We’ve been critical of some of the coverage of health care legislation in recent weeks. But here’s a straightforward Associated Press piece that does a solid job of laying out the issues. From the beginning of the article:
Health care legislation before Congress would allow a new government-sponsored insurance plan to cover abortions, a decision that would affect millions of women and recast federal policy on the divisive issue… .
Advocates on both sides are preparing for a renewed battle over abortion, which could jeopardize political support for President Barack Obama’s health care initiative aimed at covering nearly 50 million uninsured and restraining medical costs.
“We want to see people who have no health insurance get it, but this is a sticking point,” said Richard Doerflinger, associate director of pro-life activities for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. “We don’t want health care reform to be the vehicle for mandating abortion.”
The piece gets the perspective of NARAL Pro-Choice America and other groups that support abortion rights.
“It’s a sham,” said Douglas Johnson, legislative director for National Right to Life. “It’s a bookkeeping scheme. The plan pays for abortion, and the government subsidizes the plan.”
Rep. Lois Capps, D-Calif., author of the compromise, said she was trying to craft a solution that would accommodate both sides. Her amendment also would allow plans that covered no abortions whatsoever—not even in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother—to be offered through the insurance exchange.
“With all due respect, not everyone adheres to what the Catholic bishops believe,” said Capps, who supports abortion rights. “Our country allows for both sides, and our health plan should reflect that as well.”
I’m not quite sure how you accommodate the people who don’t want to pay for other people’s abortions as well as the people who do want to pay for other people’s abortions under the same plan, but the article does a good job of showing how abortion rights supporters and those who oppose abortion have fought over the federal funding of abortion issue for decades. One of the most helpful parts of the story is explaining how taxpayers might pay for abortions under the new legislation and how and why they don’t pay for abortions under the current law. It also does slightly better than previous stories in explaining current provisions for abortion under private insurance plans.
It’s not the most thorough story on the matter, but it’s a great start and does a good job of including the voice of Catholics who want health care legislation but don’t want any provision that would lead to taxpayer funding of abortions. There might even be some other religious voices worth hearing on the matter. Something tells me this abortion issue is going to be a big one.
 | Posted at 7:53 am |  Print
| Permalink | Trackback |
Comments (13) |
August 7, 2009, at 9:55 am
This is the distinction between empathy and sympathy. Despite my lack of sympathy for the anti-abortion postion I empathize over the tax-support issue; I resented supporting with my taxes a war in Viet Nam of which I did not approve.
August 7, 2009, at 11:15 am
In another thread someone asked whether a contentious moral topic actually falls under the scope of getting religion.
As long as pro-aborts use religion as a club to beat on pro-lifers (misrepresenting that “not even for the life of the mother” is not the Catholic view on the issue), I am afraid incorporating it under getting or not getting religion is valid.
August 7, 2009, at 11:45 am
This might be a stupid question, but I was under the impression that Planned Parenthood clinics provided abortion free of charge. If PP charges for abortions, are there any clinics that provide abortions free of charge?
August 7, 2009, at 12:01 pm
With all due respect to Lois Capps, I don’t adhere to what the Catholic bishops believe, and I do fervently oppose a plan that provides for taxpayer funding for abortion.
I dislike how the media sometimes frames opposition to abortion as a Catholic issue. The pro-life side is a broad coalition which includes those who are not Catholic, or Christian. I do, however, think the Catholic bishops speak with commendable clarity on this issue.
And as for those who equate taxpayer funding for abortion with paying for wars that they oppose; do two wrongs make a right?
August 7, 2009, at 1:00 pm
As the article details, the question is one of fungibility — does money advanced to an organization then give the federal government say in all that organization’s activities, even those funded from other sources? In the healthcare debate this arises in the context of subsidized private plans — can a policy holder in effect, “buy more”?
August 7, 2009, at 1:38 pm
Jimmy Carter used to say that abortion pivoted on what was essentially a religious mystery (I think that’s too simple a statement) and that tax dollars must not support either side of that debate. It was, he said, a church-state issue.
Does anyone know his current stance on the use to taxpayer dollars to fund or ban abortions?
August 7, 2009, at 3:08 pm
I was expressing empathy, not seeking a precedent. Sorry if that got past you.
August 7, 2009, at 5:00 pm
It’s worthwhile keeping in mind how rapidly the draft legislation is changing as noted in the following URL. So anyone who believes that health-care legislation will contain any specific measure is not paying close enough attention. And clearly there is plenty of time for people will strong beliefs to contact their elected officials to express an opinion.
http://wordpress.asc.upenn.edu/2009/08/abortion-and-the-health-care-bills/
August 7, 2009, at 5:39 pm
The coverge here is confusing because buying healthcare and buying health insurance are very different phenomena. When I took economics, many moons ago, we were taught that insurance is a form of gambling not an economic purchase. There are some religions, like the Amish, who will not participate in insurance for this reason.
Remember, there are many private plans that allow access to abortion. If these are employer provded, which is deductible from Federal taxes, then the government already subsidizes abortion.
The reporter should have asked: what does it mean to say the government spends money. Instead we get confusion about direct buys and insurance.
August 7, 2009, at 6:46 pm
dalea,
That was actually one of the things I liked about the story — it got into what it means to say “taxpayer funding” of abortion. It’s a tricky issue and I thought the article did a good job of just laying out how this health care legislation doesn’t have anything to do with the Hyde amendment, etc.
particularly considering how limited the word count on this piece is.
August 9, 2009, at 11:17 pm
Mollie,
I just wished they had gone deeper into the issue. Just what ‘taxpayer funded’ means is a very complicated area. If a health plan is paid a flat rate per person for annual coverage, would that be a funding of abortion? There are plans that work this way. The money goes to the service, frequently a clinic, and there is no accounting for what it is spent on, just for outcomes. Any half way clever accountant or financial officer can make tax funded abortions disappear into thin air.
August 9, 2009, at 11:26 pm
I agree. It would be nice for the AP report to go deeper. But that’s usually what you get with AP in particular and wire services in general — a solid story but not too much depth.
August 11, 2009, at 1:29 pm
[…] August 7: Get Religion: Taxpayer funding of abortion […]