Reporting on the Democrats final push to pass the Senate version of President Barack Obama’s health care plan, Noam N. Levey and Janet Hook write in the March 16th Los Angeles Times:

A group of socially conservative Democrats, led by Rep. Bart Stupak of Michigan, also continues to threaten to vote against any legislation that would allow women who receive federal insurance subsidies to buy polices that cover abortions, even if they write a separate check to cover the procedure. Stupak and others want to prevent women receiving subsidies from buying any policy that covers abortion.

The last sentence in the … Continue Reading

USA Today’s Mimi Hall published a Q&A: Abortion issue and health care bill on November 11th that does a very fair job of addressing the controversy. She could have done a little more though. The piece includes:

Q: What is the history behind the abortion-coverage ban?

A: In 1976, Congress passed a law banning the use of federal funds for abortions. The idea was that taxpayers who oppose abortion shouldn’t have to see their tax dollars used for the procedure. That ban only applies to funds distributed through the annual appropriations for the Health and Human Services Department. Money for new

… Continue Reading

In the November 10 San Francisco Chronicle, Carolyn Lochhead reports on Rep. Bart Stupak’s (D-MI) amendment preventing taxpayer funding for abortions:

The amendment by Bart Stupak, D-Mich., passed 240 to 194, with backing from 64 Democrats, including Dennis Cardoza and Jim Costa from the Central Valley, and most Republicans. It expands an existing ban, known as the Hyde Amendment, on public funding for abortion.
…
Days of tense negotiations in Pelosi’s office over an alternative by Rep. Lois Capps, D-Santa Barbara, and Brad Ellsworth, D-Ind., that would have codified existing law broke down in bitterness and recriminations.

Nowhere does Lochhead justify the claim that … Continue Reading

Perry Bacon Jr. reports in the November 3rd Washington Post:

The abortion dispute centers both on federal subsidies that would be provided for people who cannot afford health-care coverage themselves and the much-debated government insurance alternative, which is included in the House version of the bill but is still being debated in the Senate. Under a 1976 law, federal funds are generally barred from being used for abortions, except in cases of rape or incest or to ensure the life of the mother.

This is just plain false. Bacon is in no dount referring to the Hyde Amendment when he mentions the … Continue Reading

Would Obamacare cover abortions? The two main resources journalists use to check such claims disagree. PolitiFact’s Robert Farley wrote on August 7th:claims:

[W]e checked a claim by Rep. John Boehner that the plan would require Americans to “subsidize abortion with their hard-earned tax dollars.” While there are several versions of the health care plan floating around Congress, and it seems that full abortion coverage would be permitted in the government-sponsored program, we didn’t see anything in them that would put taxpayers on the hook for subsidizing abortions. In fact, we found an amendment in a key version of the House

… Continue Reading

The August 12th New York Time includes an anonymous “Frequently Asked Questions” item on health care which claims:

Abortion opponents say the legislation would use taxes to subsidize insurance that could cover the procedure. Under the House bill, health plans could choose to cover abortion, but they generally could not use federal money to pay for the procedure and instead would have to use money from the premiums paid by beneficiaries. Representative Diana DeGette, Democrat of Colorado, said the bill would keep current restrictions on the use of federal money for abortion.

Well if Representative Diana DeGette, Democrat of Colorado, says … Continue Reading