BORDALLO: OBAMACARE WILL BE GOOD FOR GUAM ??????

WARNING!!! GRAPHIC PHOTOS AT END

On August 17, 2013, the Pacific Daily News carried the news story BORDALLO: OBAMACARE WILL BE GOOD FOR GUAM. An OP-ED by the Congresswoman on the same topic was also printed in the same issue in the Opinion section: MUCH OF OBAMACARE APPLIES TO US.

Following is my online comment to both articles:

At the Guam Medical Society forum held last July (7/18/12), the panel of insurance providers confirmed that abortions would be funded through the exchanges (Specifically, it was Frank Campillio of Select Care). Over the course of several months, prior to and after the passage of Obamacare, I sent Congresswoman Bordallo several messages including a legal brief detailing exactly how abortions would be funded through Obamacare. She swore they wouldn't be. We now know that they are. The only question was whether or not Guam would have to set up the exchange. If we do, then we fund abortions, which is why many other states have opted out. Let's see what the "pro-life" Congresswoman Bordallo will do about this.

Here is the legal memo I sent her:

"Legal Analysis of the Provisions of The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and Corresponding Executive Order Regarding Abortion Funding and Conscience Protection,” issued by the Office of General Counsel of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), March 25, 2010. [See it here.]

*****

I FIRST EXPRESSED MY CONCERN ABOUT ABORTION FUNDING IN OBAMACARE TO THE CONGRESSWOMAN IN SEPTEMBER OF 2009, SIX MONTHS PRIOR TO ITS PASSAGE. I CONTACTED HER THROUGH HER WEBSITE. SHE REPLIED:


A PDF version of this exchange is available here.

9/12/09

MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO

427 Cannon House Office Building

Washington, D.C.  20515-5301

Phone: (202) 225-1188

Fax: (202) 226-0341

September 11, 2009

Tim Rohr

P.O. Box 9001

Agat, GU 96928 

Dear Mr. Rohr,

Thank you for your recent e-mail message regarding concerns you have with the health care legislation currently being debated in Congress.  I am opposed to measures which federally finance or promote abortions.  (emphases mine) My position on the issue of abortion has always been pro-life. 

Again, thank you for e-mailing me with your concerns on this very important issue.

Sincerely,

/s/

MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO

Member of Congress

*****

AFTER THE PASSAGE OF OBAMACARE IN MARCH OF 2010, WITH BORDALLO'S SUPPORT AND NO REGISTERED OPPOSITION TO THE FUNDING OF ABORTION IN THE BILL, I AGAIN CONTACTED THE CONGRESSWOMAN THROUGH HER WEBSITE EXPRESSING MY CONCERN. SHE REPLIED:

MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO

427 Cannon House Office Building

Washington, D.C.  20515-5301

Phone: (202) 225-1188

Fax: (202) 226-0341

March 24, 2010

Mr. Tim J. Rohr

P.O 9001

Agat, Guam  96928

Dear Mr. Rohr,

I write in response to your e-mail message concerning the Health Care Reform package passed by the House late yesterday. H.R. 3590, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act provides no federal financing for abortions. (emphases mine) The House, Senate, and President Obama have taken a number of steps to ensure that the Hyde Amendment, a longstanding prohibition on public funds from being used to finance abortion, will apply to H.R. 3590. If a consumer wishes to purchase an insurance policy that includes abortion coverage, they will not be allowed to use federal tax credits or subsidies to do so.  Section 1303 of Title I lays out the special rules prohibiting the use of federal funds for abortions and requiring consumers to write separate checks if they wish to purchase insurance coverage for elective abortions.  School-based and Community Health Centers established under Sections 4101 and 4201 are specifically prohibited from performing abortions.  Section 1303 also allows states and territories will have the right to exclude plans that offer abortion from being offered on their exchanges, if a territory ops-into an exchange system. (emphases mine) [Here, we see that Obamacare does in fact fund abortion through the exchanges. The problem is that for many, insurance will only be available to them through the exchanges. And if the only plans available to them fund abortions then consumers will be forced to fund abortions. The question is why abortion coverage is required at all.] Finally, H.R. 3590 re-affirms existing federal conscience protections; no doctor or other health care practitioner will be required to perform abortions and no government may discriminate against them for refusing to do so. [As we have already seen, everyone is forced, via the "contraceptive mandate", to fund abortions through the "free" distribution of abortifacients (Plan B and ella) through our insurance plans, a violation of conscience for many. Again, no opposition to the mandate from the Congresswoman.]

The Executive Order signed by President Obama, today, calls for vigorous enforcement of these provisions.  It does not purport to supplant or replace statutory language as the bill already prohibits federal funding of abortion.  The Executive Order was an important step taken by the President to show pro-life members of Congress, such as myself, that his Administration is committed to enforcing existing statute. A coalition of pro-life Democrats, led by Bart Stupak of Michigan, announced that they would ultimately support passage of H.R. 3590 with this additional consideration from President Obama. [If there was no abortion in Obamacare, there would have been no need for this executive order.]

Last week, a coalition representing over 50,000 Catholic nuns in the United States wrote to Congress to express their support of the health care reform package.  The nun's letter read in part that "despite false claims to the contrary, the Senate bill will not provide taxpayer funding for elective abortions.  It will uphold longstanding conscience protections and it will make historic new investments - $250 million - in support of pregnant women. 

I have always been a staunch proponent of the right to life. Thank you for your correspondence regarding this important issue.

Sincerely,

/s/

MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO

Member of Congress

*****

TO WHICH, I REPLIED:

3/25/10

Dear Ms. Bordallo:

Thank you for your reply, but the personal support of  50,000 Catholic nuns or even a 100,000 Catholic nuns means nothing in relation to the position of the U.S. Council of Catholic Bishops and the authentic moral teaching of the Catholic Church which they uphold.

Perhaps you don't know this, but in the Roman Catholic Church there is a hierarchy and a teaching Magisterium. Just because one is a nun or priest does not provide instant credibility on matters of the Faith.

Besides it is well known that many (sadly) congregations and communities of nuns (and some priests as well) are at odds with the church over abortion and other moral matters. Some are even engaged in pro-abortion activities. In any event the nuns do not trump the Bishops and the Bishops have stated that this bill funds abortions. See the following story on the USCCB website.

Bishops to House of Representatives: Fix Flaws or Vote No on Health Reform Bill. http://www.usccb.org/comm/archives/2010/10-051.shtml 

I'm sorry but your appeal to the credibility of disenfranchised nuns, regardless of their number, over the teaching magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church is another example of complete ignorance on this matter.

I assume, also, that you did not bother to read the letter from the NRLC to the House that I included in my last correspondence or you would not have responded as you did here.

Besides, as a lawmaker you should know that an executive order cannot trump federal law and that such an order can be easily rescinded or set to expire. 

 Esperansa consists of over 1000 Guam citizens. Out of respect for your office and your person I will once again encourage you to examine the facts and actually look at what the Bishops have said and not just a group of nuns and your own pro-abortion colleagues. 

However, out of respect for the unborn and a desire to do everything possible to not see this legislation implemented on Guam I will make sure that everyone of our members knows of your position and your response.

Sadly,

Tim Rohr

The Esperansa Project

*****

THE CONGRESSWOMAN THEN REPLIES:

MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO

427 Cannon House Office Building

Washington, D.C.  20515-5301

Phone: (202) 225-1188

Fax: (202) 226-0341

March 25, 2010

Mr. Timothy Rohr

P.O. Box 9001

Agat, Guam  96928

Dear Mr. Rohr,

My support for health care reform in general and H.R. 3590 in particular is deeply rooted in my Catholic faith.  The Church's tenets of universal love and compassion demand that we work to make health care affordable and accessible for all and not simply a luxury of the wealthy and privileged.  The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops themselves stated in their latest press release that "Christian discipleship means, 'working to ensure that all people have access to what makes them fully human and fosters their human dignity' (United States Catechism for Adults, page 454). Included among those elements is the provision of necessary and appropriate health care." [She obviously ignores the fact that the bishops have just stated to "vote no" on the health reform bill if the flaw of abortion funding is not fixed.]

Beyond the statements of the Bishops [so then there is no need to declare about how "deeply rooted" here Catholic faith is if she feels free to discard the authority of the bishops on this moral matter] are the truly horrifying implications of our current health care system.  The harms of our current system extend well beyond bankruptcy and poverty. A study by the Harvard Medical School, published in the peer-reviewed American Journal of Public Health last year, estimated that over 45,000 Americans die unnecessarily each year because they lack health insurance. These are the poor, the weak, and the sick that Christ taught us to love and care for.  My Catholic faith, and indeed my humanity, compels me to help them. [Yes, Congresswoman, and each year over ONE MILLION tiny unborn Americans die - or rather are burned, sliced, and otherwise torn to pieces while they scream in silence. (Would you care to watch the video?) Apparently neither your Catholic faith nor your humanity "compels" you to "help them."Feel free to show us your record of opposing your party's pro-abortion policies. Show us your registered objection to the abortion funding you have already acknowledged exists in Obamacare.]

My Catholic faith also teaches me to respect the sanctity of all life, including that which is not yet born.  I disagree with you that H.R. 3590 provides federal financing for abortions.  (emphases mine) [She continues to rely on the technicality of "federal financing for abortions" and ignores that abortions will be funded through the exchanges required by Obamacare.] I will enumerate a number of the bill's provisions to ensure that public funds are not used for abortions.  Section 1303 contains the following special rules:

"nothing in this title (or any amendment made by this title), shall be construed to require a qualified health plan to provide coverage of services described in subparagraph (B)(i) or (B)(ii) as part of its essential health benefits for any plan year" 

"The Secretary may not determine, in accordance with subparagraph (A)(ii), that the community health insurance option established under section 1323 shall provide coverage of [abortion] as part of benefits"

"the State shall assure that no funds flowing through or from the community health insurance option, and no other Federal funds, pay or defray the cost of providing coverage of services described in subparagraph (B)(i). The United States shall not bear the insurance risk for a State's required coverage of [abortion]"

"If a qualified health plan provides coverage of [abortion], the issuer of the plan shall not use any amount attributable to any of the following for purposes of paying for such services:

(i) The credit under section 36B of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (and the amount (if any) of the advance payment of the credit under section 1412 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act).

(ii) Any cost-sharing reduction under section 1402 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (and the amount (if any) of the advance payment of the reduction under section 1412 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act)."

"No individual health care provider or health care facility may be discriminated against because of a willingness or an unwillingness, if doing so is contrary to the religious or moral beliefs of the provider or facility, to provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions."

Section 1303 also contains a blanket protection reaffirming existing federal conscience protection laws:

"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."

My reading of this language, along with other pro-life Democrats like Congressman Dale Kildee, has led me to conclude that H.R. 3590 will not lead to federal funding of elective abortions.  The non-partisan Congressional Research Service confirmed this, stating in their report that the Senate bill "would prohibit the subsidies from paying any part of elective abortions."  For this reason, I am able to support H.R. 3590 without reservations as I do not believe that it will promote abortions or change existing federal law. You are correct that President Obama's Executive Order cannot trump statute, but it was a clear sign that this Administration will uphold the law which prohibits the federal funding or financing of elective abortions.

H.R. 3590 is a very large bill that will reshape over 1/6th of our economy; as such I understand your concerns about how it may affect abortion coverage.  I will be monitoring the implementation of the bill to ensure that the protections against federal financing of abortion are vigorously enforced and any violations are with dealt with accordingly. [So where is she now that we are forced to fund the "free" distribution of baby killing pills through our insurance premiums and the funding of abortions through the state exchanges is common knowledge? Where is her "monitoring" and her assurance that "violations are dealt with accordingly"? Silence.]

Thank you again for your continued correspondence on this important matter. 

Sincerely,

/s/

MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO

Member of Congress


NOTE. HERE'S HOW ABORTIONS WILL FUNDED THROUGH THE EXCHANGES: Insurance plans that cover abortions may participate in state exchanges and receive federal subsidies. To maintain the illusion that this arrangement does not amount to taxpayer subsidization of abortion, the law’s authors devised a scheme in which individuals enrolled in these plans must pay a separate premium that solely pays for abortions (i.e., because the government subsidies cannot directly pay for abortions). The law does not provide a means for individuals to opt-out of paying the abortion premium, and it prohibits plans from advertising that an abortion premium is required under their plan. 

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/mar/28/confronting-abortion-premium-mandate/#ixzz2cVlEBZPH

[So this is why the Congresswoman continues to rely on the technicality of "no taxpayer subsidization of abortion" and why she either ignores or discredits the warning of the bishops.]

*****

I THEN REPLIED:

3/26/10

Dear Ms. Bordallo,

I appreciate that you are willing to devote time and thought to my inquiries.

However, do you not think that if abortion was just one issue amongst many the Bishops themselves would have said what you say here? They would have told us: look, while the bill allows for abortion funding we feel that it addresses other issues that are just as harmful, so we feel that we should support it because it still does a lot of good.

They did not, because they could not. Despite all the other supposed benefits of the bill that you list here, when it came down to the wire, they opposed it because of its funding of abortion.

You continue to insist that abortion funding is not in the bill. I guess you know better than President Obama since, and I'll say it again, he had to sign an executive order to negate the funding that is in the bill. And, I'll say it again, an executive order that is judicially unenforceable.

I guess you also know better than the U.S. Council of Catholic Bishops and the majority of pro-life leaders in the United States.

The essential tenet of all Catholic moral reasoning is that "the ends NEVER justifies the means".

Essentially what you are saying is that so long as health care addresses other supposed social injustices, a few more dead babies is just the price we have to pay.

Another essential tenet of Catholic moral reasoning is that the defenselessness of the victim determines the moral priority.

A person with no health care can at least cry out for help. An unborn child cannot. The unborn child is the most defenseless of all, which is why, when it came down to all the other wonderful Catholic social priorities that this Health Bill is supposed to address, the Bishops still HAD TO SAY NO.

I don't blame you for not knowing this. Most Catholics think like you, especially most Catholic politicians as evidenced by your colleagues Biden and Pelosi and those 50,000 nuns.

However, Catholicism is not a democracy. The majority does not rule. I'm wondering if you bothered to consult with your own bishop given the severe gravity of this issue.

The bottom line is that your support of this bill is in official opposition to the stated position of the official magisterial teaching of the Catholic Church on the issue of abortion, regardless of what you may or not think the bill does.

We are looking at introducing a bill on Guam, as are other states, that will prohibit the Health Care bill from paying for abortions on Guam. We will send you a copy of the legislation when it is ready. We will give you a chance to demonstrate publicly your commitment to the sanctity of life.

Thank you for your time.

Tim Rohr

The Esperansa Project

*****

I DID NOT RECEIVE A REPLY TO THE ABOVE EMAIL SO I SENT THE FOLLOWING

3/26/10

MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO

Member of Congress 

Dear Ms. Bordallo,

Again, I want to express my appreciation for your willingness to engage me on this issue. I again want to express that I in no way want to infer that you intended any harm nor do I question your sincere commitment to your Catholic Faith and its teachings regarding the sanctity of life.

However, when it comes to matters of Faith and Morals, I do urge you, as I would urge all Catholics, to consult the Teaching Magisterium of the Church. 

This will be my last correspondence with you regarding this issue because I am attaching a legal brief from the Office of the General Counsel of the U.S. Council of Catholic Bishops to which I can add nothing.

The brief is entitled:

LEGAL ANALYSIS OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE PATIENT PROTECTION AND AFFORDABLE CARE ACT AND CORRESPONDING EXECUTIVE ORDER REGARDING ABORTION FUNDING AND CONSCIENCE PROTECTION

The first paragraph reads thus (emphases mine):

The purpose of this legal memorandum is to identify the problems of the recently-passed Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Pub. L. No. 111-148 ("PPACA" or "the Act"), in relation to abortion funding and conscience protection, and then to assess whether (and if so, how) the corresponding Executive Order of March 24, 2010, corrects those problems. Although we wish it were otherwise, we must conclude that PPACA poses serious problems in these two areas, and that the Executive Order does not correct those problems.

....

The last paragraph reads:

Thus, the shortcomings of the Act remain, and correspondingly, the need for fixes remains. Only Congress, with the consent of the President, has the legal authority to make those fixes. Congress and the President should act promptly to do so; they should not await courts' likely invalidation of the few provisions of the Executive Order that even purport to be fixes.

.....

While we know that you are but one small non-voting voice in Congress we still expect to hear it speaking up in the name of the unborn. As Catholics we must do all we can to prevent the further destruction of human life that this bill now authorizes but can be changed by the proposed "fixes". We hope you will represent us proudly.

Tim Rohr

The Esperansa Project

*****

THE CONGRESSWOMAN REPLIES

MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO

427 Cannon House Office Building

Washington, D.C.  20515-5301

Phone: (202) 225-1188

Fax: (202) 226-0341

March 26, 2010

Mr. Timothy Rohr

P.O. Box 9001

Agat, Guam  96928

Dear Mr. Rohr,

Thank you for your continued correspondence regarding the treatment of abortion in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. I certainly appreciate continued vigilance in protecting the life of unborn children.

In your earlier email you stated that you would work with the Guam Legislature to ensure that any health plans on Guam that might participate in an exchange do not subsidize or offer abortion services.  This is specifically authorized under Section 1303 of the bill.  Excerpts are as follows:

`SEC. 1303. SPECIAL RULES. 

`(a) State Opt-out of Abortion Coverage- 

`(1) IN GENERAL- A State may elect to prohibit abortion coverage in qualified health plans offered through an Exchange in such State if such State enacts a law to provide for such prohibition. 

`(2) TERMINATION OF OPT OUT- A State may repeal a law described in paragraph (1) and provide for the offering of such services through the Exchange. `(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.

[Clearly, here, the congresswoman shows she understands just how abortions would be funded through Obamacare as she details the way we can possibly opt out.] 

Finally, and to be crystal clear, I am a pro-life Democrat and have always stood up for the rights of the unborn.  While we may have a difference of interpretation regarding how the health care reform bill handles the abortion question, I certainly appreciate your feedback. [One wonders what good is a "pro-life Democrat" or Republican for that matter if they never speak up against abortion in the political arena!]

Again, thank you for contacting me about this matter and I hope the information I have provided will help you in your efforts locally.

Sincerely,

/s/

MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO

Member of Congress

*****

3/28/10

Dear Ms. Bordallo,

Thank you for providing this information. It will help us craft our bill. We do hope that you will publicly support it and that you will address this issue if you participate in the round table to be held on April 6. [She did not show up, and the staff representing her did not address this issue.]

Once again, I want to restate that the abortion funding in the bill is not a matter of my interpretation but what the teaching magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church, to which we both belong, actually say. 

We will begin work on the legislation immediately and look forward to your support. Your public support of abortion opt-out legislation will go far to demonstrating your defense of life, particularly the unborn.

As you know, most Catholic politicians claim to be pro-life, but very few can point to any legislation or support of any legislation that ACTUALLY does something to limit the horror that is abortion. 

As you may know, and perhaps I shared previously, Guam is the easiest place in the United States to procure an abortion compared to an AUL study which I can send you if you like.

We also have one of the highest per capita abortion rates in the nation with 2/3 of the aborted being Chamorro children. To give some perspective to this we can say that this year, given the number of children who will be aborted on Guam, 14.6% of the Class of 2026 will never see the light of day.

This is a staggeringly high number. As you know the ethnic Chamorro population on Guam is in severe decline and is already a minority on their own island. Killing approximately 200 Chamorro children per year (that's a low estimate given that our reporting laws have not been enforced) is a severe problem.

While most of our elected leaders continue to proclaim their pro-life stance, only Eddie Calvo has dared to enter any pro-life legislation. With the support of The Esperansa Project, he was able to make Partial Birth Abortion on Guam illegal.

He also introduced Bill 54 - The Women's Right to Know Act. Similar bills in the states have gone far to save many babies. However, although it was voted out of committee, Senator Frank Aguon has seen fit to hold the bill and has not returned any of our requests for information about the status of the bill. 

It is matters like this, when it comes down to actual legislation where lawmakers who claim to be pro-life, but fail to act, that cause us to question the sincerity of their claims. I'm sure you understand.

Thank you,

Tim Rohr

The Esperansa Project

*****

MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO

427 Cannon House Office Building

Washington, D.C.  20515-5301

Phone: (202) 225-1188

Fax: (202) 226-0341

March 29, 2010

Mr. Timothy Rohr

P.O. Box 9001

Agat, Guam  96928 

Dear Mr. Rohr,

Thank you for your continue input regarding abortion issues in the health care reform legislation.  I look forward to seeing a final product of your work with the Guam Legislature to address the issue of abortion coverage in any territory-sponsored exchange. 

Again, thank you for keeping me informed of your efforts and I am sure I will see you around Guam.

Sincerely,

/s/

MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO

Member of Congress

*****

3/30/10

And thank you for your understanding. We should have the legislation ready in a few days. Perhaps it can be mentioned at the round table. Prior to thinking of the legislation, The Esperansa Project was prepared to make a public protest at the legislature. Instead, we would simply like to show our support for the proposed legislation if we can find someone to introduce it. In the past, only Eddie Calvo has volunteered to introduce pro-life legislation. I'm sure he would be willing to do it again, but I'm willing to give the democrats a shot at this given that the health care bill on the national scene was a completely democrat construct. Do you know of any democrat senator who would be willing? I'm sure they will want to see the legislation and they will, but in the meanwhile, it would be good to identify someone who would be willing to do it subject to reviewing the legislation...which will be in line with all the other legislation now being introduced in the states based on the provision of the law which you forwarded me. I look forward to your reply.

Thank you,

Tim Rohr

The Esperansa Project

THERE WAS NO REPLY

*****

Every 1.2 days on Guam...THIS HAPPENS. Learn more. Get the facts at www.esperansa.org

20 weeks

24 Weeks