Would the Prevention First Act provide public funding for abortion services?  Only if you consider emergency contraception abortion.  And the Catholic News Agency must.

CNA characterized Prevention First thus: 

The PFA provides more taxpayer funding for contraception and abortion and contains coercive elements which could deny federal funding to some pro-life hospitals...PFA would mandate that health insurance programs that cover prescriptions must cover abortifacient contraceptives.

I wish that Prevention First would overturn the ban on federal funding for abortion care, but, truth is, it won't.  Where is the taxpayer funding for abortion in this bill?  What are the "coercive elements that could deny federal funding" to hospitals?  And what are the so-called "abortifacient contraceptives" (now there's a contradiction in terms!)?

CNA must consider emergency contraception and hormonal contraception abortion. The bill would restore access to birth control to low-income and college-aged women and fully fund Title X.  The only way Prevention First could provide federal funding for abortion is if the Pill is considered abortion.

Prevention First would also require hospitals receiving federal money to provide emergency contraception to rape survivors who wanted it. Hospitals are required to explain to women that EC does not cause abortion.  Is that coercive to medical institutions, or is it coercive to a recently-assaulted patient not to inform her of an effective way to prevent pregnancy?  I thought so.

Catholic News Agency and anti-choicers around the nation are ringing alarm bells on Prevention First, calling it "FOCA's evil twin" and trumping up fears over its impact.  Perhaps they've realized FOCA isn't going anywhere and are setting their sights on a more likely adversary.  Their all-out mischaracterization of the bill suggests that they know that if the public knew what Prevention First is really about -- helping women prevent unintended pregnancies -- it would be a shoo-in.