Obamacare in fact funds abortions [Fr. Z]

I hope the sisters of the CHA are proud of themselves.

I found this story on the site of Jill Stanek.%between%

Obamacare to fund abortions in Pennsylvania; heat on Dahlkemper

Quote:

... less than 4 months after Obamacare’s passage, and with Obama his executive order supposedly banning public funding of abortions, we get confirmation it was a fraud.

%between%

Full entry...

[quote="Catholic_Opinion, post:1, topic:205341"]
I hope the sisters of the CHA are proud of themselves.

I found this story on the site of Jill Stanek.%between%

Obamacare to fund abortions in Pennsylvania; heat on Dahlkemper

Quote:

... less than 4 months after Obamacare’s passage, and with Obama his executive order supposedly banning public funding of abortions, we get confirmation it was a fraud.

%between%

Full entry...

[/quote]

Does this really surprise anyone?

It was a executive order. He just had to find a way around it. Only Supak couldn't see that.

**We are so brilliant, so enlightened!

The health care bill will not allow abortion based on sex alone, although any other excuse is ok!!!!!!!!

"and what abortions fit the requirements? According to 18 Pa. C.S. § 3204:

"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.

So if "physical, emotional, familial, & the woman's age????????????????????????"

In other words, i can recommend an abortion for any reason under the sun, except if the baby is female, so now we are so much better than the Chinese who murder female babies because males are better????!!!!!

**

*God help us!
*

Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, Ora Pro Nobis Peccatoribus!

mark

[quote="Redratfish, post:2, topic:205341"]
Does this really surprise anyone?

It was a executive order. He just had to find a way around it. Only Supak couldn't see that.

[/quote]

That's just it. Stupak did see it. He stated in one of his town hall meetings that even with the abortion language in the health care bill he would still vote for it. I can't find the video on Youtube (it was there during the big health care debate) but there was one where he did say he would vote for it regardless.

I found the Youtube video where Stupak stated he would still vote for the health care bill.

Rep. Bart Stupak speaking in Cheboygan, MI

No way. Obama promised us himself there would be no funding for abortions in His health care bill, and pro-life hero Bart Stupak agreed so that means this article can't be true. End of story!

So what happened to all the Obamapologists here who assured us so many times in the past that the abortion funding was a "myth"? Did they all happen to accidentally overlook this? :confused:

FactCheck.org, yes, the present wording of regulations would allow for funding of abortions on demand. When questioned about it, Pennsylvania Insurance Department’s Melissa Fox replied:

Due to the aggressive timeframe to submit proposals Pennsylvania, as well as other states, I’m sure, needed to insert "placeholder" language absent specific guidance from the federal government on the benefit package. That was the case not just for the abortion issue, but also mental health benefits. Once the clarifying guidelines are issued, the language in the proposal will be adjusted accordingly.

Fox says that the intent is to limit the coverage of abortion by the temporary risk pools to cases of rape or incest, or to save the life of the mother.
factcheck.org/2010/07/taxpayer-funded-abortions-in-high-risk-pools/

I guess we will have to see what changes occur.

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.