Washington Matters
Should Abortion Foes Block Health Bill?
Abortion opponents in the House need to decide what their real goal is.
By Mark Willen, Senior Political Editor, The Kiplinger Letter
March 15, 2010
- Comments
- Email This Article
- Print This Article
- Order a Reprint
Advertisement
In the end, it will come down to abortion. A year of heated debate on a health care bill -- and decades of earlier efforts -- will all hinge on the votes of a handful of House Democrats who believe they must take a strong stand to discourage or prevent as many abortions as possible.
This may well be a noble goal -- I’ll try to leave that debate for others -- but the hard truth is that voting against the health care bill over the abortion issue makes no sense. It won’t prevent a single abortion from taking place. In fact, it may well have the opposite of the intended effect, causing the country to miss out on a move that really will lead to fewer abortions.
The anti-abortion Democrats who are threatening the health bill, about a dozen strong, are led by Rep. Bart Stupak of Michigan. They succeeded in winning language in the House-passed health bill that prevents any woman from using her own money to buy health insurance that covers an abortion if the plan accepts any other enrollees who are using taxpayer-subsidized funds. She would have to buy a separate rider, which no insurer is likely to offer.
The Senate refused to go quite that far, though it went plenty far. The Senate bill that Stupak and others refuse to vote for because it’s “too lenient” bans the use of federal subsidies to pay for abortion services. It also allows any state to ban insurers from providing abortions on the newly created exchanges. If a plan does offer abortion coverage, any woman who wants it (not just those getting tax subsidies) would have to provide a separate check each month to her insurer to cover the abortion services. This would be an extremely cumbersome procedure, not only for the woman, but also for the insurer. So cumbersome, in fact, that no insurer would offer the coverage. That is exactly what has happened in states that allow separate abortion riders under similar conditions. No one even asks for a separate rider because no woman ever plans in advance to have an abortion.
Stupak has repeatedly mischaracterized the Senate bill, saying it would allow federal funding of abortions. That is not the case, and several fact checkers have pointed that out. In fact, the Senate language has been endorsed by pro-life Democrats in that chamber (Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Bob Casey of Pennsylvania), by some pro-life groups and by groups representing Catholic Bishops. But it’s not good enough for the handful of House Democrats who seem intent on a game of one-upmanship that is as much politics as policy. Stupak, in fact,
But I digress. The point is that both the Senate and the House language would have the same practical effect – they would mean no coverage of abortion procedures for women getting insurance through the new exchanges. (Most employer-provided coverage includes abortion services, but they’re beyond the reach -- so far -- of Stupak and others.)
Amidst this splitting of hairs comes an interesting contribution to the debate from T.R. Reid, who has spent the better part of a decade comparing and evaluating health care options in the U.S. and abroad. In an op-ed article in The Washington Post, Reid argues that if abortion is the main concern, there’s a strong case for passing the bill because increasing access to health care is the most powerful tool for reducing the number of abortions. Reid cites United Nations data showing that the U.S. has one of the highest abortion rates of any industrialized country -- not because the U.S. is any less pro-life, but because so many Americans lack access to affordable health care. Cardinal Basil Hume, the former Catholic prelate of England and Wales, told Reid that he attributes Britain’s lower abortion rate to the U.K.’s universal health care system. “If that frightened, unemployed 19-year-old knows that she and her child will have access to medical care whenever it’s needed,” Hume told Reid, “she’s more likely to carry the baby to term. Isn’t it obvious?”
Yes, in a word, it is. There may be many reasons to oppose the health care legislation that President Obama is pushing, but arguing that it’s not tough enough on abortion shouldn’t be one of them. Those who really want to lower the abortion rate need to give Hume’s argument some serious thought.
Tags:
Topics:
- Comments
- RSS
Permission to post your comment is assumed when you submit it. The name you provide will be used to identify your post, and NOT your e-mail address. We reserve the right to excerpt or edit any posted comments for clarity, appropriateness, civility, and relevance to the topic.
View our full privacy policy
Reader Comments (14)
POSTED BY: HarveyD (03/15/2010 04:40:18 PM)
What an amazing editorial. Why is it such a mystery that there are those in our country, even among Democrats willing to stand for their beliefs, regardless of the price? The Democratic Party has hardly been a bastion of protection for the not-yet-born in this country. So now, without solid, specific language in a 2,400 page bill, we are supposed to fall again for the old line, "just trust me"? And now, as his proof of Democratic good intentions toward our future children, Willen is holding up Ben Nelson, who sold out his so-called convictions for an exemption from the cost of this massive boondoggle for his home state? Please! And who are these "some pro-life groups?" Thank God for a man with the character of Bart Stupak and for others, who are willing to stand up to their own party on this most fundamental of all human rights - the right to live. Last week, the US House had decided to just bulldoze these pro-life legislators, but now, all of the sudden, they need their votes, and they are out to reassure us that there is really nothing to fear from the man behind the curtain. How hard would it have been to just put in clear language that protects the rights of the not-yet-born in the first place? But, of course, there never was any intent to protect these most vulnerable of all of our citizens. Hang tough, Bart! We're with you buddy. And maybe someone can turn on the lights for Mark Willen...
POSTED BY: Jack (03/16/2010 11:35:00 AM)
HarveyD -- do you read these articles or just rant and rave on cue? The language of the legislation prevents the use of taxpayer dollars for abortion. Providing health care is a provable way to reduce the number of abortions. Do you want to preserve life or work on the problem or just punish poor young women who make a mistake?
POSTED BY: Bill C (03/16/2010 11:51:14 AM)
Healthcare reform will help to save lives, many lives. One hopes that the legislators who are anti-abortion might also care about helping to protect the lives of those people already born!
POSTED BY: Al (03/16/2010 12:50:21 PM)
Please realize that the government subsidizes (via tax breaks) all employer-based insurance plans today - even those that provide abortion coverage. Pro-lifers in Congress know this but choose not to do anything about it. Their selective concern/outrage about abortion suggests that they're only using the issue as a tool to kill this health care bill.
POSTED BY: Nomen (03/16/2010 01:30:24 PM)
None of us picked our father or mother nor were most of us planned. Many of us were born during war and hardship and went on to live good lives. If life didn't begin at conception there would be no reason to terminate it. To those who don't understand the difference between innocent blood and convenience, I'm sure you don't understand principles either. It's all about you, your money and without the burden of a conscience or responsibility for another mouth to feed. This previously unknown mysterious and fabricated Constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy was certainly not what our founding fathers intended. This current lack of moral values and self restraint has paved the way for the downward plunge of our country. Sacrificing children for a good crop and economic gain is one of the oldest pagan rituals.
POSTED BY: DavidP (03/16/2010 01:37:53 PM)
With respect to the statement that the bill is supported by groups representing the Americn Bishops, the website of the American Conference of Catholic Bishops actually voices stromg oposition against this bill. For example: "...the Senate bill deliberately excludes the language of the Hyde amendment. It expands federal funding and the role of the federal government in the provision of abortion procedures. In so doing, it forces all of us to become involved in an act that profoundly violates the conscience of many, the deliberate destruction of unwanted members of the human family still waiting to be born. What do the bishops find so deeply disturbing about the Senate bill? The points at issue can be summarized briefly. The status quo in federal abortion policy, as reflected in the Hyde Amendment, excludes abortion from all health insurance plans receiving federal subsidies. In the Senate bill, there is the provision that only one of the proposed multi-state plans will not cover elective abortions all other plans (including other multi-state plans) can do so, and receive federal tax credits. This means that individuals or families in complex medical circumstances will likely be forced to choose and contribute to an insurance plan that funds abortions in order to meet their particular health needs. Further, the Senate bill authorizes and appropriates billions of dollars in new funding outside the scope of the appropriations bills covered by the Hyde amendment and similar provisions. As the bill is written, the new funds it appropriates over the next five years, for Community Health Centers for example (Sec. 10503), will be available by statute for elective abortions, even though the present regulations do conform to the Hyde amendment. Regulations, however, can be changed at will, unless they are governed by statute. Additionally, no provision in the Senate bill incorporates the longstanding and widely supported protection for conscience regarding abortion as found in the Hyde/Weldon amendment. Moreover, neither the House nor Senate bill contains meaningful conscience protection outside the abortion context..." In conclusion, if Demoractic opponents to the bill should compromise their beliefs and support this bill, they should then be even more concerned in the next election....
POSTED BY: John (03/16/2010 02:18:43 PM)
NO! It should be an elective procedure though. They cost what $400? Here is an idea. They should make any guy pay for 1/2 the cost of an abortion, should the woman choose it. Our representatives should be exactly that, representatives....I elected my representatives based on my beliefs, not theirs. What ever happened to the pursuit of happiness? No government has the right to tell us how to live.
POSTED BY: Matt (03/16/2010 04:08:24 PM)
It's hard to imagine that a Senior Political Editor could be so easily fooled. Mark Willen, if the new bill did not expand the left wing pro abortion agenda, please tell me why the Democratic leadership was so willing to risk the entire health care bill by not inserting language their Pro Life members could vote for? That's all they had to do to guarantee the passage of this bill. Nice try, but you can't blame this on Democrat Bart Stupak, he warned them from the beginning, did he not? This falls directly on the Democratic members who recieve millions of dollars from the abortion industry and wanted more. I am one of those people who have no insurance and would be covered if a health care bill passes, I wanted it. I'm also a Democrat, and somewhat pro life based on science not religion. My party has shown that it is ruled by special interests, so much so that it was willing to throw away health care for millions in order to satify the cravings of a vile industry. I am one of the millions who will be switching parties this November to vote my Democratic Rep. out of office. I have even decided to campaign for the Republican, whoever it is, because I, like millions of Americans, am fed up.
POSTED BY: Holman (03/16/2010 04:35:56 PM)
First, the final "bill" (as if there is one yet) uses accounting gimmicks to set up the "abortion premium" (see 1303(b)(2)(B) pg 2072) and in reality, the separate riders argument that Mr. Willen is pure speculation. The HHS Secretary has broad powers in the legislation and I would not trust honest interpretations of this gimmick from politicians placed in powerful posts. Second, and perhaps even more important, the entire abortion restriction of the "bill" relies on continued passage of the Hyde Amendment by Congress. If one Congress decides not to renew it, the entirety of funding of abortion by every taxpayer will become a requirement. I don't know what Mr. Willen's personal views are on abortion, but I would distrust anyone trying to sell this gimmicky, complex albatross as pro-life. If it were so, why would Ben Nelson have to be bought off in order to get his vote. If it were really pro-life, Sen. Nelson would have been jumping to support it. Charity is the mission of charities and churches that are funded by willing and cheerful givers. It is not charity or freedom when one person is enslaved for the benefit of another whether it is at the point of gun or an IRS audit.
Posted by: Gayle at 03/16/2010 04:46:42 PM
Mark Willen presents a biased, one-sided view of the facts. There are several ways the proposed health care bill allows federal dollars to be spent on abortion. Nelson devised a scheme of sequestering abortion funds, but they are still federal dollars. The bill allows for incresed funding to community health centers such as Planned Parenthood, who exist primarily to perform abortions. If a 19 year old unemployed woman could be persuaded not to have an abortion because she and her child would have access to health care insurance, guess what? That person already does have access to health care insurance, its called Medicaid. The bottom line is obvious: If abortion language is what will stop the bill from being passed, then they should add the Stupak language that states there will be absolutely no funding provided for abortions or abortion providers. In addition, this bill lacks any conscience protections that already exist under the Hyde amendment and that needs to be corrected before it is passed.