If You Have Donated To The RNC Since 1991, You Have Funded Abortion

While the news that the health insurance plan the RNC offers to employees covers elective abortions proved amusing to many pro-choice Americans, this revelation exposes a much deeper problem with the Republican Party.

If you believe recent Republican rhetoric in the health care reform debate, then you believe that "if any insurance plan that covers abortion is allowed to participate in a public exchange, then premiums paid to that plan in the form of taxpayer-funded subsidies help support that abortion coverage even if individual abortion procedures are paid for out of a separate pool of privately-paid premium dollars."

Using that logic, every single person who has donated money to the RNC (since 1991!) has also funded abortions because a portion of those donations go towards the employer's portion of each employee's health care premium.

Since 2000, the RNC has raised $1.79 billion.  That's a lot of money that probably wasn't intended to support elective abortions. 

Even though the RNC has decided to "opt out" of the abortion coverage, the problem doesn't really go away.  As Steve Benen points out: "The new RNC policy, apparently, is to have insurance through Cigna, opting out of abortion coverage. But let's not lose sight of the original fungibility problem -- the RNC is taking Republican money and giving it to an insurance company through premiums. That company will then use its pool of money to pay for abortion services, not for RNC employees, but for other customers."

So where does this leave the Republican Party?  How deep does their hypocrisy run?  They've refused to protect women from the downright evil treatment they receive from private insurance companies, prominent members have been stridently anti-choice, and the party's members in the states have passed obscene laws invading the privacy of American women -- all the while ensuring their employees have the ability to make decisions about their bodies and families without political interference. 

It is not an excuse that the Chairman "didn't know."  Michael Steele has made it clear that he doesn't know much about the insurance policies of the RNC.  The rest of the RNC leadership -- and definitely the HR department -- should have been aware.  And any sensible political strategist would have thought to check and see if elective abortions were covered when the debate over health care started in earnest this year.  Because everyone knew it was going to come up.  Everyone knew the Republicans were going to put the issue out front in their attempt to derail reform efforts. 

The Republican platform against abortion is evidently an abstract concept, since the tangible evidence proves that the GOP doesn't care enough about it to ensure its actions fall in line with the rhetoric -- unless they get caught, of course, then they're quick to "opt out."

 

Comments

[blue53]

What about all the money from these insurance companies that gets donated to the so-called pro-life politicians ? Were the profits from abortion filtered out? Taking money from companies that pay for abortion should appall all of them and they should return every cent.

[rad21]

"It is not an excuse that the Chairman "didn't know." Michael Steele has made it clear that he doesn't know much about the insurance policies of the RNC. The rest of the RNC leadership -- and definitely the HR department -- should have been aware. And any sensible political strategist would have thought to check and see if elective abortions were covered when the debate over health care started in earnest this year. "

Response: The abortion controversy created by the right-wing or Republicans is not aimed to end abortions. The controversy is to embarass the Democrats and Progressives and distract the law makers from passing a healthcare bill. So the RNC chairman, elected reps, "sensible political stratergists" of the right wing would not have to check what Republicans do. They are not the target of the embarrassment. The odds are most businesses associated with or making campaign contributions to the Republican Party are providing abortion coverage to their employees.

[valkyrie607]

It's just like when Sarah Palin talked about her daughter's decision to give birth to her baby: "I'm so proud that Bristol chose life..."

Yeah, Bristol CHOSE.

Why can't the rest of us?

[jimrs6]

The issue is taxpayer money, not voluntary donations. Most Americans, and obviously most of those in Congress, don't support that. nice try.

[valkyrie607]

What? Are you saying that those people who donated to the RNC don't also pay taxes, and that this amendment isn't obviously aimed at courting their votes?

Are you seriously trying to weasel out of confronting the hypocrisy on display here?

As you say, nice try.

[S1m0n]

The issue is abortion. The focus on tax revenue is nothing but a vehicle.

If liberals couldn't opt out of funding Bush's wars and Cheney's torture programs, then conservatives can't opt out of funding reproductive health.

[Rmath]

Taxpayers pay for many items in the budget that they don't like.

Are you willing to selectively allow taxpayers to withhold funding from the war? From paying for $1000 toilet seats in posh Officers' Clubs at military bases?

Nice try.

[S1m0n]

It's not just the money. In the real world, ideologies have to be judged on their outcomes, not on their aspirations. On the latter, after all, every ideology is equally excellent.

But judged on the outcome, any cause which has suppressed sex and birth control information or access is not anti-abortion. This promotes abortion. It is very reasonable to conclude that the theoretically anti-abortion republican party has contributed to more terminated pregnancies than the pro-choice democrats in recent decades.

[cheeriogirl]

Without fail Simon. I am your latest FAN!

[S1m0n]

Why, thank you kindly.

[BuckCarson]

Are you kidding me? That's like saying anytime a leftie fills a prescription, he's contributing to capitalism and is therefore a hypocrite.

Seriously, really I am quite serious... Your people have got to dig up better content to jabe the right.

That column about Hannity using the footage of the 911 teabagger footage, for example... I saw that CNN showed Obama getting out of a plane in referring to his Asia trip. Uh Oh!

[healthcare4all]

"Seriously, really I am quite serious... Your people have got to dig up better content to jabe the right."

I think it is at least better than what the right throws out - the President is an illegal alien for example.

[cheeriogirl]

Buck is upset because he just found out that his party has been funding abortions.

That is totally hypocritical Buck, and that is totally NOT cool. Not a jab, IMHO, but a knock out punch to the gut, which I'm sure many R "contributors" are feeling once they realized just what their donations to the Repubs have been funding.

Don't get mad at us here at Huffpo for your parties deception. I would suggest you call the RNC, and let them know your feel. I must warn you here, I don't think they give a rats patootie about your feelings, nor the feelings of anyone else.

[Rmath]

Jabe?

Lefties can spell.

[Carl Caroli]

They really ought to rename the party "hypocrites for political expediency".

[plcsail]

If nothing else this demonstrates , not "that the Democratic party is moving toward socialism", but how far the Republican party has moved to the right. They have moved so far to the right that the center now seems radical leftie to them. Abortion is mortal poison to them now, but in 1991 it appeared to be nothing but another medical procedure to their adminstrative beaurocrats (sp?).An administrator who allowed this coverage now would be ruthlessly pilloried and banished, but in 1991 it seemed to be just part of the standard package. And they are pushing harder every day to move further to the right.
Be very wary and worried!!!

[MajorKong]

One of the requirements for joining the RNC is having your capacity for shame surgically removed.

[minerva117]

Well said. :-D They also lose their ability to detect satire e.g. Stephen Colbert!

[GinnyW]

Well, maybe the conflict of inclusive abortion coverage was in conflict with the RNC requirement that "government not come between the doctor and patient in their medical needs"????

[GinnyW]

Oh, fudge! That furtive fungibility fact!!

[abbienormal]

Yup, it's a weasly one. If you want to take Stupak's argument a little bit further, you will recognize that all abortion insurance purchased through employers is subsidized by taxpayers because insurance is a tax deductible corporate expense.

But, if we did that, the conservatives would want to take control of corporate insurance plans as well because they aren't content with simply telling insurance companies what products to sell to their customers.

Frankly, I think that the RNC has known about this all along and figured that any changes that they made would surely bring attention to their inattention. They were just crossing their fingers hoping that no one would bother to check.

[GinnyW]

Don't they have any contract lawyers with the RNC? Steele should have been advised that CIGNA cannot remove a legal health coverage from one policy without removing it from all other policies, and outside of the RNC most employers care about the health coverage for the female employees equally with their males; Cigna cannot discriminate even though Mr Steele would like them to.

[DRaymond]

The odd thing is that by removing the abortion coverage the RNC is likely to see their insurance costs go up! That is why so many employer plans have abortion coverage. It is a cost saver.

[Sharon Corcoran]

That's what I was thinking. When we hear all these stories of how many claims get denied I was wondering why they would be paying for abortions? It's alot cheaper than pregancies that could have complications-

[Rmath]

I'm delighted to read this article, Melinda.

I wonder if anti-choice groups would be interested in pursuing a class action lawsuit against the RNC for taking money under false pretenses. RNC should be required to pay back all the money collected frmo those groups, with accrued interest.

[gparks]

And ... WHO negoiated the policy? Don't these things come up for review annually? Oh... did anyone notice if Fox News covered THIS story? I'd love to see that coverage. Has Jon Stewart, Rachael, Keith O covered this? Help! Let me know!

[Texas4Obama]

Yes MSNBC has covered it - Rachel did last night and tonight, and also Keith last night, Matthews I think so too. I hope this will stay in the news for at least a week!!!

[gparks]

Thanks Texas! Just say Rachel's coverage from Thurs. Will check out others this AM.

[gparks]

DO as I say ... NOT as I DO! the Repub mantra! How many abortions have been conducted since 1991 on Repub woman under their coverage? I know and respect the privacy rules ... but why should we follow them in this instance? Some intrepid journalist should jump on this story right away! Don't say names ... just the NUMBER!