And how do you know that I didn't do that? I guess you just know everything? You certainly sound as if you think you do, I'll give you that.
Perhaps you should have suggested this to Madeline since she was making the false statements regarding the bill based merely on one blog article? Or is it because she agrees with you politically and I don't, that you feel the need to put me down for calling her out on her inaccurate statements?
Or perhaps you just wanted the prize for the most condescending bitch in the thread?
Kindly link to where I've even given an opinion. I'm still reading. *shrug*
Thanks, that answers my question.
No, it shows that you assume things that aren't there and blindly launch the predictable personal attack without reading, acknowledging or comprehending facts. It says nothing about me, other than unlike you I prefer to look up, you know, those pesky fact things at the primary source before forming and giving an opinion. And I dislike ignorant bomb throwing hacks. It's a cross I must bear.
Speaking of facts and opinions, here's the current provision at issue in the OP, from Sec. 1303(c) as amended by PPACA Sec 10104:
`
(c) Application of State and Federal Laws Regarding Abortion-
`(1) NO PREEMPTION OF STATE LAWS REGARDING ABORTION- Nothing in this Act shall be construed to preempt or otherwise have any effect on State laws regarding the prohibition of (or requirement of) coverage, funding, or procedural requirements on abortions, including parental notification or consent for the performance of an abortion on a minor.
`(2) NO EFFECT ON FEDERAL LAWS REGARDING ABORTION-
`(A) IN GENERAL- Nothing in this Act shall be construed to have any effect on Federal laws regarding--
`(i) conscience protection;
`(ii) willingness or refusal to provide abortion; and
`(iii) discrimination on the basis of the willingness or refusal to provide, pay for, cover, or refer for abortion or to provide or participate in training to provide abortion.
Bill Text - 111th Congress (2009-2010) - THOMAS (Library of Congress)
What the proposed amendment does to this portion is redesignate it as (e) rather than (c), and inserts a bunch of that other stuff before the section. None of that is a problem where contraception is concerned.
However, when you apply the proposed language changes from the text of H.R. 358 as previously linked it reads like this:
`
(e) Application of State and Federal Laws-
`(1) NO PREEMPTION OF STATE LAWS- Nothing in this Act shall be construed to preempt or otherwise have any effect on State laws protecting conscience rights, restricting or prohibiting abortion or coverage or funding of abortion, or establishing procedural requirements on abortions, including parental notification or consent for the performance of an abortion on a minor.
`(2) NO EFFECT ON FEDERAL LAWS-
`(A) IN GENERAL- Subject to subsection (g), nothing in this Act shall be construed to have any effect on Federal laws regarding--
`(i) conscience protection;
`(ii) willingness or refusal to provide abortion; and
`(iii) discrimination on the basis of the willingness or refusal to provide, pay for, cover, or refer for abortion or to provide or participate in training to provide abortion.
It then adds the new subsection (g) from the previously linked H.R. 358, which doesn't apply to the question of contraception as it has to do with Federal funding for training institutions that refuse to provide training or referrals for training for abortion procedures.
So.....really the issue surrounds the removal of abortion-specific language as a modifier from the subsection titles and some portions of the language, and the specific inclusion of "protecting conscience rights" as a separate stand-alone item in the new paragraph (e)(1).
I have yet to find a definition of "conscience rights" in either the definition section or special rule section of the PPACA, although the thing is hundreds of pages long and I may be missing it if it's squirreled away elsewhere. This is the problematic part if it's not there and/or doesn't specify "conscience rights" is to be read to pertain to abortion.
So yes, as I read this with the amended language added if the States decide to include contraception in their conscience provisions, nothing in PPACA can or will override it as far as requiring coverage in any plans issued by Federal providers or by any other means. "Conscience Rights" and "Abortion" are separated out as two different issues by the plain textual construction and the subsection as a whole is generalized.
If passed, this should be interesting when it gets to court.