The Obama campaign began airing a TV ad Saturday in key election states attacking Mitt Romney for his stances on abortion and Planned Parenthood that was immediately rebuked by the Romney campaign as “viciously” negative and false.UPDATE: "Poll: Obama barrage barely holds back Romney"
The 30-second spot titled “Troubled” is airing in Virginia and seven other swing states.
“Every woman who believes decisions about our bodies and our health-care should be our own is troubled Mitt Romney supports overturning Roe v. Wade,” says a female voice at the beginning of the ad. “Romney backed a law that outlaws all abortions, even in cases of rape and incest.”
Romney, though, has not taken that position publicly.
In response, the Romney campaign pointed to Romney’s op-ed last year in the National Review titled “My Pro-Life Pledge” in which he said abortion should be “limited to only instances of rape, incest or to save the life of a mother.” . . .
Either way, a ton of money is being spent -- by Obama and GOP outside groups, in particular -- without any major shift in the race. Obama's ads may have held back Romney's momentum, but we're still looking at a close race with no silver-bullet ads on either side. . . .
"In the battlegrounds, one in 12 say the commercials have changed their minds about President Obama or Republican Mitt Romney — a difference on the margins, but one that could prove crucial in a close race. . . ."
The president, facing a growing controversy fueled by angry religious organizations, said religious employers will not be required to offer free birth control to their employees as part of their insurance coverage.
Instead, that responsibility has been diverted to insurers, according to the administration’s compromise. The new requirement mandates that insurers provide workers at religious entities such as Catholic universities or hospitals with "contraceptive care free of charge."
“There is no such thing as ‘free of charge.’ It’s a complete ruse,” said Dr. Merrill Matthews, resident scholar at the Institute for Policy Innovation, which advocates for free markets.
“He thinks this stuff actually comes free,” Matthews added. “It doesn’t come free. People actually pay for it and there’s an administrative cost added to it.” . . .
. . . . Women who work for religiously affiliated institutions that morally object to contraception will nonetheless have access to contraceptive coverage free of charge, just as women who work for other employers. They won’t have to sign up for any different coverage or pay any additional money.
The employers, for their part, won’t have to pay for the coverage, say they offer it or even direct employees to places where they can obtain it. The extra cost, and here is where the fig leaf comes in, will be born by the insurance companies themselves.
This is, of course, a dodge — a quite clever and positive one. Everyone gets to say that the religious institutions aren’t “paying for” contraception. But if covering contraception ends up costing them money, you can be sure those costs will be passed along, as costs always are, to customers.
The beauty of this dodge is that it is entirely possible, even likely, that adding the coverage will not raise rates. Easier, cheaper access to contraception means fewer pregnancies. Pregnancies — and the resulting babies — cost insurers far more than birth control pills. For example, according to the Guttmacher Institute, the federal government reported no increase in costs after Congress required coverage of contraceptives for federal employees in 1998. Think of it as immaculate contraceptive coverage.
Of course, fig leaves can leave gaps. One big gap in the administration’s plan involves how to treat religiously affiliated institutions that are self-insured. In those situations, the employer pays an insurance company to administer the plan but bears the cost of medical care directly. The administration’s approach does not necessarily solve the problem for such entities. . . .
. . . The change was initially met with a reserved response. While many Democrats praised it and Republicans dismissed it, nonpartisan groups like the Conference of Catholic Bishops said they were reserving judgment.
But the Conference, after earlier calling the change a "first step in the right direction," issued a lengthy statement overnight blasting the plan. And they joined others in calling for legislation in Congress to reverse the policy, something Republicans said they were not abandoning despite Friday's announcement.
"We think there needs to be a legislative fix to protect our religious liberties," Bishop William Lori, a member of the Conference, told Fox News on Saturday. "I think that our First Amendment religious rights are far too precious to be entrusted to regulatory rules."
Lori and the rest of the Conference said they want to see the "mandate" rescinded altogether. They pointed out several lingering concerns. They said the change appears to make no consideration for religious insurers or self-insuring religious employers -- or for religious for-profit employers and secular nonprofit employers. . . .
"And in the case where the employee and insurer agree to add the objectionable coverage, that coverage is still provided as a part of the objecting employer's plan, financed in the same way as the rest of the coverage offered by the objecting employer. . . .
"President Obama has set a standard that every woman has a right to contraception coverage at no additional cost," the DNC email says, "and he's done it in a way that respects religious freedoms."
An accompanying YouTube video, which includes excerpts from Obama's Friday press conference announcing the change, aims to highlight the sharp distinction between the president's compromise and a proposal – being drafted by Republicans – to repeal the birth-control mandate for employers.
"Who do you think should make decisions about contraception?" the ad asks. "You, or your employer?" . . .
Half of voters do not agree with the Obama administration’s action forcing Catholic institutions to pay for birth control measures that they morally oppose. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 39% of Likely U.S. Voters believe the government should require a church or religious organization to provide contraceptives for women even if it violates their deeply held beliefs. Fifty percent (50%) disagree and oppose such a requirement that runs contrary to strong beliefs, while 10% more are undecided. . . .
Obama's chief spokesman and his top campaign strategist both said the administration was searching for ways to allay the concern of Roman Catholics who say the birth control mandate would force them to violate their religious beliefs against contraception. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell said the policy was a "huge mistake" that the administration should reconsider. "And if they don't, Congress will act," McConnell said. . . .
Obama campaign strategist David Axelrod made the same point. "The real question is how do we get together and resolve this in a way that respects the concerns that have been raised but also assures women across this country that they're going to have the preventive care that they need," Axelrod said on MSNBC.
The comments by Axelrod and Carney created a sense that the White House's public emphasis has clearly shifted and that further accommodation would be considered. But there was no sign the administration would move to completely withdraw the rule, and it was unclear that the White House could strike the balance of ensuring contraceptive coverage for all while defusing the fierce opposition of some religious groups when those two points are in conflict. . . .
Bantering with the audience at a fundraiser in St. Louis yesterday, President Barack Obama bragged about a new regulation, proposed by the Department of Health and Human Services, that the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has denounced as an “unprecedented attack on religious liberty.”
"Darn right!" an audience member at the fundraiser shouted as Obama described the regulation.
“Darn tooting!” Obama said back.
The proposed regulation, designed to implement part of Obamacare, will require all private health plans in the United States to cover sterilizations and all FDA-approved contraceptives--including those that cause abortions—without charging any fees or co-pay. These regulations were drawn to implement a provision in Obama’s health-care law that calls for all health-care plans to cover “preventive services.” . . . .
A “religious exemption” in the regulation is so narrowly drawn that it does not include any lay Catholics, or any Catholic hospitals, charitable organizations, or colleges or universities. Thus, many major Catholic institutions in the United States would be forced to choose between dropping health insurance coverage for their employees and students or violating the moral teachings of their own church. . . . .
President Barack Obama and Cardinal Justin Rigali, chairman of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops Committee on Pro-Life Activities, have taken directly contradictory positions on whether the health-care bill in the U.S. Congress funds abortion.
Cardinal Rigali says the bill does fund abortion and that those who say otherwise are pushing an “illusion.”
President Obama says the bill does not fund abortion and that those who say otherwise are guilty of a “fabrication.” . . .
the Obama administration had approved $160 million for Pennsylvania to set up a “high risk” pool for individuals with pre-existing conditions who had been uninsured for the previous six months.
The language in the Pennsylvania solicitation for that plan, however, seemed to suggest abortions could be covered.
While the solicitation said that “elective abortions are not covered,” it also stated the plan would include “only abortions and contraceptives that satisfy the requirements” of a number of Pennsylvania statutes -- including one stating that abortions can be provided by physicians who determine in “his best clinical judgment, the abortion is necessary ... in the light of all factors (physical, emotional, psychological, familial and the woman's age) relevant to the well-being of the woman. No abortion which is sought solely because of the sex of the unborn child shall be deemed a necessary abortion.” . . .
The Obama administration has officially approved the first instance of taxpayer funded abortions under the new national government-run health care program. This is the kind of abortion funding the pro-life movement warned the kind of abortion funding the pro-life movement warned about when Congress considered the bill.
The Obama Administration will give Pennsylvania $160 million to set up a new "high-risk" insurance program under a provision of the federal health care legislation enacted in March.
It has quietly approved a plan submitted by an appointee of pro-abortion Governor Edward Rendell under which the new program will cover any abortion that is legal in Pennsylvania.
The high-risk pool program is one of the new programs created by the sweeping health care legislation, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, President Obama signed into law on March 23. The law authorizes $5 billion in federal funds for the program, which will cover as many as 400,000 people when it is implemented nationwide.
"The Obama Administration will give Pennsylvania $160 million in federal tax funds, which we've discovered will pay for insurance plans that cover any legal abortion," said Douglas Johnson, legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee. . . .
“If they expect the House to accept the Senate bill, it’s going to go down in flames,” Stupak told CNSNews.com in an interview.
CNSNews.com asked Stupak: “Are you prepared to vote for a bill that looks more like the Senate bill – and Senator Nelson’s language on abortion – than the House bill, with your language?”
“No, absolutely not,” said the Democratic congressman, whose district encompasses all of Michigan’s Upper Peninsula and roughly one-quarter of the territory in the remainder of Michigan.
“The Senate bill will not receive support in the House,” Stupak said. “If they tell us we have to take that bill without changes, it will not survive the House. Regardless of the abortion language, there are just too many objectionable items in there that at least I see, and in talking with maybe a half-dozen other members, they sort of see the same thing.”
Stupak, like many in Congress, takes strong exception to the fact that, under the Senate plan, certain states would receive special “carve outs” for increased funding for Medicare/Medicaid.
“That’s not what it’s all about,” he said. “This is about health care, this is providing health care for all Americans – it’s not to see who can strike the best deal for their state. This is the wrong piece of legislation to try to do carve outs, or get an exception for your state and the rest of the country is supposed to pick up the tab. That’s not what health care is all about. That’s not the policy, that’s not the principle behind the bill. . . .
Stupak was incensed at the special deals.
“All the rest of us that live in states that did not receive that exception, why would we [be] inclined to give Nebraska or Florida or Louisiana a special break underneath the bill and expect the rest of us to pay for it?”
Beyond the carve-outs, Stupak pointed out that seniors “take some cuts in the Senate bill that are not found in the House bill [that] members are not going to accept” -- and that the bill would tax people who have “decent” health insurance programs.
“Aren’t you really going to force more people off health insurance?” Stupak said.
He added: “If you just take a look at my three main constituencies – Right to Life, labor unions, and senior citizens – the Senate bill is contrary to all their interests,” Stupak said. . . .
Q: What if I refuse [getting health care]?
A: You’d face a fine. It would start at $95 a year in 2014 and rise to $750 a year by 2016, or as much as 2% of your income, capped at the value of a basic insurance plan.
Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) said the White House and the Democratic leadership in the House of Representatives have been pressuring him not to speak out on the "compromise" abortion language in the Senate version of the health care bill.
“They think I shouldn’t be expressing my views on this bill until they get a chance to try to sell me the language,” Stupak told CNSNews.com in an interview on Tuesday. “Well, I don’t need anyone to sell me the language. I can read it. I’ve seen it. I’ve worked with it. I know what it says. I don’t need to have a conference with the White House. I have the legislation in front of me here.” . . .
SEBELIUS: And I would say that the Senate language, which was negotiated by Senators Barbara Boxer and Patty Murray, who are very strong defenders of women’s health services and choices for women, take a big step forward from where the House left it with the Stupak amendment, and I think do 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, we are not isolating, discriminating against, or invading the privacy rights of women. 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.
BLOGHER: It’s a bit confusing, but …
SEBELIUS: Okay. It is a bit confusing, but it’s 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.
BLOGHER: Oh, that’s good, that’s good. . . .
. . . While the House and Senate bills contain major differences, the most important politically concerns abortion, a subject where votes aren't easily moved. Rep. Bart Stupak, a Michigan Democrat, is opposed to Senate language that he says inadequately restricts federal subsidies for insurance plans that cover abortions. Pro-life groups say the Senate language involves "book-keeping contortions" to evade the 30-year-old Hyde Amendment, which bans federal funding of abortion.
Rep. Stupak has assured colleagues that he has 10 fellow Democrats who will vote against any weakening of the Stupak Amendment, the strong ban on federal funding that was the final reason health care prevailed in the House. . . .
A final bill will need 218 House votes, assuming all members vote. But the Stupak language was rejected by the Senate, making the math dicey for Democrats. Rep. Joseph Cao, the only Republican to back the House bill, will drop off without firm pro-life language. And 11 Democrats who voted for the House bill have pledged in a letter to Speaker Pelosi that they "cannot support any health care reform proposal unless it explicitly excludes abortion from the scope of any government-defined or subsidized health insurance plan."
Speaker Pelosi could make up for the loss of 10 pro-life votes by getting some of the 39 Democrats who voted against the bill the first time to change sides. But many of those Blue Dog moderates are also pro-life or come from districts where pro-life sentiment is strong. In addition, public support for the overall bill has only eroded since the House passed it in November, which naturally means some Members will be even less likely to climb aboard what they now consider a sinking legislative ship. . . .
The amendment’s sponsor, Democratic Sen. Ben Nelson, threatened to filibuster the legislation if his amendment failed. The question now is whether Nelson continues working with Democratic leadership both on his abortion concerns and as a member of a coalition of liberal and moderate senators trying to bridge their differences on the public option.
"What happened tonight makes it harder to be supportive. We'll see what happens," Nelson said after the vote.
Nelson said he isn't going to work with Reid on a compromise, "I had no Plan B. I'm not looking for a Plan B, but others may be," he said, adding, "I always listen to the leader if the leader had something to say." . . .
In the past week, abortion has flared up as a major impediment to passage of a health care reform bill in the Senate, taking a similar path as it did during the House debate — from obscurity to obstacle in a matter of days.
After months of trying to craft a 60-vote coalition based on the finer points of health care policy, Senate Democrats are growing increasingly worried that abortion will upend what had become a clear path to approving the overhaul bill.
Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) sparked a fresh round of concern this week when he repeatedly and definitively vowed to filibuster the health care legislation unless it included abortion restrictions as tough as the so-called Stupak amendment in the House bill.
“I don’t ordinarily draw a line in the sand, but I have drawn a line in the sand,” Nelson said Friday.
Nelson certainly has a long history of agitating his party by withholding his vote until he wrings out every last concession from Senate leaders. But on the uncompromising issue of abortion, Democrats fear he may really be serious this time.
“There is a worry that Sen. Nelson means business,” said a senior Senate Democratic aide, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss strategy. “Unlike with public option, there is very little ground liberal Democrats are willing to give on this issue. Abortion, not the public option, may be the cause of our first official defection.” . . .
Democrats are so far apart on their difference that they can't even bring up amendments to deal with them. It's so bad that, just to fill time, they spent most of Friday on nonbinding proposals that state they should be fiscally responsible, measures that would have no binding impact on health care legislation at all.
The White House is on a collision course with Catholic bishops in an intractable dispute over abortion that could blow up the fragile political coalition behind President Barack Obama's health care overhaul.
A top Obama administration official on Thursday praised the new Senate health care bill's attempt to find a compromise on abortion coverage - even as an official of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops said Sen. Harry Reid's bill is the worst he's seen so far on the divisive issue.
The bishops were instrumental in getting tough anti-abortion language adopted by the House, forcing Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., to accept restrictions that outraged liberals as the price for passing the Democratic health care bill. Reid, D-Nev., now faces a similar choice: Ultimately, he will need the votes of Democratic senators who oppose abortion to get his bill through the Senate.
So far, Reid has steered the Senate bill in a direction that abortion rights supporters can live with: allowing coverage for abortion in federally subsidized health care plans, provided that beneficiaries' own premiums are used to pay for the procedure. But abortion opponents say his compromise would gut current federal restrictions on abortion funding.
Despite criticism, there were growing indications Reid would prevail on an initial Senate showdown set for Saturday night. He needs a 60-vote majority to advance the bill toward full debate, expected to begin after Thanksgiving and last for weeks. It's during that debate that the battle over abortion will be joined in earnest. Reid will need to clear other 60-vote hurdles before senators cast their final vote on the bill. . . .
But Richard Doerflinger, associate director of the bishops' conference Secretariat of Pro-Life Activities, said Reid's "is actually the worst bill we've seen so far on the life issues."
He called it "completely unacceptable," adding that "to say this reflects current law is ridiculous."
The bill would forbid including abortion coverage as a required medical benefit. However, it would allow a new government insurance plan to cover abortions and let private insurers that receive federal subsidies offer plans that include abortion coverage. . . .
Democrats will almost certainly kill the anti-abortion Stupak amendment in the process if they go to Plan B on passing health care -- using a filibuster-proof reconciliation bill -- budget experts say.
"There is no way on God's green Earth that the Stupak amendment would pass muster in a budget reconciliation bill," says Bill Hoagland, an insurance lobbyist who was the top GOP aide on the Senate Budget Committee for two decades and served as then-Majority Leader Bill Frist's budget guru.
Democratic budget experts in Congress and the administration who asked not to be quoted on the record agree with Hoagland's assessment. . . .
Democratic leaders would like to bury the Stupak amendment, which is at odds with the pro-choice position of most Democrats and which abortion-rights advocates say is a dangerous encroachment on the rights of women.
But it's a tricky proposition in a floor-vote scenario because a number of Senate Democrats, including up-for-election Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) could have trouble voting against what proponents say is a simple extension of a current principle -- that federal funds shouldn't be used to pay for abortion -- to a new health insurance marketplace.
If Reid chooses to go the reconciliation route, he can rely on the rules to quash Stupak's amendment, budget experts say. . . .
White House Senior Adviser David Axelrod suggested Sunday that President Obama will intervene to make sure a controversial amendment restricting federal funding for abortion coverage is stripped from final health care reform legislation.
In doing so, the president would be heeding the call of abortion rights supporters like Planned Parenthood that have called the White House their "strongest weapon" in keeping such restrictions out of the bill.
The abortion amendment was tacked on to the House health care bill and was a key factor in securing the votes of moderate Democrats before the bill was approved by a narrow margin last weekend. The amendment, authored by Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., went beyond preventing the proposed government-run plan from covering abortion to restrict federal subsidies from going toward private plans that offer abortion coverage. . . .
The Stupak amendment passed, with the votes of 64 Democrats. That cleared the way for some wavering moderates to vote for the broader bill, in turn allowing it to win final passage, 220-215. The bishops, who have been clamoring for universal health coverage for decades, both when the idea was popular and when it wasn't, applauded.
Almost immediately, though, the Democrats' progressive wing and abortion-rights groups began pressuring party leaders and the White House to roll back the abortion plank as the bill moves to the Senate. Their argument: The Stupak amendment amounted to a tightening of current abortion provisions, because it bans abortion services from not only a government-run plan, but from policies bought with a combination of government subsidies and citizens' personal funds.
Other lawmakers said, in effect, that they voted for the Stupak amendment but didn't really mean it, because they expected the amendment to be stripped out later, either in the Senate or in a conference committee. . . .
the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops said it can't support a health overhaul bill unless the anti-abortion language is strengthened.
Unless an eleventh-hour agreement is reached, Stupak intends to carry through on a threat he's been holding over House leaders for months: to block action on the larger health overhaul bill unless he's allowed to offer a stand-alone amendment during floor debate to include the Hyde amendment restrictions in the health overhaul bill.
Such an amendment would be almost certain to prevail, since it likely would attract the votes of most Republicans as well as some Democrats. So Democratic leaders won't let Stupak offer it.
Instead, it appears they may have to take the risk of letting Stupak try to block action on the underlying bill, which he intends to do by assembling "no" votes on a procedural measure that needs to pass before debate can begin.
In the Senate, where the leading health overhaul bill includes language similar to that in the House, abortion has been much less of an issue. . . . .
Obama’s Science Czar Said a Born Baby ‘Will Ultimately Develop Into a Human Being’
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
By Terence P. Jeffrey, Editor-in-Chief
(CNSNews.com) - President Obama’s top science adviser said in a book he co-authored in 1973 that a newborn child “will ultimately develop into a human being” if he or she is properly fed and socialized.
“The fetus, given the opportunity to develop properly before birth, and given the essential early socializing experiences and sufficient nourishing food during the crucial early years after birth, will ultimately develop into a human being,” John P. Holdren, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, wrote in “Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions.” . . . .
BERLANGGANAN VIA EMAIL
