The American Spectator : Taxpayers and Abortions

Text Size

Taxpayers and Abortions

By Daniel Allott on 4.14.10 @ 6:07AM

Don’t want to pay for them? Too bad — you already do.

It’s been nearly a month since Obamacare became law, and Americans of all political stripes are scrambling to understand its life-changing ramifications. For anti-abortion advocates, the new law, by subsidizing abortion with taxpayer dollars, represents the largest expansion of abortion since the Supreme Court handed down its infamous Roe v. Wade decision nearly 40 years ago.

But while Obamacare marks a unique development in abortion funding, it is hardly the first time Americans have been forced to underwrite the procedure. In fact, if you pay taxes or have a certain type of health insurance, you are already paying for other people’s abortions.

Let me first dispel the myth that the new law does not cover abortion. Far from the president’s promise to “maintain the status quo” on abortion, Obamacare allows direct federal funding of abortions in community health centers. It also authorizes taxpayer subsidies for health plans that cover abortions and forces families in many health plans to pay a separate fee specifically for other people’s abortions.

Concerns over these facts among some Democrats prompted President Obama to issue an Executive Order that purportedly bars abortion coverage. But executive orders don’t trump statutory law. Which is why abortion rights groups are celebrating the new law as a victory.

And it’s why pro-lifers are crying foul. They correctly reference the roughly two-thirds of Americans (according to numerous polls) who oppose taxpayer funding of abortions. Trouble is, despite their aversion, most Americans already fund abortion in various ways.

The Hyde Amendment bans use of taxpayer funds for abortions under Medicaid. But Hyde includes exceptions for abortions in the case of rape, incest, and to save the life of the mother.

Plus, Hyde covers Medicaid regulations only at the federal level. Seventeen states and the District of Columbia fund abortions for low-income women, while 32 states pay for abortions in the cases of life, incest and rape, as required by federal Medicaid law. Several states even use taxpayer dollars to abort babies at risk of being born with “severe” disabilities.

The Mexico City Policy required non-governmental organizations to agree not to perform or promote abortions in other nations as a condition of getting federal funds. But President Obama revoked that law on his first day in office. Now hundreds of millions of dollars annually are being diverted to groups that push abortion on poor women abroad.

In March 2009, President Obama announced $50 million in taxpayer funds for the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), a UN agency that has been criticized for promoting abortion and for working closely with Chinese population control officials, who force abortion and sterilization on their citizens.

Also last March, Obama overturned by executive order President Bush’s limits on taxpayer funding of human embryonic stem cell (HESC) research, which destroys nascent human life. In December, the National Institutes of Health approved funding of 27 HESC lines from Harvard University used in diabetes-related pancreatic cell experiments.

But that’s not all. Planned Parenthood, which performs roughly 250,000 abortions a year, receives $300 million annually in taxpayer money.

Recent developments have only re-affirmed the Democratic Party’s commitment to forcing taxpayers to pay for abortions. The 2010 Omnibus Appropriations bill includes a provision permitting the D.C. government to use local tax revenues to provide abortions, a move that reversed a long-standing prohibition.

And in February the Obama administration began requiring all U.S. military health facilities to stock the morning after pill (Plan B), which can cause an early abortion by preventing the embryo from implanting in the uterus.

Taxpayers underwrite abortion through the tax break provided to employers that sponsor insurance plans. But you may be surprised to know that nearly half of employer-sponsored health plans have policies that cover abortion, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.

Obamacare’s abortion mandate is an abomination on many levels, not least because it further exposes the hollowness of the “pro-choice” position. But don’t kid yourself: If you pay taxes (and in many cases if you have employer-sponsored health coverage), your hard-earned money is already contributing to the destruction of innocent human life.

About the Author

Daniel Allott is a writer in Washington, D.C.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (68) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Louis Jenkins| 4.14.10 @ 8:13AM

There you have it folks. Doesn't matter what you think the law says, we've got it. The Pretender n Chief has pulled another one.

Ned| 4.14.10 @ 10:34AM

Let me see now - I have the figure here somewhere, what was that percentage again, of abortions performed on black women, versus their percentage in the population... and that other phrase, what was that? Oh, right 'disparate impact'... lot's of law and policy based on that liberal idea... so I guess that means that King Zero has officially instituted a racist policy, exterminating blacks... interesting....

Mike M| 4.14.10 @ 8:19AM

Obama, the self proclaimed "Christian" with muslim roots, just keeps his abortion train rolling along. There never was a pregnant woman that he didn't see as an abortion waiting to happen.

canuckistani| 4.14.10 @ 6:57PM

And what do you wizards of public policy have in mind to dissuade women from having an abortion? Mandated garnishee of the father? Reopening orphanages? Government-sanctioned forcing of giving up the child to adoption?
These will be as effective as state-endorsed abstinence programs like the successful Alaska program er I mean....
As men we have to step up and offer a real alternative for women in their time of doubt. Simply banning abortion will not stop us guys from actively seeking out tail without responsibility. What new social engineering project do you promote to alter men's libido? The burqa? Good luck with that one.

alyeska| 4.18.10 @ 5:58AM

if you insist that women bear children, no matter what their circumstances, why not immediately turn the child over to the father (or family of the father) to care for and raise. whadda ya think the outcome of that social engineering might be? i'll bet a lot of men will rethink their stance on abortion!

Emii Stone| 4.14.10 @ 8:48AM

I agree. Obama has not done one single thing to help the American people. He is only bringing us closer and closer to Communism (Progressiveism).

Purpleguy| 4.14.10 @ 10:41PM

The Founding Fathers were progressive you ditz. And, you're wrong - the President has made you all eligible for a Darwin Award ... and THAT will help America!

alyeska| 4.18.10 @ 6:02AM

how about this: by untying health insurance from employers, fewer people with families who now are slaves to their pos jobs will have the freedom to pursue other opportunities, whether that takes the form of going into business for themselves or simply changing jobs -- no more fear that your family will left vulnerable because they have no insurance.

but, hey, that's way too simplistic for you mental giants to understand.

Tom| 4.14.10 @ 9:14AM

This does not include the fact that recently, U.S. Military introduced the requirement of RU 486 was to be available on all military bases. Guess who pays...?

MOS was 71331| 4.14.10 @ 10:55AM

Here's another off topic message which is really an ad. If you click on the underlined "chi" text, your browser will take you to a web page selling cosmetics. Can't the Spectator delete these messages when they're detected, so we don't waste time on them. (I'd volunteer for the task, but you'd probably no want an outsider to be able to delete any messages he wishes.)

CL| 4.14.10 @ 10:22AM

If I object to abortion based on my religious beliefs how can the government of the United States FORCE me to fund it with my tax dollar ? !

canuckistani| 4.14.10 @ 7:13PM

Same logic applies to any government expenditure, doesn't it?
I'm against undeclared wars of convenience. You?
Perhaps we should have a laundry list plebiscite each go around with check boxes for the programs we want to support.
That's what elections are for and he's implementing what he was elected by the majority to do.
I don't like it and will continue to fight for conservative fiscal values. Social values belong in the home, period.
If you won't fund abortions, will you fund the shelter and health needs for the child and mother to a level that elevates the child's chances of breaking a bad cycle? What would Jesus do?

Purpleguy| 4.14.10 @ 10:50PM

Good point. I don't have children in school and yet pay for schools that I don't need nor want. Isn't that Socialism? If I can't have MY money back for having no kids in school, why should I care about your miniscule amount of taxes that might, I say might help someone have an abortion? At least I don't have to pay for their schooling too.

suzy in miami| 4.14.10 @ 10:25AM

Wow, you mean we get to pick and choose where our tax dollars go? How did us liberals not know about this, our bad. Had we known, we would have demanded that our tax dollars not be used to fund Bush's illegal war for oil which resulted in the tragic deaths of thousands of American soldiers, civilian personnel, and hundreds of thousands of innocent iraqi men, women and children. You see, we liberals believe that murder of real living breathing human beings is immoral, not to mention illegal, and not what Jesus wants for his children. Oh but then I guess all of you who supported the war and continue to defend it are not Christians, since no where in Jesus' teachings in there justification for war, but funny, there is no mention anywhere in old or new testament that speaks to terminating a pregnancy. And we know from archeological research that terminating a pregnancy has been a common practice since ancient times. Funny, Jesus being who He is, I would think He surely would have mentioned it if He believed it was murder.

CL| 4.14.10 @ 10:30AM

Yes Suzy I guess you would rather have another 3000 innocent US citizens ,including children( or millions) vaporized by more planes flying into buildings, trains blown up, dirty bomb attacks, chemical attacks etc. I suppose you would rather your tax dollar just go to clean up the mess after US citizens die at the hands of terrorists.

MOS was 71331| 4.14.10 @ 11:03AM

It would also be nice if Suzy didn't cite invented (and false) counts of "innocent iraqi[s]" supposedly killed by US and our allies troops. She's easily off by at least a factor of ten -- even if she includes Iraqis killed by bombs planted or exploded by terrorists. [After all, our troops weren't able to prevent those explosions.]

ferengi | 4.14.10 @ 3:09PM

suzy in Miami

“ You see, we liberals believe that murder of real living breathing human beings is immoral, not to mention illegal, and not what Jesus wants for his children.”

But you have no objective point of reference for an objective moral law from your worldview. Which makes this statement self-contradictory and, by definition, false.
If your statement was true then there would be no abortion.
Your statement is also contradictory because you do not have an objective point of reference for the value of human life – that’s why the infanticide of abortion is perverted into “choice”.

“ Oh but then I guess all of you who supported the war and continue to defend it are not Christians, since no where in Jesus' teachings in there justification for war, but funny, there is no mention anywhere in old or new testament that speaks to terminating a pregnancy.”

Correct. But in Rom 13 the purpose of government is the administration of justice – which makes wares of defense of life a reasonable if unfortunate option.

“And we know from archeological research that terminating a pregnancy has been a common practice since ancient times.”

That does not make it moral.

“Funny, Jesus being who He is, I would think He surely would have mentioned it if He believed it was murder.”

The why did he want the children to come to him? If they were valueless He would not have said that.

Purpleguy| 4.14.10 @ 11:09PM

"Catholic theologian Thomas Aquinas wrote that a soul enters the body at 40 days after conception for males and 80 days for females. That became church doctrine for many centuries, and abortion before that time of ensoulment was not considered a mortal sin. " Hmmm, this is confusing... who you gonna believe, a Saint, or the rabal on here spouting opinion?

South Texan| 4.15.10 @ 3:14AM

Thomas Aquinas wrote a lot of theology, But where does it say that god appointed him as the definer of doctrine. Many christian churches don't accept his doctrine as correct. I would rather believe in the bible. Suzy in Miami isn't correct but your comments Purpleguy are only humorous at best.

Nick| 4.15.10 @ 11:45PM

PurpleJackass,

That was NEVER a "church doctrine", ever.
That is a lie.
But, who is really shocked that Purp would lie?

ferengi| 4.19.10 @ 9:30AM

"Hmmm, this is confusing... who you gonna believe, a Saint, or the rabal on here spouting opinion?"

You can apply this to yourself as well.

greginchicago| 4.14.10 @ 4:25PM

There is that pesky Commandment of Thou Shalt Not Kill.

greginchicago| 4.14.10 @ 4:33PM

Since 1973 there have been over 46 million abortions in the US alone. Current estimates are 1.3 million PER YEAR in the U.S. Talk about innocent lives lost!

Purpleguy| 4.14.10 @ 10:54PM

I can think of a few more that should have been performed ...

GW| 4.14.10 @ 11:27PM

......your own?

Purpleguy| 4.15.10 @ 2:10PM

My own abortion? hmmm, let me see - that is wrong on so many levels. Did you miss the "Guy" in my name? Did you mean my wife's abortion? Or did you mean my mother's abortion? Or did you mean I should have been aborted? We can't communicate when one side has no ammunition. I wasn't thinking of you when I wrote that, but perhaps you should have been aborted to reduce world's misinformation.

ferengi| 4.19.10 @ 9:25AM

"There is that pesky Commandment of Thou Shalt Not Kill."

Actually its "thou shall not MURDER".

Annie| 4.14.10 @ 5:12PM

Listening to a liberal talk about the Bible (of which they obviously know nothing)...well...it would make me laugh if it weren't so sad.

canuckistani| 4.14.10 @ 7:42PM

Interpretation of Thou Shalt not Kill:
"use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated". Is that imbedded in the Military Code of Conduct when executing war plans?
Here goes nothing: The Taliban were dealing directly with US oil interests before 9/11. They curbed civil unrest, nearly eliminated the heroine industry and reduced corruption drastically. They also imbedded strict religious interpretations of justice and conduct. Based on these metrics, they seem like your kind of people until they refused to give up Bin Laden.....
In the name of the American people, we went in, wiped them out and handed the country to a corrupt corporate lackie and restarted the opium trade to levels never seen in history. Are Americans better off for this?
It seems to me that if women had a serious, viable alternative to abortion (not talking points), they would take it. Starting with men being taught at a young age to be responsible for their seed.

Purpleguy| 4.14.10 @ 10:59PM

Why don't you ask your boy, the man who removed the majority of the troops going after Bin Laden, and all but turned his back on the Afghan people to have his rich target area war in Iraq if we are better off? Going to war fed all you dittoheads idea of the War President, until it went bad, and with Katrina's ineptitude, and his overspending habit dispelled your myths about him did you come to your senses and dis the Bush man. Now you are once again believing the lies and deceit of the Republican party to get elected. Don't you ever learn? My God, it was less than 2 years ago, and you have forgotten it's the same crowd still there?

GW| 4.14.10 @ 11:33PM

"It seems to me that if women had a serious, viable alternative to abortion (not talking points), they would take it. Starting with men being taught at a young age to be responsible for their seed."

Whether women have a viable alternative or not to abortion in no way makes an abortion more or less morally acceptable. Either it is or it isn't the killing of an unborn human. Either it is or it isn't taking away the intrinsic right to life.

As far as men being responsible, I couldn't agree more. This is an unfortunate outcome of many things, but a society in moral decline is the obvious and broad answer.

Adoption is still a viable option, one that I wish many more women would take.

Purpleguy| 4.18.10 @ 9:45AM

Why don't we empty all the orphanages first before we add any more poor unwanted children? Why should a woman give a child up for adoption, and regret it the rest of her life? She surely would regret having an abortion the rest of her life. Not very good choices, are they? Men be responsible? That's a good one. Men are pigs, have always been, and will always be. That is NOT the sign of a decaying society... that's men's nature from time immemorial to spread their seed wherever it will go.

Annie| 4.14.10 @ 5:23PM

From the "Bible in Basic English":
"Before you were formed in the body of your mother I had knowledge of you, and before your birth I made you holy; I have given you the work of being a prophet to the nations."

So, ya think. Surely God would have approved of abortion, right?

Purpleguy| 4.14.10 @ 11:01PM

don't make me laugh - the "Bible in Basic English" - wow that sounds official...

Suzy in miami| 4.17.10 @ 12:50AM

I don't know if god exists or what he approves of, and neither do you. But I am quite sure you believe he does exist and believe the bible tells you what he does and does not approve of. You are certainly entitled to believe whatever you want, the constitution protects your beliefs. But it also protects me from having to live by your beliefs. That's why religious beliefs are not legislated, to protect everyone's freedom. If abortion offends your religious beliefs, don't have one, but don't expect everyone else in this country to live by your beliefs.

ferengi| 4.19.10 @ 9:38AM

Suzy

“…..the constitution protects your beliefs.”

Actually, no it does not. PEOPLE protect beliefs, and when PEOPLE choose to ignore the Constitution then those beliefs are not protected. The Constitution is the point of reference but PEOPLE have to choose to follow and uphold it.

“But it also protects me from having to live by your beliefs. That's why religious beliefs are not legislated, to protect everyone's freedom.”

Incorrect. Beliefs are legislated all the time: Thou shall not murder: murder is legislated as illegal.
Rove vs Wade: the religion of atheism is legislated as legal: human life has only limited value and murder can be committed against certain persons at the whim of the state.

“ If abortion offends your religious beliefs, don't have one, but don't expect everyone else in this country to live by your beliefs.”

And would you want to be aborted?

suzy| 4.19.10 @ 8:36PM

Completely twisted logic my friend, but I doubt that you will ever see my point. Roe v Wade as atheistic legislation, you must be kidding. There are many religious people who do not assert that abortion is murder, and bible scholars who will tell you that abortion is not addressed in the bible. Abortion is not murder to many, but again christian/catholic activists want to shove their beliefs into law.
As to the old tired "would you want to be aborted" is ridiculous and a non response, I had no choice in my birth, it was my mother's choice and had she aborted me, I wouldn't have known the difference. or perhaps my soul would have entered someone else. I don't know and neither do you. I choose to look at reality, not create false realities to support a weak argument.

ferengi| 4.20.10 @ 10:07AM

suzy

“Completely twisted logic my friend, but I doubt that you will ever see my point. Roe v Wade as atheistic legislation, you must be kidding.”

No, simply a logical outworking of that construct. Atheism in action. What logically flows from atheism is a loss of the objective point of reference for the value of human life – thus human life can be disposed of at will.

“ There are many religious people who do not assert that abortion is murder, and bible scholars who will tell you that abortion is not addressed in the bible.”

Consensus does not define truth.

“Abortion is not murder to many, but again christian/catholic activists want to shove their beliefs into law.”

Consensus does not define truth.

“As to the old tired "would you want to be aborted" is ridiculous and a non response,…”

Actually a legitimate question I see you avoid. You commit the fallacy of Special Pleading. Why do you want rights you deny to others?

“ I had no choice in my birth, it was my mother's choice and had she aborted me, I wouldn't have known the difference. or perhaps my soul would have entered someone else. I don't know and neither do you. I choose to look at reality, not create false realities to support a weak argument.”

Evidence for this assertion please.
Let me ask you this – Does human life have individual, objective, inherent value?

suzy in miami| 4.14.10 @ 10:58AM

@CL: Oh right, we went into Iraq to stop terrorists. It just so happened they had oil we wanted, so two birds with one expensive war. How convenient.

DanH| 4.14.10 @ 12:49PM

Oh! So that's why Uncle Sam nationalized all those Iraqi oil fields.
/And why U.S. taxpayers DON'T own GM, Chrysler etc.

Tom| 4.14.10 @ 11:08AM

Is God's words in Genesis 9:6-7... sufficient warning against abortion... and God's thoughts on the matter...?

canuckistani| 4.14.10 @ 7:22PM

Genesis? Really?
If you're going to quote the OT then quote it all. You believe in slavery, subjugation of women, a jealous god and a punishing god.
You probably believe the rapture is next Thursday and God will intervene on your ilk's behalf before any other.
If God gave us free will, and we were made in God's image, then are we not doing God's work, good bad and ugly OT-style?
Jews wrote the OT and Jews have no definition of abortion as murder. Life for them begins when the child is clipped from the umbilical, not before. If the original witnesses to the OT perceived it that way, why is your interpretation any more legitimate, or are you reading more into the mythology than it was intended?

Margie| 4.14.10 @ 7:47PM

And you probably believe that Hell doesn't exist, and that you aren't on your way there.

Purpleguy| 4.14.10 @ 11:05PM

"And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide. "But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, (Exodus 21:22-24) ... try the truth sometime, it will set you free...

suzy in miami| 4.17.10 @ 12:41AM

Let's see, first of all, this is old testament, pre Jesus, and wow if you cause a miscarriage, you get fined. Not exactly the penalty called for in the case of murder. Doesn't quite support your position.

Purpleguy| 4.18.10 @ 9:40AM

What this means dittohead is that if the woman isn't injured, then no foul, the loss of the child is no big deal. Should the woman be harmed further, then the penalty of eye for an eye, etc. should be employed. Old Testament you say? How about Leviticus that professes "a man that lie with a man is an abomination under the Lord" - so if you don't follow Old Testament, I guess being gay is okay... Jesus said nothing about being gay or having an abortion, period.

Louis Jenkins| 4.14.10 @ 11:11AM

Suzy in Miami:

Just how much Iragi oil are we to receive?

Russ| 4.14.10 @ 11:24AM

Suzy, Please read Matthew 18 in it's entirety. I think you'll get a clear picture...
Not that you will care.

David| 4.14.10 @ 2:32PM

Susie, you truly are a moron. "Moron" is someone with the mental capability of a 12 year old. Where is the oil we went to get? Illegal war? Three-fourths of Congress supported it. It was illegal because you leftist/Marxists say so???

Also, you don't know the first thing about the Scriptures or what Jesus would do.

You are clearly out of your league on this site.

John| 4.14.10 @ 2:39PM

Interestingly by paying for abortions we are ending the very lives required to pay the future tax burden that the recent spending will require. Where will we get the future medical and social workers needed to support the colossel system being put into place? Maybe we could save money and manning by not using any public funds to deal with treatment relating to STDs, smoking, alcohol abuse, drug use and obesity.

Annie| 4.14.10 @ 5:32PM

"Maybe we could save money and manning by not using any public funds to deal with treatment relating to STDs, smoking, alcohol abuse, drug use and obesity."

That is what the left wants.

Purpleguy| 4.14.10 @ 10:46PM

Waaaaa, waaaa, waaaa, and my tax dollars support your children to go to school ... and I want MY money back. This is mostly a pack of 1/2 truths and innuendo - but I'm sure there are plenty of conservative dittoheads that will drink the Kool-Aid on this site. Have a nice day!

GW| 4.14.10 @ 11:36PM

I agree, we spend way too much on education, especially in innercities. The difference between abortion and slavery is that at least the Fed. Govt never subsidized slavery.

jfkds| 6.30.10 @ 11:39PM

beijing massage shanghai girl

The American Spectator