Pro-Life Page

By JENNIFER HABERKORN and BURGESS EVERETT | 9/15/14 11:00 PM EDT Updated: 9/16/14 1:44 PM EDT |Politico|
 

The Affordable Care Act requires that insurers collect separate payments from customers for abortion coverage so that taxpayer money in the form of subsidies do not cover abortions. Adoption of the complex payment scheme — which essentially requires customers to send two separate payments to their insurers — was pivotal to getting the health law through Congress. Anti-abortion Democrats brokered the arrangement shortly before the law passed, threatening to vote against it without the restrictive language.

The report’s release is likely to elicit new election-year attacks on congressional Democrats from anti-abortion groups and Republicans who warned that Obamacare would allow for taxpayer subsidized abortions.

Among a sample of 18 insurers, “all but three issuers indicated that the [abortion coverage] benefit is not subject to any restrictions, limitations, or exclusions,” the GAO wrote in its report.

The vast majority of people who bought coverage on the exchanges did so with subsidies. According to government figures, 87 percent of the 5.4 million people who bought a plan on HealthCare.gov in the last enrollment period did so with at least some subsidy .

There is no data provided on how many plans have paid for abortions so far.

The GAO report found that in Connecticut, Hawaii, New Jersey, Rhode Island and Vermont, all insurance plans offered on the exchanges cover abortions above and beyond the exceptions for rape, incest and the mother’s life. The health law required the Office of Personnel Management to ensure there was at least one insurance policy in each state that did not cover abortion except in the restricted circumstances.

The Obama administration, in a response to a draft copy of the report, defended its actions.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services said Tuesday that it regularly communicated the technical details of abortion coverage to health insurance companies. The agency said that it would provide additional clarifying information in the coming days.

“CMS will work with stakeholders, including states and issuers, so they fully understand and comply with the federal law prohibiting the use of federal funds for abortions,” spokesman Ben Wakana said.

A Health and Human Services Department official confirmed that the law requires issuers to collect separate payments, but said that the law doesn’t specify how that needs to be done.

Critics of the dual payment track have long questioned the structure of the arrangement, saying that it was essentially inoperable. If a plan wants to cover abortion, it has to estimate the cost of coverage — no less than $1 per enrollee, per month — and collect that money from customers in a separate way than via their tax subsidies. Then, the pots of money have to remain separate.

Nationally, 1,062 plans in 28 states only cover abortion in the cases of rape, incest or to preserve the mother’s life, and 1,036 plans cover abortion services in a wider variety of circumstances, the GAO said.

by Stacie Kuhns | LifeNews.com | 9/15/14 6:33 PM

A news story has been making the rounds about a ridiculous elementary school regulation against students’ use of lip balm. A fifth-grader named Grace Karaffa requested some Chapstick while on the playground and was denied.

Eleven year-old Grace started a petition to allow Stuarts Draft Elementary School students to use the product and gained 236 signatures before testifying to the school board.

She explained, “I was told I couldn’t use it. Then later that day, they started to bleed so I asked for Chapstick again and I was told that it was against the school policy for elementary kids to have Chapstick.”

The assistant superintendent of administration for Augusta County Public Schools informed reporters that Chapstick is considered an over-the-counter medication by the school board. In Augusta County Public Schools, Chapstick may only be administered by a school nurse and only if a physician has prescribed its use.

This may seem like a somewhat silly story about bureaucracy gone too far. However, it is outrageous and infuriating when you consider that a child may need a physician’s note to apply Chapstick — but, in 26 states and Washington, D.C., teenagers and pre-teens don’t even need parental permission to obtain an abortion.

An 11 year-old girl has to apply to her school district’s board to be able to use Chapstick on her chapped lips. Yet in some states, if an 11 year old girl wants a life-altering and potentially life-threatening surgical procedure, nobody has to know. In many other states, parents, guardians or even just a sibling or “mental health professional,” need only be informed of this child’s decision.

I’m not a parent, and I’m certainly not a lawmaker, doctor or an abortionist. But I’ve been an 11-year-old before, and I’ve known many in my life. I can say with perfect conviction and scientific backing: grave consequences result when 11 year-olds are allowed to make irreversible decisions which will affect the course of their lives forever. In fact, recent studies reveal their minds aren’t even yet fully formed to understand the long-term implications of their choices.

When the conscience of a nation has turned so absolutely upside-down that something helpful is forbidden, but something absolutely harmful is accepted without a second thought, the only solution is an appeal to the Creator of the human conscience — the One who wrote His law on the hearts of men.

by Steven Ertelt | San Francisco, CA | LifeNews.com | 9/10/14 11:25 AM

San Francisco, California is closer to becoming the most pro-abortion city in the nation. That’s because the city is about to go on record opposing a ban on sex-selection abortions.

Why would banning abortions done simply because the unborn baby is a girl be a problem? City officials opposing the ban make the claim that somehow it is racist.

From the San Francisco Examiner story:

San Francisco would become the first jurisdiction in the country to go on record opposing sex-selective abortion bans if a resolution stating they perpetuate racial stereotypes, being introduced by Supervisor David Chiu today, is adopted by the Board of Supervisors.

Sex-selective abortion bans prohibit terminating a pregnancy on the basis of sex, and doctors who perform such abortions can face fines, jail time or lawsuits. The bans “encourage racial profiling of women by some medical providers,” according to Chiu’s resolution, and can lead to women being denied services.

“Lawmakers across the country have successfully advocated for sex-selective abortion bans by perpetuating false and harmful racial stereotypes that such laws are necessary to stop an influx of Asian immigrants from spreading this practice, and that Asian American communities do not value the lives of women,” states the resolution, which Chiu will announce at City Hall today.

So the excuse for justifying the sexist practice of banning sex-selection? Because Asian cultures tend to be the ones where the sex-selection abortion practice is most prevalent, banning it targets Asian-Americans.

Wesley Smith, a pro-life attorney who lives in California, commented on the logical absurdity.

“One would think that liberals–so opposed to real (and imagined) discrimination–would oppose abortion based on sexism. Nope,” he says. “San Francisco–where else?–could go on record opposingprotecting female (mostly) fetuses from being aborted because they are the wrong gender.”

“I wonder if pro abortion types would oppose banning eugenic gay-selection abortion if a test could detect the sexual orientation of a gestating fetus,” he concludes.

by Steven Ertelt | Washington, DC | LifeNews.com | 9/4/14 7:03 PM

In the face of mounting court losses, the Obama administration Wednesday abandoned its appeals in several abortion-pill mandate lawsuits. The surrender means that existing court orders which protect family businesses in those cases from violating their religious beliefs will stand while the lawsuits proceed.

The Obama administration is attempting to make Hobby Lobby and thousands of pro-life businesses and organizations comply with the HHS mandate that compels religious companies to pay for birth control and abortion-causing drugs for their employees.

As Alliance Defense Fund informed LifeNews today, administration’s defeat this summer at the U.S. Supreme Court in two cases — including the Hobby Lobby decision — appears to have prompted the Department of Justice to drop the appeals in The Seneca Hardwood Lumber Company v. Burwell, Armstrong v. Burwell, Briscoe v. Burwell, and the Hobby Lobby case itself.

The U.S. Courts of Appeal for the 3rd and 10th Circuits granted the administration’s requests Thursday.

“All Americans should oppose unjust laws that force people – under threat of punishment by the IRS – to give up their freedom to live and work according to their beliefs,” said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Matt Bowman. “The administration was right to abandon its fight against the family businesses involved in these particular cases in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling in June. In a free and diverse society, we respect the freedom to live out our convictions. For these families, that means not being forced to participate in distributing abortion drugs and devices.”

The Department of Health and Human Services mandate forces employers, regardless of their religious or moral convictions, to provide insurance coverage for abortion-inducing drugs, sterilization, and contraception under threat of heavy financial penalties through the IRS. The preliminary injunctions that the federal district courts issued in all of the cases where the administration is dropping its appeals will remain in effect until the cases are litigated to conclusion.

On Tuesday, ADF attorneys representing the non-profit March for Life filed a motion for a permanent injunction in that organization’s lawsuit against the abortion-pill mandate. The motion argues that the administration’s recent rule changes concerning the mandate offer no relief for pro-life organizations that are not religious. If granted, the injunction would suspend enforcement of the mandate against the well-known pro-life organization, which has held an annual march in Washington, D.C., against abortion since the U.S. Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision in 1973.

“Clearly, pro-life organizations should be free to operate according to the foundational beliefs for which they exist,” said ADF Senior Counsel Kevin Theriot. “Abortion is the very tragedy March for Life and other pro-life groups oppose. We are asking the court to stop the government from forcing March for Life to act contrary to its core convictions while its lawsuit moves forward. If the government can continue to do that, there’s no limit to what other freedoms it can take away from anyone.”

Writing for the 5-4 majority, Justice Samuel Alito handed down the decision for the high court, saying, “The Supreme Court holds government can’t require closely held corporations with religious owners to provide contraception coverage.”

The court ruled that the contraception mandate violated the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act, a 1993 law and it held that the mandate “substantially burdens the exercise of religion” and that HHS didn’t use the “least restrictive means” to promote this government interest, tests required by RFRA.

“HHS’s contraception mandate substantially burdens the exercise of religion,” the decision reads, adding that the “decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and should not be understood to mean that all insurance mandates.” The opinion said the “plain terms of Religious Freedom Restoration Act” are “perfectly clear.”

Chief Justice John Roberts, Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Anthony Kennedy joined in the majority decision. Justices Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor dissented.

The Hobby Lobby decision only applies to companies, including Conestoga Wood Specialties, which had a companion case pending before the Supreme Court. Non-profit groups like Priests for Life and Little Sisters are still waiting for a ruling about their right to opt out of the mandate.

A December 2013 Rasmussen Reports poll shows Americans disagree with forcing companies like Hobby Lobby to obey the mandate.

“Half of voters now oppose a government requirement that employers provide health insurance with free contraceptives for their female employees,” Rasmussen reports.

The poll found: “The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 38% of Likely U.S. Voters still believe businesses should be required by law to provide health insurance that covers all government-approved contraceptives for women without co-payments or other charges to the patient.

Fifty-one percent (51%) disagree and say employers should not be required to provide health insurance with this type of coverage. Eleven percent (11%) are not sure.”

Another recent poll found 59 percent of Americans disagree with the mandate.