Obamacare supporters like E.J. Dionne and Matthew Yglesias are pointing to the assertions made by the head of the Catholic Health Association and NETWORK, an organization of Catholic nuns, as evidence that the Senate bill does not provide federal funds for abortions. "NETWORK" is a self-described "progressive" organization. One of the group's board members works at "Wellstone Action" an organization named after the late left-wing--and pro-abortion--senator Paul Wellstone. Among NETWORK's top 10 agenda items, you'll see that defending the right to life is not listed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wellstone_Action
http://www.networklobby.org/about/index.html
You wouldn't know any of this from reading Dionne's column or the Washington Post's news account, which identifies NETWORK not as a left-wing organization but merely a "consortium of 59,000 nuns." NETWORK's endorsement of Obamacare represents "an unausual schism within the Catholic Church"--you know, just like the Log Cabin Republicans support of gay marriage represents an "unusual schism" within the GOP.
But none of this really matters. It doesn't matter who's making a claim--it matters whether or not that claim is true. Matthew Yglesias makes a smart point:
this particular aspect of the debate hinges on a factual question. Bart Stupak maintains that this bill provides government funding for abortions. I saw him concede (on Fox News of all places) earlier today that the White House and the congressional leadership say this isn’t the case. And the nuns and the CHA disagree.
Yglesias then makes an obtuse point:
Since the dispute here is actually about the details of health care financing rather than theology, it seems to me that the Catholic Health Association’s view should be considered much more authoritative than the Bishops.
Actually: the text of the bill is what's authoritative in this dispute. The United States Council of Catholic Bishops cites the Senate bill chapter and verse to show exactly where and how the bill would allow federal funding of abortion. Read the USSCB's dissection of the Senate bill here.
The Catholic Health Association and NETWORK do not similarly point to specific provisions in the legislation to make their counterargument, rel
So let's take a look at what the legislation actually says. You can find the Stupak amendmen attached to the House bill here and the Nelson amendment attached to the Senate bill here.
"STATE OPT-OUT OF ABORTION COVERAGE.-- '(1) IN GENERAL.--A State may elect to prohibit abortion coverage in qualified health plans offered through an Exchange in such State if such State enacts a law to provide for such prohibition."
Got that? States may pass laws to "prohibit abortion coverage" in plans offered in the federally subsidized exchanges. That means the default position is for states to offer abortion coverage in the exchanges. If your state
The first part of the Nelson amendment to the Senate bill states
- opt-out
- CHCs ...
- segregation of funding
If we were talking about purchasing handguns instead of elective abortions through a federal program, I'm sure Democrats would see eye to eye with Republicans.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2009/12/23/v-print/81204/california-senators-back-health.html
Boxer said it's only an "accounting procedure" that will do nothing to restrict coverage.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/11/obama_we_need_to_change_stupak.asp
All federal insurance plans by employees. ...
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/12/schumer-weve-reached-agreement-with-nelson.php
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MjJhZjc1Yzk0YTU4M2UyZjcyNDk0ODcwYWViZWE1NGQ=ying on assertions rather than facts.
http://thinkprogress.org/2010/03/17/stupak-nuns/