Senators preserve path to expand govt abortion funding

Does ObamaCare mean that the government subsidizes abortions, or doesn't it? And if it doesn't, then why did senators just vote down an amendment to the bill that bars the government from paying for abortions under the proposed new health insurance framework, except under the rare circumstances already permitted under current law?

President Obama has unequivocally promised that his reforms will not create new government funding for abortion. But FactCheck.org has looked askance at Obama's promise on this all along. They note that the bill, as written in the House, at least, will indeed subsidize coverage of abortions, creating a more liberal funding regime than what currently exists. The Senate Finance bill does not contain a different provision — in fact, the Finance Committee is voting on “concepts” with an aim of writing the actual legislative language later. (This is an odd but not unprecedented way of crafting a bill.)

Today, Utah Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch's amendment, which would have preserved the status quo for federal abortion funding — permitted only to save a mother's life or in cases of rape or incest — was rejected on a 13-10 vote in the finance committee. All of the committee Democrats except Sen. Kent Conrad, N.D., voted against it. Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine was the only Republican to vote against it.

Living with HIV for 33 years: A San Francisco survivor’s tale on World AIDS Day

‘When you go to three or four funerals a week, it takes its toll’

By Carly Graf
Pilot program aims to ensure disabled people exiting homelessness stay housed

San Francisco city officials this week announced the expansion of a pilot program aimed at providing services for low-income adults…

By Bay City News
In the face of Omicron, San Francisco is an oasis of science and sanity

‘This is how we do things here. We wear a mask and get our shots’

By C.W. Nevius