Integrity of Obama’s word finally, finally revealed


President Obama has continually told us that the health care legislation will not federally fund/subsidize abortion. Not only that, but he has repeatedly criticized others as “bearing false witness” and spreading misinformation when they insisted he wasn’t telling the truth.

It has been quite clear that any of the serious legislation in congress up to this point has in fact covered federally funded abortions. And not just the status quo provided for in the Hyde Amendment – but it has pushed the abortion agenda aggressively further.

Up until now, Obama may have been able to technically hide behind the fact that all of the legislation in congress wasn’t “his plan”. And it was “his plan” that wouldn’t fund more abortion. He can’t vouch for the Senate’s or the House’s plan – of course. Even though he did indicate he would sign either of them.

But now Obama has finally got a horse in the race with his name on it. He just released “his plan” of what he wants passed. Guess what? It expands federally funded abortion coverage.

Surely he knows all of this (and knew it all along). Yet he has continued with straight-face to not only deny it, but to also accuse others of lying about it. I think this hope and change is getting a bit heavy on the audacity and a bit light on integrity. I don’t know how anyone can take this man seriously on any moral issue anymore.

8 comments Add comment

Gene February 24, 2010 at 8:51 pm

Oh please … there is no “massive abortion funding” in the bill. How about reading the actual bill? So you are saying one has to be a republican in order to be pro-life? Please read the bill without all the emotion.

Matthew Warner February 25, 2010 at 12:46 am

Uhm, Gene – what are you talking about? Didn’t say there was “massive” abortion funding…not sure who you’re quoting there. Never said anything about what political party anyone had to be a part of. Never said anything about being pro-life either. Just stated the facts. Try reading my post without all the emotion.

Obama said that his health care “reform” would not federally fund abortions. And it undeniably does. Pretty simple.

Sorry to get all emotional on you.

Gene February 25, 2010 at 10:12 am

Sorry Matthew – I was referring to the link in your post. But please, tell me where in the language of the bill it undeniably federally funds abortions?

Matthew Warner February 25, 2010 at 6:12 pm


I wish it were that simple. It doesn’t say specifically, “this will fund abortion.” It will fund a lot of general things that include abortion. And because Obama and the Democratic leadership refuse to put in ANY language restricting the use of funds for abortion, it will by default fund a lot of abortion. Anyone who is honest admits this. Anyone who doesn’t is just playing games.

Democratic leadership has refused to even make the legislation “abortion neutral” using the same language as the Hyde amendment which would continue to fund abortion as our system already does now (under fairly strict circumstances). Their current legislation EXPANDS that coverage.

Even many democrats are against the current legislation because it refuses to restrict abortion coverage. (Rep. Stupak is the best known example)

It is undeniable. We need to move past this pointless discussion in a stage of denial and just state the obvious…Obama and the Dem leadership want very badly to increase federal funding of abortion. They do. They’ve admitted it before. They just won’t admit it in the midst of this debate and are willing to lie about it.

We need to be astute enough to see what they are doing for what it is. And of course, what they are doing is gravely immoral, can not be supported and must be stood up to. It’s not very complex. We only try to obfuscate it with complexity and hide behind political rhetoric in order to convince ourselves that they are telling us the truth when we know very well that they aren’t. If we’re being honest.

Gene February 26, 2010 at 3:59 pm

Matt, I respectfully disagree.

Confusion is rampant in the debate and reflects the conflict between the rule banning federal funding for abortions and the expansion of the government’s role in health care. Universal health care may be a goal, but as long as the federal ban stands, increasing government support for those who lack insurance likely means more people will be restricted from having an abortion.

Here is the irony I think you are missing: when you expand the reach of federal funds, you expand the reach of federal policies on abortion. Under the current federal ban, there is no abortion coverage under Medicaid, the federal employee health benefits plan or the Tricare plan for military families. The healthcare bill does not amend or cancel the current federal ban. Show me where it does? I’m reading the bill and I cannot find what you claim!

Matthew Warner February 26, 2010 at 4:57 pm

Again, Gene, it is more complicated than simply pointing to a spot in the bill. Come on guys, step back for a moment and look at the situation.

Pro-life legislators have tried with EVERYTHING (even withholding votes) to get language in the bill that does confirm that the current restrictions on other federal funding of abortion will apply to the health care reform money. Yet, Democratic leadership REFUSES to put it in there. Even though it means they will get less votes.

Surely if what you say is true, Gene, then they would have no problem putting in such language, getting more votes, and passing something. But they won’t. That tells any reasonable person all you need to know.

The current restrictions on federal funds are on particular federal funds (as stipulated in the Hyde Amendment). The Hyde ammendment, by all counts I can find, will not apply to this health care reform legislation. So you are incorrect, the current ban will not apply. Dems know that. That’s why the abortion lobby supports the current legislation and that’s why the Dems refuse to simply put one line in the legislation that says “the Hyde amendment restrictions on other federal funds will also apply to health care reform legislation.”

Additionally, the current plans will allow money to subsidize PRIVATE insurance plans which DO provide abortions. So the lines of what money is federal and when it stops being federal are blurry when being used in this way. And the Hyde Amendment has no jurisdiction on these funds either.

I wrote another post on it here. And here is more research on just this question if you are interested.

Gene February 26, 2010 at 8:05 pm


Again I disagree – the current ban does apply and will apply. Just read the bill. But – if they add the reptetitve specific language like the house on restricing abortion – would you support it?

However – I think I know what the answer will be. :-)

Matthew Warner March 1, 2010 at 9:38 am

Gene – “The current ban does apply and will apply” ??? You can’t be serious. I’m just not sure what gives you this idea? Where did you read this? Please show me where in the bill it says that the “current ban does apply and will apply”? Surely you can do this?

And even if they added such language, there would still be a problem with conscience protections – another very serious issue for Catholics (and should be for everybody).

Another specifically moral issue is that of subsidiarity…which this bill (and this entire approach to solving health care) grossly violates.

I also don’t think the bill will work to do what the American people want it to do. We can’t afford it which means immorally buying things for ourselves that we never intend to pay back (forcing the next generation to do so for us). It also won’t reduce cost. And it doesn’t insure everybody.

The list goes on. It’s a mess. And it would be worse than passing nothing in the long term. So, no. You are right. I wouldn’t support it. Nobody in their right mind should support it. Adding the appropriate abortion restriction language to the bill would just mean there is one less thing (in a long list of things) wrong with this terrible legislation.

But the point of this post was not to discuss health care reform and how terrible it is. Nor was it to discuss whether or not the current legislation expands federally funded abortion coverage…because that is a given and totally obvious at this point. It was to point out the lack of integrity of many of those, specifically Obama, using this important issue to dishonestly promote their own political agenda.

And because of their dishonesty, we have people who honestly think this legislation does not expand federally funded abortions. And that’s a moral tragedy.

[more of the latest on this issue]

Previous post:

Next post: