"A Mish-Mash of Half-Truths and Myths, Taped Together with Non Sequiturs"
Part One of Three

By Dave Andrusko

Part Two is comprised of some of what Cardinal Justin F. Rigali's had to say in his remarkable ""Respect Life Sunday" statement. Part Three is another insightful blog from bioethicist Wesley Smith. Please send any comments on any of today's TN&Vs to daveandrusko@gmail.com. If you'd like, follow me at www.twitter.com/daveha.

As promised I'm posting my almost-daily updates trying to give our readers a sense of the latest ebb and flow on health care "reform." The attached three quotes set the stage.

"I hope this clears up any confusion."
     -- Final comment of a confusion-ridden response on the website RHRealityCheck.org, written by Jessica Arons, Center for American Progress and Center for American Progress Action Fund. (Arons was responding to a query about her original post.)

"Ms. Arons talks about 'the three-ring circus of the debate over health care reform.' Well, before you can get into the tent to see that three-ring circus, you have to get past the booths of the carnival barkers. Their pitches are glib but invariably deceptive. If you stand and watch for awhile, you can generally figure out the con. ...Her pitch is a mish-mash of half-truths and myths, taped together with non sequiturs."
     -- A follow-up post on the same blog by NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson. [www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2009/10/01/abortion-funding-fundamentals-under-health-care-reform#comment-30621]

"At the heart of the matter is a longstanding truce between the sides in the abortion debate that prevents federal money from being used to pay for abortions. Health care reform measures in both the House and the Senate provide federal subsidies for low-income families to buy insurance. If those subsidies are used to buy policies that pay for abortions, anti-abortion forces argue, then federal money would effectively pay for those procedures.

House negotiators had hoped to resolve the problem with an accounting trick."
     -- From "Abortion latest snag in health reform," which appeared in today's Denver Post [http://www.denverpost.com/nationalpolitics/ci_13467146].

Pro-abortion Sen. Max Baucus

As they attempt to turn the status quo on its head, pro-abortion supporters of various health care "reform" measures know they must pretend otherwise for two very important reasons. For one, the public is very skittish about what mucking around with 1/6th of the American economy might ignite. For another, going back decades, Americans have unambiguously signaled their resistance to the government subsidizing the slaughter of unborn children--regardless of their position on abortion–which is precisely what the pro-abortion leadership in Congress intends to cram into the bills.

Thus a mantra as repetitious as it is inaccurate--that all these proposals "maintain the status quo."

So how are they attempting to pull the wool over people's eyes? Simple: mischaracterize the status quo and then mischaracterize what you are proposing to do, which, in fact, is to invert the real status quo!

Pro-abortion Congresswoman Lois Capps

Since you can read Mr. Johnson's detailed answer for yourself (which explores six myths about the Capps amendment in the Arons' piece), let me make just two points. One we've written about a lot in this space, the other not enough.

#1. As part of the mantra of "maintaining the status quo," we are told over and over that (in this case the Capps Amendment to H.R. 3200) the action is a "compromise." But as Johnson pointed out, "In [Congressman Henry] Waxman's committee on July 30, the amendment was adopted with 30 votes, only one of which came from a Democrat with a largely pro-life voting record -- the other 29 came from pro-abortion lawmakers. There were 28 votes against the amendment So, the Capps Amendment really was a 'compromise' between Waxman, who is the congressman from Hollywood, and Planned Parenthood."

#2. [Quoting Myth No. 5 in its entirety] Ms. Arons wrote, "87 percent of typical employment plans currently provide such coverage [abortion services]." The truth: This claim is based on a 2002 Guttmacher survey that arrived at the 87% figure by counting any insurer that chose to respond that it covered abortion in a "typical" plan (whatever that means), even though "some of the insurers reporting that abortion was covered narrowly interpreted this to mean when a pregnancy threatens a woman's health" (p. 76). However, Robert Zirkelbach, a spokesman for America's Health Insurance Plans, the insurance industry's trade association, told CQ Today (July 15, 2009), "Most insurers offer plans that include this coverage but most employers choose not to offer it as part of their benefits package." Moreover, during her confirmation proceedings to be secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius told the Senate, in writing: "Most private plans do not cover abortion services except in limited instances, but do cover family planning, and Congress has limited the Federal Employee Health Benefit Plan to covering abortion services only in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the mother is in danger."

Be sure to check back daily for the latest goings-on at www.nrlactioncenter.com and at Today's News & Views (www.nrlc.org/News_and_Views/index.html). Also, I believe you will enjoy both Parts Two and Three.

Part Two
Part Three