During the firestorm right after Rep. Bart Stupak approved the Senate’s take on health care reform, I posted an item here at GetReligion that asked some basic questions about a key religion element of the story.
The consistently pro-life Democrat said that the Senate bill (backed by an executive order from President Barack Obama) would not allow tax dollars to fund elective abortions, even though it did not contain the language that he had successfully added to the earlier House bill — language that was defeated in the Senate, to the joy of the defenders of abortion rights.
Thus, I asked:
… Was Stupak naive? … What, pray tell, is the difference between Stupak’s view of the Senate bill and that of the U.S. Catholic bishops? What are the facts in the legislation on which they disagree? … It’s clear that abortion-rights activists believe they have something to cheer about, because Stupak’s language was defeated.
Ever since then, I have been looking for mainstream coverage that returns to this issue and clearly explains the views on both sides. Note that I said explains the views. It is not enough for a story to simply say “this side is right,” without addressing the concerns of mainstream voices on the opposing side (think Catholic bishops or liberal mainline Protestant leaders).
I’m still looking. In the meantime, please consider the following material from a Washington Post op-ed page column by Kathleen Parker, the conservative that many conservatives have recently learned to semi-hate.
I realize that we do not cover editorial columns as news here at GetReligion, so this tests our normal limits. Still, Parker offers some explanatory language that seems especially sober and clear (at least to me). I am sure that many will disagree. However, if you choose to leave comments knocking her explanations, please offer some URLs to link to factual material — mainstream sources, please — to back your case. This is one of the only pieces I have seen that even addresses the issues raised by the U.S. Catholic bishops and others in mainstream groups that oppose the federal funding of abortion.
Read it all. Meanwhile, here is a key chunk of her column, which follows an explanation of why an executive order cannot override a statute:
… Of course the bill doesn’t explicitly state that it appropriates abortion funding. In fact, it takes pains to use terminology that seems to explicitly forbid it. But other areas are swampier. And, indeed, funds could be used to pay for abortion under circumstances that predictably will evolve.
History and precedent tell us this much. For one thing, the Hyde Amendment is a rider that must be lobbied and attached each year to the annual Labor/Health and Human Services appropriations bill. Under its terms, the amendment applies only to those funds.
Rather than following the usual course of funding community health centers (CHCs) through the Labor/HHS budget, the health-care-reform measure does an end run around Hyde by directly appropriating billions of dollars into a new CHC fund. Because the Obama administration’s “fix-it” bill did not include the abortion-ban language proposed by Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), those billions appropriated to CHCs simply are not covered by Hyde.
The president’s executive order, she notes, was supposed to handle this problem by extending the Hyde language to cover community health centers. However, it presidents could do that, then there wouldn’t have been annual wars fought on the Hill during the George W. Bush years to pass the Hyde Amendment. When you are talking about controlling money, you need an act of Congress. As one expert says, “That’s Civics 101.”
Parker continues:
It is telling that the nation’s largest abortion provider — Planned Parenthood — is claiming “victory” because “we were able to keep the Stupak abortion ban out of the final legislation and President Obama did not include the Stupak language in his executive order.”
Several supporters of the bill have argued that this debate is otherwise irrelevant because abortions aren’t performed at CHCs. While currently true, this doesn’t mean that CHCs wouldn’t like to offer abortion among their reproductive services. Under the new law, they can. There’s nothing to stop them.
Here’s why. By statute, CHCs are required to provide all “required primary health care services,” defined to include “health services related to … obstetrics or gynecology that are furnished by physicians.” Federal courts long have held that when a statute requires provision of health services under such broad categories, then the statute must be construed to include abortion unless it explicitly excludes it. Voila.
Journalists note: This points toward the next step in the evolution of this story. The local hook may be as close as the sidewalks in front of your local community health center or the telephones at your local chapter of the Right To Life Committee (or the local Catholic diocese, or a megachurch that gets online bulletins from Focus on the Family, etc., etc.)
There is no reason for the story to go away, especially since a majority of Americans continue to oppose the use of tax dollars to fund abortions and, rest assured, GOP leaders (whether they have constructive views on health care or not) will be preparing to shout those statistics from coast to coast in the next round of congressional elections.
Stay tuned.
Photo: President Barack Obama signs a stimulus bill sending new funds to community health centers across the nation.
 | Posted at 2:59 pm |  Print
| Permalink | Trackback |
Comments (7) |
March 31, 2010, at 3:44 pm
From the article:
What is needed here is a definition of primary health care which the CHCs provide. Surgery is generally not part of primary health care. A reporter covering a story should have a more firm understanding of actual process than is on display here.
Having worked with this more years than I care to remember, here is how the general process proceeds. We begin with the budget which is an estimate of revenues and expenditures. Within the budget should be something called a Sources and Applications of Funds. (If it is not there, we have major problems.) The S&A sets out where we get the money and how we spend it. In all the boring footnotes, there will be restrictions on both sides; some revenues are dedicated to certain projects which are clearly stated. This then sets up the fiduciary obligations which are the parameters for the spending. What HCR does is put the funds from the government into a stream that can not be used to pay for abortions.
IOW, federal health funds are encumbered, there are uses they can and can not be applied to. This is a standard feature of all accounting and financial systems. Abortion services are encumbered by HCR; they can not be used for abortions. Just as repairing the parking lot gates can only be paid for out of the funds from parking fees. If the fund becomes exhausted that alerts management to a problem with previous repairs or to depreciation issues.
Any complex organization has a financial and accounting system that can handle any encumbrance with ease. What amazes me about this debate is the press continues to cover complex issues of nuts and bolts accounting without interviewing actual accountants. This is one of the more bizarre reportage I have seen: people speculating about a subject they clearly know nothing about get coverage while knowlegable experts are not even contacted. Does the term encumbrance appear in any of the reporting.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
April 1, 2010, at 12:40 am
Dalea,
As many times as you bring up this point (and similar ones related to similar problems in news stories), you really should start a GetAccounting blog. It seems something of that nature is sorely needed.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
April 1, 2010, at 8:28 am
dalea:
You have overlooked this:
In addition to needing an accountant’s view, a lawyer’s analysis is also needed. In the case of abortion, case law interferes with the normal functioning of an encumbrance. Case law does not appear in the statutory language - you need to find it in law books or West-law or the like.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
April 1, 2010, at 8:33 am
Should have said
In the case of abortion, the USCCB and others argue that specific case law interferes with the normal functioning of an encumbrance.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
April 1, 2010, at 11:20 am
Since this post is about press coverage of the executive order and its signing (and not the accounting intricacies of Community Health Centers that are now legally permitted to provide abortions), here’s an enlightening post from the Washington Examiner, which commented on the exchange between Robert Gibbs and the reporters who pressed to cover the signing in person. It actually reads a lot like a Monty Python skit, but sadly it’s not:
“The Obama White House did not allow the press to cover the president’s signing of the executive order created to win Rep. Bart Stupak’s vote for Obamacare. At the daily briefing, reporters wanted to know why no press photographer or reporter was allowed in. Press secretary Robert Gibbs told them they should be happy with a picture from the White House photographer, Pete Souza — a photo produced and selected by the White House. It will be a “nice picture,” Gibbs assured reporters.
Reporters tried to appeal to the White House’s professed commitment to openness and transparency. Gibbs was having none of it. The White House wanted to limit coverage of the executive order, so in the spirit of openness and transparency it simply shut the press out. This is how Gibbs’ back-and-forth with reporters went:
“The president is signing an executive order on abortion that is a pretty big national issue,” a reporter asked. “Why would that be closed press, no pictures?”
“We’ll put out a picture from Pete [Souza],” Gibbs said.
“But what about a picture from the actual national media, not from — ” the reporter started to follow up.
“On, the picture from Pete will be for the actual event,” Gibbs answered.
“Right, but what about allowing us in, for openness and transparency?”
“We’ll have a nice picture from Pete that will demonstrate that type of transparency.”
“Not the same, Robert,” the reporter said. “Never has been.”
“I know you all disagree with that,” Gibbs answered. “I think Pete takes wonderful photos.”
Gibbs’ suggestion that the press corps thinks Souza is a bad photographer set off the reporters. That’s not what they were saying; the point was that the press was not allowed in.
“Whoa, whoa, whoa,” the reporter said. “Don’t twist this — it’s not an attack on Pete.”
“Well, I don’t know why you’d want to attack Pete, Chuck,” Gibbs said, “but I’m going to stand up here and defend Pete’s — ”
“It’s not transparent and it’s a vital issue.”
“And you will have a lovely picture from Pete.”
“You really think that’s all it’s worth, is a photograph, on an issue this important?”
“No, I think you’ll be able to see the President sign the executive order.”
“Not hear anything anybody has to say?”
“You’ll have a nice picture.”
And [there] it is: a nice picture, exactly what the White House wanted you to see, and nothing more.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/White-House-Transparency-Youve-got-to-be-kidding-89054337.html
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
April 1, 2010, at 12:41 pm
Many abortions are not surgical, but “chemical”.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
April 1, 2010, at 3:14 pm
Did Gibbs write the “dead parrot” sketch and others for the Monty Python troupe? If Graham Chapman were alive, he could have walked in there in his military garb and growled about how the whole thing was much too silly and needed to be shut down.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0