You are correct that the House bill (which you seem to support) could not pass because of the Senate Republicans. Yet you seem to have no criticism for the Senate Republicans filibustering this pro-life legislation. Yes, because of the Republicans blocking the pro-life bill, the Democrats had no choice but to find a work around, which th…
You are correct that the House bill (which you seem to support) could not pass because of the Senate Republicans. Yet you seem to have no criticism for the Senate Republicans filibustering this pro-life legislation. Yes, because of the Republicans blocking the pro-life bill, the Democrats had no choice but to find a work around, which they did.
Obamacare has saved over one million unborn lives and none of the reasons the RTL establishment gave at the time it was voted on (i.e. the Community Health Centers, etc) were true, as history have proven.
Your last sentence is the type of tortured language the RTL establishment used. Obamacare encouraged companies to offer health insurance but there was no requirement that these plans offer abortion. However, most businesses include abortion in their health care plans voluntarily. So that means the Republican proposals which (they claimed anyway) that would just encourage businesses to offer health insurance was a pro-abortion position.
The House bill never even passed the House because it wasn't finished before the Senate lost its filibuster proof majority. The Senate Republicans didn't filibuster it. It never came up for a final vote in the House, much less the Senate. Obama care didn't save any unborn children and instead allowed its plans to include abortion. In some states there weren't any government plans which didn't include abortion as part of the coverage. The plan as passed required employers with more than a given number of employees to provide health insurance which was required by law to cover birth control, some types of which work as abortifacients. Hobby Lobby had to go to the Supreme Court to get the requirement to cover those which work as abortifacients removed in their case.
Since the law allows those plans to cover abortions, which the proposal in House vote 166 of 2010 would have forbidden, those Democrats who voted against it effectively voted to allow plans which fulfill the obligations of the health care law to cover abortion. As you have pointed out, most employer plans do, which would not have been permitted had the vote gone the other way.
No plan required abortion coverage. If you believe that some products marketed as contraceptives are in fact abortifacients, you should sue over that issue rather than deny people health insurance. I would note Hobby Lobby refused to argue the factual basis that contraception is an abortifacient product and Trump never lifted a finger when he ran the FDA.
And are you really arguing that since most private sector employers offer plans that include abortion, we should seek to have more uninsured people?
No, I'm arguing, as did the pro-life organizations who attacked the supposed pro-life Democrats who sold out the unborn, that the federal law should have prohibited plans from covering abortion, which the not yet finalized House bill had done in a specific vote on the Stupak Amendment before the Senate membership change. The second vote on adding the Amendment to the Senate bill was vote 166 and it failed.
That would have been a good advancement. I would welcome private health insurance plans from covering abortion as federal insurance plans do. But it was a missed opportunity for a step forward, not a step back. Obamacare has saved over one million unborn lives.
You and I may disagree on strategy and methods. But it is the prerogative of the citizen. Bishops might outline strategy and methods, but have no authority to bind lay Catholics to their preferred strategies and methods.
No, prior to Obamacare that vast majority of private health plans included abortion. There was no significant change following the enactment of ACA and certainly nothing in ACA that mandated it.
You are correct that the House bill (which you seem to support) could not pass because of the Senate Republicans. Yet you seem to have no criticism for the Senate Republicans filibustering this pro-life legislation. Yes, because of the Republicans blocking the pro-life bill, the Democrats had no choice but to find a work around, which they did.
Obamacare has saved over one million unborn lives and none of the reasons the RTL establishment gave at the time it was voted on (i.e. the Community Health Centers, etc) were true, as history have proven.
Your last sentence is the type of tortured language the RTL establishment used. Obamacare encouraged companies to offer health insurance but there was no requirement that these plans offer abortion. However, most businesses include abortion in their health care plans voluntarily. So that means the Republican proposals which (they claimed anyway) that would just encourage businesses to offer health insurance was a pro-abortion position.
The House bill never even passed the House because it wasn't finished before the Senate lost its filibuster proof majority. The Senate Republicans didn't filibuster it. It never came up for a final vote in the House, much less the Senate. Obama care didn't save any unborn children and instead allowed its plans to include abortion. In some states there weren't any government plans which didn't include abortion as part of the coverage. The plan as passed required employers with more than a given number of employees to provide health insurance which was required by law to cover birth control, some types of which work as abortifacients. Hobby Lobby had to go to the Supreme Court to get the requirement to cover those which work as abortifacients removed in their case.
Since the law allows those plans to cover abortions, which the proposal in House vote 166 of 2010 would have forbidden, those Democrats who voted against it effectively voted to allow plans which fulfill the obligations of the health care law to cover abortion. As you have pointed out, most employer plans do, which would not have been permitted had the vote gone the other way.
No plan required abortion coverage. If you believe that some products marketed as contraceptives are in fact abortifacients, you should sue over that issue rather than deny people health insurance. I would note Hobby Lobby refused to argue the factual basis that contraception is an abortifacient product and Trump never lifted a finger when he ran the FDA.
And are you really arguing that since most private sector employers offer plans that include abortion, we should seek to have more uninsured people?
No, I'm arguing, as did the pro-life organizations who attacked the supposed pro-life Democrats who sold out the unborn, that the federal law should have prohibited plans from covering abortion, which the not yet finalized House bill had done in a specific vote on the Stupak Amendment before the Senate membership change. The second vote on adding the Amendment to the Senate bill was vote 166 and it failed.
That would have been a good advancement. I would welcome private health insurance plans from covering abortion as federal insurance plans do. But it was a missed opportunity for a step forward, not a step back. Obamacare has saved over one million unborn lives.
You and I may disagree on strategy and methods. But it is the prerogative of the citizen. Bishops might outline strategy and methods, but have no authority to bind lay Catholics to their preferred strategies and methods.
They generally didn't before Obama care, which has led to more destroyed unborn lives than there were before.
No, prior to Obamacare that vast majority of private health plans included abortion. There was no significant change following the enactment of ACA and certainly nothing in ACA that mandated it.
Where do you get your numbers from?