"Obamacare" does NOT pay for abortions, and it could LOWER the abortion rate

Below are facts and info from reliable sources, include a Catholic leader, showing that not “Obamacare” does not pay for abortions, but it could make for less abortions in the future. It is, as the Catholic worker says, a goal we can all agree on and support.


In addition to Federal courts, health policy experts, independent fact-checkers and media investigations all conclude that the Affordable Care Act does not provide federal funding of abortion services.


Here is a Catholic worker on the subject:

**People who receive federal subsidies to purchase health insurance who choose plans that include abortion coverage will have to pay separate premiums out of their own pockets for the abortion coverage. This premium will have to cover the full cost of the abortion coverage and be kept in a separate audited account.

In addition to safeguards against federal funding of abortion, the healthcare bill contains numerous provisions that are likely to reduce the incidence of abortion, a goal we can all wholeheartedly embrace, by supporting economically vulnerable women. **

More from a nonpartisan fact checker: politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/jul/16/national-right-life-committee/abortions-pennsylvania-paid-federal-dollars-not-so/

In depth analysis from a health care professional:

As we head into the final days of the health care reform debate, abortion has emerged as a central issue. It was always the intention of those in Congress who drafted the health care reform legislation that the law concerning abortion would simply be left as it has been, which is that federal funding cannot be used for abortions except in cases of rape, incest, or physical life endangerment of the mother. But American abortion politics are never simple, and both the House and Senate bills have been amended to clarify that federal funding will not be used to fund abortions.
It has become clear that the Senate bill must be the platform for health care reform going forward. Because the abortion provisions of the Senate bill cannot be changed through reconciliation (because they do not affect the revenues or outlays of the federal government), it is very important to understand how the Senate bill addresses abortion and how it compares with the House bill. A number of claims have been made in recent days about the Senate health care reform bill which are not accurate. Attached is what I believe to be a true comparison of the House and Senate abortion provisions. I am very familiar with these bills, and believe that their abortion provisions are essentially equivalent. The attached memorandum explains why.



I’m sorry but I failing to see how this lowers abortions. I think you bought into the lies the Obamacare has come up with. I think you should find a source that is REALLY telling you the truth.

I believe the idea is that part of lowering the abortion rate is providing support to lower-income pregnant women who might be having trouble affording care, so that they are not under financial strain by continuing their pregnancy.

Regardless of that, it is true that the Affordable Care Act does not allow public funds to be used to cover abortions. That is an independent verifiable fact.

More info for you below. I suggest you read the whole article, written by a nun who is Executive Director of NEWORK: A Catholic Social Justice Lobby:

**In addition to safeguards against federal funding of abortion, the healthcare bill contains numerous provisions that are likely to reduce the incidence of abortion, a goal we can all wholeheartedly embrace, by supporting economically vulnerable women. The legislation does this by investing $250 million to support pregnant teenagers and young mothers, allowing them to complete their education and carry their pregnancies to term. It also provides $11 billion for community health centers, which, since first receiving federal funding in 1976, cannot and have never provided abortion services, but can and will provide pre-natal and pediatric care in low-income communities across the U.S.

None of that matters to the political operatives fanning out across the country with false messages to convince pro-life voters that their representatives voted to open the floodgates of federal funding for abortion.** Contrary to their posturing about abortion, their strategy of making the 2010 election a referendum about a lie shows that they regard pro-life principles as a tool for advancing their political interests. It’s outrageous that pro-life Democrats who took a moral stand for life-affirming healthcare reform must now face dishonest attacks from purportedly pro-life advocates and organizations. I thank God that these dissemblers failed to deter courageous pro-life members of Congress from the most important vote they might ever take. I pray the bearers of false witness desist. After the divisive healthcare debate, we need honesty and healing, not a continuation of distortion and vitriol.

The whole premise of this thread is false. With the $1 surcharge on all healthcare plans going directly to abortion coverage, the myth that Obamacare doesn’t pay for abortions has really been put to rest. (not that any rational person believed it anyway)

someone should let the Bishops know,this will be a big relief to them.:rolleyes:

This $1 abortion thing is FALSE: Please see the fact check by this nonpartisan (conservative-leaning) organization:

So the claim of “$1 abortions” is ridiculously inaccurate.

So the argument is, reducing people cuts health care costs?

If the idea is more people = more costs, then why couldn’t ObamaCare be extended to covering physician-assisted suicide in the states where it has been legalized, because each suicide would result in a saving to the health care costs.

The one child policy could also be the end means of the premise of more people = more costs.

Pragmatically, think of all the tax revenue lost because of the 50 million plus abortions. These people could of created jobs and started businesses.

There are many crisis pregnancy centers and charities, Christian and Catholic church funds that help women struggling with finances.

Regardless of that, it is true that the Affordable Care Act does not allow public funds to be used to cover abortions. That is an independent verifiable fact.

That is not correct. Obamacare does allow for federal funds to be used to cover abortion because the Hyde amendment only applies to funds set apart through the appropriations bill that funds the Department of Health and Human Services. No funds that would be expended by ObamaCare, and no funds that will subsidize the buying of private insurance plans will go through the HHS appropriations bills.

Hyde does not apply to ObamaCare because Obamacare is funded outside of Health and Human Services appropriations.

To my knowledge, it is the birth control issue that the Bishops have been discussing, not abortion, in reference to the health care reform. The Bishops as a group do not say that the health care reform pays for abortions (and if they did it would not be true.) Some individual Bishops may have made this mistake: if you can show me otherwise, please do.

No it is not false.

Everyone concerned about government promotion and funding of abortions should read this rule for themselves, but allow me to outline a couple of the basic components with regard to the abortion requirements.

First, beginning on page 453, this rule describes and reaffirms the “segregation of funds for abortion services” as required under ObamaCare. Essentially, insurance plans may include abortion services in a plan subsidized by federal taxpayer dollars. To justify this inclusion, the plan will collect a $1 “surcharge” from all policy holders. Of course this surcharge will be collected as part of a larger premium payment, and not as a part of a separate collection. Additionally, plans are entirely free to advertise the total cost of these plans without mentioning that $1 of the premium is specifically intended to subsidize the abortion coverage. Further, the surcharge is only to be disclosed when the policyholder first enrolls.

In short, the $1 surcharge does not even attempt to resemble an actual offset of the abortion coverage cost, is virtually undetectable by the policy holder, and serves the singular purpose of providing a flimsy defense for inserting the federal government into the business of providing coverage for elective abortions.

Additionally, on pages 364-365, the final rule makes it entirely plausible that States that have passed laws prohibiting abortion coverage will be forced to provide that coverage anyway. This would occur through the multi-state plans administered by the Federal Government. The final rule simply says that rules governing these plans will be issued at a later date, so it’s entirely feasible (I’d say likely) that these plans will be permitted to cover abortion, even when one of the States within the multi-State area prohibits it.


Richard Doerflinger, secretariat of pro-life activities for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, told CNA on March 19 that the regulation presents “nothing new” but merely repeats what the health care law said from the beginning.

“If people are surprised, that is because they believed false and misleading accounts of the Act two years ago, instead of the accurate descriptions by the bishops’ conference and other groups,” Doerflinger said.

He explained that the funding of abortion was among the bishops’ reasons for opposing the final law, despite their “longstanding support for health care reform.”


Sorry Jerry, but you have seriously misunderstood the purpose of this forum. Any “fact” which conforms to the teachings of the Holy Republican Catholic Church are to be taken a absolute fact. Especially when uttered by the Bishops and Cardinals at Fox News. To questioon or suggest that a more reasonable position exists is to commit grave sin. As a member of the Roman Catholic Church, I am probably considered an apostate by many members of this forum and Mods in particular. You see a truly pro-life position, according to the Holy Republican Church is one which politicians provide only lip-service to the issue without really espousing policies which may result in fewer or maybe render abortion un-neccesary. Furthermore, we are to ignore many relevant Church teachings (Roman Catholic Church that is) that specifically teach that all of the issues regarding respect for life are to be taken in to consideration as we function in the world. Instead, we are to ignore and trade in the totality or Compendium of (Roman) Catholic Social Teachings in favor rantings of Ayn Rand. My friend you are seriously in error. You have committed, as have I, the sin of disagreeing with the Holy Republican Church. And, in particular, to suggest the Health Care reform Act may actually work more affirmatively to reduce and possibly eliminate abortion in our society may border on heresy. Remember, only lip service will do.

I’m not sure how you got this from what I explained? I was talking about how providing healthcare to low-income women could help lower the abortion rate…

Sorry, the ACLJ is not a credible source, it is very biased in favor of playing politics with this issue. I have already shown you an unbiased, credible source that shows you that this is simply false.


That is not what Sebelius has said, ‘Reducing pregnancies will cut health care costs’ aka more people = more costs, less people = lower costs.

The ACLJ article is simply starting where the abortion surcharge etc. is on which page numbers in the rule. Read the rule yourself.

Well it’s not as bad as www.catholicforum.com, which banned me for less than I have already posted here. Do you know any progressive Catholic forums?

And the Politifact article simply shows how this rule is being intentionally misconstrued to repeat the “$1 abortion” falsehood. The ACLJ bears false witness.

Whoa, there is a well recognized liberal tactic of denying all sources of facts except their own - which of course is pure as the driven snow and crystal as a mountain stream. Anyone can win if you tie the others persons hands behind their back. If you cannot address an oppossing fact, espcially from a well organized and practiced legal firm who MUST have the facts correct to win cases, except for denying its valid, then you have just painted yourself as an disingenuous liberal.

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.