Abortion in the health care bill-right of conscience?

1. 67

   SparklingJewelposted 13 years ago

   regardless of where one stands on the abortion issue...how could any American citizen stand for allowing their tax dollars or  be forced in their work ethic to be used for something that is against their deepest moral and ethical conscience...to them it is an ultimate abuse of their liberty and freedom, let alone that of the unborn and in many cases the mother herself that doesn't get fully informed  of her choices at many places that would be supported by tax monies
   
   so if you can set your moral convictions on abortion aside and just look at Constitutional Laws and the rights of ones freedom and liberty, read the interpretation of the bill and the aspects having to do with abortion in it at this website
   
   
   
   http://www.aul.org/

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Poppa Bluesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      The left doesn't believe in the constitution, it's an obsolete piece of paper written a long time ago when freedom meant something different!!!
      
      Abortion is in the health care bill and that is a change from the long standing policy of not using federal money to finance abortions.

      replyreport
      1. 61

         Ron Montgomeryposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         You seem to buy into the theory that repeating lies ad nauseum will morph them into truth....
         
         Good luck with that.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Poppa Bluesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Read it for yourself! This is from H.R. 3692 passed by the Senate and now before the House.
            
            20 (e) ABORTION COVERAGE PROHIBITED AS PART OF
            21 MINIMUM BENEFITS PACKAGE.—
            22 (1) PROHIBITION OF REQUIRED COVERAGE.—
            23 The Health Benefits Advisory Committee may not
            24 recommend under section 223(b), and the Secretary
            25 may not adopt in standards under section 224(b),
            VerDate Nov 24 2008 21:32 Nov 16, 2009 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 00114 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H3962.PCS H3962 hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with BILLS
            115
            HR 3962 PCS
            1 the services described in paragraph (4)(A) or (4)(B)
            2 as part of the essential benefits package and the
            3 Commissioner may not require such services for
            4 qualified health benefits plans to participate in the
            5 Health Insurance Exchange.
            6 (2) VOLUNTARY CHOICE OF COVERAGE BY
            7 PLAN.—In the case of a qualified health benefits
            8 plan, the plan is not required (or prohibited) under
            9 this Act from providing coverage of services de10
            scribed in paragraph (4)(A) or (4)(B) and the
            11 QHBP offering entity shall determine whether such
            12 coverage is provided.
            13 (3) ABORTION SERVICES.—
            14 (A) ABORTIONS FOR WHICH PUBLIC FUND15
            ING IS PROHIBITED.—The services described in
            16 this subparagraph are abortions for which the
            17 expenditure of Federal funds appropriated for
            18 the Department of Health and Human Services
            19 is not permitted, based on the law as in effect
            20 as of the date that is 6 months before the be21
            ginning of the plan year involved.
            22 (B) ABORTIONS FOR WHICH PUBLIC FUND23
            ING IS ALLOWED.—The services described in
            24 this subparagraph are abortions for which the
            25 expenditure of Federal funds appropriated for
            VerDate Nov 24 2008 21:32 Nov 16, 2009 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 00115 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H3962.PCS H3962 hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with BILLS
            116
            HR 3962 PCS
            1 the Department of Health and Human Services
            2 is permitted, based on the law as in effect as
            3 of the date that is 6 months before the begin4
            ning of the plan year involved.

            replyreport
            1. 81

               kerrygposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               You left out quite a bit of it.
               
               GARDING ABORTION.
               5 (a) NO PREEMPTION OF STATE LAWS REGARDING
               6 ABORTION.—Nothing in this Act shall be construed to
               7 preempt or otherwise have any effect on State laws regard8
               ing the prohibition of (or requirement of) coverage, fund9
               ing, or procedural requirements on abortions, including
               10 parental notification or consent for the performance of an
               11 abortion on a minor.
               
               
               12 (b) NO EFFECT ON FEDERAL LAWS REGARDING
               13 ABORTION.—
               14 (1) IN GENERAL.—Nothing in this Act shall be
               15 construed to have any effect on Federal laws regard16
               ing—
               17 (A) conscience protection;
               18 (B) willingness or refusal to provide abor19
               tion; and
               20 (C) discrimination on the basis of the will21
               ingness or refusal to provide, pay for, cover, or
               22 refer for abortion or to provide or participate in
               23 training to provide abortion.
               
               
               24 (c) NO EFFECT ON FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS LAW.—
               25 Nothing in this section shall alter the rights and obliga-
               1 tions of employees and employers under title VII of the
               2 Civil Rights Act of 1964.
               
               
               3 SEC. 259. NONDISCRIMINATION ON ABORTION AND RE4
               SPECT FOR RIGHTS OF CONSCIENCE.
               5 (a) NONDISCRIMINATION.—A Federal agency or pro6
               gram, and any State or local government that receives
               7 Federal financial assistance under this Act (or an amend8
               ment made by this Act), may not—
               9 (1) subject any individual or institutional health
               10 care entity to discrimination; or
               11 (2) require any health plan created or regulated
               12 under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act)
               13 to subject any individual or institutional health care
               14 entity to discrimination,
               15 on the basis that the health care entity does not provide,
               16 pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions.
               17 (b) DEFINITION.—In this section, the term ‘‘health
               18 care entity’’ includes an individual physician or other
               19 health care professional, a hospital, a provider-sponsored
               20 organization, a health maintenance organization, a health
               21 insurance plan, or any other kind of health care facility,
               22 organization, or plan.
               
               18 (d) NO DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF PROVI19
               SION OF ABORTION.—No Exchange participating health
               20 benefits plan may discriminate against any individual
               21 health care provider or health care facility because of its
               22 willingness or unwillingness to provide, pay for, provide
               23 coverage of, or refer for abortions.
               
               (3) PROHIBITION OF USE OF PUBLIC FUNDS
               12 FOR ABORTION COVERAGE.—An affordability credit
               13 may not be used for payment for services described
               14 in section 222(d)(4)(A).
               
               16 (c) SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING LONGITU17
               DINAL STUDY OF RELATIVE MENTAL HEALTH CON18
               SEQUENCES FOR WOMEN OF RESOLVING A PREG19
               NANCY.—
               20 (1) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of
               21 the Congress that the Director of the National Insti22
               tute of Mental Health may conduct a nationally rep23
               resentative longitudinal study (during the period of
               24 fiscal years 2011 through 2020) on the relative men25
               tal health consequences for women of resolving a
               1 pregnancy (intended and unintended) in various
               2 ways, including carrying the pregnancy to term and
               3 parenting the child, carrying the pregnancy to term
               4 and placing the child for adoption, miscarriage, and
               5 having an abortion. This study may assess the inci6
               dence, timing, magnitude, and duration of the imme7
               diate and long-term mental health consequences
               8 (positive or negative) of these pregnancy outcomes.
               9 (2) REPORT.—Beginning not later than 3 years
               10 after the date of the enactment of this Act, and peri11
               odically thereafter for the duration of the study,
               12 such Director may prepare and submit to the Con13
               gress reports on the findings of the study.
               14 (d) DEFINITIONS.—In this section:
               
               1 ‘‘SEC. 804. LIMITATION ON USE OF FUNDS APPROPRIATED
               2 TO INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE.
               3 ‘‘Any limitation on the use of funds contained in an
               4 Act providing appropriations for the Department for a pe5
               riod with respect to the performance of abortions shall
               6 apply for that period with respect to the performance of
               7 abortions using funds contained in an Act providing ap8
               propriations for the Service.

               replyreport
            2. 81

               kerrygposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               Additionally, I assume, since everything else in the section you quoted said over and over again that no federal funding would be used for abortions, that you meant to highlight the section that said:
               
               "22 (B) ABORTIONS FOR WHICH PUBLIC FUNDING IS ALLOWED - The services described in this subparagraph are abortions for which the expenditure of Federal funds appropriated for the Department of Health and Human Services is permitted, based on the law as in effect as of the date that is 6 months before the beginning of the plan year involved."
               
               Unfortunately for your argument, what that section actually says is that only abortions permitted by the Hyde Amendment to be publicly funded by the Department of Health and Human services can be publicly funded by this new health care bill.
               
               The Hyde Amendment prohibits funding for ALL abortions by the Department of Health and Human Services.
               
               Therefore, as long as the Hyde Amendment stands, the healthcare bill as currently written guarantees that no federal funds will be used to pay for abortions, and this whole thread is pointless and invalid.
               
               While I'm at it, I may as well highlight this section for Sparkling Jewel, which explicitly states that the healthcare bill will NOT affect "right of conscience" laws:
               
               (b) NO EFFECT ON FEDERAL LAWS REGARDING ABORTION.
               (1) IN GENERAL. Nothing in this Act shall be construed to have any effect on Federal laws regarding:
               (A) conscience protection;
               (B) willingness or refusal to provide abortion; and
               (C) discrimination on the basis of the willingness or refusal to provide, pay for, cover, or refer for abortion or to provide or participate in training to provide abortion.

               replyreport
      2. 61

         Ron Montgomeryposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Which part of this lie that you choose to share with us on a daily basis is made truthful by the excerpt from the healthcare bill?
         
         
         
         You are partially correct in this statement, Abortion is in fact MENTIONED in the bill.  The rest is incorrect.  There has in fact been federal funding of abortions in the specific instances refered to and reaffirmed by the language in this bill for years.

         replyreport
         1. 67

            SparklingJewelposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            you need to read up on the Hyde Amendment that has been in sway for 30 years...then say it ain't so, show me the proof and I will believe you
            
            the saddest thing is that, you may be right and we never knew about, understood or provisions were not used, and we all haven't known so
            
            but I would prefer to see direct proof now of your claims with proof from both sides of the isle, so to speak, because interpretation is 9/10th of the laws on the books...which takes me back to my main point of conscience, where was it, where has it gone, what is it trying to be pushed and changed into now :\

            replyreport
            1. 61

               Ron Montgomeryposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               I'm very familiar with the Hyde ammendment which in and of itself cannot prohibit federal funding of abortions- through medicaid- in the case of rape or incest.

               replyreport
   2. 0

      Deborah Sextonposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I would rather that a mother kill the child she doesn't want before birth than after birth.....
      I can't separate my views on this....
      Each individual pays for it so how does it affect anyone else?

      replyreport
      1. 67

         SparklingJewelposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         I would rather that a mother kill the child she doesn't want before birth than after birth.....
         
         
         what???

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Deborah Sextonposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Abortion..If a pregnant woman doesn't want her baby enough to abort it..She should abort it..A lot of women who don't want their children after they are born..KILL THEM..We have 3 such cases currently in my State. I don't why they don't give up their unwanted children for adoption but they don't.
            
            I think it is better to have the abortion than to have the child and than kill it through abuse etc..How much clearer can I state this?

            replyreport
   3. 80

      psycheskinnerposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Evertone's money goes to things they don't support, like military spending.  But society as a whole has made these things legal and allowed, so we have to suck it up.

      replyreport
2. 94

   thooghunposted 13 years ago

   Many things are done in our names, and with out purses, that we find morally questionable. From war, to wiretapping to wiping the floor with the Geneva conventions, to capital punishment and beyond. All this is done in our name and with our money. Abortion is no different.
   
   Freedom and liberty require the right to a choice, and Roe Vs Wade was a clear-cut example of the right to a choice being protected. You are no doubt asking that you should have the ability to opt-out, and ethically of course, if it causes you pain, then you are right. Unfortunately it would undermine how a democracy works. There are many things that you are not ethically opposed to, and others are, and they will ultimately be paying the same price you are.
   
   The alternative, of course, is to step out of the loop and not pay taxes.

   replyreport
   1. 67

      SparklingJewelposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      ...we are not a democracy, but a republic...there is a difference
      
      a simple answer is to allow those that don't mind paying for abortions to do so, and those that do mind aren't forced to, period...

      replyreport
      1. 94

         thooghunposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         You are right, it is indeed a Republic, but there is no difference with regards to what I described in the sense that we are dealing with a majority and a minority. In a republic the majority is limited by the constitution and must serve what it considers to be the unalienable rights of individuals.
         
         In Roe Vs Wade "The Court rested these conclusions on a constitutional right to privacy emanating from the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, also known as substantive due process."
         
         
         Secondly, it isn't as simple as that. In that case, I could choose to stop funding pretty much anything I disagreed with, why should Abortion be any different from any other contentious issue?

         replyreport
      2. 81

         kerrygposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         "a simple answer is to allow those that don't mind paying for abortions to do so, and those that do mind aren't forced to, period..."
         
         But where do you stop? When you take all matters of conscience into consideration, your "simple answer" quickly becomes very, very complicated
         
         I am as infuriated that my tax dollars are being used to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as any pro-life activist is about tax dollars being used to support women's health clinics that perform abortions. When you consider that more than 50% of all tax revenue collected by the US government goes towards military spending, I think I have a hell of a lot more right to be furious than pro-lifers do over a few grants here and there.
         
         As for medical professionals' "right to conscience," any doctor who genuinely believes that abortions are never necessary to save the life of the mother is going to endanger the lives of his or her patients, and doesn't deserve to be practicing medicine. That goes for nurses, pharmacists, and all other medical professionals in a position to treat pregnant women, too.

         replyreport
         1. 67

            SparklingJewelposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            ...yes, I agree that conscience becomes complicated with many issues when it comes to the rights of over 300 million American citizens...
            
            that is why I wanted to focus just on abortion in the healthcare bill...sweeping legislation is not a necessity, issues can be taken in a more step by step manor, individual rights can be addressed thus so, it is just a matter of changing the way things are done, have been done for a long time, hence the need to get back to Constitutional perspectives and what they truly meant, not what they have been postulated into by misuses of power.

            replyreport
            1. 81

               kerrygposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               This is the bill I support. Sweeping, yet simple:
               
               http://www.healthcare-now.org/hr-676/
               
               Abortion in the healthcare bill was a non-issue that's been blown out of proportion by the right wing and conservative Democrats to the point that people with subsidized PRIVATE insurance are now going to be forced to write two checks every month, one for abortion coverage and one for everything else. It's easy to see how much you really value liberty, choice, and small government. More bureacracy for all, and a "choice" between being rich and having abortion coverage, and being poor and not having it. Good work, geniuses!

               replyreport
         2. 57

            C.J. Wrightposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            First of all your 50% number is hardly correct, 20% is a more accurate number....
            Military spending is covered by the constitution explicitly. Secondly its an all volunteer force. Also the DOD acknowloges "consciencous objectors".
            When we don't get what we want from our policy makers we elect someone else. Some one who appears to be more in tune with the public's wants and desires. This was what got Obama elected.......ending the war, yet it rages on.

            replyreport
3. 61

   Wayne Orvisburgposted 13 years ago

   Ok, someone may be against capital punishment, in which case they don't pull the switch on the electric chair. A nurse or doctor that became that profession to save lives, should not have to give up ANY moral convictions because of a law. Nuff Said.

   replyreport
   1. 81

      kerrygposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Even if their "moral convictions" are killing their patients?

      replyreport
      1. 61

         Wayne Orvisburgposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Thats what I said. Should NOT have to give up any moral convictions.

         replyreport
         1. 81

            kerrygposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Hmm, I think one of us is misunderstanding the other.
            
            My argument is that people who are not willing to perform abortions should not (and, if necessary, should not be allowed to) become doctors or nurses in any specialty where they might be required to do so, or where they might be in a position to endanger the life of a pregnant woman by delaying or denying treatment that might save her life but harm her fetus. Do you agree?

            replyreport
            1. 61

               Wayne Orvisburgposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               So you think we should not allow someone to choose what career they want to pursue because they may not want to give an abortion? An abortion, which they may never even have to deal with?
               
               I'm gonna have to go ahead and say I DO NOT AGREE.

               replyreport
               1. 81

                  kerrygposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  Sure. Very few medical professionals have to deal with abortions on a regular basis, so the choice of careers isn't really that restricted, and for the rest, the case is likely to be much more clear cut. If my aunt's leukemia had recurred early in her pregnancy (it didn't, thankfully), her oncologist would have had a choice between treating her leukemia and killing the fetus or not treating the leukemia and losing both her and the fetus. I would think that choice would be obvious to even the most rabid of pro-lifers, and if it isn't, then he or she doesn't deserve to be practicing medicine.

                  replyreport
      2. 67

         SparklingJewelposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         the patients decisions are killing the patient, not the doctor that is being forced to act against his/her conscience
         
         in those very few cases where abortion is the only option to saving the mother's life, it is still up to the patient...
         
         don't forget my point...right of conscience is the focus

         replyreport
         1. 81

            kerrygposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            "Very few?"
            
            I must have a particularly unlucky group of friends and relatives, then, because I've known several women whose lives were or might have become threatened by their pregnancies. If some doctor had denied them an abortion due to "moral convictions" and they had died as a result, then s/he should be - at minimum - sued for gross malpractice, and preferably put in jail for murder.
            
            Also, "the patient's decisions?" Since when are leukemia and pre-eclampsia the "patient's decisions?"

            replyreport
            1. 67

               SparklingJewelposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               remember, we are talking only about abortion and right of conscience.
               
               I am sorry you and your family and friends have had to experience difficult pregnancies
               
               last stats i looked at showed abortions to save the life of the mother are the lowest percentage of medical procedures that have occurred.

               replyreport
               1. 81

                  kerrygposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  Yeah, and I'm saying I don't think medical professionals should have a "right to conscience" where life-saving medical procedures are concerned.
                  
                  I haven't heard anything suggesting that doctors who don't currently perform non-necessary abortions are going to be forced to start doing them, and it should be clear to anyone entering pharmacy school today that women are going to be coming for birth control, plan B, and RU-486. If you can't handle that, you shouldn't become a pharmacist.

                  replyreport
                  1. 67

                     SparklingJewelposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     individual rights are for everyone

                     replyreport
                     1. 61

                        Ron Montgomeryposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                        You give up many of those rights based on the profession you choose.  I have the right to not shoot people I am told to shoot.  As a combat soldier I would not.

                        replyreport
                     2. 81

                        kerrygposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                        No, as a doctor, you're bound by both the law and the Hippocratic Oath. You can't refuse an abortion that would save someone's life any more than you could refuse to treat a dying serial killer, no matter what your personal opinions may be.

                        replyreport
                        1. 67

                           SparklingJewelposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                           the soul of the unborn needs to be considered and that is what a physician or nurse has the right to do and believe

                           replyreport
                           1. 61

                              Ron Montgomeryposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                              Mythology has no place in the practice of medicine.

                              replyreport
                           2. 81

                              kerrygposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                              Sure, absolutely. But not at the expense of DOING THEIR JOB.

                              replyreport
                              1. 67

                                 SparklingJewelposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                 ...as with any situation, a person's rights are paramount and an answer can be found. To some recognition of the unborns rights is abidding by the Hypocratic oath.
                                 
                                 for instance...a hospital or place of medical service, should always have those on staff that could fill in where needed, always have a doctor there that would perform an abortion if needed. That is just a feasible as any other solution.
                                 
                                 It seems to me that too much is made of such potential situations that could be easily remedied.
                                 
                                 IT is a matter of consciousness of the hospital and the staff, if they truly respected each others conscience, it would not be a hardship to create remedies for potential situations

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 81

                                    kerrygposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                    That's part of the point. This bill changes little or nothing because in most regions it's extremely rare that an abortion opponent would be the ONLY medical professional in the area who could perform the procedure if it became necessary for whatever reason. The parts of the country where it's most likely to happen (mainly rural areas) are currently horrifically under-served where women's reproductive health is concerned (including prenatal care as well as abortion, birth control, and other more controversial procedures) and desperately need more alternatives.
                                    
                                    But if, for whatever reason, s/he is the only person available, then hell yeah, it's his/her professional obligation to do it.

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 67

                                       SparklingJewelposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                       and if it came down to the actual point of the mothers life over the baby's, the mother or her family would make that choice and in most cases, the doctor could perform the abortion...the whole situation is based in getting to that finite precipice, and there would be plenty of time to have another doctor involved if the one on duty did not agree with the mother's/family decision.
                                       
                                       getting to that precipice in a very short time, not allowing time for procedures to keep things stable until another doctor could get involved, is a very very very rare instance
                                       
                                       real time life is a lot different than in theory

                                       report
   2. 61

      Ron Montgomeryposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      A person unwilling to flip the switch should not seek employment at an institution that carries out capital punishment.
      
      A person who is unwilling to carry out certain medical procedures should not seek employment in a profession dedicated to saving and improving lives with medicine.
      
      Even simpler than your solution

      replyreport
      1. 67

         SparklingJewelposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         ...simple except that doctors do many other things to help people, they don't just flip a switch or guard prisoners who have broken the law...

         replyreport
4. 68

   torimariposted 13 years ago

   *shrugs* My money goes to capital punishment and I'm not a big fan of it...among other things.
   
   Might as well tax me for more crap...I don't care about the morality in abortion or not, I just don't feel like paying for more medical or school taxes.

   replyreport
   1. 67

      SparklingJewelposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      ...all the more reason for a more reasonable tax system, there are a lot of ideas out there about that, but all of this, abortion and healthcare and taxes all go back to one main point, to get back to following the ideals of the Constitution.
      
      by determining what they are as a nation, and agreeing on them in principle, we can find the best solutions.
      
      this health care bill is a sweeping government takeover of conscience of the most important issues facing us at this point in time; liberty's rights and the economy.
      
      to me, abortion is a paramount issue of rights to life...it is the very perpetuation of the human race and purpose in being here, the foundation of civilization, no less
      
      and the economy is how we work with and treat each other in a civilization

      replyreport
5. 61

   westdrugposted 13 years ago

   Well, conscience or no conscience... I think abortion is still an easy solution for women across the world. And for female folk to endorse such methods, it certainly is corrosive and bifurcating. However, I would still say abortion lives off dire necessity than a luxury.
   
   Nice post by the way. Btwn, you can also check out my profile and read some of my hubs too!
   
   Cheers,
   Phil.

   replyreport
6. 60

   CYBERSUPEposted 13 years ago

   ABORTION is MURDER.  PERIOD

   replyreport
   1. 80

      psycheskinnerposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      That is you opinion, but it is not the law of the land.  I feel the same about the death penalty but my money still supports state executions.  I don;t get to determine what other people do so long as it is lawful.

      replyreport
7. 61

   strutzasposted 13 years ago

   I definitely not agree about abortion we have no right to kill lives it is murder and most of all it is a big sin to God.

   replyreport
8. 73

   Cagsilposted 13 years ago

   Many people too busy infringing upon the rights of others always see abortion as something it is not. (a) their business.
   
   The "abortion" topic itself should be a NON-issue. End of story.
   
   It isn't a matter for society to decide what is best. That is to be left up to the woman. It should be a dead issue.
   
   But, those who claim righteousness or moral superiority are the ones who scream the most.
   
   Worry about YOUR own life, and keep your nose out of other people's private affairs.

   replyreport
9. 60

   katiem2posted 13 years ago

   The entire thing confuses me... so many things brought up that are none of my business yet an individuals.  I think more in terms of what I want to happen.  Peace

   replyreport
10. 59

    Doug Hughesposted 13 years ago

    There are very few groups more opposed to ALL abotion than the Catholic Church. On March 15, 2010 Sister Mary Keehan, CEO of the Catholic Health Association, wrote the following:
    
    "CHA has a major concern on life issues. We said there could not be any federal funding for abortions and there had to be strong funding for maternity care, especially for vulnerable women. The bill now being considered allows people buying insurance through an exchange to use federal dollars in the form of tax credits and their own dollars to buy a policy that covers their health care. If they choose a policy with abortion coverage, then they must write a separate personal check for the cost of that coverage.
    
    There is a requirement that the insurance companies be audited annually to assure that the payment for abortion coverage fully covers the administrative and clinical costs, that the payment is held in a separate account from other premiums, and that there are no federal dollars used.
    
    In addition, there is a wonderful provision in the bill that provides $250 million over 10 years to pay for counseling, education, job training and housing for vulnerable women who are pregnant or parenting. Another provision provides a substantial increase in the adoption tax credit and funding for adoption assistance programs. "
    
    http://www.chausa.org/The_time_is_now_f … eform.aspx
    
    For anyone with concerns AND an open mind, this should ease any fears you have about the LAW that was passed - and the provisions re abortion.

    replyreport