Obamacare Subsidizes Abortions for Women Making $90,000
Under Obamacare, the federal government will force taxpayers to help her buy insurance that pays for abortions.
How rich do you have to be in Barack Obama's America to pay the whole tab for your own abortion? What about a divorced 38-year-old public school principal who has three children and earns $90,000 per year? Would she need to personally pay the full fair to have a doctor kill her fourth child while that child was still in her womb?
WASHINGTON, DC (CNS News) - How rich do you have to be in Barack Obama's America to pay the whole tab for your own abortion? What about a divorced 38-year-old public school principal who has three children and earns $90,000 per year? Would she need to personally pay the full fair to have a doctor kill her fourth child while that child was still in her womb?
Under Obamacare, the federal government will force taxpayers to help her buy insurance that pays for abortions.
Back in March, the Obama administration published the 166-page regulation governing the establishment of Obamacare's state health-insurance exchanges. A few weeks later, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) published a two-page analysis explaining what this regulation means for American taxpayers who do not want to pay for someone to kill a child.
"Through their tax dollars all taxpayers will be forced to pay directly for other people's abortions," said the analysis. "Some will say this is technically not 'tax funding of abortions,' because the required surcharge will be a premium payment rather than a tax payment as such. But what the payment is called is less important than what it actually does."
The USCCB analysis explained: "The plans that include elective abortions must charge each enrollee an additional payment, to be used solely for elective abortions for anyone in the plan. The Act explicitly requires that the premiums paid on behalf of every man, woman and child in the plan must have this surcharge."
But the Obamacare regulation does not allow the insurers to reveal the amount of this abortion surcharge. "The insurer who covers elective abortions may list abortions in its usual summary of covered benefits, but may not take any further steps to warn enrollees that they are buying a plan with abortions," said the USCCB analysis. "Moreover, even at the time of enrollment, they may not inform enrollees how much of their premium payment is to be separated out and used solely to pay for abortions."
Even taxpayers who refuse to buy a health insurance plan that covers abortions will be forced by the government to subsidize those who do.
"These plans, including those which cover abortions without any limits, will be eligible for federal tax credit subsidies when the enrollee earns less than four times the federal poverty level," the USCCB explained. "In all previous federal programs, including the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, such tax subsidies for overall plans that include elective abortions were forbidden by law."
Obamacare is not about transparency, it is about coercion - even to the point of coercing people to pay for taking innocent life.
"While many private health plans now cover abortions, then, what is new about the Affordable Care Act is this: These plans will receive federal tax subsidies," the USCCB concluded.
So, who are the people who earn less than four times the federal poverty level and thus will get a subsidy from taxpayers to buy insurance covering abortions?
This year the federal poverty level for a family of four is $23,050. Four times $23,050 is $92,200.
Thus, if the Obamacare exchanges were operating today, a divorced 38-year-old public school principal with three children and a $90,000-per-year salary would be entitled to a tax subsidy to buy an insurance plan covering abortions.
What kind of people will the federal government force to pay this subsidy?
Here's one possibility: A married mother of five working as a teacher at a Catholic school, earning a salary of $35,000 per year, and doing her best to teach her pupils and her own children that God gives every human being an inalienable right to life.
Is it right and just and good for government to force one mother to help pay for another mother to kill her own child? No. It is just plain evil.
- - -
CNSNews.com is a division of the Media Research Center, a not-for-profit 501 (c)(3) organization. Like National Public Radio and the Public Broadcasting System, CNSNews.com is able to provide its services and information to the public at no cost, thanks to the generous support of our thousands of donors and their tax-deductible contributions.This article is reprinted with permission.
Keywords: HHS mandate, Sebelius, Obama, Romney, Ryan, Biden, Terry P. Jeffrey, Catholics, Abortion, contraceptives
NEWSLETTERS »
Rate This Article
1 - 2 of 2 Comments
Leave a Comment
More U.S. News
- Priests for Life: Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act Most Significant Legislative Step Forward
- In the Wake of the Moore Tornado: What Can we Learn from the Disaster?
- US Supreme Court Accepts Religion Case: Will Legislative Prayer Survive Religious Censorship?
- Largest Burmese Python caught in Miami-Dade County
- Court sides with Obama, Osama death photos can remain secret - for your own good
- Two Oklahoma men killed in tornadoes; Kansas, Iowa batten down for severe weather
- Supreme Court to decide if prayer before town meeting is permissible
- All survive terrifying plane 'belly landing' in Newark
- Nebraska Bishop: Gosnell clinic was 'reminiscent of Auschwitz'
Featured News
- Fr. Paul Schenck: Finding Living Faith on Catechetical Sunday
- The Movie Yellow: Incest as 'Normal' and Cassavates's Slides Into the World of Woes
- The Chicago School Teachers Strike Reveals the Need For School Choice
- The Sexual Barbarians and the Dissolution of Culture
- The Happy Priest Challenges Us to Ask: Who is Jesus to Me?
- Michael Coren on Canadian Public Schools: Teachers, leave those kids alone
- We Cannot Ignore Our Consciences: Cardinal Dolan On Religious Liberty
- In the Face of Danger, Successor of Peter Travels to Lebanon as a Messenger of Peace
- Reflections on the Dignity and Vocation of Women: Who or What?
Most Popular
There's the problem! Americans are out of touch with scientific consensus on climate change Read More
Editorial: Is the Scandal Ridden Obama Administration Becoming a House of Cards? Read More
Sex In Uniform: Why the Increase in Sexual Assaults in the Military? Read More
Bill Donohue, Catholic League, Disclose Fight with the IRS, Demonstrate Courage Read More
Has the Internal Revenue Service become 'Domestic Terrorists'? Read More
Daily Readings
Reading 1, Sirach 2:1-11
My child, if you aspire to serve the Lord, prepare yourself for ... Read More
Psalm, Psalms 37:3-4, 18-19, 27-28, 39-40
Put your trust in Yahweh and do right, make your home in the ... Read More
Gospel, Mark 9:30-37
After leaving that place they made their way through Galilee; ... Read More
Saint of the Day
St. Eugene de Mazenod
May 21: Eugene de Mazenod was born on August 1, 1782, at Aix-en-Provence ... Read More
Latest Videos
Human Respect - 2 Pillars #33 View Video
Catholic Mass from the Church of Ste. Genevieve (5/19/13) View Video
'Salve Virginale'- Gregorian Chant;'Fontgombault Abbey' HD View Video
'Salve Virginale'- Gregorian Chant;'Fontgombault Abbey' HD View Video
'Beata viscera Mariae'- Byrd-polyphony (HD) View Video
Marketplace
The Catholic Girl's Survival Guide for the Single Years Read More
Beautiful Gifts for Weddings
Lovely gifts of the Catholic Faith to celebrate the special day of ... Read More




Print















Good article. I wonder why Gov. Romney didn't bring this up in the debates...it sure would have helped. But in my sense of the debates, it was as it was in the first debates. Obama ran over time limits, was allowed to run over them, spewing once again some truth, but a lot of rhetoric. Romney perhaps was a bit nervous as to when he would get in a word edge wise, not lose his train of thought, addressing Omama's untrue accusations, etc. Well, I really don't how Romney felt, but I do not think that he has ever gotten fair time. I know in the first debate, Obama got 4 minutes more. Media bias? Thoughts. Blessings...
The government knows a buck when they see it and abortion is big bucks. The deductions that one will have to pay to support so-called women's healthcare will become astronomical under Obamacare. I am talking about $1500-$2500 or higher,for the deductible each year on a Obamacare policy before your insurance will pay for anything. For a young healthy working single person it won't be worth having a premium expensive,high deductible,obamacare insurance policy. Woman's healthcare is preventative medicine for breast exams and cancer screening exams,whatever is part of a yearly physical. Abortions and sterilizations that are elective and not medically necessary,in a secular society,is not a part of a basic woman's health care. Contraception is not healthcare because no one needs to have sex to stay alive. Eugenics and the desire to restrict a woman's reproductive life is the key philosophical reason that the government considers abortion and contraceptives as part of a women's basic healthcare. This is humiliating to every woman. High premiums and very high deductibles,the penalty tax for not having insurance,and intimidation worse than that of the IRS,for everyone not having healthcare insurance,will pay for all this so called free woman's health care. To put a muzzle on the Catholic Church for protesting all of this horror is key to implementing it all as a so called basic woman's right. The middle class and the poor will be economically worse of as a result of all of this. Religious freedom? Churches will be relegated to being a private club under "Government Surveillance" and not a religion anymore. Invasion of freedom is government intervention into every aspect of our daily private affairs,especially if we must all purchase a very highly expensive product by law that pays a fraction of unsustainable overall healthcare expenses for any given healthcare event.