Operation Rescue's President Cannot Explain How Health Care Bill Funds Abortion

(Footage purchased from Sam Sumner)

As you may be aware, this weekend (tomorrow to be exact) marks the 37th anniversary of the passage of Roe v Wade, the supreme court decision that effectively legalized abortion nationwide. We have been working on a documentary about clinic escorts for some time now (tomorrow we will be making a big announcement about the film, sign up for our emails and you will be one of first to hear about it), so this weekend is a big chance for us to get some footage.

When I got back home from volunteering at the clinic, I saw an email from Operation Rescue announcing a press conference at the White House today. Luckily, I was able to track down a freelance videographer who sold us some great exclusive footage of Operation Rescue's President, Troy Newman, failing several times to name a single part of the current health care bills that allows for federal funding of abortion (although he knows for a fact it does, he just cannot tell you how):



We took a little extra time to write up a transcript for the video-impaired among us:

SUMNER: Can you just give us a brief summary of what it is in this bill that allows for federal funding for abortion?

NEWMAN: Well, you know, nobody's really read the bill. And that's the ironic thing, you know, Obama has said that he's going to make this available, it's gonna be on C-SPAN, but nothing could be further from the truth. The bill that was brought through the house was radically changed by the time it was voted on. The bill that was running its way through the Senate and a lot of us had read was radically changed behind closed doors, so nobody really knows. One thing we do know, is that it contains abortion funding. In fact, I have been calling this health care system, this Obamacare, right from the very beginning, nothing more than an abortion clinic bail out fund. It's all about abortion, it's all about eugenics. And one need only look at the history of abortion and eugenics to know that that's absolutely true. The people that are sitting in the White House today the people that are running congress, despise people of what they would consider to be lower means. It's a detailed eugenic program that they're trying to impress upon the American people.

(Note from Sam: "I have to admit, at this point I was a little caught off guard. I hear whacko things all the time, but does this dude seriously believe the Obama's want to kill poor people? I quickly gathered myself, let it go, and continued pressing for an answer, how does this bill fund abortion?")

SUMNER: Okay. When we were speaking to some of the escorts earlier, they said that this bill does not allow for federal funding. I mean, what do you say to that?

NEWMAN: Have they read the bill? The parts I read detail it explicitly.

SUMNER: I don't know if they have read the bill. But can you explain what parts in the bill actually allow for the federal funding then?

NEWMAN: Well, you know, again, the bill has not even been made public, that has been the huge problem in this. But let's take for instance, a hypothetical...

SUMNER: Aren't both the bills available online though?

NEWMAN: ...If you look at a hypothetical situation that, that this bill would not contain abortion funding, there's already been a huge push to call abortion health care. And so it would just be a stroke of the bureaucratic pen to make sure that abortion is included in this health care bill. So any sort of revamp of health care that includes a government option of funding, it will include government funding of abortion. We already have government funding for abortion in every single state through medicare.

SUMNER: But the bills are available online. Do you know what parts in the bill actually allow for federal funding?

NEWMAN: I don't have the bill, the bill's 2,000 pages long.

SUMNER: So you haven't read it?

NEWMAN: I have read portions of it, and it does detail that... both the house bill did before the Stupak amendment, and the Senate bill did, the parts I read. But again, this has been revamped, it's been rewritten and it is not available right now."

There you have it: "One thing we do know, is that it contains abortion funding..." although... "the bill has not even been made public..." although... "I have read portions of it" although... "the bill has not even been made public."

So this super-secret bill that hasn't been made public absolutely funds abortion and he knows it because he has read the super-secret bill that hasn't been made public but is an attempt to kill poor people.

Lefties Win Against Whole Foods

I am taking a quick break from my Christmas dinner with the family. Today, liberals all across the country got a great Christmas present. The chairman of Whole Foods is stepping down voluntarily as the result of lefty rabble-rousers (we should add that he does still retain his seat on the board and is still a major player at Whole Foods, but we celebrate the message the company is sending):

[Mackey] attempted to capitalize on the brand reputation of Whole Foods to champion his personal political views but has instead deeply offended a key segment of Whole Foods consumer base.

I have not shopped at Whole Foods in months. My entire family began shopping elsewhere after I came across the calls to boycott online. As a somewhat young man, I have not taken part in many nation-wide boycotts, and cannot remember any specific victories before this.

So today, this Christmas, is a day that I did not expect to remember forever as a significant organizing milestone for me. This boycott brought no health care to the uninsured, it did not make the health care bill stronger, and it had no direct impact on my life or my friends' and family's. It did, however, send a message to anyone who would dare to use their corporate position to further corporate political philosophy: your customers are listening and have no problem shopping accordingly.

Medicare for Environmental Health Hazards?

UPDATE: Hat tip goes out to Jeremy Koulish, of Carrots and Sticks, for running down the CBO numbers and giving us a rough estimate of how many people would likely be covered by this provision of the bill. That number is in the thousands, a few thousand or so. As Jeremy said, "Yeah, not particularly earth-shattering, but obviously great for those 3,000 people." We will be doing some more analysis of this, and should it pass, we will check back to see how this provision is being implemented.

There is something interesting in the new health care amendment, Section 1881A.

MEDICARE COVERAGE FOR INDIVIDUALS EXPOSED TO ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH HAZARDS.

We have still got a lot of reading left to do on this section of the amendment, but it has raised some very interesting questions.

I will start with what, as my reading leads me to believe, this section of the amendment does. This section allows for certain individuals, deemed affected by environmental health hazards, to be eligible for Medicare in the event that the individual is not eligible for necessary care under other public or private programs. It also allows for the creation of a pilot program to determine eligibility and to provide necessary benefits.

First and foremost, this is not restrictive by age. Meaning, regardless of how old you are, if you are deemed affected by environmental health hazards, you may be eligible for Medicare.

The first question this raises, who is considered an "environmental exposure affected individual"

(e) ENVIRONMENTAL EXPOSURE AFFECTED INDIVIDUAL DEFINED.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—For purposes of this section, the term ‘environmental exposure affected individual’ means—

(A) an individual described in paragraph (2); and
(B) an individual described in paragraph (3).

(2) INDIVIDUAL DESCRIBED.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—An individual described in this paragraph is any individual who—

(i) is diagnosed with 1 or more conditions described in subparagraph (B);
(ii) as demonstrated in such manner as the Secretary determines appropriate, has been present for an aggregate total of 6 months in the geographic area subject to an emergency declaration specified in sub- section (b)(2)(A), during a period ending—

(I) not less than 10 years prior to such diagnosis; and
(II) prior to the implementation of all the remedial and removal actions specified in the Record of Decision for Operating Unit 4 and the Record of Decision for Operating Unit 7;

(iii) files an application for benefits under this title (or has an application filed on behalf of the individual), including pursuant to this section; and
(iv) is determined under this section to meet the criteria in this subparagraph.

(B) CONDITIONS DESCRIBED.— For purposes of subparagraph (A), the following condi- 13 tions are described in this subparagraph:
(i) Asbestosis, pleural thickening, or pleural plaques as established by—

(I) interpretation by a ‘B Read-er’ qualified physician of a plain chest x-ray or interpretation of a computed tomographic radiograph of the chest by a qualified physician, as determined by the Secretary; or
(II) such other diagnostic standards as the Secretary specifies, except that this clause shall not apply to pleural thickening or pleural plaques unless there are symptoms or conditions requiring medical treatment as a result of these diagnoses.

(ii) Mesothelioma, or malignancies of the lung, colon, rectum, larynx, stomach, esophagus, pharynx, or ovary, as established by—

(I) pathologic examination of bi- opsy tissue;
(II) cytology from bronchioalveolar lavage; or
(III) such other diagnostic standards as the Secretary specifies.

(iii) Any other diagnosis which the Secretary, in consultation with the Com- missioner of Social Security, determines is an asbestos-related medical condition, as established by such diagnostic standards as the Secretary specifies.

(3) OTHER INDIVIDUAL DESCRIBED.—An individual described in this paragraph is any individual who—

(A) is not an individual described in paragraph (2);
(B) is diagnosed with a medical condition caused by the exposure of the individual to a public health hazard to which an emergency declaration applies, based on such medical conditions, diagnostic standards, and other criteria as the Secretary specifies;
(C) as demonstrated in such manner as the Secretary determines appropriate, has been present for an aggregate total of 6 months in the geographic area subject to the emergency declaration involved, during a period deter- mined appropriate by the Secretary;
(D) files an application for benefits under this title (or has an application filed on behalf of the individual), including pursuant to this section; and
(E) is determined under this section to meet the criteria in this paragraph.

That is a lot of language to say that, essentially, an "environmental exposure affected individual" is someone affected by asbestos or someone in the geographic area where an "emergency declaration aplies."

I am going to ignore the part about asbestos, for now (it comes back up at the end). How do we define whether or not an "emergency declaration applies?"

(2) EMERGENCY DECLARATION.—The term emergency declaration’ means a declaration of a public health emergency under section 104(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980.

In other words, a Superfund site that has been deemed an emergency. So this amendment would make it so anyone affected by a health hazard, who lives in an area designated a Superfund site under an emergency declaration, would be eligible for Medicare if they are not already eligible for the needed care through other public or private entities.

Not a huge deal. Especially considering how rarely a Superfund site is deemed an emergency.

But there was one part that caught my eye, when I came across the section on pilot programs:

(b) PILOT PROGRAM FOR CARE OF CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS RESIDING IN EMERGENCY DECLARATION AREAS.—
(1) PROGRAM; PURPOSE.—

(A) PRIMARY PILOT PROGRAM.—The Secretary shall establish a pilot program in accordance with this subsection to provide innovative approaches to furnishing comprehensive, coordinated, and cost-effective care under this title to individuals described in paragraph (2)(A).
(B) OPTIONAL PILOT PROGRAMS.—The Secretary may establish a separate pilot program, in accordance with this subsection, with respect to each geographic area subject to an emergency declaration (other than the declaration of June 17, 2009), in order to furnish such comprehensive, coordinated and cost-effective care to individuals described in subparagraph 15 (2)(B) who reside in each such area.

"Other than the declaration of June 17, 2009." What declaration was that? None other than the first, and only, emergency declaration by the EPA under the Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980.

And now is when I will bring back the asbestos stuff that I chose to ignore at the beginning. This emergency declaration happens to revolved around problems with, you guessed it, asbestos. So, now I am confused.

Does this bit about excluding the declaration of June 17th exclude all these people from being eligible for Medicare, or are they included by the bits about asbestos?

We are working on getting in touch with Senator Baucus's office (given that it is the weekend, and a crazy one at that, we may have to wait for Monday) to help us tackle some of these questions. I hope you will join us in trying to figure out this peculiar section of the amendment. Check back for updates.

(VIDEO) Congresswoman Donna Edwards Speaks Out at Progressive Caucus Press Conference

A special thanks goes out to shevas01 for giving us the heads up about this press conference.

On Thursday, July 30th, the Progressive Caucus held a press conference to draw a line in the sand when it comes to the inclusion of a strong public option in the health care bill.



Just before talking to reporters, Congresswoman Donna Edwards (D-MD, 4th District) handed us this letter that the Congressional Progressive Caucus has sent to the Democratic leadership in Congress:

July 30, 2009

The Honorable Nancy Pelosi
Speaker
U.S. House of Representatives
H-232, The Capitol
Washington, DC 20515

The Honorable Henry Waxman
Chairman
House of Committee on Energy and Commerce
2125 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

The Honorable Charles Rangel
Chair
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

The Honorable George Miller
Chair
House Committee on Education and Labor
2181 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Madame Speaker, Chairman Waxman, Chairman Rangel, and Chairman Miller:

We write to voice our opposition to the negotiated health care reform agreement under consideration in the Energy and Commerce Committee.

We regard the agreement reached by Chairman Waxman and several Blue Dog members of the Committee as fundamentally unacceptable. This agreement is not a step forward toward a good health care bill, but a large step backwards. Any bill that does not provide, at a minimum, for a public option with reimbursement rates based on Medicare rates—not negotiated rates—is unacceptable. It would ensure higher costs for the public plan, and would do nothing to achieve the goal of “keeping insurance companies honest,” and their rates down.

To offset the increased costs incurred by adopting the provisions advocated by the Blue Dog members of the Committee, the agreement would reduce subsidies to low- and middle-income families, requiring them to pay a larger portion of their income for insurance premiums, and would impose an unfunded mandate on the states to pay for what were to have been Federal costs.

In short, this agreement will result in the public, both as insurance purchasers and as taxpayers, paying even higher rates to insurance companies.

We simply cannot vote for such a proposal.