Don’t Fall For The GOP’s Fake Controversy Over Obamacare’s Expansion Of Abortion Coverage

BY TARA CULP-RESSLER/Think Progress

On Thursday, the Associated Press reported that under the health reform law, most of the plans offered to congressional staff now include abortion coverage. “Lawmakers and their staffs now appear to be the only federal employees with access to abortion coverage through their government-supported health insurance plans,” the AP notes.

Predictably, the news is making the rounds on right-wing outlets, sparking controversy among abortion opponents who say it proves Obamacare is allowing federal funding to finance this type of reproductive care. “This is just another example of how Obamacare expands taxpayer funding of abortion,” the president of the Susan B. Anthony List said in astatement.

In fact, the AP’s story is misleading. Although this issue has surfaced several times over the last few months, it’s an entirely manufactured controversy — largely stoked by Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ), whose allegations form the basis of the AP’s new coverage, and furthered by the conservative media. Here’s what you need to know about how abortion coverage actually factors into Obamacare:

Taxpayer dollars are still prohibited from funding abortion, and Obamacare doesn’t change that.

Under the Hyde Amendment, a budget rider that’s been in place for nearly 40 years, federal funding is prohibited from financing abortion care. No taxpayer dollars are allowed to cover abortion, and the health reform law doesn’t do anything to change that. Under Obamacare, the insurers offering abortion coverage on the new state-wide marketplaces are required to separate out federal money to ensure it doesn’t go toward that procedure. And the health law also stipulates that at least one plan on each marketplace must exclude abortion coverage altogether, in case people are fundamentally opposed to having a plan that covers it.

This issue was created not by Obamacare, but by Republicans.

Ironically, this entire “controversy” stems from a Republican-sponsored amendment to Obamacare that has complicated the way that lawmakers and their staff may access health insurance. Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) offered an amendment to the law requiring federal employees to drop the health coverage they currently get under the Federal Health Benefits Program (FEHB) and enroll in Obamacare’s insurance marketplaces instead — even though the marketplaces were never intended for people who can already access insurance through their job. The policy made it into the final version of the law, and that’s why lawmakers and their staff are now shopping for coverage in DC’s health insurance exchange. As required by law, DC’s exchange does offer several plans that exclude abortion coverage, but the majority of the plans include it. That’s the source of the current outrage.

If congressional lawmakers and staff want abortion coverage, they’ll still have to pay for it out of their own pocket.

Since the exchanges aren’t actually designed for people who could otherwise receive a generous employer contribution towards their insurance, the Obama administration was forced to figure out how to make Grassley’s amendment work in practice. In August, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) decided that lawmakers and their staff will be able to use their employer contributions to help them buy exchange plans. Conservatives pointed out that could allow those federal employees to put government dollars toward buying a plan that includes abortion coverage — which contradicts another budget rider that prohibits federal employees from having any abortion coverage whatsoever. So, at the end of September, OPM issued another rule specifically addressing that issue.

“OPM can and will take appropriate administrative steps to ensure that the cost of any such coverage purchased by a Member of Congress or a congressional staffer from a designed SHOP is accounted for and paid by the individual rather than from a government contribution, consistent with the general prohibition on Federal funds being used for this purpose,” the new rule stipulated.

In other words, even if a lawmaker ends up buying one of the 103 plans on DC’s exchange that includes abortion coverage, OPM will figure out how to divide the funds so the employee is required to cover that cost on their own. These federal workers are not, in fact, gaining access to government-funded abortion services.

Obamacare doesn’t expand abortion coverage. The health law actually limits it even further.

Obviously, as OPM’s new rules demonstrate, the government continues to trip over itself to ensure that federal dollars are completely separated from abortion care. Although conservatives have suggested that the government is “scheming” to finally sneak in abortion coverage for some federal employees, that accusation just doesn’t make sense in light of the complicated workarounds to keep segregating abortion from the rest of insurance coverage.

And more broadly, it’s highly misleading to suggest that the health reform law represents some kind of massive expansion of abortion coverage. In fact, the direct opposite is true. Obamacare has actually provided an avenue for state legislatures to restrict access to abortion even further. Since the health law allows each state to determine how to handle abortion coverage in the new exchanges, more than 20 states have seized on the opportunity to outlaw abortion coverage altogether in their Obamacare exchanges. Under those state laws, women signing up for exchange plans must purchase an extra insurance rider if they want to avoid paying out-of-pocket for the full cost of an abortion, an expensethat can range from $300 to $3,000 dollars.

The ACLU filed suit against one of those states, Kansas, to combat this anti-choice attack on women’s private health insurance coverage. (That lawsuit was later dismissed.) But this is an extremely popular method of limiting access to reproductive care, and more states continue to pile on. This week, lawmakers in Michigan are considering this type of legislation.

UPDATE

This post has been updated to reflect the fact that the ACLU has since dropped its lawsuit against Kansas.

North Dakota Votes To Ban All Abortions By Defining Life At Conception

By Tara Culp-Ressler/Think Progress

UPDATE

An earlier version of this story asserted that this legislation would head to the governor’s desk. It will actually head to the voters for consideration.

North Dakota lawmakers voted on Friday afternoon to pass a “personhood” abortion ban, which would endow fertilized eggs with all the rights of U.S. citizens and effectively outlaw abortion. The measure, which passed the Senate last month, passed the House by a 57-35 vote and now heads to a ballot vote, likely in the next November election.

A personhood ban could have far-reaching consequences even beyond abortion care, since it will charge doctors who damage embryos with criminal negligence. Doctors in the state say it will also prevent them from performing in vitro fertilization, and some medical professionals have vowed to leave the state if it is signed into law.

Personhood measures are so extreme that some pro-life Republicans in the state have come out against them, planning to join a pro-choice rally in the state capital on Monday to oppose the far-right abortion restriction. “We have stepped over the line,” Republican state Rep. Kathy Hawken (R-Fargo) said of the recent push to pass personhood. “North Dakota hasn’t even passed a primary seatbelt law, but we have the most invasive attack on women’s health anywhere.”

Personhood advocates have pushed their agenda in states throughout the country over the past several years, but their measures have so far been unable to advance. Anti-choice lawmakers in North Dakota, who have already pushed through a stringent six-week abortion ban, were actually considering two different types of personhood legislation — one to immediately amend the state’s constitution to redefine life as beginning at conception, and one to put a personhood amendment on the ballot. The House voted down the first and passed the second.

Official Republican Senate Campaign Committee Backs Mourdock, Defends ‘Gift From God’ Statement

 By Rebecca Leber/Think Progress

In a debate on Tuesday night, Indiana GOP Senate candidate Richard Mourdock said that raped women should not be permitted access to an abortion, because the pregnancy is a “gift from God, even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape.”
A top Republican has already jumped to Mourdock’s defense. National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) Chair Sen. John Cornyn (TX), the Republican tasked with overseeing the GOP’s Senate elections strategy, immediately defended Mourdock in a statement on Wednesday morning:

“Richard and I, along with millions of Americans – including even Joe Donnelly – believe that life is a gift from God. To try and construe his words as anything other than a restatement of that belief is irresponsible and ridiculous.”

Two months ago, the NRSC disavowed Missouri Senate candidate Todd Akin after he claimed “legitimate rape” does not lead to pregnancy. Cornyn was one of the first Republicans to condemn Akin, calling for him to exit. “Congressman Akin’s statements were wrong, offensive, and indefensible,” Cornyn said. “I recognize that this is a difficult time for him, but over the next twenty-four hours, Congressman Akin should carefully consider what is best for him, his family, the Republican Party, and the values that he cares about and has fought for throughout his career in public service.” However, weeks later, the NRSC quietly considered reentering the Missouri race. Cornyn said, “we hope Todd Akin wins in November.”
Mourdock, part of a growing number of Republicans hoping to deny abortion access to women, received a high-level endorsement from Mitt Romney earlier this week.

Update

Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN), the severely conservative congressman who is the GOP’s nominee for Indiana governor, parted ways with the NRSC’s decision to defend Mourdock: “I strongly disagree with the statement made by Richard Mourdock during last night’s Senate debate. I urge him to apologize.”

Update

In a statement emailed to ThinkProgress, NARAL Pro-Choice America called on Romney to withdraw his endorsement of Mourdock: “Mr. Mourdock’s lack of compassion for rape survivors is callous, insulting, and completely out of touch,” NARAL president Nancy Keenan said. “What is equally disturbing is the fact that Gov. Romney has endorsed Mourdock and appeared in a TV ad on his behalf. Unless Romney takes back his endorsement, women voters should assume that he embraces these same extreme anti-choice views of Mr. Mourdock.”

Update

Republican former New Jersey Governor and Bush EPA Administrator Christie Todd Whitman echoes the call for Romney to unendorse Mourdock: “Mourdock’s comments damage all Republicans and especially Romney as the fight for the woman’s vote intensifies. This could be a defining moment for Romney and he should immediately denounce both Mourdock and the comment.”

Update

Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) cancelled a trip to Indiana to campaign with Mourdock, although the Mourdock campaign claims she did so at their request.

Paul Ryan and Todd Akin Partnered On Radical ‘Personhood’ Bill Outlawing Abortion And Many Birth Control Pills

By Adam Peck and Ian Millhiser/Think Progress
Yesterday, ThinkProgress reported that Rep. Todd “Legitimate Rape” Akin (R-MO) and GOP vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan both cosponsored the bill that introduced America to the despicable term “forcible rape.” As it turns out, this may only be the second most sweeping attack on reproductive freedom that both men partnered on. Ryan and Akin also cosponsored a federal personhood bill, the Sanctity of Human Life Act of 2009, which declares that a fertilized egg is entitled to the exact same legal rights as a human being:

(1) the Congress declares that–

(A) the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each human being, and is the paramount and most fundamental right of a person; and

(B) the life of each human being begins with fertilization, cloning, or its functional equivalent, irrespective of sex, health, function or disability, defect, stage of biological development, or condition of dependency, at which time every human being shall have all the legal and constitutional attributes and privileges of personhood; and

(2) the Congress affirms that the Congress, each State, the District of Columbia, and all United States territories have the authority to protect the lives of all human beings residing in its respective jurisdictions.

Lest there be any doubt, this bill is unconstitutional. Congress does not have the power to overrule Roe v. Wade by an ordinary statue, only a constitutional amendment could serve that purpose. Moreover, even if Roe were overruled by the Supreme Court, Ryan and Akin’s bill still attempts to redefine who “the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution” applies to. Again, changing the meaning of the Constitution can only be done through an amendment, not through an ordinary Act of Congress.

Should Ryan and Akin’s personhood agenda take effect, however, it would drastically reduce women’s reproductive choice. The bill declares that a human egg obtains “all the legal and constitutional attributes and privileges of personhood” the moment it merges with a human sperm. Thus, a Blastocyst-American would not only enjoy the same constitutional status as a fully grown adult, it would also enjoy any “legal” attributes enjoyed by adults. Because every states’ law makes it a crime to kill a human adult, the likely effect of Ryan and Akin’s personhood bill would be to treat killing a fertilized egg as the same thing as homicide.

Such an interpretation would not simply ban abortion, it could turn many forms of birth control into the legal equivalent of a murder weapon. Many forms of contraception, including many birth control pills, function in part by inhibiting a fertilized egg from implanting in a woman’s uterus. Thus, Ryan and Akin’s personhood bill could render the act of using many forms of oral contraception the equivalent of a homicide crime.

Romney’s Abortion Stance Still A Mystery

By Igor Volsky/Think Progress

Ben Smith gets this quote from Mitt Romney spokesperson Gail Gitcho on the candidate’s stance on abortion: Romney supports “a Human Life Amendment that overturns Roe vs. Wade and sends the issue back to the states.” “Mitt Romney is pro-life, and as he has said previously, he is supportive of efforts to ensure recognition that life begins at conception. He believes these matters should be left up to states to decide,” she said.

That answer’s “states’ rights” emphasis sounds good for a candidate who’s hoping to sway independent voters in a general election, but it still doesn’t answer whether or not Romney supported Mississippi’s personhood amendment before it went down in flames — a question he skillfully avoided last month and his campaign refused to answer — and actually undermines his promises to more conservative audiences.

For instance, during an Oct. 3 appearance on Fox News’ Huckabee, Romney hinted that he would support additional federal abortion restrictions: “I would encourage legislation which provided to individuals the information they needed to make a choice, an informed choice about whether or not to have an abortion,” he said, referring to mandated counseling or waiting periods. Similarly, during the Palmetto Freedom Forum on Sept. 5 in South Carolina, Romney promised to “absolutely” strengthen federal conscience protections for health care workers who refuse to perform abortions. “We have to allow people to practice their faith and when they have a matter of conscience that they can’t participate in some form of activity which violates their faith, then they should be able to abide by their faith, particularly when there are plenty of opportunities for people to have a service provided,” Romney said.

Anti-Abortion Extremist Arrested For Trying To Murder Abortion Providers In Wisconsin

By Marie Diamond

Two years ago today, Dr. George Tiller was shot to deathin his church by anti-abortion activist Scott Roeder. Tiller was a Republican, a beloved physician in Wichita, Kansas, and one of the few abortion providers in that part of the country. For decades, Tiller had beenthreatened and harassed by anti-abortion groups for his work, and even survived an assassination attempt in 1993 after being shot twice. At his trial, Roeder arguedthat his crime was “morally justified” because he was “protecting the unborn.”

Last Friday, another anti-abortion extremist attempted to murder abortion providers in the name of God. A Wisconsin man, Ralph Lang, was arrested and charged with intent to murder doctors at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Madison. Lang had been arrested once before in 2007 for menacing nurses and doctors at the same facility:

Ralph Lang, 63, of Marshfield, was staying at a Motel 6 when his .38-caliber handgun discharged into an unoccupied room across the hall, according to the federal criminal complaint.[...] Lang, who was arrested for reckless endangerment, told police that he had a gun “to lay out abortionists because they are killing babies,” the complaint said.

Lang told police that he planned to go to a Planned Parenthood abortion clinic the following morning to find the doctor who was doing the abortions and shoot him in the head, the complaint said. He was charged with attempting to injure and intimidate in violation of the federal access statute, according to U.S. Attorney John Vaudreuil.

A nurse at Planned Parenthood in Madison said she is familiar with Lang, and that she saw him outside the facility last week, according to the complaint. Lang was arrested in 2007 outside Planned Parenthood, telling an officer at the time that the “Bible states that anyone involved in abortion should be executed.”

According to the Wisconsin State Journal, when asked if he planned to shoot just the doctor or nurses as well, Lang replied he wished he “could line them up all in a row, get a machine gun, and mow them all down.” Eerily, in Lang’s hotel room, the police found a map of the U.S. with dots in each state marking abortion clinics and the words ”Blessed Virgin Mary says Hell awaits any woman having an abortion.”

As the cases of Lang and Roeder demonstrate, the rise of anti-abortion terrorism threatens the health and safety of all Americans, not just women. Across the country, abortion providers fear for their lives, and as a result, fewer doctors and nurses are learning how to perform abortions. This is exactly what men like Lang and Roeder want. It’s become almost impossible for women in large swaths of the country to have access to safe abortions. In 2000, 87 percent of U.S. counties had no abortion providers and only 3 percent of rural areas had one – and the numbers have gotten even worse since then.

These “pro-life” extremists who are willing to murder for their cause are getting considerable help from their friends in politics. Congress is trying to prevent doctors from learning how to perform life-saving abortion procedures that are often necessary when women have incomplete miscarriages. This year, Republicans in South Carolina, Nebraska, and Iowa have pushed legislation that would essentially legalize the murder of abortion providers. If passed, these bills would protect vigilantes and constitute the first instances of state-sanctioned anti-abortion terrorism. Such radical sentiments have been echoed by prominent conservatives on the national stage like Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK), who said during his 2004 campaign, “I favor the death penalty for abortionists.” When it comes to the modern anti-abortion lobby, it seems no position is too extreme.

Oklahoma’s Assault On Women’s Rights: Legislature Reapproves Bill Posting Abortion Details Online

By Amanda Terkel The Oklahoma legislature is one of the most hostile elective bodies to women’s rights in the nation. Last year, it passed a far-right measure that would have collected personal details about every single abortion performed in the state and posted them on a public website. Although the questionnaire would not have asked for name, address, or “any information specifically identifying the patient,” as Feminists for Choice pointed out, the questions could easily be used to identify a woman in a small community.

After protests and national attention, an Oklahoma County district judge ruled the law unconstitutional in February, saying that it violated the “single-subject” rule, which requires that laws address only one topic at a time. As the Tulsa World explained, it was the second time in recent years that the legislature had had its overreaching ruled unconstitutional:

The law also would have banned abortions based on a woman’s gender preference for her child; created new responsibilities for state health agencies to gather and analyze abortion data and enforce abortion restrictions; and redefined a number of abortion-related terms used in Oklahoma law. [...]

This is the second time in two years that the Oklahoma legislature has tried to restrict abortion in the state by bundling numerous provisions into one bill. In September, the Oklahoma District Court struck down another state law imposing various abortion restrictions, including the most extreme ultrasound requirement in the country, ruling that it violated the state’s single subject rule.

Unfortunately, the rulings didn’t mean that these provisions were history; it just meant that the legislature had to go back and pass a separate bill for each anti-choice measure, instead of bundling them all together. Lawmakers could still restrict women’s rights; it might just take a bit longer.

That’s exactly what the Oklahoma legislature has decided to do. One recently passed measure would “prohibit ‘wrongful life’ lawsuits against doctors who withhold information about a fetus or pregnancy that could cause a woman to seek an abortion.” A USA Today editorial explains the other measure:

The law mandates that the screen be turned so the patient can see the ultrasound and orders doctors to describe the size of the fetus and any viewable organs and limbs. There are no exceptions for rape or incest. It also limits who can do the ultrasound and which technology can be used — issues lawmakers are ill-equipped to decide. If doctors veer from these mandates, they can be stopped from performing abortions and sued. The law intrudes far deeper into people’s medical decisions than anything in the controversial new federal health care law.

Oklahoma Gov. Brad Henry (D) vetoed these two bills, but the legislature overrode him. However, the Center for Reproductive Rights has filed a lawsuit arguing that the ultrasound law “intrudes upon a patient’s privacy and forces a woman to hear information that may not be relevant to her medical care.” Oklahoma’s attorney general has agreed to temporarily block implementation of this law until the court hearing.

Yesterday, the Oklahoma House returned to the website bill and passed it, 88-8, with “little discussion and no debate.” It now heads to the Senate, where it is also likely to pass. ThinkProgress contacted Henry’s office and asked whether he would veto the this measure as well, but we have not yet received a response.

Last year, we spoke with Oklahoma state Rep. Jeannie McDaniel (D) — one of the eight lawmakers to vote against the Statistical Abortion Reporting Act — who said that in each of the five sessions she’s been a lawmaker, “there has been a bill introduced in the Oklahoma legislature regarding women’s reproductive rights. … Each year, it creeps a little more toward taking away women’s freedoms, more restrictions between the doctors.” Recently, Anita Fream, CEO of Planned Parenthood of Central Oklahoma, spoke to MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow and said that the state needs “national help” in bringing attention to the assault on women’s rights in the state. “We need everyone speaking out no matter where they are from,” she said.

GOP To Kill Health Bill For Nonexistent Abortion Coverage, But Provide Abortion Coverage To GOP Staff

By Lee Fang Republican lawmakers, as well as Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI), have falsely claimed that the health reform bill allows taxpayer funded abortions. At a press conference yesterday, GOP members of Congress convened to again hammer the lie home that health reform will provide taxpayer funds for abortion.

Rep. Cathy McMorris-Rodgers (R-WA), a member of the GOP leadership team at the press event yesterday, blasted Democrats for trying to pass a health reform bill with supposed funds for abortion coverage. ThinkProgress spoke to McMorris-Rodgers after the event. According to disclosure reports, McMorris-Rodgers’ state Republican Party provides health insurance through AWB Health Choice — a consortium of benefit packages including Lifewise Health Plans of Washington, which covers abortions. McMorris-Rodgers assailed the nonexistent abortion coverage in the health reform bill, while brushing aside her own campaign dollars going towards plans which cover abortion. Eventually, the congresswoman relented and admitted that her campaign dollars funding abortion coverage is “not” okay:

TP: But at the same time, Lifewise Health Plans, which is what the Washington State GOP uses to provide health insurance to their employees, they cover abortion. So when you fundraise for the Washington State GOP, aren’t you providing dollars to abortion?

MCMORRIS-RODGERS: Uh, we’re talking about federal taxpayer dollars.

TP: Yeah, but isn’t this kind of like, you know, “do as I say, but not what I do?”

MCMORRIS-RODGERS: Um, I think the issue at hand is whether or not federal taxpayer dollars should be used to fund abortion –

TP: But your fundraiser dollars are used for abortions. … But campaign dollars are okay, Republican campaign dollars that you raise?

MCMORRIS-RODGERS: No, that’s not.

Listen here:

McMorris-Rodger’s initial indifference to her own state party funding abortion coverage reveals the partisanship of her ploy to lie about the health bill and claim that it covers abortions. Like McMorris-Rodgers, House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA) and Newt Gingrich have health insurance plans for their campaign employees which provide abortion coverage. And until recently, even the staunchly anti-choice Republican National Committee provided abortion coverage to its employees.

The Catholic Health Association and a group of 59,000 Catholic nuns recently endorsed health reform, noting that the bill in Congress does not provide taxpayer funded abortions. Additionally, T.R. Reid, writing in the Washington Post this week, explained why anti-abortion activists should support health reform. “Increasing health-care coverage is one of the most powerful tools for reducing the number of abortions — a fact proved by years of experience in other industrialized nations.” Regardless, partisan hypocrites like McMorris-Rodgers are plowing ahead, hoping to exploit a polarizing issue to kill reform.

Virginia lawmaker: Children with disabilities are God’s punishment to women who previously had abortions.

By Amanda Terkel On Thursday, Virginia State Delegate Bob Marshall (R) spoke at a press conference against state funding for Planned Parenthood. He blasted the organization for supporting a women’s right to choose, saying that God punishes women who have had abortions by giving them disabled children:

“The number of children who are born subsequent to a first abortion with handicaps has increased dramatically. Why? Because when you abort the first born of any, nature takes its vengeance on the subsequent children,” said Marshall, a Republican.

“In the Old Testament, the first born of every being, animal and man, was dedicated to the Lord. There’s a special punishment Christians would suggest.”

Marshall is also fighting against health care reform, saying that “Obamacare” is trying to take “your soul.” Former Alaska governor Sarah Palin has been pushing back against high-profile figures and entities who have been attacking people with disabilities. Will she speak out against someone in her own party? (HT: Right Wing Watch)

M.C.L comment: I wonder will Sarah Palin ask Bob Marshall via her Facebook page to step down for saying that kids born with disabilities is some form of punishment from God or at least accusing her of having a abortion?

Boxer’s message to men who support abortion riders: How would you like it if we singled out Viagara?

By Amanda Terkel

Today, the Senate began debate on Sen. Ben Nelson’s (D-NE) amendment to prohibit federal funds from being used for abortions or for plans that include abortion services. Igor Volsky notes that Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) stepped up and drew a parallel to help the amendment’s male co-sponsors better understand its repercussions. Since Nelson’s measure forces women to purchase special abortion riders — which require women to plan for unplanned pregnancies — Boxer challenged “the men who have brought us this” to “single out a procedure that’s used by a man or a drug that is used by a man that involves his reproductive health care and say they have to get a special rider”:

BOXER: There’s nothing in this amendment that says if a man some days wants to buy Viagra, for example, that his pharmaceutical coverage cannot cover it, that he has to buy a rider. I wouldn’t support that. And they shouldn’t support going after a woman using her own private funds for her reproductive health care. Is it fair to say to a man you’re going to have to buy a rider to buy Viagra and this will be public information that could be accessed? No, I don’t support that. I support a man’s privacy, just as I support a woman’s privacy.

Watch it: