Quantcast

Are You OK With the Obama Law Requiring a $1 Abortion Per Month Subsidy,From Every Insured American?

Steverno~POTL~PWCM~JLA 2012/03/14 17:25:06
Yes! Free Abortion,paid by everybody else is my right!
Heck No!...I shouldn't be forced to help pay for other people's abortions!
Other Thoughts!
You!
Add Photos & Videos

Obama Law Requires $1 Abortion Subsidy From Every Insured American

The controversial “individual mandate” in the ObamaCare health diktat, which requires Americans to buy health insurance or face a hefty fine, also requires something else: The insured party, thanks to a finalized version of the mandate, must pay a $1 premium to fund abortions.

That fee will be the heart of one key argument against the law from the Bioethics Defense Fund, which has joined the fight against the Mephistophelian law with anamicus curiae brief filed with the U.S. Supreme Court in February. The high court will hear the case against the law on May 27.

An amicus curiae brief is a pleading filed by a party that is not involved in a lawsuit to help the court decide the matter.

You’ll Pay for Abortions, Like It or Not

The heart of the BDF’s brief is this: Requiring an insured person to pay a $1 premium to subsidize abortions trespasses the First Amendment of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom to practice, within limits, one’s religion as one chooses.

According to the brief, “Like a Russian doll, the individual mandate has nestled within it a hidden, but equally unconstitutional, scheme that effectively imposes an ‘abortion premium mandate’ that violates the free exercise rights of millions of Americans who have religious objections to abortion. The individual mandate found in Section 1501 of the Act provides that, beginning in 2014, Americans must either purchase federally approved health insurance or pay a monetary penalty.”

The violation of religious rights occurs, BDF argues, because the individual mandate requires one to buy insurance and because the law requires the $1 abortion subsidy. Like it or not, the insured is paying for an abortion. “The infringing provisions impose inescapable requirements upon millions of Americans who will be, even unwittingly, enrolled in employer or individual health plans that happen to include elective abortion coverage,” the brief argues.

The Act effectively imposes an “Abortion Premium Mandate” that compels enrollees in certain health plans to pay a separate abortion premium from their own pocket, without the ability to decline abortion coverage based on religious or moral objection.

The “individual mandate” that compels Americans by threat of penalty to purchase only federally approved health insurance plans results in the imposition of another unconstitutional mandate that will impact millions of Americans.

The brief says the Obama administration’s original attempt to force insurance plans to include elective abortions is an historical first, but “due to the public uproar, the drafters devised a scheme to avoid the direct federal funding of abortion.” That scheme simply involved shifting the responsibility to those the government forces to buy insurance against their will, meaning the insured parties are dragooned not only into buying insurance but also subsidizing the murder of unborn children.

This goal of avoiding the use of tax-payer subsidies for abortion coverage was unfortunately achieved by a means that violates the First Amendment; namely, by compelling the taxpayer to personally pay a separate abortion premium.

The unconstitutional scheme can be found in Section 1303, which provides that the issuer of a federally subsidized plan that covers elective abortions “shall” obtain a separate and private payment from every enrollee, without exception, to be used by the insurer solely for the payment of other people’s elective abortions.

Under Section 1303 of the Act, all individuals who, even unwittingly, are enrolled in a plan — either on their own or by their employer — that happens to include elective abortion coverage are compelled by the Act to pay a separate premium from their own pocket to the insurer’s actuarial fund designated solely for the purpose of paying for other people’s elective abortions. As explained below, the Act denies enrollees the ability to decline abortion coverage based on religious or moral objection.

Section 1303(b)(1)(B)(i) of the Act refers to elective abortions as “Abortions For Which Public Funding is Prohibited” (“elective abortions”). The Act then provides that the issuer “shall estimate the basic per enrollee, per month cost, determined on an average actuarial basis, for including coverage under a qualified health plan of the services described in paragraph (1)(B)(i) [i.e., elective abortions].” Section 1303(b)(1)(D)(ii) mandates that the abortion premium mandate shall not be estimated “at less than $1 per enrollee, per month.”

The enrollee must separately pay the abortion premium from his or her own private funds by virtue of the Act’s provision stating that in plans covering elective abortion, “the issuer of the plan shall not use any amount attributable to” either tax credits or “cost-sharing reductions” for “the purposes of paying for [elective abortion] services.”

Frighteningly, the conscience-stricken Christian has no escape. He or she may not refuse to cough up the abortion subsidy, the brief argues. “Once some Americans find themselves, for whatever reason, in plans with abortion coverage, the Act denies such enrollees the ability to decline payment for such coverage.”

Read more : http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/11181-obama...

Read More: http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/...

Add a comment above

Top Opinion

  • DeborahLakeHelen 2012/03/14 17:32:21
    Heck No!...I shouldn't be forced to help pay for other people's abortions!
    DeborahLakeHelen
    +25
    I'm dead set against the cold-blooded murder of beautiful, precious unborn babies. Only someone with a satanic mind would even think up such a thing.

    live baby in womb

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Daniel Francis 2012/04/16 04:32:37
    Heck No!...I shouldn't be forced to help pay for other people's abortions!
    Daniel Francis
    +2
    I don't want my hard earned money to pay for an abortion because some filthy slut can't keep her legs shut!
  • La 2012/03/24 03:42:35
    Other Thoughts!
    La
    Lol
  • Selketskiss 2012/03/21 19:52:01
    Heck No!...I shouldn't be forced to help pay for other people's abortions!
    Selketskiss
    +3
    So Odumbass wants me to give my money to a whore who kills her baby, never, not from my pocket.
  • clasact 2012/03/18 21:32:07
    Yes! Free Abortion,paid by everybody else is my right!
    clasact
    I would much rather pay abuck a month now then severl thousand later to have them on welfare
  • Cal 2012/03/16 12:17:43
    Heck No!...I shouldn't be forced to help pay for other people's abortions!
    Cal
    +4
    I wont fund murder.
  • Luke 2012/03/16 11:39:19
    Heck No!...I shouldn't be forced to help pay for other people's abortions!
    Luke
    +2
    NO WAY!!!!
  • Diana 2012/03/16 04:31:27
    Other Thoughts!
    Diana
    This is propaganda no one Democrat or Republican can fund abortions through Federal tax dollars it's illegal and will always be so.
  • Stevern... Diana 2012/03/16 19:03:48
    Steverno~POTL~PWCM~JLA
    +3
    Nope...It's funding abortion through your healthcare insurance premiums.No with your tax dollars!
  • MorbidCynic 2012/03/16 02:59:26
    Heck No!...I shouldn't be forced to help pay for other people's abortions!
    MorbidCynic
    +1
    I'll (likely) kill anyone who tries to force me to pay for an abortion.
  • Just me ♥ 2012/03/16 02:42:34
    Other Thoughts!
    Just me ♥
    +2
    Oh hell NO....don't want my taxes to go to funding abortions.
  • Stevern... Just me ♥ 2012/03/16 19:10:17
    Steverno~POTL~PWCM~JLA
    Technically,its not your taxes paying for abortions.But you will pay for abortions with you health insurance premiums!
  • Just me ♥ Stevern... 2012/03/16 21:18:44
    Just me ♥
    +2
    Yep, you're right. I don't want my insurance premium paying for them either and as I understand it, women can write them off as a deduction, thus paying less taxes to the govt. When funds are down, taxes go up higher and in essence, we'd end up paying for them twice.
  • Stevern... Just me ♥ 2012/03/16 21:23:01
    Steverno~POTL~PWCM~JLA
    +2
    That's how the liberals planned it!
  • jackolantyrn356 2012/03/16 01:55:07
    Heck No!...I shouldn't be forced to help pay for other people's abortions!
    jackolantyrn356
    +4
    Being a Christian I am unab;e to contribute money to murder babies
  • KarenInKenoshaWisconsin 2012/03/16 01:03:42
    Other Thoughts!
    KarenInKenoshaWisconsin
    +3
    Two Reasons I'm Reserving Judgment and Comment for the Time Being:

    1. I bet no one here both read all the documents involved and were trained to understand and parse the information with clarity.
    2. I'm very skeptical of news that only goes round the anti-abortion and religious right and isn't being reported in any major news media.
  • iamthem... KarenIn... 2012/03/16 01:06:03
    iamthemob ~ the 444th Guru ~
    +2
    Shhh. You're being too reasonable. ;-)
  • socokid KarenIn... 2012/03/16 14:00:43
    socokid
    +1
    http://www.politifact.com/tru...

    I've read the bill. Forcing QHPs that provide health care to set aside at least $1 of their premium payments so that our Fed Gov specifically does NOT pay for that portion is something anti-abortionists definitely want. This particular portion of the bill was crafted by a staunch pro-lifer.

    And yet, here we have pages of responses from pro lifers that want it removed...

    Unbelievable, really.
  • 4dc 2012/03/15 23:59:53
    Heck No!...I shouldn't be forced to help pay for other people's abortions!
    4dc
    +3
    if it's real...hell no
  • Alleycat 2012/03/15 22:53:07
    Heck No!...I shouldn't be forced to help pay for other people's abortions!
    Alleycat
    +5
    A certain amount Karma exists from the destruction of an unborn child and I want no part of it.
  • StarWarsBob 2012/03/15 22:03:53
    Other Thoughts!
    StarWarsBob
    The Bioethics Defense Fund cannot "join the fight" against the PPACA. The case that the Supreme Court will hear is an appeal filed by the Justice Department in the federal court ruling in Florida vs. Sebelius on October 14th, 2010, a ruling led by Judge Roger Vinson. You have to understand that case to understand what the Supreme Court will be hearing.
    http://www.acslaw.org/acsblog...
  • bluelady 2012/03/15 21:47:10
    Other Thoughts!
    bluelady
    +1
    it is an offense to my religoun...I dont see anyone making Muslims support pig farming..
  • Brendakp 2012/03/15 20:37:21
    Heck No!...I shouldn't be forced to help pay for other people's abortions!
    Brendakp
    +3
    We must vote him out! Come on people, let's vote him out in November!


    Obama must go
  • ed Brendakp 2012/03/15 23:27:29
    ed
    +5
    I agree and we need to get rid of his healthcare bill as well.
  • jeepster4 2012/03/15 20:30:27
    Other Thoughts!
    jeepster4
    +3
    There is no such law..but why let facts interfere with a good narrative?
  • socokid jeepster4 2012/03/16 13:58:25
    socokid
    Ironically, this part of the bill (the at least $1 thing) is something anti-abrotionists defintely should want. These people are nuts. Not for what they believe, but for how they get to their beleifs. It only takes reading a slanted blog to become filled with rage that could have been thwarted with 2 minutes of fact checking.

    Sad has hell, IMO.

    http://www.politifact.com/tru...
  • mal 2012/03/15 19:28:35
    Other Thoughts!
    mal
    +2
    VOTE THE COMMUNIST OUT....
  • Studied 2012/03/15 19:03:26
    Heck No!...I shouldn't be forced to help pay for other people's abortions!
    Studied
    +4
    Under no circumstances.
  • Snowball 2012/03/15 17:40:00
    Heck No!...I shouldn't be forced to help pay for other people's abortions!
    Snowball
    Since there appears to be a claim that sooo many people support it, why not have them all work together and create like a humane society for people who think like them. Clearly we euthanize more cats and dogs daily than abortions, so it would seem they should be able to care about their own cause, like animal lovers do their cause, and fund it on their own. Again, not everyone who gets an abortion, needs it for free, nor should such an experience, ESPECIALLY if it's due to irresponsible behavior, be free. Perhaps they can do a Obama corp sort of thing- get your free health care, donate your time to people who are less unfortunate, and actually NEED the help, than all these people wanting free stuff from everyone else.
  • Shigyrl but outspoken on my... 2012/03/15 17:05:24
    Heck No!...I shouldn't be forced to help pay for other people's abortions!
    Shigyrl but outspoken on my future
    +4
    Thank you for posting this. I started a poll on this issue last night. All the idiot libs say that no one is being forced to fund abortion.
  • iamthem... Shigyrl... 2012/03/15 17:38:21
    iamthemob ~ the 444th Guru ~
    Please cite to the provision that says that there is a mandate to fund abortion. It must be clear, if you claim it's there.
  • Shigyrl... iamthem... 2012/03/15 18:48:43
    Shigyrl but outspoken on my future
    +3
    Apparently you can't read. Because in the above statement. The poster cited where they have hidden the mandate to force tax payers to fund abortion. Along with other crap they are doing. Have a nice day.
  • iamthem... Shigyrl... 2012/03/15 19:23:44
    iamthemob ~ the 444th Guru ~
    +1
    (1) Show the language. What does it say exactly?

    (2) How can it be possible when the rules literally says states are forbidden from discriminating against plans that forbid abortion coverage?

    (3) How is that possible when where abortions are permitted funds must be segregated?
  • Shigyrl... iamthem... 2012/03/15 19:59:37
    Shigyrl but outspoken on my future
    +4
    As I am not sitting next to you. I can not read what the poster wrote. My advice to you is find someone to read what is written above. Where the author clearly cites what you claim does not exist.
  • iamthem... Shigyrl... 2012/03/15 20:13:28
    iamthemob ~ the 444th Guru ~
    Again, the language in section 1303 applies only to plans that provide coverage for elective abortions as defined in the bill/regs.

    However, the exchange in each state is required to recognize QHPs that do not cover abortions. That means that when you choose your plan from the exchange, you can choose one that does not cover abortion.
  • Radical 1s1am1st 2012/03/15 16:59:55
    Yes! Free Abortion,paid by everybody else is my right!
    Radical 1s1am1st
    You ProLife people confuse me. You want to protect unborn babies but you are okay with your military making multiple tours in combat and killing fully grown adults and children which after 10 years is just for war profiteering. You want to have your legislators spend all their efforts to get rid of Roe vs Wade but you sent your troops to Iraq with substandard armored vehicles, body armor and weapons.
    Your members kill abortion providers who are doing a lawful service that you disagree with and provide tons of money and legal defense to protect those people who broke the law and murdered someone taking life of which you profess to be against. But when a soldier who has seen too much death fighting the wars you sent him or her to fight commits the same crime of murder because of psychological issues, you abandon these people but you always want to put your country first? Explain these issues please. Maybe I am just see things differently because of my service in Iraq but it confuses me and I know it confuses other veterans.
  • Shigyrl... Radical... 2012/03/15 18:55:49
    Shigyrl but outspoken on my future
    +3
    One the pro-life folks didn't send anyone to war. At the same time we are not the enemy who uses civilians as human shields. Roe v Wade legalized the murder of the most innocent. Last time I checked groups like priest for life did not pay to defend those who killed Dr. Tiller. The fact the man did not think he would reap what he had sown is ridiculous. The current administration has abandoned our soldiers coming back from the current war. So I am not sure why you are confused. If you did not believe in going to war. You never should of signed up.
  • Radical... Shigyrl... 2012/03/16 02:58:58
    Radical 1s1am1st
    I believe I was defending my country unfortunately my country was more concerned with dancing with the stars then it's soldiers.

    The Pro-Life people are behind the death of American citizens (a lot more than Tiller) who are performing legal abortions, Roe v Wade is still the law of the land. Just because you do not like a law does not mean you go kill people to change it. I went to war to stop people from doing just that. More than 3/4 of the congress who voted for authorization for the Iraq war were also Pro-Life.

    The current administration has done more for the military and the soldiers coming home than Bush/Cheney/Rumfeld ever did.

    Pro-Lifers are not the enemy who uses civilians as human shields, Pro-Lifers were the enemies enablers. Pro-Lifers turned a blind eye to 10+ years of war profiteering until it affected their pocket books and after we killed 250,000+ innocents, add 9 more to that total last week.

    You are the confused one and now I know why Pro-Lifers and the Taliban have SO much in common.
  • Shigyrl... Radical... 2012/03/16 04:07:34
    Shigyrl but outspoken on my future
    +2
    You know what I don't think you realize how much this nations citizens care about our soldiers. As a former dependent of someone who served more my entire childhood. You don't know the first thing about me. My dad was serving when Clinton butchered the military. He was serving when Clinton had the bright idea to take a self-sufficient entity like our military. Turn things over to civilian contractors. The cuts he made amounted to the second largest military in the world. Which was why prior to the cuts. During the first gulf war Saddam Hussein backed off. If we had still had those people. We would of been out of the middle east maximum 3 years. Rather then the ten we served. As for Roe v Wade. The law was passed based on false information. About the number of illegal abortions and how it had little to no effect on a womans body. As for Tiller he should of been put in prison. There is no excuse to take a baby that is viable from the womb. Stab it in the back of the head and kill it. So if you think what Tiller did was so innocent. You have no clue. The majority of civilians in the middle east are victims of their culture. The 9 killed recently were by a man who suffered mentally in my opinion. So you can take you pro-life comparison to the Taliban and shove it.
  • BryanJoshuaSuharly 2012/03/15 16:49:44
    Heck No!...I shouldn't be forced to help pay for other people's abortions!
    BryanJoshuaSuharly
    +3
    Personally, I'm not against abortion.There are specific cases where abortion is an option; and it's far from my prerogative to dictate what a woman does with her body. However, I'm not going to put money towards something that I don't agree with.
  • iamthem... BryanJo... 2012/03/15 17:39:30
    iamthemob ~ the 444th Guru ~
    +1
    Nothing in the law says that you have to. No one who has claimed that the rules above mandate that you do has been able to actually point to the provisions that contain the mandate.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 17 Next » Last »

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/10/20 22:56:15

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals