Government Waste & Waxman’s Obama Care Hearings

Obama Care passes and within hours of the law being signed by the President reports begin to surface from American businesses about the unintended costs. Billions in hidden costs that will mean jobs and kill the economy.

ATT reports that Obama Care will cost the company $1 Billion dollars in the 1st 13 weeks. http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/healthcare-law-to-cost-att-1-billion/389937/

The list grows rapidly, the bill will cost Catapillar $100 Million in the 1st quarter,   http://www.manufacturing.net/News-Caterpillar-Health-Care-Overhaul-To-Cost-100M-032510.aspx?menuid=264 , John Deere Company announces $150 Million 1st quarter costs, http://www.marketwatch.com/story/att-sees-1-billion-write-down-tied-to-health-law-2010-03-26, AK Steel, Valero Energy, Verizon and 3500 other Companies follow suit and announce hundreds of billions in  unintended costs associated with Obama Care. http://blogs.marketwatch.com/election/2010/03/26/is-health-law-already-hurting-business-maybe-maybe-not/ . Medtronic warns of a possible 1000 layoffs. Verizon warns retires it may have to cut retiree health care benefits.

Stop this! This must be stopped! Stop it now, shouts Representative Henry Waxman, Chairman of the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee. People can’t be allowed to report about the huge financial burdens this new Health Care plan is creating ….. they must be stopped now …. Stop it! Stop it! Stop it now, shouts the Chairman. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Waxman

Chairman Waxman thought and thought and thought and then he knew what he would do …. make these companies appear at a Congressional Hearing and answer his questions …… so he sent out letters …..

What was that reference to the SEC or Security and Exchange Commission? Waxman wrote, “ATT stated in its March 26, 2010 “filing” with the Securities and Exchange Commission that it intends to take a charge of approximately $1 billion in 2010.”

A filing? What does he mean by a filing?

A ”filing” is simply a “report”, in this instance a report mandated by Waxman and Congress itself.

In 2002 the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate overwhelming passed a law called the Sarbanes – Oxley Act, or SOXs as Congress calls it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarbanes%E2%80%93Oxley_Act

What do I mean by “overwhelming passed”, well the law passed in July 2002 by votes of 423 to 3 in the House of Representatives and passed in the Senate 99 – 0. What do they mean when they say “bi-partisan”? Sarbanes-Oxley was bi-partisan.

What does Sarbanes-Oxley mandate?

The bill was enacted as a reaction to a number of major corporate and accounting scandals including those affecting Enron, Tyco International, Adelphia, Peregrine Systems and WorldCom. These scandals, which cost investors billions of dollars when the share prices of affected companies collapsed, shook public confidence in the nation’s securities marketshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarbanes%E2%80%93Oxley_Act

Specifically, “Title III consists of eight sections and mandates that senior executives take individual responsibility for the accuracy and completeness of corporate financial reports. It defines the interaction of external auditors and corporate audit committees, and specifies the responsibility of corporate officers for the accuracy and validity of corporate financial reports. It enumerates specific limits on the behaviors of corporate officers and describes specific forfeitures of benefits and civil penalties for non-compliance. For example, Section 302 requires that the company’s “principal officers” (typically the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer) certify and approve the integrity of their company financial reports quarterly”.   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarbanes%E2%80%93Oxley_Act

Quarterly reports? To be filed with the SEC? When is the end of the 1st quarter of 2010? Today, March 31, 2010? So the reports Waxman writes about were filed all of 6 days early? The reports, as Waxman writes, were filed on March 26, 2010. Shame, shame, shame – the Companies completed filings required by a law passed by Congress. 

Let me see if I get this.

Congressman Waxman votes on and passes Obama Care without reading what he is signing or understanding what the law does. Waxman doesn’t know about the billions in taxes in the “new” health care law? Then why did he vote to pass the law?

Waxman, who has been in Congress since 1975, particpated in passing Sarbanes-Oxley. Wanna bet he didn’t read that law either?

So, Waxman passed the law raising billions in new taxes and he also passed the law that requires American Companies to file reports with the SEC outlining their business expenses and expected profits and to report these things on a quarterly basis under penalty of criminal prosecution.

So a guy who passed the law that requires the reporting and the same guy who passed the law that created the taxes being reported on, calls a hearing …. to what ….. prevent the required reporting.

What a waste of time and money – no wonder we have a 20 trillion dollar national debt! (It isn’t quite $20 trillion yet – but by the time I fininish typing it well could be $20 trillion).

Does anyopne really think this guy is smart enough to solve the Country’s problems or is he one of the group that is creating the problems that is ruining the economy and costing us millions of jobs and home foreclosures.

Sarbanes – Oxley reporting is “apolitical” or without politics. Accountants complete the reports using Government designed and mandated report formats ….. The SEC reads the reports, the IRS reads the reports and investors read the reports – they are not secret reports they are “public reports”.

Can’t Waxman read and understand the reports he created – he helped pass the law and he doesn’t understand the reports it requires.

Congressional Hearings? What a waste of taxpayer money. Waxman will do anything but take responsibility … responsibility for the economy, for the Housing mess, for foreclosures. Having hearings over Sarbanes-Oxley “filings” makes as much sense as having taxpayers report for hearings when they file their taxes and report that they owe money and mail in their checks. The Sarbanes-Oxley reports – report that the Companies will owe more in “health care taxes”, taxes that will really be paid for by the retirees receiving the benefits.

Waxman has been in Congress for 35 years. The bottom fell out of our economy after he and fellow Californian, Nancy Pelosi, took over leadership positions in the Democratic Party

Waxman represents a District in California that includes Hollywood. Prior to coming to serve in Congress he was a State Assemblyman in California.

What Waxman helped do to bankrupt California, he is now trying to do to the whole United States.

Waxman’s theories didn’t work in Califonia, they won’t work in Washington.

The “change” mandated by Obama Care hurts the retirees, not the Companies invloved.

Obama lied – he said you “could keep the coverage you have” and then he taxed the Companies for giving you the coverage you earned.  

We were not suppose to learn about this …. Sarbanes-Oxley had the unintended effect of bringing these changes out into the open

UPDATE: 3500 Companies report $250 billion in hidden costs – how many jobs will this cost us!

April 15, 2010: Waxman Cancels Hearing To Grill Companies On Tax Hit From Overhaul

Arcane accounting rules don’t usually make for Congressional fireworks. But we were really looking forward to a scheduled clash next week between Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) and a bunch of companies that said the new health law is going to cost them big time.

Alas, the hearing was cancelled. How come? When congressional staffers took a look at the companies’ books, they concluded their financial filings making provision for higher future taxes were legit.

AT&T, Verizon, Caterpillar, and Deere & Co. made waves when they informed investors and the Securities and Exchange Commission that they would take big hits because the health law eliminates a tax deduction on federal subsidies that help defray the cost of drug benefits for retirees.

Heavy equipment maker Caterpillar said it would take a $100 miilion charge in the first quarter of this year. AT&T said its charge would amount to $1 billion.

Waxman didn’t buy it, launched an investigation and sent letters to Caterpillar and the other firms demanding an explanation. Now, the accountants say the companies’ charges are by the book.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2010/04/waxman_cancels_hearing_to_gril.html?ft=1&f=1006

Waxman is such an embrassment – didn’t read the law before he voted on it and then acted like an ass by scheduling the hearings in the first place.

There are competent Liberals out there that the far left could elect to  public office – why does the far left keep electing clowns like this guy.

Obama Care and The Sarbanes-Oxley Act: Expel Representative Waxman For Incompetence

Obama Care passes and within hours of the law being signed by the President reports begin to surface from American businesses about the unintended costs. Billions in hidden costs that will mean jobs and kill the economy.

ATT reports that Obama Care will cost the company $1 Billion dollars in the 1st 13 weeks. http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/healthcare-law-to-cost-att-1-billion/389937/

The list grows rapidly, the bill will cost Catapillar $100 Million in the 1st quarter,   http://www.manufacturing.net/News-Caterpillar-Health-Care-Overhaul-To-Cost-100M-032510.aspx?menuid=264 , John Deere Company announces $150 Million 1st quarter costs, http://www.marketwatch.com/story/att-sees-1-billion-write-down-tied-to-health-law-2010-03-26, AK Steel, Valero Energy, Verizon and 3500 other Companies follow suit and announce hundreds of billions in  unintended costs associated with Obama Care. http://blogs.marketwatch.com/election/2010/03/26/is-health-law-already-hurting-business-maybe-maybe-not/ . Medtronic warns of a possible 1000 layoffs. Verizon warns retires it may have to cut retiree health care benefits.

Stop this! This must be stopped! Stop it now, shouts Representative Henry Waxman, Chairman of the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee. People can’t be allowed to report about the huge financial burdens this new Health Care plan is creating ….. they must be stopped now …. Stop it! Stop it! Stop it now, shouts the Chairman. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Waxman

Chairman Waxman thought and thought and thought and then he knew what he would do …. make these companies appear at a Congressional Hearing and answer his questions …… so he sent out letters …..

What was that reference to the SEC or Security and Exchange Commission? Waxman wrote, “ATT stated in its March 26, 2010 “filing” with the Securities and Exchange Commission that it intends to take a charge of approximately $1 billion in 2010.”

A filing? What does he mean by a filing?

A “filing” is simply a “report”, in this instance a report mandated by Waxman and Congress itself.

In 2002 the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate overwhelming passed a law called the Sarbanes – Oxley Act, or SOXs as Congress calls it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarbanes%E2%80%93Oxley_Act

What do I mean by “overwhelming passed”, well the law passed in July 2002 by votes of 423 to 3 in the House of Representatives and passed in the Senate 99 – 0. What do they mean when they say “bi-partisan”? Sarbanes-Oxley was bi-partisan.

What does Sarbanes-Oxley mandate?

The bill was enacted as a reaction to a number of major corporate and accounting scandals including those affecting Enron, Tyco International, Adelphia, Peregrine Systems and WorldCom. These scandals, which cost investors billions of dollars when the share prices of affected companies collapsed, shook public confidence in the nation’s securities marketshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarbanes%E2%80%93Oxley_Act

Specifically, “Title III consists of eight sections and mandates that senior executives take individual responsibility for the accuracy and completeness of corporate financial reports. It defines the interaction of external auditors and corporate audit committees, and specifies the responsibility of corporate officers for the accuracy and validity of corporate financial reports. It enumerates specific limits on the behaviors of corporate officers and describes specific forfeitures of benefits and civil penalties for non-compliance. For example, Section 302 requires that the company’s “principal officers” (typically the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer) certify and approve the integrity of their company financial reports quarterly”.   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarbanes%E2%80%93Oxley_Act

Quarterly reports? To be filed with the SEC? When is the end of the 1st quarter of 2010? Today, March 31, 2010? So the reports Waxman writes about were filed all of 6 days early? The reports, as Waxman writes, were filed on March 26, 2010. Shame, shame, shame – the Companies completed filings required by a law passed by Congress. 

Let me see if I get this.

Congressman Waxman votes on and passes Obama Care without reading what he is signing or understanding what the law does. Waxman doesn’t know about the billions in taxes in the “new” health care law? Then why did he vote to pass the law?

Waxman, who has been in Congress since 1975, particpated in passing Sarbanes-Oxley. Wanna bet he didn’t read that law either?

So, Waxman passed the law raising billions in new taxes and he also passed the law that requires American Companies to file reports with the SEC outlining their business expenses and expected profits and to report these things on a quarterly basis under penalty of criminal prosecution.

So a guy who passed the law that requires the reporting and the same guy who passed the law that created the taxes being reported on, calls a hearing …. to what ….. prevent the required reporting.

What a waste of time and money – no wonder we have a 20 trillion dollar national debt! (It isn’t quite $20 trillion yet – but by the time I fininish typing it well could be $20 trillion).

Does anyopne really think this guy is smart enough to solve the Country’s problems or is he one of the group that is creating the problems that is ruining the economy and costing us millions of jobs and home foreclosures.

Sarbanes – Oxley reporting is “apolitical” or without politics. Accountants complete the reports using Government designed and mandated report formats ….. The SEC reads the reports, the IRS reads the reports and investors read the reports – they are not secret reports they are “public reports”.

Can’t Waxman read and understand the reports he created – he helped pass the law and he doesn’t understand the reports it requires.

Congressional Hearings? What a waste of taxpayer money. Waxman will do anything but take responsibility … responsibility for the economy, for the Housing mess, for foreclosures. Having hearings over Sarbanes-Oxley “filings” makes as much sense as having taxpayers report for hearings when they file their taxes and report that they owe money and mail in their checks. The Sarbanes-Oxley reports – repot that the Companies will owe more in “health care taxes”, taxes that will really be paid for by retirees/p>

Waxman has been in Congress for 35 years. The bottom fell out of our economy after he and fellow Californian, Nancy Pelosi, took over leadership positions in the Democratic Party

Waxman represents a District in California that includes Hollywood. Prior to coming to serve in Congress he was a State Assemblyman in California.

What Waxman helped do to bankrupt California, he is now trying to do to the whole United States.

Waxman’s theories didn’t work in Califonia, they won’t work in Washington.

The “change” mandated by Obama Care hurts the retirees, not the Companies invloved.

Obama lied – he said you “could keep the coverage you have” and then he taxed the Companies for giving you the coverage you earned.  

We were not suppose to learn about this …. Sarbanes-Oxley had the unintended effect of bringing these changes out into the open.

UPDATE: 3500 Companies report $250 billion in hidden costs – how many jobs will this cost us!

April 15, 2010: Waxman Cancels Hearing To Grill Companies On Tax Hit From Overhaul

Arcane accounting rules don’t usually make for Congressional fireworks. But we were really looking forward to a scheduled clash next week between Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) and a bunch of companies that said the new health law is going to cost them big time.

Alas, the hearing was cancelled. How come? When congressional staffers took a look at the companies’ books, they concluded their financial filings making provision for higher future taxes were legit.

AT&T, Verizon, Caterpillar, and Deere & Co. made waves when they informed investors and the Securities and Exchange Commission that they would take big hits because the health law eliminates a tax deduction on federal subsidies that help defray the cost of drug benefits for retirees.

Heavy equipment maker Caterpillar said it would take a $100 miilion charge in the first quarter of this year. AT&T said its charge would amount to $1 billion.

Waxman didn’t buy it, launched an investigation and sent letters to Caterpillar and the other firms demanding an explanation. Now, the accountants say the companies’ charges are by the book.

Waxman is such an embrassment – didn’t read the law before he voted on it and then acted like an ass by scheduling the hearings in the first place.

There are competent Liberals out their that the far left could elect to  public office – why does the far left keep electing clowns like this guy.

Off Shore Drilling – Same Empty Democratic Promises Were Made 18 Months Ago

Mid Term Elections Muct Be On The Way ….. The following post was made in September 2008 when the Democratspromised to implement “Drill Baby Drill” ….. nothing happned for 18 months and nothing will happen now …. read on …..

Drill Baby Drill – Democrats to Let Offshore Drilling Ban Expire, Conceding Defeat in Battle With GOP

Posted on September 24, 2008 by mcauleysworld | Edit

UPDATE: The activities described below were just a pre-election ploy ….. In fact none of the changes were ever implemented …. prior or post election.

WASHINGTON —  Democrats have decided to allow a quarter-century ban on drilling for oil off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts to expire next week, conceding defeat in a months-long battle with the White House and Republicans set off by $4 a gallon gasoline prices this summer.

House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey, D-Wis., told reporters Tuesday that a provision continuing the moratorium will be dropped this year from a stopgap spending bill to keep the government running after Congress recesses for the election.

Republicans have made lifting the ban a key campaign issue after gasoline prices spiked this summer and public opinion turned in favor of more drilling. President Bush lifted an executive ban on offshore drilling in July.

“If true, this capitulation by Democrats following months of Republican pressure is a big victory for Americans struggling with record gasoline prices,” said House GOP leader John Boehner of Ohio.

Democrats had clung to the hope of only a partial repeal of the drilling moratorium, but the White House had promised a veto, Obey said.

The House is expected to act on the spending bill Wednesday. The Senate is likely to go along with the House.

“The White House has made it clear they will not accept anything with a drilling moratorium, and Democrats know we cannot afford to shut down the government over this,” said Jim Manley, a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. “We look forward to working with the next president to hammer out a final resolution of this issue.”

While the House would lift the long-standing drilling moratoriums for both the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, a drilling ban in waters within 125 miles of Florida’s western coast would remain in force under a law passed by Congress in 2006 that opened some new areas of the east-central Gulf to drilling.

Just last week, the House passed legislation to open waters off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts to oil and gas drilling but only 50 or more miles out to sea and only if a state agrees to energy development off its shore. It quickly became clear that measure would not get the 60 votes needed in the Senate.

Republicans called that effort a sham that would have left almost 90 percent of offshore reserves effectively off-limits.

The ban on energy development will be lifted if the Senate goes along with the House action. imminent.

The congressional battle over offshore drilling is far from over. Democrats are expected to press for broader energy legislation, probably next year, that would put limits on any drilling off most of the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. Republicans, meanwhile, are likely to fight any resumption of the drilling bans that have been in place since 1981.

John McCain, the Republican presidential nominee, has promised to make offshore oil drilling a priority if elected president. He has called for developing the oil and gas resources along all of Outer Continental Shelf and for the federal government to share royalties with states who go along with drilling.

Democratic presidential rival Barack Obama has said he would support very limited drilling in certain areas — possibly the South Atlantic region — if it is part of a broader energy plan to shift the U.S. away from oil to alternative fuels and more energy efficiency.

The debate over offshore drilling is not expected to subside in the first months of the next presidency — no matter who sits in the White House.

Lifting the drilling ban gives momentum to the underlying bill, which includes the Pentagon budget, $24 billion in aid for flood and hurricane victims and $25 billion in loans for Detroit automakers in addition to keeping the government open past the Oct. 1 start of the 2009 budget year.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,426764,00.html?sPage=fnc/politics/senate

Update: Roe vs. Wade – How Obama Care Will Effect Taxpayer Funding Of Abortions

OBAMA CARE AND TAXPAYER FUNDED ABORTIONS

Confusion has arisen over the question of federal abortion funding in the Senate health care reform bill (H.R. 3590). In particular: As currently written, does the legislation require large scale funding of abortion at federally regulated Community Health Centers (CHCs)?

Unfortunately, the answer is yes. Understanding why requires some knowledge of current federal law and past judicial history on abortion.

Everyone agrees on these basic facts (if you don’t agree –read the sections for yourself – that is why they are listed): Sec. 10503 of the bill authorizes a new “CHC Fund” to expand funding for the CHC program (which was established by Section 330 of the Public Health Service Act). More unusually, the Senate bill also directly appropriates its own new funds for these services, instead of leaving that task to the annual Labor/HHS appropriations bill that traditionally funds programs at the Department of Health and Human Services.

 For fiscal years 2011 to 2015, the bill appropriates $7 billion for services (to be increased to $11 billion).

 Why does this create a massive problem of federal abortion funding?

Fact #1: A long and consistent series of federal court rulings since Roe v. Wade requires that broad statutory mandates for provision of health services must be construed to include mandated provision of abortions, unless the statute specifies otherwise.

Having decided in 1973 to establish a constitutional right to abortion to serve women’s “health,” the courts decided that legislative references to health services or “medically necessary” services (the term of art used in the Medicaid statute) encompass abortion. In the abortion context, the Supreme Court has said that “health” must be defined very broadly to include “all factors – physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age – relevant to the wellbeing of the patient.” Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179, 192 (1973). In short, if a physician decides that a woman should be able to have an abortion for her “well being,” a government program requiring provision of health services must provide such abortions.

 In the years before the Hyde amendment was first enacted by Congress in 1976, Medicaid was required to pay for about 300,000 abortions a year. No regulatory or administrative leeway was allowed on this point. The Medicaid statute said that grantees must provide “medically necessary” services provided by physicians, and the federal courts held that this category included elective abortions, even though the statute never says the word “abortion.” As one court has observed: “Because abortion fits within many of the mandatory care categories, including‘family planning,’ ‘outpatient services,’ ‘inpatient services,’ and ‘physicians’ services,’Medicaid covered medically necessary abortions between 1973 and 1976.” PlannedParenthood Affiliates of Michigan v. Engler, 73 F.3d 634, 636 (6th Cir. 1996).

Even after the Hyde amendment to the Labor/HHS appropriations act was enacted in 1976, barring funds appropriated in this act from being used for most abortions, a legal battle ensued for years. Not until 1980 did the U.S. Supreme Court rule that the statutory language of the Hyde amendment trumps the underlying statute’s presumptive mandate for abortion, and is constitutionally valid. Harris v. McRae, 448 U.S. 297 (1980).

Some had even argued that the abortion mandate remained in place after the Hyde amendment was enacted – that while the amendment withheld federal funds from certain abortions, the underlying statute still required them to be provided, using state matching funds if necessary. The Supreme Court rejected this argument. 448 U.S. at 309-10. However, the federal courts still insist that the mandate remains in place for any abortion for which funding is not barred by a provision like the Hyde amendment. When the Hyde amendment ceased to prohibit use of federal Medicaid funds for abortions in cases of rape and incest in 1993, federal courts throughout the country ruled that states participating in the program were now required by the underlying Medicaid statute to provide and help pay for rape/incest abortions – even if that meant overriding state constitutions that allow state funding of abortion only in cases of danger to the life of the mother. See Engler, 73 F.3d at 638, and cases cited therein.

Fact #2: In line with this legal precedent, the Community Health Centers program would be required to provide abortions now if not for the Hyde amendment.

The statute establishing the CHC program has the same kind of broad mandate for providing health services that Medicaid does. In some ways it presents an even more clear-cut case.

The statute defines a “health center” in the program as an entity that provides, at a minimum, “required primary health services” to certain low-income populations. 42 USC § 254b (a)(1)(A). “Required primary health services” are defined to include “health services related to family medicine, internal medicine, pediatrics, obstetrics, or gynecology that are furnished by physicians” (and by other medical professionals where appropriate), as well as “voluntary family planning services.” 42 USC §254b (b)(1)(A). Thus, to be considered as eligible centers at all, centers in the program must provide the same broad categories of services that triggered the abortion mandate in Medicaid, and some that are even more specific (e.g., gynecology services). This statutory mandate will trump any lesser authority, such as the preferences of the centers themselves or of an HHS Secretary or other executive-branch official. These officials must obey the laws passed by Congress as interpreted by the federal courts.

 Fact #3: The new funding appropriated for community health centers by the Senate health care bill is not covered by the Hyde amendment.

This should be clear from the wording of the Hyde amendment itself: “None of the funds appropriated in this Act” may be used for most abortions (referring to the annual Labor/HHS appropriations act).

The Senate bill’s new funds are not appropriated in the Labor/HHS appropriations act, so Hyde does not apply to them.

 A similar situation came to light in 1979, when members of Congress asked why the Indian Health Service (IHS) was continuing to provide abortions despite enactment of the Hyde amendment. The agency replied that it had no choice but to do so: The authorizing legislation for the IHS created a broad mandate for services to conserve the “health” of Indians, and the Interior appropriations bill funding these services contained no abortion limitation like the Hyde amendment to the Labor/HHS bill. Therefore “we would have no basis for refusing to pay for abortions” (Letter from Director of the Indian Health Service to Cong. Henry Hyde, July 30, 1979).

Not until 1988 did Congress finally revise the authorizing legislation for the IHS to require that program to conform to the annual Hyde amendment.

The problem here is exactly parallel. The new billions of dollars appropriated here for services at CHCs simply are not covered by the Hyde amendment or other similar provisions, which only govern the use of funds appropriated by the legislation that they amend.

It follows that these funds are also not restricted by any regulations implementing the Hyde amendment. On this point some have cited thirty-year-old regulations stating that elective abortions are not funded in programs receiving “Federal financial assistance” at the Department of Health and Human Services (42 CFR §§ 50.301 through 50.306). But for their statutory basis the regulations cite only the appropriations bills valid at that time and the previous year, which contained the Hyde amendment (Public Laws 95-205 and 96-86). These laws expired three decades ago; but even a citation to the Hyde amendment in thecurrent Labor/HHS appropriations bill would not help. Hyde governs only funds appropriated in the Act that it amends; and a regulation implementing Hyde can only have that same limited scope. If such a regulation were found to be relevant to the new funds provided by the Senate health care bill, the regulation would almost certainly be challenged as contrary to the statutory mandate to provide abortions in the CHC authorizing legislation (see Fact #1 above). A regulation cannot trump a statute passed by Congress.

Fact #4: The Senate health care bill itself contains no relevant provision to prevent the direct use of federal funds for elective abortions.

The House-passed bill did include language to ensure that “no funds authorized or appropriated by this Act (or an amendment made by this Act)” may be used to pay formost abortions. And the Nelson/Hatch/Casey amendment offered in the Senate had exactly this same language. But the Senate chose not to take up the House-passed bill, and it chose to table the Nelson amendment, 54 to 45. (The Nelson Amendment is alos referred to as the Senate version of the “House’s Stupak Amendment” – neither amendment was included in the Law signed by President Obama).

 The abortion funding language in the Senate bill relates solely to the use of tax credits and other federal funds to help pay for abortion coverage in qualified health plans. Section 1303 of the bill does reference the abortions ineligible for funding under the Hyde amendment in any given year, and those which are eligible. But this reference to eligible and ineligible abortions is used only to say the following:

If a qualified health plan provides coverage of services described in paragraph (1)(B)(i) [i.e., abortions ineligible for federal funds under the Hyde amendment that year], the issuer of the plan shall not use any amount attributable to any of the following for purposes of paying for such services…” (Sec. 1303 (b)(2)).

This language is followed by specific references solely to the tax credits and cost-sharing reductions used to subsidize qualified health plans.

The new legislation contains no general ban on using the funds it appropriates for elective abortions and as the funds appropriated under the new law are not subject to the Hyde Amendment the reference to the Hyde Amendment is circuitous and meaningless.

One other section of the Senate bill, establishing a program of school-based clinics for minors, does exclude abortions from the scope of services at those clinics (Sec. 4101 (b)). But all other sections of the bill that appropriate funds, including Section 10503 on CHCs, remain unrestricted in their use of these funds for elective abortions.

Conclusion: In line with longstanding federal jurisprudence, the authorizing legislation for Community Health Centers creates a presumptive mandate for funding abortions without limitation. Currently such funding is prevented only by the fact that funds under the Labor/HHS appropriations act are governed by the Hyde amendment. By appropriating new funds not covered by Hyde, and by failing to include any relevant abortion limitation of its own, the Senate health care bill as presently worded would disburse billions of dollars in federal funding that no one could prevent from being used for elective abortions.

The Constitution empowers a President to take one of two actions when he receives a “Bill” passed by both houses of Congress – sign the “Bill” into law or veto it. The Constitution does not empower the President with a right to “rewrite” or “reinterpret” the statute …… a President’s Executive order cannot overturn prior Supreme Court rulings …. The Court was clear in its decisions, “Hyde” language must be placed within any  statute hoping to limit taxpayer funding of abortions ……… you’d might think a Constitutional Law Professor would know this – well, quite frankly, he knew this all too well. Planned Parenthood and NARAL will both argue this very point to a Federal Court in less than 6 months ……….. and the Federal Courts will set aside the President’s sham Executive Order

Obama Care and Taxpayer Funded Abortions – The Truth Not The Spin – The History Of Roe vs. Wade

America is changing. America is calling on the Politicians to be truthful …. not to lie to the public. Tell us what you think and why we should do what you want us to do ….. don’t lie to us and hide your true intent. If you think your path is the right one – tell us, be truthful and give us your facts and let us, the American people make up our minds. You work for us – you were elected to represent our interests not your own.

Stop lying to us about your true intentions … saying one thing and doing another …… we are much smarter than you give us credit for.

This article is not really about abortion. It is about Polticians who lie to the public. Whether you favor abortion rights and call yourself Pro-Choice or oppose abortion and call yourself Pro-Life – one thing is certain …. and overwhelming … and I mean overwhelming. The number of people who oppose using Federal Funds – taxpayer money – to pay for abortions is unbelievable. What do I mean by overwhelming or unbelievable – 9 out of 10 adults in this Country agree …. Taxpayer Funds should not be used to pay for elective abortions. (87% of those surveyed – a survey sample of 22,000 people – an unprecended sample size).

This is the truth – and the truth is not being presented to argue for or against abortion but as a condemnation of lying Politicians who intentionally mislead the people and lie about their true intentions.

Personally, I may disagree with Henry Waxman, Democrat, California – but I respect him for this – he is Pro Choice and says so … he believes in single payer health care and says so – day in and day out and he believed this bill should provide full Federal or Taxpayer funding for abortion and said so. Waxman won – but not because those who supported Obama Care spoke out honestly as he did. Democracy is about open debate and truth in political discussions ……. I disagree with Waxman and I am Pro-Life, but I respect his right to present his case and I respect his honesty. I don’t believe he would have won this round had the truth been told by all.

I don’t think he will win the next round …… You can lie about what Obama care will deliver before the fact but you won’t be able to lie about what it actually delivers. The proof is always in the pudding.

OBAMA CARE AND TAXPAYER FUNDED ABORTIONS

Confusion has arisen over the question of federal abortion funding in the Senate health care reform bill (H.R. 3590). In particular: As currently written, does the legislation require large scale funding of abortion at federally regulated Community Health Centers (CHCs)?

Unfortunately, the answer is yes. Understanding why requires some knowledge of current federal law and past judicial history on abortion.

Everyone agrees on these basic facts (if you don’t agree –read the sections for yourself – that is why they are listed): Sec. 10503 of the bill authorizes a new “CHC Fund” to expand funding for the CHC program (which was established by Section 330 of the Public Health Service Act). More unusually, the Senate bill also directly appropriates its own new funds for these services, instead of leaving that task to the annual Labor/HHS appropriations bill that traditionally funds programs at the Department of Health and Human Services.

 For fiscal years 2011 to 2015, the bill appropriates $7 billion for services (to be increased to $11 billion).

 Why does this create a massive problem of federal abortion funding?

Fact #1: A long and consistent series of federal court rulings since Roe v. Wade requires that broad statutory mandates for the provision of health services must be construed to include mandated provision for abortions, unless the statute specifies otherwise.

Having decided in 1973 to establish a constitutional right to abortion to serve women’s “health,” the courts decided that legislative references to health services or “medically necessary” services (the term of art used in the Medicaid statute) encompass abortion. In the abortion context, the Supreme Court has said that “health” must be defined very broadly to include “all factors – physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age – relevant to the wellbeing of the patient.” Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179, 192 (1973). In short, if a physician decides that a woman should be able to have an abortion for her “well being,” a government program requiring provision of health services must provide such abortions.

 In the years before the Hyde amendment was first enacted by Congress in 1976, Medicaid was required to pay for about 300,000 abortions a year. No regulatory or administrative leeway was allowed on this point. The Medicaid statute said that grantees must provide “medically necessary” services provided by physicians, and the federal courts held that this category included elective abortions, even though the statute never says the word “abortion.” As one court has observed: “Because abortion fits within many of the mandatory care categories, including‘family planning,’ ‘outpatient services,’ ‘inpatient services,’ and ‘physicians’ services,’Medicaid covered medically necessary abortions between 1973 and 1976.” Planned Parenthood Affiliates of Michigan v. Engler, 73 F.3d 634, 636 (6th Cir. 1996).

Even after the Hyde amendment to the Labor/HHS appropriations act was enacted in 1976, barring funds appropriated in this act from being used for most abortions, a legal battle ensued for years. Not until 1980 did the U.S. Supreme Court rule that the statutory language of the Hyde amendment trumps the underlying statute’s presumptive mandate for abortion, and is constitutionally valid. Harris v. McRae, 448 U.S. 297 (1980).

Some had even argued that the abortion mandate remained in place after the Hyde amendment was enacted – that while the amendment withheld federal funds from certain abortions, the underlying statute still required them to be provided, using state matching funds if necessary. The Supreme Court rejected this argument. 448 U.S. at 309-10. However, the federal courts still insist that the mandate remains in place for any abortion for which funding is not barred by a provision like the Hyde amendment. When the Hyde amendment ceased to prohibit use of federal Medicaid funds for abortions in cases of rape and incest in 1993, federal courts throughout the country ruled that states participating in the program were now required by the underlying Medicaid statute to provide and help pay for rape/incest abortions – even if that meant overriding state constitutions that allow state funding of abortion only in cases of danger to the life of the mother. See Engler, 73 F.3d at 638, and cases cited therein.

Fact #2: In line with this legal precedent, the Community Health Centers program would be required to provide abortions now if not for the Hyde amendment.

The statute establishing the CHC program has the same kind of broad mandate for providing health services that Medicaid does. In some ways it presents an even more clear-cut case.

The statute defines a “health center” in the program as an entity that provides, at a minimum, “required primary health services” to certain low-income populations. 42 USC § 254b (a)(1)(A). “Required primary health services” are defined to include “health services related to family medicine, internal medicine, pediatrics, obstetrics, or gynecology that are furnished by physicians” (and by other medical professionals where appropriate), as well as “voluntary family planning services.” 42 USC §254b (b)(1)(A). Thus, to be considered as eligible centers at all, centers in the program must provide the same broad categories of services that triggered the abortion mandate in Medicaid, and some that are even more specific (e.g., gynecology services). This statutory mandate will trump any lesser authority, such as the preferences of the centers themselves or of an HHS Secretary or other executive-branch official. These officials must obey the laws passed by Congress as interpreted by the federal courts.

 Fact #3: The new funding appropriated for community health centers by the Senate health care bill is not covered by the Hyde amendment.

This should be clear from the wording of the Hyde amendment itself: “None of the funds appropriated in this Act” may be used for most abortions (referring to the annual Labor/HHS appropriations act).

The Senate bill’s new funds are not appropriated in the Labor/HHS appropriations act, so Hyde does not apply to them.

 A similar situation came to light in 1979, when members of Congress asked why the Indian Health Service (IHS) was continuing to provide abortions despite enactment of the Hyde amendment. The agency replied that it had no choice but to do so: The authorizing legislation for the IHS created a broad mandate for services to conserve the “health” of Indians, and the Interior appropriations bill funding these services contained no abortion limitation like the Hyde amendment to the Labor/HHS bill. Therefore “we would have no basis for refusing to pay for abortions” (Letter from Director of the Indian Health Service to Cong. Henry Hyde, July 30, 1979).

Not until 1988 did Congress finally revise the authorizing legislation for the IHS to require that program to conform to the annual Hyde amendment.

The problem here is exactly parallel. The new billions of dollars appropriated here for services at CHCs simply are not covered by the Hyde amendment or other similar provisions, which only govern the use of funds appropriated by the legislation that they amend.

It follows that these funds are also not restricted by any regulations implementing the Hyde amendment. On this point some have cited thirty-year-old regulations stating that elective abortions are not funded in programs receiving “Federal financial assistance” at the Department of Health and Human Services (42 CFR §§ 50.301 through 50.306). But for their statutory basis the regulations cite only the appropriations bills valid at that time and the previous year, which contained the Hyde amendment (Public Laws 95-205 and 96-86). These laws expired three decades ago; but even a citation to the Hyde amendment in thecurrent Labor/HHS appropriations bill would not help. Hyde governs only funds appropriated in the Act that it amends; and a regulation implementing Hyde can only have that same limited scope. If such a regulation were found to be relevant to the new funds provided by the Senate health care bill, the regulation would almost certainly be challenged as contrary to the statutory mandate to provide abortions in the CHC authorizing legislation (see Fact #1 above). A regulation cannot trump a statute passed by Congress.

Fact #4: The Senate health care bill itself contains no relevant provision to prevent the direct use of federal funds for elective abortions.

The House-passed bill did include language to ensure that “no funds authorized or appropriated by this Act (or an amendment made by this Act)” may be used to pay formost abortions. And the Nelson/Hatch/Casey amendment offered in the Senate had exactly this same language. But the Senate chose not to take up the House-passed bill, and it chose to table the Nelson amendment, 54 to 45. (The Nelson Amendment is also referred to as the Senate version of the “House’s Stupak Amendment” – neither amendment was included in the Law signed by President Obama).

 The abortion funding language in the Senate bill relates solely to the use of tax credits and other federal funds to help pay for abortion coverage in qualified health plans. Section 1303 of the bill does reference the abortions ineligible for funding under the Hyde amendment in any given year, and those which are eligible. But this reference to eligible and ineligible abortions is used only to say the following:

If a qualified health plan provides coverage of services described in paragraph (1)(B)(i) [i.e., abortions ineligible for federal funds under the Hyde amendment that year], the issuer of the plan shall not use any amount attributable to any of the following for purposes of paying for such services…” (Sec. 1303 (b)(2)).

This language is followed by specific references solely to the tax credits and cost-sharing reductions used to subsidize qualified health plans.

The new legislation contains no general ban on using the funds it appropriates for elective abortions and as the funds appropriated under the new law are not subject to the Hyde Amendment the reference to the Hyde Amendment is circuitous and meaningless.

One other section of the Senate bill, establishing a program of school-based clinics for minors, does exclude abortions from the scope of services at those clinics (Sec. 4101 (b)). But all other sections of the bill that appropriate funds, including Section 10503 on CHCs, remain unrestricted in their use of these funds for elective abortions.

Conclusion: In line with longstanding federal jurisprudence, the authorizing legislation for Community Health Centers creates a presumptive mandate for funding abortions without limitation. Currently such funding is prevented only by the fact that funds under the Labor/HHS appropriations act are governed by the Hyde amendment. By appropriating new funds not covered by Hyde, and by failing to include any relevant abortion limitation of its own, the Senate health care bill as presently worded would disburse billions of dollars in federal funding that no one could prevent from being used for elective abortions.

The Constitution empowers a President to take one of two actions when he receives a “Bill” passed by both houses of Congress – sign the “Bill” into law or veto it. The Constitution does not empower the President with a right to “rewrite” or “reinterpret” the statute …… a President’s Executive order cannot overturn prior Supreme Court rulings …. The Court was clear in its decisions, “Hyde” language must be placed within any  statute hoping to limit taxpayer funding of abortions ……… you might think a Constitutional Law Professor would know this – well, quite frankly, he knew this all too well. Planned Parenthood and NARAL will both argue this very point to a Federal Court in less than 6 months ……….. and the Federal Court’s will set aside the President’s sham Executive Order.

%d bloggers like this: