By Amy L. Contrada
Posted March 7, 2012; revised May 3, 2012
RomneyCare offers “free” elective surgical abortions.
Mitt Romney was the enabler. He signed the law in 2006 – after his supposed pro-life conversion.
This is one way his government-dictated health plan is playing out. And he’s still proud of it. When he does touch on defects in his health plan, he never mentions abortion coverage as a problem. He’s either fine with it, or realizes he has to downplay it to get the conservative vote.
When the RomneyCare law was first implemented, there was a $50 copay for low-income women covered by Commonwealth Care (in Plan 2) – and possibly even a $0 copay for women at the lowest income level (in Plan 1) – for an elective surgical abortion. Since at least 2008 (and possibly before), online documents confirm that RomneyCare abortions for women in Plan 1 have been "free" – $0 copay (or $50 and $100 for those in Plans 2 and 3), and many of those covered pay no monthly premiums.
Whether or not the free or low-cost abortions were available prior to RomneyCare is beside the point. The question to ask is, why did a “pro-life” Governor sign a law including this “benefit”?
Of course, the abortions are not exactly free. We, the taxpayers cover the cost, whether we want to or not.
Amazingly, as overall RomneyCare costs and insurance premiums escalate, the abortion copay for low-income women remains $0 or a just a few dollars more! Why?
Because government health care is promoting abortion. This is really about “population control” by arrogant politicians and bureaucrat elites, righteously implementing Margaret Sanger’s eugenics dream. They don’t like excess people, especially if they’re “low income.”
HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius recently shocked conservatives with her statement that, “The reduction in the number of pregnancies compensates for cost of contraception.” For such people, it’s an easy jump from contraception to abortion. Just think of all the health care that won’t have to be provided if a baby is disposed of before he’s born.
They view pregnancy (other than in their own families) as a negative health “condition.” It’s perfectly fine – and even enlightened – to see a baby as a cancer to be cut out and thrown into the hazardous waste bin.
To what extent does Mitt Romney fit in with that “enlightened” crowd? Possibly, he’s just motivated by his overweening ambition – to the point of not caring about anything other than going where he thinks the votes are. Whatever his motives, he cannot erase his severely pro-abortion record.
Romney’s pro-abortion timeline
Romney’s own record is clearly in support of “a woman’s right to choose” to kill her baby, and pro population control:
1992: Romney voted for “population-control fanatic” Paul Tsongas in the Democrat Presidential primary.
1994: In his U.S. Senate debate with Ted Kennedy, he said: "I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time that my mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a U.S. Senate candidate. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law [sic] for 20 years, that we should sustain and support it. And I sustain and support that law [sic] and the right of a woman to make that choice." (Video)
2002: In his campaign for Governor of Massachusetts, Romney told Planned Parenthood he supported Roe v. Wade, state-funded abortions for low-income women, insurance coverage of contraception, expanded availability of “emergency contraception” (the morning-after abortion pill), buffer zones around abortion clinics, and “age-appropriate sex education” in the schools. He also noted his support for the state law allowing a girl under 18 to bypass her parents and get a judge’s permission for an abortion. "I will preserve and protect a woman's right to choose and am devoted and dedicated to honoring my word in that regard. I will not change any provisions of Massachusetts' pro-choice laws," he said in a debate. (See another of his unequivocal pledges in this video.) He picked a pro-abortion running mate for Lt. Governor.
Romney’s 2002 Planned Parenthood questionnaire.
2002-2006: As Governor, Romney never expressed religious-freedom concerns over the 2002 state law requiring employers to offer health insurance including contraception benefits. It was just a cost issue to him.
2004 (November 9): Romney claims he converted to a pro-life outlook following consideration of embryo and cloning research. (So, an abstraction supposedly woke him up on the human life issue? Yet, decades’ worth of descriptions of abortion techniques and graphic images of tiny babies torn limb from limb had not affected him?)
After his “conversion” and governorship: Romney still declares abortion to be a state’s rights issue, believes abortions are acceptable in the case of rape and incest, and says some human embryo research is fine.
2011: His signature achievement, RomneyCare, continues to offer free (or very low-cost) elective abortions. The Massachusetts HealthCare Connector benefits outline (October 1, 2011) confirms this.
Individual mandate and coverage mandates
The conservative media are understandably upset over the rediscovery of Mitt Romney’s July 2009 op-ed, urging ObamaCare to include an individual mandate (for each citizen to purchase health insurance or pay a fine) as pioneered by RomneyCare. (See RedState and National Review.) That op-ed contradicts Romney’s recent statements that RomneyCare is just a state solution, and he didn’t see it as a model for federal health care reform.
The individual mandate is not the only mandate in RomneyCare. Health insurance companies are told by the RomneyCare Health Connector authority which benefits they must include in their various plans, and what the copays will be. One of these mandated benefits is surgical abortion.
Andrew McCarthy wrote of RomneyCare:
Besides the individual mandate, Governor Romney’s op-ed also proposed government-managed cures to address the government-caused cost spiral generated by the government-designed fee-for-service structure. Patients, he suggested, should be “required to pay a portion of their bill, except for certain conditions” — to be chosen, of course, by the government…. nowhere does the op-ed make any mention of the Constitution. [Emphasis added.]
Thus, Governor Romney opened a wide door. So now, surgical abortion is one of the “certain conditions” in Massachusetts that has no copay (or a very low copay in some plans).
And yes, there’s also the issue of that bothersome Constitution – whether state or federal –that Romney chooses to ignore (as he also did when implementing “gay marriage” in Massachusetts).
The conservative media should pay more attention to the mandated benefits side of RomneyCare. As we are seeing at the federal level, bureaucrats who implement legislation exercise tremendous control over how these mandates evolve. It’s only a matter of time before ObamaCare regulations follow in RomneyCare’s footsteps, and forces coverage for surgical abortions – with or without copays.
If people are upset now with mandated contraceptive coverage, wait until abortions are added to Kathleen Sebelius’ must-do list. She is no doubt eager to push the ObamaCare cure for that bothersome “condition” (pregnancy) – namely, abortion.
RomneyCare encourages women to abort their babies, and
the taxpayers are forced to pay
RomneyCare’s continuing $0-$100 copay for a surgical abortion will certainly result in an increase in abortions. The real cost of is carried by taxpayers. This violates the religious beliefs of a majority of citizens.
None of this seems to bother Mitt Romney. He never mentions his RomneyCare abortion benefit, or its moral violation of the citizenry.
A Family Research Council study notes,
… there is no provision in the [RomneyCare] law for a subscriber’s right of conscience. Without a conscience provision, the individual mandate can lead to abhorrent consequences that make a mockery of its justification on grounds of personal responsibility.
Romney could have vetoed the entire final version of RomneyCare, but instead he signed it. He played with a top-down government healthcare system and we, the citizens, lost.
Romney still defends his “bold” law as a major step forward overall, and refuses to take the blame for any problems now cropping up:
Governor Romney now says that he cannot be held responsible for the actions of the [RomneyCare] Connector board, because it’s “an independent body separate from the governor’s office.” However, many critics of the Massachusetts plan warned him precisely against the dangers of giving regulatory authority to a bureaucracy that would last long beyond his administration. (Michael Tanner, Cato Institute, 2008. Emphasis added.)
Many conservatives simply do not trust Romney to change course if he becomes President. Since he likes his RomneyCare, does he really believe it's imperative to overturn ObamaCare?
FREE ABORTIONS funded by the taxpayers: This RomneyCare outrage alone should disqualify Mitt Romney as a Republican candidate for President.
What is he laughing about? Governor Romney signs his
signature achievement, the RomneyCare health bill, in April 2006.
Senator Ted Kennedy, collaborator, stands behind the Governor.
On the far right, then House Speaker Sal DiMasi, now serving
an 8-year prison sentence for corruption.