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.

Fox News: Atheists should leave the country

 Fox News: Atheists should leave the country

Robert Sobel

Robert SobelOrlando Liberal Examiner

September 6, 2013


A recent lawsuit has argued that “under God” should be removed from the Pledge of Allegiance and has sparked outrage from one Fox News host in particular.

When David Niose, a lawyer who happens to also be an atheist, brought a case before the Massachusetts Supreme Court and argued that the Pledge of Allegiance violated the Equal Rights Amendment of the state’s constitution due to the phrase "under God." The argument over the separation between church and state is one that secular Americans have been having with the religious right for years, but as the secular movement has gained steam, the argument has become louder.

During an episode of the Fox News show "The Five," co-host Dana Perino went on a rant, attacking Niose and all atheists for their disagreement with the required pledge and noted that they should all just leave the country.

    “I’m tired of them. I remember working at the Justice Department years ago when I first started right after 9/11 and a lawsuit like this came through, and before the day had finished, the United States Senate and the House of Representatives had both passed resolutions saying that they were for keeping ‘under God’ in the pledge. If these people really don’t like it, they don’t have to live here."

The separation of church and state has long been established, but because of the murky shades of gray that surround the issue, an argument could be made for both sides. While both religious and secular Americans often argue their side of the coin, Dana Perino's suggestion that atheists should leave the country is just not logical. For a conservative Christian who follows the path of forgiveness and tolerance, Perino isn't living up to title. Niose's lawsuit probably won't amount to much, but the reason why it was brought up is valid. If Dana Perino or other conservative Christians have a problem with the secular nature of the United States, maybe they should be the ones who consider moving out.

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