Slippery Truth About Health Care Reforms and Elective Abortion Coverage

President Obama was gilding the lily when he declared that his healthcare reforms would not fund abortions with tax money, according to FactCheck.org. While the president's statement is technically correct, it is nevertheless true that the new system would collect non-tax "insurance" contributions from employers to fund abortion on demand.

Abortion 'explicitly' covered under ObamaCare
by Pete Chagnon
OneNewsNow

FactCheck.org says the National Right to Life Committee is correct concerning abortion provisions in ObamaCare.

According to FactCheck.org, President Barack Obama was right to a "limited extent" when he stated that his healthcare reform plan does not allow for "government-funded abortion." Although FactCheck.org states that under H.R. 3200 federal money is not used to fund abortion, under the public insurance option there is a provision for abortion coverage -- as well as provisions for government-subsidized public and private insurance plans that cover what are described as "reproductive services."

Douglas Johnson, legislative director for the Washington, DC-based National Right to Life, says the president purposely neglected to tell the whole story.

"Well, President Obama really brazenly misrepresented the abortion-related components of this bill that his congressional allies have crafted and that his staff had a role in," Johnson contends.

"As the bill was amended by the House Energy and Commerce Committee on July 30, it includes something called the Capps amendment which was put in by the pro-abortion side. And it explicitly authorizes the government plan to cover all elective abortions -- explicitly."

The Capps amendment has proposed by Congresswoman Lois Capps (D-California) as a supposed "compromise" on the abortion issue as it relates to healthcare reform. Johnson doubts Capps was trying to limit abortion funding, telling LifeNews.com that the California Democrat has never cast a pro-life vote in her 11+ years in Congress.

Johnson believes Obama, in trying to squelch discussion on abortion coverage, tried to hide behind a technical distinction between tax funds and government-collected premiums -- both of which, the pro-life activist notes, are collected and spent by government agencies.

Over-the-Counter Abortifacient Wreaks Havoc on Teens' Menstrual Cycles

RU-486 has become, as predicted, a form of routine contraception. It's available "over the counter," and is wreaking havoc on young women's menstrual cycles, according to a Times of India report cited here by LifeSiteNews.com.

LifeSiteNews.com
Over-the-Counter Abortion Pills Lead to Menstrual Complications
By Patrick B. Craine

LifeSiteNews.com - Unsupervised over-the-counter use of 'emergency' contraceptive and abortive pills is leading to menstrual problems, reports The Times of India.

The paper reports that gynecologists are encountering increased incidents of menstrual problems among young women who are arbitrarily and repeatedly using these pills as regular forms of contraception.

"They check dosage on the internet, do their own calculations. Not understanding the consequences, they land up with incomplete abortions. They are scared about the uncontrollable bleeding, or not getting their periods," said Dr. Shilpi Tiwari to The Times of India. He also said that more than half of her clients are between 18 and their early 20s, all with pill-related complications.

In a 2002 Medscape interview, American 'emergency' contraception proponent
Dr. David Grimes asserted that easier access to these drugs would not result in greater reliance upon them as regular birth control.

"There are four studies which suggest that advance access to EC does not prevent use of regular birth control," he said. "When legalized abortion became available we heard the same argument, but going through an induced abortion actually encourages women to use birth control methods subsequently."

Grimes admitted the danger of such drugs to a woman's menstrual cycle. "Repeated use of EC wreaks havoc on a woman's cycle, so the resulting menstrual chaos acts as a powerful deterrent to using this method too often," he said.

Contrary to Grimes' assertions, however, popular morning-after pills are being used as casual contraception, the paper says.

"When you're with your boyfriend, you don't want to use condoms," says 21-year-old D Bina. Asked whether there are complications, she said, "At times. But you prefer sex
without a condom. ... Some put on weight, others don't feel right. But the body gets used to it."

Morning-after pills such as Plan B and I-Pill claim to be effective in preventing pregnancy for up to 72 hours; however, if fertilization has already occurred, they are abortifacient, preventing the newly-formed child from implanting in its mother's womb.

RU-486, on the other hand, known as 'chemical abortion', can be effective in killing an unborn child up to 7 weeks. According to some reports, however, this drug has a 'failure' rate of 15%, normally resulting, then, in a surgical abortion.

See related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:

Abortion Pill not 'Safe' Despite Media Spin - Study Suggests Pill as
Dangerous As Surgical Abortion
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/aug/07081601.html

Canadian Physicians Group Warns of Dangers of "Morning After Pill"
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2004/may/04052005.html

Second Abortion Often Indicates Abusive, Coercive Relationship

A British medical journal reports a robust correlation between abusive relationships and multiple abortions. Should this affect the physician's duty of care to the patient, and should it be reflected in the physician's liability if he or she fails to inquire into the circumstances of the abortion? At the least, it would seem to impact the patient's consent, and if the physician is indifferent to this, it would seem to expose the physician to legal action for battery.

COUNSELORS AT THE CLINIC:
Repeat abortions linked to domestic violence
Eur/Electronic Urban Report

Abortion clinic staff should do a better job of counseling women, especially those who have had more than one procedure. That's according to a London study that discovered women who have repeat abortions are more likely to be involved in abusive relationships with their partner. The study said those findings should prompt abortion centers to do a better job of assisting women who may be pressured or coerced by a violent partner into having an abortion.

The new report, published in The Obstetrician and Gynecologist (TOG) medical journal revealed that thirty percent of women who get a second abortion say they were involved in an abusive relationship at the time, according to LifeNews.com.

"These findings highlight the need for health professionals to be aware of, and sensitive to, the possibility of violence in the lives of women seeking abortion," Jason Waugh, editor of the medical journal, told the UK-based Christian Institute in response, adding that "Our society should have zero tolerance for domestic violence."

"Given the high prevalence of violence in pregnancy, it is important to ask women seeking both maternity and abortion services about domestic violence," he said. "Knowing about domestic violence can help to ensure that women are provided with the support and information that they need."

After an abortion, partners are 75% more likely to argue about money than when having the baby, argue about the man's relatives 80% more, and there is a 99% increased risk of arguing about the woman's relatives compared to couples who give birth.

Midwestern Congressman Calls for Defunding of Planned Parenthood Federation

It is unlikely that Congressman Mike Pence's proposal to stop underwriting America's number one abortion provider with tax money will go anywhere. It's not the first time it's been proposed, and it has never passed before, even at the Republican Revolution's high tide in the mid-90's. Far more likely is that the Reid/Pelosi/Obama government will enact, by sly piecemeal amendments to budget measures and other unrelated legislation, the Freedom of Choice Act.

However, Pence's press release is worth reproducing below because it lays out the pro-lifers' case for defunding Planned Parenthood, and we may see it again if the current Democratic/RINO vice grip begins to shudder and slip. The URL for a one-page background paper provided by the Congressman's staff is provided at the bottom of this page.

PENCE SEEKS TO DEFUND PLANNED PARENTHOOD
"The Time Has Come To Deny Any And All Federal Funding To Planned Parenthood"

WASHINGTON, DC - U.S. Congressman Mike Pence gave the following speech from the floor of the U.S. House, announcing that he had filed an amendment to deny federal funding through Title X Family Planning to Planned Parenthood:

Remarks As Prepared For Delivery:

"The time has come to deny any and all federal funding to Planned Parenthood of America. The largest abortion provider in America should not also be the largest recipient of federal funds under Title X.

"Today I filed an amendment to block any funds under Title X in the Labor-HHS Appropriations Act from going to Planned Parenthood. This same amendment was supported by 189 bipartisan Members in 2007. I am confident it will be widely supported again this Congress and urge the Members of the Rules Committee to make the Pence Amendment in order.

"The Pence Amendment would simply prevent any funds under Title X from going to Planned Parenthood. It would not reduce the total amount of funds available for family planning. Title X is the only federal grant program dedicated solely to providing comprehensive family planning and related preventive health services. There are a number of federally funded clinics across the nation that offer beneficial services including patient counseling, breast cancer screenings, HIV prevention education, and many more. According to their last annual report, Title X funds helped over 4.7 million women prevent pregnancy by a variety of ethical methods such as abstinence education and birth control. There are many clinics funded by Title X that offer ethical family planning services - without providing abortions.

"Last year alone, according to Planned Parenthood's own annual report, it received nearly $350 million in revenue from government grants and contracts. This same annual report acknowledged that Planned Parenthood also performed more than 305,000 abortions - a 5.3% increase from the previous year. The nation's leading abortion provider is also currently under investigation in multiple states including Indiana, California, Alabama, and Tennessee for allegations of fraudulent use of Title X funding. Additionally, many Planned Parenthood centers have been caught violating state sexual assault and child abuse reporting laws, and even encouraging young girls to lie about their ages to circumvent state reporting laws.

"When Title X money goes to organizations that provide both abortions and family planning services, even though the money cannot directly fund abortions, it can be used to offset operational costs, freeing up money to promote and provide abortions. Again I say, the time has come to deny any and all federal funding to Planned Parenthood of America. The largest abortion provider in America should not also be the largest recipient of federal funds under Title X. It's time to pass the Pence Amendment to keep taxpayer money out of the hands of Planned Parenthood."

SEE ONE-PAGE "BACKGROUNDER" AT:
http://www.mikepence.house.gov/images/stories/pence_amendment_one-pager.pdf

IRS Ultimatum to Nonprofit: Abandon Protests or Abandon Tax Exemption

The IRS has delivered an ultimatum to an Iowa pro-life nonprofit organization that it not picket or protest Planned Parenthood abortion sites, or lose its tax-exempt status. The Catholic lawyers' Thomas More Society has taken up the Coalition for Life of Iowa's cause, and demanded the IRS withdraw its opposition to 501(c)(3) status. This report is an excerpt from the Thomas More Society's press release.

As a Condition for 501(c)(3) Recognition, IRS Demands Assurance that the "Coalition for Life of Iowa" Not Picket or Protest Planned Parenthood Locations

The Thomas More Society demanded last week the Internal Revenue Service withdraw its opposition to 501(c)(3) status for the Coalition for Life of Iowa.

After inquiring about the "educational" nature of the Coalition for Life of Iowa's activities, the Internal Revenue Service stated that it would not grant tax exemption unless the Coalition agreed to limit its "picketing" and "protesting" of Planned Parenthood. Compliance with this request would result in a restriction of the speech of the Coalition for Life, as well as a breach its First Amendment rights.

While other similar pro-life non-profits have had little trouble attaining tax-exempt status from the IRS in the past, this unwarranted ultimatum reveals what may be a new government prejudice against pro-life organizations and the Pro-Life movement. Such demands should never arise in the IRS's decision-making process to grant tax-exempt status for any applicant non-profit organization.

The Thomas More Society has posted more about the IRS ultimatum on its website at http://www.thomasmoresociety.org.

Not Since Canaanites Gathered Around the Altars of Baal 3,000 Years Ago

In just one sentence, Calgary Herald columnist Nigel Hannaford has put abortion into historical perspective: "Abortion has been around forever of course, but not since the Canaanites gathered around the altars of Baal 3,000 years ago has anybody actually defended child sacrifice as an intrinsically good thing."

The current abortion regime really is something extraordinary, unprecedented in Western Civilization. Like it or deplore it, abortion-as-we-know-it is not just an incremental adaptation of previous practices.

Calgary Herald
Social conservative face shown at last
By Nigel Hannaford

Talk about stirring things up. After Finance Minister Iris Evans delivered off-the-cuff comments about family life, much combustible gas erupted from the bottom of the pond as the left jumped all over her. Yet, all she said was that going to work and letting somebody else raise your children wasn't ideal. Wow. There's subversive.

Come on. She didn't say working couples were wicked, and until quite recently a parent at home for the kids was what just about everybody did. More would do it today if they could afford it. But, the left piled on. Liberal Leader David Swann called it "outrageous," a "black eye for Alberta." The NDP said she was out of touch with reality, and much else besides. It was an Alberta example of what the left everywhere loves to do: Use walls of sound to try to shut down opinions it doesn't like. Often, these are positions that have been mainstream for centuries, if not eons. In the case of Evans, it's state-run day care that's the left's real issue with her. Socialists everywhere dream of when all little kid-dies are dropped off at the government mind-meld facility, where people who really know how to make children into good, compliant citizens, will have their way with them. (Not a new idea, by the way: Prussian academics were promoting it 130 years ago.) So, how dare Evans encourage parents who want to do the job themselves? What next? Kind words for home schoolers?

The left has made effective use of the co-ordinated yell to topple one motherhood issue after another as those of us who have lived long enough can attest. Oddly, the first to go was the one that should have been impregnable: The bond between mother and unborn child. But, somehow enough women became persuaded that it wasn't a baby they were carrying, just fetal tissue, and that their choice of convenience superseded its right to be born. Abortion has been around forever of course, but not since the Canaanites gathered around the altars of Baal 3,000 years ago has anybody actually defended child sacrifice as an intrinsically good thing.

Bizarre, but now a politician who so much as proposes limits on abortion, makes him- or herself a magnet for vile personal attacks. So did those who argued without success that thousands of years of past practice and the consensus of the world's religions suggest the institution of marriage was and should remain exclusively heterosexual. And for environmental conservatives, there's the ultimate slander - to be called Nazis. Ellen Goodman for instance, a liberal columnist who has many imitators, wrote in 2007: "I would like to say we're at a point where global warming is impossible to deny. Let's just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers." Let's see. Tim Ball is like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? Of course not. However, no less a Kyoto skeptic than Stephen Harper (who in 2002 wrote in this paper that as environmental policy, Kyoto was "a fraud") has, since becoming prime minister, been obliged to prescribe policies he once scorned. Such is the power of the left's green scream.

Conservatives need to sort through their issues. The right has a long history of blending authentic truth with some mean-spirited attitudes: Liberty for some, but not for all; condemning people instead of behaviour, drive-by misogyny and so forth. The attitudes, they need to lose. However, they should have more confidence in their truths. Evans's family ideal is well-founded and requires defence, not excuse. Within its abilities, it should be her government's objective to use tax and benefit policies so Albertan families that want to keep one parent at home for the kids, have that choice. As for Alberta's left, Evans should remember a party that hasn't formed a government for 90 years could hardly claim to understand today's realities itself: Nor could one that not one Albertan in 10 will vote for. The noise is not coming from the moral high ground. The government shows its social conservative face? About time.

Quebecois Abortionists Bristle at Proposed Canadian Health Insurance Rules

If U.S. Democrats want to make abortion "safe, legal and rare," as former President Clinton claimed, and as Democrats from Tipper Gore to Barack Obama have since confirmed, or even if they just want to publicly fund abortions under the proposed new health care systems, they might want to take note of the controversy brewing up north in Quebec.

The article Le Droit article reproduced below, to summarize for the monolingual Americans whom President Obama denounced during his Europe tour, says that Bill 34, under consideration by a Quebec parliamentary committee, would require private clinics that perform about 50 surgical procedures - including abortion - obtain permits as "specialized medical centers."

This would subject the clinics to rules regarding facilities, staff, procedures, even dress code. Without this permit, clinics will have to shut down or lose eligibility for Quebec's $350 health insurance payments.

More than a quarter of Quebec abortions are performed privately, outside hospitals. Some Canadian hospitals decline late-term abortions Some have long waiting lists and cannot schedule elective abortions promptly. Current health insurance rules permit hospitals to refer to private abortionists, including general practitioners, who threaten to stop offering abortions if Bill 34 passes.

Le Droit
L'avortement menacé dans le secteur privé
By Pascale Breton, La Presse

Exaspérés par les contraintes administratives que veut leur imposer Québec, les médecins menacent de ne plus pratiquer de nombreuses interventions dans les cliniques privées, notamment les avortements. Une décision qui aurait un impact important sur les listes d'attente.

Des ententes existent entre des hôpitaux et des cliniques privées pour y référer des femmes qui veulent subir une interruption volontaire de grossesse. Plusieurs hôpitaux sont en effet incapables de faire les avortements dans les délais requis en raison des listes d'attente élevées. D'autres ne pratiquent pas ce genre d'interventions au−delà d'un certain nombre de semaines de grossesse.

Tout risque de changer, affirme le président de la Fédération des médecins spécialistes du Québec, le Dr. Gaétan Barrette. "C'est certain que les gynécologues−obstétriciens vont arrêter de faire ces interventions parce que ce qu'on leur impose comme lourdeur est trop grand. On impose aux cabinets privés des normes hospitalières."

Le son de cloche est similaire du côté des médecins omnipraticiens du Québec qui pratiquent le plus grand volume des avortements.

"On se retrouve avec un carcan administratif, déplore le président de la Fédération des médecins omnipraticiens du Québec, le DrLouis Godin. Nous pensons qu'il y a un risque important que ça ne mette un frein à l'accessibilité, parce qu'il y a probablement des médecins qui vont arrêter d'en faire."

Le problème réside dans la teneur du projet de loi 34, à l'étude en commission parlementaire à Québec cette semaine. Dans un souci d'accessibilité aux soins et dans la foulée du jugement Chaoulli, le gouvernement veut encadrer une cinquantaine de procédures chirurgicales faites dans le privé.

A compter de l'automne, les cliniques devront être reconnues comme des cliniques médicales spécialisées. Elles devront obtenir un permis délivré par le ministre. Elles devront aussi se conformer à une série de règlements, autant en ce qui a trait aux installations, au personnel, aux procédures, jusqu'au code vestimentaire.

Si la clinique n'obtient pas de permis, elle devra cesser ses opérations ou devenir privée au sens où les médecins devront devenir non participants au Régime de l'assurance−maladie du Québec.

Mais les médecins estiment que les règles administratives sont trop nombreuses. "Les gens vont simplement arrêter de faire ces procédures parce qu'ils n'ont pas besoin de ça pour vivre", lance le Dr. Gaétan Barrette.

L'impact sur les avortements est important. En 2007, près de 5000 interruptions volontaires de grossesse ont été réalisées dans les cliniques privées et quelque 2800 dans les centres de santé des femmes. Environ 19900 interventions ont été pratiquées dans les hôpitaux et les CLSC.

A la suite d'un jugement de la Cour supérieure du Québec, le ministère de la Santé et des Services sociaux rembourse par ailleurs 350$ pour chaque avortement pratiqué au privé, en plus des honoraires médicaux payés par la RAMQ.

Bien d'autres procédures faites au privé risquent d'être aussi abandonnées. Une décision qui aurait même un impact sur le projet de loi sur la procréation assistée. En campagne électorale, les libéraux s'étaient engagés à payer des frais de traitements de fertilité aux couples qui veulent avoir un enfant.

"Il est strictement impossible de faire de la fécondation in vitro dans le public au Québec. Il n'existe aucune ressource", souligne le DrBarrette.

En commission parlementaire, le ministre de la Santé, Yves Bolduc, a expliqué qu'il voulait s'assurer de la sécurité entourant chacune des procédures.
"Dans les cliniques médicales spécialisées, ce sont des actes chirurgicaux qui sont pratiqués. C'est le pendant d'un bloc opératoire à l'hôpital. [...] Le fait d'avoir un agrément, un permis spécial est tout à fait indiqué."

En fin de journée hier, le ministre Bolduc a par ailleurs indiqué que les centres de santé des femmes, des organismes à but non lucratifs où se pratiquent notamment des interruptions volontaires de grossesse, ne seront pas soumis aux règles les contraignant à devenir des cliniques médicales spécialisées.