ABC Gives Credibility to View ObamaCare Will Include Taxpayer Funding of Abortion

By Brad Wilmouth (Bio | Archive)
August 17, 2009 - 10:20 ET
  • Bookmark and Share

During Thursday's World News with Charles Gibson, ABC correspondent Kate Snow held open the possibility that some ObamaCare opponents are correct in their belief that universal health care will include taxpayer funding of abortion, although she characterized the truth as "unclear," during a "Reality Check" during which she brought up the likelihood that taxpayer funding would be used to purchase private health insurance plans that cover abortion. Snow:

Will health care reform lead to taxpayer-funded abortions? Unclear. Current law states federal funds cannot be used for abortions except in the cases of rape, incest or the life of the mother. But under health care reform, lower income Americans would have their health care subsidized by the government, and they will be allowed to pick a health plan that covers abortion.

She also informed viewers that at least one alternative plan would try to separate tax dollars from abortion funding -- she contended that "it might not be the easiest thing to regulate, keeping public and private money separate," but she also cited "experts" who say that such a plan "could work." Snow:

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

One version of the House reform bill would allow health plans to cover abortions as long as they were paid for entirely with private funds. It might not be the easiest thing to regulate, keeping public and private money separate, but experts say it could work.

Below is a complete transcript of the story from the Thursday, August 13, World News with Charles Gibson:

CHARLES GIBSON: And at the town hall meetings, the subject of abortion is often mentioned. Many questioners maintaining that reform would put the government in the business of paying for abortions. Well, are they right? As we continue fact checking the health care battle, Kate Snow looks at the questions surrounding abortion.

KATE SNOW: Senator Arlen Specter was asked about abortion at a town hall meeting this week.

SENATOR ARLEN SPECTER (D-PA): Young lady, you have the floor.

UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: Thank you. I do not want to pay on a health care plan that includes the right for a woman to kill her unborn baby. Is it true that this plan is in the health care bill?

SNOW: The basic question there, is the right to abortion included in health care reform? The facts, the original bills in both the House and Senate never explicitly addressed the subject, but that doesn't mean it doesn't come up.

UNIDENTIFEID MAN: I'm referring to section 1714 that talks about family planning services. All right? Starts on page 769.

SNOW: He's not wrong. Section 1714 does talk about family planning for women on Medicaid. It will allow states to counsel or provide abortion, using state money. But could federal money be used toward abortion? That is the question that comes up most often at those town hall meetings.

UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: I'm talking about taxpayer-funded abortion. We have to pay for it, okay, whether we agree with it or not.

SNOW: Will health care reform lead to taxpayer-funded abortions? Unclear. Current law states federal funds cannot be used for abortions except in the cases of rape, incest or the life of the mother. But under health care reform, lower income Americans would have their health care subsidized by the government, and they will be allowed to pick a health plan that covers abortion. The President has said the government should not pay for it.

BARACK OBAMA: 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, you know, government-funded health care.

SNOW: One version of the House reform bill would allow health plans to cover abortions as long as they were paid for entirely with private funds. It might not be the easiest thing to regulate, keeping public and private money separate, but experts say it could work. What version of the House bill may end up being the final version, but frankly we just don't know yet, and, of course, the Senate is working on its own version. So, the bottom line is, we don't know yet if taxpayers could end up funding abortions. It is up to the members of Congress, Charlie, and the President.

GIBSON: All right, Kate Snow reporting, fact-checking again tonight.

—Brad Wilmouth is a news analyst at the Media Research Center.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

 Let me see if I got

August 17, 2009 - 10:27 ET by east tennessee john

 Let me see if I got this straight. Healthcare policy Czars or Presidential advisers appointed with no lines of accountability to anyone but the President are going to be the final arbiters, along with the attendant bureaucracy, of aloocating healthcare resources, based upon some undisclosed, unexamined, with no imput from anyone, philosophy of the value of life, that mayor may not reflect the belief systems of the people it's going to be imposed upon. Is that about right? I realize there is a ruling elite in this country, heavily populated by elitists, but its LEGITIMACY is based upon acceptance via elections. Being elected, or even appointed by a Prsident in no way confers upon you the right or authority to establish ANY so called "quality of life" value matrix, since you are just another mere human being and who are you to assess value of my life, PARTICULARLY TO THE STATE? If so, then the STATE shouldn't be involved in healthcare. Besides, the financial resources used to pay for it AREN'T THE STATE'S. At best, the STATE is merely a conduit. This action of the elites goes beyond their normal arrogance. It shows nothing but contempt and conceit towards us and nothing more than megalmania in them. Their premise is that the STATE can allocate resources better than a competitve market. What evidence of this exists anywhere? If I,m anywhere near right, Why do they even wonder why we're angry? Their inability to understand is further evidence of the disconnect.

Call me stupid, but what

August 17, 2009 - 10:49 ET by QueenMum

Call me stupid, but what the heck does this mean:

"One version of the House reform bill would allow health plans to
cover abortions as long as they were paid for entirely with private
funds."

If abortions are paid for entirely with private funds, what role does the federal government play? What's really being said here is that the federal government will force health insurance companies to cover abortions. And once the government gets their nose in the tent, the next step will be making determinations about whether a pregnancy should be allowed to go full term if the cost of caring for a possibly disabled child is deemed too high.

Or am I misunderstanding the whole concept?

"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out
of other people's money."

—Margaret Thatcher

This health care plan, if

August 17, 2009 - 11:03 ET by jdhawk

This health care plan, if passed, is by definition state run and controlled.  So, all care will come from the state for the "little" people.  With that in mind, you don't think that abortion will be included?  How about sex change operations?  Need a liberal wish list to follow?  Get a list of Hollyweird movies and make a list from that - it will be more or less accurate - for now. 

While the abortion issue is important, you have to be around to argue for or against it.  What will go to the head of the list of "important" health care issues will be smoking cessation, obesity reduction, aids, etc.  With only limited funds, what will likely fall out of the equation will be transplants, by passes, stroke therapy for the elderly.  Yeah, if you are old or the operation just costs too much - sorry.  Drop Dead!

Meanwhile, what is going on now is a head fake from Obama.  He has put out rumor that the public option is out.  Don't believe it.  He is trying to get all of us to back off until he can get our representatives back to D.C. and can threaten and cajole them into whatever they can get away with in this healthcare bill. 

Write, call, and/or e-mail your representatives daily that you against any changes to your healthcare.  We only win if this bill(s) is completely defeated.  Something that is still very unlikely at this point. 

By the way, approximately 4,000 babies will be aborted today.  Payments for abortions are already largely funded, if indirectly, by local, state, and federal funds. 

 

another little quirk--

August 17, 2009 - 11:11 ET by misterbill

I was at my urologist this AM. I mentioned that Obama was apparently backing off on the public option part. My doctor said he has read the entire 1018 pages and there were sneaky little tricks all over.
Here is one I copied from the bill when I got home----

SEC. 102. PROTECTING THE CHOICE TO KEEP CURRENT COVERAGE.

"(a) GRANDFATHERED HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE DEFINED.—Subject to the succeeding provisions of this section, for purposes of establishing acceptable coverage under this division, the term ‘‘grandfathered health insurance coverage’’ means individual health insurance
coverage that is offered and in force and effect before the first day of Y1 if the following conditions are met:

(1) LIMITATION ON NEW ENROLLMENT.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day of Y1."

This said to me (and the doctor agreed, that my son who will become eligible for union health insurance inj February 2010 , cannot get in the plan if Obama's bill is passed as written above.

Not only do they lie to us, but they take us for complete fools.

The distinction between rights

August 17, 2009 - 11:13 ET by KC Mulville

Not all rights are the same. We make distinctions.

  • If you're arrested, you have a right to a lawyer. That means, if you don't have one, the state is required to give you one.
  • You also have a right to free speech. That doesn't mean that the state has to provide you with it. The right only means that the state can't deny it to you. 

Abortion is a legal right, but what kind of right is it? If you want an abortion, does the state have an obligation to provide it? No. Abortion is like free speech; you can pursue it if you want, and the state is (currently) not allowed to prevent you from seeking one. But that doesn't mean the state is required to provide one.

Now, with that in mind, listen to the constitutional law professor explain abortion funding: "But I think we also have a tradition of, in this town, historically, of not financing abortions as part of, you know, government-funded health care."

  • In the first place, it isn't about tradition, or mere past experience. It's the law. It's called the Hyde Amendment.
  • Second, it isn't just in "this town." It's federal law.
  • It is a complete confusion of the concept of rights to suppose that the government is obligated to provide you with an abortion if you want one.

A constitutional law professor should be able to understand the concept of rights, don't you think?

 

UPDATE

August 17, 2009 - 14:11 ET by KC Mulville

After posting the piece above, I happened to catch Jonathan Alter's op-ed on Newsweek. Obviously, liberal journalists don't understand rights either.

Alter's argument is no different than the allegation that conservatives are bigots (yawn). 

"The main reason that the bill isn't sold as civil rights is that most Americans don't believe there's a "right" to health care. They see their rights as inalienable, and thus free, which health care isn't. Serious illness is an abstraction (thankfully) for younger Americans. It's something that happens to someone else, and if that someone else is older than 65, we know that Medicare will take care of it. Polls show that the 87 percent of Americans who have health insurance aren't much interested in giving any new rights and entitlements to "them"—the uninsured."

In Alter's mind, 87 percent of people disagree with him, but he attributes that to his assumption that they must be bigoted. He simply can't accept the possibility that they're right and he's wrong.

If there is anything the Left and this president believes in...

August 17, 2009 - 14:39 ET by Prester John

....it is the "right" of a woman to kill her unborn child.

It is the holiest of sacraments in the Church of Death.

Of course it will be in there, one way or the other.

 

"The Truth is Treason in the Empire of Lies"

www.campaignforliberty.com