Please Cut the Crap fact checks FactCheck.org on abortion in the health care bills

[Hello_Kitty]

Updated Again!: Factchecking Factcheck.org: No Abortions With the Health Care Reform Bill

(Who knew? A friendly little reminder that a factcheck.org piece is mistaken, and it turns into something of a war? Come on, guys... we all make mistakes; it's okay...)

Look; I like Factcheck.org. They perform an essential public service, and they are usually right about the facts, even when I disagree with their conclusions. But I got one in my e-mail on Friday that is absolutely WRONG. You can go here to read the whole article, but here's a summary:

Abortion: Which Side Is Fabricating?
Despite what Obama said, the House bill would allow abortions to be covered by a federal plan and by federally subsidized private plans.
August 21, 2009

Summary

Will health care legislation mean "government funding of abortion"?

President Obama said Wednesday that’s "not true" and among several "fabrications" being spread by "people who are bearing false witness." But abortion foes say it’s the president who’s making a false claim. "President Obama today brazenly misrepresented the abortion-related component" of health care legislation, said Douglas Johnson, legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee. So which side is right?

The truth is that bills now before Congress don’t require federal money to be used for supporting abortion coverage. So the president is right to that limited extent. But it’s equally true that House and Senate legislation would allow a new "public" insurance plan to cover abortions, despite language added to the House bill that technically forbids using public funds to pay for them. Obama has said in the past that "reproductive services" would be covered by his public plan, so it’s likely that any new federal insurance plan would cover abortion unless Congress expressly prohibits that. Low- and moderate-income persons who would choose the "public plan" would qualify for federal subsidies to purchase it. Private plans that cover abortion also could be purchased with the help of federal subsidies. Therefore, we judge that the president goes too far when he calls the statements that government would be funding abortions "fabrications."


I urge everyone to go read the article in its entirety, and you'll note something missing in the analysis...

It's called the Hyde Amendment.

more

[centristgrandpa]

1. the right to choose should be an option, no matter what them...

religious nuts or compassionate conservative idiots rant...misinformation is the Republican's weapon of choice, ask hillbilly palin...

[emulatorloo]

2. THANKS FOR THE LINK! K&r

[Hello_Kitty]

3. But they'll like this one

Look for a ton of chain emails to come out saying "even Factcheck.org says the health care bill will cover abortions!" Wingnuts love the Librul Media when it tells them what they want to hear. That's why it's important to understand why it doesn't. (Not that I'm saying I agree with it, because I don't, but that's a matter for another day.)

[bain_sidhe]

4. But will it mean government funding for war?

How about for animal research? Or capital punishment? All things I find just as morally repugnant as anti-choicers find abortion, but some how, MY moral concerns never get respected by federal funding legislation.

I've said it before, and I'm gonna keep on saying it... what makes anti-choicers' moral preferences so special?

[Hello_Kitty]

6. I hear ya.

They not only get what they want regarding abortion, but also on contraception and sex ed in many places.

[AspenRose]

5. "Thou shalt not bear false witness."

Hypocrites.

[Hello_Kitty]

7. Who unrec'd this? Did you not read the link? eom

[bain_sidhe]

8. fixed it for ya!

[Hello_Kitty]

9. Much obliged!

:hi: