Obamacare in fact funds abortions

I hope the sisters of the CHA are proud of themselves.

I found this story on the site of Jill Stanek.

Obamacare to fund abortions in Pennsylvania; heat on Dahlkemper

Quote:

… less than 4 months after Obamacare’s passage, and with Obama his executive order supposedly banning public funding of abortions, we get confirmation it was a fraud.

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in Emanations from Penumbras and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

32 Responses to Obamacare in fact funds abortions

  1. TJerome says:

    Quel surprise. I hope all of the fake Catholics who vote Democratic are happy. But of course, the Dems are for the “minimum wage” the highest good in their ideology.

  2. DavidJ says:

    This is my shocked face :|

  3. JosephMary says:

    And someone is surprised?

    You mean we have been lied to!

  4. ghlad says:

    And so it begins.

    The really infuriating thing about 99% of what this administration has done is that it’s purposefully obfuscated. Not that there’s any chance that things won’t eventually get noticed (ie, abortion funding in Obamacare) – it just adds slime to what is already disgusting. How can people not see what’s really going on? Matthew 13:15, etc…

  5. Leonius says:

    You are dealing with a population which contains a large number of people who think things like Rome is in Greece and you wonder why they cant see what is going on?

  6. Stu says:

    I’m shocked, shocked to find that Obamacare is funding abortions!

  7. Bryan says:

    I hope Sr. Keenan is enjoying that pen from The One that she was paid with for her complicity.

    Prayers ascending for her soul. Not surprised a bit.

  8. JohnE says:

    From Jill Stanek’s website:

    UPDATE, 4:03p: I’m told on high authority from someone who saw it that the Obama administration issued a statement last night stating the $160 mil wouldn’t cover abortions and then pulled it back. I’m told a new or revised statement is in the works.

    Revised statement: “Ok, I lied. Big deal, so did George Bush!”

  9. Hans says:

    You mean the bishops were right?!?

    How could that happen???

    .

    So much for those who said the CHA sisters were being “prophetic”.

  10. Hieronymus says:

    Of all of the great many predictable things that Obama has done so far, this could well be the least surprising. I don’t think there is a person in this country who sincerely believed that abortion wouldn’t be covered.

    Has anyone seen the story yet about Rep. Stupak bursting into the House Chamber and launching 13 pieces of silver toward Madam Pelosi’s throne?

  11. gambletrainman says:

    I think the voters are blind in one eye, and can’t see out of the other. Usually, if a candidate says “I don’t like what the incumbent is doing. I have a better plan.” he outlines the plan. In this case, it was “I have a better plan.” Ok, so what’s the plan? That should have been a red flag right there. I hope I’m wrong, but seeing the attitude of the people, and how short their memories are, I really don’t see much of a change in Congress this year. Right now, people are fussing, but I think when it comes down to the wire, it’ll be “I don’t like what so-and-so is doing, but can’t find anyone any better, so, I’ll just vote my man/woman back in.” And don’t forget, with all the newbies coming in, how many will be bought? You know, I’ll give you x millions of dollars if you change your vote”. Like I said, I hope I’m wrong.

  12. stgemma_0411 says:

    Hence why Bart Stupak did the “Sign and Retire” deal. Not like we didn’t see this coming, unfortunately.

  13. stgemma_0411 says:

    On another thought….Couldn’t someone sue a bunch of these people for Breech of Contract, contending that there was an implied agreement , via Congress and Obummer, to not have any federal monies fund anything? And what happened to the Amendment that said this wasn’t permissible? As soon as one dollar is paid out to an abortion provider, couldn’t someone sue over constitutionality?

  14. EXCHIEF says:

    This administration lies about everything else–why not this. The man is Machiavellian and evil. No one who considers himself a Christian (much less a Catholic) can ever morally justify a vote for him or any of his ilk…but, unfortunately millions did.

  15. RuariJM says:

    From the same story:

    “UPDATE, 4:03p: I’m told on high authority from someone who saw it that the Obama administration issued a statement last night stating the $160 mil wouldn’t cover abortions and then pulled it back. I’m told a new or revised statement is in the works.”

    I would think it’s time to campaign to ensure that the relevant section in the PA proposals, covering abortion, is removed. In order to achieve that, public encouragement should be given to Congresswoman Kathy Dahlkemper to hold the White House to the terms of the EO.

  16. TonyC says:

    It would do my heart good to hear that Rep. Stupak called BHO’s hand on this one. Did anyone see that news report? The American Catholic really nailed Stupak–>”CHUMP”.

  17. Hieronymus says:

    I see two possible ways that this could play out, and I don’t know which I would rather see.

    1) Abortion is openly covered in this case and the White House’s lie is there for the world to see. This would re-invigorate the push against him and his party going in to this fall’s elections and, I think, would make possible a repeal of this ridiculous bill.

    2) Now that all of the fuss has been raised, the White House comes out affecting displeasure that PA would try to use federal funds for abortion. Obama takes a “strong stand” and winds up looking like a strong, ethical man of his word — but in the end the funding is not granted (so openly anyway) here and now (but most likely will down the road now that the door has been opened).

    I think since the abortion industry is already being funded by US taxpayers (look at the source of most of Planned Parenthood’s money), and the bill’s repeal is more likely effected by option 1, I almost want to say that I hope the funding does explicitly cover abortion. I would have to sort out the ethics of that though . . .

  18. Jackie L says:

    I’m sure they’ll be outraged at NCR over being duped into believing and telling their readers how there is no abortion funding in Obamacare. I expect each one of those writers are embarrassed and will work to correct this ASAP!(sarcasm over) Actually I expect to see this ignored for a while followed by being told that being focused on a single issue is narrow minded, and we can’t impose our views, legislate morality, etc.

  19. duhvinci says:

    I love the way no one here is surprised or shocked.

  20. Steve K. says:

    Let all the poisons that lurk in the swamp hatch out.

  21. Steve K. says:

    Really, Vox Nova, Oneros? Really?

  22. Peggy R says:

    Stupak insists this is not happening. Sure, keep telling yourself that, bud.

    http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Y2Q0YzBjYTJhZDhjZjg5NjIyYTJlMzdkZWVjNzdjZDc=

  23. Trad Tom says:

    That would be lame-duck Stupak, right?

  24. stgemma_0411 says:

    Is Stupak still talking? Because I thought he was retiring/resigning. I’m not about to listen to a single word this guy says, because he is about to ride into the sunset with a ton of our tax money, via his pension, and laughing the whole way. Thankfully, God’s justice can’t be circumvented.

  25. Wayne NYC says:

    The new spin started yesterday by the group
    of ex-pro life dems (in a desperate attempt at
    deception) the very dems that told us there would
    be no funds for abortions in Obamacare….they have
    launched a re-election PAC asking voters for
    their monetary backing in standing up to the pro-life
    “lobby”….they now call their conspiracy
    the “Whole-life” Coalition .Satan’s talking points.

  26. AndyMo says:

    Shills like Vox Nova are dedicated to this legislation. They know that when it gets out that yes, Obama is pro-abortion, and yes, this legislation will fund abortions, their credibility is completely sunk.

    That’s why they’ve switched to the “everybody is lying but us!” tactic. Even Fr. Z is deliberately lying, in their book. Apparently, Fr. Z believes his readers “aren’t worthy of knowing the truth.”

    http://vox-nova.com/2010/07/15/rampant-dishonesty-continues/

  27. vincentuher says:

    Now then how can a Catholic U.S. citizen pay taxes to a government which pays for the murder of human beings in the womb?

    O Jesus, Conqueror of death, save us.

  28. Supertradmum says:

    Several stories on this and how Stupak states that the pro-life groups are lying about his on Lifesite News. http://www.lifesitenews.com/

  29. Supertradmum says:

    Who is willing to go to jail for not paying taxes? Can we separate which taxes go to this fund and target that one or ones?

  30. Hieronymus says:

    I hate to break it to you, friends, but we have been funding abortions for a long time — even during Bush’s presidency. A quick glance at the Planned Parenthood annual report (2008, the most recent that I could find) shows that they received $350 Million from government grants and contracts.

    We have been funding our own destruction for quite a while.

  31. RuariJM says:

    There is crossness in the land that the situation has been clarified and the $160 million will not be used to fund abortions in Pa.

    http://www.truth-out.org/obama-administration-applies-stupak-amendment-high-risk-pools61429