MSNBC's Shuster Dismisses Fear of ObamaCare Covering Abortion

Photo of Ken Shepherd.
  • Bookmark and Share

Reviewing a new NBC poll shortly after 3 p.m. EDT today, MSNBC's David Shuster today dismissed as "false" the fears of 50 percent of respondents that "tax dollars will help pay for abortions."

But Shuster's flat denial belies the fact that there is reasonable debate over what exactly Democratic health care proposals before Congress would mean when it comes to financing abortion via the so-called public option.

As U.S. News & World Report religion reporter Dan Gilgoff noted on August 4 (emphasis mine):

The question revolves largely around an amendment to the House healthcare bill that was adopted by the Energy and Commerce Committee last Thursday. The amendment prohibits federal funds from explicitly subsidizing abortion in the private healthcare plans to be offered through the health insurancehere). But it doesn't prevent "the public health insurance exchange (read it here) option from providing for or prohibiting coverage" of abortion.

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

That means the public healthcare option could cover abortions that the government is currently barred from funding by way of the Hyde amendment, a rider to the annual health and human services appropriations bill that keeps Medicaid from funding abortion except in rare circumstances. But Democrats say the entire healthcare bill is subject to the Hyde amendment, meaning that public funds are still barred from covering abortions, so long as the amendment continues to be reauthorized annually.

"For the last 30 years, this is the consistent common ground: We don't use public funds to provide abortion services," says an aide to Democratic California Rep. Lois Capps, who authored the abortion-related amendment adopted last week by the House. "Federal law—the Hyde amendment—prohibits it."

The aide, who spoke on background, said that abortion coverage in the public healthcare option would be financed by premiums paid by individuals. The Capps amendment makes clear that abortions covered by the private healthcare plans would be paid for that way, but it is silent on how abortions in the public option would be funded.

Conservative antiabortion groups have pounced on that silence to allege that the Democrats are sneakily laying the groundwork for taxpayer-funded abortion. They reject claims that the healthcare bill is subject to the Hyde amendment, which has been reauthorized annually for three decades.

"The Hyde amendment is not a governmentwide law," says Douglas Johnson, legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee. "It affects Medicaid but has no bearing whatsoever on money that flows through the public healthcare plan. The Capps amendment authorizes government-funded abortion from Day 1."

With the Senate working up its own healthcare reform proposals, it's unclear whether the Capps amendment will be the last word on how President Obama's plan deals with abortion coverage. Obama has suggested that he wants to uphold the spirit of the Hyde amendment in government-controlled healthcare. "I'm pro-choice, but I think we also have the tradition in this town, historically, of not financing abortions as part of government-funded healthcare," he said recently.

For now, even Democratic groups are reading the Capps amendment's stipulations for abortion coverage differently. Chris Korzen, executive director of Catholics United—a progressive group allied with the White House and supportive of Obama's healthcare reform—said he interpreted the Capps amendment to bar federally financed abortion, but not because he believes the healthcare bill is subject to the Hyde amendment.

Rather, Korzen said, he read the amendment's prohibitions on government-backed abortion in the private healthcare plans as also applying to the public option.

The bottom line, the devil is in the details.

Shuster is wrong to mislead viewers by insisting flat-out that health care proposals will not result in American taxpayers financing abortions via government-sponsored health plans given the complexity of the legislation and how it would be interpreted administratively ad by the courts.

—Ken Shepherd is Managing Editor of NewsBusters


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.

              

                   Liberals would take away guns to "save lives", but would let doctors kill babies. I say let doctors kill liberals to see if that saves any lives.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       

Shuster has 'Coke-Jaw'

   Anybody here that made it through the disco era knows what I mean.

"What a revoltin' development this is!"

Chester Riley

I heard a great point last week

Forget who it was but the commentator brought up 2 very good points:

  1. Republicans tried to put amendments in the bill which would specifically bar any funding for abortions, Democrats struck them down.

  2. Just because it's not specifically in the bill, does not mean it isn't there. The point he was making is if, funding for abortions happens with this bill, it's a beter than even chance any court will uphold it since the wording of the bill doesn't specifically forbid it.

Just another 'backdoor' for the dims, and they know it. What's more, WE know it. So liberals can "truthfully" say, 'it's not in the bill', but to liberals, semantics is all.

There was a Texas Ranger one time who said that there's no stopping a man who knows he's in the right and keeps a-coming.--Louis L'Amour

Schuster gives Jack-Asses a

Schuster gives Jack-Asses a bad name

If Shuster claims Obama

If Shuster claims Obama HellCare contains no provision for abortion, then you know with absolute certainty that it does contain provisions for abortion.

Case closed.

No citizen's right to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, or property is safe as long as Obama is President of the United States.

it does but it doesn't

what it is - is rediculously open ended.

They create a new committee on provisions.  Put the surgeon general in charge and fill in the blanks later. 

___________________________________________ 
"The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax"  - HR 3200 (Health Care Bill) Pg. 203. Ln 14 & 15

We'll see if she does.

We'll see if she does. That's if they don't keep shifting the words around, which they never do. :+]

No citizen's right to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, or property is safe as long as Obama is President of the United States.

cel... Amen brother...you

cel...

Amen brother...you said it all!

Obama's a Community Agitator, a walking, talking destroyer. ~ Rush Limbaugh

Just a thought I was having

Just a thought I was having today.

Another thought, since it's on my mind right now: Obama's crowd is really causing one Constitutional crisis after another. The media does nothing to educate people about the legal implications of his actions and executive orders.

Thanks for letting me vent. Seems I'm venting all the time now. :=]

No citizen's right to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, or property is safe as long as Obama is President of the United States.

shuster

he should read the billI am  sick of msnbc covering for this kenyan

I support

I have now and always will support "retroactive" abortion. My turn to say who gets to live or die...after all, it is "my" choice. Wonder how many of those in office would stand with me on this one? I have my list started on the first "volunteers"..

Abortion monies...

Although the nation was disappointed with all the lies that came from the last Administration, lets hope this Administration is telling the truth when it is stated " no monies for abortion".