Abortion and Healthcare Reform

Don’t miss Charmaine Yoest’s column in today’s Wall Street Journal. She argues that the Senate’s healthcare reform bill would be the greatest expansion of abortion since the passage of Roe v. Wade in 1973. It would mandate tax-payers to fund abortions in the following ways:

• It would change existing law by allowing federally subsidized health-care plans to pay for abortions and could require private health-insurance plans to cover abortion.

• It would impose a first-ever abortion tax—a separate premium payment that will be used to pay for elective abortions—on enrollees in insurance plans that covers abortions through newly created government health-care exchanges.

• And it would fail to protect the rights of health-care providers to refuse to participate in abortions.

For these reasons, Bart Stupak and 11 other pro-life Democrats are threatening to kill healthcare reform if this abortion problem isn’t fixed. Stay tuned. In the meantime, read Yoest’s column.

21 Responses to Abortion and Healthcare Reform

  1. Donald Johnson March 5, 2010 at 12:33 pm #

    I do not see how Pelosi can say abortion is not funded in the Senate bill she is trying to get thru the House. Does it have something to do with the meaning of “is”?

  2. Nate March 5, 2010 at 1:56 pm #

    No, it has everything to do with politicians, on both sides of the aisle, who believe that the American people are idiots and they should take over our lives. They are the nobles and we are the surfs.

  3. Donald Johnson March 5, 2010 at 3:30 pm #

    I think you mean serfs, or perhaps smurfs?

  4. Darius March 5, 2010 at 4:12 pm #

    Smurfs would make sense too.

  5. David Vinzant March 5, 2010 at 4:21 pm #

    ABC News ran a story last night in which its Truth Squad looked at Stupak’s claims. Watch it and judge for yourself:

  6. Darius March 5, 2010 at 4:44 pm #

    So either you trust the Wall Street Journal, the most trusted newspaper in the country, or you take the word of a dying news network that has a history of biased reporting. Tough choice.

  7. David Vinzant March 5, 2010 at 4:50 pm #


    Do you understand the difference between an op-ed piece and investigative journalism? If ABC got something wrong, why don’t you point it out instead of engaging in ad-hominem?

  8. Nate March 5, 2010 at 4:52 pm #

    Plus Obama, Pelosi, and Reid have never completely denied the claims of Stupak or that abortion will not be imbedded in this bill. They only say Stupak is exaggerating. The pro-death squad has always attempting to minimize the number of dead babies they don’t believe are babies.

  9. Darius March 5, 2010 at 5:06 pm #

    Apparently you don’t understand the difference between real investigative journalism and ABC News’ hack reporting.

    Also, if abortion isn’t the issue here, then why won’t the Obamatrons allow the Stupak amendment to go through? It’s pretty clear that Obama is radically pro-abortion and holds that issue as foremost among all issues.

  10. David Vinzant March 5, 2010 at 6:33 pm #


    So I take it you couldn’t find any errors in the ABC report?

  11. Darius March 5, 2010 at 6:51 pm #

    They resorted to the same lies that I’ve heard repeated over and over. It doesn’t take much intelligence to see through them. They didn’t even refute Stupak’s arguments… his claims that even if at first blush it seems like abortion won’t be funded, it won’t be long before it is.

    Come on, Stupak WANTS the health care bill to pass, why would he put up this fight? Look at it honestly for once and you have to admit, Stupak is the only one in a position where his motive has to be genuine. Meanwhile, the Obama cronies claim that Stupak is tilting at windmills, yet they won’t let his amendment into the bill. If his amendment is pointless, then why not just let it pass? Very telling indeed.

  12. El Bryan Libre March 5, 2010 at 7:19 pm #

    Maybe Stupak wants to run for Governor and this is his chance to get his name out there. It would probably make him look especially willing to take on Washington which seems to be working well for politicians right now. I wouldn’t just assume his motives are genuine.

    I did see him on some news show the other day and he made the claim that like a dollar was being put aside from everyone to fund reproductive services (which includes abortion). I don’t have any reason to doubt that. I don’t really like the idea of me putting a dollar aside that may be used to help someone have an abortion.

    Still, this whole thing did make me wonder about the issue of our taxes dollars funding things that we don’t agree with morally that are still legal and what our role or responsibility is. I don’t like the idea of my tax dollars funding war but it does. I’m also not big on the death penalty and so the idea that my tax dollars fund that as well bothers me. I’m sure I could think of a whole bunch of other things my tax dollars fund that I don’t agree with morally if I gave it some more thought. I guess it’s just the nature of the beast though. I don’t see how abortion is really any different from those other things since either way it’s still legal and Stupak language or not it’s still going to continue to take place in high numbers. I’d like to see health care reform pass and I hope this issue doesn’t keep it from doing so, especially since I really don’t know how the abortion issue would change much whether Stupak’s abortion language is included in the bill or not.

  13. Matthew Staton March 5, 2010 at 8:26 pm #

    Darius, dude, I say this not to hurt you but to encourage you to develop your communication skills: your arguments are deeply frustrating to me even when I agree with you!

    Comments 7, 10, and 12 are more ad hominem and character/intelligence slurs than content.

    I think you are making 2 points: ABC did not refute a particular claim by Stupak and the resistance to Stupak’s ammendent is telling. But these points are so painted over by insults that you have look hard to see them.

  14. David Vinzant March 5, 2010 at 8:29 pm #

    Please tell me one of the lies you claim they told. The “argument” you name sounds like a slippery slope argument. IOW, this bill doesn’t fund abortion, but another one might.

    I don’t think the opponents to the amendment say it is pointless. They say it will take away abortion coverage from people who have it now and want to keep it.

  15. Darius T March 6, 2010 at 12:57 am #

    Matthew, have you even read any of David’s comments??? You’re being absurd.

  16. Ryan K. March 6, 2010 at 2:07 pm #

    Darius is right on with this one. If the Senate bill will not change the status quo of the Hyde Amendment, which the Stupak amendment ensures, then why not just allow it?

    Why continue to try and tell the narrative as the only reason health care reform is being held up is because of obstructionist Republicans? When in reality its because Nancy knows she does not have the votes right now, especially without Stupak.

  17. Matt Svoboda March 8, 2010 at 12:36 am #

    Im with Ryan… Darius is definitely right on this one.

    Anyone that looks at this objectively can see that the “Obama cronies” are not being truthful. If his amendment is pointless it makes NO sense why they wouldnt let it pass. So why wont they let it past? Because it ISNT pointless!

  18. David Vinzant March 8, 2010 at 2:33 pm #

    Ryan and Matt,

    Read post #15, second paragraph.

  19. Donald Johnson March 11, 2010 at 5:10 pm #

    Looks like the Dems are going to ignore Stupak.


  20. Drew March 12, 2010 at 7:37 pm #

    Abortion is murder and to pay taxes for this health care bill is no different than it would be to pay taxes to support the holocaust.


  1. Abortion and The Health Bill at Ray Fowler .org - March 5, 2010

    […] of abortions out of the health bill. So why won’t the White House take that step? (HT: Denny Burk and Vitamin […]

Comment here. Please use FIRST and LAST name.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Powered by WordPress. Designed by Woo Themes