Is Tax-Payer Funded Abortion Prohibited by H.R. 3962?

On October 29, 2009, the House of Representatives introduced H.R. 3962, Affordable Health Care for America Act. This is the reconciled bill between the competing bills introduced in the House over the summer, including H.R. 3200. Supporters of H.R. 3962 claim that there is a provision that states tax-payer funded abortions will not be allowed according to the bill, so I thought I’d take a closer look to verify their claim. All references to sections are to H.R. 3962 unless otherwise noted.

Section 222 defines what the “Essential Benefits Package” is meant to include. All plans eligible for the Health Insurance Exchange need to meet these minimum services. Unlike H.R. 3200, there is no language H.R. 3962 regarding options for family planning.

Section 321 establishes a Public Health Insurance Option. The public health insurance option is prohibited from providing abortion coverage “for which the expenditure of Federal funds appropriated for the Department of Health and Human Services is not permitted, based on the law as in effect as of the date that is 6 months before the beginning of the plan year involved” [Sec. 222(e)(4)(A)]. However, the public option is allowed to provide abortion coverage “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” [Sec. 222(e)(4)(B)].

In an effort to defend their claim that there will be no tax-payer funded abortion provision in the bill, proponents of the bill state that the restrictions placed on abortion by the Hyde amendment would fall under this definition and thus prevent the public health insurance option from funding abortions. This defense is misleading and doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.

Firstly, the Hyde amendment only prevents tax-payer funded abortions specifically through Medicaid and appropriations for the Department of Health and Human Services. It does not address the other potential funding sources for the public health insurance option, such as income tax surcharges and employer penalties for not providing health insurance.

Secondly, the Hyde amendment needs to be renewed every year; so if it is not renewed, then during the next plan year, tax-payer funded abortions can be a part of the public health insurance option.

Finally, this prohibition in H.R. 3962 is placed only on the essential benefits package and does not apply to enhanced or premium benefits packages; thus the public health insurance option can, in fact, provide for tax-payer funding abortions.

For a detailed description of how the Hyde amendment may not apply in this situation, go to the Susan B. Anthony List’s special website called Stop Hyding. Please note that although their website refers to H.R. 3200, the logic and the law are applicable to H.R. 3962 as well.

Aside from the funding issues, as of the time of this writing the only abortion coverage prohibited to the Department of Health and Human Services is partial-birth abortion, which is banned by Federal law. However, if the law changes to allow partial-birth abortions, e.g. if the Freedom of Choice Act is passed as President Obama promised during his 2008 presidential campaign, then tax-payer funded abortions through the public health insurance option would include even these types of abortions.

Do you think it’s right that your tax dollars go to ending human life in the womb? And what about your health insurance provider? Will they be forced to pay for abortions if they morally object to the practice? Will you end up paying for abortions because your premium payments into the health insurance are then used to pay for an abortion that someone else chooses?

H.R. 3962 includes a subsection entitled “Abortion Coverage Prohibited as Part of Minimum Benefits Package” [Sec. 222(e)]. This section prohibits the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Health Benefits Advisory Committee, or the Health Choices Commissioner to mandate that abortion be covered in the essentials benefits package of a qualified health benefits plan [Sec. 222(e)(1)]. The caveat is that the abortion services are described in Sec. 222(e)(4)(A) and (B) which describe abortion coverage for the public health insurance option. As discussed above, the only type of abortion currently banned is partial-birth abortion and the only funding restriction is based on Medicaid payments.

Thus the Health and Human Services Secretary, the Health Benefits Advisory Committee, or the Health Choices Commissioner can, in fact, mandate that your health insurance provider cover abortions in the essential benefits package.

If you don’t want to pay for abortions your tax dollars, it is imperative you contact your representative in Congress today! It is scheduled for a vote by the full House of Representatives later this week. For information on how to contact your representative, see the National Right to Life’s webpage by clicking here.

The VA’s “Your Life, Your Choices” Document

In all the hullabaloo regarding H.R. 3200 over the summer, one document that was regarded as an example of how the government would treat end-of-life decisions was the Veterans Affairs’ document Your Life, Your Choices: Planning for Future Medical Decisions.

I had previously written on the LCMS World Relief and Human Care website that this document uses derogatory terms such as “vegetable” when describing a patient. Another problem that I saw was that the document asks the patient to evaluate his life based on what he can or cannot do rather than the inherent value of human life as bestowed upon him by our Creator and through the sacrifice of our Savior, Jesus Christ.

In H.R. 3200, the advance care planning consultations were mandatory. Enough people made their voices heard and in the current bill in front of the House of Representatives, H.R. 3962, this section has been made voluntary and optional.

But the concerns still remain and the VA’s document is still a good example of what a government document on advance directives and end-of-life decisions would look like. The VA has removed the document from their website and you can no longer obtain it on-line from them. But you can still download it from my blog by clicking here.

Additional Comments on the Health Care Debate

The Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod Life and Health Ministries just posted a new web page that addresses some concerns regarding the so-called health care reform that Congress will continue to consider when they reconvene next week.

Click here to go to the LCMS web page and see why we should be concerned with three specific areas of the legislation: abortion, end-of-life, and conscience protection.

Additionally, I was made aware of a blog by Jackie Durkee called Faithful in Prayer for America. Since early July, Jackie has been reading H.R. 3200 (yes, all 1017 pages of it!) and has been summarizing each section. If you really want to know what’s in the legislation, make sure you visit her blog.

Finally, if you want your own copy of H.R. 3200, it’s available from the General Printing Office by clicking here.

It’s not too late to let your elected officials know that you are concerned about where this bill may lead us. Click here for the National Right to Life Committee’s easy-to-use form for writing your congressional members.

Abortion and Health Care Reform

The Silent No More Awareness Campaign has a short video (2:50) on YouTube speaking about abortion and so-called health care reform.  Take a look at the video by clicking here and then pass it on ‘right-clicking’ on the link and copying it.

I’ve been spending part of the last two weeks actually reading the legislation contained in H.R. 3200 — America’s Affordable Health Choices Act 2009 and wanted to share some of what I’ve discovered with you, dear reader.

Although the word “abortion” does not appear anywhere in H.R. 3200, it is important to recognize the words that may imply abortion services are to be provided. For example, in Section 1714 – State Eligibility Options for Family Planning Services, the legislation delineates the eligibility requirements for women who are pregnant and women who are not pregnant to receive taxpayer-funded “family planning services.” The proposed legislation states the following:

… provide for making medical assistance available to an individual … such medical assistance shall be limited to family planning services and supplies described in 1905(a)(4)(C) [of Title XIX of the Social Security Act] and, at the State’s option, medical diagnosis and treatment services that are provided in conjunction with a family planning service in a family planning setting.

While, this might seem like an acceptable measure, but in reality, actual services received will depend on what limitations are placed on family planning services and supplies by Section 1905(a)(4)(C) of Title XIX of the Social Security Act. It would appear that the only limitation is that these services are provided

… to individuals of child-bearing age (including minors who can be considered to be sexually active) who are eligible under the State plan and who desire such services and supplies. (See the Social Security website by clicking here for the full text.)

In reality, there is no limit to what kinds of medical assistance, medical diagnosis, or treatment services can be provided at taxpayer expense. Also note that these services can be provided to minors “who can be considered to be sexually active [emphasis added]” and not just to those who actually are sexually active. Nor is there any mention of parental notification or consent before providing “treatment services” to minors.

What could the authors of H.R. 3200 possibly see as treatment services under this legislation? Abortion proponents have long asserted that reproductive rights include access to abortion services. One of the nation’s largest family planning provider, Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA), lists amongst it women’s health services both the abortion pill (RU-486) and in-clinic abortions.

I have written previously regarding Secretary of State Hillary Clinton receiving the Margaret Sanger Award from the PPFA. In her acceptance speech, she stated that increasing the level and quality of women’s health care worldwide depended on increasing access to family planning options. Secretary Clinton concluded by stating that PPFA has been a leader in ensuring that

… women’s health and women’s reproductive health is included in any deliberation concerning our – finally adopting – a healthcare system that takes care of all of our people. (See full text of the speech by clicking here.)

When the dots are connected, it is a reasonable and certain conclusion that H.R. 3200, if passed into law, will provide for taxpayer-funded abortions for women—and girls—without any limitations.

For more information, go to these websites: National Right to Life’s Stop the Abortion Agenda website; Family Research Council’s document called “Seven Reasons Abortion is in the Health Care Overhaul”; or Stop the Abortion Mandate’s facts webpage.