Powerful Catholic Quietly Shaping Abortion, Health Bill Debate

[ehrnst]

<snip>
Richard Doerflinger doesn't look the part of a high-powered political strategist. Bearded and bespectacled, he works in a small, cluttered office out of one of Washington’s less fashionable neighborhoods, far from the lobbying bastions of K Street.

Yet as the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops' point man on abortion, Doerflinger has emerged as a major player in the health care debate, one likely to play a pivotal role in the outcome.

It was Doerflinger who orchestrated the bishops’ successful campaign late last year to add a tough anti-abortion provision to the House legislation. The Senate adopted less stringent language.

Now, as President Barack Obama begins his last-ditch effort to pass final legislation, Doerflinger and his bosses are sending a clear message: If the Democrats want to succeed, they must include the House provision, or something equally restrictive, on abortion.

</snip>

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2010/March/10/Powerful-Catholic-Quietly-Shaping-Abortion-Health-Bill-Debate.aspx

[laughingliberal]

1. I don't like living in this theocracy. nt

[Warpy]

2. Time to tax the church, I think

since it's become a political organization dedicated to forcing its dogma into civil law.

[WCGreen]

4. It's all a tax scam with these people...

[Echo In Light]

7. Long overdue

[BrklynLiberal]

3. If find this so disgusting that it makes me physically ill!!!

[ehrnst]

5. Why don't Unitarian Universalist reps get to meet with Pelosi on the bill?

And why do the Catholic Bishops get to?

[notadmblnd]

6. Is he one for the people behind the C Street house?

sounds like he's aiding Stupak, or was Stupak just doing his dirty work?

[napi21]

8. Have any of these people, including Stupak, ever actually READ the

Senate Bill re: Abortions?

Sec. 1303. Special rules.
Voluntary Choice of Coverage of Abortion Services. Abortion cannot be a mandated benefit as part of a minimum benefits package. A qualified health plan would determine whether it will cover: no abortions, only those abortions allowed under Hyde (rape, incest and life endangerment), or abortions beyond those allowed by Hyde.
No Federal Funds for Abortion Coverage in the Community Health Insurance Option. The Secretary may not determine that the public plan provide coverage for abortions beyond those allowed by Hyde unless the Secretary: 1) is in compliance with the provision prohibiting the use of Federal funds to pay for abortions (beyond those allowed by Hyde); 2) guarantees that, according to three different accounting standards, no Federal funds will be used; and (3) takes all necessary steps to ensure that the United States does not bear the insurance risk for abortions that do not meet the Hyde exceptions in the public plan.
States may require the coverage of additional benefits in the Community Health Insurance Option, but must assume costs associated with covering these benefits. A State may elect to require coverage of abortions beyond those allowed by Hyde only if no Federal funds are used for this coverage. The U.S. Government may not bear the insurance risk for a State’s required coverage of abortions beyond those allowed by Hyde.
Abortions currently permitted by Hyde shall be covered in the Community Health Insurance Option to the same extent as they are under Medicaid.
Assured Availability of Varied Coverage through the Exchanges. The Secretary would ensure that in each State Exchange, at least one plan provides coverage of abortions beyond those

permitted by Hyde and at least one plan does not provide coverage of abortions beyond those permitted by Hyde.
Prohibition on the Use of Federal Funds. No tax credit or cost-sharing credits may be used to pay for abortions beyond those permitted by the Hyde Amendment.
Segregation of Funds. Issuers of plans that offer coverage for abortion beyond those permitted by the Hyde amendment must segregate from any premium and cost-sharing credits an amount of each enrollee’s private premium dollars that is determined by the Secretary to be sufficient to cover the provision of those services.
Actuarial Value of Optional Service Coverage. The Secretary would be required to estimate, on an average actuarial basis, the basic per enrollee, per month cost of including coverage of abortions beyond those permitted by the Hyde Amendment. In making such estimates, the Secretary may take into account the impact of including such coverage on overall costs, but may not consider any cost reduction estimated to result from providing such abortions, such as prenatal care. In making the estimate, the Secretary would also be required to estimate the costs as if coverage were included for the entire covered population, but the costs could not be estimated at less than $1 per enrollee, per month.

Provider Conscience Protections. No individual health care provider or health care facility may be discriminated against because of a willingness or an unwillingness, if doing so is contrary to the religious or moral beliefs of the provider or facility, to provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions.

Application of State and Federal Laws. State laws regarding the prohibition of or requirement of coverage or funding for abortions and State laws involving abortion-related procedural requirements are not preempted. The provision similarly provides that Federal conscience protections and abortion-related antidiscrimination laws would not be affected by the bill. The rights and obligations of employees and employers under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would also not be affected by the bill. In addition, this bill does not affect State or Federal laws, including section 1867 of the Social Security Act (EMTALA), requiring health care providers to provide emergency services.

i've ven heardLiberal talk show hosts stating the Pub version as fact when IT'S NOT! Early this AM I was listening to John Rothman on KGO Radion in SF, and he was talking about it as allowing Fed. funded abortions. GRRRRRRRRR!!!!!

Edit to add link.

http://dpc.senate.gov/healthreformbill/healthbill49.pdf

[notadmblnd]

9. but they want to make it so even if a woman uses own funds for insurance

that would provide abortion- a woman can't get an abortion if the government subsidizes any other part(s) of her health care. In other words only rich women will be able to get abortions if one finds it necessary. That is why Stupak wants his wording in the senate bill. It gets them one step closer to making it impossible for a woman to obtain a medical procedure that is currently legal.

[napi21]

10. And just how do they propose to do that? Ford mean someone who

gets a child care tax credit? How about someone who is working at a very low paying job, but still on Medicade? Whaat about someone who lives in subsidized housing? All of those mentioned receive SOME federal funds. Where do they really wanat to draw the line? Nevermind. I already know the answer to that. They want to outlaw abortions completely!