Government Abortion Funding Bill Debated by Senate: Bishops Support Bill

[KatherineS]

The Senate voted Monday to begin debate on an extension of unemployment insurance and health benefits, with four Republicans joining with Democrats to allow the bill to clear the main procedural hurdle. Even though the bill includes federal funding of abortion, it is being supported by the Catholic Bishops.

By a 60-34 vote, the Senate agreed to consider extending the benefits and it is expected that the Senate will pass the actual extension later this week.
It is estimated that over 200,000 Americans were impacted by the expiration of the benefits. The vote Monday gave Democrats the needed 60 votes to block any filibuster attempts by Republicans to delay the process of extending the benefits further.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., criticized Republicans for their efforts to block the extension, saying, "To them, it doesn't matter than these people lost their jobs through no fault of their own - or that they're desperate to find a new full-time job - or that this is an emergency not only for their families, but for our country."

Republican Senators George Voinovich, R-Ohio, Scott Brown, R-Mass., Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, and Susan Collins, R-Maine, joined Democrats in voting for considering the extensions.

In a statement released after the vote, Brown said that he supported the bill because families in Massachusetts and across the nation are hurting.

Under the bill, the federal government will pay 65% of the costs of health insurance policies for laid off workers including policies that fund abortions. Contrary to the Health Care Reform bill that provided no federal money for abortions, this is a direct government funding of abortions.

 

[Fantine]

That sounds much closer to funding abortion to me than did the inconclusive innuendoes found by the USCCB's pro-life pencil pushers.

But, on the other hand, all it does is extend a principle that has already been in place--helping unemployed workers pay their COBRA premiums. It doesn't add a new entitlement--it just continues funding for an existing one.

Of course, under our "pro-life" (?) former President, all of these workers would have lost their unemployment 12 months ago and never would have had help to pay insurance premiums. Boy those pro-life (?) politicians sure know how to run a country....to the ground.

 

[KatherineS]

Yes. Isn't it funny that all of the "pro-lifers" are suddenly silent when opposing abortion doesn't give them a chance to kill health care for 32 million Americans.

 

[Davidnic]

Can you post the parts that support your case? It is my understanding that this bill follows the Hyde amendment and does not circumvent it like the Senate version of the health care bill did. This extends existing procedures that govern unemployment and covering of insurance...and that is under the budget appropriations bill and is covered by the Hyde Amendment. So from what I read you are wrong.

The health care bill had the loophole of the exchanges. This extends current policy that is already covered under Hyde? Where have you read differently? the Bishops opposed the wording of the health care bill because it extended existing aboriton rights and provided federal funding where it was not before. This does not.

 

[KatherineS]

Can you post the parts that support your case? It is my understanding that this bill follows the Hyde amendment and does not circumvent it like the Senate version of the health care bill did. This extends existing procedures that govern unemployment and covering of insurance...and that is under the budget appropriations bill and is covered by the Hyde Amendment. So from what I read you are wrong.

No. There is nothing in the Jobs bill that makes it subject to the Hyde Amendment. It gives a 65% government subsidy to covered health care plans without regard to abortion services. The bill on the floor is an extention of a previous bill, of which there have been no limitations on abortion funding.

The health care bill had the loophole of the exchanges. This extends current policy that is already covered under Hyde? Where have you read differently? the Bishops opposed the wording of the health care bill because it extended existing aboriton rights and provided federal funding where it was not before. This does not.

There is no federal funding of abortion in the exchanges under the health care bill. If states allow it, a person might purchase a policy with an abortion rider, using their own funds. But the basic policy subsidized by the government cannot offer abortion. However, in the Jobs bill there is no such restriction. The government subsidizes whatever plan a worker had from his former employer, even if abortion is included.

 

[Davidnic]

No. There is nothing in the Jobs bill that makes it subject to the Hyde Amendment. It gives a 65% government subsidy to covered health care plans without regard to abortion services. The bill on the floor is an extention of a previous bill, of which there have been no limitations on abortion funding.

Incorrect, the jobs bill takes the money from an extension of the budget allotment, it does not...as health care did, create a new revenue. So it is subject to Hyde.

There is no federal funding of abortion in the exchanges under the health care bill. If states allow it, a person might purchase a policy with an abortion rider, using their own funds. But the basic policy subsidized by the government cannot offer abortion. However, in the Jobs bill there is no such restriction. The government subsidizes whatever plan a worker had from his former employer, even if abortion is included.

Cobra already has such funding and is funded by the government. The Jobs bill does not change anything as far as availability of abortion.

Your argument here has no merit. If you want to go after the Bishops or someone for hypocrisy then you have better traction pointing out that Bush's expansion of medicare allowed for government funded abortions far more than the Health care bill.

And I will not go around and around on the abortion in the Health care bill the facts speak for themselves and we are (sadly, no matter how much I respect your other views) not going to agree on them. It is better than it was in the core senate bill but there are still issues.

We need health care that provides for everyone in need, this includes the helpless child. There should be no option to kill a child ever, but that is a larger issue beyond the HC bill.

 

[KatherineS]

Incorrect, the jobs bill takes the money from an extension of the budget allotment, it does not...as health care did, create a new revenue. So it is subject to Hyde.

You are incorrect. This program is up and running. Can you name me an unemployed worker who was denied a COBRA subsidy because his plan included abortion? 2/3rds of employer plans include abortion. If what you were saying is true, we would be hearing about it.

If you want to go after the Bishops or someone for hypocrisy then you have better traction pointing out that Bush's expansion of medicare allowed for government funded abortions far more than the Health care bill.

Well, that is true too, even though the National Right to Life Committee supported Bush on this issue.

 

[Davidnic]

You are incorrect. This program is up and running. Can you name me an unemployed worker who was denied a COBRA subsidy because his plan included abortion? 2/3rds of employer plans include abortion. If what you were saying is true, we would be hearing about it.

You misunderstand me. COBRA allows for abortions and always has. So COBRA being in this bill does not increase abortion availability, so it does not fall under the same objections of the Bishops nor can it be compared.

My point about Hyde is that the bill we are talking about does not extend abortion beyond the current funding because it is subject to Hyde but COBRA or Medicare will still fund surgical abortions.

The point of the Health Care bill was not that it allowed for some federal funds...that has always happened with COBRA or Medicare. It was that it expanded it past where it was on an unprecedented scale. As far as who is reading it right...only time will tell.

 

[KatherineS]

You misunderstand me. COBRA allows for abortions and always has. So COBRA being in this bill does not increase abortion availability, so it does not fall under the same objections of the Bishops nor can it be compared.

Yes, COBRA always had. But before this, COBRA benefits were paid for solely by the unemployed worker with his private funds. What we have that is new is that the government is offering a 65% subsidy for COBRA, regardless as to if the plans has abortion or not. So there are federal dollars going to abortion that were not there before.

Medicare will still fund surgical abortions.

Just to note, Medicare did not fund abortions until Bush pushed through the Medicare Advantage program.

The point of the Health Care bill was not that it allowed for some federal funds...that has always happened with COBRA or Medicare. It was that it expanded it past where it was on an unprecedented scale. As far as who is reading it right...only time will tell.

You can say that the health care bill expands abortion in that it gives 32 million people insurance who now have no insurance. Some of those 32 million will choose to buy an abortion rider with their own money. Beyond that, there is no expansion of abortion. (I don't know why people so financially pressed that they need help paying for insurance would include any "extras" they have to pay for themselves, but I guess it happens).

You could also say that if one Party or the other implemented really good economic policies that resulted in 32 million uninsured Americans getting good private sector jobs with good insurance, that there would be an expansion of abortion. But I don't hear anyone saying we should wreak the economy so this will not happen.

 

[Davidnic]

Yes, COBRA always had. But before this, COBRA benefits were paid for solely by the unemployed worker with his private funds.

Not true. COBRA has had government funding since February 17, 2009.

Just to note, Medicare did not fund abortions until Bush pushed through the Medicare Advantage program.

Yes. George Bush was not pro-life.

 

[KatherineS]

Not true. COBRA has had government funding since February 17, 2009.

Yes, I am sorry I miswrote. But the program didn't have government funding until last year. The Senate is now debating an extention of that new program. Yet not a word from USCCB or NRTL. Nor was there a word in February -- other than support from the bishops. And all of this as the health care debate is going on.

Yes. George Bush was not pro-life.

But why the endorsement of the NRTL Committee and the silence of the bishops on this yet the load protests on the health care bill?

And, I appreciate your thoughtful comments, but also why the silence of those on this board who were most stridently against health care reform?

 

[KatherineS]

Let me just add that Thomas Peters at "CatholicVoteAction" is almost in "high meltdown" over this scandal being exposed. He is terrified of having to explain how the Jobs bill does not fund abortion but Health Care Reform does.

 

[Davidnic]

Let me just add that Thomas Peters at "CatholicVoteAction" is almost in "high meltdown" over this scandal being exposed. He is terrified of having to explain how the Jobs bill does not fund abortion but Health Care Reform does.

Well, I do not see how the jobs bill does. But either way...no one should ever fear applying the ethic of life consistently.

 

[KatherineS]

Well, I do not see how the jobs bill does.

How does the health care bill do it?

They both start with the same principle -- the federal government gives a subsidy for the purchase of a health insurance policy. Early versions of the health care bill didn't prohibit using the subsidy for a policy that included abortion. The final version did. In the health care bill the subsidies are on a sliding scale based on income.

With COBRA, there is a flat 65% subsidy. The person does not pick a policy but applies the subsidy to the insurance plan he had while working. There is nothing making him ineligible if the plan includes abortion.

This is really simple and straightforward. What is puzzling is the total absence of any objection from the pro-life leadership or the USCCB.

 

[Davidnic]

How does the health care bill do it?

Because the health care bill created a new mechanism: The Exchange. And that draws funding from a different source from those covered by Hyde. So it expanded abortion by giving access to potentially millions more. The Bishops objected to the initial COBRA expansion in 2009 under the stimulus. Same as they did the health care bill. The reason they are not objecting to the jobs bill is that the COBRA issue is already law and the jobs bill will not expand federal funding by giving it to potentially millions more.

The reason they chose health care to make a huge stand is because it was such a huge expansion of what the federal government funded, 18% if the US private economy. So they chose there to make a vocal stand because of the enormity. They opposed COBRA expansion in 2009, they opposed the Health Care Bill.

If the intention is to somehow make the Bishops inconsistent, I can make the case (and will) that on issues of life the Bishops have been the most consistent on life issues than anyone. They have spoken recently on many issues that make the right angry. Immigration, huge statement recently. And remember Lou Dobbs going after the Pope when he was here and dared to mention that immigrants had human rights. Or Glen Beck (King Wingnut) going after the whole Church because the far right oppose our longstanding Social Justice Doctrine. Or how the Bishops opposed nuclear escalation long before anyone else. Or how they oppose vocally every execution in this country.

I can give thousands of more examples of how the Bishops have been even, fair and non-political. People just want them to be painted as political because those on the left can not grasp that Abortion (as a life issue) comes before all others and is more important than all others because it deals with the seminal right that is the necessary one for all other rights. And the right can not accept that there is an obligation after birth that is far more socially left than they want.

 

[KatherineS]

Because the health care bill created a new mechanism: The Exchange. And that draws funding from a different source from those covered by Hyde.

But the bill prohbits federal funding from being used to buy abortion coverage on the Exchange. There is no need for the Hyde Amendment, because ithe abortion funding prohibition is written into the law

The Bishops objected to the initial COBRA expansion in 2009 under the stimulus.

The letter I saw from USCCB said they supported the COBRA subsidies. Can you share with your source for their opposition?

 

[Davidnic]

But the bill prohbits federal funding from being used to buy abortion coverage on the Exchange. There is no need for the Hyde Amendment, because ithe abortion funding prohibition is written into the law

Not entirely true, there was some funny language. And actually in order to prevent abortions from being funded in the exchange states must block it specifically. Like 6 have just done. And pro-abortion groups are opposing them exactly because to allow it increases access to abortion.


The letter I saw from USCCB said they supported the COBRA subsidies. Can you share with your source for their opposition?[/quote]

The Bishops support the new extension of unemployment benefits including extending COBRA to people who need it. They opposed the initial extension in Feb 09 when they listed their hopes for the stimulus package that contained it. They asked that the package not contain an increase access to aboriton or contraception but focus on helping the poor and needy. Please share your letter where they support the COBRA extensions. The only one I can find is 2/11/09 from the committee on Domestic Justice and Human development where they support:


"the House’s provisions reforming Unemployment Insurance benefits (UI) that provide for 12 months of subsidy for jobless workers who qualify for COBRA continuation coverage, rather than that offered by the Senate. In addition, the House makes Medicaid available to the large numbers of workers who did not have a COBRA option or can’t afford COBRA even with the new subsidy."

But that is not a support of increasing access to abortion since they are on record hundreds of other places against anything that circumvents Hyde. And the UI does not do that.

And remember like I said earlier:

If the intention is to somehow make the Bishops inconsistent, I can make the case (and will) that on issues of life the Bishops have been the most consistent on life issues than anyone. They have spoken recently on many issues that make the right angry. Immigration, huge statement recently. And remember Lou Dobbs going after the Pope when he was here and dared to mention that immigrants had human rights. Or Glen Beck (King Wingnut) going after the whole Church because the far right oppose our longstanding Social Justice Doctrine. Or how the Bishops opposed nuclear escalation long before anyone else. Or how they oppose vocally every execution in this country.
​

All COBRA does is allow someone to keep the insurance they had before losing their jobs. The Bishops can not control if that company offered abortion coverage. So the UI is not an increase in the availability of abortions. To present it as such is wrong. There is a massive difference between supporting the UI and supporting the health care reform.

You have a better argument in saying that the bishops oppose abortion funding from the federal government, but do not oppose taxes going to a war that they declared unjust. But then again, they do. They often speak against the increase weapons spending and increase in destructive tech.

 

[KatherineS]

Not entirely true, there was some funny language. And actually in order to prevent abortions from being funded in the exchange states must block it specifically. Like 6 have just done. And pro-abortion groups are opposing them exactly because to allow it increases access to abortion.

No. Funding for abortion is explicitedly prohibited. The "funny language" that you are referring to says that an insurance company offering plans on the Exchange may offer a rider that is paid for separetely and wholely by the individual and that covers abortion. And states may prohibit even this (I hope they do and I am not surprised the abortion rights groups are fighting it. What I am more impressed with is that Pro-Life groups are finally fighting abortion in private health care plans. They have been rather AWOL from this fight).

The Bishops support the new extension of unemployment benefits including extending COBRA to people who need it.

So, they are supporting federal dollars for insurance plans that provide abortions.

"the House’s provisions reforming Unemployment Insurance benefits (UI) that provide for 12 months of subsidy for jobless workers who qualify for COBRA continuation coverage, rather than that offered by the Senate. In addition, the House makes Medicaid available to the large numbers of workers who did not have a COBRA option or can’t afford COBRA even with the new subsidy."

But that is not a support of increasing access to abortion since they are on record hundreds of other places

The text you posted clearly asks members of Congress to vote "YES" on the House bill. They did not say "oppose this legislation until the abortion funding is taken out."

All COBRA does is allow someone to keep the insurance they had before losing their jobs. The Bishops can not control if that company offered abortion coverage.

But they can control their support for government subsidies of company insurance plans that cover abortion.

It would be different if we had single payer or the public option (which I would have welcomed). But the Health Care bill as passed does the same thing as the Jobs bill. It offers a government subsidy to people purchasing private health insurance. Only with the health care bill, if you want abortion coverage, you must pay for it separetely and without government funds; it cannot be a part of the basic plan. With COBRA subsidies, there are no such restrictions.

Lastly, david, I appreciate your thoughtful posts, even if I disagree with you. What I am amazed by is the silence here of many other psoters who tend to be quite vocal about their views on abortion policy.

 

[Davidnic]

Lastly, david, I appreciate your thoughtful posts, even if I disagree with you. What I am amazed by is the silence here of many other psoters who tend to be quite vocal about their views on abortion policy.

I appreciate your posts too. Even though we, sadly, disagree here. We do have all the stuff we agree about as a brother and sister in Christ and the Church.

 

[Imperiuz]

This question is easily solved: If the bishops are against the bill, they are right. If the bishops support the bill, they are wrong and acting against tradition and the teachings of the Catholic Church. If they support the bill, they are modernists and could get excommunicated.