Archive for Insurance

Abortion Weaponization Playbook: strategy to enshrine and expand abortion in America

Posted in Abortion Pill Connections, ANSIRH, expand abortion, Guttmacher, Gynuity, Hollywood, Hyde Amendment, Pro-choice Strategy, RHA, Self Managed Abortion, self-managed abortion, Tax Payer Funding of Abortion, Teen Abortion, Teen Pregnancy with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on June 8, 2019 by saynsumthn
When Planned Parenthood and the media claim “abortion laws” are part of a long held strategy to dismantle Roe and ban abortion- as demonstrated in these Tweets….remind them that it is the abortion lobby that has had a long held strategy to weaponize abortion, as I will demonstrate below.

REMIND them that the abortion lobby and Planned Parenthood want to WEAPONIZE abortion and there has been a strategy to expand abortion: 

#1) Click to READ: EXPOSED: Abortion groups’ plan to ‘increase supply and demand’ for abortion   

A 92-page report on the Tara Health Foundation website should be reviewed by pro-life advocates across the nation, as it details upcoming strategy from abortion supporters, which includes the push for “home use” abortions. The document, as detailed at Live Action News reveals pro-abortion legislative and litigation strategies suggested in the report include:

  • REMS removal strategy (This is the risk management system that governs the abortion pill RU486)
  • TRAP laws removal advocacy
  • Gestational bans removal advocacy
  • Criminality of self-induced abortion removal advocacy
  • Organizing led by women of color (WOC)
  • Reproductive health or democracy reform PAC donations
  • Reproductive justice PAC donations
  • The plan committed to “increasing access for people with low incomes” even “where abortion… becomes inaccessible or is banned completely.”

TARA Health Foundation Abortion strategy

 

#2). Click to Read: Planned Parenthood’s 3-part plan for 2019: Abortion, Abortion, Abortion 

This Live Action News piece, documents that earlier this year, Planned Parenthood released its plan for 2019, and despite  declining clients and health services, the plan reveals the organization’s continued obsession with abortion. The “multi-million dollar” plan was announced by the group’s political advocacy arm, Live Action News reports.
According to PP’s document and the Live Action News article, the largest provider of abortion planned to do the following:

Expand abortion using a Regional Access Network the abortion chain’s plans include:

  • A Regional Access Network anywhere abortion either becomes inaccessible or is banned completely
  • Facilitate telehealth care and transportation for patients facing obstacles to abortion
  • Opening new abortion facilities
  • Expanding medication abortion services
  • Expanding telemedicine services to increase abortion access for clients in remote communities

Legislative efforts to expand tax funded abortion, the plan will target 10 states, including:

  • Illinois, where Planned Parenthood is pushing public funding of abortion and ways the state can “codify the right to abortion in state law”
  • Maine, where Planned Parenthood is “moving to ensure women insured through public programs can have… abortion”
  • Rhode Island. where Planned Parenthood “will work in the 2019 legislative session to codify the right to…abortion in state law”
  • Oregon, where Planned Parenthood “is implementing the Reproductive Health Equity Act to guarantees no-cost coverage for… abortion”
  • Hawaii, where Planned Parenthood “is working to expand access to…abortion by advancing comprehensive coverage of… abortion”
  • Washington, where Planned Parenthood “is focusing on passing the Reproductive Health Equity Access bill” to remove barriers to abortion

Use Hollywood and media to “destigmatize abortion” the plan vows to:

  • Work with “content creators” on portraying abortion positively in film and television
  • Create resources to encourage, “accurate, non-judgmental conversations about abortion…”
  • Use technology to “help people understand the reality of safe, legal abortion and what patients experience when having an abortion”

#3) Click to Read Guttmacher Institute releases plan to expand abortion in 7 ways 

Live Action News documents how, the Guttmacher Institute, Planned Parenthood’s former “special affiliate,” has published a new “policy review,” titled, “Ensuring Access to Abortion at the State Level.
The document is broken down by several strategy subjects:
  • Affirming and Protecting the Right to Abortion
  • Providing Abortion Coverage
  • Ensuring Access to Information
  • Supporting Adolescents’ Access
  • Preventing Clinic Violence
  • Expanding the Pool of Abortion Providers
  • Creating a Safe Policy Environment for Self-Managed Care
  • Expanding Online and Telehealth Access

Paraphrased by Live Action News as follows:

  • 1) Push statutory and constitutional measures to codify abortion
  • 2) Increase taxpayer-funded abortion
  • 3) Force insurance companies to cover abortion
  • 4) Eliminate informed consent 
  • 5) Increase abortion customers
  • 6) Allow non-physicians to commit abortions
  • 7) Push “self-managed abortions”

#4) Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health (ANSIRH), Gynuity Health Projects, and Ibis Reproductive Health  

According to another Live Action News report, “A consortium of abortion organizations — Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health (ANSIRH), Gynuity Health Projects, and Ibis Reproductive Health — published a report entitled, “A roadmap for research on self-managed abortion in the United States.” The report suggested, [M]edication abortion could be even further demedicalized through pharmacy dispensing and expansion of telemedicine models—or even making it available over the counter (OTC)—which have the potential to expand access greatly.”

And…what do you know? Abortion organizations are pushing to expand abortion like never before, by attempting to influence the FDA to remove important safety regulations, called REMS which will enable them to sell the dangerous abortion pills online.

The Document claims these groups are planning to: 

  • Expand direct-to-patient telemedicine with various options, such as:
  • Use of phone rather than videoconferencing. 
  • Web-based interface for patient interactions and for recording clinical and research data.
  • Provision of medication abortion pills from a central pharmacy rather than from each clinician’s office.
  • Elimination of the requirement for screening ultrasound and lab tests (i.e., implement screening based entirely on history).
  • Home-based follow-up methods using urine pregnancy testing.
  • Study the uptake, safety, and effectiveness of advance provision of medication abortion pills.
  • Undertake an OTC label comprehension study and develop and implement an actual use study in a simulated OTC environment.
  • Identify ways to improve access in legally restricted settings using data from research with online providers and smartphone apps.

All pro-life groups need to read the abortion weaponization playbooks outlines above.

SHARE THIS Article!

 

Insurance provider gives grant money to abortion giant Planned Parenthood

Posted in Planned Parenthood and Blue Cross, Planned Parenthood and ObamaCare with tags , , , , , , , on April 30, 2014 by saynsumthn

The Baltimore Sun is reporting that CareFirst BlueCross BlueShield is giving abortion giant Planned Parenthood of Maryland a $200,000 grant to invest in technology at its eight clinics.

Blue Cross PP

A Quick look at Planned Parenthood of Maryland’s website show that they either refer or perform abortions. In addition they promote the use of the insurance company on their page:

Planned Parenthood  Of Maryland website

Planned Parenthood states that they will use the money to invest in a two-year project to build a new electronic management system.

CareFirst BlueCross BlueShield and CareFirst BlueChoice, Inc. are independent licensees of the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association, according to their website.

According to a previous press release, in 2013, CareFirst contributed nearly $57 million to community programs designed to increase the accessibility, affordability, safety and quality of health care throughout its market areas.

Abortion Giant Planned Parenthood: health insurance shouldn’t be reason mother doesn’t get to be with children

Posted in ObamaCare Navigators, Planned Parenthood and ObamaCare, Planned Parenthood in Black Neighborhoods, Planned Parenthood Navigator, Pro-choice Spin with tags , , , , , , , , , on April 7, 2014 by saynsumthn

Capture1

Planned Parenthood has no shame !!!

In this video of Planned Parenthood knocking on American homes to push ObamaCare ( Affordable Care Act a/k/a/ ACA) “organizer” Nina says, “The strong healthy person on day could get into an accident. You know, things happen. It should be the reason why a student has to drop out of school. It shouldn’t be the reason why a mother doesn’t get to be with her children.”

Capture

How does Planned Parenthood get away with things like this? They KILL CHILDREN for petes sake ! How much more can you separate a mother and child than that?

PP 2012 2013 Annual Report

Disgusted !!!

Obamacare: Impact on the Family

Posted in Abortion, Health Care, Obama with tags , , , , , , , , , , on April 13, 2010 by saynsumthn

Published on April 12, 2010 by Chuck Donovan ; Heritage Foundation

Families have good reason to be concerned about how the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) of 2010[1] will affect them. While the law will deliver a health insurance entitlement to millions of individuals and families, many of its provisions weaken family choice of coverage, undermine parental participation in minor children’s health care decisions, penalize the decision to marry, and undercut family values in health care.

    More Families Covered but Less Family Choice


Millions of families gain an entitlement to health insurance under the mandates on individuals and employers in PPACA. The law’s creation of new affordability tax credits will ease the purchase of health insurance for middle-income Americans.

But the new credits go hand in hand with increased regulation of private health plans. Moreover, families gained nothing from PPACA that will permit them to purchase better or cheaper plans across state lines.[2] The new law also does nothing to increase the variety of insurance available in the market, which could include family-friendly options like health plans managed by professional associations, unions, and faith-based groups. Nor will families be able to purchase health plans that exclude coverage for services to which they ethically object or which they do not need.

    Undermining the Role of Parents

PPACA expands several funding streams that undermine parental responsibility and authority to direct the upbringing of their children. The law lavishes federal dollars on programs like school-based health centers and a new “Personal Responsibility Education” (PRE)[3] program that deny parents knowledge of sensitive services their children receive in federally funded projects.

First, PPACA creates a new $50 million per year appropriation for school-based health centers, many of which either offer contraception on site or refer for contraception and even abortion. The law states that the recipient clinics must honor “parental consent and notification laws that are not inconsistent with Federal law.”[4] However, the federal Medicaid and Title X (Public Health Service Act) laws stipulate that the confidentiality of teens obtaining services must be respected, nullifying any state or local parental notice or consent policies.[5]

Second, the new PRE program provides $75 million per year for grants to help states reduce pregnancies and births to teenagers. Unlike the 1996 welfare reform, however, the new program does not incentivize states to reach these goals without increasing their abortion rates.

    Penalizing Marriage


Another disturbing feature of PPACA is the fact that it imposes—across a broad range of income and age—significant financial penalties on the decision to marry.

The marriage penalty imposed by the law could exceed $10,000 per year for certain couples.[6] This is because the affordability tax credit phases out rapidly as income rises.

Not only does this health insurance marriage penalty dissuade a younger, low-income couple from getting married—which is one of the most beneficial life decisions they can make for themselves and for their children—but it also provides older couples, some of the hardest hit by this law, with an incentive to obtain a “divorce of convenience.”

For example, a 60-year-old couple, each with an income of $15,000 per year and purchasing insurance in the non-group market, would gain $4,212 in tax savings if they obtained a sham divorce and bought insurance separately. A similar couple, each making $30,000, per year would realize $10,425 in tax savings if they divorce and cohabit rather than remain married.

    Undercutting Freedom of Conscience


As health care reform proceeded, strong majorities of Americans supported protecting provider and insurer rights of conscience as well as limiting the use of tax funds for abortion. In March 2009, 87 percent of respondents to a national poll supported ensuring “that healthcare professionals in America are not forced to participate in procedures and practices to which they have moral objections.”[7] A January 2010 Quinnipiac Survey found that 67 percent of Americans oppose public funding of abortion.[8]

    Conscience Protections

. PPACA does make clear that no qualified health care plan can be required to cover abortion as an “essential” benefit. It also ensures that no health care plan that participates in the state-based exchanges may discriminate against a health care facility or provider because of its unwillingness “to provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortion.”[9]

The law does not, however, prevent the federal and state governments from practicing this same discrimination. An effort to add such an amendment to the bill failed in a Senate committee in September 2009. While there is an annual appropriations rider to this effect on the bill funding the Department of Health and Human Services, it lacks permanent force, and regulations to implement it were suspended by President Obama in March 2009 as a step toward its likely rescission.

    Abortion Funding

. Currently, every health care plan in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program may not as a matter of law include coverage of elective abortion. Under PPACA, health care plans that cover elective abortion may participate in the state-based exchanges provided they require each enrollee to pay a separate premium of not less than $12 per year for elective abortion coverage.[10]

    The Executive Order

. On March 24, President Obama signed an executive order that attempts to apply conscience protections and abortion funding limits to the full text of PPACA. Regardless of the order’s intent, judicial rulings for the past 35 years have made it clear that public funding of elective abortions in federal programs cannot be barred without the kind of direct ban that Congress failed to include in many parts of PPACA.[11]

    Reason for Disappointment


Advocates of family values in health care reform have reason to be deeply disappointed with the overall impact of PPACA. The passage of legislation that increases parental control and choice regarding health care insurance, avoids marriage penalties, guarantees conscience protections, and limits taxpayer support for controversial practices like abortion must await a future Congress.

Chuck Donovan is Senior Research Fellow in the Richard and Helen DeVos Center for Religion and Civil Society at The Heritage Foundation.

ObamaCare: Why Private Insurers Like Paying for Abortion

Posted in Abortion, Black Genocide, Health Care, Obama, Planned Parenthood with tags , , , , , , on January 8, 2010 by saynsumthn

January 7, 2010 – 1:43 pm

David Whelan is a staff writer at Forbes

Abortion has emerged again as a key sticking point in negotiations over healthcare reform. The House wants to ban new government-funded plans from covering abortion at all, while the Senate will require patients pay separate premiums with their own money for abortion as a supplemental benefit.

The fuss has exposed what’s been a fairly quiet practice: most health plans now pay for abortions, no questions asked. Why? It saves lots of money.

John Nugent, the CEO of Planned Parenthood of Maryland, in Baltimore, tells us that his gut feeling is that about 70% of people with insurance can use it as his nonprofit clinic. Private physicians who perform abortions advertise that they also take most insurance.

Insurance companies are loathe to comment on why they pay for the controversial procedure but if you’re running the business by the numbers, it’s fairly obvious. An unwanted pregnancy is much more inexpensive to terminate, compared to the cost of a delivery.

“A first trimester abortion is $300 to $450,” Nugent says. “But if the gestational age is higher you’re paying for a surgical suite. That’s why the insurance companies think they should be offering it. It’s cheaper to terminate an unwanted pregnancy rather than taking it to term.”

Health Care Blue Book confirms the price difference. An abortion performed in an physician’s office typically costs $397. A vaginal delivery costs $5,992, while a c-section is $8,558. (These are estimates based on the site’s database of in-network charges negotiated by insurers.)

Don’t expect the money arguments to get much airtime in Washington, even if the insurance companies have a financial stake in the outcome. “They won’t talk about it,” Nugent says.

This editorial explains it all !

AP- Details: Polls show health care support dwindling, One dissenter, “Basically I see our taxes going up!”

Posted in Health Care, Obama with tags , , , , , , , on November 18, 2009 by saynsumthn

AP Poll: Americans fret over health overhaul costs

By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR and TREVOR TOMPSON (AP) – 2 days ago

WASHINGTON — It’s the cost, Mr. President. Americans are worried about hidden costs in the fine print of health care overhaul legislation, an Associated Press poll says. That’s creating new challenges for President Barack Obama as he tries to close the deal with a handful of Democratic doubters in the Senate.

Although Americans share a conviction that major health care changes are needed, Democratic bills that extend coverage to the uninsured and try to hold down medical costs get no better than a lukewarm reception.

The poll found that 43 percent oppose the health care plans being discussed in Congress, while 41 percent are in support. An additional 15 percent remain neutral or undecided.

Well, for one, I know nobody wants to pay taxes for anybody else to go to the doctor — I don’t,” said Kate Kuhn, 20, of Acworth, Ga. “I don’t want to pay for somebody to use my money that I could be using for myself.

There’s been little change in broad public sentiment about the overhaul plan from a 40-40 split in an AP poll last month, but not everyone’s opinion is at the same intensity. Opponents have stronger feelings than do supporters. Seniors remain more skeptical than younger generations.

The latest survey was conducted by Stanford University with the nonprofit Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

When poll questions were framed broadly, the answers seemed to indicate ample support for Obama’s goals. When required trade-offs were brought into the equation, opinions shifted — sometimes dramatically.

In one striking finding, the poll indicated that public support for banning insurance practices that discriminate against those in poor health may not be as solid as it seems.

A ban on denial of coverage because of pre-existing medical problems has been one of the most popular consumer protections in the health care debate. Some 82 percent said they favored the ban, according to a Pew Research Center poll in October.

In the AP poll, when told that such a ban would probably cause most people to pay more for health insurance, 43 percent said they would still support doing away with pre-existing condition denials, but 31 percent said they would oppose it.

Costs for those with coverage could go up because people in poor health who’d been shut out of the insurance pool would now be included, and they would get medical care they could not access before.

“I’m thinking we’d probably pay more because we would probably be paying for those that are not paying. So they got to get the money from somewhere. ,” said Antoinette Gates, 57, of Atlanta.

The health care debate is full of such trade-offs. For example, limiting the premiums that insurance companies can charge 50-year-olds means that 20-year-olds have to pay more for coverage.

These trade-offs really matter,” says Robert Blendon, a professor at the Harvard School of Public Health who follows opinion trends. “The legislation contains a number of features that polls have shown to be popular, but support for the overall legislation is less than might be expected because people are worried there are details about these bills that could raise their families’ costs.”

If the added costs — spread over tens of millions of people — turn out to be small, it may not make much difference, Blendon said. But if they’re significant, Obama could be on shaky ground in the final stretch of his drive to deliver access to health insurance to most Americans.

More than 4 in 5 Americans now have health insurance, and their perceptions about costs are key as Obama tries to rally his party’s congressional majority. In the House, Democrats came together to pass their bill. In the Senate, Democratic liberals and a smaller group of moderates disagree on core questions even as Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., prepares to take legislation to the floor.

The poll suggests the public is becoming more attuned to the fact that in health care, details can make all the difference.

For example, asked if everyone should be required to have at least some health insurance, 67 percent agreed and 27 percent said no.

The responses flipped when people were asked about requiring everybody to carry insurance or face a federal penalty: 64 percent said they would be opposed, while 28 percent favored that.

Both the House and Senate bills would require all Americans to get health insurance, either through an employer, a government program or by buying their own coverage. Subsidies would be provided for low-income people, as well as many middle-class households.

And there would also be a stick — a tax penalty to enforce the coverage mandate.

I think it’s crazy. I think it infringes on our rights as a citizen, forcing us to do these things,” said Eli Fuchs, 26, of Marietta, Ga.

Among Democrats, only 12 percent oppose the broad goal of requiring insurance. But 50 percent oppose fines to enforce it.

The poll found a similar opinion shift on employer requirements: 73 percent agreed that all companies should be required to give their employees at least some health insurance.

Yet when asked if fines should be used to enforce such a requirement on medium and large companies, support dropped to 52 percent. Uninsured workers are concentrated in small companies.

The poll was based on land line and cell phone interviews with 1,502 adults from Oct. 29 to Nov. 8. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 2.5 percentage points. The interviews were conducted by GfK Roper Public Affairs and Media. Stanford University’s participation was made possible by a grant from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, a nonpartisan organization that conducts research on the health care system.

Egg on their face? RNC Insurance Covers Abortion, leader is pro-choice, what do you expect ?

Posted in Abortion, Alex Jones, American Birth Control League, American Eugenics Society, Anti-abortion, Bill Gates, Conservative, Eugenics, Health Care, Maafa21, New World Order, Obama, Planned Parenthood, Population Control, pro-choice violence, Pro-Life, Religion with tags , , , , , , , , , on November 13, 2009 by saynsumthn

With abortion emerging as a sticking point in the health care debate, Politico has dug up a zinger on the Republican National Committee: Its own employee insurance policy covers elective abortions. “We are taking steps to address the issue,” says an RNC spokeswoman, adding that the policy goes back to 1991.

The RNC gets its coverage from Cigna, which offers clients the opportunity to opt out of the abortion coverage. The RNC chose not to do so, say Cigna employees. “Money from our loyal donors should not be used for this purpose,” Chairman Michael Steele said in a statement. “I don’t know why this policy existed in the past, but it will not exist under my administration. Consider this issue settled.”

AMEN to This YouTube !

And Herein Lies the Problem:

Watch Maafa21 and learn why leaders in both the Democratic and Republican party LOVE abortion – it is all about CONTROL and EUGENICS – see a clip here: