I don't dispute that there are some concerns with healthcare policy, its connection to abortions, and religious freedoms, but could someone help me understand Mr. Goeglein's assertions that HSAs indirectly subsidize abortion or constitute an insurance subsidy?

A Health Savings Account (HSA) is simply a way to save and pay for qualifying personal or family medical expenses tax-free. Employers have the option to make contributions to an employee's HSA if they so choose, but they are under no obligation to do so. The government does not make contributions to these accounts (unless they happen to contribute as an employer as described previously, which would be considered part of the employee's compensation package, not a subsidy).

In any case, no one is forced to open or fund an HSA. The account holder has the freedom to spend the account funds on any qualifying medical expenses of his or her choosing, or even withdraw the money after paying taxes and any applicable penalties. The government does not force anyone to use these funds to pay for abortions (or even force them to be applied to insurance premiums). I am unclear on how HSAs, which can be great savings tools for individuals for whom an HDHP makes sense, could be construed as an abortion or insurance subsidy.