as a whole.
only recently has the christian left begun to raise their voices about social issues such as climate change and health care coverage for the poor and unnecessary wars instead of the tired drumbeat by the christian right bashing gays and muslims and secularlism and troubled young women over abortions.



report abuse
 

Kerry

posted August 24, 2009 at 2:50 pm


Abortion is legal in this country. It is the poor who most need healthcare reform to assist with their wellness, and yes, reproductive needs. Those who oppose abortion, (many also oppose any contraception assistance to the poor) overwhelmingly are those who oppose healthcare reform, worried it may cost them something. Who do you think is paying for all the babies born to those who cannot afford them, but who are shamed out of their own reproductive choice of abortion? You are paying not only for the prenatal care and neonatal care as part of medicaid or if the mother is an uninsured person, but you are also paying for all those children who need care, don’t have insurance and show up in emergency rooms for a fever. The babies you believe are so very precious before birth, become the very same human beings who need healthcare after they are born. Are the already-born children not as precious as the pre-born? How do those who are pro-birth, who also denounce health-care reform to assist the poor, explain their conflicting position on this issue?



report abuse
 

Moonshadow

posted August 24, 2009 at 3:12 pm


i have to disagree with you, moonshadow. while i hate to stereotype people,
I’m sayin’ there are times I don’t recognize her. I just don’t recognize her. It’s frustrating and scary.



report abuse
 

anonymous reincarnate

posted August 24, 2009 at 3:58 pm


“I’m sayin’ there are times I don’t recognize her. I just don’t recognize her. It’s frustrating and scary.”
i hear that, and understand it well. i face the same problem with my own father who has grown more radicalised in the past 15 years than ever. i think it was those years of commuting to work with nothing more than right-wing voices across his a.m. radio to fill his head. but really… who knows? he’s certainly not the same guy that raised me to be open minded and independent. he’s more racist, greedier, and more self-centered. i love him, i just don’t recognize him any more.
“Is the unspoken concern that the category of “medical necessity” may swell to include nebulous diagnoses”
i don’t think so. i think that there are those who oppose even the ones currently deemed medically necessary who would like to slip in some language here that would trump existing laws and outlaw funding of all abortion procedures.
but the reason that abortion comes to play here is different. most americans agree that tax dollars should not fund elective abortions, because forcing some to pay for a medical procedure they are religiously opposed to just feels wrong. but the line breaks when discussing the cases of incest, rape, and preserving the life of the woman. if conservatives who are opposed to reform (for whatever reason) can tank the bill with a death by a thousand cuts approach, they will.
this is what i see going on. there are dozens of lies being propagated about the reform plans that aren’t even formalized yet. eventually a group of people will latch on to one lie or another and oppose the entire bill because of it. the “tax-payer funded abortion” lie is one of those. the “cuts to medicare” lie is another. the “we will pay for illegal immigrant insurance” is another. the “death panel” is another. the “march toward socialism” is another. the “government takeover” is another. republicans know the power of these divisive words, so it’s no wonder they are pushing them. if anti-abortionists think there’s even a slim possibility that their measly taxes might pay for an abortion, they’re already against this bill. if the elderly who depend on medicare believe that their benefits will be cut, they’re already against the bill. you get the picture.
the question is what are the real reasons why republicans fear reform? is it because they fear the insurance lobby or is it because they want obama to fail?



report abuse
 

Julie

posted August 24, 2009 at 4:24 pm


Watch a woman that is crying about health care for her husband at a Town Hall Meeting – it could be you facing a similar situation.
Sen Coburn, Republican and major jerk, Tells Women Crying Over Health Care “Government Is Not The Answer”
Coburn said our neighbors should be helping – how many people can receive money from their neighbors for health care.
The woman has insurance. She also has a Masters in Speech Therapy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3jwhLcW_c8



report abuse
 

Julie

posted August 24, 2009 at 5:17 pm


Moonshadow @ August 24, 2009 1:16 PM
She gets lumped in with all Christians, which does significant damage to the reputation of all Christians.
No she doesn’t. Julie, you know better.”
No Moonshadow, I do not know better. You may know her personally, but from her blogs, I see no signs of a Christian in Michele. In fact, I see the opposite. She is a sad person that not only lies in her blog, it is my opinion that she is lying to herself.
I have read some of Michele’s blogs that go back to 2007. She had many comments similar to mind, RevPauli, and AR, and others. She ignored the facts and continued with the attacks on anything Obama/Democrat.



report abuse
 

Les Prouty

posted August 24, 2009 at 8:39 pm


“the question is what are the real reasons why republicans fear reform? is it because they fear the insurance lobby or is it because they want obama to fail?”
I don’t know about others, but I fear no man, just God. And yes, I want Obama to fail.



report abuse
 

Karen Whitaker

posted August 24, 2009 at 9:11 pm


Fair enough, Les. And I hope you get cancer after your insurance is cancelled, but have enough strength to linger before you die to join your Maker in Hell, there to be with your family forever.



report abuse
 

Kari

posted August 24, 2009 at 9:27 pm


Anyone who wants the President to fail is unpatriotic and un-American. Shame on you. First time in 8 years I’ve heard our President speak in complete sentences – and that I’ve been proud to be American – and all you can do is hope he fails. Well, guess what, He fails, YOU fail, WE ALL fail! No one even knows how be civil anymore. How un-Christian of you all too. Shame, shame, shame.



report abuse
 

Tom M.

posted August 24, 2009 at 9:40 pm


In defense of Michelle, “Reformed” means pure in faith, like Abraham or Moses in the Bible. Did Abraham have government medical care after he left Ur of the Chaldees to follow God’s call?
And Moses, the nerve of him taking those Israelites away from Egyptian medical care. Why the Egyptians were advanced, killing babies to lower the population. Modern nations kills girls; the Egyptians killed boys…



report abuse
 

Les Prouty

posted August 24, 2009 at 9:46 pm


Karen, those personal attacks…how mean spirited of you. You Obama supporters are some of the most hat-filled people I have ever run across. BTW, how is my insurance going to get cancelled?
Kari, maybe you were not one of the liberals of the huffy post type, but I seem to remember many, many of them wanting Bush to fail. No “turnabout is fair play” here. My opposition to Obama is principled…constitutional.
And you have it backward. He fails in his socialist agenda and we all win. He succeeds and we all lose. He fails in his radical abortion(including infanticide) agenda, babies win. He wins, babies lose.
No shame here at all.



report abuse
 

Tom M.

posted August 24, 2009 at 10:01 pm


Go, Les, Go!



report abuse
 

JanS

posted August 24, 2009 at 10:27 pm


Les – I don’t remember anyone saying they wanted Bush to fail. What they did say is, Bush failed (past tense). As mother of son who fought Bush’s war, the last thing I wanted was Bush to fail. Yet every day now we are seeing and hearing how Bush failed us over and over again. You may not want Obama’s policies to go through — fine — we get it, but never say you want an American president to fail, that is just foolishness.



report abuse
 

Les Prouty

posted August 24, 2009 at 11:00 pm


JanS,
I remember it. Nevertheless, I stand by the comment. His presidency, his guiding philosophy is built on a socialist/Marxist base. His government takeover is unprecedented (except in European socialist types)and we stand to lose tremendous amounts of freedom. Liberals may be ok with that, but many of us are not.
I agree that Bush failed in some significant ways. I’m no Republican koolaid drinker. But Bush’s failures aren’t even vlose to this administration, and we’re only seven months in.



report abuse
 

anonymous reincarnate

posted August 25, 2009 at 12:04 am


“his guiding philosophy is built on a socialist/Marxist base”
i strongly suggest that you take some time and get a real education on world political history, specifically on marxism so that in the future you can tell the difference.
“government takeover”
of what? by bailing out the banks, so they didn’t fail and completely flush the economy down the crapper? let’s not forget that TARP was a plan by the bush administration. you can rewrite history as much as you want in your little land of make-believe.
and what is happening to those banks as they are paying back their borrowed money? they’re no longer the thumb of the feds, that’s what.
“his radical abortion(including infanticide) agenda”
hahaha! pouty, you’re making a fool of yourself, still.
and tom, you might not have noticed, but we’re not in egypt and we’re not in the time of abraham and moses.



report abuse
 

anonymous reincarnate

posted August 25, 2009 at 12:12 am


“I fear no man, just God. And yes, I want Obama to fail.”
then you should know that god does not like liars. be afraid, pouty.



report abuse
 

JanS

posted August 25, 2009 at 2:26 am


Les, The failures of the Bush administration are real and we are living with them in so many ways. The failures of the Obama administration are perceived. So, far he hasn’t failed, he just carrying the failures of Bush on his back.
Also, Les, I am pro-life, but please tell me what Bush ever did to save the unborn or Bush 41, or Reagan, or Ford, or Nixon. The Republicans have had control of every branch of the government more than Democrats since Roe v Wade was decided. Of the 11 Justices appointed since Roe v Wade, 8 of them were appointed by Republicans. They talk, but they don’t walk. The abortion issue brings more money into Republican coffers than any other issue. Trust me – Republican politicians need abortion to line their political pockets. Obama’s course of action is to save the child through saving and helping the mother to other options — that is pro-life.



report abuse
 

Les Prouty

posted August 25, 2009 at 6:56 am


Hey anony, pouty here. I was getting worried about where you were.



report abuse
 

Karen

posted August 25, 2009 at 7:26 am


RevPauli, if you were to go back about six months you would find Michelle can parrot factoids about the Bible and Calvinism. She doesn’t understand them, of course, much less is she able to place them in any context, but, yes, she can misspell words from theology, too. It’s a shame she didn’t have ovarian cancer before she reproduced.



report abuse
 

Les Prouty

posted August 25, 2009 at 10:00 am


Karen,
What has happened to make you so bitter? Your personal attacks on others is very unbecoming an intelligent dialogue and render your comments useless. Can you not disagree with someone without wishing disease (and death?) on them?



report abuse
 

Subhojitd

posted August 25, 2009 at 10:21 am


I often wonder if Abortion (also other issues like gun laws etc.) are anything but Vote Bank politics.
Believers of Issue x 7%
Believers of Issue y 8%
Believers of Issue z 11%
Hey that is a jumpstart of 26%. Does it matter that believers in issue x may not subscribe issue y.
Economy, terrorism, Foreign Policy, well those are not real issues are they? After all we share the same belief as the other side.



report abuse
 

Julie

posted August 25, 2009 at 10:53 am


JanS – more great comments. To his credit, Bush 41 said he was pro-life, but had no intention of pushing his views on others. Reagan and Bush 43 made big promised, but did nothing to implement the promises.



report abuse
 

Les Prouty

posted August 25, 2009 at 11:25 am


JanS,
“Also, Les, I am pro-life, but please tell me what Bush ever did to save the unborn or Bush 41, or Reagan, or Ford, or Nixon.”
For starters, look at the stats. From good ol’ factcheck.org:
“Politicians from Hillary Clinton and John Kerry to Howard Dean have recently contended that abortions have increased since George W. Bush took office in 2001.
This claim is false. It’s based on an an opinion piece that used data from only 16 states. A study by the Alan Guttmacher Institute of 43 states found that abortions have actually decreased. Update, May 26: The author of the original claim now concedes that the Guttmacher study is “significantly better” than his own.”



report abuse
 

JanS

posted August 25, 2009 at 11:52 am


Les, Did abortions decrease because Bush did something tangible or because of a 20 year downturn because of acceptance of the single mother? Again, Republican officials have done nothing but talk about abortion. Their rallying cry has been abortion. Only a week ago Sarah Palin had an “pro-life” fundraiser, but they weren’t raising funds to stop abortion, they were raising fund for Republican candidates. The abortion issue is a slam dunk for getting money from the right-wing. Why would they want it to go away?



report abuse
 

Les Prouty

posted August 25, 2009 at 12:17 pm


JanS, Bush II indeed pushed the partial birth abortion ban. But I am not arguing that Bush, or even most R legislators have done all I think they should have while in control.
Rather, the cause and effect of the decline in abortions under Clinton AND Bush is more attributable to state restrictions. That is what the various studies show.
My other main point is that if Obama gets his stated way, FOCA will effectively wipe out any and all federal AND state restrictions. If you are really pro-life, that should concern you.



report abuse
 

Julie

posted August 25, 2009 at 2:09 pm


Prouty is wrong about “FOCA will effectively wipe out any and all federal AND state restrictions.” Prouty is not a reliable source of information since he claims that no Republicans have lied about the health care reform. Like Michele, he only spouts Rush Limbaugh, Hannity, and Glenn Beck false statements.
It is a very simple bill to read. One reason for FOCA was state court decisions that made abortion illegal even if the mother’s health was in jeopardy.
The Act does not increase any provision of Roe v Wade, which included the protection of a viable fetus. Several states have implemented laws that do not allow abortion when the mother’s life is in jeopardy.
The purpose of “Freedom of Choice Act” (S. 1173) is to prevent the Supreme Court from removing portions of Roe v. Wade, including protecting the health of a woman.
“Statement of Policy – It is the policy of the United States that every woman has the fundamental right to choose to bear a child, to terminate a pregnancy prior to fetal viability, or to terminate a pregnancy after fetal viability when necessary to protect the life or health of the woman.”
http://tinyurl.com/5efgnc



report abuse
 

Julie

posted August 25, 2009 at 2:20 pm


The statistics for abortion are very questionable because reporting has not been a requirement. I think JanS is correct about the acceptance of single mothers.
JanS is also correct about the abortion issue being a great source of fund raising – how many more years will the right-wing be fooled by empty promises.
When Sarah Palin campaigned for governor, she promised not to overturn any abortion laws. She appointed a pro-choice woman to the top Alaska court.
Prouty – where are the sources for your claim that state laws have caused the decline in abortions?



report abuse
 

Les Prouty

posted August 25, 2009 at 2:33 pm


Nice try Julie. Be aware, Julie is wrong about FOCA. Julie is not a reliable source of information.
Sec. 6 of the House version:
“This Act applies to every Federal, State, and local statute, ordinance, regulation, administrative order, decision, policy, practice, or other action enacted, adopted, or implemented before, on, or after the date of enactment of this Act.”
You should have read on down a little further. In plain English, if a state has a law on the books whereby a teen must notify her parents before she can kill the baby, that law will be nullified by FOCA. Is this hard for you to see?



report abuse
 

Les Prouty

posted August 25, 2009 at 2:42 pm


Julie,
Dr. Michael New, Univ. of Alabama:
“Furthermore, when discussing this abortion decline it is unfortunate, but unsurprising, that Catholics United makes no mention of the Casey style “Women’s Right to Know Bill” which took effect in Kansas in 1997. This bill gives women seeking abortions information on fetal development, health risks involved with abortion, and public and private sources of support for single mothers. My research indicates that these laws have been effective at reducing abortion rates in other states.”
http://www.moralaccountability.com/catholic-politicians/debunking-the-sebelius-abortion-decline/



report abuse
 

Les Prouty

posted August 25, 2009 at 2:49 pm


Julie, more from Michael New:
“rticles that have appeared in peer reviewed academic journals provide further evidence that legally restricting abortion results in reductions in abortion rates and ratios. A 2004 study that appeared in The Journal of Law and Economics analyzed how changes in abortion policies in post-communist Eastern Europe affected the incidence of abortion. This study was particularly interesting because after the demise of communism, some Eastern European countries liberalized their abortion laws, while others enacted restrictions on abortion. At any rate, the authors concluded that modest restrictions on abortion reduced abortion rates by around 25 percent.
Furthermore, a study that was published in The New England Journal of Medicine in 2006 found that a Texas parental-involvement law led to statistically significant reductions in the number of abortions performed on minors (both in and out of state) and a slight, but statistically significant increase in the teen birthrate. Finally, my own Heritage Foundation research on state level pro-life legislation which utilizes data from both the Alan Guttmacher Institute and the Centers for Disease Control provides evidence that informed consent laws, public-funding restrictions, and parental-involvement laws are all correlated with reductions in the incidence of abortion.
Interestingly, even some studies that have appeared in the Alan Guttmacher Institute’s own Family Planning Perspectives provide evidence that pro-life legislation at the state level reduces the incidence of abortion. While Guttmacher typically does not trumpet these findings, they are real nonetheless. As such, before the media and pro-choice activists insist that the incidence of abortion is unaffected by its legal status and attempts to legally restrict abortion are doomed to failure, they may want to consider looking at the trends and reviewing the research — including research published by organizations that support legal abortion.”
http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=YTI0MjQ3MDE2YzU4M2E5NTdhOGU5ZWViZWY4NTNhYWI=



report abuse
 

anonymous reincarnate

posted August 25, 2009 at 4:06 pm


just like outlawing alcohol during prohibition resulted in fewer people reporting that they drank the stuff. clearly the same is true today with the outstanding results that we see from reagan’s ongoing war on drugs… no pot being smoked in these states that anyone brags about!



report abuse
 

anonymous reincarnate

posted August 25, 2009 at 4:16 pm


the real question isn’t “does restricting access to legal abortions reduce the number of abortions?” but rather, “does it reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies?”
board up all of the clinics that provide a safe environment for the medical procedure and see how few women are willing to yank the unwanted fetus out with metal hanger. i’m pretty sure there will be fewer abortions, but more women dying because of it.
or here’s another approach: if you don’t approve of abortions, don’t have one… you have a choice.



report abuse
 

Les Prouty

posted August 25, 2009 at 5:12 pm


Yeah, those pesky facts sure do get in the way. So just conjure up some lame analogy to try and explain the facts away.



report abuse
 

anonymous reincarnate

posted August 25, 2009 at 10:45 pm


“Yeah, those pesky facts sure do get in the way. So just conjure up some lame analogy to try and explain the facts away.”
i’m not disputing the study, nor am i “conjuring.” i’m just pointing out that making them illegal will not stop them. we know this from empirical evidence.
but you’re a funny one to start paying attention to facts when they happen to support your agenda, especially in this thread where you continue to ignore facts and push right-wing lies.



report abuse
 

Les Prouty

posted August 27, 2009 at 1:54 pm


More facts, this time from the libs…Jim Wallis, that liberal evanjellical. He is an advisor to Prez O and he admits abortion services are covered in the present bills in Congress. Hmmm. He says people are working on that to get it out.
http://www.frc.org/frcinthenews/25aug2009/tony-perkins-on-lou-dobbs-tonight



report abuse
 

stockleywa

posted July 24, 2010 at 3:10 pm


temperature business ipcc particular



report abuse
 

walkerblal

posted July 24, 2010 at 3:11 pm


list intense contends movit



report abuse
 

oem hanger

posted August 17, 2010 at 11:49 pm


nice post,I like the post thank you



report abuse
 

oem hanger

posted August 17, 2010 at 11:49 pm


nice post,I like the post thank you



report abuse
 

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.



Previous Posts

Another Blog To Enjoy!!!
Thank you for visiting Reformed Chicks Babbling. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here is another blog you may also enjoy: Inspiration Report Happy Reading!!!

posted 3:05:14pm Aug. 27, 2012 | read full post »

One Final Word
My dear friend Michele slipped into eternity on Wednesday, February 1.   She was a remarkable woman who left a legacy of faith, determination, and love. For three years she courageously battled the ovarian cancer that eventually robbed her of her life.  A few days before she died, one of her docto

posted 8:43:41pm Feb. 10, 2012 | read full post »

The rumors of my demise have been greatly exaggerated
My husband told me that there are rumors that I've died. I'm happy to report that I'm still very much alive. My cancer has gone to stage four but we are controlling it with chemo, the cancer numbers are currently in the normal range. I've stopped blogging to concentrate on my daughters and writing a

posted 7:07:55pm Aug. 23, 2010 | read full post »

An update and a prayer request
Several people have asked about Michele's condition, and have promised to pray for her. On her behalf, I thank you for that. I spoke with her a little while ago, and she asked that I come here and tell you what's going on, and to ask you to pray for her. She isn't able to post here herself right

posted 4:55:36pm Apr. 06, 2010 | read full post »

Rest in peace, Internet Monk.
A man known in the cyber world as The Internet Monk, has died. Michael Spencer lost his battle with cancer tonight. My prayers go out for his family and for all those who loved and will miss him. :(

posted 11:52:00pm Apr. 05, 2010 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.