Steven Waldman

Steven Waldman


Killing Grandma vs. Killing Babies/Fetuses

posted by swaldman

It might be tempting to equate the assertion that Obamacare definitely pays for abortions with claims that Obama’s death panels will kill your grandmother and siphon money from your bank account. .
They’re actually different. The death panel and raid-your-bank-account ideas are lies. The abortion charge is merely a big exaggeration.
Let’s go to the tape. A Family Research Council ad features a very worried elderly looking gentleman talking to his wife:

MAN: They won’t pay for my surgery. What are we going to do?
WOMAN: But honey you cant live this way?
MAN: And to think that planned parenthood is included in the government run health care plan and spending tax dollars on abortions. They won’t pay for my surgery but we’re forced to pay for abortions.

For starters, it actually is possible that there may be a man out there whose surgery might not get paid for. We know this because private insurers do it all the time. For instance, if this chap had wanted to pectoral implants, his surgery would have been denied by a private insurer and hopefully would be by a public insurer too.
And the reference to Planned Parenthood? Actually, that’s true-ish, too. The Senate Health Committee bill includes provisions for “medically necessary” treatments provided by “essential community providers.” This could indeed include Planned Parenthood.
Now, that doesn’t necessarily mean anything: Planned Parenthood already gets money from the federal government for family planning services and they’re not allowed to use it directly for abortion. The Senate bill does not mandate abortion BUT it doesn’t close the door to that possibility either. That’s why Senator Robert Casey, a pro-life Democrat, voted against the amendment. “It’s too broad and that the way it could be interpreted down the road might include something like abortion,” he said.
And what about the ad’s phrase, “spending tax dollars on abortions”? There was a convoluted debate about this in the House Energy and Commerce Committee. I’ve written about the details here, but the bottom line is that the legislation does not mandate government paying for abortion — but again leaves open that possibility.
Well, you might say, the Family Research Council ad doesn’t say abortion “might or might not be paid for by the government,” it says taxpayers will be paying for abortions. Isn’t that a big difference, truth-wise?
Ah, but you weren’t watching the ad closely enough. At the very beginning of the ad, for roughly two seconds, these words appear: “Will this be our future.” Get it? Technically speaking, they’re not saying this definitely will happen; they’re just askin’ whether it might. (For more on the FRC justification for the ad see this exchange).
Will the government pay for abortions under the health care bills?
Definitely? No. Probably? Hard to tell. Possibly? Yep.
While I’m not excusing Family Research Council’s exaggeration, the Democrats should have seen this coming a mile away. In fact, Chris Korzen argues that Democrats made a good faith effort to find common ground in the House bill. But if the goal was creating a sense of clear neutrality, they missed the mark. (By the pro-life efforts to solve the problem didn’t work either
No one thinks the Democrats will, or should, try to come up with something that will win over the Family Research Council, which would oppose health care even if abortion were clearly prohibited. But if you want health care reform, the fact that the Democrats haven’t figured out a way of assuaging pro-life Democrats at this point seems risky in the extreme.
For one thing, it’s forced the Catholic Church to the sidelines. The Bishops want to be able to support health care reform — and the Catholic Church wouldn’t be a bad group to have on the White House’s side. But the delay in working out the abortion compromise has left them unable to endorse.
Democrats need to decide. Do they want to neutralize abortion as an issue in the health care debate — as Obama has suggested — or use it as a vehicle to expand abortion rights? If it’s the former, and they want to de-fuse this bomb, what exactly are they waiting for?



Advertisement
Comments read comments(5)
post a comment
Gwyddion9

posted August 12, 2009 at 11:05 am


thank you Steve for your article. Yes, you’re right in that there are those who will lie to stop President Obama’s health care plan.
Generally it’s the RR and the GOP, the party that likes to talk about morals, family values and self-righteousness.
I found this website that was created to counter the lies.
Top Five Health Care Reform Lies—and How to Fight Back
Link:
http://pol.moveon.org/truth/lies.html?rc=tw



report abuse
 

hootie1fan

posted August 12, 2009 at 12:03 pm


Google Nataline Sarkisyan



report abuse
 

WIDTAP

posted August 12, 2009 at 5:00 pm


So any slander or false witness is moral as long as it is phrase as a hypothetical or a question? No matter how emotive or vulgar?
– Has Steve Waldman stopped beating his wife yet?
– Would Beliefnet still allow Steve to publish here if they knew he was a child molester?
– I am certain that no one would read Steve’s work again if they knew he practices Satanic worship, right?
Let’s agree that the moral person tries not to lie or mislead, even as they try to make their point.



report abuse
 

Ben

posted August 19, 2009 at 10:58 am


MediaCurves.com just conducted a study with 605 viewers of an anti health care reform ad by the Family Research Council (FRC). The results showed the all parties reported that “anger” was the emotion they felt most while watching the commercial. The study also revealed that 64% of Democrats, 81% of Republicans and 71% of Independents indicating that the ad was either extremely effective or somewhat effective. For more in-depth results, please visit http://www.mediacurves.com/HealthCare/J7497-FRCAd/Index.cfm.
Thanks,
Ben



report abuse
 

RonInIrvine

posted August 26, 2009 at 7:16 am


ObamaCare is a direct attack on our Constitution. People of belief will not tolerate it. HR 3200 does not need to be “fixed” or “improved,” it needs to be burned. Pages 16-17 of the bill outlaw selling health insurance by private insurance companies. But that is not what you hear from Obama and the rest. They say they want a “public option” to compete with private insurance. It is a lie. Now we know the truth. I am tired of seeing people, supposedly of faith, capitulate to evil leaders like Obama. Our Forefathers would have resisted this tyrant and so will we.



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

More Blogs To Enjoy!
Thank you for visiting this page. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here are some other blogs you may also enjoy: Top Religious News Most Recent Inspiration Post Happy Reading!

posted 6:00:22pm Apr. 20, 2012 | read full post »

Good Bye
Today is my last day at Beliefnet (which I co-founded in 1999). The swirling emotions: sadness, relief, love, humility, pride, anxiety. But mostly deep, deep gratitude. How many people get to come up with an idea and have rich people invest money to make it a reality? How many people get to create

posted 8:37:24am Nov. 20, 2009 | read full post »

"Steven Waldman Named To Lead Commission Effort on Future of Media In a Changing Technological Landscape" (FCC Press Release)
STEVEN WALDMAN NAMED TO LEAD COMMISSION EFFORT ON FUTURE OF MEDIA IN A CHANGING TECHNOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE FCC chairman Julius Genachowski announced today the appointment of Steven Waldman, a highly respected internet entrepreneur and journalist, to lead an agency-wide initiative to assess the state o

posted 11:46:42am Oct. 29, 2009 | read full post »

My Big News
Dear Readers, This is the most difficult (and surreal) post I've had to write. I'm leaving Beliefnet, the company I co-founded in 1999. In mid November, I'll be stepping down as President and Editor in Chief to lead a project on the future of the media for the Federal Communications Commission, the

posted 1:10:11pm Oct. 28, 2009 | read full post »

"Beliefnet Co-Founder and Editor-in-Chief Steps Down to Lead FCC Future of the Media Initiative" (Beliefnet Press Release)
October 28, 2009 BELIEFNET CO-FOUNDER AND EDITOR-IN-CHIEF STEPS DOWN TO LEAD FCC FUTURE OF THE MEDIA INITIATIVE New York, NY - October 28, 2009 - Beliefnet, the leading online community for inspiration and faith, announced today that Steven Waldman, co-founder, president and editor-in-chief, will re

posted 1:05:43pm Oct. 28, 2009 | 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.