Republican bill would prohibit abortion coverage in multi-state health plans

Republican bill would prohibit abortion coverage in multi-state health plans
By Eric W. Dolan
Thursday, May 3, 2012 20:27 EDT -- The Raw Story


In an effort to have ObamaCare stay consistent with the Hyde Amendment (a federal law that bans the use of Medicaid funds to pay for abortion), some House members are introducing legislation that will stop multi-state health plans from offering coverage for elective abortions.

Stress "offering coverage for elective abortions".

In other words: insurance won't pay, but you can still get an abortion (and You pay).

Some will say that might be unfair.

Others will support the idea of the possibility that insurance premiums will not go sky high because of such "coverage".
(premiums are the prices you pay for insurance)

Apparently, the ObamaCare law is silent on the Hyde Amendment ?

Sixty House Republicans and one House Democrat have sponsored legislation that would block multi-state health plans from offering coverage for elective abortions.

The Hill reported that the legislation, the Stop Abortion Funding in Multi-state Exchange Plans (SAFE) Act, would amend the new federal health care law to ensure that health insurance exchanges would not cover abortion procedures. The health care reform law required all 50 states to set up a health insurance exchange system by 2014.

The bill was introduced in late April by Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO).

“The healthcare law signed by President Obama in 2010 marked the largest expansion of abortion since Roe v. Wade,” Americans United for Life Action President and CEO Dr. Charmaine Yoest said. “But it is not too late to change course and prevent damage that the law will cause.”

Yoest said the bill would ensure that the new federal health care law was consistent with the Hyde Amendment, a federal law that bans the use of Medicaid funds to pay for abortion.

Like the Hyde Amendment, the SAFE Act would allow for exemptions if the pregnancy was the result of an act of rape or incest, or if the mother experienced certain medical conditions.

Hyde Amendment

In U.S. politics, the Hyde Amendment is a legislative provision barring the use of certain federal funds to pay for abortions.[1] It is not a permanent law, rather it is a "rider" that, in various forms, has been routinely attached to annual appropriations bills since 1976. The Hyde Amendment applies only to funds allocated by the annual appropriations bill for the Department of Health and Human Services. It primarily affects Medicaid.

The original Hyde Amendment was passed on September 30, 1976 by the House of Representatives, by a 207-167 vote. It was named for its chief sponsor, Republican Congressman Henry Hyde of Illinois. The measure was introduced in response to the U.S. Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion, and represented the first major legislative success by the anti-abortion

I sure don't see any problem here. I first opened from the headline and expected another outrage like the 'probe scandal' in Virginia. I'm as conservative as anyone and even I'm getting sick of the Abortion topic being first, foremost and always #1. Obamacare is wrong in so many ways. Abortion is almost a sideshow to the real issue when that is the main subject.


Having said that.... No problem on this one. The Hyde Amendment is nothing new. It is the law and too bad that the Feds have to follow it. I have an idea! If they don't like it, adjust or repeal it. Pass a NEW act to over-ride that one.

Of course, they system isn't working to the 100% sole benefit of the side currently looking, so I'm sure that approach won't even see an attempt. It'll be straight to circumventing the laws of the land to bypass Congress and Congressional limits on executive powers. Of course... Everything else has been that way, why change now??

The health care bill had a section added to it to prevent funding abortions in order to get enough votes, yet republicans keep insisting it's government funded abortion. I am getting really tired of hearing this, aren't they just lying?

Secondly, why the hell do they always say government shouldn't be able to regulated businesses at all yet they push crap like this on a regular basis?

Originally posted by CB328
Secondly, why the hell do they always say government shouldn't be able to regulated businesses at all yet they push crap like this on a regular basis?

But didn't the other side open this can of worms? The problem lies in the fact that the government is forcing people to buy insurance coverage. In doing so, I think it certainly opens them up to criticism of exactly what is being covered.

reply to post by xuenchen

more dog & pony show ??
geeeesh, will they stop at nothing to limit individual rights ??
those who know me know i am not a fan of Obamacare but why add additional legislation to what was supposed to be "comprehensive" when it was passed ??

personally, i think this whole effort is bunk.
why should a particular medical procedure be excluded when others are not ??
why should we taxpayers pay for other elective surgeries and not this one ??
the imbalance is astoundingly remarkable.