Does Focus on the Family Fund Abortions?

Thank you very much for this intelligent, fact-based, link-filled, on-the-record-sourced, suspicions-clearly-labeled-as-such report, Amy Sullivan.
.
That I may or may not disagree with your analysis, or may or may not find this to be a terribly high priority news item in terms of the current debate does not take away from the decent quality of your piece.

I'm going to Focus on the Family headquarters to protest their support for abortion funders!

Betrayal!

So what? First of all, there's a difference between tax dollars/forced contributions and voluntary actions by private actors, so the "strict standard" (pretty loaded) is arguably important here. Second of all, they may pick these guys because they feel it gives their employees the best coverage. They take the market as they find it, whereas the government creates the fungibility.
.
Amy, cover the Scientology verdict. You're just shilling here.

I have no problem picking on Focus on the Family. Their argument is clearly just a pretext for opposing health care reform, per se.

Grow up Amy!

This kind of gotcha stuff makes me crazy.

This is not about abortion, funding abortion, fungibility of premiums. Getting into the argument at this level validates the ludicrous positions taken by anti-choice groups.

If they really were concerned about abortion they'd be doing fundraising to subsidize norplant or other contraceptives for poor young women.

Good job reporting on the double-speak and double-standards of the so-called "Christian" organizations.

Until the anti-choicers see that there are more effective ways to reduce the number of abortions I'm sure we'll see more hypocrisy and less intelligence.

Given the fact that Obama is a militant enthusiast of killing infants who have survived abortions (http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2008/02/links_to_barack.html), does this Principal insurance company pay its abortionists extra for killing such infants who have survived attempted abortions (i.e., killings)? Does the Democrats' so-called "health care" plan (talk about a vile euphemism ...)?

As if Focus on the Family is truly concerned that it's being hypocritical, Amy.

Amy I just don't know what to day about this post. On the one hand it is a very obvious example of the ludicrousy that masquerades as wingnut logic. While the birthers, tenthers, and all manner of wing nuttery continuously call anything that supports their position logic and no matter how logical something seems at first, if the argument can be used against them later then it should be ignored. On the other hand,if only more villagers could just do that simple task of asking them selves if they are helping the wingnuts to engage in a double standard, compare apples and oranges, or any other example of having one set of rules for themselves and a different standard for everyone else, maybe our world would like a lot differently. maybe it would look a lot better.

I have two things I wanted to say regarding this story:

1) lol
2) Good job.

Thanks, Amy. You rock. Moral relativism may be a slippery slope, but those demanding absolute moral purity need to follow their standards absolutely, so kudos for pointing out this example. If nothing else, for once you've got your usual critics (not me) tied up in knots (or ribbons or handcuffs?).

Like many non profit orgaizations, Focus on the Family is actually self insured, therefore premiums go into their own fund. Principal is only the third party administrator of the plan, they are paid for that service. Amy should do her research.

[...] Does Focus on the Family fund abortions? [...]

[...] out that James Dobson’s Focus on the Family provides its employees with health care through an insurance company that covers abortion services.  RightWingWatch wonders if Terry will now show up in Colorado Springs with a sea of [...]

[...] Time reports: [...]

[...] The Great Answers About New York's Uniqueness, Part 2 Add Your Comment: [...]

[...] Nor have they strayed from the spotlight. [...]

[...] Amy Sullivan has an article rebutting anti-choice arguments on abortion and health care [...]

[...] is paying for somebody’s abortion. In a recent “gotcha” moment, Time’s Amy Sullivan shows that Focus on the Family’s insurance comes from a company that pays for abortion. I see [...]

[...] to establish that there can indeed be such a thing as a bona fide pro-life Democrat. However, as Amy Sullivan points out on her blog for the Time magazine website, not even the health coverage provided by Focus on the Family would meet Stupak’s exacting [...]

[...] Or, alternatively, “premiums paid to that plan in the form of taxpayer-funded subsidies help support that abortion coverage even if individual abortion procedures are paid for out of a separate pool of privately-paid [...]

[...] paid to that plan in the form of taxpayer-funded subsidies help support that abortion coverage even if individual abortion procedures are paid for out of a separate pool of privately-paid premium dollars.” Or, alternatively, if a woman uses federal subsidies to pay [...]

[...] on abortions frees up nonfederal money that it does. But as Time’s Amy Sullivan recently noted, not even Focus on Family meets Stupak’s exacting standard. Principal, the health insurer for [...]

[...] [...]