More Anti-Healthcare Scare Tactics


The Boston Globe has
an op-ed
today that debunks the latest anti-healthcare reform myths. One of the baffling
myths is being proliferated by House Republican leader John Boehner (R-OH), who
has written that health care reform "will require Americans to subsidize
abortion with their hard-earned tax dollars."


One has to admire Boehner’s ability to tie together hot-button issues
(Abortion! Higher taxes!) in the name of his political opportunism. The scary
thing is, his misinformation is starting to trickle down. The Scranton Times-Tribune reported last Wednesday about a flyer included in a
church bulletin at the Honesdale Roman Catholic Church in Scranton. This flier
included the following:

"The Bill will also force taxpayers to pay for abortion on
demand." And "The bill establishes mandatory ‘end of life counseling’ for those
age [sic] 65 and older that we suspect will promote assisted suicide and
euthanasia…"

But this is all flat-out wrong. It’s shrill fear mongering.
The Op-Ed in the Boston Globe responds to the misinformation:

"The bills filed in various congressional committees are
officially neutral on the question, neither requiring nor forbidding private
insurance plans to offer abortion services. Isn’t that what the noisy critics
of a "government takeover” of health care supposedly want: A free-market
system that lets the consumer decide?

Finding common ground on abortion is as elusive as ever, but
the House bill makes a good stab at it with a provision that every region in
the country must offer insurance plans that cover abortion and plans that
don’t. That way, there is a choice for consumers who feel strongly about the
issue."

All of these scare tactics must be responded to quickly and
succinctly, like above; it’s quite possible health care reform could otherwise
be swift boated.

Like this story? Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

  • noworsethanusual

    Well, on August 19, President Obama himself slammed this "myth." The President said that it was a "fabrication" to suggest that the bill is "going to mean government funding of abortion." Of course, the Right to Life Committee immediately disputed him, those fear mongers. So the independent FactCheck.org, affiliated with the Annenberg Public Policy Center, examined the issue. And on August 21, FactCheck.org issued its analysis, written by FactCheck.org Director Brooks Jackson, under the title, "Abortion: Which Side is Fabricating?" They don’t pull any punches! Let’s see what they say:

     

    ". . . 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.’ . . . The NRLC’s [Douglas] Johnson said ‘the bill backed by the White House (H.R. 3200) explicitly authorizes the government plan to cover all elective abortions.’ And our analysis shows that Johnson’s statement is correct.”

     

    Good grief. It goes on like that for pages. The President takes a bit of a beating, I’m afraid. Well, you can read the entire thing here.
    And Time magazine just came out with a piece that goes into some of the same kind of stuff, titled "How Abortion Could Imperil Health-Care Reform," by Michael Scherer, here. He wrote:

     


    "The problem is that all those who sign up for the public option would have to pay into the account for abortion coverage, an amount ‘not less than $1 per month,’ according to the legislation. So in effect, anyone who wanted to sign up for the public option, a federally funded and administered program, would find themselves paying for abortion coverage. ‘You are spreading the cost of the procedure over a public plan," explains [Rep. Bart] Stupak [D-Michigan]. Under the legislation, the Executive Branch would have to make a determination that abortion is a basic medical service for the service to be provided, something the Obama Administration is expected to do."

  • noworsethanusual

    Somehow I botched that link to the Time magazine article. It is here.

  • anonymous101

    “The NRLC’s [Douglas] Johnson said ‘the bill backed by the White House (H.R. 3200) explicitly authorizes the government plan to cover all elective abortions.’ And our analysis shows that Johnson’s statement is correct.” **********Shrill claims? Hardly. Factcheck shows that the president’s healthcare will fund abortion. **************
    “Good grief. It goes on like that for pages. The President takes a bit of a beating, I’m afraid.”**************The president should speak the truth!