Sebelius: President Rules Out Public Funding for Abortion

More lies from the administration. Sebelius has no credibility. There's no question public funding will be made available for abortion, just like it is today. But this does show how desperate Democrats are to pass this bill, even though they can do so without Republican support.

This guy will compromise anything! He voted for infant abandendment when he was a Senator. Anything for a vote huh prez?

Proponents of the healthcare bill put a great amount of trust in the government’s ability to pay for the plan by stopping “waste, fraud and abuse”. As Grandpa says “trust, but verify”, so let’s build that trust.

It does not take a reform plan to go after “waste, fraud and abuse”. Secretary Sebelius gave the Pfizer sting operation as a prime example. So let’s just back off this rush to impose some 1018 pages of legislation that is dividing our nation and let the government demonstrate that it can do something right.

I propose that we give the government six months to a year to demonstrate that it can save money by going after “waste, fraud and abuse”. At the end of the period there will be no speculation, we will have hard data as to whether Obama’s claims are “truth or fiction”. The taxpayers of America deserve no less?

I am sending this message to my senators and congressman, are you?

This is to Mary. What do you mean "there's no question public funding will be made available for abortion".

Have you read the bill? Or did you have a trance or a vision where you saw the future? Or maybe you have been watching too much Faux (propaganda) news which ultimately has damaged your brain and your ability to be objective? Which one is it?

Dear George:

I watched your discussion this morning about health care and government spending. The protests are being narrowly depected.

The bailouts are past history. The stimulus is only partially spent and has done nothing to create jobs...future funding should be eliminated. Cap and Trade is no solution to environmental issues....and fnally card check will hurt businesses. Unions have out-lived their usefulness.

The comments about medicare/medicaid and the protestors were condescending. I am very close in age to qualifying for government care. Many doctors don't accept medicare. That disturbs me. Cutting benefits will only further deteriorate the program.

Reform is necessary. I would like the ability to shop for insurance the way I do for my car insurance. I would like portability, as changing jobs creates lapses in coverage and COBRA is a very expensive bridge. And of critical importance is Torte Reform, which these politicians are ignoring.

Why is our government out of our control....why can't we vote on our destiny through referendum.

I just don't get it. I should not be this hard to pass legislature that both sides realized is absolutely necessary. Other countries have done so. Why not us? I want the Obama plan, with the public op. Dems did not always agree with Bush, but negotiated to the point that his legislature passed - though with retrospective regret. Repubs were in office, and this present situation is 100 percent their responsibility. So be it. Let's move forward and try something different. It certainly could not be any worse. Any plan is 100percent better than what we have, and 200 percent better than doing nothing.

Stephanopoulis jumps to support the administration - he cannot hide his bias for his friends, the Obama administration.
This is beyond unethical for news discussion and coverage.
When criticism of Obama's speech is presented Stephanopoulis, nervous agitated, jumps in with his defensive comments or cuts off the criticism with a change of topic.
Sam Donaldson is a bore - He has to agree with Step. in order to keep his joke job.

...so the president says, "NO GOVERNMENT FUNDED ABORTION!"
I guess we are just supposed to breathe a sigh of relief and say, "Oh, okay, thanks for clearing that up!" and just believe it and go on....?
...and..where did the very first comment from the National Right to Life person go?

The President could sign an oath in his own blood and the Righteous Right would never believe him. They are totally out to destroy any positive accomplishements he may strive to achieve. They are haters, plain and simple. For Joan Andre: I can tell you that both my elderly parents have been using Medicare for years, and overall, they receive better care than I do under private insurance. My mother has had heart surgery and a stroke and has survived ten years past those events. If anything, I would say she is too frequently tested for any possible complications known to man. It is true that some doctors don't work with Medicare, but there are very good medical groups which specialise in Medicare patients. I believe the president is correct in his concern for trimming fraud and waste out of the system, but I think you will find it is a caring and competent system overall.

LOng T: It is totally absurd to say that the president voted for "infant abandonment" when he was a senator. How many doctors and nurses could be silenced about that? It is a ridiculous and malicious assertion. President Obama has two babies of his own. There is a law on the books in Illinois that guarantees lifesaving medical assistance to ANY child, and that includes a child that survives an abortion procedure. What you attempt to do is paint the president as a barbarian. You only succeed in painting yourself as a fool.

Thank you for the re-post Mr. Johnson. I hope it stays this time...

Obama will say any thing,with out reading the amendments,The Hyde Amendment does contain language that will allow federal funds to be used for Abortions.

Regarding healthcare reform, Sebelius talks about "when" the bill is written, the language will be "specific" about illegals not receiving benefits. Is she kidding?
It's not written, who knows what it will say?
It's a mess -- and no change is better than anything that is being put forward - vaguely and often contradictorily - by Obama's gang.
Stephanopoulis is also blatantly disputing the CBO for saying the "plan" will create additional deficit.
Sad commentary for a "news show moderator."

phoenix lady: Yes, there is a law on the books in Illinois that protects ANY child - which Obama tried to vote down-twice. Sorry, more precisely, the first time he courageously voted "present", the next time "no". Fool? you decide

thank you town hallers and joe wilson for pushing health care in the right direction.

when a bill does not explicitly deny one thing or another it allows it. it's the nature of legislation. has anyone found language in the health care bill that states "no illegal immigrants are eligible" or "no funds shall be allocated for abortions"? no, it isn't there. obama is counting on his not too bright supporters to believe him, and they do.

only fox practices journalism. switch off the rest.

To Phoenix Lady:
Medicare is a an "almost" good plan -- some doctors don't use it because it they may not be reimbursed.

As for Obama "trimming the waste and fraud" from Medicare --That is a great idea! But you don't need to overhaul the entire healthcare that most of us are very happy with. Most people want lower premiums -- not more gov't interference and control. Obama wants us to praise him for cutting waste -- I will if he will do that for all his spending (including his stimulus money to ACORN) WITHOUT overhauling parts of HCare that don't need it.

I posted the very first comment in this thread, but it disappeared. I posted again, and after awhile it disappeared again. I have spoken to ABC This Week staff by phone, who professed bafflement and said it must be some technical issue, perhaps involving internet links in my post. I will try one more time, this time omitting most of the specific links to back-up documentation -- but you can find most of it on our website at w w w - dot - nrlc - dot - org

As the legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), my advice would be: Watch what they do -- it is more important than what they say. For months, the President, his staff, and his congressional allies have been saying all sorts of misleading things about the abortion-related implications of different legislative proposals. Their disinformation campaign is now unraveling, but it is by no means clear that they have really decided to come clean.

The biggest abortion-related concerns with H.R. 3200 pertain to (1) a proposed insurance program that would be run entirely by the federal government (the "public option"); and (2) a proposed new premium-subsidy program ("affordability credits") to help tens of millions of people buy health insurance. For many weeks, the White House -- including the President himself -- has made statements indicating either that the traditional Hyde Amendment would prevent the new programs from funding abortion, or that language adopted in a House committee (the Capps-Waxman Amendment), over the objections of pro-life members, would ensure that only "private" funds are used to pay for abortions. Each claim collapses under scrutiny. In fact, the bills approved by the House and Senate committees would put the federal government into the business of funding abortions directly, and also in the business of subsidizing the purchase of private health policies that cover elective abortions -- and all with federal funds, which are the only kind of funds that the federal government can spend.

Unfortunately, everything we have seen so far would suggest that President Obama's latest so-called "pledge" not to provide "federal funds" for abortion, articulated in the joint session speech on September 9, was just the latest in a series of highly misleading statements on the subject -- statements that employ a distorted and contrived terminology, or that rely on misdirection and evasion.

H.R. 3200, as amended by the Capps-Waxman Amendment, explicitly authorizes the Administration to cover elective abortions in the public fund. Congressional Democratic leaders (Reid, Pelosi, et al) claim that the abortions will be paid for by "private funds." The claim that a federal agency would be spending private funds on abortion, not federal funds, is absurd on its face -- a political hoax.

The funds in a citizen's bank account are "private," but once he or she writes a check to the IRS to pay income taxes, the funds become federal government funds, public funds, deposited in a U.S. Treasury account. The same would be true of the money collected by the Department of Health and Human Services to run the public fund. Once an enrollee made a "premium" payment to DHHS, the funds would no longer be "private" -- they would be federal government funds, as truly and completely as the funds that are collected by the IRS.

It is really pretty simple: Abortionists would send their bills to the DHHS, and they would receive payments drawn on the U.S. Treasury. This would be direct federal government funding of elective abortion, using federal funds (which are, in reality, the only kind of funds that the government can spend). It would be impossible to enroll in the public fund without paying a premium that was increased specifically to cover the cost of elective abortions.

A September 8 NRLC media advisory that summarizes these issues is posted on our website under the headline, "Obama dupes news media on government-funded abortion" (Sept. 8).

While running for president, Barack Obama promised Planned Parenthood that "reproductive services" (which includes abortion) would be "at the heart" of his health plan, and that his public plan would cover them. H.R. 3200 contains the fulfillment of that commitment, which Mr. Obama now seeks to smuggle into law behind a smokescreen of misleading rhetoric. See Politifact's new review of Rep. Boehner's recent statement regarding Obama's history on this issue.

Douglas Johnson
Legislative Director
National Right to Life Committee
Washington, D.C.

I posted the very first comment in this thread, but it disappeared. I posted again, and after awhile it disappeared again. I have spoken to ABC This Week staff by phone, who professed bafflement and said it must be some technical issue, perhaps involving internet links in my post. I will try again, this time omitting most of the specific links to back-up documentation -- but you can find most of it on our website at w w w - dot - nrlc - dot - org
I'll keep trying for awhile since they've told me the comment is welcome and that they don't know why it keeps disappearing.

As the legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), my advice would be: Watch what they do -- it is more important than what they say. For months, the President, his staff, and his congressional allies have been saying all sorts of misleading things about the abortion-related implications of different legislative proposals. Their disinformation campaign is now unraveling, but it is by no means clear that they have really decided to come clean.

The biggest abortion-related concerns with H.R. 3200 pertain to (1) a proposed insurance program that would be run entirely by the federal government (the "public option"); and (2) a proposed new premium-subsidy program ("affordability credits") to help tens of millions of people buy health insurance. For many weeks, the White House -- including the President himself -- has made statements indicating either that the traditional Hyde Amendment would prevent the new programs from funding abortion, or that language adopted in a House committee (the Capps-Waxman Amendment), over the objections of pro-life members, would ensure that only "private" funds are used to pay for abortions. Each claim collapses under scrutiny. In fact, the bills approved by the House and Senate committees would put the federal government into the business of funding abortions directly, and also in the business of subsidizing the purchase of private health policies that cover elective abortions -- and all with federal funds, which are the only kind of funds that the federal government can spend.

Unfortunately, everything we have seen so far would suggest that President Obama's latest so-called "pledge" not to provide "federal funds" for abortion, articulated in the joint session speech on September 9, was just the latest in a series of highly misleading statements on the subject -- statements that employ a distorted and contrived terminology, or that rely on misdirection and evasion.

H.R. 3200, as amended by the Capps-Waxman Amendment, explicitly authorizes the Administration to cover elective abortions in the public fund. Congressional Democratic leaders (Reid, Pelosi, et al) claim that the abortions will be paid for by "private funds." The claim that a federal agency would be spending private funds on abortion, not federal funds, is absurd on its face -- a political hoax.

The funds in a citizen's bank account are "private," but once he or she writes a check to the IRS to pay income taxes, the funds become federal government funds, public funds, deposited in a U.S. Treasury account. The same would be true of the money collected by the Department of Health and Human Services to run the public fund. Once an enrollee made a "premium" payment to DHHS, the funds would no longer be "private" -- they would be federal government funds, as truly and completely as the funds that are collected by the IRS.

It is really pretty simple: Abortionists would send their bills to the DHHS, and they would receive payments drawn on the U.S. Treasury. This would be direct federal government funding of elective abortion, using federal funds (which are, in reality, the only kind of funds that the government can spend). It would be impossible to enroll in the public fund without paying a premium that was increased specifically to cover the cost of elective abortions.

Douglas J
Legislative Director
National Right to Life Committee
Washington, D.C.

A September 8 NRLC media advisory that summarizes these issues is posted on our website under the headline, "Obama dupes news media on government-funded abortion" (Sept. 8).

While running for president, Barack Obama promised Planned Parenthood that "reproductive services" (which includes abortion) would be "at the heart" of his health plan, and that his public plan would cover them. H.R. 3200 contains the fulfillment of that commitment, which Mr. Obama now seeks to smuggle into law behind a smokescreen of misleading rhetoric. See Politifact's new review of Rep. Boehner's recent statement regarding Obama's history on this issue.

Thank you Donald Johnston, sometimes these O supporters will defend anything as evident from phoenix lady. Sometimes they can be clueless!

So basically the NLRC is saying to the President "You Lie!". It sure looks like the right wing lockstep wingnuts are rapidly spreading cases of the "Whine Flu".
======================================
If you can't help progress, at least get out of the way!

This is why we should have fully funded abortion rights in the bill. What is the point of taking a legal medical practice out of the bill? To placate the hysterical haters on the far right,like those who have posted here? The far right will literally never be satisfied until the corpses of poor women pile up on the street, blood running down their legs. That is the only proof they will accept that poor women (the only ones who need "public" money) are being denied the same legal rights as rich women have.

I'm disgusted that my president would throw away the lives of female citizens so that this no neck crew of anti-sex, anti-women and anti family lunatics can continue to strut and play a part in our national dialogue. Please ban these people from *ever* receiving medicare or medicaid. I don't want my tax dollars to pay for these horrible people--I consider right wing sexism to be a pre-existing condition that is untreatable.

aimai

westcoast....you have control of house senate and the president....no one is in your way except for the american people.

The EEOC just advised Belmont Abbey College, a Catholic institution, that its health plan discriminated against women because it did not offer prescription contraceptive drugs. So it won't really matter what language is put in any administration health care bill. One of these federal agencies will just require any conscience opposed institution to pay for abortions because it is discrimination not to do so.