Yesterday I listened to an NPR interview with Rep Bart Stupak, the leader of House Democrats opposing abortion funding for health care reform. The NPR interviewer reminded Stupak that both the White House and the Secretary of Health and Human Services insisted that the Senate bill maintained the status quo (ie. no federal funding of abortions). Stupak begged to differ. Then the NPR interviewer asked him if he was prepared to deny health benefits to 30 million uninsured people, just to prevent the funding of abortion. He replied that that some principles were worth fighting for.
It was frustrating to listen to the Stupak interview, as the questions repeated the Democratic Party leadership's claim that the Senate's health care reform bill doesn't really depart from the Hyde amendment. However, today, perhaps in reaction to Stupak's principled stance, both the New York Times and the Washington Post published an AP wire service article on the abortion impasse that actually explained the source of the confusion--or whatever you want to call it.
For anyone still puzzled by the "he said, she said" back and forth between pro-lifers and Democratic party leaders, here are the relevant passages from the AP article:
"Government policy on taxpayer funding for abortion has been settled for years, following the Hyde amendment.
But the Democratic health care bills altered the balance by creating a
new stream of federal money to help working households afford health
insurance premiums. Those funds were not subject to the Hyde
restrictions.
The House responded by adopting Stupak's amendment, although it was
opposed by most Democrats. It says no health insurance plan receiving
federal subsidies can pay for abortion, except under the three
exceptions already allowed by federal law. Women who want insurance
coverage for abortion would have to buy a separate policy.
The Senate bill took a different approach. It says health insurance
plans operating in a new consumer marketplace can cover abortion, but
it may only be paid for with private premiums. Money from federal
subsidies would have to be strictly segregated from any funds used to
pay for abortion. Consumers would have to write two checks to their
insurance plan, one for the regular premium, the other for abortion
coverage.
Leading abortion opponents - including the nation's Catholic bishops
- say the Senate language is a fig leaf, opening the way for government
subsidies for abortion. They're urging defeat of the health care bill
unless it takes Stupak's approach."
For the final word, here's Charmaine Yoest of Americans United for Life in today's online Wall Street Journal:
"In November, presidential adviser David Axelrod, on CNN's "State of
the Union," also talked around the Hyde Amendment, saying that the
president "doesn't believe this bill should change the status quo as it
relates to the issue of abortion." But then Mr. Axelrod claimed that
"this shouldn't be a debate about abortion" before concluding that
there were discussions in Congress about "how to adjust [the abortion
language bill] accordingly."
Apparently, his definition of "adjust" means opening up the spigot
for the abortion lobby. The president's latest proposal mirrors
legislation that has passed the Senate, which doesn't include a Hyde
Amendment, and would inevitably establish abortion as a fundamental
health-care service for the following reasons:
• It would change existing law by allowing federally subsidized
health-care plans to pay for abortions and could require private
health-insurance plans to cover abortion.
• It would impose a first-ever abortion tax—a separate premium
payment that will be used to pay for elective abortions—on enrollees in
insurance plans that covers abortions through newly created government
health-care exchanges.
• And it would fail to protect the rights of health-care providers to refuse to participate in abortions.
The president's plan goes further than
the Senate bill on abortion by calling for spending $11 billion over
five years on "community health centers," which include Planned
Parenthood clinics that provide abortions.
The bottom line is that the president wants to deploy words that
sound soothing like "balance" and "adjust." Meanwhile, the courts are
rendering precedent with stark words like "mandatory." "
Recent Comments