Gibbs: Senate Health Bill Closer to Obama’s Goal on Abortion Funding Issue
I asked White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs off-camera after our interview this morning on "This Week" which health reform bill comes closer to President Barack Obama's goal, the House or the Senate version?
As lawmakers prepare to meet to reconcile the two bills before it can be sent to the president's desk, one big difference between the two bills are restrictions placed on abortion funding.
In the Senate version, the language on abortion funding would allow women who receive government subsidies to purchase insurance policies that cover abortion, but they would have to write separate checks.
But the House language is tougher. It prohibits women who receive government subsidies from taking out plans that provide abortion coverage.
I asked President Obama about that last month.
"There needs to be some more work before we get to the point where we're not changing the status quo. And that's the goal," Obama told me in November.
So, does the Senate language come closer to what the president wants than the House language?
Gibbs told me this morning: "Yes."
-jpt
Email
Sen. DeMint: GOP Race Could Go Until Convention
Obama Avoids Questions on Contraception Rule
“Most of the harm in the world is done by good people, and not by accident, lapse, or omission,” wrote Isabel Patterson in her 1943 essay The Humanitarian With the Guillotine.
“It is the result of their deliberate actions, long persevered in, which they hold to be motivated by high ideals toward virtuous ends.”
Posted by: The Audacity of Copenhagen | December 27, 2009, 10:17 am 10:17 am
I see he is in favor of taking the life of a baby and have those who are against abortion to assist them in paying for it. This is wrong from whatever side you are on.
Posted by: terminator | December 27, 2009, 10:57 am 10:57 am
Gibbs played Jake like a stradivarius.Trapper saved his tough questions for McConnell.Looks like Jake fits the liberal mold to take George’s chair on This Week.
Posted by: bobmac | December 27, 2009, 11:27 am 11:27 am
HOW DARE anyone take my money to pay for abortion– talk about “choices” there WAS a “choice” when the irresponsible laid down with no protection! I want these liberal loons out of office before they throw every moral we have out in the garbage and completely ruin what has over the centuries made America great. VOTE THEM OUT!!!
Posted by: Sally2you | December 27, 2009, 11:51 am 11:51 am
In a pluralistic society, law will always need to be more conservative than its most liberal members and more liberal than its most conservative members. I think the Senate language captures that fairly well. Obama, whatever you think of his policies, is not attempting to create a Christian theocracy and that is more in line with US tradition than the Republican right.
Posted by: Michael | December 27, 2009, 12:03 pm 12:03 pm
What is being missed is the Tapper question on lack of transparency promised by candidate Obama. A genuine overstated promise of the compaign trail and a true sidestep by Gibbs. Tapper let it go. Yes there are some needed things in the health care bill, which could and probably should have been done long ago, but there is more in there to not like that doesn’t CHANGE the original task of lower costs, better coverage, rein in the health care industry. There are too many politicians who are owned by their contributors rather than the people they represent: from the top down.
Posted by: kmb | December 27, 2009, 12:11 pm 12:11 pm
In a pluralistic society…LOL some of us need to get in the work force, pay taxes, (when possible) instead of being baby sat by Government, and see what U.S. tradition is, that would be the Republican way, right!
Posted by: Joemechanic | December 27, 2009, 12:17 pm 12:17 pm
joemechanic: 10.2% unemployment rate, yep, people are looking for jobs left and right can’t even get them at the local McDonalds…yes we have loads of people who want to work no jobs available…and besides the labor is cheaper to allow illegal immigrants to work in the meatpacking, landscaping and construction industries…
Posted by: phantomniter | December 27, 2009, 12:30 pm 12:30 pm
In a pluralistic society, law will always need to be more conservative than its most liberal members and more liberal than its most conservative members. I think the Senate language captures that fairly well.
Posted by: Michael |
Surely that is not the only metric you recognize for judging a law.
Posted by: Foghorn Leghorn | December 27, 2009, 12:50 pm 12:50 pm
Who cares what the President prefers to do with women’s bodies? It is a pity he didn’t tell the truth when he campaigned and that he did not read “The Humanitarian with the Guillotine” mentioned by The Audacity of Copenhagen.
Posted by: stsabc | December 27, 2009, 2:57 pm 2:57 pm
In a pluralistic society, law will always need to be more conservative than its most liberal members and more liberal than its most conservative members. I think the Senate language captures that fairly well. Obama, whatever you think of his policies, is not attempting to create a Christian theocracy and that is more in line with US tradition than the Republican right.
________________________________
Nicely put.
Posted by: tierra | December 27, 2009, 3:18 pm 3:18 pm
joemechanic: 10.2% unemployment rate, yep, people are looking for jobs left and right can’t even get them at the local McDonalds
___________________________________
As a point of comparison, when Reagan took office the unemployment rate was at 7.5% and got steadily worse for 2 full years before hitting a high of 10.8%.
It then levelled off at about 10% for six more months before slowly beginning to decrease.
Posted by: tierra | December 27, 2009, 3:24 pm 3:24 pm
President Obama’s goal is not to change the status quo when it comes to women’s health insurance and abortions.
The status quo for health insurance and abortions:
*Women can buy coverage, get it through their employer or husband’s employer–or a combination of both.
*No federal funding goes to pay for women’s abortions.
Why are people so upset about a president trying to keep the status quo on this sex specific issue?
Posted by: Status Quo | December 27, 2009, 3:56 pm 3:56 pm
I’m sure Gibbs and the rest of the Obama Administration prefer the Senate version because they are all neocons at heart.
Posted by: douvie | December 27, 2009, 4:49 pm 4:49 pm
I’m sure Gibbs and the rest of the Obama Administration prefer the Senate version because they are all neocons at heart.
Posted by: douvie | December 27, 2009, 4:49 pm 4:49 pm
I see he is in favor of taking the life of a baby and have those who are against abortion to assist them in paying for it. This is wrong from whatever side you are on.
—————————————-No, he is for following the law, which says that abortion is legal. I disagree with the law that allows people to own an unrestricted number of guns and carry concealed weapons. I would like that stopped as well. I am not for abortion or for guns but the Supreme Court says both are protected in the Constituion. You can disagree – but it is the law.
Posted by: mertzgm | December 27, 2009, 5:31 pm 5:31 pm
Oh, and I did not want to pay for Bush’s illegal war in Iraq either, but again, no choice.
Posted by: mertzgm | December 27, 2009, 5:32 pm 5:32 pm
No, mertzgm, abortion is NOT protected in the Constitution. Its legalization was based off a single Supreme Court decision that could easily be overturned depending on the composition of the court at a given time. The right to bear arms, however, is explicitly stated in the Bill of Rights and the Supreme Court cannot possibly affect it. Please don’t reference the Constitution if you don’t know what it says.
Posted by: Michael | December 27, 2009, 6:58 pm 6:58 pm
Sally2you, do you know there is a failure rate for every kind of properly used birth control of 3%. So don’t assume that women who had abortions were irresponsible. The majority of women I know who have had them were married, had children and simply couldn’t afford any more, either financially or emotionally. (one mom had a child that would need life-long care, another had two ill parents that she cared for along with her two young children.)
As for those objecting to federal dollars spent on abortions taking life, like another commenter here, I felt wronged that my tax dollars were spent attacking Iraq, killing many innocent men, women and children there.
Posted by: Lydia | December 27, 2009, 7:06 pm 7:06 pm
EVERYONE opposed to the Socialist “healthcare” bill should be on the phone first thing Monday morning to their Congressional Rep. Tell them that if they want to keep their seat in Congress, they had better vote to kill this bill.
Posted by: Ron | December 27, 2009, 8:19 pm 8:19 pm
I agree with Sally2you. Abortion is primarily used as a means of birth control by irresponsible people. Think about that … murdering another human being so somebody can have some fun.
Posted by: Mary | December 27, 2009, 8:22 pm 8:22 pm
Abortion is primarily used as a means of birth control by irresponsible people.
__________________________________
If good birth control techniques were sensibly taught, the abortion ‘problem’ would be far less.
As it stands, we have radical religious organisations attempting to dictate what can or can’t be taught as birth control.
Posted by: tierra | December 27, 2009, 9:27 pm 9:27 pm
So basically Obama wants taxpayer funded abortion despite what the public says:
“A new poll by Quinnipiac shows public opinion hardening on ObamaCare as Harry Reid attempts to push it through to its Senate conclusion. Overall, American voters oppose ObamaCare 53%-36%, but the issue of funding abortion through public funds is even more conclusive. By a margin of 72%-23%, voters disapprove of using federal funds to provide abortions or abortion coverage.”
Posted by: Robert | December 27, 2009, 10:11 pm 10:11 pm
So basically Obama wants taxpayer funded abortion
__________________________________
That’s not at all what the President said.
Posted by: tierra | December 27, 2009, 11:11 pm 11:11 pm
The democrats do not care what the constitution says nor do they care what the american people want. They have their marxist utopian society in their sights and nothing will stand in their way. In 2010, look for democrats to use the $500 billion slush fund that they are amassing to buy or steal as many votes as they need to continue down this path of destruction.
Posted by: Scott | December 27, 2009, 11:17 pm 11:17 pm
You liberals are WAY to inconsistent —— If the Obama administration had its way, I would be FORCED to buy health insurance, FORCED to buy carbon credits, FORCED to turn in my guns, FORCED to give 35% of my income to the government, FORCED to “eat right”, FORCED to drive a “green” car —— but ABORTION has to remain a “CHOICE”!!!! — You guys just kill me!!!!!
Posted by: HoosierValues | December 28, 2009, 12:22 am 12:22 am
A big win for many people but not the American taxpayers. It was a win for the drug companies, the hospital companies, and the for-profit health insurance corporations. They get billions of government dollars and millions more from Americans now forced to buy their products. The is also a huge win for the lobbyists. This vote was also a political win. It was a big deal for Barack Obama, Max Baucus, Rahm Emanuel, and Harry Reid–who cared more about putting up a “W” on the scoreboard than about the policy. It was also a big day for senators like Blanche Lincoln, Mary Landrieu, Ben Nelson, and Joe Lieberman. They were bought like hookers, while taxpayers in other states pay for their pork.
It was a loss for the country. Our broken health care system will remain broken and costs will continue to rise at an alarming rate. Hundreds of billions will be given to poorly regulated private health insurance companies in the hope that they spend that money on actually providing people with health care. It forces millions of people to buy very expensive insurance that they cannot afford to get actual health care, so that Democrats can proudly say millions more people are “covered.” Instead of reining in the insurance companies, it only enriches, and empowers them further. It will be a wasteful, expensive, and probably unpopular program for only a small subset of lower income Americans. .
It will put roughly 15 million more people on Medicaid/CHIP. But these improvements come at a huge cost. There is a poorly designed tax that will cause many people’s insurance to get worse, and a mandate forcing people to buy low quality, expensive insurance for unregulated private insurance companies And this is the hope and change people voted for. This is hope and change we can not afford.
Posted by: bailedout | December 28, 2009, 2:27 am 2:27 am
“So, does the Senate language come closer to what the president wants than the House language?
Gibbs told me this morning: “Yes.” ”
===================
That’s on just one issue – abortion restrictions. You didn’t ask about the whole bill: Senior premium costs, whose paying more taxes, the Seante’s 85% of premiums have to go to health care -not overhead or profit, etc.
Posted by: The_Mick | December 28, 2009, 3:26 am 3:26 am
Finally, an excellant article on Big Government called “Lessons From John Galt”, the main character in Ayn Rand’s classic, “Atlas Shrugged.” Don Freemand writes:
“Recent headlines seem lifted directly out of an Ayn Rand novel. President Obama decries the “fat cat bankers on Wall Street”. Harry Reid attacks insurance companies for making too much profit. House Democrat leaders call Tea Partiers “Racist, Nazi, Gun Nuts”. How about this nauseating statement made by Army General George Casey after the Muslim terrorist attack on Ft. Hood?
‘As great a tragedy as this was, it would be a shame if our diversity became a casualty as well.’
Should be a “must read” for everyone!!
Posted by: M. Summer | December 28, 2009, 7:47 am 7:47 am
Is anyone else tired of Gibbs?
Is anyone else as the bumper sticker says, “ARE YOU MAD YET?”.
Posted by: Ed Taylor | December 28, 2009, 11:22 am 11:22 am
Yeah, I’m tired of Gibbs AND his boss!
Posted by: LongT | December 28, 2009, 11:32 am 11:32 am
What’s the old saying? Any port in a storm?
Posted by: LongT | December 28, 2009, 11:33 am 11:33 am
tierra; Just wait until you see the new IRS 1040 form that asks you for your policy number or pay a fine. You’ll really love them then.
Posted by: LongT | December 28, 2009, 11:36 am 11:36 am
so are terrorists covered by the democrats bill? probably
Posted by: catman | December 28, 2009, 11:48 am 11:48 am
Bailedout – I could not have said it better. I am copying that and I may re-post it elsewhere. Someone actually gets it!
Posted by: War919 | December 28, 2009, 12:23 pm 12:23 pm
bailedout, I agree with most of what you said but as to this bill being a political win for Obama and company, that’s a bit in dispute. What looks like a win now could translate into a BIG loss this coming November with the Republicans taking back both houses of Congress and Obama now being reduced to that of a figurehead, or a ceremonial President sipping tea with dignitaries.
Well, there is a possibility. Let’s say the Democrats were to find a way to sabotage the November 2010 elections and somehow win the elections even though the voters voted them out, like Al Franken, THEN the health care bill would be a political win.
Posted by: marco | December 28, 2009, 1:34 pm 1:34 pm
I see he is in favor of taking the life of a baby and have those who are against abortion to assist them in paying for it. This is wrong from whatever side you are on.
—————————————-No, he is for following the law, which says that abortion is legal. I disagree with the law that allows people to own an unrestricted number of guns and carry concealed weapons. I would like that stopped as well. I am not for abortion or for guns but the Supreme Court says both are protected in the Constituion. You can disagree – but it is the law. Posted by: mertzgm ________________________mertzgm, why don’t you show me a law that says you have to buy handguns and hunting rifles for people who want them.
Posted by: marco | December 28, 2009, 1:38 pm 1:38 pm
It’s apparently slipped your mind Bush was not elected by a majority of the people. he had relatives and the Supree court get him appointed president. Making statements about Franken’s win is ridiculous when compared to how Bush and family put him into the WH from the get go. Short term memory loss. Just like the crooks in DC. heads we win. tails you lose. It’s an inconvenient truth but people like you are always on both sides of the coin. Claiming that the side you’re on is the right one.
SECREG666
Posted by: secreg756 | December 28, 2009, 1:43 pm 1:43 pm
Oh, and I did not want to pay for Bush’s illegal war in Iraq either, but again, no choice.
Posted by: mertzgm
_________________________
The Constitution states that the President has the right to send troops abroad whether Congress declares war or not.
In the case of Iraq, however, Congress DID declare war…. with the votes of every member of YOUR party.
There is no illegality here either mertzgm.
Posted by: marco | December 28, 2009, 1:43 pm 1:43 pm
O’Babble had better concentrate on keeping our country safe from Islamo-Fascists and put an end to his attempt to further control our country and to put it further into the hands of his fellow Socialists. First things first Mr. Bab.
Posted by: Ron | December 28, 2009, 2:43 pm 2:43 pm
The health care reform turkey is a piece of junk. Shame on Obama. Obama doesn’t have the courage of a chicken to cross the road even. Obama could never be a true leader of change such as Nelson Mandela or Ghandi, because Obama lacks strength and courage. Obama has no will for a fight, unless it’s a fight to the bottome of medocrity. Congress should not vote for this phony health care bill that denies any reforms for 4 years, it’s a travesty of reform.
Posted by: Sally | December 28, 2009, 2:44 pm 2:44 pm
Why does this bill contain language that prevents any future congress or senate from repealing an independent medicare advisory panel? After the decision on mamograms,I would not want a permanent panel to make any decisions on treatment or tests,sponsered by the government.
Posted by: stormerF2 | December 29, 2009, 12:07 pm 12:07 pm
It shows the obvious arrogance of his current gang on Capitol Hill to pass a law that precludes challenging some other law they pass. I’ve never quite seen anything like this. Only corrupt politicians could even think of such a thing.
Posted by: LongT | December 29, 2009, 12:29 pm 12:29 pm
I am reading Obama’s book ‘The Audacity to Believe’. When the president of the United States of America falls short on protecting the unborn the Constitution falls. A Christian believes that birth starts at conception and with conception a soul and a body is born. We cannot decide on our own when a child becomes human. Is it at three months? Five months? Seven months? It is an unalienable right for all to be protected from conception on. Everything falls apart when a ‘commander in chief’ will not lift his hand to protect his own people, his own children, the smallest and most defenseless in his country. The book that I am reading at the moment should be entitled “The Audacity to Deceive”. Obama must be defeated in the next election and replaced with a ‘commander in chief’ that will defend life and respect God’s creation as the Founding Fathers intended. Life is sacred and cannot be snuffed out or classified as inconvenient; this is not a choice. When the president publically states that he is ‘pro choice’ he is in essence ‘pro death’ condoning, facilitating and giving his blessing for the mass murder of the children of North America. When life itself is disregarded from the onset all politics fall apart; all other statements, good intentions fall, becomes an empty void of substance. Again, life is sacred. Abortion cannot be disguised as a choice; it is murder.
Posted by: rene mercier | December 30, 2009, 4:38 am 4:38 am