One question too seldom asked in the debates over Obamacare was why, if the Health Care Reform bill already kept taxes from paying for abortion, was Planned Parenthood so vehemently in favor of the bill? After all, Planned Parenthood makes its money primarily from performing abortions.
Of course the same thing could have been asked about the need for an executive order prohibiting taxpayer money from paying for abortions under the bill if, as proponents claimed, the bill already protected against this eventuality. The answers to both questions, of course, is that the bill doesn’t protect against tax-funding of abortion; it merely introduces some accounting sleight-of-hand. And the executive order is simply smoke and mirrors, because the President does not have the authority to counteract duly passed legislation through an executive order.
Which is why Planned Parenthood is passing out accolades to those Catholic nuns who broke with the USCCB to help get the bill passed, despite all the claims that first the bill itself and then the executive order would keep PP’s business from the massive expansion it now expects.
Yep, Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards wrote a column last week in the Huffington Post stating that the Catholic nuns of NETWORK deserve thanks for making “a critical demonstration of support” by their now-famous letter which “broke with the bishops and the Vatican to announce their support for health care reform,” resulting in legislation that vastly expands the availability of “reproductive health care” (typically a euphemism for contraception and abortion).
Cui bono? To whose benefit? It is always instructive to follow the money.
All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!
Posted by: Frodo1945 -
Mar. 30, 2010 7:13 PM ET USA
PP knows that, in the long run, this legislation is further moving their noses under the big government tent.
Posted by: Jason C. -
Mar. 30, 2010 12:28 PM ET USA
I was wondering why this wasn't a more frequent editorial tack in the run-up to the, er, vote on the Act. I.e., where is the bellyaching from PP and NARAL if the bill is, as alleged by its backers, not in their favor? I think they both knew when to keep their mouths shut. This should also make clearer the secrecy behind signing the executive order: Obama had already gotten enough mileage out of these groups. We needed more people pointing this out two weeks ago.