RT @LIAint: Just read @world_mag's "In the Shadow of War" about the people of the Nuba Mountains. Anyone else read it yet? 
Click to Print
Include Comments
Shame on Steve Driehaus
I recall approaching a playground as a kid to find my brother taunting a boy bigger than he. Frustrated, the angry boy asked my brother if he wanted to fight. My brother replied, “No, but my big brother will fight you.” Instantly, the boy assaulted me with a flurry of fists. Recently, the Susan B. Anthony List (SBA) picked a fight with Rep. Steve Driehaus, D-Ohio. The ladies at the SBA weren’t looking for any assistance in battling the congressman, but Driehaus went running to Big Brother, the Ohio Election Commission, for help. It’s quite a scrap and I hope the ladies win.
Marjorie Dannenfelser and her organization hired Lamar Companies to erect billboards in Driehaus’ Cincinnati district stating, “Shame on Steve Driehaus! Driehaus voted FOR taxpayer-funded abortion.” The SBA rightly exposes the truth of Driehaus’ healthcare vote—the legislation allows for federally funded abortions. (For a detailed explanation of the abortion aspect of Obamacare, read the report from the Office of General Counsel of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.)
Moreover, it appears that the first-term congressman has little regard for free speech. Citing a peculiar Ohio election law, Driehaus filed a criminal complaint against the SBA with the Ohio Election Commission, alleging that the SBA made a “false claim” on its billboards. Driehaus’ campaign contacted Lamar before the billboards went up, and fearing it would get dragged into court, Lamar refused to erect them until the issue was resolved. The Ohio Election Commission’s staff attorney recommended dismissing the case, but a “probable cause panel” ruled 2-1 that a full seven-member panel hearing be held on Oct. 28, just four days before the election. Dannenfelser may have to pay a fine and spend time in jail if the SBA loses.
Throwing a counterpunch, the SBA filed suit in federal district court seeking to overturn the Ohio election law and, somewhat ironically, the American Civil Liberties Union filed an amicus brief on the organization’s behalf, stating that the Ohio law “is vague and overbroad, and it cannot withstand constitutional scrutiny. . . . The people have an absolute right to criticize their public officials, the government should not be the arbiter of true or false speech and, in any event, the best answer for bad speech is more speech.”
Shame on Steve Driehaus. A pro-life Catholic, he voted for a healthcare law that does indeed allow for federal abortion funding. And shame on him again for trying to limit the SBA’s speech. I’m cheering for the ladies in this fight. He deserves to get beat up by the girls.
back to top43 Comments to “Shame on Steve Driehaus”
Why is that ironic? I know they’re a favorite boogeyman of conservatives, but this is what the ACLU does: lobby on behalf of constitutional rights. They have often sided with Christians and religious organizations against suppression of their rights.
Report comment to moderator
It is ironic that the ACLU would side with a conservative for more speech.
In reality, the ACLU will fight for or against speech. the important thing is that they be the final arbiter for any speech that is deemed political or religious.
How much more ironic is it that the ACLU would use a civil right to restrict government encroachment on political or religious speech to do the very opposite, namely use the strong arm of the law to sift through the thoughts and words of citizens and pronounce what is allowed or disallowed.
Today the thought police argues in favor of more speech. Tomorrow who knows?
Report comment to moderator
JJF said: Why is that ironic? I know they’re a favorite boogeyman of conservatives, but this is what the ACLU does: lobby on behalf of constitutional rights. They have often sided with Christians and religious organizations against suppression of their rights.
Exactly right. The ACLU once even sided with Jerry Falwell in a dispute, which didn’t stop Falwell from continuing to demonize them from the pulpit. Xion’s post #2 exemplifies the counterfactual righty view of the ACLU.
On the larger point, it’s a favorite tactic of the right to single out one small piece of a complex bill and accuse an opponent of having voted for or against it (as the case may be) as if that were the only thing in play.
It may well be that Driehaus hated the abortion part of the healthcare bill, but voted for the overall bill because he judged that on balance it did more good than bad. If so, then accusing him of supporting government-funded abortion is very close to a lie. He might OPPOSE government-funded abortion, but support the other 99 percent of the health care bill and figured it would be better to pass now and amend later than defeat now and try to get it back on the table later.
We saw this tactic before when Saxby Chambliss accused Max Cleland of opposing homeland security because Cleland voted against the bill over the issue of workers’ rights. To say Cleland wanted America to be undefended against terrorism, as Chambliss implied, is a dirty lie that all the righteous Christian Republicans approved of.
Why are conservative Christians so comfortable with distorting and lying about the views of their opponents?
Report comment to moderator
If TRUTHFUL, ACCURATE political speech is now NOT PROTECTED we are all
doomed.
Report comment to moderator
#3Conan,
First off, you could infer Cleland was way more concerned over whether the TSA would be unionized or not. Choosing to die for that hill so close to the actual 9/11 attacks? Muy estupido as Peter L. or EYG would I hope concur.
I likened Cleland at the time to a man reluctant to join a bucket brigade to douse a house fire cuz the bucket wasnt made by unionized employees.
Cleland was a doofus for holding up an effort to safeguard the USA when no one— certainly not our Fed govt, INS etc— had any idea what the jihadis would attempt next
Report comment to moderator
At the time I thought for sure that Govt funded abortions shoulda been a show-stopper for most proLife, principled Democrats.
But I thought wrong!
Report comment to moderator
Is not an incumbent candidate’s vote on any issue in the legislature a public record?
Report comment to moderator
Sawgunner: Cleland was a doofus for holding up an effort to safeguard the USA when no one— certainly not our Fed govt, INS etc— had any idea what the jihadis would attempt next
And that’s a perfectly valid argument.
What’s not valid is to suggest that his primary motivation was to thwart an effort to protect the country. He voted for military action in Afghanistan and he co-sponsored the bill that created DHS. But then he didn’t want to see federal employees lose their ability to unionize, and Chambliss shamelessly attacked his patriotism for it.
Really, I don’t know why supposed Christians are so hot to defend Chambliss on this. It was a really dishonest, cynical and shameful tactic.
Report comment to moderator
How are we hurt when Fed govt employees are not unionizable? Govt employees are as you know protected by all manner of civil service laws. That’s why no less than George Meaney came out against govt unions.
Report comment to moderator
Now you’re missing the point. Whether government employees need to be unionized is a fair debate. Accusing Cleland of wanting to weaken the country is not.
But since you asked, why did the Republicans see fit to stick a ban on unionization into the homeland security bill? Some analysts believe (and I think they’re probably right) that they were trying to put Democrats in the position of having to vote for a bill that hurts workers or stand on principle and be attacked on grounds of patriotism, as Cleland did and was.
Party above country, the GOP way.
Report comment to moderator
Entirely off topic, but I wonder if you apply the same judgment to Republican lawmakers who are still holding up key Obama national security appointments?
One of these long held-up appointments was head of the TSA, for example. Aren’t those Republicans being doofuses (doofi?) for holding up that effort to safeguard the USA when no one has any idea what the jihadis will attempt next?
Report comment to moderator
People will keep debating whether or not the nominees will help or hinder the security departments until well after the next president is in office.
Report comment to moderator
First, it’s not clear that the controversy is ripe yet. The Ohio Election Commission has not made any decision on the merits of the case. So, the federal lawsuit is premature.
Second, why is it unreasonable for Rep. Driehaus to go to the Ohio Election Commission. Where else should he have gone to redress false statements made about him. The State of Ohio has a interest in ensuring that voters do not base their decisions information that is patently false.
Third, why is a writer at WorldMag supporting an organization that is making false statements about someone else. The billboards strike me as being dishonest. If you have to provide a multi-paragraph statement to explain why what you’ve said is not *really* a lie, then it probably is a lie.
Fourth, I note that this is at least the second time that Wishing has written about the activities of this group. Wishing seems to have developed a certain fondness for the group that seems to cloud his ability to judge its conduct objectively. If he has any ties to this group or with persons associated with this group, he should disclose those so that readers can account for his biases. But then again, journalistic integrity has never been WorldMag’s strong suit.
Fifth, I further note that radical abortion opponents have again resorted to dishonesty in their alleged goal of protecting life. If you think you have to lie to win the battle, then you need to rethink the battle.
Report comment to moderator
Why are you saying that the billboards contained false statements? Quite a few lawmakers held up the healthcare bill because of the abortion issue, but then backed down and voted for it anyway.
Why is it that federally funded killing of unborn children is seen as a minor issue? When Americans have taken pains to keep the government from funding it in any way, even though the Supreme Court forced it to be legal, it is a big deal. When upwards of 70-80% of American citizens believe that the government should not fund abortion, it is an important issue.
Saving others from death should be a “hill to die on”.
Report comment to moderator
Well first of all Beth, it’s a false statement to say the health care bill includes “federally-funded abortions.” During the Congressional debate, pro-life Democrats made sure it explicitly reaffirmed the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits the use of federal funds to pay for elective abortion.
That was backed up by an executive order from President Obama entitled “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’s Consistency with Longstanding Restrictions on the Use of Federal Funds for Abortion.”
You can read that EO yourself here. It says in part:
This is public record; the very accusation is a lie.
But more broadly, to accuse a legislator of voting “for” a small piece of a big bill, as if the vote was specifically intended to enact that small piece, is questionable at best. To expand on what I said earlier, it’s almost certain that no one who voted for the bill likes every single piece of it, and it’s almost certain that no one who voted against it opposed every single piece. With complex legislation, legislators vote based on whether they think it does more good or harm overall.
Let me put it this way: If a Democrat ran ads against a Republican incumbent arguing that the Republican opposes health insurance for children because he voted against the health care bill, you’d probably cry foul. But this is no different.
Report comment to moderator
“But more broadly, to accuse a legislator of voting “for” a small piece of a big bill, as if the vote was specifically intended to enact that small piece, is questionable at best.”
Agreed, in general, despite it being politics as usual for both sides of the aisle. However, when that “small piece” involves life and death issues, it becomes more an issue of trying to sneak a politically unpalatable issue by the voters by burying it deep inside the minutia. No matter what good the bill might do overall, for most of us, government funded abortions are a price too dear to pay. Once exposed, it needed to be expunged, not allowed through with a shrug of the shoulders. To vote to pass legislation that permits tax funds to be used for abortions is to vote for tax paid abortions, whether it is a minor or major intent of the overall bill.
In spite of the bill’s disingenuous genuflection before the Hyde ammendment, there is nothing in that bill that will prevent fungible government funds from actually paying for abortions, as many parsers of the bill’s language have found. The Susan B. Anthony List’s billboards are justifiably accurate.
Report comment to moderator
Hey JJF…is there more than a majority needed to confirm these Obama National Security appointments? If not, it obviously isn’t only the Republicans who are holding them up.
Report comment to moderator
Yes, SocialWorker. More than a majority is needed. A single Senator can place “secret holds” on presidential nominees so that their candidacy is never even brought before the Senate for discussion. They are neither confirmed nor rejected — they’re just left waiting.
Report comment to moderator
Given the plain language of the report from the Office of General Counsel of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (included in this article via reference and URL tag), all commenters here who defend Representative Driehaus’ position are liars, or at least ignorant of the facts and not credible. It is entirely unreasonable, before the facts as presented by the USCCB General Counsel, to pretend that Driehaus did anything but support government funding of abortion. The actual situation is much worse, in fact. The statutory language will be interpreted by the courts as – requiring – the funding of abortion under certain programs, and Obama’s highly ingenuous executive order does not, in fact, reverse that determination.
Anyone who writes “Why are conservative Christians so comfortable with distorting and lying about the views of their opponents?” is engaged not in reasoned discourse but in hurtful and hateful polemics that should be sanctioned in any forum.
Report comment to moderator
#15 OK. The bill mandates that states provide subsidized abortion insurance. We’ve been all through this before. The bill explicitly requires government subsidized insurance policies that explicitly cover abortions.
Report comment to moderator
#10
“why did the Republicans see fit to stick a ban on unionization into the homeland security bill?”
Well that’s a no-brainer. The stated purpose was national security, not job security. It’s not in the best interest of national security to be held hostage by a bunch of unionized bozos. Too much of the government bureaucracy is afflicted with an ‘it’s not in my job description’ malady. Why add one more layer of corruption and increase the expenses in the process? We should never allow any government workers to be unionized anyway. It’s a conflict of interest. Look at the unionized mob in Europe right now.
Report comment to moderator
Kudzu: Anyone who writes “Why are conservative Christians so comfortable with distorting and lying about the views of their opponents?” is engaged not in reasoned discourse but in hurtful and hateful polemics that should be sanctioned in any forum.
You can’t answer the question, eh?
Debra: Well no, if they had simply not mentioned collective bargaining at all, it would just be assumed that the agency employees would have the same rights as any other agency employees. They went out of their way to specifically deny those rights.
Why is it a conflict of interest for government workers to unionize? What do you have against them?
Report comment to moderator
We need good competent people to serve in government positions. And in order to get them, the sloppy ones can’t be protected from dismissal by union rules the way they currently are. Government workers are in a position to, in effect, make policy decisions either directly or by the way they do (or don’t do) their work. This gives them more control over our government than the non-bureaucrat, and it incentivizes government growth. That extra control and incentive to excessive growth should not be protected by collective bargaining where they practically have to be ax murderers to be gotten rid of.
Report comment to moderator
It’s actually not as hard as you think to fire a government employee. However, they do have some protections. They can’t be fired without cause. (I can … my employer has the legal right to terminate my employment at any time without any justification … do you think that’s a better dynamic?)
If a government employee doesn’t do the job, or is incompetent, guilty of misconduct or there’s another valid cause, the employer can terminate. The employee does have a right to a hearing, and the charge needs to be shown to the be valid. But if it is, then out they go.
And it’s even easier when there’s a security clearance involved because there are very specific things that can lead to a clearance being revoked.
I know a lot of federal employees — my parents were feds, and so were most of their friends. And in my current job, while I am not a federal employee, I interact with dozens of them. They are almost all highly qualified and hard-working. I’ve never met a single one that I would characterize as sloppy or a “bozo.”
Like a lot of anti-union people, you seem to buy into the caricature of union employees as lazy, incompetent and banking on being impossible to fire … it just ain’t so, and it’s really pretty insulting of you to paint them with that broad brush.
Report comment to moderator
#22 The response of Conanthelibrarian reads like the familiar rants of internet trolls, those people whose ad hominem attacks get in the way of their ability to construct a logical argument.
C’s question is about as answerable as the infamous “When did you stop beating your wife?” The question on its face denies the possibility of an answer and makes plain that the one asking has no interest in an answer. The stereotype raised by C is a straw man argument inserted for the sole purpose of insulting the intelligence of those who read his post. In context, since it is Conanthetroll who is lying about government funding of abortion through ObamaCare and distorting the views of other posters, the answer to his question involves why he is so comfortable and why he thinks he is a conservative Christian. In short, the question itself is a lie, and can be answered truthfully only by rejecting its false premises.
The rest of C’s post is so disjointed and free of germane content as to indicate that he has not actually read either the posts to which he allegedly responds or the original article by Cal Thomas. C’s behavior of raising spurious issues to smother the discussion of the original topic is, again, behavior properly attributed to internet trolls.
Report comment to moderator
Cal Thomas wrote, “Shame on Steve Driehaus. A pro-life Catholic, he voted for a healthcare law that does indeed allow for federal abortion funding. And shame on him again for trying to limit the SBA’s speech. I’m cheering for the ladies in this fight. He deserves to get beat up by the girls.”
Who cares to comment regarding the egregious violation of speech most clearly protected by the First Amendment, under attack by Steve Driehaus and by the Ohio Election Commission? Though Cal Thomas has not called the Commission itself into question, their response to Steve Driehaus’ importuning is questionable. Their own counsel recommended that Driehaus’ complaint be dismissed. They had in hand the documentation which proved Driehaus to be lying, yet a three member panel proceeded to let the case advance. Hopefully, the full Commission will act in accord with the law and dismiss Driehaus’ frivolous complaint, so that it will not be necessary for an Ohio state court or a Federal court down the road to overturn their ruling. The question also arises, to what extent has Democratic Ohio Governor Ted Strickland been complicit in this political dirty trick? Strickland in the past has been implicated in scandals involving partisan attacks on Ohio citizens who used their free speech rights to criticize Obama’s policies.
Report comment to moderator
Kudzu: C’s question is about as answerable as the infamous “When did you stop beating your wife?” The question on its face denies the possibility of an answer and makes plain that the one asking has no interest in an answer.
It would be, if it weren’t for the fact that the question is based on a long history of observing the phenomenon in question.
The phenomenon in question — Christian conservatives rushing to defend and justify the use of deception in scoring political points — has been demonstrated over and over again. So my question is valid.
Your accusations against me are the ad hominem. Rather than take the question seriously and attempt to answer it, you just declare it to be unfounded and asked in bad faith.
It is not a “when did you stop beating your wife” type of question. That question assumes the premise is true and offers the target no good simple answer. My question is based on established fact.
Unless you are an old poster returning under a new name, you’re new here, so you haven’t seen the past couple of years’ worth of threads in which I and others have offered examples. Perhaps you should consider there might be a history you weren’t around to see before lobbing your accusations.
Report comment to moderator
#24 Conan: It’s actually not as hard as you think to fire a government employee.
That is simply not true. Getting rid of a bad unionized government worker can take many years and cost the city tens of thousands of dollars—sometimes hundreds of thousands. And because the workers know that it will take more money and time than it’s worth to get rid of them, they are incentivized to perform to the lowest common denominator—or not at all. And many are incentivized to needlessly grow their departments larger, and spend more money when they could have saved.
Report comment to moderator
I was talking about federal employees … I admit I don’t know as well what it’s like at the state and local level. However, I am very tired of people making unions the scapegoat for all their gripes about workers. Unions protect employees. They’re needed. I wish I had one available to me, I’d join in a heartbeat.
Report comment to moderator
There should be no government unions at all. If people choose to go into public service, they must have skills, and a willingness to SERVE the country’s interest. And you will never be able to square those requirements long-term on a wide scale with a union. The union itself becomes a self-interested party, and the process is corrupted even more. Government is for the welfare of the country as a whole, not a few unionized workers.
Report comment to moderator
Serving the public does not require sacrificing self-interest. Government employees have as much as right as anyone to decent salaries, good working conditions, and the other things unions seek to preserve,
You’re incredibly cynical, and that’s kind of sad, but it doesn’t make you right.
Report comment to moderator
@Conan – “This is public record; the very accusation is a lie.”
No it isn’t, it’s true.
From a Washington Times editorial July 23 (yes, we’ve all known at least that long that the executive order isn’t what it claims to be):
New Mexico lists “elective termination of pregnancy” as a covered benefit in its $37 million high-risk pool. The plan covers 80 percent of the cost of an elective abortion, minus a deductible payment. The Maryland Health Insurance Plan, with its $85 million high-risk pool, lists abortion under its “covered services” in the description of benefits.
Pennsylvania’s $160 million pool allows the use of federal funds to pay for any abortion determined necessary by a single physician in light of “all factors (physical, emotional, psychological, familial and the woman’s age) relevant to the well-being of the woman.” The only prohibition is that the abortion may not be motivated solely by an unborn child’s sex.
Despite the evidence, states and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services point primarily to the executive order to claim this isn’t the case. Pro-life groups scoff at their denials. “The executive order does not even mention the high-risk pool program, so it certainly does not prevent the program from covering abortions,” National Right to Life Committee legislative director Doug Johnson told The Washington Times. “And if abortions are covered, then they will be federally funded, because a federal program cannot spend ‘private’ funds.”
–http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jul/23/taxpayer-funded-abortions-are-here/
Report comment to moderator
Dean: Well since the federal health care bill hasn’t even gone into effect yet, those state-government programs you list are irrelevant to the discussion. Whatever those situations may be, they’re not related to the new law.
The Times editorial tries to connect them by claiming that the existence of one thing shows the weakness of an entirely different and unrelated thing … which is, of course, nonsense. The Executive Order applies to the new law, which is not going to be fully in place for several years yet, and not to existing programs.
So, the accusation that Driehaus supports federally-funded abortions because he voted for a bill that specifically excludes the use of federal funds to pay for elective abortions remains false.
Now, if you want to greatly stretch the truth and point out that the bill and the EO do not exclude the use of federal funds to pay for abortions deemed therapeutically necessary (i.e., rape, incest, life of the mother — NOT elective), you could do that … it would be cheap and misleading to try to imply that that equals support for elective abortion, but you could do it.
Report comment to moderator
The new healthcare law is written in such a way that it positively results in the state and/or federal subsidization of abortion insurance (and therefore abortions) through the Obamacare-mandated insurance pools. Anyone who denies this is either ignorant, or lying.
Report comment to moderator
Debra: The insurance pools are just collections of private plans competing for business. They’re not federally funded.
The right has done a very good job of sowing confusion about what is and isn’t part of the legislation. The bill mandates the existence of competitive pools, it does not provide federal funds for the care that comes through plans in the pools.
You are going to the extreme of saying a subsidy to help cover the cost of a private plan that covers abortion as part of a comprehensive insurance plan is the same as direct federal funding of abortion. That’s ridiculous.
And there is no such thing as “abortion insurance.”
Report comment to moderator
Ignorant of the facts, or lying.
Report comment to moderator
Debra: Ignorant of the facts, or lying.
You are, yes.
Look, you’re trying to argue that a federal subsidy for insurance that covers abortion services is the same as federal money paying for abortions. It’s not. If it is, Debra, then YOU are probably paying for abortion services, even more directly, if you pay health insurance premiums for a policy that covers abortion. Because your money goes into a fund from which your insurer pays out claims, including claims for abortion services. And if you personally are not, anyone whose coverage fits that description is.
And the only way you could ensure that not one federal penny ever had any remote connection to abortion would be to have no federal subsidies for insurance … which is, of course, the real goal.
Report comment to moderator
“And the only way you could ensure that not one federal penny ever had any remote connection to abortion would be to have no federal subsidies for insurance …”
False.
Since Obamacare REQUIRES both that some policies in the government subsidized pool cover abortion, and REQUIRES that some policies don’t, they could have taken the part out of Obamacare that REQUIRES the Secy HHS to estimate the cost of abortion insurance using ALL policies, rather than the policies that actually contain them (or at least a statistical estimate thereof), effectively taking abortion out of the government subsidized pool.
But no, that would have meant that policies that DON’T contain coverage for abortion would be cheaper than equivalent policies that DO contain it. And PP and their abortionists couldn’t have that, could they. So by requiring the estimate of cost to include abortion in ALL policies, the law effectively ensures a government subsidy of abortion.
Whatever private insurance covers right now is a free CHOICE, and not a mandate by the federal government. I know you don’t value that distinction, but many US citizens do.
Report comment to moderator
The law requires there to be at least one plan that does and at least one that does not. This allows consumer choice. However, it also includes measures to ensure that federal funds are not used to pay for elective abortions. The only way you can argue that it permits federal funding of elective abortions is to completely gloss over the very long distance from subsidizing the cost of a comprehensive insurance policy for low-income people and handing the check to the abortion provider.
It also allows states to opt out of even that minimal abortion coverage requirement, if they pass a state law to that effect.
I believe you’ve mischaracterized the cost-estimate section. It appears to me that the law says that IF a plan provides coverage of abortion services for which the law forbids spending federal funds, the plan has to collect a separate pool of funds to cover those services, SEPARATE from the premiums that might be federally-subsidized.
It seems, Debra, that the law does exactly the opposite of what you claim.
If you want your eyeballs to glaze over, here is the actual text from bill as passed and amended — this is the law now:
Report comment to moderator
The law is indeed self-contradictory. This is unsurprising when you consider that 1) it was passed by people who didn’t even bother to read it, and 2) the very idea of governmental funding of abortion is politically toxic.
Instead of requiring insurance companies to state the abortion policy explicitly in a rider where it can be clearly seen what it costs, this law says that the Sec’y of DHHS is going to ‘estimate’ how much money the exchanges should deduct for coverage.
Some of the guidelines for this ‘estimate’ is stated in the legislation and includes assuming that everyone in the exchange gets abortion coverage. This naturally decreases the cost. Thus the end-run around the ban on federal subsidy:
(ii) CONSIDERATIONS- In making such estimate, the Secretary–
(I)<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;
(II) shall estimate such costs as if such coverage were included for the entire population covered; and
(III) may not estimate such a cost at less than $1 per enrollee, per month.
Report comment to moderator
Debra: No, I don’t think it does “assum[e] that everyone in the exchange gets abortion coverage.” According to the passage I pasted in:
… and then it goes on to describe the creation of a separate pool, with separate billing, specifically to cover services for which the law forbids the spending of federal funds.
It applies ONLY to people in a plan that covers those services. It does not assume that “everyone in the exchange gets abortion coverage.” And the passage you quoted does not say anything like that either — that’s part of the calculation process for people enrolled in the plans that DO cover those services. If you’re enrolled in a plan that doesn’t cover those services, it doesn’t apply to you.
Report comment to moderator
Actually, it does:
(II) shall estimate such costs as if such coverage were included for the entire population covered; and
But hopefully this will all be irrelevant before it does too much irreparable damage, and Obamacare will be repealed in full.
Report comment to moderator
The entire population covered by a plan that covers abortion services for which federal funds can’t be spent.
You have to look at the full context, and legislation can be hard to read because it refers back to earlier portions. Here’s where that bit you just quoted comes from (my commentary in bold.
Write it out in outline form, retaining all the numbers and letters designating sections and paragraphs and subparagraphs but reducing the text to key words, and it may be easier to parse. But because the section you quoted is under a larger section limited to plans that provide coverage for such services, it too is talking only about plans that provide coverage for such services. Not all plans.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's Community section to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!