Why did HHS feel it necessary to restate the federal insurance stand on abortion?

[Robb]

This one's been bothering me. For reference, here's the statement from Wednesday that caused the dust-up, it doesn't appear to have been reproduced on DU:

http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2010pres/07/20100714d.html">Wednesday, July 14, 2010

Statement of HHS Spokeswoman Jenny Backus on the Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan Policy

As is the case with FEHB plans currently, and with the Affordable Care Act and the President's related Executive Order more generally, in Pennsylvania and in all other states abortions will not be covered in the Pre-existing Condition Insurance Plan (PCIP) except in the cases of rape or incest, or where the life of the woman would be endangered.

Our policy is the same for both state and federally-run PCIP programs. We will reiterate this policy in guidance to those running the Pre-existing Condition Insurance Plan at both the state and federal levels. The contracts to operate the Pre-existing Condition Insurance Plan include a requirement to follow all federal laws and guidance.

###

Now, this ain't new -- it sucks, but it ain't news. In fact, I doubt anyone seriously expected federal insurance policy to change -- reverse, really -- with the stroke of a pen (e.g. no Congressional sound-off), especially PP et al who are wholly versed in policy and process.

So why say it? Why give it its own press release?

...And why not dump it on Friday? Why do it on Wednesday, when everybody will get a chance to hear and write about it in time for the Sunday talk shows?

“I will also say that in the era of 24-hour cable news cycles, that the loudest, shrillest voices get the most attention. And so one of the things that I’m trying to figure out is: How can we make sure that civility is interesting?” --President Obama, Sept. 2009

This is not an administration that screws up the politics and press end of things regularly. Anyone want to guess why they made this move?

[IndianaGreen]

1. Misogyny? Catering to Operation Rescue? UFOs over China?

Who knows and who cares? The point is that this is wrong!

[enough]

2. Digby has a useful post on this question:

Link:

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2010/07/gop-values-forced-prenancy-for-sick.html

[IndianaGreen]

5. A must read! Up to $600 monthly out of pocket for the coverage

Dana Goldstein explains what happened:

...the new abortion ban is not required by either the health-care reform bill or the president’s March executive order, which promised that no federal funds would be spent on abortions in the health insurance exchanges that launch in 2014. That order stopped short of banning abortion coverage, instead adopting Sen. Ben Nelson’s proposal for a dual accounting system in which federal dollars cannot be used to fund abortion but consumers’ private insurance co-pays and deductibles can. The order did not mention the pre-existing condition insurance plan at all.

The controversy began Tuesday, when the conservative National Right to Life Committee released a statement claiming that Pennsylvania’s version of the pre-existing condition insurance program would use federal dollars to fund abortion coverage. As other social conservative groups, such as the Family Research Council, piled on, a key fact was obscured: Customers in these new high-risk insurance pools are expected to pay up to $600 monthly out of pocket for the coverage, which will be provided by private insurance companies.

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2010/07/gop-values-forced-prenancy-for-sick.html

[puzzlingpond]

22. That is just for the high risk pool--abortion is NOT included.

[dkf]

3. Obama caters to those that hate him not to those that shed blood and sweat for him.

[HughMoran]

4. Bullshit

[fasttense]

6. How come the Forced Pregnancy advocates are the only ones

who get to control the distribution of their federal tax dollars? I'm opposed to war but my tax dollars go to funding the unconstitutional war machine. I'm opposed to the unPatriotic Act, yet my tax dollars go to funding spying on American people, torture and indefinite detention. Yet the Forced Pregnancy advocates dollars don't have to fund what they find repugnant on a merely religious level.

Why shouldn't our tax dollars go to funding abortions? It's legal, it's a right and it's safe.

The Forced Pregnancy advocates certainly have a lot of clout in the Obama administration, much more clout than us peace advocates and those opposed to torture.

[AzDar]

10. +1

:thumbsup:

[OHdem10]

7. Fox News 6pm Fri. Reported that:: The New Healthcare Legis.

is being rolled out in stages. Two states, New Mexico and ?
were starting to implement the changes in their state.
Somehow, they interpreted the law in such a way that if
the state wanted to cover Abortions for Medicaid and
financially disadvantaged women they could. It seems they
were separating State and Federal Law. The Right to Lifers
got wind of this and went into full throttle. WE TOLD YOU
The Democrats were leaving A LARGE LOOPHOLE IN THIS LAW.
Never forget the Right is Intense and the Left is Apathetic.
Somehow the two states consulted with the President and
He told them not to be separating Federal and State issues
on this. He had given a Presidential Order on this issue
in order to gain the votes of the Stupak Group.

Needless to say the RW Media picked up on this and you know
the rest.

This is at the bottom of why this is once again the subject
of discussion.

[paulk]

8. why? because there's an election coming up in Nov and

the administration wants to keep any abortion issues off the table for fear that the right wing/conservative crowd will use it to get the fundies out to vote.

the digby article posted upthread is worth reading, btw.

[Bluenorthwest]

9. Boils down to fear.

And fear is no way to make governing decisions. There is always an election coming up.

[ProSense]

18. Is there a reason they shouldn't state the facts?

Why should they just let RW distortions being hyped by the media dominate the news?

[paulk]

19. is that the spin?

interesting....

[ProSense]

24. So you think the facts are spin?

Does it matter what the facts are?

[paulk]

26. that's your stock reply, isn't it?

LOL

you're funny...

[DevonRex]

11. K&R. Thanks for taking the time to point this out. It's a no-brainer, of course.

The rules have been the rules forever. And whenever there's a new program the RWers pretend that those programs will cover abortion. And then the administration will have to restate that the new program will NOT cover abortion. And then some folks in our party will be outraged because apparently they are just learning that Federal programs cannot cover abortion. :crazy:

[Hekate]

25. THAT is an accurate assessment. 1976. For 34 years, the Hyde Amendment has been in force. 1976.

Not last week, not yesterday, but for 34 years. It is a sucky law, but it is the law, and IT IS NOT NEW.

Periodically I wade hip-deep into the swamp here and point that out. Pfft. The little darlin's never seem to notice or retain the information.

TY DevonRex for stating the case so well.

Hekate

[DevonRex]

27. You know, Hekate, when I first came to DU, I wanted to believe

what was said here because I thought we were all Democrats and all wanted the same things. I was pretty naive back then. :blush:

[NJmaverick]

12. Is my understanding that women in this group can purchase an abortion rider

that will allow it to be covered?

[yodermon]

13. Plannd Parenthood, ACLU and

this link http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/print/13874 are all claiming that HHS has basically imposed the Stupak amemdment by some sort of Edict.
I'm not seeing it. Nothing in the HHS press release at http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2010pres/07/20100714d.html indicate that woman *can't* buy their own separate abortion coverage, which is what Stupak would have outlawed.

:shrug:

[NJmaverick]

14. I got that information from the Digby article posted on this thread

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[IndianaGreen]

23. Fighting for abortion rights is now 'pout rage?'

Gotcha!

[puzzlingpond]

21. It does not say they CAN in that statement.

[SunsetDreams]

16. kick

[ProSense]

17. Response to media giving RW lies attention.

Think Progress has details.

[Skittles]

20. sucking up to repukes