On March 14, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin posted a new anti-health care reform essay on her Facebook page that contains numerous falsehoods regarding reconciliation, House rules, and "federal funding of abortion."

Palin: Democrats want to use reconciliation to "bypass the regular voting procedure." In a March 14 Facebook post, Palin accused Democrats of trying to "ram through their takeover of our health care system regardless of the consequences" and of being "determined to use the Senate reconciliation process as a parliamentary trick to bypass the regular voting procedure."

Palin: House Democrats are trying to pass health care "without actually voting on it." Palin also accused House Democrats of trying to pass the Senate health care bill without a vote. She said: "The latest twists and turns in the Obamacare drama seem almost surreal. One minute the Democrat [sic] leadership is trying to amend a bill before the president has even signed it into law, and the next minute they're trying to draft a new rule that will allow the House to 'deem' a bill passed without actually voting on it!"

Palin falsely suggests that the Senate bill provides "federal funding for abortion." Palin commended the "Republicans in Congress" and the "Democrats [who] are standing with them" for "holding the line" in opposing health care reform. Palin specifically cited Rep. Bart Stupak as an example of a Democrat who is "holding the line" by saying "he won't vote for the Senate bill if federal funding of abortion is included." Stupak has repeatedly falsely claimed that the Senate bill allows for federal funding of abortion, while the abortion amendment he sponsored in the House bill does not. Stupak has also falsely maintained that his amendment does not go beyond the Hyde Amendment, which currently prohibits the federal funding of abortion, except in cases of life endangerment, rape, or incest.

Fox Nation highlighted Palin's post. Fox Nation posted Palin's Facebook essay and highlighted it with the headline "Palin: 'This is the Final Push!'" From Fox Nation:

Reconciliation process is part of congressional budget process. The budget reconciliation process is defined by the U.S. House Committee on Rules as "part of the congressional budget process ... utilized when Congress issues directives to legislate policy changes in mandatory spending (entitlements) or revenue programs (tax laws) to achieve the goals in spending and revenue contemplated by the budget resolution."

Republicans repeatedly used reconciliation to pass Bush's agenda. Republicans used the budget reconciliation process to pass Bush's 2001 and 2003 tax cuts as well as the 2005 "Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act." The Senate also used the procedure to pass a bill containing a provision that would permit oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. (The final version of that bill signed by Bush did not contain the provision on drilling.)

Reconciliation has repeatedly been used to reform the health care system. On February 24, NPR noted that many "major changes to health care laws" have passed via reconciliation. These measures include COBRA, which allows laid-off workers to keep their insurance coverage, and the State Children's Health Insurance Program:

On NPR, Rosenbaum stated, "[T]he way in which virtually all of health reform ... has happened over the past 30 years has been the reconciliation process." During the February 24 broadcast of NPR's Morning Edition, health policy correspondent Julie Rovner quoted George Washington University professor Sara Rosenbaum saying: "In fact, the way in which virtually all of health reform, with very, very limited exceptions, has happened over the past 30 years has been the reconciliation process."

Report: House would still have to vote on corrections to the Senate bill. Contrary to Palin's claim that the House would " 'deem' a bill passed without actually voting on it," CongressDaily reported (subscription required) that the rule would require that the "House approves a corrections bill that would make changes to the Senate version" for passage. From NationalJournal.com's CongressDaily:

House Rules Chairwoman Louise Slaughter is prepping to help usher the healthcare overhaul through the House and potentially avoid a direct vote on the Senate overhaul bill, the chairwoman said Tuesday.

Slaughter is weighing preparing a rule that would consider the Senate bill passed once the House approves a corrections bill that would make changes to the Senate version.

Senate bill prohibits issuers from using federal funds "for purposes of paying for" abortion. The Senate health care reform bill as passed states that if a "qualified health plan" offered under the health insurance exchange provides coverage of abortion services for which public funding is banned, "the issuer of the plan shall not use any amount attributable" to the subsidies created under the bill "for purposes of paying for such services."

Senate bill establishes a separate premium to segregate funds used to pay for abortions from federal funds. The Senate bill as passed further requires issuers to "collect from each enrollee" in plans that cover abortions a "separate payment" for "an amount equal to the actuarial value of the coverage of" abortion services. This value must be at least $1 per enrollee, per month. All such funds are deposited into a separate account used by the issuer to pay for abortion services; federal funds and the remaining premium payments are used to pay for all other services.

Current law allows for Medicaid to provide coverage for abortions restricted by Hyde by using similar fund segregation. According to a November 1, 2009, study by the Guttmacher Institute, 17 states provide coverage under Medicaid for "all or most medically necessary abortions," not just abortions in cases of life endangerment, rape, and incest. Those states "us[e] their own funds" -- not federal funds -- "to pay" for the procedures. Therefore, in 17 states, Medicaid, a federally subsidized health care program, covers abortions in circumstances in which federal money is prohibited from being spent on abortion.

On Fox & Friends, co-host Steve Doocy falsely suggested that the Senate's health care reform legislation contains "language that does allow for" federal "funding for abortion" beyond what is currently allowed under the Hyde Amendment, which forbids the use of federal funds for abortions except in cases of life endangerment, rape or incest. Doocy referenced both Rep. Bart Stupak's (D-MI) and the US Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) opposition to health care reform because they claim the Senate bill allows for federal funding of abortion.

Doocy: Stupak and USCCB oppose Senate bill because it contains "language that does allow for funding for abortion." On the March 15 Fox & Friends, Doocy reported that Stupak has "made it very clear that he's not going to vote" in favor of health care reform because the Senate bill "contains language that does allow for the funding of abortion." Doocy added: "Last week, the Catholic Church, the US Conference of Catholic Bishops" announced that "they are against this because it does allow for funding for abortion."

Both Stupak and the USCCB falsely claim Senate bill allows for federal funding of abortion. Stupak has repeatedly falsely claimed that the Senate bill allows for federal funding of abortion, while the abortion amendment he sponsored in the House bill does not. Stupak has also maintained, falsely, that his amendment does not go beyond the Hyde Amendment, which currently prohibits the federal funding of abortion, except in cases of life endangerment, rape or incest. The USCCB has also advanced these falsehoods. In its March 11 statement to parishioners, which Doocy cited in his report, the USCCB stated that "the U.S. House of Representatives passed major health care reform that reaffirms the essential, longstanding and widely supported policy against using federal funds for elective abortions...the U.S. Senate rejected this policy and passed health care reform that requires federal funds to help subsidize and promote health plans that cover elective abortions."

The Senate health care reform bill as passed states that if a "qualified health plan" offered under the health insurance exchange provides coverage of abortion services for which public funding is banned, "the issuer of the plan shall not use any amount attributable" to the subsidies created under the bill "for purposes of paying for such services."

Senate bill establishes a separate premium to segregate funds used to pay for abortions from federal funds. The Senate bill as passed further requires issuers to "collect from each enrollee" in plans that cover abortions a "separate payment" for "an amount equal to the actuarial value of the coverage of" abortion services. This value must be at least $1 per enrollee, per month. All such funds are deposited into a separate account used by the issuer to pay for abortion services; federal funds and the remaining premium payments are used to pay for all other services.

Current law allows for Medicaid to provide coverage for abortions restricted by Hyde by using similar fund segregation. According to a November 1, 2009, study by the Guttmacher Institute, 17 states provide coverage under Medicaid for "all or most medically necessary abortions," not just abortions in cases of life endangerment, rape, and incest. Those states "us[e] their own funds" -- not federal funds -- "to pay" for the procedures. Therefore, in 17 states, Medicaid, a federally subsidized health care program, covers abortions in circumstances in which federal money is prohibited from being spent on abortion.

Michael O'Brien / The Hill:
House Democrats release bill for Budget markup Monday  —  House Democrats on Sunday night set into motion what they hope will be the final steps on healthcare reform.  —  The House Budget Committee on Sunday evening released text that will serve as the base legislation for the changes the House will seek to the Senate bill this week.

Karl Rove brought his misinformation tour to Meet the Press by making false claims about the Iraq war and the use of reconciliation to pass health care reform legislation.

From the March 14 edition of NBC's Meet the Press:

TOM BROKAW (guest host): And Mr. Rove, there was also sharp criticism, and justified, from a lot of quarters of the management of the war once you did go to war. The insurgency was more swiftly activated on the part of those Islamics who wanted to fight back. We were not greeted as liberators beyond the first couple of days. We didn't have enough troops to provide internal security. The cost of the war skyrocketed almost from the beginning. There was not a sharing of the oil revenue that a lot of people had promised, including the vice president.

ROVE: Let me correct you. There -- you've put it down a lot of things here. I'll be happy to deal with them serially or together, whichever you like. But for example, on that one, the administration emphatically said this was not about oil. And we thought right from the beginning --

BROKAW: No, no, not about oil, but it was about --

ROVE: Let me finish.

BROKAW: -- how we would share oil revenue and it would help offset the cost of the war.

ROVE: No. No, no. Tom, with all due respect, that was not the policy of our government, that we were going to go into Iraq and take their resource in order to pay for the cost of the war.

BROKAW: But it would be part of the consequence of getting the country stabilized.

ROVE: No. Part of the consequence would be that Saddam Hussein, who used the oil market to manipulate prices and deny supplies to the West, would no longer be in a position to do that. But the suggestion that somehow or another the administration had as its policy, "We're going to go into Iraq and take their resource and pay for the war," is not [unintelligible]

BROKAW: I didn't say that. What I said was that there would be an oil sharing and the revenue from that would help offset the cost of the war. And I didn't stay it was a principal factor, but it was part of the larger scheme.

ROVE: No, with all due respect, we're simply going to disagree on this.

Rumsfeld: "[T]he bulk of the funds for Iraq's reconstruction will come from Iraqis," including "oil revenues." In an October 2, 2003, defined by the U.S. House Committee on Rules as "part of the congressional budget process ... utilized when Congress issues directives to legislate policy changes in mandatory spending (entitlements) or revenue programs (tax laws) to achieve the goals in spending and revenue contemplated by the budget resolution."

Republicans repeatedly used reconciliation to pass Bush's agenda. Republicans used the budget reconciliation process to pass Bush's 2001 and 2003 tax cuts as well as the 2005 "Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act." The Senate also used the procedure to pass a bill containing a provision that would permit oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. (The final version of that bill signed by Bush did not contain the provision on drilling.)

Reconciliation has repeatedly been used to reform the health care system. On February 24, NPR noted that many "major changes to health care laws" have passed via reconciliation. These measures include COBRA, which allows laid-off workers to keep their insurance coverage, and the State Children's Health Insurance Program:

On NPR, Rosenbaum stated, "[T]he way in which virtually all of health reform ... has happened over the past 30 years has been the reconciliation process." During the February 24 broadcast of NPR's Morning Edition, health policy correspondent Julie Rovner quoted George Washington University professor Sara Rosenbaum saying: "In fact, the way in which virtually all of health reform, with very, very limited exceptions, has happened over the past 30 years has been the reconciliation process."

Columnists George Will and David Brooks both claimed that the deficit reduction provisions of the Senate health care bill are, in Brooks' words, "totally bogus" because "it has 10 years of taxes and six years of benefits." In fact, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has estimated that the Senate bill will not only reduce budget deficits through 2019, but will continue to reduce deficits in the following decade.

Brooks: "[A] lot of the deficit control is totally bogus." Appearing on the March 14 edition of NBC's Meet the Press, Brooks said he "lean[s] against" health care reform, in part because "a lot of the deficit control is totally bogus." Brooks added: "We're [going to] have 10 years of revenue to pay for six years of costs."

Will: Legislation's deficit reduction is due to "accounting gimmicks." On the March 14 edition of ABC's This Week, host Jake Tapper said to Will, "[F]ormer Congressman Ray LaHood ... has an op-ed in the Chicago Tribune today talking about why, as a member of the House, he would have voted for this bill, because this bill reduces the deficit, and it also brings down health care costs and it will make insurance more affordable. Do you believe that he would have voted for it as a Republican congressman?" Will replied: "Not a bit. It reduces the deficit because you have 10 years of taxes and six years of benefits and other accounting gimmicks."

CBO expects Senate bill to continue deficit reduction during decade after 2019. From the March 11 CBO estimate of the Senate health care bill:

CBO expects that the legislation, if enacted, would reduce federal budget deficits over the decade after 2019 relative to those projected under current law -- with a total effect during that decade that is in a broad range between one-quarter percent and one-half percent of GDP. That judgment is unchanged from CBO's previous assessment, and the imprecision of that calculation reflects the even greater degree of uncertainty that attends to it, compared with CBO's 10-year budget estimates.

CBO estimated the House bill will also result in deficit reductions in the decade after 2019. From the November 6 CBO estimate:

According to CBO and JCT's assessment, enacting H.R. 3962 would result in a net reduction in federal budget deficits of $109 billion over the 2010-2019 period (see Table 1) [this estimate was later updated to $138 billion over the same period]. In the subsequent decade, the collective effect of its provisions would probably be slight reductions in federal budget deficits. Those estimates are all subject to substantial uncertainty.