Rep. Joe Wilson of South Carolina was wrong to blurt out “You lie!” during a presidential health care pitch before a joint session of Congress in September. That is: civility and propriety required a different approach, at a different time. But the fact of the matter is: The White House does frequently, in fact, tell something other than the truth, especially if abortion is involved.
One of the more recent examples of this habit of deception came from presidential spokesman Robert Gibbs, during one of his daily press conferences. A reporter referred to a letter from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, addressed to lawmakers: “So far the health reform bills considered in the committee, including the new Senate Finance Committee bill, have not met the president's challenge of barring the use of federal dollars for abortion.” The reporter asked: “Is that statement wrong?”
Gibbs responded: “Well, I don't want to get me in trouble at church, but I would mention there's a law that precludes the use of federal funds for abortion. That isn't going to be changed in these health care bills.”
The reporter pressed: “There have been, though, several amendments that would explicitly bar abortions, that would therefore reject it ...”
Gibbs insisted: “Again, there's a fairly well documented federal law that prevents it.”
Gibbs was being dishonest. He was clearly talking about the Hyde Amendment, a 1976 provision that bans federal funding of abortions for Medicaid recipients; it was attached as a rider on a Medicaid allocation bill. The reporter and the bishops, of course, were not talking about appropriations bills. They were focused on the health-care reform revolution upon which President Obama has set so much of his reputation.
During that speech to Congress, the president declared, “Under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions.” There are problems with that statement however. One of them is that there is no one plan. The White House did not submit a bill to Congress, it left it to committees in the House and Senate to craft multiple bills. The White House has not endorsed a single plan over another among those floating around the Hill.
If the so-called “public option” plan or “affordability credits,” which are premium subsidies, come to pass, abortion funding will be very much on the table, and possibly part of the law. In fact, in an amendment added to the predominant House bill, federal funding for abortion is explicitly required in the credits scenario.
As the National Right to Life Committee has explained: “All of the types of funds that would be expended by both proposed federal programs would be federal government funds and public funds. Many of those who are mischaracterizing these funds as 'private funds' are attempting to distort an important public policy debate by employing inaccurate terminology in a manner that would not be accepted by the news media if the question involved federal agencies and programs unrelated to abortion.”
The credits have nothing to do with the Hyde Amendment. And even if they did, the Hyde Amendment requires annual reauthorization. There's no guarantee of that in this Congress - a Congress in which the speaker all but gives the cold shoulder to even members of her own party who are concerned about these questions about abortion and the health-carepalooza.
That Obama's White House would mislead Americans in this way is no surprise.
We were, in fact, warned. Back when Obama was running for president, his campaign protested the “outrageous lies” being told about his record as a state senator, when he advocated against a law that would protect the lives of infants who survived abortions in Illinois.
The campaign insisted, “The suggestion that Obama - the proud father of two little girls - and others who opposed these bills supported infanticide is deeply offensive and insulting. There is no room for these kinds of distortions and lies in this campaign.”
Lopez is the editor of National Review Online
(www.nationalreview.com). She can be contacted at klopez@nationalreview.com
Gibbs responded: “Well, I don't want to get me in trouble at church, but I would mention there's a law that precludes the use of federal funds for abortion. That isn't going to be changed in these health care bills.”
The reporter pressed: “There have been, though, several amendments that would explicitly bar abortions, that would therefore reject it ...”
Gibbs insisted: “Again, there's a fairly well documented federal law that prevents it.”
Gibbs was being dishonest. He was clearly talking about the Hyde Amendment, a 1976 provision that bans federal funding of abortions for Medicaid recipients; it was attached as a rider on a Medicaid allocation bill. The reporter and the bishops, of course, were not talking about appropriations bills. They were focused on the health-care reform revolution upon which President Obama has set so much of his reputation.
During that speech to Congress, the president declared, “Under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions.” There are problems with that statement however. One of them is that there is no one plan. The White House did not submit a bill to Congress, it left it to committees in the House and Senate to craft multiple bills. The White House has not endorsed a single plan over another among those floating around the Hill.
If the so-called “public option” plan or “affordability credits,” which are premium subsidies, come to pass, abortion funding will be very much on the table, and possibly part of the law. In fact, in an amendment added to the predominant House bill, federal funding for abortion is explicitly required in the credits scenario.
As the National Right to Life Committee has explained: “All of the types of funds that would be expended by both proposed federal programs would be federal government funds and public funds. Many of those who are mischaracterizing these funds as 'private funds' are attempting to distort an important public policy debate by employing inaccurate terminology in a manner that would not be accepted by the news media if the question involved federal agencies and programs unrelated to abortion.”
The credits have nothing to do with the Hyde Amendment. And even if they did, the Hyde Amendment requires annual reauthorization. There's no guarantee of that in this Congress - a Congress in which the speaker all but gives the cold shoulder to even members of her own party who are concerned about these questions about abortion and the health-carepalooza.
That Obama's White House would mislead Americans in this way is no surprise.
We were, in fact, warned. Back when Obama was running for president, his campaign protested the “outrageous lies” being told about his record as a state senator, when he advocated against a law that would protect the lives of infants who survived abortions in Illinois.
The campaign insisted, “The suggestion that Obama - the proud father of two little girls - and others who opposed these bills supported infanticide is deeply offensive and insulting. There is no room for these kinds of distortions and lies in this campaign.”
Lopez is the editor of National Review Online
(www.nationalreview.com). She can be contacted at klopez@nationalreview.com

Citizen
Hot Jobs
Off the Menu
The Citizens' Say
Post your comment - click hereThere are 13 comment(s)
liberal karl wrote on Oct 15, 2009 7:10 PM:
Hell has frozen over! lol! "
genegirl59 wrote on Oct 15, 2009 3:51 PM:
On the one end, you have people who think that abortion for any reason is wrong and want it to be illegal.
On the other end, you have people who want free abortions for anyone, at any time, for any reason because it is their right. BUT, when they get what they think is too much of a good thing, they start freaking out. As in "Oh no, THOSE people are trying to abort US out of existence!"
Go figure, huh?
I agree with you in that our first priority is to take care of the already born and unwanted babies. Next priority should be education on how not to get pregnant at all unless you can take responsibility for that child. And then, finally, look to abortion when all else fails.
Personally, I couldn't have an abortion myself, but I do not think I have a right to stop anyone else should that be their choice. "
liberal karl wrote on Oct 15, 2009 10:52 AM:
"the missing 16 million represents an enormous loss, for without abortion, America's Black community would now number 52 million persons. It would be 36 percent larger than it is. Abortion has swept through the Black community like a scythe, cutting down every fourth member."
It's funny that the most wacky religious pro-lifers actually propose that abortion is bad precisely BECAUSE it is doing the same to White Christian communities vs Muslim births! Real strains of White supremacy in their rantings. I wonder how they would feel about THOSE facts?
However, I have to wonder if, given the state of the inner city communities of Black neighborhoods, with crime sending many young men to jail or the grave, gang involvement, and drug/alcohol abuse prevalent, not to mention the lack of employment opportunities, think of the social problems that would occur if hundreds of thousands of babies were born to mothers on welfare, addicted to drugs or alcohol, and without fathers or means of supporting them? Of course, the very same could be said of White women, Hispanics, etc. Forcing these women of ANY color to have to birth and support these unwanted babies would be a disastrous social experiment.
Isn't it terribly sad that anti-abortionists are so concerned with a "life" before birth, but never think beyond the trip home from the hospital? Why aren't they working harder to better conditions for babies ALREADY BORN?! The hypocrisy and short-sightedness stuns me.
Thank you for directing me to that site--you've educated me today, and I SALUTE YOU! HURRAH! :) "
liberal karl wrote on Oct 14, 2009 12:55 PM:
genegirl59 wrote on Oct 14, 2009 12:25 PM:
You refer to MY contention. It is not MY contention. I am merely passing on information on a particular school of thought that exists. If you must have MY opinion, it is that I think it is all BS. Did you not notice that I said I am JUST THE MESSENGER?
You asked for a source of information on this. Try blackgenocide.org. From that site there are many other links. There are probably lots more outside of that.
But once again, do not attribute these beliefs to ME. I do NOT subscribe to these beliefs. "
liberal karl wrote on Oct 14, 2009 11:47 AM:
Where did you get that information?
Look at this compilation of abortion statistics--http://www.abortionfacts.com/statistics/race.asp
In nearly every state, the number of abortions by whites outweigh those by Blacks.
Here's another --http://www.abortiontv.com/Misc/AbortionStatistics.htm#Age%20Group%20&%20Race --that claims a 60-34 ratio advantage to Whites as well.
Are you saying that in proportion to the numbers of Black people living in AMerica, that the numbers of Abortions performed among Blacks is proportionately higher among that segment of the population? I'd like to see some link for that claim that's NOT sponsored by some right-wing pro-life gorup?
Still, to me, that's irrelevant. And a rhetorical tactic to try to sway people in the pro-life argument. It's just inflammatory bunko. "
genegirl59 wrote on Oct 14, 2009 11:21 AM:
My comment had nothing to do with "fundamentalist anti-abortionists" nor with "true genocide".
I was trying to give you a heads up on a school of thought that says that abortion takes place in a hugely disproportionate way in the black community. People who subscribe to this way of thinking claim that it is a form of black genocide. They attack people like you who are enthusiastic about public abortion.
Google around. You will find plenty of information on this.
I'm just the messenger....... "
liberal karl wrote on Oct 14, 2009 1:31 AM:
NOT "children"--"fetuses"
It all depends on what you think constitutes "Life".
Most abortions are done in the first trimester, when the fetus lacks a nervous system to even feel pain. At that point, it's NOT a "baby". Science does not support your view.
genegirl, I care not about the opinions of fundamentalist anti-abortionists. And please don't diminish the horror of true "genocide" with legal abortion. There is no comparison. "
genegirl59 wrote on Oct 13, 2009 3:46 PM:
chris van note wrote on Oct 13, 2009 10:38 AM:
If this doesn't give you insight into what some liberals are all about I don't know what will. "
liberal karl wrote on Oct 12, 2009 10:13 AM:
ABSOLUTELY!
The less unwanted children we have in the world, the better the world will be!
Unwanted pregnancies and babies are the #1 reason that girls drop out of school, and that perpetuates poverty and MORE unwanted babies.
The Religious Right blatantly lies about Abortion all the time, so a little truth-stretching by our side is absolutely understandable.
I WANT TO PAY FOR PUBLIC ABORTION! "
The Bone wrote on Oct 11, 2009 1:59 PM:
kellyj1965 wrote on Oct 11, 2009 10:04 AM: