It looks like somebody’s clean money is touching somebody’s dirty money after all.
by digby
I haven’t seen many people comment on this so maybe I’m off base. But it seems to me that this is going to cause trouble:
It was one of the trickiest issues when lawmakers were debating Obamacare, in the end, the Affordable Care Act squeaked through congress after lawmakers crafted a compromise about abortion coverage. Customers who wanted to purchase a health plan that covers abortion services would be required to send a separate check to their insurers for that coverage. That way, no taxpayer money would be used to subsidize abortion.
But a new study by the federal Government Accountability Office surveyed 18 insurers.
“All but three insurers indicated that the benefit is not subject to any restrictions, limitations or exclusions,” the GAO reports.
That means the federal government could have been subsidizing plans that pay for abortion.
The administration says it’s done nothing wrong, but will provide guidance in the coming days.
Maybe it’s no big deal and nobody will care. I hope that’s how it goes. But considering what we went through during the health care debate on this issue, I’m having a hard time believing that the anti-abortion zealots are going to let this pass.
In case you don’t recall what went down, here’s a little reminder. You’ll recall that it was pro-life Democrats, led by Bart Stupak in the House who threatened to tank the health care reforms unless the President agreed to insure that the federal government didn’t cover abortion in the bill. The compromise was to make sure that the money of someone who opposes abortion would never even touch the money of someone who wants to buy insurance to cover the procedure thus keeping the taint of Satan from your personal balance sheet.
Recall this also from (the now former) congressman Stupak after the fact. (He wasn’t very bright.)
Michigan congressman Bart Stupak, who played a pivotal role in the passage of the health care bill, said there is something worse than the hatred – including death threats and angry calls to his house – he experienced because of his support for the legislation.“Ultimately, what stings the most isn’t the hatred,” wrote Stupak in a column posted on the Newsweek magazine’s website. “It’s that people tried to use abortion as a tool to stop health-care reform, even after protections were added.”The pro-life Democrat said in the column for the magazine’s May 17 issue that he has “two longstanding personal convictions”: that health care is a right and federal funds should not pay for abortions.He maintained that President Obama’s executive order sufficiently safeguards against the use of federal money to pay for abortions in health care reform. Obama had assured him that the executive order is “ironclad,” he said.President Obama, Stupak and his group of pro-life Democrats worked out a last minute deal in March that exchanged the congressmen’s votes in favor of the health care bill for an executive order stating that no tax dollars be used for abortions.Stupak argued that at that point the health care bill would have passed even if they voted against it. He said his coalition’s agreement with the president was meant to “add pro-life protections” on the legislation.Pro-life groups, however, denounced the deal, arguing that an executive order does not have the force of law and that Stupak betrayed the movement at the most critical time.“We need statutory law,” Stupak recalled the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops telling him after hearing about the deal.The Michigan lawmaker, who has served in Congress for nearly two decades, told the USCCB that President Abraham Lincoln used an executive order to free the slaves and President George W. Bush used one to block embryonic stem cell research.
Maybe nobody in the anti-abortion crowd has gotten the memo on this yet. (If not, don’t say anything …) But I’ll admit I’m a little bit surprised that there hasn’t yet been an outcry over this (as far as I know.) It was a huge fight that left everyone unsatisfied.
.