Question: if a two cent tax on newspapers and requiring an ultrasound before abortions are deemed unconstitutional infringements on rights, what about everything required for guns?

In 1936, the Supreme Court struck down a two percent tax on newspapers as "unconstitutional under the due process of law clause because it abridges the freedom of the press" (Grosjean v. American Press Co., Inc.).
For abortions, requiring an ultrasound before an abortion is deemed to impose to great of a burden on those seeking an abortion.  The Supreme Court just turned down an appeal from the state of Oklahoma on this issue.

The rejected Ultrasound Act stipulated that at least one hour before an abortion physicians must 1). perform an ultrasound 2). explain what it depicts 3). show the pregnant woman 4). provide a medical description “which shall include the dimensions of the embryo or fetus, the presence of cardiac activity...the presence of external members and internal organs….”

Interestingly, ultrasounds are generally promoted as being simple for women.  During the "first trimester fetal ultrasound typically takes between 15 and 20 minutes" and during the "second trimester ultrasound, completed between 18 and 22 weeks, is usually the longest procedure, lasting 30 to 45 minutes."  The typical cost of an ultrasound is "around $200."

So, are a woman's reproductive rights greater than a woman's right to her own life?

Yet, in Washington, DC it takes 5 hours of training to get a license and register a gun.  One must also take a 20-question exam on DC's firearms laws and regulations.  You must also give your fingerprints and submit a pre-owned firearm for ballistics testing at the office.  Additional cost include having to take the forms in in person.  The total dollar cost is over $500.

Alito in Chicago v. McDonald: "In sum, it is clear that the Framers and ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty."  Scalia in Heller also referred to these rights as "fundamental."

Bottom line: How can a 20 minute test that costs $200 be deemed of as imposing an undue burden on a right, but a 5 hour training requirement and many hours of filing out forms and delivering them plus over $500 in fees not be considered such a burden?  How can a 2 percent tax on newspaper be deemed abridging the First amendment but what could easily be over a 100 percent tax on a gun be viewed as OK?

The court in Grosjean v. American Press Co., Inc. struck down the newspaper tax because it was reducing circulation of what it deemed to be a "fundamental right" ("it is seen to be a deliberate and calculated device in the guise of a tax to limit the circulation of information to which the public is entitled in virtue of the constitutional guaranties").  The tax on gun and ammunition purchases would seem to have the exact same effect on guns.

"Teen pregnancy drops as Planned Parenthood vanishes"

Here is my interpretation of the results: If you make abortion more difficult, people should have fewer premarital pregnancies.  They would have fewer premarital pregnancies because the risk of getting pregnant would be greater.  Now I would have done the study differently with a clearer panel approach with fixed geographic and year effects and I would have checked to see if there were more places to have abortions, but the work by the American Life League available here is suggestive.

Of course, these results if correct would be consistent with my earlier work and would be consistent with a drop in single parent families.

What do Democrats mean by "choice"?

I would also add the choice of where one can go to school.  From the United Features Syndicate.

More on the costs of single parent families

Dr. Keith Ablow has this article on "the psychological impact of single parenting." My past research has looked at the dramatic increase in single parent families from the liberalization of abortion rules.

Obama's campaign continues long string of dishonest attack ads on Romney

This ad goes quite a bit too far.

The Obama campaign began airing a TV ad Saturday in key election states attacking Mitt Romney for his stances on abortion and Planned Parenthood that was immediately rebuked by the Romney campaign as “viciously” negative and false.
The 30-second spot titled “Troubled” is airing in Virginia and seven other swing states.
“Every woman who believes decisions about our bodies and our health-care should be our own is troubled Mitt Romney supports overturning Roe v. Wade,” says a female voice at the beginning of the ad. “Romney backed a law that outlaws all abortions, even in cases of rape and incest.”
Romney, though, has not taken that position publicly.
In response, the Romney campaign pointed to Romney’s op-ed last year in the National Review titled “My Pro-Life Pledge” in which he said abortion should be “limited to only instances of rape, incest or to save the life of a mother.” . . .

UPDATE: "Poll: Obama barrage barely holds back Romney"


Politico has this discussion here.

Either way, a ton of money is being spent -- by Obama and GOP outside groups, in particular -- without any major shift in the race. Obama's ads may have held back Romney's momentum, but we're still looking at a close race with no silver-bullet ads on either side. . . .
"In the battlegrounds, one in 12 say the commercials have changed their minds about President Obama or Republican Mitt Romney — a difference on the margins, but one that could prove crucial in a close race. . . ."

Obama's misleading over requiring religious organizations to pay for abortion?

Obama really thinks that Catholic organizations won't feel that they are being forced to pay for contraception and abortion services if Obama simply says that they are forced to buy insurance that is mandated to have these services included and that Obama mandates that the insurance companies have to provide this for free. How is mandating that the churches provide abortion services to their employees any different than the government mandating that you can only buy insurance that contains these services? Even Obama can't believe others think that this changes anything. From Fox Business:

The president, facing a growing controversy fueled by angry religious organizations, said religious employers will not be required to offer free birth control to their employees as part of their insurance coverage.
Instead, that responsibility has been diverted to insurers, according to the administration’s compromise. The new requirement mandates that insurers provide workers at religious entities such as Catholic universities or hospitals with "contraceptive care free of charge."
“There is no such thing as ‘free of charge.’ It’s a complete ruse,” said Dr. Merrill Matthews, resident scholar at the Institute for Policy Innovation, which advocates for free markets.
“He thinks this stuff actually comes free,” Matthews added. “It doesn’t come free. People actually pay for it and there’s an administrative cost added to it.” . . .

The Washington Post's Marcus praises Obama's "fig leaf":

. . . . Women who work for religiously affiliated institutions that morally object to contraception will nonetheless have access to contraceptive coverage free of charge, just as women who work for other employers. They won’t have to sign up for any different coverage or pay any additional money.

The employers, for their part, won’t have to pay for the coverage, say they offer it or even direct employees to places where they can obtain it. The extra cost, and here is where the fig leaf comes in, will be born by the insurance companies themselves.

This is, of course, a dodge — a quite clever and positive one. Everyone gets to say that the religious institutions aren’t “paying for” contraception. But if covering contraception ends up costing them money, you can be sure those costs will be passed along, as costs always are, to customers.

The beauty of this dodge is that it is entirely possible, even likely, that adding the coverage will not raise rates. Easier, cheaper access to contraception means fewer pregnancies. Pregnancies — and the resulting babies — cost insurers far more than birth control pills. For example, according to the Guttmacher Institute, the federal government reported no increase in costs after Congress required coverage of contraceptives for federal employees in 1998. Think of it as immaculate contraceptive coverage.

Of course, fig leaves can leave gaps. One big gap in the administration’s plan involves how to treat religiously affiliated institutions that are self-insured. In those situations, the employer pays an insurance company to administer the plan but bears the cost of medical care directly. The administration’s approach does not necessarily solve the problem for such entities. . . .

Here is the problem. If this approach really saved money, insurance companies wouldn't be trying to charge for the service to begin with.

From the Catholic Bishops Conference

. . . The change was initially met with a reserved response. While many Democrats praised it and Republicans dismissed it, nonpartisan groups like the Conference of Catholic Bishops said they were reserving judgment.

But the Conference, after earlier calling the change a "first step in the right direction," issued a lengthy statement overnight blasting the plan. And they joined others in calling for legislation in Congress to reverse the policy, something Republicans said they were not abandoning despite Friday's announcement.

"We think there needs to be a legislative fix to protect our religious liberties," Bishop William Lori, a member of the Conference, told Fox News on Saturday. "I think that our First Amendment religious rights are far too precious to be entrusted to regulatory rules."

Lori and the rest of the Conference said they want to see the "mandate" rescinded altogether. They pointed out several lingering concerns. They said the change appears to make no consideration for religious insurers or self-insuring religious employers -- or for religious for-profit employers and secular nonprofit employers. . . .

"And in the case where the employee and insurer agree to add the objectionable coverage, that coverage is still provided as a part of the objecting employer's plan, financed in the same way as the rest of the coverage offered by the objecting employer. . . .

Are women really this dumb to believe that they can get abortion coverage and contraception for free? Obama and the Democrats seem to think so (from The Hill newspaper):

"President Obama has set a standard that every woman has a right to contraception coverage at no additional cost," the DNC email says, "and he's done it in a way that respects religious freedoms."
An accompanying YouTube video, which includes excerpts from Obama's Friday press conference announcing the change, aims to highlight the sharp distinction between the president's compromise and a proposal – being drafted by Republicans – to repeal the birth-control mandate for employers.
"Who do you think should make decisions about contraception?" the ad asks. "You, or your employer?" . . .

Holy war over health care


Catholics mocked


UPDATE: Is Representative Kathy Hochul (NY, D - 26th District) just dense when she says that Obama solved the problem so that Catholics won't have to pay for abortion and contraception? The news reporter explaining things here must also be pretty dense.

Surprisingly little opposition to Obamacare's mandate that religious organizations provide contraceptions and abortions

Given that Obamacare will force the provision of morning after pills, this is more than contraception. In any case, I am surprised that not much more than 50 percent of voters oppose this use of government force. Rasmussen Reports finds:

Half of voters do not agree with the Obama administration’s action forcing Catholic institutions to pay for birth control measures that they morally oppose. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 39% of Likely U.S. Voters believe the government should require a church or religious organization to provide contraceptives for women even if it violates their deeply held beliefs. Fifty percent (50%) disagree and oppose such a requirement that runs contrary to strong beliefs, while 10% more are undecided. . . .

Meanwhile, Obama appears to be giving a different cover to their policies. From Fox News:

Obama's chief spokesman and his top campaign strategist both said the administration was searching for ways to allay the concern of Roman Catholics who say the birth control mandate would force them to violate their religious beliefs against contraception. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell said the policy was a "huge mistake" that the administration should reconsider. "And if they don't, Congress will act," McConnell said. . . .
Obama campaign strategist David Axelrod made the same point. "The real question is how do we get together and resolve this in a way that respects the concerns that have been raised but also assures women across this country that they're going to have the preventive care that they need," Axelrod said on MSNBC.
The comments by Axelrod and Carney created a sense that the White House's public emphasis has clearly shifted and that further accommodation would be considered. But there was no sign the administration would move to completely withdraw the rule, and it was unclear that the White House could strike the balance of ensuring contraceptive coverage for all while defusing the fierce opposition of some religious groups when those two points are in conflict. . . .

A discussion of the costs of abortion

Bill Flax has a useful discussion of the abortion debate and the costs of abortion available here.

So much for Obama's promises that the new health care bill wouldn't fund abortions

Look, I knew that the bill was going to fun abortions. But the promise that it wouldn't was enough to get Obamacare passed by the House. From CNSNews:

Bantering with the audience at a fundraiser in St. Louis yesterday, President Barack Obama bragged about a new regulation, proposed by the Department of Health and Human Services, that the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has denounced as an “unprecedented attack on religious liberty.”

"Darn right!" an audience member at the fundraiser shouted as Obama described the regulation.

“Darn tooting!” Obama said back.

The proposed regulation, designed to implement part of Obamacare, will require all private health plans in the United States to cover sterilizations and all FDA-approved contraceptives--including those that cause abortions—without charging any fees or co-pay. These regulations were drawn to implement a provision in Obama’s health-care law that calls for all health-care plans to cover “preventive services.” . . . .

A “religious exemption” in the regulation is so narrowly drawn that it does not include any lay Catholics, or any Catholic hospitals, charitable organizations, or colleges or universities. Thus, many major Catholic institutions in the United States would be forced to choose between dropping health insurance coverage for their employees and students or violating the moral teachings of their own church. . . . .

Here is an article from 2009 where Obama is claiming that a Catholic Bishop is wrong in claiming Obamacare will fund abortions.

President Barack Obama and Cardinal Justin Rigali, chairman of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops Committee on Pro-Life Activities, have taken directly contradictory positions on whether the health-care bill in the U.S. Congress funds abortion.

Cardinal Rigali says the bill does fund abortion and that those who say otherwise are pushing an “illusion.”

President Obama says the bill does not fund abortion and that those who say otherwise are guilty of a “fabrication.” . . .

More on Obama's Executive Order on Abortions not being of any use

Jake Tapper has the story here.

the Obama administration had approved $160 million for Pennsylvania to set up a “high risk” pool for individuals with pre-existing conditions who had been uninsured for the previous six months.

The language in the Pennsylvania solicitation for that plan, however, seemed to suggest abortions could be covered.

While the solicitation said that “elective abortions are not covered,” it also stated the plan would include “only abortions and contraceptives that satisfy the requirements” of a number of Pennsylvania statutes -- including one stating that abortions can be provided by physicians who determine in “his best clinical judgment, the abortion is necessary ... in the light of all factors (physical, emotional, psychological, familial and the woman's age) relevant to the well-being of the woman. No abortion which is sought solely because of the sex of the unborn child shall be deemed a necessary abortion.” . . .

UPDATE: Just a reminder of who relied on this promise in their votes for the health care bill.

Obama administration starts tax-funded abortions under Obamacare

It is one thing to support abortion. It is something quite different to force those who think that abortion is wrong to pay for it.

The Obama administration has officially approved the first instance of taxpayer funded abortions under the new national government-run health care program. This is the kind of abortion funding the pro-life movement warned the kind of abortion funding the pro-life movement warned about when Congress considered the bill.

The Obama Administration will give Pennsylvania $160 million to set up a new "high-risk" insurance program under a provision of the federal health care legislation enacted in March.

It has quietly approved a plan submitted by an appointee of pro-abortion Governor Edward Rendell under which the new program will cover any abortion that is legal in Pennsylvania.

The high-risk pool program is one of the new programs created by the sweeping health care legislation, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, President Obama signed into law on March 23. The law authorizes $5 billion in federal funds for the program, which will cover as many as 400,000 people when it is implemented nationwide.

"The Obama Administration will give Pennsylvania $160 million in federal tax funds, which we've discovered will pay for insurance plans that cover any legal abortion," said Douglas Johnson, legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee. . . .

"41 percent of births were to unmarried women in 2008"

Given everything that we know about how much more difficult it is for women to raise children on their own, this is depressing news. There are many reasons for this, but I have argued in the past that a significant portion of this is due to the liberalization of abortion rules.

New mothers in the U.S. are increasingly older and better educated than they were two decades ago, according to a study on the state of American motherhood released Thursday by the Pew Research Center.

But that doesn't mean women are waiting for the right moment: The study also found that half of mothers surveyed said parenthood "just happened."

While most women giving birth are doing it within the context of marriage, researchers said a record 41 percent of births were to unmarried women in 2008. That's up from 28 percent in 1990, according to the study, "The New Demography of American Motherhood." The trend crossed major racial and ethnic groups.

Nearly 14 percent of mothers of newborns were 35 or older two years ago - and only about 10 percent were in their teens. The age trend was reversed in 1990, when teens had a 13 percent share of births.

"I think everyone will welcome a decline in births to teens," said D'Vera Cohn, a senior writer on the study. "It's notable that the population of teens is larger than it used to be, so there were more who could have become teen mothers."

Today, one in seven babies is born to a mother at least 35 years old. In 1990, one in 11 had a mother in that age group.

Most mothers of newborns (54 percent) had at least some college education in 2008, an increase from 41 percent in 1990. Among mothers 35 or older, 71 percent had at least some college education.

Improvements in medical care and fertility treatment, along with marriage and childbearing postponed to seek additional education, all factor into the shifts.

"The rise in women's education levels has changed the profile of the typical mother of a newborn baby," the report said. Cohn added that a lower share of mothers ended their education after high school, "so some of those mothers who would have been high school graduates in 1990 have some college education today."

The report is based on data from the National Center for Health Statistics and the U.S. Census Bureau, along with a telephone survey in April 2009 of about 1,000 parents, likely parents and other adults of both genders.

Overall, there were 4.3 million births in the U.S. in 2008, compared with 4.2 million in 1990. The number had risen each year from 2003 to 2007, then dipped in an apparent link to the economic downturn, the researchers said.

When American parents are asked why they decided to have a child, most cite "The joy of having children," the study said. For nearly half of parents, though, an important explanation is: "It wasn't a decision; it just happened." . . .

More Washington Times Editorials

My latest pieces from the Washington Times.

Congress responsible for financial collapse: Greenspan points a finger at irresponsible lawmakers

Robbing Peter to pay Paul's health care: Obamacare takes billions out of working-class pockets

Goodbye to another unprincipled Democrat: Stupak got tied up supporting government-funded abortion

Stupak offers strange explanation for this health care vote

From the WSJ's Political Diary:

Michigan Rep. Bart Stupak is paying a price among his pro-life backers for throwing his support behind ObamaCare. He famously agreed to vote for the health-care bill only after the White House issued an executive order barring any federal funding for abortion -- an order so weak some pro-choice liberals promptly exulted that it couldn't pass legal muster.

Trying to shore up his wavering support, Mr. Stupak recently defended his vote to the Catholic News Agency, saying the legislation would have passed anyway because Speaker Nancy Pelosi "always carries a number of votes in her pocket." He further explained that, by voting "yes," he had allowed other more vulnerable congressmen to vote "no." "I had a number of members who thanked us after because they could vote no," Mr. Stupak said. . . .

See also this.

Bart Stupak's "sellout sacrifices the unborn"

The Washington Times nails the guy who got the government health care bill passed. The long piece has some useful details.

The last-minute negotiations over the government health care bill made one thing clear: Without Mr. Stupak and other ostensibly pro-life Democrats, the bill did not have enough votes. The final vote count was 219 to 212, and without the eight Democrats who caved to pressure with Mr. Stupak, the bill would have been defeated, 220 to 211. And make no mistake about it, these sellouts did not wean any concessions from the White House. President Obama's much-ballyhooed executive order gave the Democrat holdouts nothing more than was already in the Senate bill. . . .

Stupak says that Pro-Life Democrats are being turned by Democrats and Unions

I guess that I don't accept the "without means available" to have an abortion claim. We are talking about a procedure that costs $450. A woman can pay for it in installments, and it seems hard to believe that there are many women who can't afford this. The subsidies that go to incomes several times above the poverty line are obviously not related to whether a woman can pay for an abortion.

According to Stupak, that group of twelve pro-life House Democrats — the “Stupak dozen” — has privately agreed for months to vote ‘no’ on the Senate’s health-care bill if federal funding for abortion is included in the final legislative language. Now, in the debate’s final hours, Stupak says the other eleven are coming under “enormous” political pressure from both the White House and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.). “I am a definite ‘no’ vote,” he says. “I didn’t cave. The others are having both of their arms twisted, and we’re all getting pounded by our traditional Democratic supporters, like unions.”

Stupak says he also doesn’t trust the “Slaughter solution,” a legislative maneuver being bandied about on Capitol Hill as a way to pass the Senate bill in the House without actually voting on it. “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me,” he says. “I don’t have a warm-and-fuzzy feeling about what I’m hearing.”

Stupak notes that his negotiations with House Democratic leaders in recent days have been revealing. “I really believe that the Democratic leadership is simply unwilling to change its stance,” he says. “Their position says that women, especially those without means available, should have their abortions covered.” The arguments they have made to him in recent deliberations, he adds, “are a pretty sad commentary on the state of the Democratic party.”

What are Democratic leaders saying? “If you pass the Stupak amendment, more children will be born, and therefore it will cost us millions more. That’s one of the arguments I’ve been hearing,” Stupak says. “Money is their hang-up. Is this how we now value life in America? If money is the issue — come on, we can find room in the budget. This is life we’re talking about.” . . .

Stupak says that 12 congressmen who voted for government health care takeover will vote against it with Senate abortion funding

Who knows how many of these guys will cave after pressure, but there seems to be at least 15 votes that could flip. From the Hill newspaper.

The Senate's healthcare bill would lose 12 Democratic votes in the House, Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) said Wednesday.

Stupak, the sponsor of an amendment to the House healthcare bill which barred federal subsidies for health plans covering abortion, said that 12 lawmakers who had previously supported healthcare reform legislation in the House.

"It's accurate to say there are at least 12 of us who voted for healthcare that have indicated to the speaker and others that unless you change this language, we will vote against it," Stupak said during an appearance on MSNBC.

Stupak and other Democrats who oppose abortion-rights have threatened to fell the healthcare effort before Congress over the issue of abortion. They say the Senate's provision, which had been demanded by centrist Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), does not go far enough in preventing federal money from going to support abortion.

The congressman's comments come on the heels of his claims last week, when he said he knows of 15-20 Democratic lawmakers who are witholding support for the bill because of "other problems." But it is not clear if or how many overlap between the two groups. . . .

UPDATE: Pelosi makes the health care debate about abortion.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi got exasperated when asked at her weekly news conference about the unwillingness of some Democrats – including Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) – to support the health bill because of abortion language.

“Let me say this: This is not about abortion! This is a bill about providing quality, affordable health care for all Americans,” she said, more eager than ever to stay on message as her legacy becomes increasingly tied to what happens in the next few weeks.

The speaker had just talked about areas of disagreement between the House and Senate bills that are being worked on as leaders iron out legislative language for a comprehensive package that Congress can pass. But she omitted abortion.

“I will not have it turned into a debate on (abortion),” she said, when asked a follow-up question about Stupak. “Let me say it clearly: we all agree on the three following things. … One is there is no federal funding for abortion. That is the law of the land. It is not changed in this bill. There is no change in the access to abortion. No more or no less: It is abortion neutral in terms of access or diminution of access. And, third, we want to pass a health care bill.” . . .

UPDATE2: Stupak optimistic

Personally I don't see how they can reconcile the two positions. The Senate surely won't agree to a change. The question is really whether Stupak will stand his ground. He is facing huge pressure.

Earlier in the day, Stupak once again claimed that at least 11 fellow Democrats were planning to vote against the broader bill if the abortion language wasn’t change. But hours later, he expressed optimism that the two sides could work things out after a Thursday session with Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), a principal author of the bill.

Later that day, Hoyer acknowledged that this issue could be make or break for the broader bill. He said party leaders have considered assembling a third bill that would incorporate changes, like a fix to abortion.

"I talked to Mr. Stupak today and I am going to be talking to him next week. And he indicated he wanted to have some discussions with people, and I will do that. So there are a number of different ways that can be addressed."

Stupak predicts problems for the Health Care Bill

CNS News has this interview with Congressman Stupak. I listened to the interview and it didn't sound as positive. This interview sounds like a good reason for an open conference between the House and Senate.

“If they expect the House to accept the Senate bill, it’s going to go down in flames,” Stupak told CNSNews.com in an interview.

CNSNews.com asked Stupak: “Are you prepared to vote for a bill that looks more like the Senate bill – and Senator Nelson’s language on abortion – than the House bill, with your language?”

“No, absolutely not,” said the Democratic congressman, whose district encompasses all of Michigan’s Upper Peninsula and roughly one-quarter of the territory in the remainder of Michigan.

“The Senate bill will not receive support in the House,” Stupak said. “If they tell us we have to take that bill without changes, it will not survive the House. Regardless of the abortion language, there are just too many objectionable items in there that at least I see, and in talking with maybe a half-dozen other members, they sort of see the same thing.”

Stupak, like many in Congress, takes strong exception to the fact that, under the Senate plan, certain states would receive special “carve outs” for increased funding for Medicare/Medicaid.

“That’s not what it’s all about,” he said. “This is about health care, this is providing health care for all Americans – it’s not to see who can strike the best deal for their state. This is the wrong piece of legislation to try to do carve outs, or get an exception for your state and the rest of the country is supposed to pick up the tab. That’s not what health care is all about. That’s not the policy, that’s not the principle behind the bill. . . .

Stupak was incensed at the special deals.

“All the rest of us that live in states that did not receive that exception, why would we [be] inclined to give Nebraska or Florida or Louisiana a special break underneath the bill and expect the rest of us to pay for it?”

Beyond the carve-outs, Stupak pointed out that seniors “take some cuts in the Senate bill that are not found in the House bill [that] members are not going to accept” -- and that the bill would tax people who have “decent” health insurance programs.

“Aren’t you really going to force more people off health insurance?” Stupak said.

He added: “If you just take a look at my three main constituencies – Right to Life, labor unions, and senior citizens – the Senate bill is contrary to all their interests,” Stupak said. . . .

An overview of some of the new proposed rules in the health care bill can be seen here. For example,

Q: What if I refuse [getting health care]?

A: You’d face a fine. It would start at $95 a year in 2014 and rise to $750 a year by 2016, or as much as 2% of your income, capped at the value of a basic insurance plan.

Is this serious? Is a fine of even $750 or 2 percent of one's income going to make it financially worthwhile for people to get insurance when there is no penalty for pre-existing conditions?

White House tries to pressure Stupak to be quite about Abortion language in Senate Health Bill

CNSnews has this:

Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) said the White House and the Democratic leadership in the House of Representatives have been pressuring him not to speak out on the "compromise" abortion language in the Senate version of the health care bill.

“They think I shouldn’t be expressing my views on this bill until they get a chance to try to sell me the language,” Stupak told CNSNews.com in an interview on Tuesday. “Well, I don’t need anyone to sell me the language. I can read it. I’ve seen it. I’ve worked with it. I know what it says. I don’t need to have a conference with the White House. I have the legislation in front of me here.” . . .

Kathleen Sebelius explains that fund that everyone will put money into will be used to cover abortion

Here is a portion of an interview between HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and BlogHer interviewer Morra Aarons-Mele.

SEBELIUS: And I would say that the Senate language, which was negotiated by Senators Barbara Boxer and Patty Murray, who are very strong defenders of women’s health services and choices for women, take a big step forward from where the House left it with the Stupak amendment, and I think do a good job making sure there are choices for women, making sure there are going to be some plan options, and making sure that while public funds aren’t used, we are not isolating, discriminating against, or invading the privacy rights of women. That would be an accounting procedure, but everybody in the exchange would do the same thing, whether you’re male or female, whether you’re 75 or 25, you would all set aside a portion of your premium that would go into a fund, and it would not be earmarked for anything, it would be a separate account that everyone in the exchange would pay.

BLOGHER: It’s a bit confusing, but …

SEBELIUS: Okay. It is a bit confusing, but it’s really an accounting that would apply across the board and not just to women, and certainly not just to women who want to choose abortion coverage.

BLOGHER: Oh, that’s good, that’s good. . . .

To provide some context of what Ms. Aarons-Mele meant from "Oh, that’s good, that’s good," she wrote at Huffington Post: "Starting now, pro-choice Americans must figure out a way to increase our bargaining power so that soon, we can go head to head with the likes of the Bishops." It seems pretty clear that she is a strong advocate of abortion rights and that she understands that Kathleen Sebelius is saying that this is good news for funding abortions.