Trump’s Latest Yuge Pro-Life Victory

Okay, there’s two articles that I’ve seen circulating concerning this so-called victory for Trump and Pro-Life advocates: Conservative Review’s Huge Pro-Life Victory: Trump Admin Takes Aim Abortion Surcharge Hidden Obamacare Plan by Alex Wong and Daily Mail’s Millions of Americans Will Get Separate Bill for Abortion Coverage by Raven Saunt

Here’s the low-down, from the beginning:

1. Section 1303 from Obamacare specified that health insurance companies that were subsidized by the federal government must keep the funds to cover abortions separate from the other funds. Now understand that it is illegal for federal dollars to subsidize abortions according to the Hyde Amendment of 1976. (More on that later) So in order to uphold that, the thinking is that if the funds are accounted for separately, it can be maintained and proven that no federal dollars went to abortions. That was what Section 1303 was supposed to have accomplished.
2. The Obama administration (and the Trump administration for the past three years) interpreted Section 1303 by itemizing the charges for the abortion coverage and sending an initial notice, and then subsequently separating the funds. So a few things to understand:
   1. There is no problem with separating funds. It seems on the outset that health insurance companies are doing that.
   2. The problem is with the transparency of this. People are paying for this coverage and really not knowing about it.
   3. In other words, the way the rules are now are just not good enough to ensure transparency and promote informed choice.
3. So what the Trump Administration is doing is changing the rules now. How so?
   1. Now health insurance companies must send a separate bill for this coverage.
   2. The thinking is that if you get a separate bill, your chances of making an informed choice rise astronomically.
   3. So the Trump Administration wants to carry this separating of the funds all the way to billing procedures.

Now, I would say up front that this is good. I can agree with it. My contention is that this not a “Huge Pro-Life Victory.” This is far from it. I write this because I’m concerned with the public’s perception of Trump and the Pro-Life movement. He is touted to be the Strongest Pro-Life President to ever grace our presence. And he may very well be, relatively speaking. But I believe reality paints a much different picture. Allow me to explain.

What does separate mean?

Just because the funds are separate does not mean that abortions are not federally subsidized. I contend that even if Section 1303 is interpreted in the strictest sense as the Trump administration is doing and even separating the bill for the coverage, this does not equate to a victory for the Pro-Life movement. It may be a victory for Trump, but not for the unborn. Why?

1. You must understand that health companies are being subsidized by the federal government. These same companies are collecting money to cover abortions and then distributing the money to abortion providers. The amount of money they pay is not federally subsidized. However the health insurance company that is doing this is. People are getting abortions for a fraction of the cost and the procedure is paid for by a federally subsidized health company. It’s not just the dollar amount we should be concerned about. The health company has got to make money. They are making money from providing this service. I really don’t care that they are only using money that was separately collected for abortion service. I have a problem that they are administering these services, profiting, and that customers are benefiting.
2. You must also understand that all this concerns non-Hyde abortions. What’s that? The Hyde Amendment of 1976, and its metamorphosis through the years, has strictly prohibited federal funds to pay for abortions except if the mother’s life in in danger or if the pregnancy is caused by rape or incest. A non-Hyde abortion is one that does not fall under that criteria. So understand that there is no separation required if the abortion is connected with any of these three criteria. So that means there are abortions that are taking place and are federally subsidized, completely under the radar. The health insurance company has full rights to cover a Hyde abortions and apply federal money to it. That means you’ll never see it on your bill. That means tax-payer money is going to it.
3. This is very similar to Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood remains the greatest providers of abortion in our nation. They too must separate the funds used for non-Hyde abortions. But they are still collecting $560 million a year from the federal government. Planned Parenthood has proved over and over that you can separate all you want, but abortion providers are still gonna get yo’ money.

Counting chickens before they hatch!

Hold your horses. The new rule is set to be published on the 29th of December. Keep in mind, almost every executive action concerning abortions has been circumvented by the courts. Just because he makes a new rule… Wait a second. Is a rule a law? I thought the Legislative Branch was supposed to make the rules? Well… They’re supposed to, but we’re gonna just ignore that so that we can give Trump his victory lap. Maybe we’ll talk about that later. Anyhow, it sounds to good to be true that insurance companies are going to send a separate bill for abortion services to their customers. And there it is: Too good to be true. Look, I’m against abortion, all of them all the time. But forcing a company to send a separate bill for it? I’ll believe it when I see it. Let’s see how this pans out. If we stay on par, nothing will come of this. That may be why there’s only two articles out there claiming victory. Nobody in the know really believes it’s a victory. Sounds like another dance with the courts where we typically lose.

Who ever sees the bill anyway?

What happens with companies that purchase federally subsidized health plans for their employees? Back where I used to work, the employee never saw the bill from the insurance company. They saw the deduction on their check, but that was it. The company saw the bill and paid the bill. Does this victory address that? Of course not.

Victory against who?

Now who exactly did Trump defeat when his administration begins to enforce this rule? The simple question must be asked: Why didn’t he do this 3 years ago? I mean who exactly has been stopping him? Who did he prevail over to get this rule written down? Last I checked the Department of Health and Human Services is still part of the Executive Branch of our government. That’s Trump’s Branch. Alex Azar is his Secretary of the HHS. It took three years to get this done. If you read the articles above, you’ll find that 25 Senators and 103 House members wrote a letter to Alex Azar concerning this matter. Apparently, they convinced him to put this rule in place. So who has the victory? Seems to me that these Congress member prevailed over the Trump Administration and got the rules changed. They say that the new rules better represent the Trump administration’s devotion to Pro-Life policy. Does it? Why didn’t this come from the top three years ago?

How is this a Trump victory? I’ll tell you how. It’s one more imaginary victory that he gets credit for. It excites his base. Gives the democrats something to pitch a fit about and excite their base. All the while babies are butchered.

Where’s the deal maker?

If this was soooooooo important to the Trump administration, then why didn’t he, say… do it just a bit different. Section 1303 is part of Obamacare. Amen? Why didn’t the head of the Republican Party get his dudes to just stick something in the omnibus to codify this into law so it wouldn’t be a matter of interpretation for the courts? I mean if the law was not clear, why not get the law-makers to clear it up? Why not use his ingenious deal-making skills to broker a little deal in this last spending bill? For that matter, any of these spending bills these past three years? Why? The answer is simple. He’s not Pro-Life. He’s just yanking your chain. By the way, why hasn’t Section 1303 and the rest of Obamacare been repealed like he promised it would?

Charlie Brown and Lucy?

Yeah! $560 million dollars of your money going to Planned Parenthood every year. And Trump has signed every one of those bills that have funded them. Did he pitch a fit? Did he veto? Did he send it back and say, “No! I’m gonna fight to keep some of that money from Planned Parenthood!” Not a peep. Not a single expectation from him to the Republican legislators to defund Planned Parenthood. Nothing. So I have no clue whatsoever how people have concluded that Trump is committed to Pro-Life policy. Not a clue. Still looking for one. So based on his accomplishment (or lack of accomplishment) these past three years, what makes you think that somehow this time it’s different?

So what’s your problem with the Pro-Trump articles?

I have problem with giving the President credit for something that has yet to happen. What is the long-term effect of this? The base will claim that he’s the most Pro-Life President in our history, but try asking the base, “What exactly has he done?” Talk about a calf looking at a new gate.

Look, the new rule does not have to be complied with until mid-year. This is going to be challenged in the courts. But the articles make it sound like it’s a done deal. Trump wins. And there is no win. And even if it passes the courts and the industry complies, does this really translate to a win for the unborn? This so-called victory is such a small aspect of the fight against abortion. Positive misleading headlines might go a little way for winning an election. But I’m not sure it accomplishes much for the unborn.