Obamacare 'Abortion Surcharge': The Facts Behind The Rumor

Adding fuel to a growing misinformation campaign about abortion coverage under Obamacare, Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.) recently kicked a bees' nest of Catholics and anti-abortion activists when he asserted that Obamacare contains an "abortion surcharge and a secrecy clause" that forces "pro-life Americans ... to pay for other people's abortions."

In fact, the policy does not require anyone who does not want abortion coverage to pay for it. Under the law, states have to offer at least one health plan on their insurance exchanges that doesn't cover abortion services at all. If a state decides it does want to have health plans that cover abortion services on its exchange, and if a woman chooses one of those plans, then she has to pay a separate fee of at least $1 to a separate account for that coverage in order to make sure no federal dollars are used to support abortion services.

For people who opt into a health plan that covers abortion, the Affordable Care Act requires that health plans "provide a notice to enrollees" at the time of enrollment that their plan includes the surcharge, but those plans are not allowed to advertise the specific surcharge. This is the aspect of the policy that Smith calls a "secrecy clause."

"This secrecy clause requires insurance companies to bury the abortion surcharge in the summary of benefits so Americans shopping for an insurance plan on the exchange won't know about the abortion surcharge until they sign up for coverage -- and even then they could easily miss the fine print," the congressman said in a statement. "Undoubtedly many enrollees will be shocked when they get a bill for the Obama abortion surcharge. Once enrolled, even pro-life Americans will be forced to pay for other people's abortions."

Anti-abortion advocates and conservative media outlets have latched onto Smith's claim, and the rumor about the secret, compulsory "$1 abortion surcharge" has caught fire. The Washington Post ran a blog post on Friday citing the "abortion surcharge" and the "abortifacient mandate" as evidence that Obamacare secretly covers abortions, and the president of Americans United for Life mentioned the surcharge in an email to supporters last week as part of her argument for why Obamacare is unconstitutional.

"If Obamacare is not struck down, Americans participating in health plans that cover abortion through state Exchanges will be required to pay a portion of their insurance premium directly to fund abortion," said Charmaine Yoest. "But by striking down the law, the Supreme Court can negate this massive expansion of abortion."

Most complaints about the surcharge neglect to point out that every American will have the option to choose a plan through the state exchanges that does not cover abortion at all, and hence will not be required to pay any such surcharge. And the contraception mandate, which the Washington Post blog inaccurately referred to as an "abortifacient mandate," only covers methods of birth control that prevent pregnancy.

Erin Shields, a spokeswoman for the Department of Health and Human Services, cleared up the confusion about abortion and the Affordable Care Act in a statement to HuffPost on Monday.

"Under the new health care law, federal funds continue not to be used for abortion services, except those in cases of rape or incest or where the life of the woman is endangered," she said. "No one will be required to choose a plan that covers these services and no taxpayer dollars will be spent on them. Before choosing a health plan, consumers will know whether the plan covers these services. And if it does, payments will be made into a separate account to ensure no federal dollars fund these services."

Earlier on HuffPost:

Comments

[Republican with views]

07:58 PM on 04/26/2013

Let them abort. Public should not have to pay in any way.

[TerenceW]

08:34 AM on 07/24/2012

No one should be required to pay for insurance coverage they do not want or support.
With Obamacare Abortion coverage IS required.
It is required to include cases of rape, incest AND 'life endangerment'.
'Life endangerment" to one person can be seen as an elective abortion to another.

How?

"The ability to define therapeutic abortion performed for maternal indications is difficult because of the subjective nature of decisions made about potential morbidity and mortality in pregnant women. A variety of medical conditions in pregnant women have the potential to affect health and cause complications that may be life threatening."

A sample of possible medical justifications for abortion: High blood pressure, diabetes, venereal disease.

In summary. You may support a women's right to abortion, but you cannot impose your view on others to financially support it as well.

[Ms Marmite]

10:36 PM on 12/12/2012

No, no no - bad conservative. "Life endangerment" is determined by the physician obviously and, yes, a woman's health insurance is meant to protect her health. Those disorders you listed, depending on the specifics, could very well be reasons to protect her life from the dangers of child-rearing. Again, that's the doctor's decision - not yours.

Five bucks says you're a guy - am I right? It usually is a man who makes posts like yours.

[rr52]

03:07 PM on 12/30/2012

Definitely male. They have a lot to say on the issue when in fact if the male population learned to keep it in their pants, we wouldn't have these issues at all. But it's always been the woman saddled with responsibility to curb conception be it a million petticoats to burkas while the man adheres to little or no discipline. Look at India with a rape on a public bus. And porn just keeps gaining speed but see that stopping anytime soon? And how about Viagra coverage? Do we really need to keep rockin the horse at 80? It's predominantly male fun we're talking here and it's all right even when it isn't. Sex trafficking is at an all time high. How much more could Satan want for the human male species?

Nothing but an attempt at male dominance again.

[rr52]

02:52 PM on 12/30/2012

Did you read the article? Tax dollars do not fund abortion. A company does not have to choose an insurance carrier that covers abortion because there must be at least one that doesn't. Everyone will know whether or not their insurance funds abortions so they can make a moral choice.

You may support the right to be anti abortion, but you cannot impose your view of faith on others to disrupt an entire insurance mandate as Obamacare when in fact the moralistic clearly have been provided a choice within that CIVIL system.

[momof5boys]

07:24 PM on 04/04/2012

Laura Bassett writes that the mandate "...only covers methods of birth control that prevent pregnancy." Hmmm... Actually the mandate requires coverage of *all FDA-approved contraceptives*

http://www.fda.gov/downloads/ForConsumers/ByAudience/ForWomen/FreePublications/UCM282028.pdf

**Contraceptive: a drug or device that prevents or may prevent the union of sperm and egg, thus preventing the formation of an embryo.

**Embryocide: a drug or device that causes or may cause the death of a human embryo before implantation in the uterus. (this is the category most oral contraceptives fall into)

**Abortifacient: a drug or device that causes or may cause the death of a human embryo or fetus after implantation in the uterus. (this is the category that some of the so-call emergency contraceptives are in)

http://www.consciencelaws.org/issues-background/birth-control/birthcontrol14.html

[LawGeekNYC]

07:31 PM on 06/28/2012

You didn't even read your own link. Emergency contraceptives prevent fertilization or implantation. They don't work if implantation has occurred.

[momof5boys]

08:29 PM on 06/28/2012

Well, 2.5 months later and you are just now commenting on this post...

Obviously, I copy/pasted the FDA's "classifications" of birth control methods. I did read "my" link and am quite well informed on the subject.

I have actually not heard of anyone referring to "birth control" that causes the death of the embryo before implantation as "Embryocidal" (?) medications.

The common reference to ANY so-called "birth control" drug that ends the new life of the embryo either before or after implantation is abortifacient because the drug/device is causing the death of the newly conceived human life.

So, my point was that Laura Bassett, writes that the mandate "...only covers methods of birth control that prevent pregnancy."

Actually the mandate requires coverage of *all FDA-approved contraceptives* which include 1) contraceptives, 2) drugs that cause embryocide, and 3) abortifacients (which for all intents and purposes includes drugs that kill the new life either before or after implantation)

And some "emergency contraceptives" DO "work" after implantation...

[syrinx7]

01:25 PM on 04/04/2012

Secrecy? Here is what the law says:

(3) RULES RELATING TO NOTICE.—‘‘(A) NOTICE.—A qualified health plan that provides for coverage of [abortions other than in cases of rape, incest, or the life of the mother] . . . shall provide a notice to enrollees, only as part of the summary of benefits and coverage explanation, at the time of enrollment, of such coverage.

‘‘(B) RULES RELATING TO PAYMENTS.—The notice described in subparagraph (A), any advertising used by the issuer with respect to the plan, any information provided by the Exchange, and any other information specified by the Secretary shall provide information only with respect to the total amount of the combined payments for [abortions other than in cases of rape, incest, or the life of the mother] . . . and other services covered by the plan. [Emphasis added].

What is the purpose of only permitting notice of abortion coverage to enrollees at the time of enrollment (when they have already selected a plan or a plan has been selected for them by their employer), and specifying that the notice can only be part of the summary of benefits and coverage explanation, if not to hide the plan’s abortion coverage? Further, why the restrictions on advertising the amount of the abortion premium, if not to hide that required payment? The inclusion of these restrictions in the law can only be explained one way—as a deliberate attempt to prevent Americans from rejecting insurance plans that cover abortions.

[jkkFL]

04:49 PM on 04/04/2012

http://dpc.senate.gov/healthreformbill/healthbill05.pdf
Sec. 1303. Special rules.
Voluntary Choice of Coverage of Abortion Services. Abortion cannot be a mandated benefit as
part of a minimum benefits package. A qualified health plan would determine whether it will
cover: no abortions, only those abortions allowed under Hyde (rape, incest and life
endangerment), or abortions beyond those allowed by Hyde.
No Federal Funds for Abortion Coverage in the Community Health Insurance Option. The
Secretary may not determine that the public plan provide coverage for abortions beyond those
allowed by Hyde unless the Secretary: 1) is in compliance with the provision prohibiting the use of Federal funds to pay for abortions (beyond those allowed by Hyde); 2) guarantees that,
according to three different accounting standards, no Federal funds will be used; and (3) takes all necessary steps to ensure that the United States does not bear the insurance risk for
abortions that do not meet the Hyde exceptions in the public plan. Segregation of Funds. Issuers of plans that offer coverage for abortion beyond those permitted by the Hyde amendment must segregate from any premium and cost-sharing credits an amount of each enrollee’s private premium dollars that is determined by the Secretary to be sufficient to
cover the provision of those services.

This is taken directly from the ACA-

You do not cite your source for the paragraphs quoted.

[l78lancer]

02:19 AM on 04/04/2012

Terror, fear and hype. The rightwing's MO is when all else fails tell the scariest lie possible.

[jkkFL]

04:52 PM on 04/04/2012

You forgot BS!
faved

[momof5boys]

11:31 AM on 04/05/2012

Nope, no terror, fear, hype or BS. Simply reading between the lines at what will actually end up happening as opposed to 'hoping' everything is all 'peachy-keen'.

[l78lancer]

05:42 AM on 04/06/2012

Heeheehee. Nice catch. Thx.

[Albert Jenkin]

05:53 PM on 04/03/2012

"Truth's a hound must be whipped to kennal" Big long important sounding words will sway those who think anything they can't understand must be must be profound and correct beyond dispute. We've all met a few of them. Never occurs to them that the big long important sounding word might be pure unadulterated BS.
These are the people who bought Government of the West Indies license plates for their cars.

[se72748]

08:55 AM on 04/03/2012

How has the republican party hornswoggled so many right wing Christians into idolizing them as the party of God?Nothing could be further from the truth.There is nothing Christian or Christ like about the republicans.I shake my head in utter dismay.These, other wise good folks, have got to be deaf,blind and dumb.I just don't see how a follower of Jesus teaching can be a staunch republican.The positions of the republican party are very opposed to the way of Jesus.Read your new testiment and compare,for crying out loud

[Mitch Lieber]

12:39 PM on 12/19/2012

se72748 While I agree with you about your "fondness" for the GOP making generalized statements like "the GOP does this" or "the GOP does that" is the same game their playing about the Democratic party. This right/left argument that the public is infatuated with serves as a distraction from the real issues and their aspects. That doesn't mean I'm saying you shouldn't be disappointed with all the bullshit in politics, but it isn't only retained by one party. This current generation of politicians puts rhetoric and votes above everything else. The love of power is a the root of all evil in our world. We desperately need politicians who tell the whole truth, not just half of it. We need people to shed light on everything. I for one am tired of people taking advantage of the fact that we humans have the capacity to give in to our dark nature so easily. We need the truth, and that is certainly not going to come from governments, politicians, religions, nor billionaires.

[Prankster]

08:46 AM on 04/03/2012

The GOP mantra: When you have nothing else, just lie!

[larandall23]

08:24 AM on 04/03/2012

More misinformation by a Republican to stir up controvesy. Imagine that!? Most important thing learned from this article, which every adult should have already know: Read The Fine Print before you sign anything. If you don't, than anything you find out after the fact is your fault.

[kimhoulian]

01:33 AM on 04/03/2012

when people refuse to read for themselves but have other people summarize a law for them, it easy to believe they will fall for every lie being told. think about how many people who call themselves christians and only know what the pastor has told them, in regards to, the writing and teaching from he bible. these people attend church regularly but never picked up the bible and read it for themselves to know that certain words, phrases or statements weren't never said by God. And just like the people believing this abortion surcharge they repeat what was told them like it was the truth and the gospel

[giftsthatpurr]

01:20 AM on 04/03/2012

No surprise that GOP lies; however, I was somewhat taken aback that the Washington Post would take up a rumor and use a made up word in order to bias its readers.. Fox also loves rumors - but they don't surprise anyone.

[hammhome]

01:03 AM on 04/03/2012

So states have to offer ONE plan without abortion coverage, but states can't provide the "notice to enrollees of abortion coverage" until people are actually enrolling? So where is the transparency? How is this consumer friendly? How do people figure out which plan to enroll in while they are investigating the plans? And what if the ONE plan without abortion coverage doesn't fit their needs? Answers?

[BRAINS4USA]

02:10 AM on 04/03/2012

Just read the ACA - good luck. Dont create problems where there are none

[l78lancer]

02:20 AM on 04/04/2012

Thank you!.

[Unclebuggies]

08:53 AM on 04/03/2012

Where does it say they CAN'T provide the notice sooner? Nowhere in this article. That's where.

[Josh Crawford]

12:31 AM on 04/03/2012

Here are a couple other whoppers from Rick Santorum recently: A) today he said that he read that you can't take an American history class at the "University of California" because "they don't even teach it". Total, complete 100% lie! The only U of C school that doesn't offer courses in American history is the UC San Francisco branch which is exclusively dedicated to a health services curriculum.

B) He recently said that 10% of deaths in Holland are the result of euthanasia (complete lie) and that half of THOSE deaths (i.e. 5% of total deaths) were the result of INVOLUNTARY euthanasia of old, sick people (blatant and 100% lie) and that old people are so afraid of hospitals in Holland that they go out of country to get cared for (total baloney).

The 2012 GOP: Where facts don't matter....Sadly enough, about 40% of Americans will be duped again in the Fall and vote for whomever the GOP puts up against Obama. Just plain sad....

[giftsthatpurr]

01:22 AM on 04/03/2012

And Santorum professes to be a man who follows god and Jesus, He is such a fraud!

[BRAINS4USA]

02:12 AM on 04/03/2012

I know - I lived in Holland for a while - amazing for Santorum to just lie about something like that....but nothing much amazes me about religious zealots - they will do anything - and have no shame...

[Tom58]

11:55 PM on 04/02/2012

Latest polls out today show Obama with a 54-36% lead among women voters. These lies are backfiring on them yet they keep at it. Is there no end to Tpublican lying? Today Santorum said that 7 or 8 of the 10 universities in the California system do not teach American history.

In fact 9 of 10 offer multiple history classes and the other one is a med school.

LOL at the liars on the right and those on here who defend them.

[Cacey]

08:07 AM on 04/03/2012

To too many "California" has become a rallying code word for what is wrong with this country and out here, we're getting pretty sick of it. Perhaps we should seceed thus eliminating all the money we give to the Red States, and then up charge the United States for products and services we provide as well as goods coming though our ports. Heck, we could be come the favorite foreign destination for Americans who now think that is Hawaii.

[Tom58]

08:58 AM on 04/03/2012

They are very simple, ignorant people who are afraid of anything or anyone that is not like them. They do the same thing with Democrats foolishly thinking that call someone a liberal is an insult.

The founding fathers were radical liberals and if the Christian bible is to be believed then so was their Jesus.

[Tom58]

11:52 PM on 04/02/2012

Another lie along with death panels but the sad part is that the uneducated (mostly the Tpublican base) has bought into it so far.

[DANIELISTICALL]

01:25 AM on 04/03/2012

death panels have been around for a long time ,,, it is a board of the insurance company that decides who gets what treatment and how much they are going to pay fo it

[BRAINS4USA]

02:15 AM on 04/03/2012

No they do not - thanks for your complete LIE
http://www.factcheck.org/2010/12/let-the-distortions-begin/

[Tom58]

09:23 AM on 04/03/2012

Just like the other lie about how long you have to wait for treatment. I am awaiting eye surgery and cannot see out of one eye. I have waited a month and have 2 more weeks to go. I also wait about 3 weeks to see my GP. The Tpublicans just lie about it and the intellectually lazy and uneducated buy right into it.