In the course of
admonishing everyone "Let's End the Fear-Mongering Over
Abortion," The Washington Post's Ruth Marcus seizes on
two arguments to discredit those who warn that ObamaCare will
fund abortions with taxpayer funds. The arguments are:
The controversy has two dimensions: First, if a public plan is
created, should abortion be among the covered services? Second,
even without a public plan, should the private insurance plans
available on the exchanges be allowed or required to cover
abortion -- even though government funds would go to subsidize
some, but not all, of those obtaining insurance this way?
The only Senate measure produced so far is silent on the
subject. In the House, an amendment offered by Rep. Lois Capps
(D-Calif.) nicely threads these narrow-eyed needles.
Ruth Marcus: this shouldn't be hard to follow. Abortion is, in
the United States post-Roe v. Wade, a legal health care
procedure. If a bill proposing a new form of publicly-funded
health insurance is "silent" on abortion, then it follows that it
includes provisions for taxpayer funding of abortions.
The Capps amendment does not nicely thread anything. Instead, it
segregates funds from premiums and taxpayers, and reimbursement
for abortions would only come out of the premiums funds.
Obviously this is merely an accounting trick. The Capps
amendment, furthermore, is only attached to the House Energy and
Commerce Committee bill, and is by no means guaranteed to apply
to the finished bill.
These are some pretty feeble excuses to slander your opponents as
"fear-mongering." But Marcus thinks that they're good enough, and
continues:
It is hard to imagine how to craft a more sensitive approach
[than the Capps Amendment] -- other than telling women who
purchase insurance through the exchanges entirely with their
own money that they cannot obtain abortion coverage.
Then again, that would be perfectly fine with some of the
critics. Others are happy to seize on any argument, however
misleading, that might derail the larger enterprise.
1. Yes, it would be perfectly fine for pro-lifers if women were
not able to obtain abortion coverage through the exchange. Marcus
presents this as a slander, but really it follows logically if
you think that human life begins before birth. It would be more
intellectually honest of her to credit her opponents with
continuity of thought.
2. That ObamaCare would fund abortions with taxpayer funds is not
"any argument." In fact Marcus herself says as much in this
same essay. She says, in the fifth paragraph, "But I respect
those who fervently believe that abortion is the taking of human
life, so I am sensitive to concerns that their tax dollars not be
used to pay for the procedure"
If you're going to write an article with the sole purpose of
concluding that your ideological enemies are "fear-mongers" and
staking out the moral high ground for yourself, you would be
better off not contradicting what you wrote merely 10 paragraphs
earlier.
UPDATE:
National Right to Life's Douglas Johnson has an exhaustive and
detailed explanation of both how the administration's reform
generally and the Capps amendment specifically would directly
fund abortions
here.
