• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama Administration OKs First Tax-Funded Abortions Under Health Care Law

If you guys want to discuss the merits of why women have abortions, I suggest you take the discussion over to the "Abortions" forum. Otherwise, stick with the discussion topic, towit, the law(s) on the books that authorize same on either the state of federal level.

Mods...get 'em!!!
 
Objective Voice said:
If you guys want to discuss the merits of why women have abortions, I suggest you take the discussion over to the "Abortions" forum. Otherwise, stick with the discussion topic, towit, the law(s) on the books that authorize same on either the state of federal level.

Mods...get 'em!!!
Click to expand...

It is the point if only abortions for the health or rape are used. This means there would be very few paid for. The problem is the wording of the PA law does not specify that
 
Then you take it up w/the PA legistlature, not the federal government. The law per HR 3590 is clear! The State determines who receives health insurance coverage within their high-risk pool, and no State will receive federal funding or is allowed to use federal funding for abortions except as specifically authorized by law other than through H.R. 3590.

I know...doesn't seem to make much sense except when you think about it in broader terms.

Federal law prohibits the use of federal funds to pay for or sponsor abortions except in certain circumstances and those situations are very strict, i.e., imminent health risk to the expecting mother. I would assume in such situations the doctor or medical facility would have to have doctor's records or make an "on-the-spot" decision of that health risk that makes it clear that an abortion is abosolutely necessary. However, that being said, the federal government can't stop any State from funding or authorizing abortions for its own residents as long as they adhere to federal law that outlines under what circumstances abortions WILL be authorized. Therefore, unless there is some form of urgent or emergent health risk to the expecting mother, no abortions will be authorized using federal funds in whole or in part.

Again, read the health care reform law towhich I've provided a link. It's all right there for your reading pleasure and full comprehension.
 
Objective Voice said:
If you guys want to discuss the merits of why women have abortions, I suggest you take the discussion over to the "Abortions" forum. Otherwise, stick with the discussion topic, towit, the law(s) on the books that authorize same on either the state of federal level.

Mods...get 'em!!!
Click to expand...

Moderator's Warning:
If you have a problem with some ones posts, please just use the report post button
 
Roger that! (I was being sarcastic, however.)

Back to the thread...

I did find something interesting while reviewing Title XIX of the Social Security Act:

Sec. 1905. [42 U.S.C. 1396d] For purposes of this title—

(a) The term “medical assistance” means payment of part or all of the cost of the following care and services or the care and services themselves, or both[90] (if provided in or after the third month before the month in which the recipient makes application for assistance or, in the case of medicare cost-sharing with respect to a qualified medicare beneficiary described in subsection (p)(1), if provided after the month in which the individual becomes such a beneficiary) for individuals, and, with respect to physicians' or dentists' services, at the option of the State, to individuals (other than individuals with respect to whom there is being paid, or who are eligible, or would be eligible if they were not in a medical institution, to have paid with respect to them a State supplementary payment and are eligible for medical assistance equal in amount, duration, and scope to the medical assistance made available to individuals described in section 1902(a)(10)(A)) not receiving aid or assistance under any plan of the State approved under title I, X, XIV, or XVI, or part A of title IV, and with respect to whom supplemental security income benefits are not being paid under title XVI, who are—

(i) under the age of 21, or, at the option of the State, under the age of 20, 19, or 18 as the State may choose,

(ii) relatives specified in section 406(b)(1) with whom a child is living if such child is (or would, if needy, be) a dependent child under part A of title IV,

(iii) 65 years of age or older,

(iv) blind, with respect to States eligible to participate in the State plan program established under title XVI, or

(v) 18 years of age or older and permanently and totally disabled, with respect to States eligible to participate in the State plan program established under title XVI,

(vi) persons essential (as described in the second sentence of this subsection) to individuals receiving aid or assistance under State plans approved under title I, X, XIV, or XVI,

(vii) blind or disabled as defined in section 1614, with respect to States not eligible to participate in the State plan program established under title XVI,

(viii) pregnant women,...
Click to expand...

Now, without doing a whole lot of research on this portion of the law, I'd assume a woman could get an abortion under this portion of the act if her OB/GYN deemed her situation as needing "medical assistance". It's a helluva stretch, but here again it's the State's responsibility to determine what health benefits and/or procedures will come under the health insurance plans they establish under health care reform legistlation and in accordance with the Social Security Act.

State's rights, ladies and gentlemen. If you're really opposed to abortions for any reason at any level of government, take it up with your State legistlation, not the Fed.
 
Last edited:
Objective Voice said:
State's rights, ladies and gentlemen. If you're really opposed to abortions for any reason at any level of government, take it up with your State legistlation, not the Fed.
Click to expand...

But then they couldn't blame Obama :(
 
Well, they're gonna hate him even more now 'cause the following proves them wrong for sure:

From the PolitiFact Q&A on this very issue:

The 60-page proposal from Pennsylvania outlines what looks like a pretty standard health care plan: It says the plan should include preventive care, physician services, diagnostic testing, hospitalization, mental health services, and prescription medications. It will charge people $283.20 a month for coverage and accept people without access to other coverage, regardless of pre-existing conditions.

On abortion, the proposal says this: "Includes only abortions and contraceptives that satisfy the requirements of 18 Pa.C.S. § 3204-3206 and 35 P.S. §§10101, 10103-10105. ... Elective abortions are not covered."

Those statute numbers refer to Pennsylvania's abortion laws, where abortion is, for the most part, legal. We looked up the code and it says that abortions may be performed if a doctor determines that "in his best clinical judgment, the abortion is necessary." The only mention the statute makes of forbidding an abortion is when it is "sought solely because of the sex of the unborn child."
Click to expand...

Now, if you read the 60-page proposal, what you'll find on page 14 concerning abortions is the following:

Abortions:

Includes only abortions and contraceptives that satisfy the requirements of 18 Pa.C.S. § 3204-3206 and 35 P.S. §§10101, 10103-10105.

1. Elective abortions are not covered. Services rendered to treat illness or injuries resulting from an elective abortion are covered.
Click to expand...

Exactly what PolitiFact states above. No manipulation, just the truth.

State's rights...end of story.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom