Saturday, November 07, 2009
The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has been a MAJOR player in this debate over abortion language in the House healthcare reform bill. The bottom line is that if they signed off on new acceptable language then that would be the key for many pro-life Democrats. The Brody File has received the two letters put out by the Bishops. The first one is in support of this new pro-life amendment that will be voted on today. (Saturday) The other one is more broader about their support for healthcare reform if the new pro-life amendment is adopted.
November 7, 2009
United States House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Representative:
On behalf of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), we strongly urge you to vote for the Stupak-Ellsworth-Pitts-Kaptur-Dahlkemper-Lipinski-Smith Amendment and to support a fair process in the House of Representatives to consider this essential improvement in health care reform legislation. The Stupak-Ellsworth-Pitts-Kaptur-Dahlkemper-Lipinski-Smith Amendment will keep in place current federal law on abortion funding and conscience protections in the Affordable Health Care for America Act (H.R. 3962).
Despite some claims to the contrary, H.R. 3962 does not reflect the status quo on abortion. It fails to explicitly and clearly include the longstanding policy prohibiting federal funding of elective abortion and plans which include elective abortion (Hyde Amendment). Medicaid, Medicare, Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and other federal health legislation include this provision. Currently H.R. 3962 has some helpful provisions on conscience protection and non- preemption of state laws, but it utterly fails to maintain current prohibitions on abortion mandates and abortion funding. Instead it creates elaborate measures requiring people to pay for other people’s abortions with their taxes, private premiums or federal subsidies. Significantly, the Federal Employee Heath Benefit Program, which covers all members of Congress and their families, has long been governed by the Hyde amendment in all its aspects and is widely seen as a model for reform.
Additionally, H.R. 3962 allows the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services to mandate that the “public option” will include unlimited abortions. Millions of purchasers will be forced to pay an “abortion surcharge,” which requires purchasers of many plans to pay directly and explicitly for abortion coverage. This is unprecedented in federal law.
The Stupak-Ellsworth-Pitts-Kaptur-Dahlkemper-Lipinski-Smith Amendment will not affect coverage of abortion in non-subsidized health plans, and will not bar anyone from purchasing a supplemental abortion policy with their own funds. Thus far, H.R. 3962 does not meet President Obama’s commitment of barring use of federal dollars for abortion and maintaining current conscience laws.
If the Motion to Recommit focuses on denying immigrants needed health care, as reported, we strongly urge Members to oppose the Motion to Recommit.
Our Bishops’ conference has been working for many years to support health care reform legislation that truly protects the life, dignity, health and consciences of all. Adopting this amendment will help move us move toward this essential national priority and moral imperative.
Sincerely,
Bishop William Murphy Cardinal Justin Rigali
Diocese of Rockville Centre Archdiocese of Philadelphia
Chairman Chairman
Committee on Domestic Justice and Committee on Pro-life Activities
Human Development
NEXT LETTER
November 7, 2009
United States House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Representative:
The Catholic Bishops of the United States have supported adequate and affordable health
care for decades. Our Bishops’ conference has been working with Members of Congress, the Administration and others to help fashion health care reform legislation that truly protects the life, dignity, health and consciences of all.
We are very pleased that the House leadership has agreed to allow the essential Stupak-Ellsworth-Pitts-Kaptur-Dahlkemper-Lipinski-Smith Amendment to be considered by the House. This amendment will add to the Affordable Health Care for America Act (H.R. 3962) crucial provisions that maintain the current protections against abortion funding and mandates. Specifically, it will achieve our objective of applying the provisions of the Hyde amendment to the public health plan and on the affordability credits in the exchanges called for in the legislation.
Passing this amendment allows the House to meet our criteria of preserving the existing protections against abortion funding in the new legislation. It also would fulfill President Obama’s commitment in this area. Most importantly, it will ensure that no government funds will be used for abortion or health plans which include abortion. It is a major step forward. We express appreciation for the courageous and principled leadership of the Democratic pro-life caucus, especially Representatives Stupak, Ellsworth, Kaptur, Oberstar, Donnelly, Doyle, Dahlkemper, and others who played essential roles in persuading the House leadership to allow this essential amendment to come to the floor. We also welcome the wise decision of the House leadership to take this important procedural step which we believe will help pass much needed health care reform.
The Conference will remain vigilant and involved through this entire process to assure that these essential provisions are maintained and included in the final legislation. With this important step forward we hope the House can come together and finally move forward essential reform which truly will protect the life, dignity, conscience and health of all. We also hope the Senate will follow the example of the House and include these essential safeguards in their version of health care reform legislation.
We are deeply concerned about other aspects of health care reform, especially as it affects the poor and vulnerable in our midst. We will continue to insist that health care reform legislation protects conscience rights. We strongly support provisions in the legislation that will make health care more affordable for low-income people and the uninsured. We remain deeply concerned that immigrants be treated fairly and not lose the health care coverage that have now. If the Motion to Recommit focuses on denying immigrants needed health care, as reported, we strongly urge Members to oppose the Motion to Recommit.
The nation and the Congress are now engaged in an intense and much needed national discussion on how to provide affordable and accessible health care for all. We are not experts on health care policy and cannot assess every provision of legislation as complex as this proposal. However, health care legislation is not just political, technical, or economic, but also moral. Health care reform is about life and death, who can take their children to the doctor and who cannot, who can afford decent health care coverage and who are left to fend for themselves.
For the Catholic Church, health care is a basic human right and providing health care is an essential ministry. We pick up the pieces of this failing system in our emergency rooms, clinics, parishes and communities. This is why we strongly support Congressional action on health care reform which protects human life and dignity and serves the poor and vulnerable as a moral imperative and an urgent national priority.
Sincerely,
Bishop William Murphy Cardinal Justin Rigali
Diocese of Rockville Centre Archdiocese of Philadelphia
Chairman Chairman
Committee on Domestic Justice and Committee on Pro-life Activities
Human Development
In case you haven't heard, pro-life lawmakers won a big battle against liberals late last night when they struck a deal with the Democratic House Leadership (Pelosi and Hoyer) that will allow them to offer much stricter language on abortion coverage in the healthcare reform bill. Read more on that from my late night post here.
A couple updates.(after afew hours sleep) The amendment is technically called the Stupak-Ellsworth-Pitts-Smith-Kaptur-Dahlkemper amendment. Reps. Bart Stupak (D-MI), Joe Pitts (R-PA), Marcy Kaptur (D-OH), Kathy Dahlkemper (D-PA), Dan Lipinski (D-IL), and Chris Smith (R-NJ) all testified before the House Rules Committee early Saturday morning in support of their amendment to address the abortion funding concerns in H.R. 3962.
A Pro-Life aide is circulating the following as to what the amendment will do:
"The amendment maintains the current policy of preventing federal funding for abortion and for benefits packages that include abortion. However, it clarifies that individuals, both who receive affordability credits and who do not, can with their own funds purchase separate supplemental coverage for elective abortions. It also clarifies that private plans that do not receive government subsidies may still offer elective abortions. "
Expect a vote at any point today (Saturday) The amendment is expected to narrowly pass since more than 40 House Pro-Life Democrats will combine with virtually all Republicans to reach that magical 218 number for the amendment to pass. If it passes, it's going to drive liberals absolutely crazy. They will have a decision to make at that point. Either vote NO on the overall healthcare reform bill because the bill will now NOT allo federal funds to pay for abortions OR swallow hard and vote YES on healthcare reform anyhow.
A top Republican source on the Hill tells The Brody File the following:
"The Stupak amendment is expected to garner significant Republican support because it is strictest possible abortion language. The vote on Mr. Stupak’s amendment looks like it will be very close, and if it passes then the liberal Democrats will just have to swallow it if they want to pass the overall bill."
Breaking news tonight:
It's about 1:45am Saturday morning as I write this but it is now official. The Rules Committee is going to allow Pro-Life members of Congress to offer an amendment to the healthcare reform bill on the House floor that would clearly and plainly state that there can be no funding for abortion and no government subsidies for plans that cover abortion.
This "Hyde Amendment" type of language will indeed be brought to the House floor for a vote. The vote would require a simple majority (218 votes) not two-thirds as is sometimes the case.
This amendment will have quite a few names on it but it is basically the Stupak-Pitts language that was voted down in committee a few months ago. (though it's not an exact carbon copy) This amendment offered in the Rules Committee tonight is the Stupak-Ellsworth-Pitts Amendment. Through long negotiations tonight with Democratic House leadership, Pro-Life Democrats Bart Stupak and Brad Ellsworth along with Pro-Life Republican Joe Pitts were able to make some progress and they will now get the vote they have always wanted... and quite frankly the entire pro-life community has wanted from the start. If this vote becomes reality, it would be a big victory for the pro-life community. This language has a very good chance of passing if the Pro-Life Democrats join with all Republicans to pass it. Don't expect pro-life Republicans to vote for the final healthcare reform bill but the pro-life Democrats will probably do so which means healthcare reform should pass the house but probably WITHOUT the abortion language liberals wanted.
Among the people inside the Speaker's office tonight were Bart Stupak, Brad Ellsworth, Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer and members of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.
The Brody File has the amendment that is being debated in the Rules Committee tonight: Read it below:
AMENDMENT TO H.R. llllllll, AS
REPORTED
OFFERED BY MR. STUPAK OF MICHIGAN
(Amendment is to H.R. 3962, As Proposed to be Amended by
Mr. Dingell’s Amendment)
Page 97, strike line 13 and all that follows through
page 98, line 7.
Page 110, strike lines 1 through 7.
Page 114, line 21, strike ‘‘consistent with subsection
(e) of such section’’.
Page 118, line 21, strike ‘‘(including subsection
(e))’’.
Page 154, after line 18, insert the following new section (and conform the table of contents of division A accordingly):
1 SEC. 265. LIMITATION ON ABORTION FUNDING.
2
(a) IN GENERAL.—No funds authorized or appro3 priated by this Act (or an amendment made by this Act)
4 may be used to pay for any abortion or to cover any part
5 of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of
6 abortion, except in the case where a woman suffers from
7 a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that
2
would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including
a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising
from the pregnancy itself, or unless the pregnancy is the
result of an act of rape or incest.
(b) OPTION TO PURCHASE SEPARATE SUPPLEMENTAL COVERAGE OR PLAN.—Nothing in this section
shall be construed as prohibiting any nonfederal entity (including an individual or a State or local government) from
purchasing separate supplemental coverage for abortions
for which funding is prohibited under this section, or a
plan that includes such abortions, so long as—
(1) such coverage or plan is paid for entirely
using only funds not authorized or appropriated by
this Act; and
(2) such coverage or plan is not purchased
using nonfederal funds required to receive a federal
payment, including a State’s or locality’s contribution of Medicaid matching funds.
(c) OPTION TO OFFER SEPARATE SUPPLEMENTAL
COVERAGE OR PLAN.—Notwithstanding section 303(b),
nothing in this section shall restrict any nonfederal QHBP
offering entity from offering separate supplemental coverage for abortions for which funding is prohibited under
1 this section, or a plan that includes such abortions, so long
2 as—
3
(1) premiums for such separate supplemental
4 coverage or plan are paid for entirely with funds not Click here to see the language of the Stupak/Pitts Amendment from earlier this summer in committee.
5 authorized or appropriated by this Act;
6 (2) administrative costs and all services offered
7 through such supplemental coverage or plan are paid
8 for using only premiums collected for such coverage
9 or plan; and
10 (3) any nonfederal QHBP offering entity that
11 offers an Exchange-participating health benefits
12 plan that includes coverage for abortions for which
13 funding is prohibited under this section also offers
14 an Exchange-participating health benefits plan that
15 is identical in every respect except that it does not
16 cover abortions for which funding is prohibited
17 under this section.
Page 171, strike line 5 and all that follows through
page 172, line 8.
Page 182, line 22, strike ‘‘willingness or’’.
Page 246, strike lines 11 through 14.
Friday, November 06, 2009
There will be no Single Payer alternative amendment proposed on the House floor. Speaker Pelosi just released the following statement:
“Within the next few days, the House will vote on the most comprehensive health care legislation in our history. Our bill will provide affordability to the middle class, security to our seniors, and responsibility to our children by not adding a dime to the deficit. While our bill contains unprecedented reforms, including an end to discrimination for pre-existing conditions and a prohibition on raising rates or dropping coverage if you become ill, our bill cannot include provisions some strongly advocated. The single payer alternative is one of those provisions that could not be included in H.R. 3962, but which has generated support within the Congress and throughout the country.
“Congressman Anthony Weiner has been a forceful and articulate advocate for the single payer approach and our legislation. His decision not to offer a single payer amendment during consideration of H.R. 3962 is a correct one, and helps advance the passage of important health reforms by this Congress. While single payer, like other popular proposals, is not included in the consensus bill we will vote on this week, Congressman Weiner has been a tireless and effective advocate for progress on health care, and his work has been a vital part of achieving health care reform.”
While on the surface this may seem like a good thing for conservatives, please understand that all this really means is that the Single Payer Alternative is really the next step. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out. It's all about being "incremental" right? This is exactly what conservatives have been saying all along...that this healthcare reform bill now will simply march America down the road to a single payer system like England and canada.
You think the signs below will make an appearance during a potential Single Payer argument in the future?
If you're having a hard time following the abortion language in the House bill, join the crowd. It can be a tad bit confusing. Pro-Life groups have decided to come up with a flow chart that tries to better explain it. See it below. It references the cointroversial "Capps Amendment" (named after Democratic Congresswoman Lois Capps) which is one of the main problems with the bill.
While we wait to see what Indiana Congressman Brad Ellsworth's revised healthcare reform abortion amendment looks like, we can tell you that the pro-life Democrat continues to come under criticism for trying to forge some "middle ground" in this area. Ellsworth is going to submit his new abortion language to the House Rules Committee later this afternoon. If the 40 or so pro-life Democrats like it then Nancy Pelosi will be able to get her healthcare reform bill passed in the House. If the langauge is not to their liking,then Pelosi, the President and liberals have a big problem on their hands and will be handing out these potholders below on the House floor:
An Article from the Courier Press in Evansville Indiana has the details.
Here is the headline from the paper:
Eighth District U.S. Rep. Brad Ellsworth, D-Ind., might have expected that his amendment to the health care reform bill, which he says will ensure no federal funds are used to provide elective abortions, would be opposed by Planned Parenthood.
The abortion rights group weighed in with a statement of opposition on Tuesday.
But the Ellsworth amendment, which House leaders have said they may incorporate into the bill, also has sparked a furious backlash among national, state and local anti-abortion groups who typically support Ellsworth.
Pitted against the Ellsworth amendment are the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the National Right to Life Committee, Indiana Right to Life and Vanderburgh County Right to Life.
"It was a bayonet in the back from someone who said he was on our side," said Doug Johnson, Washington, D.C.-based legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee.
"The pro-abortion side is using Ellsworth's phony language to undercut the real pro-life amendment, which is Congressman Bart Stupak's amendment. Mr. Ellsworth is allowing himself to be used to, perhaps, score brownie points with House Democratic leaders."
Ellsworth spokeswoman Liz Farrar provided a written statement from Ellsworth:
"As I have said repeatedly, I will not support a bill that I believe would result in federal tax dollars being used to pay for abortions, and, with the help of pro-life constituents, I am leading the effort to protect federal tax dollars and provide pro-life insurance options to Americans," it said.
Farrar said Ellsworth's amendment could change.
The crux of the Right to Life case against the Ellsworth amendment is that it does not strike what Johnson calls "trump-all" language in the health care reform bill that states, "Nothing in this Act shall be construed as preventing the public health insurance option from providing for or prohibiting coverage of services described in paragraph (4)(A)."
The services described in paragraph (4)(A) are "abortions for which the expenditure of federal funds appropriated for the Department of Health and Human Services is not permitted."
That means elective abortions, which are not funded under Medicaid because that program is funded through the annual Health and Human Services appropriations bill.
But Farrar pointed to a Congressional Research Service report that says Ellsworth's plan "would seem to broaden (bill language) to ensure that no federal funds are used to pay for elective abortions by health benefits plans participating in the Exchange."
"You don't have to remove (the 'nothing shall be construed' language) as long as our language ensures federal funds cannot be used to provide abortion," she said.
The Congressional Research Service report did not address that question.
The Ellsworth amendment creates a procedure by which Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius must hire private contractors to segregate premiums paid for elective abortions under the public health insurance option from other amounts paid to the government.
With the premiums, the contractor would pay the abortion provider that was billing the public plan.
"It's not government funds that are coming into that contractor," Farrar said.
"It's a private individual that's sending it to this private company that is then reimbursing private doctors, private hospitals, for procedures. So it never comes into the treasury. It's not public funds."
Johnson called that "a money-laundering scam."
"Do you suppose that if the CIA collected money from citizens and used it to hire private mercenaries to engage in covert missions, Speaker (Nancy) Pelosi would agree that this was 'private' activity rather than federal government activity?" he said.
"We don't care what they call the funds or who they hire to collect the funds or write the checks. If the federal government plan pays for abortions, that is federal funding of abortion."
Stupak, a Michigan Democrat and co-chairman of the Congressional Right to Life Caucus to which Ellsworth belongs, seeks to forbid a public insurance option from covering elective abortions and subsidies for private plans that cover elective abortions.
The Stupak amendment would strike the bill's "Nothing in this Act shall be construed" language.
But House leaders will not allow a floor vote on Stupak's amendment, so he has threatened to line up at least 40 anti-abortion Democrats to vote against the rule governing debate on the bill.
With Republican votes, that would be enough to defeat the rule — meaning the health care reform bill could not go to the floor for a vote and Democratic leaders presumably would have to negotiate with Stupak.
Instead of rallying anti-abortion Democrats behind Stupak's plan, Ellsworth began circulating versions of his own amendment last week. Farrar said Ellsworth isn't trying to undercut Stupak but intends to offer an alternative that might attract more support.
House Rules Committee Chairwoman Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y., said Wednesday that Ellsworth's language would be incorporated into the House health care reform bill in the rule, but on Thursday other House leaders stopped short of making a commitment.
Kasey Hunt, a reporter for Congress Daily AM, a subscription-only publication of National Journal magazine, said House leaders view Ellsworth's amendment as a compromise that could peel away enough Democratic support from Stupak's amendment to negate Stupak's threat.
"They're trying to get all the centrists and pro-life Democrats who want to vote for the health care reform bill to sign onto something that is (a compromise)," Hunt said.
Stupak was unavailable to comment, but his spokeswoman, Michelle Begnoche, said he has reviewed the Ellsworth amendment.
"(Stupak) is continuing to hold firm on his amendment," Begnoche said.
A new ad against government funding of abortion in healthcare is goign to start running on CNN today and tomorrow as the House gets set to debate and vote on the healthcare reform bill this weekend. The ad below is put out by the "Stop the Abortion Mandate Coalition" and will run on CNN Headline News throughout Friday, November 6th and Saturday, November 7th.
The Brody File normally talks faith and politics but let me just share a compelling story with you. Watch below as my CBN News collegue Wendy Griffith brings you the story of Abby Johnson. She left her position at Planned Parenthood after watching an abortion ultrasound. Her comments are just fascinating to watch.
Thursday, November 05, 2009
At this late hour in the debate over healthcare reform, the battle over abortion and healthcare has a new face: His name is Congressman Brad Ellsworth. And Friday he will be the man in the spotlight. Folks, the healthcare abortion debate in the House is now in its final stages and this man below is set to play a critical role.
He's a pro-life Democrat from Indiana with a 100% rating this year with National Right to Life (his overall rating through the years is 90%) but the pro-life lobbying group is simply appalled at what he is trying to do change the complex abortion language issue. Ellsworth says he's trying to make the bill more pro-life but pro-life organizations say it's a phony amendment.
As you may know, pro-life Democrats and Democratic leadership in the House are trying to come up with language on abortion that will satisfy these 40 or so pro-life Democrats who believe that as it stands now, the healthcare reform bill would allow federal funds to go to pay for abortions. If an agreement isn't reached then these Democrats are threatening to stand with Republicans and take down this healthcare bill. Here's where Ellsworth comes in.
The Congressman from Indiana and his staff have put forward an amendment to the House bill. We'll find out Friday afternoon if it will be adopted. We understand he's still working on the amendment and tinkering with it. The goal here is to get enough pro-life Democrats to back this new abortion language so they'll back the underlying healthcare reform bill. Friday is going to be a very interesting day. Pro-Life groups can only hope and pray that Ellsworth's amendment doesn't attract enough pro-life Democrats because if not this healthcare reform bill is going to pass.
Read what Ellsworth's staff writes about the underlying principles of his amendment on his website:
Ellsworth's proposal would make 5 key pro-life changes to the bill;
effectively preventing federal tax dollars from being used to fund abortions and ensuring Americans have access to pro-life insurance options in the proposed Health Insurance Exchange:
Explicitly prevents all federal tax dollars from being used to provide abortions in the public option;
Prohibits any funds from the US Treasury from paying for abortion services in any of the plans purchased through the proposed Health Insurance Exchange-private or public;
Establishes clear, strict rules for separating public funds from the premiums of private individuals (ensuring that no public funds are ever used to pay for an abortion in any health plan offered on the Health Insurance Exchange);
Guarantees every American participating in the Health Insurance Exchange will always have access to a pro-life insurance option;
Expands conscience protections to prevent the government from discriminating against pro-life health insurance plans.
If you're a pro-lifer that sounds great right? Well, pro-life groups and other pro-life congressmen have gone through the amendment and hate it. Read below from the Baptist Press:
Ellsworth, who has had a nearly perfect pro-life voting record since entering the House in 2007, said he is seeking "to ensure pro-life concerns are addressed" in the bill. House pro-life leaders, as well as anti-abortion organizations, criticized Ellsworth's amendment as a sham, saying it fails to address any pro-life concerns. His solution to the problem with the "public option," they said, is to have the federal government hire private contractors to disburse funds for abortions.
Ellsworth's proposal is a "phony amendment designed to subsidize and expand the abortion industry cloaked in deceptive language," Rep. Chris Smith, R.-N.J., said in a written statement. "Under the new arrangement, instead of [a Health and Human Services] employee issuing blood money checks for elective abortions, HHS will pay a contractor to issue checks for abortion on demand.
"It is a distinction without a difference," he said.
"This language amounts to the federal government taking out a 'contract' on the unborn," Smith said. "For the first time ever an elaborate government program will be created to pay contractors to pay abortionists for the dismemberment, chemical poisoning and in utero starvation of innocent unborn children."
Douglas Johnson, legislative director of the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), said in a written release, "The Ellsworth language is a political fig leaf made out of cellophane.... This is a money-laundering scheme -- a federally funded 'bag man' will deliver government funds to abortionists."
More dissection of the amendment and its language here and here
The moderate (some would say progressive) group "Third Way" has sent The Brody File their reaction to the Ellsworth amendment: Link here. Transcription below.
Rep. Ellsworth’s amendment builds off of an earlier good faith attempt offered by prochoice Rep. Lois Capps that was included in the Energy and Commerce Committee’s draft bill. Below we explain how the Ellsworth Amendment moves the bill in a pro-life direction but still maintains abortion neutrality. Rep. Ellsworth has a 100% score with National Right to Life and Rep. Capps has a 100% NARAL rating. We commend each of them for trying to strike this delicate balance.
1. The Ellsworth Amendment ensures that no federal funds can ever be used to fund abortion in the Exchange.
The Capps Amendment stated that no federal subsidies to individuals in the form of “Affordability Credits” can be used to pay for abortion coverage. The Ellsworth Amendment expands this ban to apply to any and all “other federal funds” that do now or may in the future fund the Exchange. This means that any additional federal dollars, even those beyond “Affordability Credits,” that may be designated to fund the Exchange (i.e. as part of a future stimulus package) will now not be able to fund abortions.
2. The Ellsworth Amendment codifies [or “puts into permanent law”] strict Hyde limitations on the pro-life plan.
Under the Capps Amendment, at least one plan in the Exchange must be available that covers abortion services only in Hyde Amendment exceptions (in cases of rape, incest or life endangerment). And this plan can, in fact, choose not to even cover Hyde abortions. From the pro-life perspective, the shortcoming of the Capps Amendment is that although the Hyde Amendment has been in law for more than 30 years, it is not permanent law—it is renewed each year as part of a Labor, Health and Human Services funding bill. The Ellsworth Amendment ensures that even if the Hyde Amendment lapses or changes, at least one plan in the Exchange will still meet the Hyde Amendment standards by providing abortion only in cases of rape, incest or life endangerment, while still making it clear that this plan need not cover abortions at all. In sum, this provision enshrines the Hyde Amendment protections in federal law for the one required pro-life plan in the Exchange, guaranteeing that pro-life Americans always will be assured of this option.
3. The Ellsworth Amendment gives greater protection to insurance plans that do not cover abortion.
Under the Capps Amendment, abortion coverage is specifically banned from the minimum essential benefits requirements for insurance plans both in and out of the Exchange. The Ellsworth Amendment tightens this provision by ensuring that plans that do not cover abortion are not penalized in any way by the Commissioner, who administers the day-to-day workings of the Exchange. It requires that the Commissioner “not discriminate” against a plan based on whether or not they cover abortion. This broadens protections that pro-life plans have in the Exchange. For example, it would ban discrimination against pro-life plans wanting to get into the Exchange after the first required pro-life plan has filled that “slot.”
4. The Ellsworth Amendment ensures that the federal government has no role in collecting or paying abortion claims if there is a public plan.
The Capps Amendment assumed that, if a public plan were enacted, the federal government could itself be the administrator of the plan and in that case, the federal government would collect the private premiums, segregate funds that can be used to pay for abortion and also pay for the abortion claims out of the segregated funds. The Ellsworth Amendment would remove the federal government from this direct interaction with abortion by requiring the Secretary of Health and Human Services to use a private contractor to collect, segregate, and pay all abortion claims. This idea is
modeled on Medicare, which relies on private contractors to carry out much of its administrative work.
5. The Ellsworth Amendment strengthens the guarantee of segregation of funds.
Under the Capps Amendment, the plan would have to “provide assurances satisfactory to the Commissioner” that funds were being segregated for the purpose of ensuring that federal tax dollars were not being used to pay for abortions. The Ellsworth Amendment raises the bar by requiring that segregation of funds comply with three separate standards: Generally Accepted Accounting Principles; Office of Management and Budget circulars on fund management; and guidance on accounting from the Government Accountability Office.
Speaker Pelosi's office is pushing back tonight against House Minority Leader John Boehner's claim that the House bill includes a "monthly abortion premium. They say it's just simply not true.
The Brody File contacted Speaker Pelosi's office and spokesman Brendan Daly sent me the following by email:
“The House bill will continue longstanding federal policy, which currently bars federal funding for paying for abortions except in the case of rape, incest, or to save the life of the woman.”
To get up to speed on what Minority Leader Boehner is claiming click here.
Douglas Johnson, Legislative Director with National Right to Life sent me the following email:
"The Boehner post is perfectly accurate. We call it the 'abortion surcharge.' It is just one more thing illustrating what we've been saying: The bill explicitly authorizes the big new federal government health insurance plan, the public option, to pay for all elective abortions.
Under the abortion surcharge provision, any citizen who wants to enroll in the new government program would be REQUIRED to pay a surcharge explicitly devoted to paying for elective abortions. The language sets a minimum of $1 per month per enrollee, but there is no maximum.
But this is a side issue, because even if the Democratic leadership struck out the 'abortion surcharge,' the same fundamental problem would remain: The 'public option' is a federal agency program, and when it pays for elective abortions, that is federal funding of abortion on demand -- no matter what convoluted cloaking devices the pro-abortion politicians invent to try to conceal what they are doing.
By the way, here is the actual language in the bill:
Section 213 (page 96, line 16) of HR 3962:
(b) Actuarial Value of Optional Service Coverage-
(1) IN GENERAL- The Commissioner shall estimate the basic per enrollee, per month cost, determined on an average actuarial basis, for including coverage under a basic plan of the services described in section 222(d)(4)(A).
(2) CONSIDERATIONS- In making such estimate the Commissioner--
(A) may take into account the impact on overall costs of the inclusion of such coverage, but may not take into account any cost reduction estimated to result from such services, including prenatal care, delivery, or postnatal care;
(B) shall estimate such costs as if such coverage were included for the entire population covered; and
(C) may not estimate such a cost at less than $1 per enrollee, per month.
(Note: "the services described in section 222(d)(4)(A)" refers to any abortions that are not eligible for funding under Medicaid -- in other words, all abortions, elective abortions.)
Oh, and one more thing. Check out this language in the bill:
"Nothing in this Act shall be construed as preventing the public health insurance option from providing for or prohibiting coverage of services described in paragraph (4)(A)." (abortion services)
Folks, I think you can see why Pro-Life groups say this whole thing is a big joke. They want that language taken out. Don't count on it.