(Newswire.net — December 31, 2013) Boston, MA — ObamaCare and its myriad of complexities has spilled over to the hotly contested abortion sector, sparking pressure on prolife and prochoice agendas. Recently, Michigan joined other states – 24 to be exact – in banning abortion in ObamaCare plans, based on a passed legislative bill that won by “sizable margins.” Among the many that have been outspoken about this issue, Nancy Pelosi has been seeking to amend the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” (PPACA) by prohibiting federal funds from being used to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion services. In any case, it is clear the prolife and prochoice debates with regard to arguments over ObamaCare and funding of abortions have made themselves known.
Federal law has prohibited taxpayer-financed abortion, addressed in a compromise that opened the door for the final acceptance of President Barack Obama’s health law. Still, many following the controversy have been considering whether or not the topic of abortion is at the root of what is being called the “ObamaCare chaos,” routinely citing the fact that the President continuously stressed that “if [Americans] liked their insurance, they could keep their insurance.” It is also believed by some groups that despite a “caring” empathetic approach, abortion rights may be the reason why since October 1 even those with advanced-stage cancer have had their health insurance plans canceled.
The Affordable Care Act allows states to ban abortion coverage (http://www.teenbreaks.com/abortion/abortionhome.cfm) in the exchanges – regardless of the fact that the state may be running its own exchange – and most of the GOP-led states have interestingly done so. Those who have voiced an opposition to Obama’s stance on abortion routinely refer to his health care plan as a “train wreck” that began “hurtling off the tracks” when it was noted that Obama and his cabinet remained “disproportionately focused” on birth control and abortion. Some of this group goes so far as to call this approach “Obama’s war on women” with a “victim list” that includes individuals such as California-based Edie Litterfield Sundby, who suffers from stage IV gallbladder cancer.
Still, these sweeping bans across the country are hardly surprising to many, considering that states have passed record numbers of abortion restrictions in past recent years. While a great number of activists opposed federal funding of abortion have been unhappy with the health law compromise, it has become accepted that if a woman desires abortion coverage she is required to pay a separate premium with no federal subsidies. This concession, as it has become known, was enough to convince a number of anti-abortion Democrats – notably then-Rep. Bart Stupak of Michigan – to lend “crucially needed” votes to pass the health care law; but the law also allows states to directly ban abortion coverage. This is an element anti-abortion activists point to as “evidence that lawmakers knew it didn’t go far enough in making sure federal funds aren’t used to pay for abortions.”
A venerable flood of bans has frustrated abortion rights activists who claim the Affordable Care Act does enough to “ensure federal funds aren’t used for abortions.” But anti-abortion activists claim lawmakers are simply ensuring that abortion restrictions apply equally to all federally-subsidized insurance plans. As Chuck Donovan, president of the Susan B. Anthony List Education Fund, summarized it: “Those states view it as aligning their policies for the poor with their participation in other kinds of tax benefits with respect to abortion coverage.”