Beck repeats discredited claim that Obama admin has OK'd federal funding for elective abortions
Glenn Beck advanced the discredited claim that federal funding will go to fund elective abortions in Pennsylvania in order to suggest that President Obama lied when he promised federal funds would not pay for such abortions.
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
National Right to Life, Family Research Council falsely claim federal funds are going to fund abortions in PA
National Right to Life: The Obama administration has provided funds to PA's "high-risk" insurance pools which will "cover any abortion that is legal in Pennsylvania." On July 13, the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) issued a press release announcing that the "Obama Administration will give Pennsylvania $160 million to set up a new 'high-risk' insurance program under a provision of the federal health care legislation enacted in March -- and has quietly approved a plan submitted by an appointee of Governor Edward Rendell (D) under which the new program will cover any abortion that is legal in Pennsylvania."
FRC picked up false claim: "Pennsylvania has already received approval from the Obama Administration to use the funds to provide abortions." Also on July 13, the Family Research Council (FRC) responded to the National Right to Life's false claim with its own press release, saying:
Family Research Council Action responded today to a discovery made by the National Right to Life Committee that the Obama Administration has given federal approval to send Pennsylvania $160 million in taxpayer funds which will directly fund abortions through President Obama's recently enacted health care law.
This is the first known instance of direct federal funding of abortion through what is called the "high risk insurance pools." Pennsylvania has already received approval from the Obama Administration to use the funds to provide abortions to pool participants; the abortion funding is available immediately.
Media chain: Right-wing blogs take the falsehood, gin up outrage
Kathryn Jean Lopez: NRLC "pulls the obstructing veil away from the continuing story of Barack Obama's life lies" On July 13, National Review Online editor Kathryn Jean Lopez claimed that the Obama administration's plan for Pennsylvania's high-risk insurance program "includes abortion" in its benefits package. She further lauded Douglas Johnson and the National Right to Life Committee for "pulling the obstructing veil away from the continuing story of Barack Obama's life lies." She concluded by suggesting that the "first answer of substance about just what Bart Stupak & Co. got out of the White House in the name of the unborn" was: "Nothing."
LifeNews.com: "Obama administration has officially approved the first instance of taxpayer funded abortions" in PA. In a July 13 article, LifeNews.com reported that the "Obama Administration will give Pennsylvania $160 million to set up a new 'high-risk' insurance program" which "will cover any abortion that is legal in Pennsylvania." LifeNews.com claimed that this was proof that "[t]he Obama administration has officially approved the first instance of taxpayer funded abortions under the new national government-run health care program." Further, the article also quoted NRLC legislative director Douglas Johnson, who suggested that a provision stating that "elective abortions are not covered" is a "red herring." Johnson also claimed that "[u]nder the Rendell-Sebelius plan, federal funds will subsidize coverage of abortion performed for any reason, except sex selection."
Hoft: Obama's promise that Health Care Reform would not include funding of abortions "was a lie." In a July 13 Gateway Pundit post, Jim Hoft wrote that "Obama told Americans back in November that democrats would not sneak in funding for abortion in their health care bill" and claimed that this promise "was a lie." Hoft then reposted the LifeNews.com article claiming the Obama administration had "officially approved ... taxpayer funded abortions."
CNS: "If you want proof that President Obama's Executive Order on taxpayer-funded abortion was a sham, look no further than Pennsylvania." CNSNews.com reported on the alleged "taxpayer funding of abortion" on July 14, echoing House Minority Leader John Boehner's claim that "[i]f you want proof that President Obama's Executive Order on taxpayer-funded abortion was a sham, look no further than Pennsylvania." The article also forwarded the FRC's claim that "[t]he $160 million in taxpayer funds for Pennsylvania is the first known instance of direct federal funding of abortions through the new high-risk insurance pools."
PA, HHS, Stupak debunk notion that PA high-risk pools will cover elective abortions
PA insurance department: The state "could not and would not use federal money to cover abortions" beyond what was previously allowed under federal law. In a July 15 interview with Philadelphia radio station WHYY, Roseanne Placey, press secretary for the Pennsylvania insurance department, said that Pennsylvania "could not and would not use federal money to cover elective abortions," and that they "could not and would not use federal money to go beyond the scope of the Hyde Amendment in the case of non-elective abortions." Placey added that the "Hyde Amendment bars the use of federal funds to pay for abortions, except to save the life of the mother or in cases of rape or incest." Placey further stated: "There's something lost in all of this, this is a high risk pool. The likelihood that women would be coming to this program to have abortion coverage is very limited. These are people with serious illnesses that have gone without coverage and care because of pre-existing conditions."
HHS: Abortion "will not be covered" in PA "except in the cases of rape or incest, or where the life of the woman would be endangered." A July 14 Health and Human Services news release stated:
As is the case with FEHB [Federal Employees Health Benefits] plans currently, and with the Affordable Care Act and the President's related Executive Order more generally, in Pennsylvania and in all other states abortions will not be covered in the Pre-existing Condition Insurance Plan (PCIP) except in the cases of rape or incest, or where the life of the woman would be endangered.
Our policy is the same for both state and federally-run PCIP programs. We will reiterate this policy in guidance to those running the Pre-existing Condition Insurance Plan at both the state and federal levels. The contracts to operate the Pre-existing Condition Insurance Plan include a requirement to follow all federal laws and guidance.
HHS: "[A]ll high-risk pools -- whether run by the states or by the federal government -- will ... only cover abortions in cases of rape or incest or when the life of the mother is in danger." On July 14, The Hill reported that HHS spokeswoman Jenny Backus said that the charge that Pennsylvania's high-risk pool will cover abortions beyond Hyde is inaccurate:
Jenny Backus, a spokeswoman for the Department of Health and Human Services, said the charge is inaccurate. She said all high-risk pools -- whether run by the states or by the federal government -- will follow the same rules as do the insurance plans for federal employees, which only cover abortions in cases of rape or incest or when the life of the mother is in danger.
HHS says conservative accusations are wrong in several respects:
1) Pennsylvania hasn't signed a high-risk pool contract with HHS yet;
2) States won't begin providing services under the high-risk pools until Aug. 1, by which time HHS guidance will be in place;
3) HHS contracts with states make it clear that the federal government will be issuing guidance "so they know they will have to live by our guidance per the contract."
Stupak: Federal funds "may not be used for abortion under the Affordable Care Act -- including the pre-existing condition insurance pools currently being implemented in Pennsylvania and states across the country." On July 14, Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) released a statement "rejecting claims that Pennsylvania's pre-existing condition insurance pools ... allow federal funding for abortion":
"This is the latest example of some right to life groups politicizing life issues in an effort to undermine health care reform. The President's Executive Order makes clear that federal funds may not be used for abortion under the Affordable Care Act -- including the pre-existing condition insurance pools currently being implemented in Pennsylvania and states across the country. In accordance with the Executive Order, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has directed states that federal funds provided under health care reform may not be used to fund abortion. HHS has reiterated this policy in response to the current accusations from the National Right to Life Committee. While these recycled scare tactics may make for good headlines, we should not lose sight of the fact that tens of thousands of individuals across the nation who have been denied coverage by health insurance companies due to pre-existing conditions will for the first time have access to affordable health insurance. We need to take a whole life approach to health care which looks out for those who are out of the womb as well as those in the womb."
Beck runs with debunked claim
Beck: "My tax dollars, your tax dollars," are "going to fund the murder of children." On the July 15 broadcast of his radio show, Beck said: "Oh, by the way, did you hear that we're providing -- we're providing abortions now. The government is paying for abortions, so -- don't we have an executive order saying that we won't do that? Isn't that really weird?" He added: "Congratulations, Joe [Stupak] [sic], think of the number of babies that will be killed with your name. Congratulations, Mr. Stupak, for now having my tax dollars, your tax dollars going to fund the murder of children."
Beck cited CNS article to claim that Obama lied when he said health care would not include funding for abortions. On the July 15 edition of his Fox News show, after reading from the CNSNews.com article, Beck suggested that Obama did not "play fair" when he said that the health care bill would not include federal funding for abortion. He added: "We want people to be well. We want to help the poor. We want to help the sick, the underprivileged. We're not doing that -- not everybody is covered. And now, our priority seems to be to make sure the abortion centers are set up and funded right away. Is the ink, Mr. President, even dry on your executive order? What is your word worth, sir?" Later on the broadcast, Beck said that the president "promised us" the health care bill "would not include funding abortions, but it does. Surprise."

















BECK the sickest Man on TV.
And putting aside that the report is (apparently) BS...
IT A LEGAL MEDICAL PROCEDURE!!! WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE!!! IN YOU THINK ABORTION IS WRONG, DON'T HAVE ONE!!!
The Hatch Ammendment should be repealed. Period. Talk about economically enslaving people: Am I seriously expected to believe that someone who can't afford an abortion can afford to raqise a child?!
Or for that matter that someone who can't be trusted to make decision about her only body be trusted to RAISE one?
The difference between Liberals and COnservatives is largely NOT one of moraltiy... it one of FREEDOM and LIBERTY. We both largely agree on what we think is moral and immorral, Liberals just don't labor under the delusion that our moral OPINION should be legally binding for EVERYBODY ELSE.
---------------------------------------------
IMHO
This sounds amazingly like the controversy surrounding the AZ immigration law. You have one side (right) saying a law "will not be broken" because there is a passage in the new law that strictly forbids it, but the other side (left) say that passage will immediately be ignored and the law will be broken. Isn't that the concern on 'racial profiling' of the AZ law?
Well, we have strict wording that will prevent federal funding of elective abortions, yet, for one side (the right) there is a fear that wording will be ignored and the law will be broken and the other side (left) says it isn't possible since it's written into the law.
And YOU call it ginning up "fake outrage". I would simply answer that with; isn't that what YOU are doing by protesting the AZ immigration law? Typical liberal hypocrite!
And then we have eddie saying if a woman can't afford an abortion she shouldn't be allowed to have a baby. And if she can't make her own decision she isn't capable to raise a child. The hypocrisy from the left is simply oozing out of every post made here.
You people call that off-topic? Wow, you are some real whiners.
Why don't you address the concern about the hypocrisy oozing from the left when they whine about a law being broken regarding the AZ law, yet state no law is being broken regarding the abortion funding possibilities? A perfectly good comparison being ignored by left-wingers because they realize the hypocrisy of it.
Anyone who can't see the difference between that and fake outrage over something wingers claim will happen despite the laws being expressly worded to forbid it is dumber than a Jello hammer.
Well you're "outrage" is miss-placed. It is against the law to do that. Do something Obama and his employees haven't done...read the law.
road-- Anyone who can't see the difference between that and fake outrage over something wingers claim will happen despite the laws being expressly worded to forbid it is dumber than a Jello hammer.
Let's use that same phrase in relation to the AZ law. Thanks for that description of those who are expressing FAKE outrage over claims that something will happen even though it is expressly forbidden by law. So, while your claims of some being dumber than a jello hammer for thinking a LAW against abortions will be broken while making claims a law against profiling will be broken makes you just as dumb. Also, quite a hypocrite. Which is quite typical of liberals.
Yes, it does. You are obviously just like Obama and the people he has in charge ... haven't read the law. Feel free to comment on the legality of the law AFTER you actually read it.
Here's part of it from ARTICLE 8. ENFORCEMENT OF IMMIGRATION LAWS:
J. THIS SECTION SHALL BE IMPLEMENTED IN A MANNER CONSISTENT WITH FEDERAL LAWS REGULATING IMMIGRATION, PROTECTING THE CIVIL RIGHTS OF ALL PERSONS AND RESPECTING THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF UNITED STATES CITIZENS.
And this part from Sec. 11. Severability, implementation and construction
C. This act shall be implemented in a manner consistent with federal laws regulating immigration, protecting the civil rights of all persons and respecting the privileges and immunities of United States citizens.
Remember the GOP credo, when impregnanted by rape or incest, "make lemonaid out of lemons".
Oh, and - it's all lies. What Glenda is spreading like the virus he is, is a complete misrepresentation of the truth and the facts.
VOTE IN EARLY PRIMARIES!!! Make your voice heard because every single vote counts, especially yours.
Peace, luv and the right to choose,
Annette
That certainly turns out to be true, doesn't it. The story is false and everyone KNOWS it is against the law to federally fund elective abortions. You know what? The story has disappeared from all news outlets and virtually every right-winger has dropped those claim of possible laws being broken. The left-wingers aren't quite that smart and continue to promote hatred within this nation over a laws that possibly will be broken.
Glad to see Glenn Beck was part of the story that shows the difference of intelligence between left-wingers (who fall for anything and promote hatred nation-wide) and right-wingers (who drop a story when they figure out is isn't legal to do what is claimed). How long have the left-wingers been claiming that racial profiling will occur? Months, right? And they still aren't smart enough to realize it can't happen because it is against the law to racially profile. How long did the story of feds paying for abortion stick around? 1, 2 days? You know why? Because right-wingers understand laws will not be broken during the normal function of the issue in question. Left-wingers aren't that smart. They still think laws will be broken in Arizona. They promote racial hatred/division, they promote lies and miss-information. All to achieve what?!?
BTW, it is against the law to bring "loaded guns" into public parks, bars and churches. But, you still hold onto that fear, don't you? Typical liberal fear-mongering sheeple.
Now - do a little research Troll before you drool on my post.
Oh and about your idiotic posting that racial profiling can't happen - BUZZZ - wrong again. It already is happening and there are policemen who are suing Arizona because they darn well know it. Incidentally - Tennessee already put law into place where this is being actively done in the prison system upon entry. Obviously I'm ashamed that my state is making these choices and am going to be moving.
The abortion issue - are you just drive by trolling? If you watched the videos that we are commenting on you could see and hear them saying exactly what we are posting on. IT IS THEIR OWN WORDS - not hearsay, their words.
Denying the facts and proclaiming lies does not make them facts or truths, as Glenda proves every single day. If you are going to debate me, bring it on, but do it with intelligent facts otherwise you just look like another right wingnut and you prove that you are part of the sad demographic that tunes into this hateful racist network.
I looked it up and it says NO loaded weapons. Perhaps you can clarify where you get your information on LAWS in your state. I went to this site which is part of this site to find this statement:
(a) It is an offense for any person to possess or carry, whether openly or concealed, with the intent to go armed, any weapon prohibited by § 39-17-1302(a), not used solely for instructional, display or sanctioned ceremonial purposes, in or on the grounds of any public park, playground, civic center or other building facility, area or property owned, used or operated by any municipal, county or state government, or instrumentality thereof, for recreational purposes.
highlite mine.
As for your whine about policemen suing because it happens. Perhaps they are the ones doing it and that's how they know it happens. But, that doesn't change the FACT that it is against the law. People murder, also, but it is against the law and wrong-doers will be prosecuted. Your hysteria only goes to prove what I say about the illogical fear you have over MAYBE the law will be broken which makes the law illegal. Typical liberal
EXCEPT FOR
(H) Persons possessing a handgun, who are authorized to carry the handgun pursuant to § 39-17-1351, while within or on a public park, natural area, historic park, nature trail, campground, forest, greenway, waterway or other similar public place that is owned or operated by the state, a county, a municipality or instrumentality thereof, except as otherwise provided in subsection
And what's 39-17-1351? The concealed carry permit, doofus!
Good to see you can't carry a conversation without name-calling. Typical liberal.
Why don't you address the hypocrisy of the left concerning your whining about laws being broken instead of taking this off-topic talking about gun laws in various backward states?
I LIVE HERE. Do you think I don't know the recent law that has caused such an uproar in my state?
A troll complaining about a member of this site taking a conversation off-topic - PRICELESS. Incidentally - I never mentioned immigration in my original post so your complaining about me taking the post off topic is .... humm.....what did you say about hypocrisy?
(p.s. thanks DelDolly!)
May Beck rot in HELL for his actions!!
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/jul/10071511.html
That is what Kaiser medical group is saying. You didn't realize your joke was going to become fact, huh?
The number of abortions every years is going down and, at the state level, abortion is under more and more restriction.
Even if somewhere, some federal money went indirectly to an abortion, so what? Its legal. How much of our federal dollars have been spent lately killing children, even by accident, anyway?
Global warming and poverty will effect the unborn more than abortion will.