RNC's Health Plan Covers Abortion

Oh my:

The Republican National Committee's health insurance plan covers elective abortion - a procedure the party's own platform calls "a fundamental assault on innocent human life."

Federal Election Commission Records show the RNC purchases its insurance from Cigna. Two sales agents for the company said that the RNC's policy covers elective abortion.

Health insurance should, of course, cover such procedures.

But by the logic of the Stupak amendment, every individual and PAC donor to the RNC is funding abortions.

Tags: health care reform, RNC (all tags)



Re: RNC's Health Plan Covers Abortion

The analogy is invalid though it is always fun to point out GOP hypocrisies. An organization can have private insurance for something and still be opposed to the government paying for the very same thing. Unless there is a medically necessary procedure, I see no reason why the government has an obligation to step in for abortion. I am pro choice and I won't have a problem with any people I know getting an abortion. But there is no fundamental right for a woman to have the government pay for it.

Now if we want to look at practicalities , the cost of paying for the abortion offsetting the societal costs of an unwanted child, then maybe it is point to look at.

by Pravin 2009-11-12 01:47PM | 0 recs
The government is not currently obligated

to cover anything.  Why draw a distinction between abortion and, for example, knee replacement.  You can, after all, live with a bum knee.

And, of course, the costs of pregnancy are higher than those for abortion, which is why most private insurance providers cover abortion.

by JJE 2009-11-12 02:03PM | 0 recs
Re: The government is not currently obligated

A bad knee is a medical condition that indicates something defective. A pregnancy is usually not one. However, the cost of a pregnancy vs abortion is a valid point to raise when it comes to the economics of it all.  

by Pravin 2009-11-13 10:42AM | 0 recs
Re: RNC's Health Plan Covers Abortion

Let's be clear about this.  The RNC, which supposedly believes abortion is murder, will pay for its employees to have an elective abortion.

The RNC, in case you missed the memo, is a lot more anti-abortion than just "we don't think the government should pay for it."

by Steve M 2009-11-12 02:20PM | 0 recs
Re: RNC's Health Plan Covers Abortion

Agreed...regardless of ones position on abortion, its not the governments role or right to fund it through taxpayer dollars.

by BuckeyeBlogger 2009-11-12 01:48PM | 0 recs
Er, no

you don't agree.  The post says that abortion should be covered.  And that's right, of course, since abortion is a legal medical procedure.

Blood transfusions are inconsistent with the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses.  Should this bill exclude coverage for blood transfusions?

by JJE 2009-11-12 02:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Er, no

I agreed with the previous poster stating that abortion isnt a right and shouldnt be funded by taxpayer dollars. Further comparing transfusions to abortions is pretty silly. Fact is, abortion shouldnt be funded by taxpayer dollars....you can bitch all you want but this bill is going to crash and burn unless the funding restriction is included.

by BuckeyeBlogger 2009-11-12 02:04PM | 0 recs
Is there anything less persuasive

than saying "The fact is" and then following it up with nothing but their unsubstantiated opinion?  You've provided no actual argument why abortion should not be funded.

Also, using "Reply To" helps clarify which comment you are addressing.

by JJE 2009-11-12 02:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Is there anything less persuasive

How about abortion for any other reason that to save the life of the mother, incest or rape is murder as far as I am concerned....

by BuckeyeBlogger 2009-11-12 02:26PM | 0 recs

So that is your personal moral or religious belief.  Yet abortion is nonetheless a legal medical procedure.  Similarly, the Jehovah's Witnesses have a religious objection to blood transfusions.  Why, as a matter of public policy, should a federally funded health insurance program not cover the legal medical procedure you find morally objectionable while covering the procedure they find objectionable?

by JJE 2009-11-12 02:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Ok

The real question is a) Government does not fund abortion, the House Bill 3962 and the SFC Bill both prevent government funds/subsidies from being used to pay for an abortion.

The Stupak amendment prevents insurance plans (public or private) from providing abortion coverage which would be paid for by private funds.

by vecky 2009-11-12 02:35PM | 0 recs
Only if

the private plan accepts funds appropriated under the act.  No private plan that is funded in part by the bill can cover abortion, but plans that are not are free to.

by JJE 2009-11-12 04:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Ok

Cosmetic surgery is a legal medical procedure too. A legal medical procedure is not all you need to justify  being covered by the government.  Unless the health of the mother is endangered, it is just an elective procedure because it was unplanned(exceptions for rape, of course).

Unlike Buckeye Blogger, I have no moral problem with abortion. I am an atheist. I just not think it is a necessity that it is worth complicating the health care debate over.

by Pravin 2009-11-13 10:48AM | 0 recs
What about a knee replacement?

You can live without a knee replacement.  Is it elective also?  I don't think there is a bright line between elective and non-elective.

by JJE 2009-11-13 01:03PM | 0 recs
I see you addressed

the knee replacement analogy below, so I'll post my response here rather than there to avoid parallel threads.

As some people age, their knees break down naturally.  Similarly, unprotected sex naturally leads to pregnancy for some people.  Why is the first defective but not the latter?

by JJE 2009-11-13 01:08PM | 0 recs
Re: I see you addressed

Whatever it is aging or otherwise(heart disease gets worse by age too), the fact is a knee replacement addresses a health PROBLEM. An abortion of a pregnancy which causes complications in the mother would be an example of health care used for a health PROBLEM. However, an abortion as a means of birth control is not a health PROBLEM.

FWIW, I do not feel very strongly either way on this issue. But I was trying to prevent demonization of people who would want this not included in the health care reform because I feel they have a valid POV(as long as it is limited to government funding of abortions of non problem pregnancies. )

by Pravin 2009-11-13 01:19PM | 0 recs
Pregnancy can be a health problem

even if it does not threaten the mother's death or create a "health problem" as you've defined it.  Pregnancy is quite burdensome, limits the woman's life activities, and, I'm led to understand, can permanently change a woman's body.

The desire to avoid demonizing anti-choice views does not mean we have to be persuaded by their views or acquiesce to a discriminatory health policy.

by JJE 2009-11-13 02:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Is there anything less persuasive

Then why do you support Stupak...

by vecky 2009-11-12 02:33PM | 0 recs
If you think abortion is murder

outside of your narrow exceptions, then what should the penalties be?  Do you think a woman who has an abortion should go to jail?
Her doctor?  Her nurse?  

I am seriously interested in your response.

by Radiowalla 2009-11-12 02:35PM | 0 recs
Re: If you think abortion is murder

I believe its murder yes, should they go to jail. No. Why? Because our laws dont state its murder, therefore I cant demand some punishment. I believe those who commit murder punished or unpunished in this life will be judged by God....

by BuckeyeBlogger 2009-11-12 02:44PM | 0 recs

Do you think the laws should be changed?  If so, please state what penalties you advocate.

by Radiowalla 2009-11-12 02:51PM | 0 recs
Re: OK

I think beyond protection of a womans life, rape or incest....abortion as means of birth control is murder. That being said, if the laws were to change and ban abortion for anything but those reasons, justice would be better served in teaching those who seek or have abortions as means of birth control, why its wrong. Why put someone in jail for abortion, they arent a menace to society. No rather it makes more sense they learn and understand why the practice for purpose of contraception is unethical at the very least.

by BuckeyeBlogger 2009-11-12 04:15PM | 0 recs
First you say it's murder

and now you say it's unethical at the very least.  That's a pretty wide range.  This topic isn't easily addressed, is it?  

I don't like abortion very much myself.  I agree with you about education, however.   Let's try to prevent unwanted pregnancies through good education and expanded access to contraception.   But let's leave the decision in the hands of the people who are concerned:  the women and their families, not the government, not the church, not the neighbors down the street.  

by Radiowalla 2009-11-12 05:15PM | 0 recs
Re: OK

So your objection to abortion is not out of concern for the fetus, but what decision is made by the mother.

You can see why no one thus takes your illogical argument seriously.

by vecky 2009-11-12 09:30PM | 0 recs
Re: OK

where did I not say my concern was for the fetus....dont play semantics, you know what I meant. Fact is I dont need to justify my view which is based upon biblical principal. You can choose to disagree, but you cannto sway my beliefs born out of biblical truth.

by BuckeyeBlogger 2009-11-12 10:00PM | 0 recs
Your belief in the Bible is completely irrelevant

because our laws are not based on the Bible, so take your biblical truth and shove it.

by ND22 2009-11-13 07:59AM | 0 recs

And our laws are deeply rooted in Christian belief wether you care to acknowledge or not....as for the shove commnent, so typical. Its amazing how those who have no faith are so afraid and offended by those who do.....sad really....

by BuckeyeBlogger 2009-11-13 08:09AM | 0 recs

our laws are based on the Code of Hammurabi whether you like to think so or not, which the Bible ripped off.

I am afraid of those who claim to have "faith" because this "faith" has killed more people around the world and led to more disastrous wars and crimes than anything else on earth. It's easy to use "faith" to brainwash people into committing horrendous crimes in God's name.

If it wasn't for organized religion, almost every war fought in the past thousand years would not have happened.

sad really, how people need a book to think for them.

by ND22 2009-11-13 08:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Er, no

Have you ever voted for a Democrat in your life?

by JDF 2009-11-12 02:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Er, no

Uh lets see Obama would be the most recent, along Chris Murphy, Joe Lieberman, Chris Dodd.....while still in CT.....

by BuckeyeBlogger 2009-11-12 02:25PM | 0 recs
and when you voted for these Democrats

can I ask why you did it, seeing as you don't appear to believe in any part of the party's platform.

by ND22 2009-11-12 02:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Pssst!

 I'm pretty sure (as in 'absolutely sure')that Buckeye has never even considered voting for a Democrat in his entire life. I came to this conclusion after I performed a careful, exhaustive, (and distasteful) reading of every one of his comments that remain in the archives of MyDD. I am not sure why he thinks it necessary to throw in the occasional 'I'm a lifelong Democrat', but suspect he does it to add a little 'spice'.

by QTG 2009-11-13 02:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Pssst!

Again.....dude....I really dont give a hoot what you think.....ya see your problem again is you think the only view is your own....and its your way of thinking that will inevitably lead to the party tanking again....

by BuckeyeBlogger 2009-11-13 08:11AM | 0 recs
Honestly it's not a stretch

for us to doubt your credentials as a Democrat, you don't believe in civil rights, you don't believe in universal healthcare, instead parroting some ridiculous crap about eating fruits and vegetables, you don't beleive in stimulating the economy with investment, parroting crap about tax cuts, you don't believe in a single piece of the Democratic agenda...so what the hell are you doing here?

by ND22 2009-11-13 08:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Honestly it's not a stretch

I dont believe in civil rights because I dont believe in killing unborn children? What about their civil rights? I dotn support universal healtcare? Not to the extent that it would be government run without any public/private competition. I support a government option alongside private. I dotn believe in stimulating the economy with investment? Can you read have you not noticed I just posted numerous comments on investment in energy and technology and healthcare research? Oh and as for the crap about eating fruits and vegetables...I will just leave you to your ignorance about the impact obesity has on the economy and how targeting it through proper nutrition will save the economy billions...not just my words but those of healthcare professionals and analysts....

by BuckeyeBlogger 2009-11-13 08:38AM | 0 recs
Re: You don't believe in the Bible either

The Mosaic law orders "Thou shalt kill" people for committing such "crimes" as cursing one's father or mother (Ex. 21:17), for being a "stubborn son" (Deut. 21:18-21), for being a homosexual (Lev. 20:13), or even for picking up sticks on the Sabbath (Numbers 15:32-35)! Far from protecting the sanctity of life, the bible promotes capital punishment for conduct which no civilized person or nation would regard as criminal.

Mass killings were routinely ordered, committed or approved by the God of the bible. One typical example is Numbers 25:4-9, when the Lord casually orders Moses to massacre 24,000 Israelites: "Take all the heads of the people, and hang them up before the Lord against the sun." Clearly, the bible is not pro-life!

Most scholars and translators agree that the injunction against killing forbade only the murder of (already born) Hebrews. It was open season on everyone else, including children, pregnant women and newborn babies.

by QTG 2009-11-13 12:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Er, no

It may not seem like it these days, but barring certain exceptions abortion is actually still a right in America.

by Josh Orton 2009-11-12 05:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Er, no

Yes but its not anyones right to make me pay for it as a taxpayer

by BuckeyeBlogger 2009-11-13 08:11AM | 0 recs
I don't agree with wars

you should you make me pay for it as a taxpayer?

by ND22 2009-11-13 08:28AM | 0 recs
Re: I don't agree with wars

Fine than we dont need to support the military...how do you think that will work out?

by BuckeyeBlogger 2009-11-13 08:34AM | 0 recs
Re: I don't agree with wars

No war in Iraq, that'll be great!

by vecky 2009-11-13 09:13AM | 0 recs
Re: I don't agree with wars

Which is why I always felt we are too kind with incumbents. They get away with not honoring our wishes not to waste money on unnecessary wars and spend more time trying to fool people into believing a war expense is needed.

by Pravin 2009-11-13 10:51AM | 0 recs
Re: RNC's Health Plan Covers Abortion


by Radiowalla 2009-11-12 02:17PM | 0 recs
Re: RNC's Health Plan Covers Abortion

The GOP is not the problem in this debate. Democrats are. Your post to me seems  like a change of subject.

by bruh3 2009-11-12 03:48PM | 0 recs
Re: RNC's Health Plan Covers Abortion

I guess I missed the part where the GOP voted as a block in favor of the Stupak amendment.

If you want to blame the GOP and a portion of the Democratic caucus, then I'm with you. But blaming only the Democrats is absurd.

by fsm 2009-11-12 04:46PM | 0 recs
Re: RNC's Health Plan Covers Abortion

The GOP does not matter in regards to DC policy. Some of you are stuck in the past with the Bush Administration and let the Democrats play you accordingly because they know you are still fighting old battles.

by bruh3 2009-11-12 05:20PM | 0 recs
Re: RNC's Health Plan Covers Abortion

Some people are stuck in a fantasy world where just because someone has a D after their name means that they therefore must believe in every principle that progressive Democrats believe in.

Plus, I've seen you argue many times that moving the GOP to the left would be a good thing -- a point I am in firm agreement with. Which is why I'll continue to blame all people who vote against principles I believe in, regardless of the letter after their name.

by fsm 2009-11-12 05:28PM | 0 recs
Re: RNC's Health Plan Covers Abortion

I stopped reading a few words in. If you can not defend your silliness without changing the subject, that should you that you argument sucks.

by bruh3 2009-11-12 05:46PM | 0 recs
Re: RNC's Health Plan Covers Abortion

I stopped reading two words in, because you do that when you've been bested.

by fogiv 2009-11-12 06:04PM | 0 recs
Re: RNC's Health Plan Covers Abortion

I am surprised you can read.

by bruh3 2009-11-12 06:05PM | 0 recs
Re: RNC's Health Plan Covers Abortion

Good one.  Come up with it all by yourself?  The hilarity is that your accusing someone of failing to rebut an argument is itself indicative of your own failure to rebut an argument.

by fogiv 2009-11-12 06:10PM | 0 recs
Re: RNC's Health Plan Covers Abortion

blah, blah, blah. blah, blah, blah.

by bruh3 2009-11-12 06:23PM | 0 recs
Re: RNC's Health Plan Covers Abortion

Last word again.  Really, it just keeps getting funnier.

by fogiv 2009-11-12 06:30PM | 0 recs
Re: RNC's Health Plan Covers Abortion

Oh, now you've hurt my feelings. To think you couldn't be bothered to consider a position other than yours and instead have to change the subjecet yourself...really, I'm crushed.

by fsm 2009-11-12 06:34PM | 0 recs
Re: RNC's Health Plan Covers Abortion

"Re: RNC's Health Plan Covers Abortion (none / 0)

It was about revealing the ridiculousness of the Stupak logic. Who is a Democrat.

by Josh Orton "

by bruh3 2009-11-12 06:50PM | 0 recs
Re: RNC's Health Plan Covers Abortion

It was about revealing the ridiculousness of the Stupak logic. Who is a Democrat.

by Josh Orton 2009-11-12 05:38PM | 0 recs
Re: RNC's Health Plan Covers Abortion

I understand. However, in effect, it allows people to ignore the substantive issue of whether the party in power is shifting too far to the right because it becomes a my team versus the GOP team discussion rather than the one you want people to have- namely "Look how fucked up we are to be going to the right of the GOP."

by bruh3 2009-11-12 05:49PM | 0 recs
Re: RNC's Health Plan Covers Abortion

? 176 Republicans, including the half-dozen or so pro-choice members, voted for the Stupik (d) amendment. Without their support the amendment would have failed.

The fact that there are blue-dogs and conserva-dems and the like are known, and have been known for ages. Big-tent and all that.

by vecky 2009-11-12 09:36PM | 0 recs
Re: RNC's Health Plan Covers Abortion

When it requires just 176 to pass a bill, I will care. When it doesn't, and we have a super majority I will assume we are the problem since we are not going to change them.

by bruh3 2009-11-13 03:04AM | 0 recs
Re: RNC's Health Plan Covers Abortion

It requires 218 to pass a bill. When our majority is 219 (which is close to what it actually is) will you give up on the opposition and just bash the dems?

by vecky 2009-11-13 07:00AM | 0 recs
Re: RNC's Health Plan Covers Abortion

by the way, just to be 100 percent clear. We know who the GOP is. We know what they will do. The only reason they matter is that a huge chunk of people who are own "our" team voted with them. That later part- the Democrats voting with the GOP- is the problem since numerical a) the GOp can't do it a lone and b) it was a surprise to have so many Dems with them. It is completely irrelevant for our purposes that a known quantity acts like what it normally acts like. It is however disturbing to put a majority in place that votes to the right of the GOP own private policies.

by bruh3 2009-11-13 03:09AM | 0 recs
Re: RNC's Health Plan Covers Abortion

8 members of the GOP voted for cap-n-trade. 30 or so Dems voted against it.

In the House members loyalty is to their constituents. We're never gonna get complete unity in our caucus, part of having the "big-tent" was not telling reps how to vote. It's silly to just ignore the GOPs contribution to Stupak-Pitts and more silly than it was to ignore those GOPers who voted for the Iraq War, for the Bust Tax cuts, for all the other obnoxious positions they have taken over the years - be they in the minority or majority.

by vecky 2009-11-13 07:07AM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads