Senate Bill includes Abortion funds

Pro-Life Groups: Reid’s Senate Health Care Bill Contains Massive Abortion Funding

by Steven Ertelt Editor
November 19
, 2009 Washington, DC ( — Two leading pro-life organizations that have analyzed the new 2,000-page government-run health care bill released by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid late yesterday say the legislation contains massive abortion funding and a fake amendment that does not truly ban it.

The Senate health care bill does not contain the Stupak amendment the House approved that stops abortion funding under the public option and affordability credits.

Instead, the measure contains a slightly-reworded version of the much-maligned Capps amendment, which a House committee approved on a partisan vote and which pro-life groups say is an accounting scheme to hide government-funded abortions.

“Reid has rejected the bipartisan Stupak-Pitts Amendment and has substituted completely unacceptable language that would result in coverage of abortion on demand in two big new federal government programs,” National Right to Life legislative director Douglas Johnson assured late Wednesday.

See entire article at:


9 Responses to Senate Bill includes Abortion funds

  1. Good! Having the government provide abortions saves money–it prevents childbirths, which are more than ten times more expensive than abortions.

    You say you don’t want government to provide abortions? Well, how much EXTRA money are you willing to pay in order to cover the EXTRA costs of right-to-lifist policy?

    [OC, What are you getting at? State this in sensible logic. The government spending money to kill anyone is an immoral use of my tax dollars. You say it “saves” money. There is no baseline low cost that you’re comparing this to. What is your logic here? – DE]

  2. Laura says:

    Heck, why kill the babies? Knock off the parents, that would save even more money. Better yet, knock off the individuals who think it’s okay to knock off the babies in order to save society. (thank you, Mr. Swift.)

  3. My point, which I now spell out for those stoners and dementia patients among the readership, is that right-to-lifers write as if they would be PAYING MORE for abortions under Obamacare. “Not only will they be paying for abortions; they’ll be TAKING OUR MONEY to do so!” is more or less the right-to-lifers’ line on this. And it’s a lie! You won’t be paying more for abortions; you’ll be paying LESS because of the abortions.
    If you want to say, “the government should not fund abortions, because of MORAL issues,” go ahead and say so. [We have said so. – DE] But if you’re gonna argue honestly, in good faith, then you must also admit that right-to-lifist policy means citizens will have to pay MORE if government doesn’t cover abortions, and you must say, how much EXTRA money you are willing to pay the government to pay for your right-to-life policy.

    You ask for the baseline, to which I am comparing the cost of right-to-lifist policy? I suspect you are pretending to be dumber than you are (no need to do THAT!!!) The baseline is, the amount it would cost for government coverage which INCLUDES abortions. That amount–the baseline–would be LESS than the cost of right-to-lifist coverage, because the right-to-lifist coverage would end up paying for labor-and-delivery for women having babies because they have no money to pay for their abortions themselves. (“Why did you make me, mommy?” –“Because I had no money to pay for aborting you!”) The L&D care would cost much more than the abortions. If you pay for NINE abortions, and prevent just ONE childbirth by doing so, you’re still saving money.

    [OC, Your economic argument is invalid. If its wrong then the mandate to pay for it is wrong. On the other hand life costs money. To kill someone because they will cost is unjustified. You realize of course that your contorted logic is making my point for me and making you to look like you’re not debating rationally. -DE]

  4. DE, thank you for honestly saying that you think the health-plan should be right-to-life EVEN THOUGH it will cost more.

    Unfortunately, that is not what most right-to-lifers are saying, and it is not what headlines like “Senate bill includes abortion funds” implies.

    How about “Senate drops expensive abortion-ban from bill”?

    [OC, Stacey, Theodore whoever you are, How about “Senate bill requires your tax money to be spent on abortions in the name of cost ‘savings’ that are really convenience killings?” The entire bill is not reform; its Nationalization. It will save no money and provide no more and no better insurance for anyone. Its also Porked up specifically to get the Senators from Louisianna to vote for it. Government is not the right player for this position. (More sports analogy. Get it?) – DE]

  5. Laura says:

    I don’t think you’re listening. We don’t want abortion – or euthenasia, or in vitro fertilization, or embryonic stem cell exploitation – paid for by tax monies. Period. We don’t want the government to subsidize immoral acts that violate the innate dignity of the individual. It’s not a matter of “we don’t want to pay more,” it’s that we want what we pay to be used for more responsible appropriations.

  6. Laura, I’m glad that’s what you’re saying, but you are an exception. MOST right-to-lifers right now are saying some version of “They’re gonna take our money and spend it on abortions!” when in fact, they’re gonna take LESS of your money because of the abortions. They’re gonna send BACK TO YOU some of the money you WOULD HAVE had to pay WITHOUT the abortions. An honest right-to-lifer such as yourself, who proudly proclaims “I want to pay MORE in order to keep abortion out of health care!” is a rare exception.

    DE, I agree with you. Nationalizing health-care will NEVER save money! That’s clearly shown by the fact the countries with government health care, like Germany, Switzerland, Holland, Spain, France, Finland, Norway, Sweden, England, Israel, South Korea, Japan, and Canada all spend so much more money on health-care than we do, and leave so many more of their citizens uncovered, than we do! Oops–wait just one minute here….

  7. Matt says:

    Laura’s telling the truth but you are not. Your hypothetical that more readily available abortion will kill enough unborn people to lower cost to the healthcare system is not supported by fact. Note the experience with the states that undertook this. See our previous posts. Lookup “Maryland FOCA” to find

    Additionally, when on planet earth did a government actually lower taxes? (Other than 1981 under Ronald Reagan.) There will be no “LESS” from this or any currently likely administration. As a matter of fact the current legislation includes significant increases in taxes and fees. This scheme will cost us more. Also as I’ve said before it is INCONCEIVABLE that a government managed system will do anything to make care more fairly available at any price.

    Once born the health care of people can and should be done with compassion and justice. We agree on that I think. I just extend that to the preborn and you do not.

  8. Yes, RR lowered taxes, [ edited. inaccuracy – DE]
    More to the point, your argument is bad-faith. Obviously I’m not saying government health-care will lower taxes from their current level; I’m saying it will raise them LESS if abortion is provided than if not. It will lower taxes RELATIVE TO THE ALTERNATIVE. [edited. rude – DE]

    RE: “government health-care doesn’t reduce costs.” Sorry, but that’s a knee-jerk article-of-faith. How do you explain the experiences of the countries I listed above??? They ALL spend less per capita, and cover more people, and get better overall results, than we do. [Defend and support “less,” “more” and “better.” I hold that you can’t. – DE]

    Meanwhile, three-quarters of a million bankruptcies are being caused in USA EVERY YEAR by medical bills. Bankruptcy–that means the government pays your debts because you cannot. And where does government get the MONEY to do that? TAXES!! [explain “government pays your debts.” That’s not how bankruptcy works. – DE] [and we both AGREE the system bankrupts people. I just don’t want to see a bad system made worse and bankrupt the nation – morally and fiscally. – DE]

    I know Canadians who are afraid to visit the USA, because they know that if they get injured or sick while they are here, the medical bills will bankrupt them. Visiting USA is nice but not if it’s gonna cost you your home. [Cute, anecdotal and mostly not germain. –DE]

    Oh, and you wrote: “health care … should be done with compassion and justice”. I agree with you! Forcing women to grow unwelcome pregnancies and give birth against their wills is UNcompassionate and UNjust. If unborn babies were as morally-good as you seem to think, then they would PREFER to be aborted rather than be part of such an outrageous violation against their mothers. Compassionate and just health-care is PRO-CHOICE health-care. [I leave this statement of political and social idiocy to collapse on its own. – DE]

    Oh, re FOCA in Maryland, there’s too many other factors driving up costs to isolate the effect of FOCA. Without FOCA, the costs would most likely have gone up FASTER. [I was documenting the law of unintended consequences not the costs in Maryland – though they were promptly and forseeably unsustainable. FOCA increased abortions. Paying for abortions in Nationalized Health Care will most likely increase abortions. – DE]

  9. Laura says:

    Hold it, OC. Just where do you come up with the notion that the government bails out bankruptcies? Flat-out wrong. In Chapter 13, a repayment plan is agreed on – and on unsecured loans it’s no more than 25 cents on the dollar that’s repaid. In Chapter 7, nonessential assets are liquidated (you can keep a home, but not a vacation home also) and debts are paid out of the proceeds according to the rulings of the Bankruptcy Court. Debts that cannot be paid off by liquidation of nonessential assets are written off as a loss to the lender. The government only administers these options – it doesn’t provide the monies to pay anybody.

    So – that analogy is a loss.

    Frankly? I think the insurance system has driven health care costs up through the roof. But at the same time, the insurance industry has also come to mandate HOW health care can be practiced. I sure don’t want that to be expanded to GOVERNMENT-CONTROLLED health care; the govt is too big and unwieldy and demonstrably incompetent for that kind of responsibility.

    In fact, if you’ll look, “exit planning” is one of the issues demonstrated in the bill that just went through Congress; I haven’t heard how it plays yet in this Senate version. THAT is where the government intends to “save money” – by getting rid of non-cost-efficient individuals. At least, that’s how it feels as I have read excerpts.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: