abortion mandate « Healthcare Horserace

WAIT! Didn’t Obama Say There Wouldn’t Be an Abortion Provision?

Thursday, October 1st, 2009

In his address to Congress September 9, 2009, President Obama complained that the American people have been misled about his health care reform agenda. He explained that any bill he would sign would not include provisions for coverage for illegal immigrants and abortion services.

When Congressman Joe Wilson (R-SC) proclaimed “You lie!” at the claim regarding immigrants’ health care, the Left hollered for an apology. Turns out he just might have been right, as there is solid support from Congressional progressives to offer a government insurance plan for both legal and illegal immigrants.

Now, Senate Democrats (plus near-Democrat Sen. Olympia Snowe [R-ME]) blocked two anti-abortion amendments by Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), clearly negating the President’s parameters for health care reform legislation.

The sparring over abortion Wednesday underscored the sweep of the health legislation, which not only makes fundamental changes to a key segment of the U.S. economy, but also inflames passions on a range of social issues.

Mr. Baucus said he didn’t want to add abortion to the debate. “This is a health-care bill,” he said. “This is not an abortion bill. We are not changing current law.”The legislation sets up subsidies for lower-income people to buy insurance and makes the subsidies subject to existing limits on federal funding of abortion. Those limits, enacted annually in routine government spending bills, bar the use of federal funds, except in cases of rape, incest and saving the life of the mother. Under the Baucus bill, private health plans would be required to prevent federal insurance subsidies from mingling with any private funds used for abortions.

But Sen. Orrin Hatch (R., Utah) said the limits in the current law could easily lapse. He called on Mr. Baucus to fold the language into the health bill, making it permanent law. “Let’s codify it,” he said.

The other amendment proposed by Sen. Hatch would have protected doctors and medical facilities who opted out of performing abortions. This also failed.

Abortion-rights supporters said the rights of women were in danger. “This is not maintaining the status quo,” said Sen. Maria Cantwell (D., Wash.). “It is a major, major change, and a poison pill.”

The Hatch amendment failed 13-10 on a mostly party-line vote. Sen. Olympia Snowe (R., Maine) joined Democrats in opposing it, while Sen. Kent Conrad of North Dakota was the lone Democrat in favor.

The panel also rejected an amendment Mr. Hatch said was needed to ensure the government doesn’t discriminate against health-care providers who refuse to perform abortion procedures for moral or religious reasons.

The American people should pay attention. Not only are the White House and Congressional Democrats turning a deaf ear to their opposition to a government of health care and willfully ignoring the concerns of the people, they are also not even making the slightest attempt to adhere to the promises made to the American people. What happened to representative government again?

Tags: abortion, abortion mandate, health care reform, Max Baucus, Obamacare, Orrin Hatch
Posted in Policy Alternative | Start the Discussion

A Catholic funeral for Ted Kennedy?

Friday, August 28th, 2009

As Democrats continue to invoke Ted Kennedy as a martyr in the health care wars and the Kennedy family prepares to bury the last of three larger than life brothers who indelibly impacted the American political landscape over the past 50 years, the Catholic Church has sent mixed signals on the legacy of Teddy Kennedy.

On the one hand, his funeral will be administered by a Catholic priest in a Catholic church in Boston. On the other, neither the Pope nor the Vatican have issued so much as a statement regarding the death of one of America’s most prominent Catholics. At issue is whether Kennedy should be labeled a heretic for his support of abortions.

This morning, Time Magazine reported on the Pope’s silence on Kennedy and the implications of his strained relationship with the Catholic Church.

In the eyes of the traditionalist wing of the Church, however, Kennedy should have been asking the Pope for forgiveness. The Vatican’s official newspaperL’Osservatore Romano reported Kennedy’s death, praising his work on civil rights and fighting poverty, but noted that his record was marred by his stance on abortion.

Saint Thomas defined heresy as “a species of infidelity in men who, having professed the faith of Christ, corrupt its dogmas”. (From the Catholic Encyclopedia.)

Over the course of his career in politics, Senator Ted Kennedy received a perfect score from NARAL Pro-Choice America for his support of abortion and a score of “zero” from the National Right to Life Foundation. In 2004, a memorandum by then-Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) - titled Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion: General Principles - directed Catholic priests to deny Communion to politicians who support abortions. [Text of the Ratzinger memo follows at the bottom of this post.]

When the Pope visited the United States in April 2008, Kennedy refrained from setting up what many anticipated as a papal scandal by not lining up to receive Communion - which could be viewed as a self-awareness of his unworthiness to receive the sacrament.

kennedypapalmass

Yet, it may be this awareness and subsequent repentance that permitted the Catholic funeral to take place.

Mark Leibovich of the New York Times notes that, among things, “The Rev. Mark Hession, the priest at the Kennedys’ parish on the Cape, made regular visits to the Kennedy home this summer and held a private family Mass in the living room every Sunday. Even in his final days, Mr. Kennedy led the family in prayer after the death of his sister Eunice . . . [and when] the senator’s condition took a turn Tuesday night a priest, the Rev. Patrick Tarrant of Our Lady of Victory Church in Centerville, was called to his bedside.”

Folks, my reading of the canonical tradition behind Canon 1184 says that those actions suffice as “some signs of repentance”, making Ted Kennedy eligible for a Catholic funeral. Of course I wish that Teddy’s repentance, if that is what it was, had been more explicit, for the scandal the man left was enormous and demanded great atonement in this life (or more dreadfully in the next). But on the narrow question as to whether Edward Kennedy is eligible for a Catholic funeral, the information before me suggests that he is, and that a bishop who permits such rites can find support in the Code of Canon Law for his decision.

(From In Light of the Law by Canon lawyer Ed Peters.)

Regardless of what Kennedy may or may not have sought forgiveness for in his final days, many pro-life Catholics aren’t buying it. On Thursday, the president of the American Life League called on Boston’s Cardinal O’Malley to deny Kennedy a Catholic funeral.

We are aware of the impending disaster that is about to take place at Our Lady of Perpetual Help Basilica in your Archdiocese. We are positive that you are aware that Senator Edward Kennedy spent the past 30 years doing all he could to advocate and support the act of procured abortion, and yet he continued to call himself Catholic.

We are therefore astounded that you are permitting a funeral Mass for this man at the Basilica, and that you have obviously approved the appearance of President Barack Obama, the United States president who has done more to facilitate the direct killing of innocent children before birth than any president in the history of this nation.

The abortion issue promises to cloud Democrat attempts to invoke Kennedy’s memory in hopes of breathing new life into a health care reform debate they appear to be losing. Approximately 60% of Americans believe taxpayers will be forced to fund abortions under Democrat reform proposals and poorly hidden abortion mandates in the House and Senate reform proposals have left many Catholics - including those in Congress itself - torn on the issue.

Worthiness to Receive Holy Communnion: General Principles.

by Joseph Ratzinger

1. Presenting oneself to receive Holy Communion should be a conscious decision, based on a reasoned judgement regarding one’s worthiness to do so, according to the Church’s objective criteria, asking such questions as: “Am I in full communion with the Catholic Church? Am I guilty of grave sin? Have I incurred a penalty (e.g. excommunication, interdict) that forbids me to receive Holy Communion? Have I prepared myself by fasting for at least an hour?” The practice of indiscriminately presenting oneself to receive Holy Communion, merely as a consequence of being present at Mass, is an abuse that must be corrected (cf. Instruction “Redemptionis Sacramentum,” nos. 81, 83).

2. The Church teaches that abortion or euthanasia is a grave sin. The Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, with reference to judicial decisions or civil laws that authorise or promote abortion or euthanasia, states that there is a “grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection. [...] In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to ‘take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law or vote for it’” (no. 73). Christians have a “grave obligation of conscience not to cooperate formally in practices which, even if permitted by civil legislation, are contrary to God’s law. Indeed, from the moral standpoint, it is never licit to cooperate formally in evil. [...] This cooperation can never be justified either by invoking respect for the freedom of others or by appealing to the fact that civil law permits it or requires it” (no. 74).

3. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.

4. Apart from an individuals’s judgement about his worthiness to present himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, the minister of Holy Communion may find himself in the situation where he must refuse to distribute Holy Communion to someone, such as in cases of a declared excommunication, a declared interdict, or an obstinate persistence in manifest grave sin (cf. can. 915).

5. Regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia, when a person’s formal cooperation becomes manifest (understood, in the case of a Catholic politician, as his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws), his Pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the Church’s teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin, and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist.

6. When “these precautionary measures have not had their effect or in which they were not possible,” and the person in question, with obstinate persistence, still presents himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, “the minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it” (cf. Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts Declaration “Holy Communion and Divorced, Civilly Remarried Catholics” [2002], nos. 3-4). This decision, properly speaking, is not a sanction or a penalty. Nor is the minister of Holy Communion passing judgement on the person’s subjective guilt, but rather is reacting to the person’s public unworthiness to receive Holy Communion due to an objective situation of sin.

[N.B. A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.]

Tags: abortion, abortion mandate, American Life League, Barack Obama, Cardinal O'Malley, Cardinal Ratzinger, Catholic Church, Ed Peters, NARAL Pro-Choice, National Right to Life Committee, Pope Benedict XVI, Saint Thomas, Ted Kennedy, Time Magazine
Posted in Horserace | Start the Discussion

Associated Press becomes first “mainstream” media outlet to report abortion mandate

Thursday, August 6th, 2009

As Congress begins its summer vacation, many journalists are finally getting a chance to dig a little deeper than the talking points and White House press conferences and catch up on all of the behind-the-scenes battles in the healthcare reform debate. Yesterday, the Associated Press became the first “mainstream” media outlet to report on the hidden abortion mandate in healthcare reform legislation being considered on Capitol Hill.

Health care legislation before Congress would allow a new government-sponsored insurance plan to cover abortions, a decision that would affect millions of women and recast federal policy on the divisive issue.

Federal funds for abortions are now restricted to cases involving rape, incest or danger to the life of the mother. Abortion opponents say those restrictions should carry over to any health insurance sold through a new marketplace envisioned under the legislation, an exchange where people would choose private coverage or the public plan. (AP: “Gov’t insurance would allow coverage for abortion“)

For weeks now, HealthcareHorserace.com has been covering this issue in anticipation of a major battle over abortion that could stall, if not defeat, Democrat efforts to push for healthcare reform that would lead to unprecedented government intervention in the healthcare industry.

In the House, the Capps Amendment calls for taxpayer funds to be used to finance elective abortion procedures under a public option insurance plan. The amendment also mandates that all Americans have access to at least one private plan that covers abortion procedures.

In the Senate, the Mikulski Amendment would require insurance agencies (public or private) to contract with “essential community providers” to provide healthcare services to Americans earning less than 400% of the poverty level ($88,000 for a family of four) or risk losing the right to participate in mandatory state “American Health Benefit Gateways” as established under the HELP bill. During a protracted debate over the amendment, Mikulski admitted that Planned Parenthood qualified as an “essential community provider.” Requiring insurance companies to cover “any service deemed medically necessary or medically appropriate” by these “essential community providers” amounts to an aboriton mandate in the eyes of many conservative and pro-life advocates.

All evidence points to an unwelcome floor debate on abortion in the House and Senate when lawmakers return post-Labor Day. As Democrats try to pass healthcare reform legislation by mid-October, they’ll be faced with opposition from vulnerable and Blue Dog Democrats who could very well lose their seats in the 2010 election if they vote for a pro-abortion reform bill. If reform legislation does make its way to President Obama’s desk, look for a battle in the courts with the first serious Supreme Court showdown over abortion since Roe v. Wade in 1973.

Tags: abortion, abortion mandate, Associated Press, Barack Obama, Blue Dog Democrats, Capps Amendment, essential community providers, Mikulski Amendment, Planned Parenthood, Roe v. Wade
Posted in Eye on the Media | Start the Discussion

The Roman Catholic Church and Health Care Reform

Monday, July 27th, 2009

The Roman Catholic Church has a membership that exceeds 68 million in the U.S. (Official Catholic Directory 2009). As the largest Christian denomination that makes up around 22 percent of the electorate, Catholics comprise a dynamic voting bloc whose political allegiances vary from election to election.

Devout Catholics turn to Church leadership for guidance on using faith and morality as a paradigm for civic behavior. Then, there are those Catholics who are not weekly church-goers but still lean on the religion for cultural, familial and ethnic foundations.

Regardless, it is apparent that the Roman Catholic Church enjoys an important role as a political entity. As Catholics sway between Democrats and Republicans with each campaign cycle, they become more and more of a swing demographic for politicians and policy groups alike. This massive group of voters is undoubtedly a force to be reckoned with for leaders on both sides of the political spectrum.

That makes their official policy viewpoints of the utmost importance to astute politicians. And the health care reform issue is no different, with the Church weighing in as they typically do- rooted in doctrine and vague on individual legislation.

The Roman Catholic Church considers health care one of the most fundamental rights of human beings around the world. To Catholics, the “right to life” is not just meant for the unborn, but instead, for a person’s entire lifetime, even down to their last moments. The dignity of the person is nothing short of a pillar of Catholic social teaching that dictates so much of the Church’s public policy perspective.

However, there is no consensus as to how that can be achieved and there is certainly no mention of universal insurance as the solution. The Catholic Church has not stated that they believe a public option would ensure increased access or quality coverage, but they have indicated that should be the goal for American leaders to strive to achieve.

The Church has not come out in favor or opposition to these means of expanding coverage for more Americans. However, they have made it clear that they oppose any sort of provision that will allow for abortions, especially state-sponsored, even in the name of reproductive care.

In a press release dated July 21, 2009, the United States Council of Catholic Bishops explained that while they do support health care reform, it must be certain criteria to garner the approval of Catholics in the U.S.:

Writing on behalf of the bishops as chairman of their Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development, Bishop Murphy said the bishops have advocated comprehensive health care reform for decades and recommended four criteria for fair and just health care reform: respect for human life and dignity, access for all, pluralism and equitable costs.

Despite their desire for more coverage, the Church has not explicitly offered a roadmap to its attainment. They did, however, present one condition that they believe is non-negotiable:

On respecting life and dignity, he said, “No health care reform plan should compel us or others to pay for the destruction of human life, whether through government funding or mandatory coverage of abortion. Any such action would be morally wrong.”

The question must be raised: Will the Catholic Church support a public option, even if it does include an abortion mandate, if they believe it will offer health care for more people?

Some Catholic leaders are unwilling to accept the legislation, regardless of the existence of an abortion provision in the bill. EWTN, the nationwide Catholic network, published an article by its news director, Raymond Arroyo, alerting Catholics of the overall content of the bill. Arroyo essentially asserts that President Obama’s proposals were anti-Catholic.

Here’s to your health, unless you are too old, too young, too disabled or any combination of the above. The health care reform bills wending their way through Congress should be focused on the well being of each citizen. Instead, it seems the bills, designed to contain costs while simultaneously extending health coverage to everyone, target certain vulnerable groups including the elderly, the pre-born, and the disabled. It all comes down to cost. How to pay for this colossus remains a question on the Hill. But the consensus seems to be: raise taxes and ration care. Both ideas have been woven into the current health care bills.

Arroyo believes that there are many demographic groups in America who are at risk, including the elderly. While many Catholics consider abortion the biggest issue in the fight for the right to life, rationing of care has become a growing concern for the Church, as a universal health care system could prioritize patients based on their societal worth and potential function, instead of their human dignity. Simply, there are limitations of cost that will be inevitible realities if this sort of health care reform passes. Even President Obama has admitted that much. For a church that does not believe in doctor-assisted suicides or does not support the refusal of families to go to extraordinary lengths to preserve the life of a dying person, it makes sense that they would also oppose any system that would ration care.

Just as their members vary politically, it seems the leadership in the Catholic Church is divided on the legislation. It is no surprise that Catholics, both as an entity and individuals in leadership roles, oppose any opportunity for the expansion of abortion. But, how will they pressure elected officials to vote on the matter? Catholic ideology encourages using doctrine as a tool for citizens to make their own judgments based on beliefs when casting their votes, and the health care issue will be no different.

Tags: abortion, abortion mandate, Affordable Health Choices Act, bishops, Catholic, Ellen Carmichael, EWTN, health care reform, healthcare reform, Obama, Obamacare, public-option, Raymond Arroyo, United States Council of Catholic Bishops, USCCB
Posted in The Players | Start the Discussion

“Common ground” abortion bill provides cover for pro-life Dems on healthcare reform

Thursday, July 23rd, 2009

At a Capitol Hill press conference today, Democrats Tim Ryan and Rosa DeLauro introduced the Preventing Unintended Pregnancies, Reducing the Need for Abortion, and Supporting Pregnant Women Act alongside progressive Christian evangelical leaders and pro-choice activists. The bill comes at a critical juncture in the healthcare reform debate as lawmakers try to determine whether a public option insurance plan would mandate government subsidized abortions.

As HealthcareHorserace.com has been reporting for the past couple of weeks, language in the House and Senate versions of healthcare reform include an undeclared abortion mandate which has fractured the moderate wing of the Democrat party and seriously hampered the chances of passing healthcare reform in 2009. In the past month, 20 pro-life Democrats have called upon the Democrat leadership to include specific language in the reform bills that prevents any federal money from being spent on abortion procedures.

The Ryan-DeLauro bill aims to reduce the number of abortions in America by tackling the problem of unintended pregnancies (through a combination of education and contraception) and supporting pregnant women who want to carry their babies to term - even if they intend to put the child up for adoption. The bill has garnered the support of major players in the progressive evangelical and pro-choice movements.

The bill demonstrates how searching for common ground can lead to higher ground, in ways that both sides of the debate can embrace without compromising their core principles. It could lead to genuine progress in reducing the number of abortions and improving the quality of life for women and children — all by addressing the real issues that often lead to abortion. Abortion is legal in the United States, and although Americans are divided on its moral status, most feel the tragedy of abortion and believe that we currently have far too many for a healthy society. (From How to Win a Culture War by Sojourners editor-in-chief Jim Wallis)

Reps. Ryan and DeLauro have demonstrated how reaching across the divide to find common-ground solutions to prevent unintended pregnancy is possible; their bill includes a number of positive proposals to improve women’s access to contraception and to support teen-pregnancy-prevention efforts. We also support the bill’s aim to ensure that women who choose to carry their pregnancies to term are given the options and resources necessary to guarantee a healthy pregnancy. This approach contrasts greatly with the divisive and inflammatory rhetoric we see from too many lawmakers and organizations that oppose a woman’s right to choose and refuse even to support access to birth control. (From a statement by Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, and Kellie Copeland, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Ohio)

The bill is being hailed as a “common ground” solution because, while both Democrats, Ryan is a member of the Congressional Pro-Life Caucus and DeLauro is a member of the Congressional Pro-Choice Caucus. But, pro-life advocates and conservatives caution that this bill is not the cease fire its supporters make it out to be. In fact, rumors abound that Ryan was excommunicated from the national advisory board of Democrats for Life of America (DFLA) - which Ryan referred to as a “fringe group” on Monday - over the inclusion of contraception in the bill forcing DFLA to counter with a post on its website saying the group does in fact support the use of contraception and dismissed Ryan for his voting record on abortion itself.

“DFLA gave Congressman Ryan ample opportunities to prove he’s committed to protecting life, but he has turned his back on the community at every turn,” reported DFLA Executive Director Kristen Day, who said Ryan’s voting record had become more and more pro-abortion in the last year. (Quote taken from The Christian Post)

At issue is the fact that while Ryan and DeLauro say their intent is to reduce the number of abortions in America, their bill would funnel millions in taxpayer dollars to what Democrats refer to as “essential community providers” such as Planned Parenthood. Without language specifically delineating that federal money can be used for contraception but not for abortions.

“President Obama and liberals in Congress are feeling the heat from pro-lifers over the massive health care bill which includes abortion mandates and funding. The timing of this bill appears to be an attempt to distract people from the larger bill that will impose the Freedom of Choice Act by stealth. But pro-lifers are not fooled — a vote for either Ryan/DeLauro or the health care bill is a vote to increase abortions.” (From statement by Concerned Women for America President Wendy Wright)

In an interview with HealthcareHorserace.com, conservative thought leader Grover Norquist acknowledges that the bill could provide cover for pro-life Democrats in Congress.

“The question is, once the government takes over healthcare, do you believe anything like that survives? But, I think it would provide some cover (to pro-life Democrats), yes.”

Tags: abortion, abortion mandate, Concerned Women for America, Congressional Pro-Choice Caucus, Congressional Pro-Life Caucus, Democrats for Life, evangelical, Grover Norquist, Jim Wallis, Kathleen Sebelius, Kellie Copeland, Kristen Day, Nancy Keenan, NARAL Pro-Choice America, Planned Parenthood, Preventing Unintended Pregnancies Reducing the Need for Abortion and Supporting Pregnant Women Act, pro-choice, pro-life, Rosa DeLauro, Sojourners, Tim Ryan, Wendy Wright
Posted in Policy Alternative | Start the Discussion

Pro-lifers preparing for fight on healthcare reform. Obama not ready to take on abortion issue.

Wednesday, July 22nd, 2009

HealthcareHorserace.com has been closely following a behind-the-scenes battle over the inclusion of an undeclared abortion mandate in healthcare reform bills proposed in the House and Senate. With the House bill stalled in the Energy and Commerce Committee and multiple amendments aimed at denying federal funding for abortions failing in the Senate last week, pro-life advocates believe that now is the time to go public and make their voices heard on the issue.

“Momentum is picking up. 20 pro-life Democrats have a sent a letter to Pelosi saying they will not support a healthcare bill that includes taxpayer-funded abortion in it and this past weekend the Congressional Budget Office director said that mandating abortion coverage and tax-payer funding cannot be ruled out yet.” (David Beriet of 40 Days for Life, as told to Life News.)

Pro-lifers are organizing a Thursday (July 23) webcast featuring some heavy hitters in the abortion debate - led by Focus on the Family’s James Dobson, Governor Mike Huckabee and Kristen Day of Democrats for Life. Organizers expect as many as 100,000 to sign on to the Stop the Abortion Mandate seminar and learn more about what they can do to support efforts in Congress to add amendments denying public funding for abortions to the healthcare reform bills currently circulating on Capitol Hill.

Attempting to diffuse the situation, five House Democrats - led by Congressman Tim Ryan - proposed a solution to Speaker Nancy Pelosi yesterday afternoon.

[W]e believe that a common ground solution is to include language in the final legislation that makes clear that no insurance company will be required to pay for an abortion except in extraordinary circumstances — nor will they be prohibited from paying for an abortion, so long as health insurance plans offered in the exchange that choose to provide abortion coverage pay for those services with funds that are separate and distinct from any federal subsidies.

This solution maintains the current status quo in the private market – where insurance companies can choose whether to include this coverage in their plans and individuals can choose which plan (and what sort of coverage) fits their individual needs and values while ensuring that no federal funds are used to pay for abortions.

The Ryan proposal comes a month after he and 19 other House Democrats sent a letter to Speaker Pelosi last month expressing their concern over federal funding for abortions and threatening to vote against any House reform bill that does not include explicit language assuring that federal funds will not be used to pay for abortions.

The pressure may already be paying off as Senate Finance Committee chairman Max Baucus appears to have gotten the message.

“Health care reform is not about that issue at all,” Baucus, D-Mont., said Tuesday. He said the Senate plan would be “neutral — status quo.” (Associated Press)

For his part, President Obama also seems resigned to the status quo a little more than a week removed from an audience with the Pope in the Vatican during which he promised to work to reduce the number of abortions in America.

What I think is important, at this stage, is not trying to micromanage what benefits are covered. Because I think we’re still trying to get a framework. And my main focus is making sure that people have the options of high quality care at the lowest possible price.

As you know, I’m pro choice. But I think we also have a tradition of, in this town, historically, of not financing abortions as part of government funded health care. Rather than wade into that issue at this point, I think that it’s appropriate for us to figure out how to just deliver on the cost savings, and not get distracted by the abortion debate at this station. (President Barack Obama during an interview with CBS News’ Katie Couric.)

The status quo referred to by Baucus and Obama is the 33-year-old Hyde Amendment which forbids Medicaid (and by precedent the federal government) from paying for abortions with federal money. All but 17 states have since followed suit and banned the use of state funds for abortion procedures with 13 of those requiring a court order to do so.

Tags: 40 Days for Life, abortion mandate, Barack Obama, CBS News, David Beriet, Democrats for Life, Energy and Commerce Committee, Focus on the Family, headline, Hyde Amendment, James Dobson, Katie Couric, Kristen Day, Life News, Medicaid, Mike Huckabee, Nancy Pelosi, Stop the Abortion Mandate, Tim Ryan
Posted in The Players | Start the Discussion

Articles Tagged ‘abortion mandate’