Obama Administration Approves First Direct Taxpayer Funding of Abortion

Obama Administration Approves First Direct Taxpayer Funding of Abortion Through New High-Risk Insurance Pools

(CNSNews.com) - If you want proof that President Obama's Executive Order on taxpayer-funded abortion was a sham, look no further than Pennsylvania, says House Republican Leader John Boehner (Ohio).

Boehner and other Republicans point to reports that the Health and Human Services Department is giving Pennsylvania $160 million to set up a new high-risk insurance pool that will cover any abortion that is legal in the state.

"The fact that the high-risk pool insurance program in Pennsylvania will use federal taxpayer dollars to fund abortions is unconscionable," Boehner said in a statement on Tuesday.

cnsnews.com/news/article/69384

It was just a matter of time, really...:(

Big shocker. Obama using a Chicago-style ruse to get his agenda through! Shocking! LOL

Hey Stupak, where’s your guarantee now?:mad:

Mine didn't get nearly as much attention.

forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=475659 :(

It hurts me to say "I told you so" to friends who supported this bill.

I’d like to hear from our CAF Obama supporters on this one.

Politics, Politics, all is Politics...

thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/health-reform-implementation/108757-pennsylvania-high-risk-pool-sparks-debate-over-abortion-

"Jenny Backus, a spokeswoman for the Department of Health and Human Services, said the charge is inaccurate. She said all high-risk pools - whether run by the states or by the federal government - will follow the same rules as do the insurance plans for federal employees, which only cover abortions in cases of rape or incest or when the life of the mother is in danger."

Let's see what pans out before we all go apoplectic. I, frankly, don't trust any of them and am skeptical of the left and the right. It may be Obama lied; but it may be Boehner is deliberately shading what's happening.

In any case, NO ONE, GOP or DEM, supports the Catholic position.

Well folks, it looks like it’s the crazies on the right trying to make hay when there is none:

Abortions: Includes only abortions and contraceptives that satisfy the requirements of
18 Pa.C.S. § 3204-3206 and 35 P.S. §§10101, 10103-10105.

  1. Elective abortions are not covered. Services rendered to treat illness or injuries
    resulting from an elective abortion are covered.
  2. The Program and its Subcontractors will respect the conscience rights of
    individual providers and provider organizations and comply with the
    Pennsylvania law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of the refusal or
    willingness to participate in certain abortion and sterilization-related activities as
    outlined in 43 P.S. §955.2 and 18 Pa. C.S.A. §3213(d).

portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/health_insurance/9189/federal_health_insurance_reform/713453

click “approved state proposal”

In politics you can’t trust anyone!

[quote="johnnykins, post:8, topic:205319"]
Well folks, it looks like it's the crazies on the right trying to make hay when there is none:

Abortions: Includes only abortions and contraceptives that satisfy the requirements of
18 Pa.C.S. § 3204-3206 and 35 P.S. §§10101, 10103-10105.
1. Elective abortions are not covered. Services rendered to treat illness or injuries
resulting from an elective abortion are covered.
2. The Program and its Subcontractors will respect the conscience rights of
individual providers and provider organizations and comply with the
Pennsylvania law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of the refusal or
willingness to participate in certain abortion and sterilization-related activities as
outlined in 43 P.S. §955.2 and 18 Pa. C.S.A. §3213(d).

portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/health_insurance/9189/federal_health_insurance_reform/713453

click “approved state proposal”

In politics you can't trust anyone!

[/quote]

The issue is what is considered an "elective" abortion.

that an abortion is legal in Pennsylvania (consistent with Roe v. Wade) if a single physician believes that it is "necessary" based on "all factors (physical, emotional, psychological, familial and the woman's age) relevant to the well-being of the woman." Indeed, the cited statute provides only a single circumstance in which an abortion prior to 24 weeks is NOT permitted under the Pennsylvania statute: "No abortion which is sought solely because of the sex of the unborn child shall be deemed a necessary abortion.

Here is the PA code:

§ 3204. Medical consultation and judgment.
(a) Abortion prohibited; exceptions.--No abortion shall be
performed except by a physician after either:
(1) he determines that, in his best clinical judgment,
the abortion is necessary; or
(2) he receives what he reasonably believes to be a
written statement signed by another physician, hereinafter
called the "referring physician," certifying that in this
referring physician's best clinical judgment the abortion is
necessary.
(b) Requirements.--Except in a medical emergency where there
is insufficient time before the abortion is performed, the woman
upon whom the abortion is to be performed shall have a private
medical consultation either with the physician who is to perform
the abortion or with the referring physician. The consultation
will be in a place, at a time and of a duration reasonably
sufficient to enable the physician to determine whether, based
on his best clinical judgment, the abortion is necessary.
(c) Factors.--In determining in accordance with subsection
(a) or (b) whether an abortion is necessary, a physician's best
clinical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors
(physical, emotional, psychological, familial and the woman's
age) relevant to the well-being of the woman. No abortion which
is sought solely because of the sex of the unborn child shall be
deemed a necessary abortion.

(d) Penalty.--Any person who intentionally, knowingly or
recklessly violates the provisions of this section commits a
felony of the third degree, and any physician who violates the
provisions of this section is guilty of "unprofessional conduct"
and his license for the practice of medicine and surgery shall
be subject to suspension or revocation in accordance with
procedures provided under the act of October 5, 1978 (P.L.1109,
No.261), known as the Osteopathic Medical Practice Act, the act
of December 20, 1985 (P.L.457, No.112), known as the Medical
Practice Act of 1985, or their successor acts.
(Mar. 25, 1988, P.L.262, No.31, eff. 30 days; Nov. 17, 1989,
P.L.592, No.64, eff. 60 days)

    1989 Amendment.  Act 64 amended subsecs. (c) and (d).
    Cross References.  Section 3204 is referred to in section
 3217 of this title.

law.onecle.com/pennsylvania/crimes-and-offenses/00.032.004.000.html

It doesn't take much to qualify, only a doctors rule it is "necessary". The remaining codes involvle informed consent, and parental notification.

You especially can't trust people who want to pay for others to kill unborn children. The healthcare act will fund elective abortions. It might not be doing it yet, but it's coming.

-- Mark L. Chance.

This is the LAST THING I needed to see this morning!:mad::mad::mad: But I cannot say I didn't know it was coming.

I bet Stupak crapped himself when he heard this.:mad:

[quote="Redratfish, post:12, topic:205319"]
I bet Stupak crapped himself when he heard this.:mad:

[/quote]

Why? He's retiring with a nice taxpayer funded pension and healthcare.

The problem is, the PA definition of what an "elective" abortion is is VERY subjective, per PA law.

I'm wondering if johnnykins will respond. Truth knows no political leaning, and the "crazies on the right trying to make hay when there is none" charge is unwarranted.

[quote="Redratfish, post:12, topic:205319"]
I bet Stupak crapped himself when he heard this.:mad:

[/quote]

He knew it the whole time, as did, and do, all the Obama supporters.

[quote="Ridgerunner, post:14, topic:205319"]
He knew it the whole time, as did, and do, all the Obama supporters.

[/quote]

Of course he did!!! Even Stupek knows how to put on a dog and pony show.:rolleyes:

I think its good that there are groups out there monitoring the use of federal funds, but it looks like they went off half-cocked on this one. PA has confirmed what HHS said, these finds can't and won't be used to pay for any abortion (other than those allowed by the Hyde amendment):

We could not and would not use federal money to cover elective abortions, we could not and would not use federal money to go beyond the scope of the Hyde Amendment in the case of non-elective abortions.

whyy.org/cms/news/health-science/2010/07/15/pa-answers-abortion-funding-questions/41934

You expect any rational person to believe members of Congress who, in any other legislative effort that teeters on the abortion fence will gladly fall in favor of it, worked for weeks on this bill, often in secret or closed meetings, and it DOESN'T support or favor their position?

Why would they do that?

If that was their intent, they had a perfect opportunity to do so when language was offered that specifically prohibited funding elective abortions. Remember their action on that? It was flat out REJECTED.

So what this comes down to is Congress was unwilling to put that language into the bill, now what the monies pay for (if there is any dispute) is resolved by the decree of people with an ardently pro-abortion history, and you think a nebulous PA state statute is going to stand in their way? Good luck!

Only the naive are going to view this with any hope of federal restraint. This administration are stridently anti-life, and the proof is their voting records, what they say, who they appoint, who they support, and who supports them. This is their plan - make changes incrementally. It's the camel's nose under the tent, without regard that the nose is attached to the rest of the camel.

We haven't seen any cases yet, so we don't KNOW what will happen, we can only judge on the history of how other laws have been handles and applied. We read things like "only in (some) cases.." but when a woman can tell her doctor it's causing emotional stress and turn it from "elective" to "necessary," then where is this wall of protection that is being claimed? There isn't one.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.