Saturday, November 07, 2009
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.
The House Minority Leader's Press Office is now pointing to language inside the House bill that they say shows how they'll be some sort of monthly abortion premium in the healthcare reform bill.
Read the just released information from John Boehner's office below:
Speaker Pelosi’s Government-Run Health Plan Will Require a Monthly Abortion Premium
Posted by GOP Leader Press Office on November 5th, 2009
Follow @GOPLeader on Twitter for updates.
Health care reform should not be used as an opportunity to use federal funds to pay for elective abortions. Health reform should be an opportunity to protect human life - not end it.
Unfortunately, Speaker Pelosi’s 2,032-page government takeover of health care does just that. On line 17, p. 110, section 222 under “Abortions for which Public Funding is Allowed” the Health and Human Services Secretary is given the authority to determine when abortion is allowed under the government-run plan. The Speaker’s plan also requires that at least one insurance plan offered in the Exchange covers abortions.
What is even more alarming is that a monthly abortion premium will be charged of all enrollees in the government-run plan. It’s right there on line 16, page 96, section 213, under “Insurance Rating Rules.” The premium will be paid into a U.S. Treasury account - and these federal funds will be used to pay for the abortion services.
Section 213 describes the process in which the Health Benefits Commissioner is to assess the monthly premiums that will be used to pay for elective abortions under the government-run plan. The Commissioner must charge at a minimum $1 per enrollee per month.
A majority of Americans believe that health care plans should not be mandated to provide elective abortion coverage, and a majority of Americans do not believe government health care plans should include abortion coverage. Currently, federal appropriations bills include language known as the Hyde Amendment that prohibits the use of federal funds to pay for elective abortions under the Medicare and Medicaid programs, while another provision, known as the Smith Amendment, prohibits federal funding of abortion under the federal employees’ health benefits plan.
Speaker Pelosi’s 2,032-page health care monstrosity is an affront to the American people and drastically moves away from current policy. The American people deserve more from their government than being forced to pay for abortion.
House Republicans are offering a common-sense, responsible solution that would reduce health care costs and expand access while protecting the dignity of all human life. The Republican plan, available at HealthCare.GOP.gov, would codify the Hyde Amendment and prohibit all authorized and appropriated federal funds from being used to pay for abortion. And under the Republican plan, any health plan that includes abortion coverage may not receive federal funds.
The Brody File is digging for more information.
Wednesday, November 04, 2009
Mike Huckabee says the Obama administration's Middle East policy is leading to an "abandoning" of Israel. watch his comments below and trancription afterwards.
Huckabee: I'm especially grieved at what's happening with the policy toward Israel. We are abandoning the only real ally and friend we have in the Middle East, and we're doing it in order to court really a thug, rogue, terrorist government like the Palestinians who are led by a person who helped clear the finances for the Munich bombing.
This is completely inexplicable to me. And I'm very concerned that that's going to create a further destabilization of a very delicate Middle East.