Under Reid’s “manager’s amendment,” there is no prohibition on abortion coverage in federally subsidized plans participating in the Exchange. Instead the amendment includes layers of accounting gimmicks that demand that plans participating in the Exchange or the new government-run plan that will be managed by the Office of Personnel Management must establish “allocation accounts” when elective abortion is a covered benefit (p. 41). Everyone enrolled in these plans must pay a monthly abortion premium (p. 41, lines 5-8), and these funds will be used to pay for the elective abortion services. The Reid amendment directs insurance companies to assess the cost of elective abortion coverage (p. 43), and charge a minimum of $1 per enrollee per month (p. 43, lines 20-22).
In short, the Reid bill continues to defy the will of the American people and contradict longstanding federal policy by providing federal subsidies to private health plans that cover elective abortions. The new language does include a “state opt-out” provision if a state passes a law to prohibit insurance coverage of abortion, but it’s a sham because it does nothing to prevent one state’s tax dollars from paying for elective abortions in other states.
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
The Abortion Issue Simplified
Kudos to Rep. John Boehner for his succinct analysis of Reid's bill:
And there it is.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
sickening!
Hairy Read will look good with a noose around his neck.
How does this not conflict with a devout Catholic's constitutional right to practice his or her faith without government intrusion and encumbrance?
Rick
Rick:
Because faith is something that's supposed to be practiced in the privacy of one's home and compromised or left at the door the second they go into the public sphere.
The Constitutionality of forcing people to support abortion will be one of the issues on which Obamacare is challenged. If no one else does it, I will.
Amy:
If the USCCB will not come out forcefully against this, as I believe it ultimately will not, then I think it will be up to us in the trenches to fight this monstrosity. First, as I understand it, we must be considered to have "standing" in order to pursue this through litigation. This will be enormously expensive, but I'd rather donate money to a suit to find this abomination to be unconstitutional, than to ever donate to a political party. Have any ideas as to how we can involve as many concerned Catholics as possible when it's time to move? God Bless and MERRY CHRISTMAS!
Rick
Post a Comment