Kathleen Sebelius Admits, Covers Up Abortion Funding in Health Care Measure
by Steven Ertelt
December 22, 2009
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) — HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius is getting attention for an interview yesterday in which she essentially admits that the American public would be forced to pay for abortions under the Senate health are bill and then relies on accounting gimmicks to suggests that’s not the case.
Sebelius spoke with BlogHer interviewer Morra Aarons-Mele yesterday and praised the new abortion language the Senate adopted in Harry Reid’s manager’s amendment.
The language, submitted by Sen. Ben Nelson in conjunction with Sen. Bob Casey and pro-abortion Sens. Barbara Boxer and Patty Murray, opens the door to massive abortion funding.
"I would say that the Senate language, which was negotiated by Senators Barbara Boxer and Patty Murray, who are very strong defenders of womens health services and choices for women, take a big step forward from where the House left it with the Stupak amendment," the pro-abortion Obama administration official said.
Sebelius said she thinks the language does a "good job making sure there are choices for women, making sure there are going to be some plan options, and making sure that while public funds aren’t used."
She added: "That would be an accounting procedure, but everybody in the exchange would do the same thing, whether you’re male or female, whether you’re 75 or 25, you would all set aside a portion of your premium that would go into a fund, and it would not be earmarked for anything, it would be a separate account that everyone in the exchange would pay."
"It is a bit confusing, but its really an accounting that would apply across the board and not just to women, and certainly not just to women who want to choose abortion coverage," Sebelius concluded.
Ed Morrissey, a HotAir blogger, noticed the interview and pointed out how Sebelius essentially admitted everyone would pay into the exchange but denied that public funds would be used for abortions.
"What constitutes the notion of ‘public funds?’" he asked. "If the government forces us to pay into a fund, and then controls the distribution of those funds, are those funds not ‘public?’"
"Sebelius praises the abortion-funding language in the Reid bill, as it maintains a flow of funds for abortion coverage that everyone and she means everyone supplies," Morrissey adds.
Morrissey says the health care bill’s system of government funding of abortion is "only confusing if you bought Ben Nelsons dodge that Reid had changed the abortion-funding language in any significant way."
"If the government forces it citizens to pay into premium exchanges and then controls the distribution of that money, then it becomes a public fund in any interpretation. Thats especially true if its intent is to be a slush fund for bureaucrats to apply to whatever purpose they see fit," he concludes.
Sebelius could eventually play a major role in abortion funding because of the Mikulski amendment, which makes it so the Obama administration can define abortion as "preventative care" and force insurance companies to pay for them.
Sign Up for Free Pro-Life News From LifeNews.com
Daily Pro-Life News Report Twice-Weekly Pro-Life
News Report Receive a free daily email report from LifeNews.com with the latest pro-life news stories on abortion, euthanasia and stem cell research. Sign up here. Receive a free twice-weekly email report with the latest pro-life news headlines on abortion, euthanasia and stem cell research. Sign up here.