As the White House pressured pro-life Rep. Bart Stupak to be silent about his opposition to the new Senate health bill abortion language, HHS head Sebelius was giving an interview on the White House website, assuring the “BlogHerSphere” that women would not have to take out separate, and embarrassing, additional insurance riders to cover abortion.
Both House and Senate bills are creating government management of health insurance “‘exchanges,” but only the “Stupak-amended” House version really prevents tax moneys from paying for elective abortion. It is the House bill that horrifies the “BlogHer” gals, because it would require them to purchase their own personal abortion coverage!
This of course would “out” them as preparing for future abortions, a reaction of old-fashioned SHAME, that Sebelius terms “invading the privacy rights of women.” (ASIDE: In Kansas, Sebelius won elections and wrongly vetoed good pro-life bills under the mantle of protecting women’s privacy.)
In the White House interview, Sebelius promises women’s shame– or rather, their privacy– will be protected because all participants in the Senate insurance exchanges – men and women of all age groups – will contribute a separate “abortion premium” to cover the cost of elective abortion services. Listen to her in this one-minute excerpt:
In fact, the VerumSerum blogpost comments that the Senate bill’s phony abortion gimmick is even more offensive than tax-funding in that “tax dollars are pooled to pay for innumerable government goods and services, without any specific accounting, under this new arrangement participants in the insurance exchange will know beyond a doubt that their financial contributions are being used to terminate the lives of unborn children.”
Rep. Stupak is no dummy; he knows that the Senate bill will legally compel citizens to contribute funds exclusively designated to pay for abortion into the new government-run system. In an interview on Tuesday, he bristled,
“ I know what [the Senate bill] says. I don’t need to have a conference with the White House. …it’s not just my objections – but there’s a number of my [colleagues] who feel strongly about this issue… There’s 10 or 12 of us, and they only passed the bill by 3 votes, so they’re going to be short 8 to 9, maybe 6 to 8 votes. So they [Democrats] do not have the votes to pass it in the House.”
And wouldn’t that be a shame!