THE HILL
 

The truth about the Capps amendment (Rep. Lois Capps)

By Rep. Lois Capps (D-Calif.) - 09/16/09 11:20 AM ET

Enacting comprehensive health insurance reform is no easy task - if it was, we'd have done it decades ago. Making it more difficult is the blatant misinformation being spread by some opponents of reform as well as people who perhaps just don't know better. A case in point is the House health reform bill's provision continuing the policy of restricting the use of federal funds to pay for abortions. There is a lot of misinformation about this provision, some of it probably the result of honest mistakes and some of it based on outright fabrications.

In an attempt to try to find a compromise for dealing with abortion services in the legislation, I offered an amendment that would essentially continue this ban - even though I personally oppose the Hyde Amendment - that was supported by Energy and Commerce Committee Members whose records span the pro-life and pro-choice spectrum. Our hope was that we could continue the current ban on federal funding for abortion so the issue wouldn't bog down the overall health reform legislation.
Unfortunately many -- from politicians to pundits -- misunderstand or intentionally misrepresent my amendment as a significant departure from current law. This couldn't be further from the truth. In fact, many independent fact checkers and even the non-partisan Congressional Research Service have found the amendment preserves the status quo in federal abortion policy.

As I mentioned earlier, under my amendment no federal funds may be used to pay for abortions that are not allowed by current law (the Hyde Amendment, which makes exceptions in the case of rape, incest, or to protect the life of the woman). The only funds that may be used to pay for other abortion services are from private funds generated by the policyholders' premiums, whether the policyholder is covered by a private plan or the public option.

My amendment ensures that no doctor or hospital or even insurance plan can be required to participate in providing or covering abortion services. In fact, my amendment goes beyond current law in this regard. Currently, existing statute known as the "Weldon Amendment" prohibits the government from discriminating against health providers and insurance companies who refuse to perform or pay for abortions. My amendment extends that to ensure that no private insurance plan operating in the Exchange may discriminate against health providers who refuse to perform abortions.

My amendment also ensures that in each region of the country, there is at least one plan in the Health Exchange that offers abortions services but also one plan in the Health Exchange that does not offer abortion services. This actually gives consumers who object to participating in a plan that covers abortion and are getting coverage through the Exchange a choice of insurance coverage greater than what most Americans have in the current employer-based health insurance market. Today, nearly 90 percent of employer-sponsored private health insurance plans cover abortion services.

Some people have gone so far as to claim my amendment would mandate abortion coverage in all insurance plans. This is simply untrue. My amendment specifically prohibits abortion from being included as part of the essential benefits package. No one - not the Secretary of Health and Human Services nor the Health Benefits Advisory Committee - can make abortion a part of the essential benefits package.

Private plans participating in the Exchange can choose to provide coverage for abortion or they can choose not to. And while the Secretary may choose to allow the public plan to cover abortions not allowed by the Hyde Amendment, coverage for those services must be paid for with segregated private funds. No Federal funds may be used. Importantly, while opponents of the bill's provision make much ado about the idea of segregating funds, it's hardly a new concept: the 17 states that currently cover abortion in their Medicaid programs already do it by only paying for those services with state dollars, which are kept separate from federal funds.

Having worked on public health issues most of my life I understand the strong beliefs generated by choice issues. But having strongly held beliefs doesn't give one license to distort the facts at hand. My amendment offers a common ground solution to a very challenging policy question - namely how do we deal with abortion services in health reform legislation. By adhering to current law which prohibits Federal funds from being used to cover abortions other than in the case of rape, incest or a threat to the life of the woman, we have found a way to move forward in our efforts to protect and provide health insurance for millions of Americans without being sidetracked by re-debating the issue of abortion. 

Cross-posted from the Huffington Post.

Source:
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/healthcare/59019-the-truth-about-the-capps-amendment-rep-lois-capps

Comments (9)

Hello Representative Capps, Patrick Ryan from outside of Albany. I'm a Conservative who'd like to understand your amendment more lucidly, but I'm having trouble understanding this statement from above:"The only funds that may be used to pay for other abortion services are from private funds generated by the policyholders' premiums, whether the policyholder is covered by a private plan or the public option."Does that not mean that if the public option is adopted even though it's not likely, this amendment would allow taxpayer dollars allocated for the public option to fund abortions? I'd like to get your side on this, but this one statement is a little dense for me. Maybe I'm just being a little naive here, but if it's not too much trouble, could you provide an example of this statement in practical application?Thanks very much,PatBY Patrick Ryan on 09/16/2009 at 13:56
I am the legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC). There are many misleading statements and exercises in misdirection in this essay by Rep. Capps, and to correct them all would require a piece longer than her original. But allow me to focus first on this statement: "And while the Secretary [of Health and Human Services] may choose to allow the public plan to cover abortions not allowed by the Hyde Amendment, coverage for those services must be paid for with segregated private funds. No Federal funds may be used."This argument is beyond misleading — it is truly absurd. As a matter of law, and in the terminology used throughout the government, all of the funds that would be spent by the public plan would be federal funds, public funds. Rep. Capps and the others who are exerting themselves in the ludicrous exercise of attempting to label government agency spending as "private" are doing so for a transparently political purpose: To conceal the reality that H.R. 3200 would establish direct federal government funding of elective abortion by the government insurance plan, and would also result in large-scale federal subsidies for private health plans that pay for elective abortions. Both of those effects would be sharp departures from longstanding federal policy. The Capps-Waxman Amendment explicitly authorizes the Secretary of HHS to pay for elective abortions, any abortions, under the government plan. The public plan would be a program within the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), part of the federal Executive Branch, headed by the Secretary of HHS. Under the Capps-Waxman Amendment, abortion providers would send their bills to DHHS. They would receive in payment checks drawn on a federal Treasury account, which are federal funds, public funds.This would be direct federal government funding of elective abortion. This is not a matter of opinion. It is a matter of law. With few exceptions, funds under the control of and expended by an agency of the federal government cannot accurately be described as "private funds." For example, the funds in a citizen's bank account are private, but once he or she writes a check to the IRS to pay income taxes, the funds become federal government funds, public funds, deposited in a U.S. Treasury account. The same is true here. Once a public plan enrollee makes a "premium" payment to DHHS, the funds are no longer "private" — they are federal government funds, as truly and completely as the funds that the government gathers from income taxes, user fees, fines, and other sources. NRLC has issued a memorandum proving that all of the funds that would be expended by the "public option," and also all of the funds that would flow to the premium-subsidy program, would be in fact "federal funds," both as a matter of law, and in the usage of those terms by and about federal agencies across the board. The memorandum contains links to primary documents from the CBO, GAO, and the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service.) It is here:http://www.nrlc.org/AHC/NRLCmemoFederal FundsnotPrivate Funds.htmlDouglas Johnson Legislative Director National Right to Life Committee Washington, D.C. More documentation here: http://www.nrlc.org/ahcBY Douglas Johnson on 09/16/2009 at 16:16
Another thing: Rep. Capps claims that H.R. 3200 and her amendment preserve the "status quo," the Hyde Amendment. She neglects to mention, as the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service has confirmed, that none of the funds that will be spent by the public plan, and none of the funds that will be collected by and spent through the proposed premium subsidy program, will be appropriated through the annual HHS appropriations bill. Therefore, the Hyde Amendment will not apply to the public plan or to the premium subsidy program. Continued references to the Hyde Amendment by President Obama, Capps, and others are an exercise in misdirection. The documentation is here: http://www.nrlc.org/AHC/NRLCmemoHydeAmendmentWillNotApply.htmlCapps' comparison between the federal subsidies for abortions under the bill, and some states currently paying for abortions under Medicaid, really makes no sense at all. Each of us live under two sovereigns — the federal government, and a state government (unless one lives in a federal enclave). Under the Hyde Amendment, no federal funds may flow to any trust fund that covers any abortions (except life of the mother, rape, or incest). But of course this does not prevent a state from setting up its own program to pay for abortions for people who are Medicaid-eligible, or for anybody else. Nor would the NRLC-backed Stupak Amendment to H.R. 3200, which would prevent federal subsidies for abortion, prevent states from setting up their own programs to pay for abortions or abortion insurance. This really has nothing to do with the subject of the current debate, which is whether elective abortion should be part of the proposed FEDERAL public insurance plan and whether private insurance plans that cover elective abortion should receive FEDERAL subsidies. Moreover, the Capps-Waxman Amendment is boobytrapped in a manner that ensures that if renewal of the Hyde Amendment is blocked for a future fiscal year — a definite possibility, since President Obama opposes the Hyde Amendment — this would automatically extend an abortion mandate to the public plan. A lapse in the Hyde Amendment would also effectively remove the Capps requirement — which she makes out to be a great concession — that there must be "one plan in the Health Exchange that does not offer abortion services." And, of course, a lapse in the Hyde Amendment would result in a resumption of federal funding of abortion on demand in Medicaid, a program in which the federal government was paying for 300,000 elective abortions annually when the Hyde Amendment was first passed in 1976. Finally, I wonder how many of those, like Rep. Capps, who want you believe that the federal Department of Health and Human Services would be spending "private funds" on elective abortions through the public option, would also embrace the notion that other federal agencies — say, the CIA, or the Pentagon — could expend federal Treasury funds in transactions that would be considered "private." Douglas Johnson Legislative Director National Right to Life Committee Washington, D.C. More documentation here: http://www.nrlc.org/ahcBY Douglas Johnson on 09/16/2009 at 16:17
In my posts above, it looks like I was not very adroit in formatting the links to the documentation.The memorandum that demonstrates that under the Capps Amendment, all of the funds that would be spent by the public plan on abortions (or anything else) would be "federal funds," is here:http://www.nrlc.org/AHC/NRLCmemoFederal FundsnotPrivate Funds.htmlThe memorandum that demonstrates that Rep. Capps is engaged in an exercise in misdirection when she talks about the Hyde Amendment — which will not apply to the programs created by H.R. 3200 — is here:http://www.nrlc.org/AHC/NRLCmemoHydeAme ndmentWillNotAp ply.htmlDouglas JohnsonLegislat ive DirectorNationa l Right to Life CommitteeWashin gton, D.C.202-626-8820Legfederal — at — aol-dot-comBY Douglas Johnson on 09/16/2009 at 16:38
I saw video today of a Democrat congressman from Michigan who says the Capp Amendment requires between $1-$12 from each taxpayer insurance plan to go to a pool to fund abortions. This congressman further stated he has the votes in the House (Dem GOP) to block the pending legislation. Let's hope he does, for many reasons. This legislation won't be effected until 2013 so I have no understanding why health care must be rushed through now, except that next year is an off-year national election and propronents know nothing will be accomplished because of congressional fears of re-election and same goes for immigration rford, which I suspect will undo many of the 'limits' Obozo and others say exist now. Frankly, the President has squandered the trust I gave him, and no my thoughts are racially-motivated, they are based on sound economic reasoning only. It's so sad to see race being parlayed into this discussion. We gave Obozo the opportunity - he has frittered it away in less than a year. He has no one to blame but himself. Promises made should be promises kept but that escapes this White House.BY nickatdabeach on 09/16/2009 at 18:03
typos above: papologies but meant to say my thoughts are NOT racially motivated, it's the abuse of my trust that offends me most about this President, his proposalsBY nickatdabeach on 09/16/2009 at 18:47
Contary to Rep. Capps' assertion, independent sources such as Factcheck.org have concluded that her amendment does not conform to current federal policies on abortion funding. The Hyde amendment, in place for many years, bans use of federal funds in the Labor/HHS appropriations bill for elective abortions themselves and for benefits packages that include abortion. A parallel amendment to the federal employees' health benefits program excludes all elective abortions from the hundreds of plans offered to federal employees, because premiums for those packages are supplemented by a federal subsidy. Any funds used to support abortion by states must be kept in a completely separate account — they cannot be taken, for example, from the matching funds states mingle with the federal funds. Everyone of these principles is violated by her amendment, which (1) authorizes the HHS Secretary to force all purchasers of the "public option" to buy and pay for elective abortions they don't want; (2) provides federal subsidies to plans that include elective abortions; (3) requires that one plan in each region provide elective abortions (a neat trick if her amendment forbids requiring any plan to include abortions); and (4) allows "private" premiums for abortion to mingle together with federal funds in integrated packages, since the abortion coverage is not made distinct (and certainly not made optional for the purchaser) in any meaningful way. We at the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops would be happy to sit down with her and explain her amendment to her, again.BY Richard Doerflinger on 09/16/2009 at 20:12
Howdy Lois, yes enacting more levels of bureaucracy and corruption is no easy task. Especially when the people you are doing it to know what it was like to once be in charge of there lives. But press on no need to worry about how they feel about it just pretend they don't exist. After all you know what is better for them, its for there own good right. Twenty years from now when no one is left alive to remember how things used to be. After history books have been rewritten with good facts instead of true facts. By then all will certainly be well and there may even be a statue of you to remember the part you played.BY Legion on 09/16/2009 at 23:52
What you see below is not a real press release. It is a parody. Congresswoman Capps' blog is the object of the parody, but she is a big girl and she can take it. CONGRESSMAN LOUIS CAPPEDRepresent ing California's 54th DistrictPRESS RELEASESeptembe r 17, 2009 5:20 p.m.In Speech, Congressman Capped Laments "Blatant Misinformation" and "Fabrications"Regarding His "Handguns for Hikers" Fund for National Parks; He Explains That No "Public Funds" Will Be Used, Only Mandatory Surcharges on All National Parks Admissions Fees WASHINGTON, D.C. —- In remarks today on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives , Congressman Louis Capped (R-Ca.) lamented "blatant misinformation" and "fabrications" regarding his "National Parks Optional Handguns for Hikers Act of 2010," a bill that he introduced on August 19, 2009.read the full release here — http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/commonground/2009/08/10/common-ground-“abortion-neutrality”#comment-28930BY NoWorseThanUsual on 09/18/2009 at 22:09

Add Comment

Name (required)

E-Mail (will not be published) (required)

Your Comments

You need Flash Player 8 (or higher) and JavaScript enabled to view this content

Get latest news from The Hill direct to your inbox, RSS reader and mobile devices.