Well, I thought that was a fair and balanced article.

This article is a good example of how the press uses the “he said, she said” form to achieve what it considers balance. The Dems say the bill won’t fund abortion, the Rs say it will. Who’s right? You decide.

But the truth is that the bill at least potentially funds abortion, period. The Community Health Centers provisions that Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont snuck in at the last moment provides $10 billion for funding such centers, no strings attached. No prohibition on usage for abortion, and because it’s a separate appropriation from that of HHS, the Hyde Amendment doesn’t apply.

Here’s the real tell-tale: Bart Stupak and at least four other colleagues of his want to vote for health care reform. They did the last time. Does anyone really think that they would be putting up such strong resistance, and risking the wrath of Speaker Pelosi, if they weren’t certain that the bill funded abortion?

And the RC bishops, very supportive of health care reform overall, who supported the House version, have come out strongly against the current bill (which, of course, isn’t finished so no one really knows what’s in it) because of the funding of abortion (see here). An excerpt:

What do the bishops find so deeply disturbing about the Senate bill? The points at issue can be summarized briefly.  The status quo in federal abortion policy, as reflected in the Hyde Amendment, excludes abortion from all health insurance plans receiving federal subsidies. In the Senate bill, there is the provision that only one of the proposed multi-state plans will not cover elective abortions – all other plans (including other multi-state plans) can do so, and receive federal tax credits. This means that individuals or families in complex medical circumstances will likely be forced to choose and contribute to an insurance plan that funds abortions in order to meet their particular health needs.

Further, the Senate bill authorizes and appropriates billions of dollars in new funding outside the scope of the appropriations bills covered by the Hyde amendment and similar provisions. As the bill is written, the new funds it appropriates over the next five years, for Community Health Centers for example (Sec. 10503), will be available by statute for elective abortions, even though the present regulations do conform to the Hyde amendment. Regulations, however, can be changed at will, unless they are governed by statute.

Additionally, no provision in the Senate bill incorporates the longstanding and widely supported protection for conscience regarding abortion as found in the Hyde/Weldon amendment. Moreover, neither the House nor Senate bill contains meaningful conscience protection outside the abortion context. Any final bill, to be fair to all, must retain the accommodation of the full range of religious and moral objections in the provision of health insurance and services that are contained in current law, for both individuals and institutions.

David (#2), and Branford (#3),

I agree.  I hope that it all does in fact come down to the abortion issue, as intimated in the article’s opening sentence.  And I hope the bill loses.  For multiple reasons actually, but especially because of its abortion provisions.

David Handy+

PS.  I’m afraid that I can’t agree with #1 that this article is “fair and balanced.”  IMHO, it displays a clear liberal bias, but it is informative and helpful nonetheless.  As evidence of the liberal tilt, look at how the opposition to “gay rights” is dismissed so casually, and the rather smug ending.  But I’ve certainly seen a lot worse stuff in the “mainstream” news media.

David Handy+

Catholic hospitals, however, do support the bill. 

Most likely, with universal coverage, abortions would decrease.

I believe that Pres. O has said that the Health Care bill will cost us all about $950B over the next 10 years.

Let’s, just for the sake of discussion, accept that fantasy number.

Where is the reporting on how we will pay for it?  Where are the “real” numbers that demonstrate our ability to pay for this great big Candy Land giveaway?

Where is the reporting about the constitutionality of forcing people to purchase health insurance?  What legal arguments will be made pro and con?

None of what we have had so far is reporting.  It has been some sort of mutation between cheerleading and horse race announcing.