No More Review: RNC’s Abortion Coverage Is Toast
EmailABC News' Teddy Davis Reports:
The chairman of the Republican National Committee announced late Thursday that he is unilaterally ending coverage of elective abortion under the RNC's Cigna health-care plan.
"Money from our loyal donors should not be used for this purpose," said RNC Chair Michael Steele in a written statement. "I don't know why this policy existed in the past, but it will not exist under my administration. Consider this issue settled."
The RNC's coverage of elective abortion, which began in 1991, was first reported on Thursday evening by Politico.
The RNC's current leadership says it was unaware that abortion was included in the party's health insurance plan until Politico contacted the press office on Wednesday.
Once the Politico story was published on Thursday evening, the RNC told ABC News that its insurance plan could only be changed by the party's 27-member executive committee.
Because of this procedural requirement, RNC chief of staff Ken McKay sent a memo to the RNC's 168 members saying that the chairman was calling on the party's 27-member executive committee to review the RNC's coverage of elective abortion in the "immediate future."
Then, at 11:39 pm ET, the RNC went a step further and announced that Steele was taking matters into his own hands.
According to RNC press secretary Gail Gitcho, once Steele learned of the party's coverage of elective abortion, he "instructed the RNC Director of Administration to opt the RNC out of any coverage for elective abortion services in its health insurance policy.'
Abortion is a politically sensitive issue for Steele. Although he describes himself as pro-life, he has been criticized in the past by some conservatives because he believes that the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision upholding a federal right to abortion should remain in place under the doctrine of stare decisis.
Sen. DeMint: GOP Race Could Go Until Convention 
Obama Avoids Questions on Contraception Rule
This is wonderful! I have been anxiously awaiting those RNC female employees to come see me in my office behind the dumpster! Call now! Appointments are filling up fast!
Posted by: Dr. Backalley | November 13, 2009, 2:38 am 2:38 am
Wow! Hats off to Steele and I, personally, support his decision 100%.
Way To Go!!!
Posted by: LuvnUSA | November 13, 2009, 2:46 am 2:46 am
Questions remain:
a) Who approved it?
b) How many were killed, with approval from the RNC
Posted by: Willem van Oranje | November 13, 2009, 3:06 am 3:06 am
Democrats are hoping this will given them a pass on abortion in the health care bill. It won’t. Individuals who are pro-life or simply oppose using tax dollars for abortions aren’t suddenly going to be okey dokey with such a policy because they’ve discovered that the RNC’s health policy covers abortion. They don’t take their moral cues from whatever the RNC does.
Posted by: Benson | November 13, 2009, 3:10 am 3:10 am
Are you kidding me? The same people who have attacked and destroyed doctors, supported a “cause” etc have been funding abortions on the backs of their donors? Seriously, this has to be a joke………….either that or the MOST hypocritical thing I’ve ever heard.
When are common Conservatives going to wake up and understand that these people in the RNC don’t support them or their causes?
I’m seriously blown away by this…..
Posted by: dk | November 13, 2009, 3:47 am 3:47 am
oh boy.. a whole bunch of wealthy, menopausal women won’t have access to gov’t funded abortions. yippee!! what a win for pro-lifers. ‘
is this guy frikkin serious?
Posted by: birdy | November 13, 2009, 4:41 am 4:41 am
The GOP has become a laughing stock. They are a bunch of nuts. It’s kinda sad really.
Posted by: Scott | November 13, 2009, 5:06 am 5:06 am
Cute heading, “RNCs Abortion Coverage is History”. However, I’m sure we’ll hear about this oversight for awhile especially, from their opponents during next year’s election. Now I see that any concern of a government mandate that funds abortions is already being practiced by private insurance. This makes me wonder about some of the other arguments against a public option. Despite the facts, the side that folks distrust the least will win.
Posted by: 92F150 | November 13, 2009, 5:17 am 5:17 am
I certainly hope the Viagra and vasectomy coverage has ended as well— And how about a guarantee of cradle- to -grave financial support for 13 year olds and the babies they are forced to bear as a result of rape and incest?
Posted by: sherrill-1 | November 13, 2009, 6:15 am 6:15 am
“And how about a guarantee of cradle- to -grave financial support for 13 year olds and the babies they are forced to bear as a result of rape and incest? ”
—
The story says ‘elective abortions’. In almost all cases where the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest or risk to mother’s life, it is NOT elective.
Just like federal dollars are and should be use to cover abortion for those same reasons.
Posted by: malcat | November 13, 2009, 7:06 am 7:06 am
So the repubs think just by saying “it’s settled” it will just go away? After all the puritan crap they’ve flung??I DON’T THINK SO!!
Posted by: jks | November 13, 2009, 8:00 am 8:00 am
Can’t help but think this would be front page stuff if it was a Democratic embarrassment of this massive scale. Proving that the GOP is laughably hypocritical is a big deal…
Posted by: Matt | November 13, 2009, 8:08 am 8:08 am
One word for the GOP= HYPOCRITES!What a sad bunch they are!!!
Posted by: ANGIE IN PA | November 13, 2009, 9:21 am 9:21 am
Of course, it is a moot point for the RNC. How on earth would any of those folks even hope to get pregnant?
Posted by: Doppelganger | November 13, 2009, 12:05 pm 12:05 pm
malcat wrote: The story says ‘elective abortions’. In almost all cases where the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest or risk to mother’s life, it is NOT elective. WRONG! Elective means that you have a choice to either get or not a procedure without direct risk for your life. Only cases where the mother’s life is in danger are NON-ELECTIVE. Many “pro-life” advocates will contend that any abortion from pregnancies caused by rape or incest is wrong and that the child should be brought to term and then given up for adoption. As for federal dollars, if a procedure is LEGAL, there should not be interference from religious groups to restrict it, else, you might have blood transfusion funding rescinded by Mormons, and so on…
Posted by: treblig56 | November 13, 2009, 2:14 pm 2:14 pm
“Many “pro-life” advocates will contend that any abortion from pregnancies caused by rape or incest is wrong and that the child should be brought to term and then given up for adoption. ”
—-
Yes treblig, I’m aware of what some of the more extreme pro-life advocates believe. I happen to not be one of them.
I was talking specifically about insurance companies’ coverage of abortion. I know that my employer does cover all abortions regardless of reason.
I also have personal knowledge of several policies that cover non-elective abortions only where the definition of non-elective does include abortions in the case of rape, incest, minors (less than 16) along with risk of death or serious harm to mother’s health.
I of course do not know the details of all companies and/or individual policies. But I do not personally know of any policies that restrict non-elective only to cases where the mother’s life is at risk.
Posted by: malcat | November 13, 2009, 6:52 pm 6:52 pm