12 Things you should know about Paul Ryan - Page 44

The Hyde Ammendment bars federal funds from being used for abortions unless the pregnancy results from rape, incest, or endangers the life of the woman.

The personhood bill is something that different states are doing, this will be caught up in the courts for many challenges.

The states are trying to force the courts to define when human life begins......something that wasn't considered at the time of roe v wade.


text for OK's bill, which passed..........

An Act relating to unborn children; creating the Personhood Act; providing short title; stating legislative findings; specifying the interpretation of certain laws; defining certain terms; prohibiting certain interpretation; providing for codification; and providing an effective date.
 
BE IT ENACTED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA:
SECTION 1.     NEW LAW     A new section of law to be codified in the Oklahoma Statutes as Section 1-750 of Title 63, unless there is created a duplication in numbering, reads as follows:
A.  This act shall be known and may be cited as the "Personhood Act".
B.  The Oklahoma Legislature finds that:
1.  The life of each human being begins at conception;
2.  Unborn children have protectable interests in life, health, and well-being; and
3.  The natural parents of unborn children have protectable interests in the life, health, and well-being of their unborn child.
C.  The laws of this state shall be interpreted and construed to acknowledge on behalf of the unborn child at every stage of development all the rights, privileges, and immunities available to other persons, citizens, and residents of this state.
D.  As used in this section, “unborn child” or “unborn children” shall include all unborn children or the offspring of human beings from the moment of conception until birth at every stage of biological development.
E.  Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as creating a cause of action against a woman for indirectly harming her unborn child by failing to properly care for herself or by failing to follow any particular program of prenatal care.
SECTION 2.  This act shall become effective November 1, 2012.


 

Three Ways the Health Care Bill Roils the Abortion Debate

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA Obamacare) will roil the abortion debate in three major ways: first at the federal level, then among the 50 states, and finally in the nation’s courts.

1. Federal Abortion Funding Policy. The PPACA appropriates billions in new funds to community health centers, which exist in nearly every city in the country. The PPACA does not apply the Hyde Amendment to the community health centers’ new funding stream. By Executive Order 13535, President Obama directed the Secretary of HHS to ensure that “longstanding regulations containing the Hyde language” are applied to future grants made to these centers.[3]

The executive order also directed HHS and the Office of Management and Budget to segregate funds for state-based insurance exchanges. This policy prevents the PPACA’s new “affordability tax credits” from paying for an insurance plan that covers elective abortion. The policy instead requires the insured to make a separate premium payment of not less than $12 per year, which will be deemed to pay for the elective abortion coverage.

The Hyde Amendment now hangs by two tender threads. First, Congress may omit the annual Hyde Amendment from the HHS funding bill. Second, President Obama or his successor may quietly amend or repeal Executive Order 13535 with no further action by Congress.

The PPACA, moreover, establishes a new principle for heavy federal subsidies of insurance plans that cover elective abortion, subverting the principle now applied to federal employee plans, which are barred from covering elective abortions in any way.

To avoid these outcomes, Congress would have to adopt permanent Hyde Amendment legislation and a permanent FEHBP policy applicable to all federally subsidized insurance plans. A renewed congressional debate over this issue is now certain.

2. State Abortion Funding Policy. The PPACA gives each state the option to participate in the new subsidy-and-segregated-funds approach the law creates. As a consequence, every state in the nation—including the 33 states that currently limit involvement in publicly funded abortions—faces a legislative debate about its future policy.

In some states, multiple “markets” may exist, meaning in effect multiple exchanges. Under PPACA, unless the state first opts out, each of these markets must have at least one plan that offers coverage of elective abortions.

Even though the PPACA does not require the exchanges to be operating until 2014, several states, including Missouri and Tennessee,[4] are already advancing bills that will bar from their exchanges insurance plans that cover elective abortions. These debates will now happen in all 50 states. This has already led one national pro-life organization to draft and circulate model legislation that bans abortion coverage from state exchanges.[5]

3. Abortion Funding Policy in the Courts. In defense of his decision to abandon his proposed permanent restriction on abortion funding under the PPACA, Congressman Bart Stupak (D–MI) cited his confidence that the PPACA’s provisions will be interpreted as the equivalent of the Hyde Amendment because of the Obama executive order and a colloquy Stupak held with House Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman (D–CA) prior to the final adoption of the PPACA.[6] This confidence is misplaced.

To the extent that Executive Order 13535 extends the Hyde Amendment to programs it did not explicitly cover in the PPACA, it may be vulnerable to judicial overruling. At the same time, one should not expect the Obama Justice Department to aggressively defend the President’s position from legal challenges. Moreover, there is no legal impediment preventing Obama—or any future President who will not have given his or her personal word—from unilaterally rescinding the executive order before it is even litigated.

Even more significant, many judges refuse to rely upon legislative history—including colloquies—in interpreting statutes, because unlike the plain text, legislative history is not voted upon and approved by a majority of Congress.

Justice Antonin Scalia has rightly derided the inconsistent and highly selective court practice of looking to legislative history as akin to looking over the heads of guests to find friends at a cocktail party—that is, judges can almost always find a friendly argument in a crowd and, conversely, ignore or downplay unfriendly ones.[7]

Finally, the unquestioned thrust of judicial interpretation of federal health statutes is that in the absence of the direct application of the Hyde Amendment as an expression of Congress’s spending power under Article 1, Section 9, Clause 7 of the Constitution, those statutes would authorize reimbursements for elective abortion.[8]

Congress and the States Can Act

The continuation of decades-long public policy limiting tax subsidies for abortion will be possible only through new state and federal statutes. For the states, that means new laws barring the inclusion in the exchanges of any plan that offers elective abortions. At the federal level, the only effective measure is a comprehensive statute that covers all funds authorized or appropriated by Congress to federal agencies engaged in health care—that is, a permanent Hyde Amendment.

Until Congress and the states take these steps, the long truce over public funding of abortion is now officially broken.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/04/obamacare-impact-on-taxpayer-funding-of-abortion

Personhood bills scare the heck out of me, and it is a slippery slope.  There is no provision for ectopic pregnancies or other life threatening complications placing the life of the unborn child as more important than the life of the mother.  Is a mother not a human being?  Who decided that a pregnant woman is less important than the unborn child?  Just another show of how women are thought of as less important. 

E.  Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as creating a cause of action against a woman for indirectly harming her unborn child by failing to properly care for herself or by failing to follow any particular program of prenatal care.  - because that would mean women might have to have access to affordable safe prenatal care (something the Republicans are sooooooo against).  I wonder how long before the goofs who thought up this bill will feel it is ok to begin criminalizing women who miscarry?  I printed the statistics from the CDC site on miscarries and stillbirths vs abortions, the number of abortions is still lower.

Sistasmom, what do you think should be done if a woman is experiencing an ectopic pregnancy and lives in a personhood state?  Ectopic pregnancies are common and always fatal if left untreated.  Also no comment on the statistically insignificant number of women who use abortion as a means of gender selection (still think you were confusing US with China) and as birth control which was a couple of points you mentioned as important in the choice debate.  The CDC has shown how by increasing access to safe, effective, affordable contraception decreases the number of abortions, the correlation begs more than one question for the GOP.

JMO but any woman who votes for Romney and Ryan should have their heads examined since these idiots are against anything with a vagina.  Oops I typed the "V" word. 

 Mindhunt.

the personhood bill will be throw out (i hope)......the reason for this bill is to force the sepreme court to define when a fetus becomes a human and has rights covered by the constitution. (IMO - then its developed enough to become viable).


the second the assult on the Hyde amendment which is not using federal tax dollars paying for "elective" abortions........ rape, insest and life of the mother are not considered elective abortions...


these are two different issues.....on is federal tax dollars paying for more then elective abortions, the other is to deturmine when a fetus becomes a person. what makes it confusing is that they intertwine.

Mindhunt - if the mother will die, so will the fetus inside of her........ save the mother!

The test of whether the Feds fund abortions is simple.  Cut off the grants to any abortion provider in compliance with the Hyde amendment but continue to pay for services covered by Medicaid.  If the clinic can still offer abortion services, it will not be on the government's dime.

Mindhunt,  You are sooooooo scaring me over what could never even remotely possibly happen if those heartless, brain dead Republicans get into power.  Criminal miscarriages,  untreated ectopic pregnancies, no folic acid, oh my!  And I'm even more concerned that no one cares about male reproductive health.  What if they can't get condoms and viagara?  And prostate exams, oh no!  

Before we get accused of sexual reproductive health discrimination, maybe we should do it the Greek way.  The government pays for everything for everybody.  But no, that didn't work, did it?  At least we know Congress will never make contraception illegal.  They wouldn't want their mistresses to get pregant.

But at least now I don't have time to worry about problems that already actually exist.  Thank you.