Anti-Abortionist Lies About Abortion And Health Care Reform In Washington Post

[Bolo Boffin]

I know, big surprise. Sun comes up in the east and the Pope covers up child abuse, right?

But a big op/ed in the Washington Post today just flat out lies about the health care reform bill. Marjorie Dannenfelser of the Susan B. Anthony List, a group that promote pro-life women in politics, writes:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/12/AR2010031201793.html?hpid%3Dopinionsbox1&sub=AR

President Obama and the Democratic leadership in Congress promised to keep abortion funding out of their health-care proposals. In a speech to a joint session of Congress last September, the president pledged that "under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place."

If that were true, the health-care overhaul would most likely be law today. But it isn't, and it has led to massive opposition from the grass-roots antiabortion movement and self-labeled pro-life members in Congress.

Well, actually, Marjorie, it is true. Both the House and the Senate versions of health care explicitly maintain the barrier to federal funds being used to pay for abortion. In fact, it does so in a way that has a lot of pro-choice people hopping mad.

The House version (Stupak's ticket to fame) has only exemptions for rape, incest, and physical endangerment to the mother in an almost word-for-word enshrinement of the Hyde Amendment into permanent law. The Senate version is more referential, saying that abortions not exempted from funding by Federal money cannot be covered in a policy purchased with federal subsidies. Both allow a later law to change the definition, but the Senate's wording would never have to be altered, making for cleaner legislation. However, they both go out of their way to forbid Federal funds purchasing an insurance policy that covers the full range of a woman's choice under law. Both will have the direct effect of forbidding full reproductive coverage to millions of women below or just above poverty.

But a pound of flesh is not enough for Marjorie. No, she has to scaremonger and lie about this legislation in a last minute attempt to stop it (and to continue the fund-raising activities, naturally). Personally, I think the abortion language in both bills puts an undue burden on a woman's right to choose and expect it to be overturned by a Supreme Court that respects this right. (Yes, I know, it's not this Court. But we'll see.) But until then, the moat dug between Federal funds and the merest possibility of an abortion for a poor woman is plainly evident, and I cannot believe Dannenfelser isn't aware of this.

[Bolo Boffin]

1. One kick for the morning crowd. n/t

[RainDog]

2. the hyde prohibition is systemic discrimination against women in health care

and should be repealed.

I don't get to decide what my tax dollars fund, even if I am opposed to things.

a religious group that has a long history of child abuse and covering up the same has NO MORAL AUTHORITY and may not use their religious beliefs (codified child abuse?) from denying health care to women.

Anyone in our government who sides with pedophiles rather than women doesn't have one ounce of moral authority either.