Obamacarians assure us that the new law prohibits coverage for abortion. That’s not true. It was merely one of the many shell games played by its supporters. The law left to the bureaucracy to include abortion as an indirectly covered procedure in subsidized state exchange-authorized policies—which considering who is head of HHS—it almost certainly will.
That was why the “Stupack Amendment,” introduced by the late (politically) pro life Congressman was fought so hard (costing him his job when he caved) by the pro choice crowd. They didn’t want a permanent Hyde Amendment. (The president’s executive order was a mere sop. It can be withdrawn at the stroke of a pen.)
To ensure that no federal money pays for any abortion (except in case of rape, incest, or physical threat to the mother), opponents of federally subsidized or paid for abortion introduced the “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act” (H.R. 3), with 178 co-sponsors at last count. From the legislation:
SEC. 301. PROHIBITION ON FUNDING FOR ABORTIONS.
No funds authorized or appropriated by Federal law, and none of the funds in any trust fund to which funds are authorized or appropriated by Federal law, shall be expended for any abortion.
SEC. 302. PROHIBITION ON FUNDING FOR HEALTH BENEFITS PLANS THAT COVER ABORTION.None of the funds authorized or appropriated by Federal law, and none of the funds in any trust fund to which funds are authorized or appropriated by Federal law, shall be expended for health benefits coverage that includes coverage of abortion.
SEC. 303. PROHIBITION ON TAX BENEFITS RELATING TO ABORTION.
(1) no credit shall be allowed under the internal revenue laws with respect to amounts paid or incurred for an abortion or with respect to amounts paid or incurred for a health benefits plan (including premium assistance) that includes coverage of abortion,
(2) for purposes of determining any deduction for expenses paid for medical care of the taxpayer or the taxpayer’s spouse or dependents, amounts paid or incurred for an abortion or for a health benefits plan that includes coverage of abortion shall not be taken into account, and
(3) in the case of any tax-preferred trust or account the purpose of which is to pay medical expenses of the account beneficiary, any amount paid or distributed from such an account for an abortion shall be included in the gross income of such beneficiary.
The bill does not prevent private or state-only funded coverage (the latter being the law currently regarding assisted suicide), and specifically exempts the rape, incest, or physical health threat to the mother from its scope, so there actually could be funding in a few cases.
I support this bill. I believe that, legality aside, public policy should disfavor abortion—and funding restrictions clearly promote that goal. Thus, women or couples who want one of the nearly 1 million surgical abortions performed in this country each year, each of which stills a beating heart, can pay for it themselves. Maybe then sexually active couples would take more responsibility toward avoiding unwanted fecundity. It’s not that difficult.
(I would also like to see Planned Parenthood subsidies ended, at least proportionate to the extent that its activities involve abortion. I am sure there are plenty of very wealthy pro choice supporters who could fund “scholarships” for pregnancy terminations.)
You have a decision to make: double or nothing.
For this week only, a generous supporter has offered to fully match all new and increased donations to First Things up to $60,000.
In other words, your gift of $50 unlocks $100 for First Things, your gift of $100 unlocks $200, and so on, up to a total of $120,000. But if you don’t give, nothing.
So what will it be, dear reader: double, or nothing?
Make your year-end gift go twice as far for First Things by giving now.
