Why won't the media report abortion funding issue accurately?
Media reports have repeatedly clouded the health care reform debate by uncritically reporting on false claims that the Senate health care bill provides federal funding for abortion beyond the limited cases allowed by current law: rape, incest, and conditions that endanger the life of the pregnant woman.
Senate bill does not allow federal funding for abortion in cases other than rape, incest, and danger to the life of the mother
Senate bill forbids use of federal subsidies for abortion services except in cases allowed by the Hyde amendment. The health care reform bill passed by the Senate states that if a "qualified health plan" offered under the health insurance exchange provides coverage of abortion services for which public funding is banned, "the issuer of the plan shall not use any amount attributable" to the federal subsidies created under the bill "for purposes of paying for such services." Public funding is currently banned by the Hyde amendment for all abortions except in cases of rape, incest, or if the life of the pregnant woman is in danger.
Senate bill requires insurance plans that cover abortion to segregate funds to ensure that federal funds are not used to pay for abortions. The Senate bill requires issuers to "collect from each enrollee" in plans that cover abortions a "separate payment" for "an amount equal to the actuarial value of the coverage of" abortion services. All such funds are deposited into a separate account used by the issuer to pay for abortion services; federal funds and the remaining premium payments are used to pay for all other services. Additionally, as Slate.com's Timothy Noah noted, the Senate bill requires that "every insurance exchange must offer at least one abortion-free health plan," so people who do not want to pay the "fee" "can simply choose a different health plan offered through the exchange, one that doesn't cover abortions."
Current law permits abortion coverage through Medicaid so long as funds are segregated. According to a November 1, 2009, study by the Guttmacher Institute, 17 states provide coverage under Medicaid for "all or most medically necessary abortions," not just abortions in cases of life endangerment, rape, and incest. Those states "us[e] their own funds" -- not federal funds -- "to pay" for the procedures. Therefore, in 17 states, Medicaid, a federally subsidized health care program, covers abortions in circumstances in which federal money is prohibited from being spent on abortion.
ABC World News "Truth Squad": "[T]he bill makes it clear there can be no federal money for abortion." On March 4, The ABC World News "Truth Squad" investigated Stupak's claim that "the federal government will directly subsidize abortions" in the Senate bill and found "the bill makes it clear there can be no federal money for abortion."
Mainstream media fail to report fact that bill bans federal funding for most abortions
Wash. Post reports: "Antiabortion Democrats say it would permit federal funding for abortion." A March 16 Washington Post article reported that "House leaders have worked for days to round up support for the legislation, but the Senate measure has drawn fierce opposition from a broad spectrum of members. Antiabortion Democrats say it would permit federal funding for abortion, liberals oppose its tax on high-cost insurance plans, and Republicans say the measure overreaches and is too expensive." However the Post article did not note that the bill's abortion restrictions are consistent with the current law, which forbids federal funding for abortion in most cases.
AP: Some Dems "won't support the legislation without a prohibition on paying for abortions with federal money." On March 11, The Associated Press reported that a "dozen socially conservative Democrats say they won't support the legislation without a prohibition on paying for abortions with federal money. [Rep. Bart] Stupak [D-PA] wrote a provision to their liking for a House bill approved last November, but the Senate replaced it with wording he considers unacceptable." However, the AP did not note that the Senate bill does not allow federal funding for abortion.
NPR cast debate as he-said, she-said without reporting that Senate bill doesn't allow for federal funding of abortion beyond current law. In a March 12 All Things Considered story headlined, "Abortion Language Still Sticking Point For Health Bill," NPR health policy correspondent Julie Rovner reported on Stupak's claim that the Senate bill uses federal tax subsidies for abortion coverage, followed by Rep. Jan Schakowsky's (D-IL) statement that "[i]t does not":
Abortion opponents, led in the House by Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., say the Senate bill would loosen current restrictions on abortion funding. He cites specific language on specific pages, "which basically says that your federal tax subsidies can be used to pay for abortion coverage. That's contrary to current federal law."
For example, Stupak says, the language gives federal officials discretion to allow abortion funding in the future. And Stupak says he has as many as a dozen other Democrats who oppose abortion-rights who won't vote for the Senate bill unless their concerns are addressed.
But abortion-rights supporters, like Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., say Stupak's interpretation is simply wrong.
"I don't know why he persists in saying that somehow the Senate bill allows for federal funding of abortion," Schakowsky says. "It does not."
However, Rovner did not report that Schakowsky was correct in stating that the Senate bill "does not" allow for federal funding of abortion, except in cases allowed by current law.
NY Times blog uncriticially reported Stupak's suggestion that the Senate bill does not "keep current law." In a post on The New York Times' Prescriptions blog, David Herszenhorn reported Stupak's suggestion that the Senate bill does not keep current law, writing: "Mr. Stupak said he would continue to fight for tighter abortion restrictions in the health insurance legislation." Herszenhorn then quoted Stupak saying: "My intent is not to hold up this legislation. ... My intent is to keep current law. Eight different pieces of legislation currently say no public funding for abortion. That's all we're saying. No public funding for abortion." However Herszenhorn did not note that the Senate bill does indeed maintain current law.
NBC's Gregory falsely suggested "there's ... federal money paying for abortions." On the March 7 edition of NBC's Meet the Press, host David Gregory aired video of Stupak stating that the Senate bill "says you must offer insurance policies that will be paid for by the federal government that covers abortion." Gregory then asked Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius: "Will you make the fix that he's talking about so there is no federal money paying for abortions?" As Sebelius noted, "there is no federal money paying for abortions."
Conservative media have repeatedly advanced falsehood about federal funding for abortion
Fox's Cameron: Senate health bill "does not contain any legislative ban on using tax dollars for abortion services." On the March 5 edition of Fox News' Special Report -- one of Fox's self-described "news programs" -- Cameron falsely asserted that the Senate bill "does not contain any legislative ban on using tax dollars for abortion services." He went on say that some Democrats "oppose the Senate bill because it lacks a ban on tax dollars for abortion services."
Van Susteren let McCain falsely claim that "federal funding would be involved in performing of abortions." On her March 5 Fox News show, Greta Van Susteren let Sen. John McCain falsely claim that passing the Senate bill "really would be the first time, since the Hyde amendment many years ago, that federal funding would be involved in the performing of abortions, and most Americans I think resoundingly reject that." Van Susteren also let Stupak falsely claim that his amendment does not go beyond the current law as defined in the Hyde amendment.
Rove: Senate bill contains "abortion funding language." In a March 11 Wall Street Journal editorial, Fox News contributor Karl Rove falsely suggested the Senate bill allows for federal funding of abortion. Rove wrote: "Pro-life House Democrats are deeply disturbed by the Senate abortion-funding language."
Fox's Doocy falsely suggested Senate bill allows for federal "funding of abortion." On the March 15 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, co-host Steve Doocy falsely suggested that the Senate health bill contains "language that does allow for" federal funding for abortion beyond what is currently allowed under the Hyde Amendment.
Fox News' Johnson: Senate health bill includes "federal funding of abortion." On the March 2 edition of Fox & Friends, Fox News' Peter Johnson Jr. claimed the Senate health bill allows "federal funding of abortion.
Rush Limbaugh: Health care reform "hinges on" deciding by Easter whether U.S. "will pay for the killing of babies." Limbaugh announced on his March 4 radio show that he found "some irony" in the idea that health care reform "all hinges on whether the federal government will pay for the killing of babies or not -- deciding that by Easter."
Because it is a cheap and easy way to press the bottons of ignorance and emotions.
Because it fits nicely with the death panel meme. Next HCR will go after your cute puppies and warm fuzzy yellow chicks everywhere
Because having a real and honest debate about what the proposed health care reform actually is not as fun as stirring up drama.
Because having a real and debate about anything implies that we the people can actually exercise our political rights and solve problems. This interferes with those who find it inconvenient that the government might represent us and require them to make less profit and be responsible.
Because making people scared and angry makes it less likely that they will listen and think.
Because educating people is difficult - journalisticly it is hard work, creating conflict is easy and fun. Many conservative "journalist" are just plain lazy and do not know how to investigate or probe.
Because conservative political correctness is alive and well has been wrapped around the fetus for decades.
Because agenda driven media has distorted the rest of the media and framed the debate.
Because right wing agenda driven media actually has contempt for the average citizen and proves it daily by dishing out dishonest manipulation so blatantly
Regardless of the circumstances of conception, the baby is still a human life and we have no right to kill him/her. I should not have to pay taxes to kill a baby.
If we allow an exception for rape/incest, anyone who wants an abortion will simply lie about rape in order to obtain the abortion. It is a loophole a mile wide.
Sounds like you are in favor of Rape and Incest.
But the Hyde Amendment is in place for those who choose to follow the law.
Regardless of the circumstances of conception, the baby is still a human life and we have no right to kill him/her. I should not have to pay taxes to kill a baby.
You are right, we don't get to decide to terminate a pregnancy, the mother does. and what she is doing is lawful.
An abortion is not illegal, simply immoral by your standards.
If an immoral and/or illegal action has taken place against a woman, then the public should support that woman and her decisions. The gov. and law must be in place to support citizens and individuals. An unborn fetus has not been granted any rights. The rights of the woman are superceded.
An abortion doesn't kill any babies or even a him/her. A fetus would not be developed enough to be considered a baby. So please stop throwing around the "people who support pro-choice are killing babies" lie.
I really have a problem with this idea, because it seems terribly irresponsible to so arbitrarilly define when life begins, especially when most pro-choicers put such a high value on it in every other area of life, ie helping the poor and giving people all the rights they deserve, etc.
I'll be honest, it seems to me to be based on selfish ideas of self fulmillment and ignores consequences of actions. Now, I do understand the dilemna. It is not a level playing field with men and women, and a man can never fully understand the burden on a woman to have a baby. But here's the deal: that is not an excuse. Men need to be just as aware as the consequences as the women.
Alas, I've gone on a tangent...
I find it ironic that most pro-lifers are simply pro-fetus. Once that thing is born, it best find its bootstraps.
If a "body" becomes life at some point, but that point is not known for certain, is it not the responsible thing to do, if you value life, to protect it from the beginning of that "bodies" existence?
If you value life but don't seek to protect something that you don't know when it becomes life you run the risk that you are cutting short that new life.
Does that make more sense?
I am uncomfortable with playing that game and risking killing a child simply because it is an inconvenience, though I do understand it is an inconvenience.
If it is killing a child, it is not some personal decision. If it is merely a personal decision, my wife and I and our doctor can choose to kill our 3 year old (writing that makes me cringe). That would be murder, not a personal decision. Murder is not something any of us can stand for.
There is no difference in the taking of a life whether the child is in the womb or out. You may well try to say that it is indeed different, but then we come back to the question I started with-- do you know for sure when life begins? If you are not, you are playing with death.
The tagline "Twenty Minutes Into The Future" is still, IMHO, relevant. Consider that some of the things have come close to reality as it is today.. 'Blipverts', commercials that were formerly 30-60seconds have been cut to 15 seconds in some cases, "Security Systems", a private company that holds all data about everyone (Total/Terrorist Information Awareness? or Citicard?), with a frightening similarity to Xe/Blackwater.
This mixture of commentary and "news" really serves a purpose far greater than just an arrangement of time slots...
By alternating the two, and throwing comments in here and there, people will eventually start mixing and matching opinions with fact. It's basically manual labor to force yourself to debate with these people...they have no reasoning behind their opinions because Fox doesn't provide them with reasons. As if they even NEED reasons...
It's a wonderful formula for misleading people though. Despite this, straight-up LYING for a story is pretty despicable.
Why haven't liberals banned up to storm Fox headquarters yet?
I'm sure many like me wouldn't mind a little confrontation and accountability in the USA...
Fox "news" is single-handedly attempting to lead it's followers to create a Country that history has warned us against....of course, we all know conservatives aren't too keen on "looking to the past"....unless it's to a glorified B-movie actor named Reagan who got his policy straight from Merill-Lynch.
We'll have to see what happens, but I'd say HC's passage looks grim right about now.
BTW, it is interesting to see what MMFA calls mainstream media.
T/F-- there are many, many who would like to see that this law would be abolished?
T/F-- wanting positive and immediate assurances that it will not be changed is a reasonable proposition.
And the media is not reporting it correctly.
The Hyde Amendment is in effect. HCR will NOT affect the Hyde Amendment!
This is not rocket science.
We would have health care if Stupak really wanted to solve this problem in a pragmatic way.
We would have health care if Stupak really wanted to solve this problem in a pragmatic way.
We would have health care if Stupak really wanted to solve this problem in a pragmatic way.
We would have health care if Stupak really wanted to solve this problem in a pragmatic way.
In fact the bill even allows states to prevent people from using their own money to buy such coverage if it is obtained through the exchange.
The second part says a state "may" opt out of funding abortions, but does not appear to mandate it.
You can read the text of the bill HERE. You can find links to summaries and analysis HERE.
I was hoping not to have to post the whole bill. Would it help you to understand the above passage to know that this is (1)(B)(i):
And the second part doesn't say the states can opt out of paying for abortions. It says states can pass a law that says women who buy coverage on the individual market through the exchange with their own money, cannot buy abortion coverage.
Go read the whole section: SEC. 1303. SPECIAL RULES. It starts on page 118 at the link I gave.
Thanks for the link and I will review, though believe it or not, I have reviewed it before.
BTW - the CBO report and the reconciliation bill are also posted online.
?-I don't know if there are "many" that would like to change the current law or not but if there are why shouldn't they have a voice just like the Tea Partiers? According to many on the right we should scrap healthcare reform because a couple of thousand people protested against it. Why does their voice count but not the many you say want to abolish the Hyde amendment?
False-Change is inevitable. This particular law will likely not change anytime soon but it is unreasonable for Stupak or anyone else to demand that it never be changed and it's redundant to try to stick another amendment in that does nothing but confirm existing law.
There are many who want it in the bill, and the Tea Party conservatives are not at issue. At issue are the Dems who want assurances it will not happen. And it is not simply that a few thousand have protested against it, and that comment is a bit farcical, huh? The majority against it have solid reasons for being against it, not because they've seen people protest.
Your response doesn't really address my proposition-- that wanting assurances that the above does not happen is indeed reasonable. You do not have to agree that they should ask for it, but that they do ask for it is not unreasonable. This is true whether or not change is inevitable-- we can't make laws based on what might be appropriate 50 years from now, only what is important to us now, and those against abortion think it will always be a bad thing.
You are such a fraud, and so NOT a rational person, much less a rational conservative.
You can't follow an argument, you ask dishonest questions, you fool a few people by asking them in a civil tone, but you're a bogus troll.
This is just another variation on the troll types we see here.
You obviously do not understand legislation.
You do recognize that laws can be repealed, right?
The HYDE amendment can't be changed with THIS bill.
This is not rocket science.
I mention the Tea Partiers only as an example of a relatively small group who have a voice which other groups don't seem to have. Not farcical at all. You say there are many people who want to change the Hyde amendment. Well if that's true why is it out of the question?
But the bottom line is there is nothing in the bill that contradicts the Hyde amendment or attempts to change it. I don't know what Stupak is aftr but he's wasting everybodies time.
And I can't say it is the Tea Party who is holding this thing up. Stupak is certainly not a 'member', and if he is, that blows up the concern that all of Tea Party are radical conservatives.
A couple of quick thoughts...
Stupak, and others for he is not the only Dem hesitant on this, have real concern on something that they have strong opinions on. They have the right then to stand up for those beliefs. You can think he shouldn't all day long, but don't say that he is unreasonable for standing up for something he has strong concerns over.
Another quick thought: the President told Brett Baier yesterday that he did not know what was in the bill. So, how do you?
I didn't suggest that the Tea Partiers were holding up the bill. If you don't like my analogy that's fine. It was you who claimed that many wanted to change the Hyde amendment. I don't really think that's true but if it is then they have a right to have their ideas considered just like anyone else.
As far as knowing what's in the bill you'd have to be deaf, dumb and blind to not know what is in the bill regarding abortions. It's been printed and reprints, analyzed and discussed for weeks. The only issue those opposing it have is that they don't believe the abortion funds will be kept segregated. There's no reason to believe they won't be and both the bill and federal law require that they are.
We're going to have to agree to disagree on this though. You aren't going to change my mind and I never expected or intended to change yours. See you on another thread.
Thanks for the discussion.
The link http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/07/tom-delay-jim-bunning-was_n_489050.html shows Republican Leader Tom Delay stating that the unemployed do not want to work.
Also, Bart Stupak is now facing a primary challenger who is willing to set religion and personal politics aside to vote women constituents' wishes.
Let us all give Connie Saltonstall our support by visiting:
http://www.actblue.com/entity/fundraisers/24052.
Visit: http://www.actblue.com/entity/fundraisers/24052
to make your voices heard.
From the Seattle Times - Effective April 16, Walgreens drugstores across the state won't take any new Medicaid patients, saying that filling their prescriptions is a money-losing proposition — the latest development in an ongoing dispute over Medicaid reimbursement.
Nothing. Any cuts going on right now have NOTHING to do with ANY planned cuts for the future!
What a jerk you are, every time you post.
Think about it.... why would they do that?
Could it be because they are interested in killing health care reform?
Remember when Senator Frist formed a one man "life" panel in the Terry Schiavo case to "{practice" medicine over the internet?
Do the Republicans want to continue this farce?
Clifford Spencer
With all of the buy-off, arm twisting, SEIU threats, move-on.org threats, Air Force 1 rides, et all pushing for passage, it would seem to me that if all of the above were true, it could be readily demonstrated to the Representative. With that demonstration, the Representative would have to change his and his group to the yes column and the vote would have already been a ‘done deal’.
As such, looking at the above logically, I can draw two conclusions:
1. Starting at the presidency and flowing through the entire dem party there is a total lack of common sense – instead of trying to browbeat the ‘no’ votes, show them where they are wrong and get on with it.
2. As I do not believe that everyone in the dem party are totally incompetent, I must conclude that the article is either purposely omitting pertinent information and therefore is guilty of misrepresentation.
Someone show me where this logic is at fault.