by James Oliphant
With House leaders struggling to reach agreement on healthcare legislation, aiming toward a possible vote this week, a new hurdle has emerged: abortion.
Some conservative Democrats are threatening to pull their support from the massive healthcare bill unless their concerns over potential federal funding of abortion procedures are met. They fear that the Obama administration will take advantage of an expanded government role in healthcare to increase the availability of abortions nationwide.
The abortion issue has taken a back seat to a protracted dispute between Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Beverly Hills), chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, and moderate "Blue Dog" Democrats who worry about the bill's price tag and lack of cost controls. That conflict has delayed House Democrats from arriving at a final version of the bill and made it increasingly unlikely that the chamber will vote on the package this week.
On Monday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) signaled an openness to postponing the voting.
See the full story on the abortion hurdle in the healthcare reform debate in Tribune newspapers and here in the Swamp:
"I have said that I wanted a bill to pass before we left for the August recess," she said. "But I've also said that our members need the time . . . not only to get the bill written but to have plenty of time to review it. . . . So, we're on schedule either to do it now or to do it whenever."
The Senate last week pushed off floor action on a healthcare measure until September to give the finance committee more time to draft its version of the bill.
If the House leadership's dispute with the Blue Dogs is resolved, abortion looms as the next sticking point. Rep. Bart Stupak of Michigan and other Democrats opposed to abortion rights want to ensure that the bill includes language restricting taxpayer funds for the procedure.
The Hyde Amendment, passed in 1976, explicitly prevents the federal government from using tax dollars to fund abortion through Medicaid. But the reach of that law grows murkier if the government establishes its own competitive health insurance plan, or if it assists in creating a new market in which the public could sort through various private insurance plans. Both ideas could be included in the healthcare bill under consideration in Congress.
The Obama administration has tried to stay neutral on the matter.
"I think that it's appropriate for us to figure out how to just deliver on the cost savings and not get distracted by the abortion debate," President Obama said in an interview with CBS News;photovideo last week.
When asked about abortion prohibitions in the bill, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said last week that "a benefit package is better left to experts in the medical field to determine how best and what procedures to cover."
That is precisely what worries antiabortion advocates.
"By being silent on this issue, [Obama is] actually making an affirmative statement in favor of taxpayer abortions," Rep. John Fleming (R-La.) said.
As it stands, the House bill would create a Health Benefits Advisory Committee to prescribe which "essential benefits" should be offered in any government-supported insurance plan.
Opponents of abortion rights believe that unless there is specific wording to the contrary, abortion services will be included. "Unless you can specifically exclude abortion, it will be part of any federalized healthcare system," said Charmaine Yoest, executive director of Americans United for Life.
Efforts in other House committees to insert such prohibitions have failed. Stupak has vowed to push Waxman to include them in the version being written by the Energy and Commerce Committee.
Stupak was one of 19 Democrats to write to Pelosi last month to say that they "cannot support any healthcare proposal unless it excludes abortion from the scope of any government-defined or subsidized health insurance plan."
Abortion rights advocates say the bill simply would maintain the status quo, in which companies that offer health insurance are free to choose whether to cover abortion services. And they argue that any government restriction would mean that women who seek abortion coverage could be forced to choose a more expensive private health plan instead of a lower-cost, government-supported one. They also fear that insurers who wished to take advantage of government incentives would be forced to discontinue covering abortion procedures.
Stupak's proposal has drawn strong opposition from abortion rights advocates such as Rep. Louise M. Slaughter (D-N.Y.), who leads the rules committee.
"The starting point for Rep. Slaughter on the healthcare debate was protecting abortion rights," said Slaughter's spokesman, Vincent Morris.
Opponents of women's health and healthcare reform are exploiting healthcare reform as a way to push for unprecedented prohibitions on abortion coverage in the private marketplace," Planned Parenthood said in a recent statement.
Noam N. Levey contributed to this report.
Comments
A woman may have a "right to choose" but she doesn't have the right to make me pay for her choice.
Posted by: The guy who hides behind false names (so sayeth Don) | July 28, 2009 8:48 AM
What is the future of a society (country) that legalizes killing it own people? Are not the lives being destroyed innocent of any crime? Have they had any say in their being brought into life? Can't we accord them the same decency affored dogs & cats in this great country?
Posted by: SHERM WEISS | July 28, 2009 11:17 AM
The usual Trib/Swamp "debate" on abortion: Five pro-abortion sources quoted a total of 143 words, versus two anti-abortion sources quoted a total of 31 words--a 4.6 to 1 imbalance for the pro-abortion side.
Mr. Oliphant, if you headline a "debate", shouldn't you be giving both sides of the debate more or less equal time? Seems to me that's what a journalist used to do....
Cue in attacks from the equality-hating knuckledraggers.
Posted by: Bruce | July 28, 2009 11:21 AM
"A woman may have a "right to choose" but she doesn't have the right to make me pay for her choice."
And I object to my money being used for wars and torture; and lousy schools when I have no kids, and capital punishment, and so on. That's 'life' buddy.
Posted by: rupert | July 28, 2009 11:58 AM
Rupert, the government paying for someone to abort their baby is not the same as education, military, capital punishment, etc.
Whether one agrees over a war or not, the security of this country is a COLLECTIVE effort. The education of its children also is a COLLECTIVE effort. Whether one agrees with capital punishment or not, protecting citizens and punishing criminals is a COLLECTIVE effort. Aborting babies, whether one agrees with it or not, is not a COLLECTIVE effort.
Posted by: John D | July 28, 2009 12:30 PM
I agree with Rupert. There are things in this country we disagree with paying, but because we are Americans, we pay them. And, Bruce, it is NOT pro-abortion--it is PRO CHOICE!
Posted by: Janstress | July 28, 2009 12:41 PM
No, Janstress, it is indeed "pro-abortion". Life is a "choice" also, but not one that you're "pro". Let's be honest, shall we?
Posted by: The guy who hides behind false names (so sayeth Don) | July 28, 2009 1:12 PM
Sure John D, you're entitled to your opinion, but I disagree. Abortion is still legal, torture is not. Nonetheless, I don't think funding for abortion is likely to be in a plan that gets voted on.
Posted by: rupert | July 28, 2009 1:49 PM
"Janstress", if abortion is a "private" matter that is a woman's "choice," then by the same token I have the right not to be forced to pay for your "choice".
"Janstress", you (and other pro-abortionists) are not really for "choice". Rather, you're for "choice" only if you approve of the "choice."
The abortion legacy,
Seems to be,
"Choice for me,
But not for thee."
Posted by: Bruce | July 28, 2009 3:59 PM
Rupert, regardless of whether abortion is legal or not, that does not mean taxpayers have to pay for it. Alcohol is legal too, but taxpayers don't pay for people to drink. Getting a haircut is legal but is not taxpayer-funded. If someone chooses to get an abortion, it should be on their dime, not the taxpayers.
Posted by: John D | July 28, 2009 5:06 PM
It's not up to you, John D, it's up to Congress to allocate how tax money is spent. If they allocate it to legal abortions, they may; as I already said, I doubt they will. But if you want to dream up some more silly analogies, be my guest.
Posted by: rupert | July 28, 2009 6:30 PM
* * * * *
Posted by: rupert | July 28, 2009 6:30 PM
.
I think you’re missing some of what John D. is saying. Right now, abortion is not federally funded. It’s been that way for the past 32 years or so, and it was done that way to avoid endless controversy. So if a person wants an abortion, someone other than the government pays for it - and it’s normally the person itself. John D. is asserting that it ought to stay that way, and there are many people who feel the same way.
.
And, sure, theoretically, Congress can vote abortion funding into this bill. That is, they’ll put it in the bill if they want to kill it. There are a substantial number of Democrats from conservative districts who know they will be writing their own political death warrant if they vote for a bill that funds abortion. Thus, even aside from the Blue Dog’s objection to the cost problems, funding of abortion would further divide the Democrats.
.
Furthermore, you will see people in droves opting out of the health care plan (whether by the current opt-out provision or by suit) because forcing them to pay for abortions, either through participation in the mandatory program or by paying taxes, would violate their rights to religion and conscience. That, in turn, will defeat the efficacy of the health care plan. Insurance companies have only agreed to the present plans if Congress forces everyone into the system. You don’t want to disappoint the insurance companies, do you? Barack Obama, your fearless leader, certainly doesn’t! He wants them to (dare I say it) rule the World.
Posted by: John W. | July 28, 2009 11:18 PM
The beauty of our constitution is the right to privacy, which is enjoyed by all citizens, including women. So, I for one, stand in support of a woman's right to control her own body and all of those sickos out there, that believe it is alright to murder doctors, who chose to perform abortions and who are exercising their constitutional rights, America is even deeper do-do, than Bush&Cheney left it !! Christian nation, sure you are and those murderers are only exercising their religious rights !! Right-wing extremism is criminal, support it in any way and you are also criminal !! Obviously, that is all right with a lot of rightwing nut jobs !!
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME. ALIVE AND WHOLE. NOW.
Posted by: Don Fitzgerald, IL | July 28, 2009 11:54 PM
Women have the right to choose!.
They can choose not to sleep around.
They can choose to use contraceptives. They can choose adoption. They can choose to say no!.
"NOT ONE THIN DIME FOR ABORTION".
Posted by: Paul | July 29, 2009 9:10 AM
John W, you're making my point, not John D's who sounds more like Randall Terry. I said twice that I didn't believe that Congress would include abortion funding in any legislation, as a practical/political matter only.
Posted by: rupert | July 29, 2009 9:25 AM
I pay taxes for men who need Viagra, I pay taxes for people who are overweight, too. Obesity is a major health issue in the US! We all pay taxes to accomodate these fat people for the health care they need. Abortion is legal in America whether we like it or not. Therefore this is a non issue!
Capitalpunishment is against all religious teachings and yet the right wing doesnt see it that way of course. Americans spend gazillions on capital punishment, not my choice but i still pay the taxes.
I am not for abortion but it is not my decision!! Just ass its not my decision to take that tweenkie out of fatso's mouth!
Posted by: Scot S. Blakeley | July 29, 2009 12:17 PM
"Furthermore, you will see people in droves opting out of the health care plan (whether by the current opt-out provision or by suit) because forcing them to pay for abortions, either through participation in the mandatory program or by paying taxes, would violate their rights to religion and conscience."
Does that mean I can opt out of the portion of my taxes that got to paying for administeri ng the death penalty and to the portion that goes to paying for the Military?
My religion calls on me to be a pacifist. My God says that killing is a sin. My god tealls me to turn the other cheek when wrongs and not to seek revenge. My God is Prince of Peace not war. So tell me John, where to I sign up to opt out of paying for all the killing the government does in my name?
Posted by: Pacifist | July 29, 2009 6:52 PM
* * * * *
Posted by: Pacifist | July 29, 2009 6:52 PM
.
Unfortunately not. One of the current bills has an opt-out provision for those who object to participation in the health care plan on religious grounds. There is no general opt out for taxes for other stuff.
.
Besides, the federal government doesn’t use capital punishment often. The last person to get executed by the feds was Timothy McVeigh, I think. You have to complain to your state government if you want to do more to end capital punishment. The states use it the most.
Posted by: John W. | July 29, 2009 7:26 PM
the federal government doesn’t use capital punishment often. The last person to get executed by the feds was Timothy McVeigh, I think.
Posted by: John W. | July 29, 2009 7:26 PM
You thought wrong again (as usual)
The last two executions by the Feds were Juan Raul Garza: June 19, 2001 and Louis Jones Jr: March 18, 2003.
26 people have been executed since 1950. There are currently 55 on death row.
Doyour homework Johnny you might pass once in a while!
Posted by: Scot S. Blakeley | July 29, 2009 8:07 PM
Okay, Scot, so there were two people executed by the federal government since McVeigh. I wasn’t sure of my facts, which is why I wrote, “I think.” That’s hardly proof that I am usually wrong.
.
In any event, it doesn’t alter the point I was driving at, which was that the federal government hasn’t used capital punishment that often. The execution of 26 people over a period of 59 years (and only three people over the last 35 years) is not a “frequent” use of the death penalty. That’s especially true when judged against the practices of the States, and Texas, Virginia and Oklahoma in particular. (Texas has executed 439 people since 1976; in the same interval Virginia has executed 103 people, and Oklahoma executed 91.) Even California has executed more than four times as many prisoners than the feds have over the last seventeen years. Furthermore, of the 57 (not 55) people on the federal death row, a number of the executions have been stayed.
Posted by: John W. | July 30, 2009 1:29 AM
Posted by: John W. | July 30, 2009 1:29 AM
The point is that 1 or 300 executions doesnt excuse the fact that its un-Christian and barbaric and very very costly to maintain these conficts!
Posted by: Scot S. Blakeley | July 30, 2009 5:22 PM