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.

CNN Benghazi Special Pushes Debunked And Deceptive Claims

ZACHARY PLEAT/Media Matters For America:

CNN's special The Truth About Benghazi pushed long-debunked myths about the September 2012 attacks on U.S. diplomatic facilities in Benghazi, Libya, with host Erin Burnett and CNN correspondent John King asking questions that were answered months ago -- often by CNN itself -- and leaving important context out of many claims.

 

 

 

 

 

00:00

 

00:00

 

 

 

 

 

 

CNN: Was The Removal Of Terrorist Group Names From Benghazi Talking Points 'Nefarious'?

CNN: Couldn't U.S. Military Have Responded To Attacks More Quickly?

CNN: Why Didn't U.S. Heed Warnings Of Benghazi Attacks?

CNN: Was The Removal Of Terrorist Group Names From Benghazi Talking Points 'Nefarious'?

CNN Recklessly Speculated About Why Terrorist Groups Were Removed From Benghazi Talking Points. During The Truth About Benghazi special, CNN chief national correspondent John King questioned why the names of specific terrorist organizations were removed from the unclassified talking points on the Benghazi attacks that were provided to then-U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice. King asked whether the editing was done "to protect the investigation" or whether "it was done just politically to protect the department? Or more nefariously" to protect the State Department or President Obama. During a prepared video package, CNN played haunting music behind their description of the talking points edits before King noted that the first draft "referenced Islamic extremists with ties to Al Qaeda," but that former State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland "objected to naming terror groups" in an email discussion about the talking points without providing the reasoning behind her objection. [CNN, The Truth About Benghazi, 8/6/13]

Answer: Talking Points Altered For Security Purposes, As CNN Itself Has Reported

Former CIA Director David Petraeus: Names Of Terrorist Groups Were Removed To Avoid Tipping Them Off. In November, former CIA Director David Petraeus explained to lawmakers in congressional testimony that the names of terrorist organizations suspected of participating in the attacks "were removed from the public explanation of the attack immediately after the assault to avoiding alerting the militants that American intelligence and law enforcement agencies were tracking them." [The New York Times, 11/16/12]

Former State Department Spokeswoman Victoria Nuland Was Concerned Naming Terrorist Groups Could "Prejudice The Investigation." In emails exchanged between the CIA, State Department, and other administration officials concerning the drafting of the talking points on Benghazi -- emails made public by CNN in May -- Nuland expressed concern that publicly naming specific terrorist organizations could "prejudice the investigation" into who was behind the attacks. [Media Matters, 5/15/13]

CIA's General Counsel: FBI Instructions Said Not To Reveal Names Of Terror Groups Due To Criminal Investigation. In another email released by CNN in May, the general counsel of the CIA expressed concerns that naming terrorist organizations in the talking points could "conflict with express instructions from NSS/DOJ/FBI that, in light of the criminal investigation, we are not to generate statements with assessments as to who did this." [Media Matters, 5/15/13]

CNN: Couldn't U.S. Military Have Responded To Attacks More Quickly?

CNN Special Pushed Republican Claim That Military Could Have Responded To Attacks Faster, Ignores Initial Assistance Sent To Benghazi. During CNN's special, John King highlighted a Republican congressman's claims, contrary to testimony from military officials, that military responses could have responded to the first Benghazi attack in time to assist with the second attack hours later at a nearby compound:

REP. ADAM SMITH (D-WA): The bottom line is there was not a force available that could get there in time. And that has been clearly and unequivocally established and answered over and over again.

KING: Republican Jason Chaffetz begs to differ.

CHAFFETZ: They're in Northern Libya, right there on the coast. That we couldn't get U.S. military there for 24 hours, that's embarrassing if it's true. But I really question whether or not that's the actual truth.

KING (on camera): So essentially you're saying General Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the highest-ranking uniformed officer in the United States of America, isn't telling the truth?

CHAFFETZ: I think there are other assets and other things that could have been put into motion. That cavalry never comes over the hill to help. That's just stunning to me.

Later, Erin Burnett expressed shock that the military could not respond faster:

BURNETT: So John, the military says, right, they couldn't have gotten to Benghazi in time, but the United States has the greatest military in the world. So, that seems shocking.

KING: It does seem shocking -- 24 hours for the first boots on the ground, for the fire department to first make it to Libya, and then only to Tripoli? I think a lot of Americans are stunned by that. [CNN, The Truth About Benghazi, 8/6/13]

Answer: Notion That U.S. Forces Could Have Assisted Sooner Shows "Cartoonish Impression" Of Military

Former Secretary Of Defense Robert Gates: Notion That Military Forces Could Have Assisted Sooner Shows A "Cartoonish Impression" Of U.S. Military. In an interview on CBS' Face the Nation in May, former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates explained that claims that the military response to the Benghazi attacks could have arrived sooner than it did "would have been very difficult if not impossible" and shows a "cartoonish impression of military capabilities and military forces." [Media Matters, 5/12/13]

Decision To Not Send Second Force From Tripoli Was Made By The Head Of The Military's Africa Command, Who Was Concerned About Security In Tripoli. The commander of U.S. Africa Command during the attacks was concerned about threats to the Tripoli embassy complex, and a Pentagon spokesperson confirmed that the assessment of Special Operations Command Africa leadership at the time was that "it was more important for those guys to be in Tripoli" for embassy security. [Media Matters, 5/9/13]

Deputy Chief Of Mission In Libya: Additional Reinforcements Would Not Have Been Able To Get To Benghazi Before The Second Attack Was Concluded. In an interview with congressional investigators, Gregory Hicks, deputy chief of mission in Libya at the time of the attacks, stated that while a team of special forces troops in Tripoli had been told to protect the embassy in Tripoli instead of traveling to Benghazi, the flight they would have taken to Benghazi was scheduled to take off after 6 a.m. local time -- approximately 45 minutes after the attack at the CIA annex that killed two people. Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), a member of the House Oversight Committee who has actively pursued investigations into the Benghazi attacks, also told The Washington Post that the special forces team that Hicks was referring to "would have arrived after the attack." [Media Matters, 5/7/13; The Washington Post, 5/6/13]

CNN: Why Didn't U.S. Heed Warnings Of Benghazi Attacks?

John King: U.S. Had "Warning After Warning That Benghazi Was A Disaster Waiting To Happen." King suggested that the U.S. had plenty of warning that the Benghazi attacks would occur, yet was caught unprepared:

KING: Michael Hayden is the former CIA director.

HAYDEN: Act one is, what were the intelligence estimates? What kind of warnings were given? What was the plan? Why do we have so few options in act two?

KING: Act one is numbing, warning after warning that Benghazi was a disaster waiting to happen.

[...]

KING: The evidence was overwhelming: attacks that convinced the British, the Red Cross and the United Nations to leave Benghazi; two prior attacks on the U.S. mission; an IED thrown over the fence by former security guards in April and another IED in June that blew a huge hole in a compound gate; and detailed warnings, CNN is told, in 4,000 classified cables, including updates on new Al Qaeda training camps near Benghazi.

CHAFFETZ: How come that didn't rise to the level where somebody said, "You know, we just can't operate in this environment"? It was a death trap. [CNN, The Truth About Benghazi,8/6/13]

Answer: Experts Say There Is No Known Intelligence Warning Of The Attacks

GOP Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers: No Evidence U.S. Had Information To Prevent Attacks. During an interview on Fox News days after the Benghazi attacks, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers was asked whether the U.S. had knowledge that could have prevented the attacks. Rogers responded: "As chairman of the Intelligence Committee, I have seen nothing yet that indicates that they had information that could have prevented the event." [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 9/14/12]

NY Times: No Evidence Of "A Warning That The Diplomatic Compound Would Be Targeted And That Was Overlooked By Administration Officials." The New York Times reported in October that there was no evidence that the government knew of an attack in Benghazi and ignored it:

Interviews with American officials and an examination of State Department documents do not reveal the kind of smoking gun Republicans have suggested would emerge in the attack's aftermath such as a warning that the diplomatic compound would be targeted and that was overlooked by administration officials.

[...]

State Department officials have asserted that there was no specific intelligence that warned of a large-scale attack on the diplomatic compound in Benghazi, which they asserted was unprecedented. The department said it was careful to weigh security with diplomats' need to meet with Libyan officials and citizens.

"The lethality of an armed, massed attack by dozens of individuals is something greater than we've ever seen in Libya over the last period that we've been there," Patrick F. Kennedy, the State Department's under secretary for management, told reporters at a news conference on Oct. 10. [The New York Times, 10/29/12]

State Department Accountability Review Board: There Was "No Immediate, Specific Tactical Warning" Of Benghazi Attacks. The State Department's Accountability Review Board's unclassified findings about the Benghazi attacks found that there was no specific warning of the Benghazi attacks:

The Board found that intelligence provided no immediate, specific tactical warning of the September 11 attacks. Known gaps existed in the intelligence community's understanding of extremist militias in Libya and the potential threat they posed to U.S. interests, although some threats were known to exist. [State.gov, accessed 8/7/13]

Transcripts expose Issa's Witch hunt

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy