Oops: Republican Obamacare Amendment Expanded Abortion Access for GOP Staffers

—By Molly Redden

| Mon Dec. 9, 2013 3:00 AM GMT

"Crap." Pete Marovich/ZUMA

Nearly 9 in 10 health care plans that members of Congress and their staff must choose from include abortion coverage, a fact that has Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.) and right-wing media outlets raising hell.
But the only reason that congressional staffers have to choose from these plans at all is because a Republican amendment to Obamacare requires it. Thanks to this amendment, congressional staffers, who once had to pay for abortions out of pocket, can now buy insurance that covers abortions.
The bizarre story of how a conservative, anti-abortion Republican ended up expanding abortion access for congressional staff dates back to the initial fight over the Affordable Care Act in 2010. Here's how it happened: The Obamacare exchanges were expressly designed to provide insurance to the uninsured, so congressional staffers—who, like most Americans, already had insurance—were initially excluded. Republicans claimed that this amounted to Democrats "exempting" themselves and their staff from Obamacare, and Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) introduced an amendment that would force members of Congress and their staff to use the exchanges. Grassley's proposal was intended to embarrass Democrats. But Democrats called Grassley's bluff, and the law passed with his amendment.
But Grassley's measure forced congressional staff out of the Federal Health Benefits Program, which federal law prohibited from offering any abortion coverage. Under the the federal plan, any congressional employee who wanted an abortion had to pay for it out of pocket. Now that they're on the Obamacare exchanges, though, congressional employees will only pay out of pocket for abortion insurance. They'll be able to choose any of the 112 plans available via Washington, DC's health care exchange, only 9 of which do not cover abortion.

Advertise on MotherJones.com

Grassley's office did not respond to a request for comment.
Smith claimed to the Associated Press that this means Congress is spending taxpayer dollars on abortions. But as ThinkProgress' Tara Culp-Ressler detailed, the employer contributions congressional staff receive for health care—i.e., federal, taxpayer dollars—will not be used to pay for abortions. The Office of Personnel Management has bent over backward to ensure that when congressional staff purchase health care plans, they'll be paying for any abortion coverage with segregated personal funds.
And the cost of that abortion coverage will likely be much less than that of an actual abortion. A 2013 Guttmacher Institute study using 2009 data found that the average out-of-pocket price women paid for an abortion was $485.
So to recap: Republican fearmongering about an Obamacare exemption for congressional staffers that never existed has earned congressional staffers a big abortion discount.

Molly Redden

Reporter

Molly Redden is a reporter in Mother Jones' Washington bureau. She tweets at @mtredden. RSS | Twitter

GOP Sen: An abortion to save a mother's life is simply a 'matter of convenience'

Robert SobelOrlando Liberal Examiner

July 24, 2013

A Republican state congressman got into a heated argument with a Facebook user over the weekend regarding abortion rights. During the exchange, the congressman claimed that keeping abortion legal to save the mother's life was simply a "matter of convenience."
Brian Nieves, the Republican Missouri Senate Majority Whip, posted a photo of a gun on his Facebook page. Nieves claimed that an unnamed "Modern Day Patriot" gave him the gun and Nieves made negative comments about House Minority Leader, Democrat Nancy Pelosi in the process. Responding to the photo and Nieves was a fellow Facebook user, who ridiculed the Republican congressman for posting the picture and making the comments. Nieves then commented back, asking the Facebook user is he was easily offended by "partial-birth abortions." Think Progress points out that the conversation continued with the Facebook user posting medical reasons for why a late term abortion may be necessary, but Neives fired back with comments that are on par with typical conservative logic.

"Brian Nieves: (Facebook user's name)... This is what you say in support of Partial Birth Abortion?? Here are your words from above: "Common Logistical and Personal Reasons for Partial Birth Abortions
-- Lack or lack of recognition of pregnancy symptoms, particularly by adolescents
-- Inability to afford a first trimester abortion
-- Inability to locate medical assistance during first trimester (due to lack of local medical professionals)
-- Lack of financial resources, emotional support, and/or partner
July 20 at 11:36pm · Like · 2
Brian Nieves (Facebook user's name).... "Life of the Mother?" Your own argument proves it is a matter of convenience! Tell me this - Do you even know what a partial birth abortion really is? No, seriously, do you actually know what it is?? If so, explain to me what a partial birth abortion is."

While a late-term abortion is never on anyone's "to do" list, there are times when the procedure is medically necessary. Both sides of the political fence continue to battle over this issue and the larger issue of abortions rights and a woman's right to choose. The "pro-life" movement and "pro-choice" sector have laid claims to small victories in the past and, at times, the issue has even found its way to the Supreme Court.
At the end of the day, the argument and battle wages on. No one will ever be able to convince the opposing side to believe their side of the argument. The abortion issue isn't one that can be convenient by numbers and statistics, it's a matter of moral and ethical code that can only bring small victories to the table, not one that will win over an entire nation.

10 POLITICAL Things You Can't Do While Following Jesus

10 POLITICAL Things You Can't Do While Following Jesus

06/08/2013

 

by Mark Sandlin

In response to my last article, “10 Things You Can't Do While Following Jesus,” I was accused multiple times of being political. All I was trying to do was follow Jesus. So, I thought it'd be interesting (and generate tons more hate mail) to show what a list would actually look like if I were being political intentionally. Like the first list, this is not a complete list but it's a pretty good place to start.

There will be those who comment and send me messages berating me for “making Jesus political.” It's okay. Fire away. Jesus didn't worry much about stepping on political toes and the Bible insists that governments be just toward the least of these (the books of the prophets alone make this point very clear). Frequently, people who are the most vocal about not making Jesus political are the same people who want prayer in school and laws based on their own religious perspectives. By a happy little circumstance that brings us to my list:

10) Force your religious beliefs and practices on others.
One of the strengths of the faith Jesus taught was in its meekness. The faith he taught valued free will over compulsion – because that's how love works. Compelling people to follow any religion, more or less your personal religion, stands over and against the way Jesus practiced his faith. If you are using the government to compel people to practice your spiritual beliefs, you might be the reason baby Jesus is crying. This does get tricky. There is a difference in letting your beliefs inform your political choices and letting your politics enforce your religion. This article is about the first part.

9) Advocate for war.
There's a reason why he was called the Prince of Peace. Sure, you can quote, “I did not come to bring peace, but a sword,” and even two or three other verses but they don't hold a candle to the more than fifty-some verses where Jesus speaks about peace and peacemaking. It's funny how things keep coming back to love but it needs to be said, it is way far away from loving a person to kill them. I guess there's a reason why we say, “God is love.” In the end, love wins.

8) Favor the rich over the poor.
This is actually related to #4. Favoring the rich over the poor is a slap in the face of Jesus, his life and his teachings. In terms of the teachings of Jesus, it is bad enough when we allow the rich to take advantage of the poor, but when we create laws which not only encourage the behavior but also protect it? Well, let's just say it becomes crystal clear how ironic it is that we print, “In God We Trust,” on our money.

---

 7) Cut funding that hurts the least of these.
To some degree, this is the inverse of #8. Favoring the rich is despicable. We Jesus minions should avoid it. Hurting the poor? Well, that's just.. just... um, something a whole lot worse than despicable. Despicabler? Über-dispicable? When Jesus said, “Whatever you do to the least of these, you do it to me,” he meant it. When you cut funding and it hurts people, according to Jesus, you are hurting him.

6) Let people go hungry.
Well, well, well. What have we here? Is this an item from the original top ten list which I claimed was not politically motivated? Looks like I've stepped into my own clever trap! Muh wah ha ha! Seriously though, of course it's on both lists. It is a spiritual issue and it is a political issue. Spiritually, Gandhi said, “There are people in the world so hungry, that God cannot appear to them except in the form of bread.” Politically, hunger causes problems with education, production and civil behavior which are all necessary for a successful nation. More importantly for Christians, Jesus said when we feed the hungry, we are feeding him. So, yes, this item is on both lists – and I'm going to do it again.

5) Withhold healthcare from people.
This time I'm not only repeating an item, I'm repeating a lot of what I said. Did you ever play the game “Follow the Leader"? If you don't do what the leader does, you are out. Following means you should imitate as closely as possible. When people who were sick needed care, Jesus gave it to them. If we are following Jesus, we will imitate him as closely as possible. No, the government can't repeat the miracles he did but I've seen modern medicine do things that are about as close to a miracle as I expect to get. While the government can't do miracles, it can supply modern medicine. Every year, 45,000 people die in the U.S. because of the lack of healthcare. We Christians like to talk about “saving” people. Well, I know of about 45,000 people who'd love for us to do it and we should – because that's how love works.

4) Limit the rights of a select group of people.
Jesus loves everybody – but he loves me best. Kind of sits the wrong way with you, doesn't it? Well, it should and with good reason. If you spend any time reading the Bible you know that we all were made in God's image. Exactly which part of us is in God's image is less clear but what is clear is that we were equally made in the image of God. Any law that doesn't treat people equally is as good as thumbing your nose at God. Even worse? Doing it in the name of God or based on religious beliefs (see #10).

3) Turn away immigrants.
Christian heritage runs through Judaism. We are an immigrant people. Even our religion began somewhere else. Our spiritual ancestors, Abraham and Sarah were told by God to pick up what they had and start traveling. Moses, Miriam and Aaron led a nation out of Egypt, into the desert and ultimately to new lands. Even Jesus spent part of his childhood as a foreigner in a foreign land. As Exodus says, we know how it feels to be foreigners in a foreign land. If you don't think being foreigners in a foreign land is still our story, ask the Native Americans. At best, turning away immigrants makes us hypocrites; at worst, it makes us betrayers of our ancestors and our God.

2) Devalue education.
We learn in Proverbs that wisdom is something in which God delights daily. As a matter of fact, according to Proverbs, wisdom is better than gold. When you look at the percentage of our budget which goes to education and at what Congress is trying to do to student loans, it's pretty clear that delighting in wisdom is something our government no longer does.

1) Support capital punishment -- execution.
Jesus died by execution. He was an innocent man. Every year, innocent people die by execution in our nation. It's time to be a shining city on a hill. It's time to express the fullness of love, to express the value of life. It's time to stop the government-sanctioned killing.

Why Are Conservative Christians Suing To Increase Abortions?

Why Are Conservative Christians Suing To Increase Abortions?

December 2nd, 2013 9:32 am 
Jason Sattler

The Supreme Court’s decision to hear two cases about the Affordable Care Act’s birth control mandate is likely to popularize a word many Americans have never heard before: abortifacients.
The word has been around since the mid-19th century but recently it has become completely politicized — as everything involving a woman’s reproductive system has — as conservative Christians have sought to classify emergency contraception like Plan B and the “morning after” pill as drugs that cause abortion.
target="_blank">Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) recently told the Values Voters Summit that the federal government is coming after Christian organizations, “saying they have to provide abortifacients.”
The Green family, who owns two of the businesses represented in the contraception case the nation’s highest court will hear next year, aren’t Catholics who oppose all birth control. They are fundamentalist Christians who believe the mandate that all health insurance provided by private companies must include coverage of  Plan B and the “morning after” pill violates their religious beliefs. And that belief is, apparently, that emergency contraception is an abortifacient.
It’s a belief they hold so fervently that they were willing to risk over a million dollars in fines to stick to it.
Like many articles of faith, this assertion has little to no science to back it up.
“Morning-after pills do not end a pregnancy that has implanted,” reports the Mayo Clinic. “Depending on where you are in your menstrual cycle, morning-after pills may act by one or more of the following actions: delaying or preventing ovulation, blocking fertilization, or keeping a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus.”
The owners of Hobby Lobby agree with the technical assertion of what the pills do. They’re simply arguing that preventing a fertilized egg from becoming implanted in a woman’s womb is an act of abortion. Their argument is that life begins at fertilization. It’s an argument backed up by medical organizations — that all seem to have the words “pro-life” or “Christian” in their names.
If you make that argument, it’s not hard to make the leap that anything that prevents fertilization is abortion — as regular birth control does. As does menstruation.
Princeton University’s The Emergency Contraception Website states categorically that fertilization and pregnancy are not the same:
Emergency contraceptive pills work before pregnancy begins. According to leading medical authorities – such as the National Institutes of Health and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists – pregnancy begins when the fertilized egg implants in the lining of a woman’s uterus. Implantation begins five to seven days after sperm fertilizes the egg, and the process is completed several days later. Emergency contraception will not work if a woman is already pregnant.
By preventing an egg that was fertilized unintentionally from becoming a pregnancy, emergency contraception prevents unintended pregnancies.
What Hobby Lobby is asking for is the right to deny its employees coverage of prescription medications that would avoid abortions.
Let’s see if the media points that out.
Photo: Gage Skidmore via Flickr