Boehner Warned of Obamacare's Abortion 'Slush Fund,' 'Secrecy Clause'

Hmmm.

Seems like we forgot all about that abortion slushfund.

The religious questions too.

Not so fast.

Today, 72 congressmen sent a letter to House Speaker Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio) urging him to insert language ending abortion funding and religious discrimination in Obamacare into any funding or debt ceiling legislation.

"[T]he Obama administration has committed unprecedented attacks against the unborn and the religious freedom guaranteed in the Constitution, all under the guise of 'access to health care,'" the letter tells Boehner.

The letter implores Boehner to "incorporate H.R. 940, the Health Care Conscience Rights Act, along with a cessation of federal dollars for abortions into the continuing resolution or on legislation addressing the debt ceiling."

sneaky sneaky ......

Americans morally opposed to funding abortion may unwittingly sign up for one that does due to Obamacare's "secrecy clause," the letter warns:

Boehner Warned of Obamacare's Abortion 'Slush Fund,' 'Secrecy Clause'

How 'Bout we give the unborn a Fair Chance...

Like; "Access To" some constitutional rights ?

How many future Presidents have been 'aborted' so far ?
Hmmm.

reply to post by xuenchen

So... 16% think the wording should be changed.
Probably won't have much effect.

If the person is paying for their insurance what right does the government have in telling her what she can do with her body? They just want to try to make abortion illegal they should just go ahead and admit it. And it's not called religious discrimination it's called treating everyone equally. No one should have the right to deny someone medical care just because it is against their religion. A little something else that congress forgot.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. When you put it into Obamacare it becomes law. And that's against the Constitution.

reply to post by buster2010


Where does the proposal say to outlaw abortion ?
[ that may be my own opinion however ]

I think it just says to clarify the 'hidden' assumptive conclusions.

It might be saying to have people who want the 'option' to pay the fee.

buster2010
what right does the government have in telling her what she can do with her body?

What right does the government have in telling me that I have to buy a product?

xuenchen
reply to post by buster2010

 

Where does the proposal say to outlaw abortion ?
[ that may be my own opinion however ]

I think it just says to clarify the 'hidden' assumptive conclusions.

It might be saying to have people who want the 'option' to pay the fee.

They want to make it illegal for everyone on Obamacare to get an abortion. Sure sounds like making abortion against the law.

reply to post by buster2010


Or it means the money can be used on more important things.

thesaneone

buster2010
what right does the government have in telling her what she can do with her body?

What right does the government have in telling me that I have to buy a product?

I agree with you they have no right. Obamacare is nothing but corporate welfare for insurance companies.

thesaneone
reply to post by buster2010

 

Or it means the money can be used on more important things.

Is this thing more important than telling a person what they can do with their bodies?

reply to post by buster2010

The bill says nothing about denying abortions. It's the federal government paying for them they have an issue with. And by federal government, they mean the taxpayers.
ETA: Do you think the taxpayers should pay for sex change operations as well?

QuantumCypher
reply to post by buster2010

 

The bill says nothing about denying abortions. It's the federal government paying for them they have an issue with. And by federal government, they mean the taxpayers.
ETA: Do you think the taxpayers should pay for sex change operations as well?

edit on 27-9-2013 by QuantumCypher because: Added question

Yes it does. It says that if a person wants to get an abortion the they have to pay for their own insurance.

H.R. 940 says that nothing in the Obamacare law "shall require an individual to purchase individual health insurance coverage that includes coverage of an abortion or other item or service to which such individual has a moral or religious objection, or prevent an issuer from offering or issuing, to such individual, individual health insurance coverage that excludes such item or service."

So if you are on Obamacare then you can't get an abortion using government dollars. That's denying abortions. And they are basing this on religion another no no. As far as a sex change goes that would depend on the mental state of a person.

Government cannot have it's hand in healthcare because it is a private matter. Period.

When they do have their prying, legislative eyes on our personal matters - then liberty and freedom is lost.


Cirque

reply to post by QuantumCypher

It's the federal government paying for them they have an issue with. And by federal government, they mean the taxpayers.

If that's their issue they seem to be off base.

No Federal Funds for Abortion Coverage or Abortion Care.
Tax credits or cost sharing subsidies may not be used for abortions not permitted by Hyde.
Private premiums would be segregated from public funds, and only private premiums could pay for abortion services beyond those permitted by Hyde.

www.dpc.senate.gov...

reply to post by buster2010

Making someone pay for their own surgery is not the same as denying it. Not even close. What's next, paying for liposuction for overweight people because being fat makes them feel bad about themselves?

reply to post by Phage

So as long as no further last minute changes as added, or the Hyde act overturned, federal monies can't be used like that.
Thanks for the info Phage.

reply to post by xuenchen


I would have been surprised if the Repubs DIDN'T try to sneak an anti-abortion clause into the thing.

reply to post by CirqueDeTruth

Government cannot have it's hand in healthcare because it is a private matter. Period.

It's unethical for a private company to make a profit off the illnesses of others. Health care should be non-profit.

Sookiechacha
reply to post by CirqueDeTruth

 

Government cannot have it's hand in healthcare because it is a private matter. Period.

It's unethical for a private company to make a profit off the illnesses of others. Health care should be non-profit.

PPACA ObamaCare law say that all insurance companies must spend 80% - 85% of their money on payouts.

Generally, this was about the margins they have always worked off of.

So, that must mean the problem lies somewhere else.

It's the healthcare buzzard hustlers at administrative and 'care' levels that are pocketing the real profits.

Everything *outside* of the insurance companies is over priced.

It's the water, not the well.

So, making an aborter pay for their own abortion in lieu of taxpayer dollars funding it violates their "right to do with their own body what they choose." BUT making a tobacco user pay a larger share of their premium before receiving a tax credit for payment of said premium is okie dokie?

buster2010
No one should have the right to deny someone medical care just because it is against their religion.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. When you put it into Obamacare it becomes law. And that's against the Constitution.

First the establishment of religion, respecting such, has to do with a state sanctioned region, an official state religion. It has nothing to do with making a doctor do an abortion. No one can make a doctor preform an abortion.

If you feel that doctors should be made to do so then you really are in the 7th circle of hell. Listen to what you are saying.