RE: H.R. 6079, "Repeal of Obamacare Act" Dear Member of Congress: The National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) urges you to vote in favor of H.R. 6079, the Repeal of Obamacare Act, and intends to include the roll call in our scorecard of key right-to-life roll calls of the 112th Congress. NRLC vigorously opposed enactment of the Obamacare law in 2009-2010, because of its multiple provisions authorizing federal subsidies for abortion insurance, multiple provisions allowing abortion-expansive federal mandates, and multiple provisions that will place unacceptable limits on the right of vulnerable Americans to use their own money, if they choose, to obtain both health care and health insurance less likely to deny needed health care. Regarding the abortion-expansive provisions of Obamacare, finding (7) in H.R. 6079 aptly summarizes some of the problems: (7) While President Obama promised that nothing in the law would fund elective abortion, the law expands the role of the Federal Government in funding and facilitating abortion and plans that cover abortion. The law appropriates billions of dollars in new funding without explicitly prohibiting the use of these funds for abortion, and it provides Federal subsidies for health plans covering elective abortions. Moreover, the law effectively forces millions of individuals to personally pay a separate abortion premium in violation of their sincerely held religious, ethical, or moral beliefs. More detailed discussion of the pro-abortion provisions of Obamacare can be found in NRLC's 2011 testimony in support of the Protect Life Act (H.R. 358): http://www.nrlc.org/AHC/ProtectLifeActDouglasJohnsonTestimony.pdf Since its inception, the pro-life movement has been as concerned with protecting the lives of older people and people with disabilities from euthanasia, including the involuntary denial of treatment, food, and fluids necessary to prevent death, as it has been dedicated to protecting unborn children from abortion. Obamacare threatens those lives by authorizing the imposition of unacceptable limits on the right of vulnerable Americans to use their own money, if they choose, to obtain both health care and health insurance less likely to deny needed health care. The focus of many on discussion about the Independent Payment Advisory Board's (IPAB) authority over Medicare reimbursement rates, as described in finding (4) of the bill, has resulted in far too little attention being given to the grave threat the board poses to the ability of Americans of all ages to obtain life-preserving health care after 2015: IPAB's key role in suppressing nongovernmental health care spending so that private citizens are not even allowed to keep up with the rate of medical inflation. The health care law empowers IPAB, in conjunction with the federal Department of Health and Human Services, to achieve this goal by limiting what treatment doctors are allowed to give their patients. IPAB is instructed by the health care law to make recommendations to limit what all Americans are legally allowed to spend for their health care so as to hold it below the rate of medical inflation. The health care law then authorizes the federal Department of Health and Human Services to implement these recommendations by imposing so-called "quality" and "efficiency" measures on health care providers. The documentation can be found here: http://www.nrlc.org/HealthCareRationing/Life at Risk Routes to Rationing 6272012 (1).pdf What happens to doctors who violate a "quality" standard by prescribing more lifesaving medical treatment than it permits? They will be disqualified from contracting with any of the health insurance plans that individual Americans, under Obamacare, will be mandated to purchase. Few doctors would be able to remain in practice if subjected to that penalty. This means that treatment a doctor and patient deem advisable to save that patient's life or preserve or improve the patient's health -- but which exceeds the standard imposed by the government -- will be denied even if the patient is willing and able to pay for it. Repeal of Obamacare is critically important to prevent this rationing of life-saving medical treatment. Obamacare also authorizes the imposition of limits on the ability of all Americans to choose to pay for, and on the ability of senior citizens' to add their own money on top of the government Medicare payment to pay for, health insurance less likely to deny medical treatment, as more fully described and documented at http://www.nrlc.org/HealthCareRationing/Life at Risk Routes to Rationing 6272012 (1).pdf NRLC strongly urges you to vote in favor of H.R. 6079, and will include the vote in our scorecard of key right-to-life roll calls of the 112th Congress. Sincerely, Carol Tobias President David N. O'Steen, Ph.D. Executive Director Douglas Johnson Legislative Director Burke Balch, J.D. Director Robert P. Powell Center for Medical Ethics
Several states say they will reject ObamaCare's expansion of Medicaid, and one expert on the law believes even more states will follow suit. States that are saying 'no' to expansion include Wisconsin, Iowa, Louisiana and Florida, which is also opting-out of creating an insurance exchange. Nina Owcharenko, director of the Center for Health Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation, explains why the states are making this decision. "I certainly don't think that any state has any real incentive right now to rush to implement this healthcare law," she says. "Even before the court's ruling, the wheels on the wagon were falling off -- and I think the decision has just made the demise of the healthcare law possibly move faster." In the case of Florida, Governor Rick Scott told Fox News this week that he opposes the Medicaid expansion because Floridians will be the ones ultimately picking up the tab after the first three years of federal funding. As for the insurance exchange, Scott says "they don't work [and] if it is such a great idea, the private sector would do it." "Certainly on the Medicaid front, the administration has tried to make the states feel that they were picking up the whole tab," Owcharenko tells OneNewsNow. "But I think most governors saw right through that, which is why the Medicaid mandate to expand coverage was included in the court case in the end, and, thankfully, was probably the silver lining of this entire court case." On the exchange front, Owcharenko says "the administration would love to have states helping them administer this subsidy scheme for government health plans; but because of the court's decision, states are not under the black cloud that they used to be with the Medicaid piece, and they really can take their time and figure out, maybe after the election, what the future of this healthcare law is." Contact: Chris Woodward Source: OneNewsNow
On the heels of the release of an article profiling Personhood USA leaders Keith and Jennifer Mason, featured in Newsweek magazine and online at The Daily Beast, the Mason's home residence was violently vandalized by pro-abortion activists. A few days after the attack, dedicated pro-life volunteer Everett Stadig was assaulted while petitioning for Colorado's personhood initiative and suffered several injuries, including a broken hip which required surgery. The Newsweek article profiled the Masons and their work to champion the personhood rights of every human being. The Daily Beast's notoriously liberal audience took exception to the pro-life beliefs of the Masons, resulting in several physical threats posted in the comments beneath the article. After viewing these threats, one reader tracked down the Mason's home address and posted it in the comment section. "The article does state that we have three small children, and that my wife is due to deliver our fourth child very soon," explained Keith Mason, President of Personhood USA. "It is shocking to consider that someone would be so cruel and heartless to attack a home with a pregnant woman and small children inside. Apparently, the pro-choice crowd has no more compassion for born children than they do for the preborn." In the middle of the night, a large rock was heaved through the double-paned glass of their front door, scattering glass throughout their living room and across the front porch, covering their children's toys and items for the new baby. The pro-abortion criminals also spray painted coat hangers and vulgarity in large letters on the front and sides of their house. The violence didn't end there. The same week, Stadig was criminally assaulted, resulting in multiple injuries and hospitalization. "Our reaction is one of puzzlement. What kind of person would terrorize the home of a family with young, innocent children inside? We're left wondering what these abortion fanatics hoped to accomplish," continued Mason. "Not only are these hateful attacks uncalled for, but they have renewed our resolve to press forward. It is a great testimony that even as Everett recuperates in the hospital he is undeterred, even asking hospital staff and visitors for their signatures on his personhood petition. We are all following his example, pressing forward despite hardships, determined to continue to defend the lives of women and babies – all of whom deserve better than abortion." Contact Jennifer Mason source; Personhood USA
Pro-Life advocates successfully staged another peaceful picket demonstration outside the National Education Association's convention in Washington, as scheduled on July 2, despite having their ranks moderated by the flooding, storm damage, and power outages afflicting the region. The pro-lifers delivered their union-reform message to thousands of NEA delegates arriving at the convention center, even though only sixteen were able to assemble. "Most local pro-life activists from nearby Virginia and Maryland had to forego their plans to picket the NEA as they dealt with the disastrous effects of the violent weather. Some called to report being evacuated due to flooding and electrical blackouts or hindered by blocked and jammed roadways," said organizer Bob Pawson, an NEA member teacher from Trenton, NJ. Undaunted, Pawson urges pro-lifers and other interested parties to, "Start preparing now for the NEA's 2013 convention in Atlanta, GA next July 1st." Pro-lifers displayed posters stating: 'Abortion Kills Teachers' Careers;' 'Make NEA Abortion Neutral;' '25 Abortions = 1 Lost Classroom;' and 'Save Babies, Save Your Jobs.' They gave flyers to delegates documenting NEA's pro-abortion actions. A Truth Truck with huge signs, operated by Ron Brock, circled the convention center. Pawson said, "One NEA delegate unwittingly echoed the eugenic racism of Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger, by saying that abortion 'results in higher quality students.' Another made a sexist remark to male pro-lifers stating, 'You men have no say about abortion; you lack a uterus.' Encouragingly, a few delegates did thank us for being there or discretely gave the thumbs-up sign." "It's certainly the height of stupidity for the bully-bosses of a teacher union to support the aborting of future students. What a scam on us union members who are compelled to pay exorbitant dues – only to have our job security not-so-well-protected by radical, pro-abortion educrats. It's morally outrageous and economic suicide." "Imagine how America's parents must feel when teacher union bosses claim to 'care about children' while promoting the killing of babies. Then, those same arrogant educrats demand more money from the taxpaying parents to educate the surviving children. That's quite a rip-off scheme." "We joined NEA for collective bargaining; not to be bullied or misrepresented on moral, social, or political issues. NEA must repeal its 'Family Planning' resolution and other policies, out of respect for the diversity of 3.2 million members. NEA must totally disengage from abortion; become truly neutral and non-involved." Coontact: Bob Pawson
In the latest legal victory for pro-life crisis pregnancy centers nationwide, an appeals court has struck down a Baltimore, Md., law that would have required such facilities to post, in large print outside their doors, a sign saying they don't provide abortions or refer clients to abortion providers. Crisis pregnancy centers said the signs would have chased women away before they got the help they needed, and they also argued the signs were an unconstitutional violation of free speech. In a 2-1 ruling June 27, the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the centers, upholding an earlier decision by a lower court judge. In a separate 2-1 decision the same day, the appeals court also struck down a Montgomery County, Md., law requiring that pregnancy centers post a sign with two disclosures: first, stating that a "licensed medical professional" is not on staff, and second, that the "Montgomery County Health Officer encourages women who are or may be pregnant to consult with a licensed health care provider." The Montgomery County law, the court said, "amounts to an impermissible government control of speech." "The government-mandated statement, which must be posted 'conspicuously' on a pregnancy center's wall, suggests to potential clients that the center is not to be trusted and that a pregnancy center's services, like religious counseling or job placement assistance, will usually be inferior to those offered by medical professionals," the majority ruled. "To be sure, Montgomery County is entitled to believe that pregnancy is first and foremost a medical condition, but it may not compel unwilling speakers to express that view." Last year, a federal judge blocked enforcement of a New York City ordinance that would have required crisis pregnancy centers to post signs saying they don't perform abortions or refer women to abortion providers. Often supported by churches, crisis pregnancy centers are needed, supporters say, because Planned Parenthood -- the nation's largest abortion provider -- is biased in its counseling and has a financial interest in guiding women to abortions. The pro-life centers often provide such free services as pregnancy tests, ultrasound exams, prenatal care, childbirth classes, testing for sexually transmitted diseases, post-abortion counseling and material assistance. Abortion clinics typically do not provide many of these services. The ultrasounds -- which show a woman her unborn baby in detail -- have been particularly helpful in deterring abortions. The Alliance Defense Fund, a pro-life legal group, was involved with both cases and applauded the rulings. "Pregnancy centers offer real help and hope to women. They should be free to share that message instead of being compelled to provide the government's preferred message, which sends women elsewhere," said ADF attorney Matt Bowman. "Pregnancy centers provide women with the emotional support and practical resources they need, giving them more choices. They should not be made to speak negatively about the important services they provide." Contact: Michael FoustSource: Baptist Press
State legislators in Tennessee have made it official: Sex toys and graphic promotions of sexual activity are not welcome in public schools. With the signing into law of SB 3310 by Gov. Bill Haslam, public schools that teach sex education classes must emphasize abstinence, and teachers are barred from promoting "gateway sexual activity" that encourages students to sexually experiment. "We are very pleased with the passage of the Tennessee law, and we think that it could and should serve as a model for other states to follow," said Valerie Huber, executive director of the National Abstinence Education Association. Tennessee only mandates sex education in school districts where the teen pregnancy rate exceeds a certain rate. But before the new law, some districts brought in speakers and curriculum that included explicit depictions of sexual conduct. The Family Action Council of Tennessee (FACTN) documented a 2010 incident at Hillsboro High School in Nashville when a speaker with Nashville CARES, an AIDS awareness and education program, taught a sex education class at the school. The speaker used anatomically correct models to show students how to perform a graphic sex act. FACTN also noted that in some schools, Planned Parenthood presented sexual education curriculum that included links to its national website. Huber added that some organizations claim they teach abstinence, but their curriculum goes in a decidedly different direction. "It's asking students to creatively think of what kind of sexual activities they can still engage in and not get pregnant," she said. "Well, that's not how you and I define abstinence." The new law, signed in May, specifically prohibits promoting sexual experimentation and forbids materials that "condone, encourage or promote student sexual activity among unmarried students," as well as "devices manufactured specifically for sexual stimulation." It also gives parents the option to sue if a teacher violates the law's guidelines. While the law prohibits distribution of contraceptives on school property, it allows "medically-accurate" information about contraception to be provided as long as it is consistent with the law's other provisions and emphasizes that only abstinence eliminates all risk. Tennessee's efforts take their place among a larger national struggle over sex education, one that Huber argues is filled with misinformation. She says the NAEA sought to counter that misinformation with a two-part study called "Considerations for Protecting Teen Health" released on June 19. It looks at both so-called comprehensive" sex education (CSE) programs and abstinence-centered sexual risk avoidance (SRA) sex education. "[W]e think that there needed to be a definitive study that would give us the facts rather than the sound bites, and we think that this study does so in a rather exhaustive manner," Huber said. Part one of the study examines CSE programs, exploring their curricula, examining what it calls the "debatable" research metrics being used to promote them, and their current promotion by the Obama administration. "The CSE approach has been the mainstay of sex education for decades, receiving the lion's share of all funding even though research results for this approach are dismal, particularly in the school setting," the study states. A key argument of the study is that the CSE approach focuses only on minimizing the physical risks associated with sexual activity, ignoring the non-physical consequences of sexual activity for many teens. The study cites research that found most teens who had sex reported at least one negative effect, with girls especially saying they felt bad about themselves or felt used, and that teen sex leads to more than twice the risk of divorce later in life. It also points to research that shows teens who engage in casual sex have a higher risk of lower grades, problems in school and are less likely to go to college. Huber adds that depression and suicide rates "skyrocket" among teens who add sex to their relationships, and sexually active teens are more likely to abuse alcohol and use drugs. "If they think that the worst thing they have to worry about is a pregnancy or even an STD, then they aren't receiving all of the information," she said. The study also found that such "comprehensive" programs include very little information about abstinence, with most skill-building activities centering on condom skills. It cites curriculum that suggests teens can be "abstinent" while still engaging in certain sexual activities, which exposes teens to STDs that can be transmitted through skin-to-skin contact. CSE curricula also exaggerate the effectiveness of condoms in preventing pregnancy and STDs, according to the study, with one curriculum encouraging teachers to withhold information on condom failure rates. The NAEA study tackles the research behind CSE, arguing that among other weaknesses, it uses flawed metrics, is over-generalized and suffers from conflict of interest, since much of the research was led and published by researchers who were either employed by the curriculum publishing companies or wrote the curriculum themselves. Part two of the study seeks to show that abstinence-centered sexual risk avoidance education is the best approach. Starting from the premise that all non-marital teen sexual activity is high-risk and should be avoided, SRA education is designed to prevent all negative consequences by preventing sexual activity in the first place. "Rather than encouraging teens to experiment with gateway sexual behaviors that could compromise their health and their ability to avoid sexual intercourse, SRA programs encourage teens to avoid all risk by focusing on non-sexual activities in their dating relationships," the study says. SRA programs follow a holistic approach that goes beyond addressing the physical consequences of sex, the study says, examining the reasons why teens have sex in the first place. Effective SRA programs typically include skill-building exercises that focus on topics including goal-setting, skills to resist sexual pressure, the benefits of waiting until marriage for sex, and medically accurate information on how contraceptives such as condoms may reduce the physical risk from sexual activity but don't eliminate them. SRA programs avoid normalizing or promoting teen sexual behavior. The study cites research that shows SRA programs are effective at reducing teen sexual activity, saying that 25 peer-reviewed studies demonstrated "significant and positive behavioral change" among participants. Ideology plays a large role in federal government rejection of the SRA approach, the study argues, citing a 2008 House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing on the effectiveness of abstinence education programs. Of the seven witnesses assembled, five said that even if SRA was shown to be as effective as or more effective than "comprehensive" sex education, they would still oppose funding for the SRA approach. But the message of abstinence is resonating with teens and parents, the study argues, citing data that shows fewer teens are having sexual contact and that parents support programs that place primary emphasis on abstinence. Huber urges abstinence education supporters to take action in correcting a 16-to-1 funding disparity that favors "comprehensive" sex education programs. "Obviously we are at a dangerous spot for sex education policy right now," she said. "The current administration has virtually eliminated all the abstinence education that they could." She points to a potential fix in the Abstinence Education Reallocation Act introduced into Congress. The bill authorizes grants for SRA programs and clarifies what an authentic SRA program teaches. "We have currently about 70 co-sponsors," Huber said, "but we need a whole lot more, so that we can see this change that is not only what parents want but is in the best health interest of our teens." --30-- John Evans could serve as national model State legislators in Tennessee have made it official: Sex toys and graphic promotions of sexual activity are not welcome in public schools. With the signing into law of SB 3310 by Gov. Bill Haslam, public schools that teach sex education classes must emphasize abstinence, and teachers are barred from promoting "gateway sexual activity" that encourages students to sexually experiment. "We are very pleased with the passage of the Tennessee law, and we think that it could and should serve as a model for other states to follow," said Valerie Huber, executive director of the National Abstinence Education Association. Tennessee only mandates sex education in school districts where the teen pregnancy rate exceeds a certain rate. But before the new law, some districts brought in speakers and curriculum that included explicit depictions of sexual conduct. The Family Action Council of Tennessee (FACTN) documented a 2010 incident at Hillsboro High School in Nashville when a speaker with Nashville CARES, an AIDS awareness and education program, taught a sex education class at the school. The speaker used anatomically correct models to show students how to perform a graphic sex act. FACTN also noted that in some schools, Planned Parenthood presented sexual education curriculum that included links to its national website. Huber added that some organizations claim they teach abstinence, but their curriculum goes in a decidedly different direction. "It's asking students to creatively think of what kind of sexual activities they can still engage in and not get pregnant," she said. "Well, that's not how you and I define abstinence." The new law, signed in May, specifically prohibits promoting sexual experimentation and forbids materials that "condone, encourage or promote student sexual activity among unmarried students," as well as "devices manufactured specifically for sexual stimulation." It also gives parents the option to sue if a teacher violates the law's guidelines. While the law prohibits distribution of contraceptives on school property, it allows "medically-accurate" information about contraception to be provided as long as it is consistent with the law's other provisions and emphasizes that only abstinence eliminates all risk. Tennessee's efforts take their place among a larger national struggle over sex education, one that Huber argues is filled with misinformation. She says the NAEA sought to counter that misinformation with a two-part study called "Considerations for Protecting Teen Health" released on June 19. It looks at both so-called comprehensive" sex education (CSE) programs and abstinence-centered sexual risk avoidance (SRA) sex education. "[W]e think that there needed to be a definitive study that would give us the facts rather than the sound bites, and we think that this study does so in a rather exhaustive manner," Huber said. Part one of the study examines CSE programs, exploring their curricula, examining what it calls the "debatable" research metrics being used to promote them, and their current promotion by the Obama administration. "The CSE approach has been the mainstay of sex education for decades, receiving the lion's share of all funding even though research results for this approach are dismal, particularly in the school setting," the study states. A key argument of the study is that the CSE approach focuses only on minimizing the physical risks associated with sexual activity, ignoring the non-physical consequences of sexual activity for many teens. The study cites research that found most teens who had sex reported at least one negative effect, with girls especially saying they felt bad about themselves or felt used, and that teen sex leads to more than twice the risk of divorce later in life. It also points to research that shows teens who engage in casual sex have a higher risk of lower grades, problems in school and are less likely to go to college. Huber adds that depression and suicide rates "skyrocket" among teens who add sex to their relationships, and sexually active teens are more likely to abuse alcohol and use drugs. "If they think that the worst thing they have to worry about is a pregnancy or even an STD, then they aren't receiving all of the information," she said. The study also found that such "comprehensive" programs include very little information about abstinence, with most skill-building activities centering on condom skills. It cites curriculum that suggests teens can be "abstinent" while still engaging in certain sexual activities, which exposes teens to STDs that can be transmitted through skin-to-skin contact. CSE curricula also exaggerate the effectiveness of condoms in preventing pregnancy and STDs, according to the study, with one curriculum encouraging teachers to withhold information on condom failure rates. The NAEA study tackles the research behind CSE, arguing that among other weaknesses, it uses flawed metrics, is over-generalized and suffers from conflict of interest, since much of the research was led and published by researchers who were either employed by the curriculum publishing companies or wrote the curriculum themselves. Part two of the study seeks to show that abstinence-centered sexual risk avoidance education is the best approach. Starting from the premise that all non-marital teen sexual activity is high-risk and should be avoided, SRA education is designed to prevent all negative consequences by preventing sexual activity in the first place. "Rather than encouraging teens to experiment with gateway sexual behaviors that could compromise their health and their ability to avoid sexual intercourse, SRA programs encourage teens to avoid all risk by focusing on non-sexual activities in their dating relationships," the study says. SRA programs follow a holistic approach that goes beyond addressing the physical consequences of sex, the study says, examining the reasons why teens have sex in the first place. Effective SRA programs typically include skill-building exercises that focus on topics including goal-setting, skills to resist sexual pressure, the benefits of waiting until marriage for sex, and medically accurate information on how contraceptives such as condoms may reduce the physical risk from sexual activity but don't eliminate them. SRA programs avoid normalizing or promoting teen sexual behavior. The study cites research that shows SRA programs are effective at reducing teen sexual activity, saying that 25 peer-reviewed studies demonstrated "significant and positive behavioral change" among participants. Ideology plays a large role in federal government rejection of the SRA approach, the study argues, citing a 2008 House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing on the effectiveness of abstinence education programs. Of the seven witnesses assembled, five said that even if SRA was shown to be as effective as or more effective than "comprehensive" sex education, they would still oppose funding for the SRA approach. But the message of abstinence is resonating with teens and parents, the study argues, citing data that shows fewer teens are having sexual contact and that parents support programs that place primary emphasis on abstinence. Huber urges abstinence education supporters to take action in correcting a 16-to-1 funding disparity that favors "comprehensive" sex education programs. "Obviously we are at a dangerous spot for sex education policy right now," she said. "The current administration has virtually eliminated all the abstinence education that they could." She points to a potential fix in the Abstinence Education Reallocation Act introduced into Congress. The bill authorizes grants for SRA programs and clarifies what an authentic SRA program teaches. "We have currently about 70 co-sponsors," Huber said, "but we need a whole lot more, so that we can see this change that is not only what parents want but is in the best health interest of our teens." Contact: John Evans Source: Baptist Press
Since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the new federal health care law constitutional last Thursday, analysts have been busy dissecting its future impact. Though much remains to be seen as more facets unfold, a few things are clear already: Unless Congress repeals the law, it will raise taxes on a long list of goods and services, and it will make everyday Americans complicit in subsidizing abortions through insurance. "The Affordable Care Act was used as a vehicle for hijacking health care reform to force a radical anti-life agenda on the American people," said Dr. Charmaine Yoest, president and CEO of Americans United for Life. "The law forcibly and unfairly intertwines all Americans and their hard-earned money with the abortion industry." The law requires insurance companies participating in federal health care exchanges to impose a surcharge of at least $1 per person each month to pay for the abortions obtained by women in the insurance pool, and to keep this fact hidden before consumers enroll. It also is one of the top 10 single largest tax hikes in history: Over the next 10 years, it is expected to take $675 billion of dollars above what taxpayers are currently paying, in a variety of forms — including some that will take effect as early as next year. One of the largest is the new 0.9 percent payroll tax hike for individuals making more than $200,000 a year and couples earning over $250,000, which kicks in next year, said Nick Kasprak, an analyst and programmer at The Tax Foundation, a nonprofit, nonpartisan tax research organization based in Washington, D.C. Also, "there are a lot of tiny ones," he added. "Changes to medical savings accounts — you can't use those to pay for over-the-counter medicine anymore. It limits the value of these tax-free accounts. Annual fees on insurance companies, manufacturers of prescription drugs — they all get passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices. The deduction for medical expenses has been changed, so you can't deduct as much. They all add up to a fair amount." As a result, several Republican governors have said they simply will ignore ObamaCare until after the November elections, in case a new crop of lawmakers finds the legislative will to repeal it. "Today's ruling crystallizes all that's at stake in November's election," Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell, chairman of the Republican Governors Association, said last Thursday. "The only way to stop Barack Obama's budget-busting health care takeover is by electing a new president. ObamaCare increases taxes, grows the size of government and puts bureaucrats over patients while doing nothing to improve the economy." Contact: Karla Dial Soource: CitizenLink
In a surprise ruling, the Supreme Court upheld Obamacare, maintaining the "individual mandate" as constitutional, not under the commerce clause, but under the taxing clause. The only part of Obamacare the Court limited was the law's requirements on state Medicaid programs to expand or face a loss of all Medicaid funding. So, here are the several pro-life and religious freedom problems that now stand with the Court's blessing, and other items of concern (section references are to PPACA, P.L. 111-148): I. The abortion subsidies and funding scheme stand (see chart of Obamacare abortion scheme for more detail: http://downloads.frcaction.org/EF/EF10C08.pdf) Federal subsidies for health plans that include elective abortion in state exchanges will continue. (Section 1303) The abortion fee will require every person in a plan that has abortion coverage will pay at least $12 per year even if they do not want abortion services. (Section 1303) Allowing direct funding of abortion through direct spending in community health clinics (Section 10503), and high risk pools (Section 1101). Subsidies for the government run "multi-state" plans remains even if they include elective abortion (Section 1334). There are No conscience protections against government discrimination against businesses, providers, or health insurers who refuse abortion. The limited conscience protection is from insurers against providers, but the government can discriminate against anyone who refuses to offer or refer for abortion if they chose (Section 1303). II. Religious Freedom infringement through HHS contraception/abortifacient mandate, which narrowly restricts religious liberties to churches (Section 1001). Penalties for failure to comply could be $100 per day per employee for the employer (and insurer) who fails to offer "preventive care services", including contraceptives, abortifacients and sterilizations free to the patient. III. The Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) remains in effect, an entity that will reduce Medicare costs through rationing health care (Section 3403). IV. OTHER ISSUES: The "individual mandate" continues as a tax on people who do not buy health insurance, whether from an employer or in the individual market (Section 1501). The mandate remains on mid-size and large employers to offer "minimum essential coverage" — which means plans that can't exceed 9.6% of salary, and plans cover 60% of total health care costs (they don't have to cover all the essential benefits). If employers don't offer these, they face penalties (Section 1511). States are required to establish exchanges or, if they chose not to, the Federal government will establish and run them in the state (Section 1311). Contact: David Christensen Source: FRC Blog
