Killing Grandma vs. Killing Babies/Fetuses

It might be tempting to equate the assertion that Obamacare definitely pays for abortions with claims that Obama's death panels will kill your grandmother and siphon money from your bank account. .

They're actually different. The death panel and raid-your-bank-account ideas are lies. The abortion charge is merely a big exaggeration.

Let's go to the tape. A Family Research Council ad features a very worried elderly looking gentleman talking to his wife:

MAN: They won't pay for my surgery. What are we going to do?

WOMAN: But honey you cant live this way?

MAN: And to think that planned parenthood is included in the government run health care plan and spending tax dollars on abortions. They won't pay for my surgery but we're forced to pay for abortions.

For starters, it actually is possible that there may be a man out there whose surgery might not get paid for. We know this because private insurers do it all the time. For instance, if this chap had wanted to pectoral implants, his surgery would have been denied by a private insurer and hopefully would be by a public insurer too.

And the reference to Planned Parenthood? Actually, that's true-ish, too. The Senate Health Committee bill includes provisions for "medically necessary" treatments provided by "essential community providers." This could indeed include Planned Parenthood.

Now, that doesn't necessarily mean anything: Planned Parenthood already gets money from the federal government for family planning services and they're not allowed to use it directly for abortion. The Senate bill does not mandate abortion BUT it doesn't close the door to that possibility either. That's why Senator Robert Casey, a pro-life Democrat, voted against the amendment. "It's too broad and that the way it could be interpreted down the road might include something like abortion," he said.

And what about the ad's phrase, "spending tax dollars on abortions"? There was a convoluted debate about this in the House Energy and Commerce Committee. I've written about the details here, but the bottom line is that the legislation does not mandate government paying for abortion -- but again leaves open that possibility.

Well, you might say, the Family Research Council ad doesn't say abortion "might or might not be paid for by the government," it says taxpayers will be paying for abortions. Isn't that a big difference, truth-wise?

Ah, but you weren't watching the ad closely enough. At the very beginning of the ad, for roughly two seconds, these words appear: "Will this be our future." Get it? Technically speaking, they're not saying this definitely will happen; they're just askin' whether it might. (For more on the FRC justification for the ad see this exchange).

Will the government pay for abortions under the health care bills?

Definitely? No. Probably? Hard to tell. Possibly? Yep.

While I'm not excusing Family Research Council's exaggeration, the Democrats should have seen this coming a mile away. In fact, Chris Korzen argues that Democrats made a good faith effort to find common ground in the House bill. But if the goal was creating a sense of clear neutrality, they missed the mark. (By the way, pro-life efforts to solve the problem didn't work either)

No one thinks the Democrats will, or should, try to come up with something that will win over the Family Research Council, which would oppose health care even if abortion were clearly prohibited. But if you want health care reform, the fact that the Democrats haven't figured out a way of assuaging pro-life Democrats at this point seems risky in the extreme.

For one thing, it's forced the Catholic Church to the sidelines. The Bishops want to be able to support health care reform -- and the Catholic Church wouldn't be a bad group to have on the White House's side. But the delay in working out the abortion compromise has left them unable to endorse. (See today's letter from the Bishops)

Democrats need to decide. Do they want to neutralize abortion as an issue in the health care debate -- as Obama has suggested -- or use it as a vehicle to expand abortion rights? If it's the former, and they want to de-fuse this bomb, what exactly are they waiting for?

UPDATE: Several commenters have suggested that the Hyde Amendment already prohibits federal spending on abortion. The House Energy and Commerce Committee made reference to the Hydle amendment. But then they added this: "Nothing in this Act shall be construed as preventing the public health insurance option from providing for or prohibiting coverage' of abortion services. That appears to partially de-fang the Hyde Amendment and give the authority to determine whether a public option covers abortion to the Secretary of Health and Human Services.

You can read the actual language here: http://blog.beliefnet.com/stevenwaldman/2009/07/abortion-kabuki-dance-and-heal.html

UPDATE2: A possible solution is to have the public plan's basic package not include abortion but then offer consumers the ability to buy, with their own money, a rider that covers abortion services. More on that idea here.

Reprinted from Steven Waldman's blog on Beliefnet

Comments

[youknow]

Easy solution. Do not cover abortions except in the case of certain complications such as rape, incest etc. otherwise allow the cost of an abortion to go into a central fund that will help finance Adoptions. End of story.

[Leatherhelmet]

That makes too much sense.

[Merlin7]

This actually makes no sense. First, opposition to abortion is based on the concept that human life is sacred, right? So are babies conceived through rape or incest less worthy, less human, than other babies? You are saying it is OK to "kill" these babies, but not the others. That's just weird. And it's typical of the lack of logic that permeates the so-called pro-life movement. The public option should fund abortions as a normal medical procedure and not be hampered by primitive religious superstition. Fetuses are not people until well along in their development.

[Gidster]

Excellent post!

[CCreek]

I would be interested in hearing, in specific terms, what causes a fetus to become a person somewhere "well along in their development." The pro-life side is continually accused of a lack of logic, but the pro-choice side is the one always floating the idea of some "magic transition" that makes a fetus become human, either by simply passing down the birth canal, or by something else unspecified. And religion has nothing to do with the abortion issue. As you stated yourself, either human life is sacred/worthy of protection, or it isn't.

[Catch22isms]

"Fetuses are not people until well along in their development". That has to be quite possibly one of the worst pro choice arguments I have ever heard. So what exactly do you call it when an egg is fertilized and cells begin replicating? Magic? Mundane? No. It's the very beginning of the process of life. All living things continue to grow and change from the moment of their existence. Seeking to trivialize the first few weeks or months so that you can justify killing your own is despicable. And religion isn't required to be pro life. Compassion and responsibility for your own actions are.

[clevelandchick]

Oh for the love of Pete people! That's already the law! It's been the law for over a decade!

They Hyde Amendment states that federal monies cannot be used for abortion services unless the health/life of the mother is at risk. It is not repealed by this bill, not at all. It still applied.

There is no solution to be had...there is no federal funding of abortions unless the mother's life is in dangers. Case closed.

This is why the blogger really ticks me off, he is being purposely vague or misleading about the law. I really wish he'd add an update to clarify rather than let this wrong information spread.

[MrsFonebone]

Abortion is a legal medical procedure. There is no reason--except for woman-hating men--that it is not covered by Planned Parenthood.
Religion has NO place in government. Do what you want, but what you think your imaginary friend tells you about my rights as a woman has nothing to do with me and certainly cannot limit my freedom.

[CCreek]

Again, the abortion issue is not a religious one. The question is simple -- is the fetus a human being, with the accorded rights and value, or not. If it's not, then there's no need for the defense of abortions, nor any reason to limit them. If the fetus IS a human, then there is no justification for the termination of that life for reasons other than the extreme (mother's life in danger, etc.).

And personally, I'm concerned about the rights of ALL women, including the more than half a million baby girls who are aborted every year.

[HPdevotee]

This issue is not reducible to an either/or duality. Roe v. Wade has restrictions built in to attest to this truth.

And as for your 'concern' for the rights of ALL women...bunk. To deny a woman total control over her reproductive health is one of the most misogynistic attitudes in existence.

[GardenerNorCal]

I am surprised you didn't bring up sex change surgery. If you are trying to incite the armed masses you dropped one of your main talking points.

[TJCole]

This is America, killing, stealing, lying, thieving is what we do best..!

Maybe that's why people are so quick to believe this bovine scatology...!

[murzee]

Great post! Here's what's really killing grandma:

http://evimedgroup.blogspot.com/2009/08/whats-really-killing-grandma.html

[jhanawalt]

I have no problem with the idea of a government-run health plan covering abortions. You can throw in "medically necessary" and a conscience clause for individual physicians if you're uncomfortable with the idea. Not everyone's tax dollars can be spent in a way that is directly beneficial to or approved by them. My tax dollars have been spent on the war in Iraq and faith-based funding; and I support neither. I feel it's everyone's right to hold their government accountable and taxes are one the mechanisms of accountability: BUT I was the anti-abortion movement would stop trying to make decisions for individual women they haven't met.

[MrsFonebone]

@Jhanawalt -- Well said. Thanks.

[CCreek]

jhanawalt -- your last comment is a red herring. Virtually every law we have in this country usurps, to some extent, our "individual rights." Someone I never met made a law that the speed limit on my street is 30mph. We have agreed, as a society (well, in general... :), that speed limits (like other laws) are a good thing that improves public safety. And, yes, I can CHOOSE to speed anyway -- but there will be consequences if I get caught.

[jhanawalt]

Well I think the difference is between privileges and fundamental human rights. My right to drive my car as fast as I want may come in direct conflict with someone else's right to not be imperiled while sharing the road with me. Whereas a woman's right to have an abortion is not infringing on the rights of anti-abortion Americans. However, when these Americans try to turn their religious convictions into policy, they are in fact infringing on the rights of others. They most definitely have a protected, fundamental right to voice their beliefs; but they don't have a right to succeed in governing others by those beliefs.

[elizlucinda]

In Canada, most abortions are carried out in hospitals and not in private clinics. However, not all hospitals are required to perform abortions.­..ie..reli­gious based hospitals can be exempt. This is the compromise that has been worked out. It doesn't provide ready access to the procedure for everyone, but it generally works.

[clevelandchick]

The abortion charges are actually a blatant lie. The Hyde Amendment is still in force which states abortion would only be covered with federal money in cases where the mother's life was at stake.

[Merlin7]

The reformed health care system certainly should pay for abortions. Our government should not be intimidated by those who believe in a Bronze Age sky god or those silly enough to believe that an animated blob on an ultrasound image is full-fledged person "waving" back at them.

It's deplorable that religion -- that relic of humanity's dark past --still calls the shots in our society. No wonder so many heavily armed knuckle-draggers are running amok in our nation.

[John Beach]

why should the government pay for a by and large elective procedure like abortion? there is no such thing as a medically necessary abortion after about 6 months of pregnancy because the baby is then viable. and 99.9% of abortions are not to save the mother's life.

again i ask why should a government plan, run by tax dollars, pay for an elective procedure like abortion? and if it should, why not stop there? why not nose jobs? or tummy tucks? those are elective procedures as well.

[ColoradoAngryRU]

And why should a government led war plan, run by tax dollars, pay for an elective war?

[WindmillSlayer]

You are sadly misinformed. Do you even know what "viable" means?

A 6 month old fetus is not necessarily viable. Many, many severely malformed infants survive in utero, only to die shortly after birth. Those are not "viable" infants.

Abortion is not the same as a nose job.

[AverageJill]

Are you saying that it is medically safe to the child for the doctor to induce labor or perform a ceasarian at 25 weeks?

Preemies are very fragile and often have life-long problems. If the pregnancy has complications, the doctor tries to make sure the pregnancy lasts past 32 weeks, and then, if the situation has stabilized somewhat, to keep the pregnancy going to at least 37 weeks.

I hate to see preconscientious humans regarded as "blobs". I would love to see artificial wombs developed so both lives could survive (I know, much too expensive for today's world.)

Until that day, we must allow the doctors and mothers to treat each situation on a case-by-case basis and not make generalizations.

And, by the way, more private insurance companies will pay for an abortion, medically
necessary or not, than will pay for fertility treatments. We pay our private insurance companies with our premium money just as much (and sometimes more) as we pay the government with our tax money, and yet we have less of a problem when we disagree with the insurance companies' decisions, than we do if we disagree with the government's decisions.

[NYC-CatLover]

The government already has your bank account number and can take money out. Try not paying a fine sometime and see what happens...

[Rimser]

The government can't take the money out of your account directly for a fine. They most certain can and will withhold your income tax refund for all manner of infractions. That includes the States as well as the Feds.

[ayc]

Whatever happened to people of faith being truth tellers? Have you, or those in the FRC, ever heard of the Hyde Amendment? Until that is repealed, there can be no federal funds used to pay for abortions. Period.

[John Beach]

right. but we fund planned parenthood who does abortions. i know i know, the government money doesnt pay for the abortion. but we pay for everything else for them, then they can use the rest of their money for abortions. it's a shell game.

[clevelandchick]

No....we fund Planned Parenthood that provides family planning, education, low cost birth control pills and women's health services to low income women. Pap Smears, yearly exams, mammograms etc.

I've never used them for an abortion but right out of college, living paycheck to paycheck I went there for my gynecological health needs because my employer's health plan didn't cover that back in the late 80's.

Why don't you educate yourself about what Planned Parenthood is really about...preventing abortion and providing low income women with desperately needed health services.

[Mecheng]

A few simple questions about health care reform:

1. What is the cost?

2. How will this cost be paid?

3. Why is there no mention of tort reform and controlling the cost of defensive medicine?

4. Who will make decisions regarding whether medical treatment is covered? Will an 84-year old woman in an ICU who has been told she has three weeks to live be allowed to remain in the ICU until death at the cost of several thousand dollars per day? Will the parents of a premature infant who will need two months of care in a NICU at the cost of several thousand dollars per day be covered?

5. Are illegal aliens covered by the plan?

6. What will happen to the over 1 million people working in the private insurance industry?

[GodYesOrNo]

Do you believe in euthanasia?
GodYesOrNo.com

[Digeeedad]

I am soooo tired of once again seeing the lives of males marginalized! Everyone is worried about grandmas' plugs being pulled..... well what about grandpas? Once again men have less value and dramatic worth! I think grandpas should start shouting about this unfair bias at those town hall meetings!

This is just terrible! LOLOLOL!

[rjmiller]

Grandpas are jerks.

[Cherie King]

1976 Hyde Amendment, which prohibits public funding of abortions through the Medicaid program except in cases of rape, incest or life endangerment.

there that should be that.
the same people against health care reform so that all working people can get equal access to health care are pro-life... isn't that hypocritical? oh and how many of those pro-lifers are adopting babies? or supporting the mothers who have been abandoned? NONE! until they can fix adoption and find good homes for the nearly 150,000 kids yearly who find themselves in foster care, but they wont fix it! they don't think middle age, single, or gay couples should adopt or foster!
no one says health care reform should be free, just affordable, and yes for a very few free.