Obamacare Subsidizes Abortions for Women Making $90,000

How rich do you have to be in Barack Obama's America to pay the whole tab for your own abortion? What about a divorced 38-year-old public school principal who has three children and earns $90,000 per year? Would she need to personally pay the full fair to have a doctor kill her fourth child while that child was still in her womb?

P>WASHINGTON, DC (CNS News) - How rich do you have to be in Barack Obama's America to pay the whole tab for your own abortion? What about a divorced 38-year-old public school principal who has three children and earns $90,000 per year? Would she need to personally pay the full fair to have a doctor kill her fourth child while that child was still in her womb?

Under Obamacare, the federal government will force taxpayers to help her buy insurance that pays for abortions.

Back in March, the Obama administration published the 166-page regulation governing the establishment of Obamacare's state health-insurance exchanges. A few weeks later, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) published a two-page analysis explaining what this regulation means for American taxpayers who do not want to pay for someone to kill a child.

"Through their tax dollars all taxpayers will be forced to pay directly for other people's abortions," said the analysis. "Some will say this is technically not 'tax funding of abortions,' because the required surcharge will be a premium payment rather than a tax payment as such. But what the payment is called is less important than what it actually does."

The USCCB analysis explained: "The plans that include elective abortions must charge each enrollee an additional payment, to be used solely for elective abortions for anyone in the plan. The Act explicitly requires that the premiums paid on behalf of every man, woman and child in the plan must have this surcharge."

But the Obamacare regulation does not allow the insurers to reveal the amount of this abortion surcharge. "The insurer who covers elective abortions may list abortions in its usual summary of covered benefits, but may not take any further steps to warn enrollees that they are buying a plan with abortions," said the USCCB analysis. "Moreover, even at the time of enrollment, they may not inform enrollees how much of their premium payment is to be separated out and used solely to pay for abortions."

Even taxpayers who refuse to buy a health insurance plan that covers abortions will be forced by the government to subsidize those who do.

"These plans, including those which cover abortions without any limits, will be eligible for federal tax credit subsidies when the enrollee earns less than four times the federal poverty level," the USCCB explained. "In all previous federal programs, including the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, such tax subsidies for overall plans that include elective abortions were forbidden by law."

Obamacare is not about transparency, it is about coercion - even to the point of coercing people to pay for taking innocent life.

"While many private health plans now cover abortions, then, what is new about the Affordable Care Act is this: These plans will receive federal tax subsidies," the USCCB concluded.

So, who are the people who earn less than four times the federal poverty level and thus will get a subsidy from taxpayers to buy insurance covering abortions?

This year the federal poverty level for a family of four is $23,050. Four times $23,050 is $92,200.

Thus, if the Obamacare exchanges were operating today, a divorced 38-year-old public school principal with three children and a $90,000-per-year salary would be entitled to a tax subsidy to buy an insurance plan covering abortions.

What kind of people will the federal government force to pay this subsidy?

Here's one possibility: A married mother of five working as a teacher at a Catholic school, earning a salary of $35,000 per year, and doing her best to teach her pupils and her own children that God gives every human being an inalienable right to life.

Is it right and just and good for government to force one mother to help pay for another mother to kill her own child? No. It is just plain evil.

15% Off Christmas Blowout Sale

---

CNSNews.com is a division of the Media Research Center, a not-for-profit 501 (c)(3) organization. Like National Public Radio and the Public Broadcasting System, CNSNews.com is able to provide its services and information to the public at no cost, thanks to the generous support of our thousands of donors and their tax-deductible contributions.This article is reprinted with permission.