By Dave Andrusko

"You've heard that this is all going to mean government funding of abortion. Not true ....These are all fabrications that have been put out there in order to discourage people from meeting what I consider to be a core ethical and moral obligation--and that is that we look out for one another, that I am my brother's keeper and I am my sister's keeper."  President Obama in a conference call last week with leaders of the Religious Left.
"Despite what Obama said, the House bill would allow abortions to be covered by a federal plan and by federally subsidized private plans."
     From FactCheck.org's "Abortion: Which Side Is Fabricating?" which appeared August 21.

Pardon me if you've heard this one before, because you did, in this space, actually. We must be more careful than ever not to get spun as the day approaches when Congress returns from its summer recess.

Pro-Abortion President Barack Obama

Last time I counseled caution it had to do with warning about bogus "compromises." To be sure such "splitting the difference" rhetoric will reappear, like a bad penny. But the concern here is that good people might buy into the notion that because Obama and his fellow anti-life Democratic leaders in the House and Senate are getting hammered by an indignant public, heath care "reform" of the type that scare the bejabbers out of us is no longer a danger.

That's understandable, but untrue. Let's see why.

Granted, Obama's approval ratings are dropping like a rock. More telling the public's confidence in his ability to manage big issues is heading south in a hurry. On top of that the media is at the moment having a lover's quarrel with Obama, which can't help. (That his overweening arrogance is winning out over his "cool" is worth keeping on eye on.)

And it is very helpful that FactCheck.org carefully looked at NRLC's assertions and found them warranted. Here's the heart of its conclusions:

". . . 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 [Legislative Director 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."

But the President has a public megaphone 24/7, and a lot of people are either invested in his success or determined to persuade themselves that this nice young man would never consciously weave abortion into the fabric of the nation's health care system and/or inject massive amounts of money into the abortion business.

But the truth is different. Referring to House and Senate legislation, FactCheck.org concluded they

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."

Here is where the evil genius of the abortion-connection deniers comes into play. Even though four Democrat-controlled committees rejected amendments to exclude elective abortion from the government plan and to deny federal subsidies to private plans that cover elective abortion, that won't stop them from loudly insisting that what NRLC is saying is a "fabrication." Stay tuned.

There could easily be even more difficulty in straightening out the danger of rationing--and worse--in the various plans. As you know much of the buzz was over so-called "death panels." Lost in the back and forth was the crux of the controversy which NRLC has outlined in detail. [For a detailed explanation, go to www.nrlc.org/HealthCareRationing]

It has to do, on the one hand, with "'robbing Peter to pay Paul'--reducing Medicare funding for older people in order to cover the uninsured. The dangerous consequence is that in a few years, having over-promised and under-funded, the government will be faced with the choice of adding other means of revenue or else (and far more likely) in some way imposing rationing," according to Burke Balch, JD, director of NRLC's Robert Powell Center for Medical Ethics.

On the other hand, the danger also includes a massive expansion of government power, allowing bureaucrats to determine how much doctors are paid, whether treatment is "ineffective," and to potentially pressure patients into preparing advanced directives that agree to forgo life-saving treatment as a way of saving money.

As I say many times each week, there are many plots and subplots, twists and turns yet to come. Be sure to read TN&V daily and to frequently check www.nrlactioncenter.com. We are just getting started!

Please send your comments to daveandrusko@gmail.com.  They are much appreciated!

Part One