Who you gonna believe?

Matthew Hoy
By Matthew Hoy on July 14, 2010

The National Right to Life organization came out Tuesday with a press release noting that the plan for high risk pools in Pennsylvania – mandated by Obamacare – would allow taxpayer funding of abortions for any reason except sex selection.

Examination of the detailed Pennsylvania plan, reveals that the "much more" will include insurance coverage of any legal abortion.

The section on abortion (see page 14) asserts that "elective abortions are not covered." However, that statement proves to be a red herring, because the operative language does not define "elective." Rather, the proposal specifies that the coverage "includes only abortions and contraceptives that satisfy the requirements of" several specific statutes, the most pertinent of which is 18 Pa. C.S. § 3204, which says that an abortion is legal in Pennsylvania (consistent with Roe v. Wade) if a single physician believes that it is "necessary" based on "all factors (physical, emotional, psychological, familial and the woman's age) relevant to the well-being of the woman." Indeed, the cited statute provides only a single circumstance in which an abortion prior to 24 weeks is NOT permitted under the Pennsylvania statute: "No abortion which is sought solely because of the sex of the unborn child shall be deemed a necessary abortion."

As a result, "Under the Rendell-Sebelius plan, federal funds will subsidize coverage of abortion performed for any reason, except sex selection," said NRLC's Johnson. "The Pennsylvania proposal conspicuously lacks language that would prevent funding of abortions performed as a method of birth control or for any other reason, except sex selection -- and the Obama Administration has now approved this." [emphasis in original]

ABC News’ Jake Tapper has the Obama administration and Pennsylvania officials on the record as denying this, but not very convincingly.

But Rosanne Placey of the Pennsylvania Insurance Department disputed that. Placey said the language in the solicitation was just “a placeholder” and that “the bottom line is we will abide by all federal regulations,” which means “someone couldn’t come in and get an abortion on demand.”

The infamous “placeholder” text. And is an executive order that runs counter to the plain text of the law a “federal regulation” that will be followed?

UPDATE

Oh, it gets better. New Mexico too is offering taxpayer-subsidized abortions (via The Corner). Here's the "Summary of Benefits and Plan Options" for the New Mexico high-risk pool. Scroll down to the second page and voila!

NMAbortionFunding

Elective termination of pregnancy – and the taxpayer pays 80 percent.

One comment on “Who you gonna believe?”

  1. "The National Life to Right organization ..." Got some words mixed up there.

    [Fixed, thanks - ed.]

Tags

I'll take a look at dude's new book, but this tweet isn't promising. Watts is a self-aggrandizing extremist whose easily debunked smears have done a lot of damage to her own cause. Also, within pro-gun-control circles everyone knows she's toxic, & Busse surely knows this. https://twitter.com/ryandbusse/status/1450623648067248128

Ryan Busse@ryandbusse

It’s time for reasonable gun owners to cry bullshit on those who demonize good people like @shannonrwatts who are just fighting to make the world better. As Shannon says…it’s also time to buy this book. http://www.ryanbusseauthor.com

Load More...

Calendar

July 2010
M T W T F S S
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031  

Archives

Categories

pencil
linkedin facebook pinterest youtube rss twitter instagram facebook-blank rss-blank linkedin-blank pinterest youtube twitter instagram