
Are You OK With the Obama Law Requiring a $1 Abortion Per Month Subsidy,From Every Insured American?
| 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/...
Top Opinion
-
DeborahLakeHelen 2012/03/14 17:32:21Heck No!...I shouldn't be forced to help pay for other people's abortions!+25I'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.























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.
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.
http://www.acslaw.org/acsblog...
Sad has hell, IMO.
http://www.politifact.com/tru...
(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?
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.
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.
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.