Randall K. O’Bannon, Ph.D, NRL-ETF Director of Education & Research

ObamaCare key to Planned Parenthood expansion

Randall K. O’Bannon, Ph.D, NRL-ETF Director of Education & Research
By Randall K. O’Bannon, Ph.D, NRL-ETF Director of Education & Research
Image

November 13, 2013 (NRLC) - They were in on it from the beginning, so it is hardly surprising to see Planned Parenthood now not just promoting, but standing poised to reap the financial benefits of ObamaCare.

After working and spending a great deal to get Obama elected, Planned Parenthood was one of the privileged groups invited to the President’s “health care summit” at the White House early in Obama’s first term in March of 2009. Though it was unknown what final shape the healthcare plan would take at the time, Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards offered her organization as a model of what the Planned Parenthood website termed “a safety-net health care provider and entry point into the health care system for millions of men and women.”

Planned Parenthood fought for and defended the health plan, pushing to get it passed in March of 2010, and then helping to keep in office the politicians needed to keep it from being modified in any significant way that would threaten either the plan or their abortion empire. Obama and his Senate allies responded in kind, defending and promoting the abortion giant and making federal funding of Planned Parenthood the one non-negotiable in high stakes budget talks.

It has been a very profitable relationship for Planned Parenthood.

Today, as ObamaCare begins it rollout, Planned Parenthood stands poised to bring in hordes of new customers, rake in even more money, and further expand its already massive abortion empire.

Lest anyone forget, Planned Parenthood is already America’s largest abortion chain and is flush with cash, much of it taken from the pockets of taxpayers, performing 333,964 abortions in 2011, more than a quarter of all abortions done in the U.S., and bringing in nearly $1.2 billion in revenues for the fiscal year ending 6/30/12.

Planned Parenthood is, of course, doing the standard thing that political groups do, issuing press releases, sending spokespeople out to talk to the press, penning op-ed pieces, but as someone who stands to gain from new legislation, has gone much further.

Go to the website today and you’ll see a box in the main graphic on the front page declaring “OBAMACARE + PLANNED PARENTHOOD HEALTH CENTERS A perfect match!” You can click a link to “GET THE FACTS.” Before leaving the front page, though, just below the place where you can enter information to “Find a Health Center” in your area, there is a box where you are offered the opportunity to “Find a HEALTH PLAN in the marketplace that includes Planned Parenthood.” All you need to do is type in your Zip Code.

Both links on the health plans appear to go to section of the website which will talk up what visitors to Planned Parenthood’s website might identify as popular benefits of the law, such as kids staying on parents’ health care plans until age 26, coverage for those with pre-existing conditions, and subsidies for health insurance.

Some explanation of the new bureaucracy with “exchanges,” “navigators,” different categories of plans, etc. is given, but little to nothing about problems with the ObamaCare website, or the possible cancellation of current policies. There is a cost calculator on at least one of Planned Parenthood’s pages on the health plans connected to a group called “Get Covered America” which is part of “Enroll America,” but it is unclear how the numbers are generated or how reliable they may be.

Over and over, of course, there are links to “find a Planned Parenthood health center near you” or to find plans that include Planned Parenthood.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. As NRL News Today reported on September 5, 2013, three Planned Parenthood affiliates have qualified to serve as “Navigators” under the new health plan, receiving federal funding to the tune of over $655,000 (Read here).

Navigators are employees paid to help people pick a health plan and complete their applications. In the process, they will help consumers figure out if they qualify for subsidies to cover their insurance premium costs or for other government assistance such as Medicaid.

Though Navigators are supposed to “[p]rovide information and services in a fair, accurate, and impartial manner,” that they work through Planned Parenthood will be hard for applicants to miss and it seems difficult to imagine that those Navigators won’t share about all the “wonderful” services that Planned Parenthood offers.

States that operate their own exchanges may fund “in-person assisters” that perform many of the functions done by Navigators. Minnesota is one such state and gave the regional Planned Parenthood affiliate a grant to help enroll residents in the exchange.

Planned Parenthood affiliates in Arkansas, Tennessee, North Carolina, Illinois, Florida, Idaho, Nebraska, Missouri, Pennsylvania, and Ohio have also been designated as “Certified Application Counselor” (CAC) organizations, meaning that, though they will not be paid by the exchanges, as the Navigators or in-person assisters may be, these affiliates can certify paid staff or volunteers as official counselors to help people through the process according to what the CACs see as the “best interest” of the applicant.

Even if one somehow believed, against all the evidence, that these new health insurance enrollment plans really did serve the “best interests” of the uninsured (and the previously insured now joining their ranks), and even put aside their radical abortion agenda, it would still be difficult to see Planned Parenthood’s motives as pure here.

Let Paul Knepprath, vice president for policy and public affairs for Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California make some of Planned Parenthood’s less well advertised motivations plain for you.

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

Speaking before a California Building Standards Commission meeting considering higher building standards for health care clinics (i.e., requirements stipulating that only union plumbers can do the work) on November 5, 2013, Knepprath said the following:

The Affordable Care Act is being implemented as we speak, on January 1, people getting coverage.

There’s an expectation of expansion of facilities statewide to take in the new people who have insurance, but also those who will be in expanded Medi-cal program here in California.

Thus, there will be a redevelopment and building of new clinic facilities across the state.

At what pace I don’t know but the issue of an exemption for some of the building standards is a very important one to Planned Parenthood.

The cost associated with meeting the higher standards are significant in some cases and they are important especially for organizations like ours that are serving the very poorest of Californians and trying to get them the health care that they need.

What Knepprath has done here is to explicitly connect the roll out of ObamaCare to the “redevelopment and building of new clinic facilities” to address the influx of new patients brought in by the expansion of insurance coverage.

The more people that Planned Parenthood signs up for ObamaCare, the more patients they expect to have coming to their clinics. And, in California alone, they anticipate such significant numbers that they are already thinking in terms of the “redevelopment and building of new clinic facilities across the state.”

California, as regular readers of NRL News Today know, recently passed legislation to allow nurse practitioners (and other non-physicians) to perform abortions, thereby significantly expanding the pool of potential abortionists in that state.

Now, with a steady stream of new patients and new money flowing in from ObamaCare, one expects that Planned Parenthood is anticipating opening and staffing countless clinics, not only in California, but throughout the U.S.

And given that abortion has long been one of their biggest money-makers and a “service” that Planned Parenthood has been adding to so many of its “health centers” across the country, you can bet that a lot of those new centers will be abortion clinics, funded by dollars generated by the “Affordable Care Act.”

Should you expect any different when you tag the largest abortion chain as a legitimate promoter and provider of “health care?”

Reprinted with permission from NRLC

FREE pro-life and pro-family news.

Stay up-to-date on the issues you care about the most. Subscribe today. 

Select Your Edition:


Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
President Obama speaks at Planned Parenthood's national conference in 2013.
Lisa Bourne

Obama to speak at Catholic Health Association’s annual meeting

Lisa Bourne
By Lisa Bourne

June 2, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The Catholic alliance that defied the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops in supporting Barack Obama’s controversial overhaul of the U.S. healthcare system is persisting in its close relationship with the president, giving him a venue to further endorse ObamaCare at its annual meeting.

Obama will “focus on the future of health care and the Affordable Care Act,” when he delivers the “Future of Healthcare Address” June 9, closing the Catholic Health Association’s (CHA) annual membership meeting and marking the organization’s 100th year, a CHA statement said.

“We are delighted and honored that President Obama will speak to Catholic health care leaders gathered for our 100th anniversary as an association,” CHA president and CEO Sister Carol Keehan stated. “As long-time supporters of a health care system that works for everyone and pays special attention to those who are poor and vulnerable, we are grateful for the president’s leadership on the ACA.”

Sister Keehan was a crucial ObamaCare proponent. She later received one of the 21 ceremonial pens Obama used to sign the measure into law. She was also a beneficiary of his public, personal gratitude for her assistance in getting the law passed.

Pro-abortion Catholic politicians cited Keehan and CHA's support for the law, despite ObamaCare’s compulsory taxpayer funding of contraception and abortifacients, in justifying their support for the law.

In 2010, the late Cardinal Francis George, then president of the USCCB, said that culpability for ObamaCare’s passage lies at the feet of Sister Keehan and other Catholic groups that split from the bishops to support the pro-abortion legislation.

"The Catholic Health Association and other so-called Catholic groups provided cover for those on the fence to support Obama and the administration," Cardinal George said at the time, adding that "Sister Carol and her colleagues are to blame" for the passage of the health care bill.

The cardinal and bishops had met personally with her numerous times to communicate about the law and continually came away frustrated.

"The bill which was passed is fundamentally flawed. The executive order is meaningless. Sr. Carol is mistaken in thinking that this is pro-life legislation," the cardinal stated, also saying that the CHA and the groups have "weakened the moral voice of the bishops in the U.S." with their actions in regard to ObamaCare.

Sister Keehan, who was pressured off of the Knights of Malta’s Holy Family Hospital Foundation as a result of her ObamaCare support, continued in defending the embattled law in her statement announcing the president’s upcoming appearance to further tout it.

“This important law has provided meaningful health coverage to at least 16 million people who needed and deserved it, as well as improved both the benefits and finances of Medicare and Medicaid,” said Sister Keehan. “We look forward to the president's comments and insights at our assembly, and to being a continued partner in preserving and improving the ACA.”

One Catholic blogger criticized the CHA for having Obama come speak to its membership.

Kathy Schiffer of the Seasons of Grace blog pronounced herself “disgusted and horrified.”

Click "like" to support Catholics Restoring the Culture!

“What in the world, I wonder, could this president have to say to Catholics about health care?” Schiffer asked.

She then listed Obama’s policy offenses against Catholics, including seeking to penalize Catholic organizations that oppose funding contraception and abortifacients, and his refusal to acknowledge that Catholic organizations are religious employers for the purpose of religious liberty.

Schiffer’s examples illustrating the irreconcilable invitation for Obama to speak to Catholic healthcare professionals also included mention of the threat of Catholic hospitals closing because of his policies requiring contraception and sterilization. Statistics show that large numbers of Catholic doctors plan to retire early and leave healthcare because of the ACA.

Schiffer wrote that she believed it was her responsibility to share her concerns “and to encourage others to express their concerns as well–inviting the Catholic Health Association to abide by Church teaching, and to return to the faith passed on to us by the Apostles.”

Contact:

The Catholic Health Association of the United States

Sister Carol Keehan:
[email protected]

Board of Trustees Staff Contact Candice T. Hall:
[email protected]
1875 Eye Street NW, Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20006
PH: (202) 296-3993
FX: (202) 296-3997 

Advertisement
Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben

,

Bruce Jenner wanted to abort his oldest daughter

Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben
By Ben Johnson

HOLLYWOOD, CA, June 2, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Bruce Jenner has spared the public virtually nothing during his public transformation into “Caitlin,” but one detail of his life emerged in the story that accompanies that much-shared Vanity Fair cover: The former Olympic medalist wanted his oldest daughter, Casey, aborted and refused to be at the hospital during her birth.

During the height of his fame, Bruce Jenner was married to Chrystie Crownover. Their nine-year marriage produced two children: Burt (Burton) and Casey (Cassandra).

But Bruce learned about Casey in the midst of a divorce battle and told Chrystie he wanted her to get rid of the child.

“When I found out I was pregnant Bruce raised the issue of an abortion, and I went along with him just as I always did. I had all the tests and had even paid for the operation,” Chrystie wrote in People magazine in 1981, the year they divorced. “But one night I was out to dinner and my friend asked me why I wanted an abortion.”

Her answer was simple: “I don't want the abortion,” she said. “Bruce wants it.”

Her friend responded, “You are having the abortion because the man that you are not going to be living with wants you to have it?"

“I thought, what an idiot I am,” Chrystie wrote. “I wanted the child very, very much.”

She gave birth to a baby girl in June 1980. Bruce chose not to be present at her birth, telling Vanity Fair his night consisted of crying in a hotel room.

However, his attitude changed. Chrystie wrote that after giving birth, “Bruce has been very loving and accepting of Casey.”

Although the articles were publicly available, Casey said she did not know about her father's initial reaction until she was 13 years old. She overheard a few cryptic remarks Bruce made to his ex-wife during a fight, telling Vanity Fair that she remembers at age 13 “asking my mom what he was talking about, until she confessed the history behind my birth.”

Casey has since reconciled with her father – and her mother has never questioned her decision to give birth, even in life apart from the decathlon winner.

“My fulfillment 10 years ago was totally through a man,” Chrystie wrote. “Today the important things in my life are my kids, my design work, my friends, and my running, and I feel fulfilled by those.” 

Like Chrystie almost did, many women abort under duress, feeling they have no choice but to follow the instructions of their husband, boyfriend, or parents.

Bruce Jenner went on to have six children with three wives.

Casey tells Vanity Fair that she supports her father's public and conspicuous transition into “Caitlin.” But some of his other six children have reacted differently.

Seventeen-year-old Kylie Jenner, Bruce's youngest child with third wife, Kris, admitted last month, “I feel like I go through these times where I hate my life.”

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

She told her father she missed their bonding times, saying, “I wish you were out here to do crazy things with me.” She then told the television audience, "Me and my dad have so many things in common, [but] he's making all of these changes.”

Kylie has denied rumors that she has had an abortion.

Advertisement
Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
Steve Weatherbe

,

Gay atheist rips into Irish bishops’ weak response on gay ‘marriage’

Steve Weatherbe
By Steve Weatherbe

June 2, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) -- A leading British commentator who is both a homosexual and an atheist has come down hard on the leadership of the Catholic Church in Ireland for what he calls its complacent “willingness to bend to prevailing mood” on Ireland’s same-sex “marriage” referendum.

The Irish voted two-to-one for allowing homosexual “marriage.” This result met with the full approval of Matthew Parris, a former Conservative MP and current columnist for the Spectator and Times newspapers who has been in a civil partnership with his longtime homosexual partner Julian Glover since 2006. He nonetheless devoted a scathing column in the Spectator to condemning the Catholic episcopate for undercutting its own beliefs with its tepid response to the referendum result.

He cited Dublin’s Archbishop Diarmuid Martin, who told Irish broadcaster RTE, “The Church needs a reality check right across the board, to look at the things we are doing well and look at the areas where we need to say, have we drifted away completely from young people?” Martin went on to question the effectiveness of the Church’s involvement in the school system, since polling indicated young people proved especially keen on legalizing same-sex “marriage.”

But Martin’s humble, apologetic self-examination was not what Parris wanted from the Church he disbelieves in, though his Wikipedia entry indicates he was never a member. What he wanted to see was something like “Moses’ (and God’s) furious reaction to the nude dancing and heretical worship of Moloch in the form of a golden calf: the Sin of the Calf in the Hebrew literature.”

Archbishop Martin went on the describe Ireland’s vote as a “social revolution” which must serve as a “reality check” for Church leaders about how bad a job they are doing as teachers and pastors.

What should Martin have said? According to Parris, “The conservative Catholic’s only proper response to [the referendum result] is that 62 per cent in a referendum does not cause a sin in the eyes of God to cease to be a sin.”

“Can’t these Christians see that the moral basis of their faith cannot be sought in the pollsters’ arithmetic? What has the Irish referendum shown us? It is that a majority of people in the Republic of Ireland in 2015 do not agree with their church’s centuries-old doctrine that sexual relationships between two people of the same gender are a sin.”

Parris went on to argue that Christians more than other religious believers ought to expect their teachings to be unpopular, given “the fate of their Messiah, and the persecution of adherents to the Early Church. ‘Blessed are ye when men shall revile you and persecute you,’ says Paul.”

Click "like" to support Catholics Restoring the Culture!

Parris concludes with a question. He wonders if Martin’s response -- and Pope Francis’ too -- to the Irish loss, reveal that they never really believed their moral positions were from God after all –“that on some half-conscious level neither ever really believed that morality was absolute or objective anyway — or supposed we really thought they were serious? Have some of us, in short, made the mistake of taking the church at its word?”

Parris’s argument at this point rests on an atheist’s typically truncated understanding of Christian teaching—that it consists solely of repeating God’s word as distilled from the Bible. Clearly it has never occurred to him that the Church has developed a moral theology based on reason and the concept of natural law which it has passed down in the form of millennia-old Tradition (not “centuries-old” as Parris puts it).  That homosexuality is a sin not because God says so, but that God says so because He is the designer of humanity and ought to know best how we function.

But this does not necessarily make Parris wrong in his assessment of the Catholic hierarchy’s milquetoast response to the referendum. Raised in a time when the Church’s power was peaking, entering seminary with the expectation of preferment and perquisites, most current bishops never signed on to be reviled like Jesus Christ was, or, perhaps worse, ignored as an irrelevant anachronism.

So the answer to his question could be that the current Church leadership is indeed suffering from a crisis of doubt, but this need not be true of earlier generations, and is not even an accurate characterization of the Catholic faithful or bishops in the developing countries in Africa and Asia. There persecution is growing, and the Faith is strong.

Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook