Tax Dollars For Abortions BS: It’s Not Just Greg Brophy

Stop Whining About Overreaching

As the Denver Post's Lynn Bartels reports, nailing GOP gubernatorial candidate Greg Brophy on a false statement from Tuesday night's debate:

Republican state Sen. Greg Brophy incorrectly asserted in a gubernatorial debate Tuesday that the state is violating the constitution by paying for abortions and "that needs to stop."

The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment does not provide funding for abortions, spokesman Mark Salley said.

Asked Wednesday for proof of his claim, Brophy backpedaled.

"We'll check and verify that, and if not's true, then we don't have to do anything (to stop it)," the Wray farmer said.

Colorado voters in the 1980s banned using state money to pay for abortions. The state still must comply with federal law, which requires abortion coverage for Medicaid patients in instances of rape, incest and when the life of the mother is at stake.

When pressed about this Tuesday, Brophy claimed that Planned Parenthood's "abortion clinic" isn't required to "account for the monies they get." But officials at the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment and Planned Parenthood insist that's not the case. Bartels reports on a flap from 1999 over sublet space within Planned Parenthood's facilities, which led to then-Gov. Bill Owens' administration slapping punitive restrictions on Planned Parenthood. Owens' successor, pro-life Democrat Bill Ritter, undid those sanctions, but Planned Parenthood never applied for the additional money they then could have–because it wasn't available.

Bottom line: Bartels does a great job debunking an critical talking point for lots of pro-life Republicans. And that's what we really want to add here: the persistent and false claim that Colorado taxpayer dollars "fund abortions" is a much bigger problem than Greg Brophy. Colorado Right to Life's candidate questionnaire asserts without basis that the prohibition on public abortion funding in the Colorado constitution has "mostly been ignored." Last year, Sen. Owen Hill introduced Senate Bill 13-066, the "Taxpayer Abortion Separation Act," to "force compliance" with the state constitution's prohibition of public money for abortion. In 2011, every male Republican Colorado Senator sponsored a similar amendment to the state budget. Here's what fellow Republican Sen. Nancy Spence had to say in response to them, as reported by Patrick Malone at the Pueblo Chieftain:

“My concern about defunding Planned Parenthood is that it provides good family planning services and health services to women,” Spence said. “I agree that public funds should not be used for abortion, but if abortion is part of Planned Parenthood and you can’t separate out the funds that they use for abortion services versus family planning and women’s health services, then I have to come down on the side of Planned Parenthood. [Pols emphasis] It’s too important for low-income women in this state not to have access to that kind of information, when I think it’s an appropriate use for public money.”

It's very easy to agree with Sen. Spence, especially now that you know it was never a real issue anyway. And with that, perhaps this long-cherished but bogus talking point can finally be put to bed? Sadly, don't count on it.

16 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. bullshit!bullshit! says:

    I'm sure they'll stop lying about this, right after they stop lying about guns, health care reform, Benghazi, the stimulus…Reagan…

    Yeah. Good luck with that.

  2. ModeratusModeratus says:

    What's the problem for you libs anyway? Don't you support taxpayer funded abortion on demand?

  3. BlueCat says:

    What I support is that all legal medical procedures should  be covered under the same rules. The fact is, like it or not, abortion is as legal as gall bladder surgery. I don't understand why it shouldn't be covered like any other legal treatment, surgery or procedure. 

    Either a medical procedure is legal or it isn't and if it is it should qualify for whatever coverage is available for any legal procedure. After all, there are religions that teach the belief that any medical intervention except prayer is against God's will and we don't therefore say there can be no public funding for any medical procedures because it offends some people's religious beliefs to have their money spent that way.

    Our tax money gets spent on wars some of us oppose and to subsidize the top fraction of a percent whether we like it or not.  Why should tax payers get to pick and choose how their money is spent on legal medical procedures when they aren't allowed to do so for other tax payer funded programs? It makes no sense.

    • Gray in Mountains says:

      +1000 BC. This also, I believe, ahould be the standard around contraception re ACA. Religious beliefs should hold no sway re health care. That is not religious "freedom", it is religious slavery

  4. Andrew Carnegie says:

    I did a little reading and this is what I found:

    Expanded taxpayer funding for abortions through ObamaCare

    First of all, there is no language in ObamaCare that prevents tax dollars from being used to pay for abortions. The proposed amendment to ObamaCare that would have prevented all taxpayer funding for abortions that was debated in Congress, known as the Stupak-Pitts Amendment, was not included in the final bill signed by President Obama.

    In fact, President Obama and the Democrats in Congress worked considerably to keep the Stupak-Pitts Amendment from being included in the final bill. To be clear, they would have rather had a no health care law than allow ObamaCare to be passed with language preventing taxpayer funding of abortion. The Stupak-Pitts Amendment simply said: “No funds authorized or appropriated by [ObamaCare] may be used to pay for any abortion or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion ….”

    Second, the Hyde Amendment – the yearly amendment to appropriations bills that prevents federal taxpayer dollars from funding abortions – does not apply to ObamaCare.

    Third, as we have previously explained in detail, the Executive Order signed by President Obama, which he claimed would “ensure that Federal funds are not used for abortion services,” did not prevent taxpayer funds from being used for abortions – and then Solicitor General Elena Kagan and the White House knew it. This Executive Order does not stop ObamaCare from funding abortion because an executive order cannot trump a congressionally enacted statute.

    As our legal analysis of a the bill that would become ObamaCare concluded, there is nothing to “prohibit federal dollars from funding plans that include abortion services.” In fact, the law has a section describing “ABORTIONS FOR WHICH PUBLIC FUNDING IS ALLOWED.”

    By forcing states to create and run health exchanges and by forcing them to expand their Medicaid rolls which can, and in some case must, include abortion funding, more tax-payer dollars will go to fund abortions.

    One example: the Department of Health and Human Services has already used powers granted under ObamaCare to force insurance companies and employers to fully cover an abortion drug.

    ObamaCare also provides tax credits and incentives to businesses, insurance companies, and individuals without effectively limiting their being to applied to abortion. Prior to ObamaCare the tax code allowed people todeduct the amount they pay for an abortion from their taxes. Now, under ObamaCare, individuals can not only deduct what they pay for an abortion, they may be able to receive a tax credit to buy insurance policies that cover abortions. The section of the law that purportedly excludes federal dollars from being used to subsidize abortion coverage merely “sets up accounting gimmicks to, supposedly, segregate federal funds from funds being used to pay for abortion services.”

    The bottom line is because the law fails to contain any provision actually preventing federal funds from being used to subsidize insurance plans that cover abortions, ObamaCare greatly increases taxpayer funding for abortions. And because every American is required to purchase health insurance that in many cases covers, or is even required to cover, abortions, the abortion industry stands to receive windfall profits from ObamaCare.

    Regardless of what some in the media, representatives of the abortion industry, or legislators that support abortion say, ObamaCare does provide taxpayer funding for abortion and greatly expands access to abortion. We must stop this pro-abortion law once and for all at the Supreme Court.

    http://aclj.org/obamacare/how-obamacare-uses-taxpayer-money-pay-abortions

    There seems to be a difference of opinion about the scope of taxpayer funding used for abortion services.

  5. ClubTwitty says:

    Shouldn't big blocks of someone else's work be in a quote box.  Is Scooter or Rand Paul turd's mentor?  

  6. BlueCat says:

    Just as a point of information, no special language banning tax funding of abortion in ACA was needed because long go legislation already banned tax funding of abortion services. I bet there isn't anything in ACA declaring car theft to be illegal either. 

  7. mamajama55mamajama55 says:

    Right to Life voters, like Gun Rights voters (and there's quite a bit of overlap) are reliable, enthusiastic voters and volunteers.

    The only problem is, candidates have to lie to their base in order to get them worked up enough to volunteer, donate, and vote.

    Hence, the continual promotion of the "no tax dollars for abortions" meme. No tax dollars have been able to be spent for abortions since the Hyde Amendment passed in 1976, and was upheld by the Supreme Court in 1980. But every year, they try to ban it again, because they have to look as if they're actually doing something about abortion.

    Brophy, Hill, and Colorado RTL could have chosen to tell the truth, that there's no point to banning what has been banned for almost 25 years. Instead, they took the liar's way, disrespecting their constituent's intelligence.  Kudos to Spence for having faith in people's abilities to deal with areas of gray.

     

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account


You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.