House Passes H.R. 358, the "Let Women Die" Act of 2011

Obama is going to put the veto slam on this disgusting piece of legislation.

Did you even bother to read the bill? I guess not. It basically says that you cannot be forced by the government to provide abortions if you are against them and that taxpayers are not required to pay for them. It does not restrict insurers from offering coverage that provides payment for abortions.

Here is the relevant text:

‘(b) Special Rules Relating to Training in and Coverage of Abortion Services- Nothing in this Act (or any amendment made by this Act) shall be construed to require any health plan to provide coverage of or access to abortion services or to allow the Secretary or any other Federal or non-Federal person or entity in implementing this Act (or amendment) to require coverage of, access to, or training in abortion services.’;

(4) by inserting after subsection (b) the following new subsection:

‘(c) Limitation on Abortion Funding-

‘(1) IN GENERAL- No funds authorized or appropriated by this Act (or an amendment made by this Act), including credits applied toward qualified health plans under section 36B of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 or cost-sharing reductions under section 1402 of this Act, may be used to pay for any abortion or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion, except--

(A) if the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest; or

‘(B) in the case where a pregnant female suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the female in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself.

‘(2) OPTION TO PURCHASE SEPARATE COVERAGE OR PLAN- Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as prohibiting any non-Federal entity (including an individual or a State or local government) from purchasing separate coverage for abortions for which funding is prohibited under this subsection, or a qualified health plan that includes such abortions, so long as--

‘(A) such coverage or plan is paid for entirely using only funds not authorized or appropriated by this Act; and

‘(B) such coverage or plan is not purchased using--

‘(i) individual premium payments required for a qualified health plan offered through an Exchange towards which a credit is applied under section 36B of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; or

‘(ii) other non-Federal funds required to receive a Federal payment, including a State’s or locality’s contribution of Medicaid matching funds.

‘(3) OPTION TO OFFER COVERAGE OR PLAN- Nothing in this subsection or section 1311(d)(2)(B)(i) shall restrict any non-Federal health insurance issuer offering a qualified health plan from offering separate coverage for abortions for which funding is prohibited under this subsection, or a qualified health plan that includes such abortions, so long as--

‘(A) premiums for such separate coverage or plan are paid for entirely with funds not authorized or appropriated by this Act;

‘(B) administrative costs and all services offered through such coverage or plan are paid for using only premiums collected for such coverage or plan; and

‘(C) any such non-Federal health insurance issuer that offers a qualified health plan through an Exchange that includes coverage for abortions for which funding is prohibited under this subsection also offers a qualified health plan through the Exchange that is identical in every respect except that it does not cover abortions for which funding is prohibited under this subsection.’;

(1) NONDISCRIMINATION- A Federal agency or program, and any State or local government that receives Federal financial assistance under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act), may not subject any institutional or individual health care entity to discrimination, or require any health plan created or regulated under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act) to subject any institutional or individual health care entity to discrimination, on the basis that the health care entity refuses to--

'(A) undergo training in the performance of induced abortions;

'(B) require or provide such training;

'(C) perform, participate in, provide coverage of, or pay for induced abortions; or

'(D) provide referrals for such training or such abortions.

You're talking about the monetary coverage. What we're talking about is the fact that health care providers will be allowed to, without penalty, refuse to perform an abortion. It's right there. Read it. It doesn't specify why. It says "induced abortion", which means an abortion of any type other than natural.

So you think it is OK to force someone to provide a service that is against their beliefs? Do you believe that lawyers should be forced to take cases that conflict with their morals? Do you believe that you have a right to the time and efforts of any other human?

Do you believe that I have a right to demand that you perform a service that you disagree with? And if you fail to perform that service, you should be punished?

I don't believe you have thought this through. I believe you have a reflex reaction to an intentionally misleading headline and have failed to objectively look at the legislation.

So you think it is OK to force someone to provide a service that is against their beliefs?

You're damned right I do when it comes to protecting the life of a pregnant woman. Do you think it's right to allow medical professionals and institutions the ability to refuse to perform an abortion even if it will save the life of the mother?

Hell, we can go back and forth with these questions all day long.

I agree with Yadda Yadda when it comes to medical issues. What if you have a strong belief that bypass surgery is a waste of time, and refuse to recommend that for your patients? Shouldn't you, even if you don't want to do it yourself, be responsible for finding a doctor that will?

I don't think that YOU have thought this out completely. It is wrong, pure and simple.

Thank heavens I am past the age where it is an issue for me, (dear heavens, I hope 56 is too old!!!)!!!

Thanks Dowser. Oh, and 56 ain't old! Heck, you're just gettin' started!

Sweet YaddaYadda, I love you and hope you are well today! :-)

I'm not old at 56, but I'm certainly hoping that I'm beyond more childbearing! ;-)

As you believe you are correct that you may force a person or institution to provide a service that conflicts with their morals, perhaps you will be willing to cite that portion of the Constitution that allows you to curtail the personal liberty of any person based upon your moral conviction? On what constitutional basis do you believe it is permissible to usurp this persons judgement and replace it with your own? What right do you submit that allows you to confiscate the labor of anyone merely to satisfy your opinion of right and wrong?

You are displaying a visceral reaction to something you philosophically object to rather than a reasoned argument. It is evident in the choice of language ("it is wrong, pure and simple") that you use.

Do you believe that all doctors should be required to perform abortions? Do you not believe that the patient has some responsibility in finding the appropriate doctor for their requirements? You seem to believe that if Doctor A does not choose to perform abortions, that there is no alternative available to the patient. You further seem to believe that the legislation somehow outlaws abortions. You are wrong on both counts.

I would welcome a cogent and reasoned response. Please provide the lagal authority that supports your position.

Good argument. On what portion of the constitution do you feel allows the curtailment of medical help? On what basis do you feel that YOU can usurp the woman's judgement and replace it with your own? What right do you submit that allows you to deny medical help to satisfy your opinion of right and wrong? All of your arguments are a double edged sword, as I can ask the same of you.

No, I do not believe that all doctors should be required to perform abortions-- but I do feel that they have a moral obligation to refer the patient to a doctor that will, IF it is the woman's choice. Many women have no idea what their doctor's moral beliefs are-- and obviously, you haven't had a baby...

Most women go to an OB/GYN that is in a practice. She may or may not see her own doctor during her scheduled pregnancy visits. When I had my child, I saw all 7 of the doctors in the practice. My average office visit, with the doctor, as 15 minutes. We were busy talking about my high risk pregnancy-- and moral issues really didn't come up at the time. I don't honestly believe that many women have enough access to her OB/GYN to have a personal discussion about the doctor's beliefs.

I do not believe that the legislation outlaws abortions. That decision was made by Roe vs. Wade, I think, (but I'm not sure), in 1973. This legislation removes the federal funding for those who have government-backed insurance. Really, the only women it will hurt are those who have few resources. But, I feel that they are very important, too-- and that the cost of birth control and abortions are a lot less expensive than 18 years of a child who becomes a ward of the state.

Please, and I'm asking nicely-- Please do not speak to me with arrogance. It is unbecoming.

First, I have not spoken to you with arrogance, at all. You are not being personally attacked, or otherwise attacked. Your opinion is being challenged.

By your questions, it is clear that your understanding of the Constitution is in need of further study. The Constitution is a document that restricts the role of government in its ability to interfere in your life. It does not grant rights to people, as these rights are dependent only upon you being a living human. It enumerates the rights of the federal government and acknowledges that all other rights are reserved for the people and the states.

A doctor, or any other person, does not need a Constitutional citation to assert their right to live their life as they see fit, as long they don't impinge upon the rights of another person. This is a passive position and does not require any effort. Rather, it requires that a person refrain from actions that violate the rights of other persons. There is nowhere a requirement that any person take any action that secures another person's rights. A woman has a right to obtain an abortion, but she does not have the right to require that any particular doctor or institution perform it. Once you understand this legal concept, you will understand that your position cannot be legally sustained.

Any person who desires the services of any other, be it an auto mechanic or a doctor, is obligated to know what services are available from that person. If you wish your Porsche to be properly repaired, do not go to a Chevrolet dealership.

Yes, it restricts federal funding, as it should. Should you be desirous of providing funding for those who seek an abortion, there is no restriction on whatever amount you choose, nor to whom you provide it. You are free to start an organization that supports your position and raise unlimited resources to attain the end you seek. You do not have a right to require others to do the same.

No one is forcing any woman to have a child. Where is the logic in a pregnancy that the parent(s) cannot afford? Unless you are talking about rape, no one forced her to get pregnant. If you read the legislation, there are exceptions for rape.

If you firmly believe in funding abortions, please do so in any amount you deem appropriate.

Lee, listen, we are talking about 2 completely different issues here.

Issue 1 is abortion on-demand. A woman is pregnant and wants an abortion. In this case, a medical provider should not ever be forced into providing that abortion if that is against his or her moral beliefs. We agree on that much.

Issue 2 is abortion in the instance of the mother's life being threatened by not having that abortion. She is hemorrhaging, the child is no longer alive inside the womb, if she tries to carry the child to term she will die, etc. In this instance, the current verbiage of the bill will allow medical providers and medical institutions the right to refuse care without repercussion. THAT is what I find reprehensible. THAT is what I take issue with.

MinnieApolis, it seems you have no idea of how ridiculous you sound as you squirm around looking for anything resembling a cogent argument. Nobody, and I do mean nobody, is forcing a woman to have a child. You simply believe whatever the headline proclaims and have no idea what the legislation really says or means.

YaddaYadda, you are grasping at straws to find an example, and yet, you, too have not read and understood the legislation. It does make an exception for the life of the woman. Using your example, there is noone who would deny care to the woman as there is no abortion. The baby is already dead.

Let's carry this a little further and see if you can maintain your position that it is acceptable to force a person to make a life/death decision in oppostion of their moral conviction. If we can force doctors to provide abortion services against their will, then we can force others to perform against their will. Let us say that the law of the land is written to require that people in your profession administer the death penalty to convicted convicts. Should you be forced to adminster that punishment in opposition to your moral convictions? And failing to do so, you should be punished?

Once your remove your emotional attachment, it becomes much clearer that adherence to one's personal moral convictions is a right and thus not subject to punishment.

If it is your reality, then I am grateful. Thank you for the reasoned and cogent argument you present.

Lee, way to toss that straw man up there.

...too have not read and understood the legislation.

Actually, I have read it and I understand it just fine. If the particular section that I cited used a different set of words other than "induced abortion", I might agree with you. You just refuse to acknowledge the fact that the wording will allow for unintended consequences.

Regardless, I won't change your view and you won't change mine.

I agree that every piece of legislation ever crafted has room for unintended consequences, including this one. That is not what the article states. The article attributes motive that is not existent in the legislation to try to score a cheap political point.

Just so I am not in error on my understanding of your position, do you believe that our laws should force anyone to take direct action in opposition to their personal moral beliefs? If so, what limits that? From what legal source does this position derive its legitimacy?

When you can answer these very basic questions, we will have the basis for an intelligent discussion.

Here are the answers to your questions:

do you believe that our laws should force anyone to take direct action in opposition to their personal moral beliefs?

Yes, in very specific instances.

If so, what limits that?

That is not such a black & white answer as you might think. Let me answer you this way. If someone came up to me and said, "Yadda, you need to execute this human being", I would refuse. It would be against my personal and moral beliefs.

If someone, a parent for instance, refused medical treatment for their critically ill child because of their personal and moral beliefs, it could very well be appropriate to force the parents to get that child the help he/she needs. At what point do the rights of the parent/s supersede the rights of the child? If it is apparent that the health and welfare of the child is endangered, we must act. Although it is against the moral and personal beliefs of the parent/s to allow medical treatment, it would be against the moral and personal beliefs of many people to allow a child to suffer without it.

From what legal source does this position derive its legitimacy?

The outcome of quite a few legal cases across the country support my viewpoint. Speaking of course, only of the specific example which I have laid out for you.

Does that help you get a clearer picture?

Yes, it does as far as you went. "quite a few legal cases" is not a citation of a source, but not unexpected, either.

Your hypothetical does bring up an interesting point, but fails in this instance in that there are not other parents available to the child who differ in their moral position. Nice try, nonetheless.

If someone came up to me and said, "Yadda, you need to execute this human being", I would refuse. It would be against my personal and moral beliefs.

Therefore, you believe that it is OK to force others to conform to your moral precepts, but do not believe it is right for them to do the same to you. I must conclude that the limit I asked about is based solely upon your version of what is right and not upon first principle grounds since you declined to directly answer.

It appears I have a very clear picture of your position now. Thank you for your response.

since you declined to directly answer.

I did directly answer. You just didn't like what I had to say. Oh well.

... is not a citation of a source,

No, I didn't give you links to cases I was referring to. Oh my god! Off with my head! /s

But, like I said. I'm not going to continue to go back and forth with you about this. You have your position. I have mine. Deal with it.

No, MinnieApolis, that is just how you wish to see it. It is in direct conflict of the wording of the legislation. I am very sorry that you are having trouble separating your personal feelings from an objective reading of the legislation.

Wow Lee, I just had to jump in. When they are on duty, doctors should not use moral judgment for treatment. They took a Hippocratic oath. If Osama bin Laden himself where in front of a doctor bleeding out, that doctor is obligated to save him. In an emergency situation there is no room for morality. If its an abortion that will save that woman's life, you do the damn abortion.