Obamacare and $1 Abortions: Latest Rule Requires an 'Abortion Surcharge'

By Jennifer Hartline
3/18/2012
Catholic Online (www.catholic.org)

Shhh... Obama's got a little secret he doesn't want you to know. You'll be paying $1 per month for abortions.

Forget all the promises Obama made about not subsidizing abortion; about people not having to pay for abortions if they didn't want to. Forget all the speeches in which pro-lifers were ridiculed and hollered at for "lying" that Obamacare would fund abortions. Forget the Executive Order. The latest rule to be finalized regarding Obamacare mandates $1 abortions. Don't want to pay it? Too bad.

Facebook Delicous MySpace

Twitter Stumble Digg

More Destinations

WASHINGTON, D.C. (Catholic Online) - Shhhh.... President Obama's got a little secret he doesn't want you to know.

His administration just finalized another "rule" regarding Obamacare and the insurance exchange program: $1 abortions.

Forget all the promises Obama made about not subsidizing abortion; about people not having to pay for abortions if they didn't want to. Forget all the speeches in which pro-lifers were ridiculed and hollered at for "lying" that Obamacare would fund abortions. Forget everything Nancy Pelosi and Kathleen Sebelius have said. Forget the Executive Order that isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

From LifeNews.com: "Nestled within the "individual mandate" in the Obamacare act -- that portion of the Act requiring every American to purchase government-approved insurance or pay a penalty -- is an 'abortion premium mandate." This mandate requires all persons enrolled in insurance plans that include elective abortion coverage to pay a separate premium from their own pockets to fund abortion. As a result, many pro-life Americans will have to decide between a plan that violates their consciences by funding abortion, or a plan that may not meet their health needs."

Senator Ben Nelson helped engineer the accounting gimmick that this mandate will utilize -- the compromise that enticed Congressman Stupak and others to bail on their commitment to Life and vote for Obamacare. Under this shell game, the government is not technically subsidizing abortions -- you and I are by government mandate. This is how Obamacare attempts to get around the Hyde Amendment for now. The goal is to get rid of Hyde permanently, because then elective abortions will be covered by taxpayer funding.

Here's how it will break down: Insurers will collect a $1 surcharge per month from each payer. If you write checks for your insurance premiums, you'll have to write two checks; one for the premium cost, and a separate check for $1 for this "surcharge." If it gets billed to your credit card, you'll see two separate charges; one for the premium cost and one for $1.

The insurance companies may only disclose to the enrollee at the time of enrollment what the surcharge is for; thereafter, they are not permitted to reveal in any of their policy literature what the $1 is for. In addition, "insurance plans may only advertise the total cost of the premiums without disclosing that enrollees will be charged a $1 per month fee to directly subsidize abortions."

In other words, the government (that means Obama) is saying that your insurance company can only tell you what the $1 surcharge each month is for at the time you enroll, and only if you know enough already to ask them about it (since they can't disclose the $1 charge) and read the pages of fine print which is the only place in your policy where it's mentioned. Once you enroll, if you didn't ask, Obama says they can't tell you.

Is this your idea of freedom or choice? There's no "opting out" if your plan covers elective abortions. You can't refuse to pay the surcharge. Jill Stanek writes, "But if an insurance company participating in the Obamacare exchange program does offer elective abortions, everyone who buys insurance from that company will have to pay a $1 separate surcharge every month to cover the cost of abortions. It doesn't matter if you are pro-life. It doesn't matter if you're a 72-yr-old woman who will never abort. You have to pay the $1 surcharge."

Insurance companies participating in the exchange program do not have to provide elective abortion coverage, so my next question is, how many plans will be available that don't offer abortion coverage? How limited will they be in number and in coverage?

It seems to me that women will be the ones to really swallow the double-edged sword here. Will there even be such a thing as a plan that offers OB/GYN care but does not cover abortion? Will women even have the option of choosing a plan that doesn't provide abortion coverage and thus the $1 surcharge?

After all, according to this administration, "women's health care" now absolutely means contraception, abortifacients, abortion, and sterilization, without exception. That means that insurers will either provide complete "women's health care" coverage or none at all. Surely they won't be permitted to cover only some components ...

1 | 2 Next Page

Rate This Article

Was this helpful to you? Very Helpful Somewhat Helpful Not Helpful at All

Would you be interested in more articles like this? Yes, I am Interested No, I am not Interested

Rate Article

1 - 10 of 116 Comments

renton
1 year ago
jackboot vance, it is the repubs that are throwing gasoline. the use of maxist is a good example of the gas tossed on the fire. the elite wealthy in our country do not own this country country and people's comments like yours is the gasoline they love to see and here to thier control our country to amass larger fortunes which doesen't benifit the country it only benifits them. you must believe they are above you and you will go along with whatever they want,( jackboots)
Vance
1 year ago
Rob, "Why in the world is that not attractive to us?" You answered your own question. We ( Obama ) keep borrowing Trillions of Dollars. The Tax increase is only a scratch on a multi trillion dollar deficit. I guess you didn't pay attention but Obama's budget proposal got ZERO votes from the Marxist Democrats. Why? because it is all theater and a fraud and no Marxist is going to defend it during an election. So, let's burn down the house they say. I hope they are history come November.
Rob
1 year ago
vance, you are right, GOP is trying desperately to once again put out the fire they started with our tax dollars. CBO projects that just allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire would bring the deficit down to $245 billion. Why in the world isn't that attractive to us? Why on earth do we keep wanting to borrow a trillion a year when it's within our means to pay and begin to dig ourselves out. Just keep burning the house down.
renton
1 year ago
vance, the jackboot thugs (your anology) are the corperations that dictate to government officals thier policies to run a country which makes that country a facist type government. that is what we should be concerned about. the right to vote should be just as importent as the right to life, where is the passion for thst right (one person one vote) don't be a one issue advocate to condem. you can disagree but offer a solution with respect to other ideas.
Vance
1 year ago
Rob, the proverbial House America is on fire. The GOP is taking the extreme position of throwing water on the fire while the Marxists are throwing gas on the fire. So you want Both Sides to meet in the middle and agree to burn down 1/2 the house. This is the scenario we have at hand. This isn't about meeting half way, it's about saving the country from domestic enemies who are hell bent on bring this country down. Our enemies have control of the Senate and they are going to block anything that's going to get in the way of their objective. This is why we Catholics and the Christian Community need to vote out the domestic enemies before they succeed.
Rob
1 year ago
Ok vance, but the problem I have right now is that a majority of the bills being advanced seems to ignore the divide, ignores the numbers and both sides keep floating bills they know have no chance of going anywhere. I really do believe the situation we have today is one where both sides are reaching for the far extremes of their platform, not in the hopes of actually governing, but just using our government as a campaign prop. In the real world you do not always get your way. It's clear that in order to move anything forward, both sides will have to compromise their "principles." You know the old saying don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good is one I think our legislators might be well advised to implement. But I think right now common sense get's thrown out the door because heaven forbid they actually pass something that works and makes the "enemy" look good. I will agree with you that Reagan was the last solid conservative this country had. The common sense conservatism Reagan displayed has been hijacked by an almost fundementalist group where Reagan would be run out of town. It is the extremism of this new breed of conservative activist that will amost assuredly doom any chance of having a conservative majority again, let alone having a president remotely resembling Ronald Reagan. What we need is someone that respects all peoples and doesn't believe that in order to fix things you have to burn the house down first.
vance
1 year ago
Rob, your analogy why would we want to go from one abusive relationship to another is spot on. This is because a large voting block of people can't bring themselves to vote for a Conservative like Santorum or any Conservative. So, election after election they keep voting in Liberals and they get the same results every time. Conservatives had only one President, Ronald Reagan. That's it. Bush Sr. and Jr. were two moderates who gave away "The Ranch" to the Marxists because they didn't want to be criticized by the Marxist Media Complex as being anti-Minority, anti-Woman, anti-Gay etc, etc. Conservatives never had a Super Majority to over ride a presidential veto. As you know, it's a numbers game when it comes to voting in Congress. Marxists and RINO's held solid majorities and everything went their way. Now, we are suffering for it.
Rob
1 year ago
vance, I won't pretend to understand that circular logic, but I think I could merely say "ditto" to you and call it a day. There has to be some relief in conservative circles that Obama is the president. It sure did take the focus off their mismanagement of the country for so many years and takes the pressue off having to defend the indefensible. Plus, I'm not so sure they really wanted the responsibility of cleaning up the mess they caused. Some see McCain as a mistake, but I think he probably was part of the long plan. I get it. And given that Americans seem to have no memory, looks like we've decided to not only give them a pass for their mismanagement, but are prepared to try it again. No one can defend Obama. His record speaks for itself. I guess I see this all like an abusive relationship. I just don't understand the concept of running away from one abusive relationship right into the arms of another, especially when the one you ran to beat the heck of you pretty good. I guess I'm just preplexed in a country of so many talented people, why we can do no better than a bunch of establishment has beens and rich guys. Do any of these guys really inspire you? Do you really believe that they have the ability to do anything different despite all the platitudes? There are things I like and dislike about all of them. But there isn't one I see as a leader. Or maybe it's just me not willing to forgive the other side just yet. I just see no signs of "repetence." I wasn't tricked into voting for Obama the speech maker the first time and I am sure as heck not getting tricked by the other side because they are "not Obama."
Vance
1 year ago
Rob, You have already cast stones. There is an old Communist saying, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend". There is an old psychological trick used by con artists and diabolics for centuries. The con man who is an ally of the bad guy doesn't attempt to defend the bad guy but instead attacks the Bad Guy's rivals or adversaries. He says, "I'm not against Catholics, I'm against those who are for Catholics". "I'm not against religion, I am just against those who are for religion". The Marxist Media Complex have used this trick for years. "We are neutral and don't pick sides but all our criticism is dumped on the GOP" Since you can't defend Barry Soetoro and the Marxist Party, all you can do is dump on the GOP and Conservatives.
renton
1 year ago
i believe vance writes hate for the right wing party to devide our country and by the use of words i have a doubt that he is even a fellow catholic.

Prev12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next

Comments submitted must be civil, remain on-topic and not violate any laws including copyright. We reserve the right to delete any comments which are abusive, inappropriate or not constructive to the discussion.

Though we invite robust discussion, we reserve the right to not publish any comment which denigrates the human person, undermines marriage and the family, or advocates for positions which openly oppose the teaching of the Catholic Church.

This is a supervised forum and the Editors of Catholic Online retain the right to direct it.

We also reserve the right to block any commenter for repeated violations. Your email address is required to post, but it will not be published on the site.

We ask that you NOT post your comment more than once. Catholic Online is growing and our ability to review all comments sometimes results in a delay in their publication.

Name *

Email *

Comment *

Send me important information from Catholic Online and it's partners. See Sample

Post Comment