Unfortunately, all is not rosy in the world of Pelosi. The self-styled devout Catholic was forced to bow to the wishes of some rebels in the Democratic ranks - like Bart Stupak, D-Mich., and Brad Ellsworth, D-Indiana - who refused to vote for the bill if it didn't include a ban on abortion funding.

In fact, their numbers were so substantial, in the neighborhood of 40, that she'd have seen her dreams for health-care reform go up in smoke if she didn't accede to their demands.

And so, in the wee hours of Sunday morning, after the pro-life Dems and the Hyde Amendment got the respect they deserve, the bill squeaked through.

It even got a yea from one Republican, Rep. Joseph Cao from Louisiana, himself a former seminarian and anti-abortionist. Had that provision not been in the mix, it's unlikely he'd have approved the bill, so the speaker should be doubly happy that her concession promoted a blip of "bipartisanship."

But already the ladies from Planned Parenthood, NOW and Naral Pro-Choice America are whining about how horrible it is that women are going to be denied the fundamental right to have the American taxpayers underwrite their abortions.

What? You mean you missed the part in Roe v. Wade where they said not only does a woman have the right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy, she also gets to stick the government with the tab? Well you're in good company.

Many fair-minded individuals, including those who otherwise support a woman's "right to choose," were upset at the prospect of abortions' being publicly funded. With the front door locked by the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits tax subsidies for nontherapeutic abortions, pro-choicers tried to get that funding in through the back one.

Fortunately, a few Democrats in the House refused to play this game. And that made the choice warriors angry to the point that they've vowed to block any legislation that includes the ban that got Madame Speaker her two-vote margin.

Having the "right" to reproduce - or not - is one thing. Imposing the cost on everyone to pay for the "right" is quite another. If Roe is the settled law of the land, then it seems to me that the Hyde Amendment is also part of that grand fabric. Have the right to abortion - but don't send the bill to me, and to the millions of other Americans who are fervently anti-abortion.

And this is where the whole idea of health-care reform goes off the rails. This monstrous monolith of a bill is actually "antichoice" in so many ways, mandating that people carry insurance, siphoning off funds from Medicare (what was the AARP thinking to support it?), putting future generations in debt to the tune of more than a trillion dollars (but who really knows what the number really is) and forcing the owners of small businesses to assume obligations that too many of them just can't afford.

The abortion issue is a just a small part of the larger picture, one that is myopically blurry and unfocused due to 1,000-plus pages of legalese. It's doubtful that anyone who didn't have a hand in drafting it has actually read all the fine print, and it's only because of the valiant efforts of anti-abortion Democrats that the Hyde Amendment restrictions are preserved, at least for now.

People who oppose universal health care are not the evil, heartless monsters portrayed by too many in the mainstream media and the liberal feminists.

They cut across party lines - in fact, anti-abortion Democrats and their blue-dog colleagues deserve a huge round of applause for bucking their party and blowing the whistle on unworkable and, with respect to abortion, politically untenable provisions.

The abortion controversy also points out just how Frankenstein-like this legislation is turning out to be, as special-interest provision after special-interest provision kept being added on.

WHAT WAS touted as a way to provide baseline health care to the indigent and lower middle class has, thankfully, not been turned into a way for all women to get elective abortions paid for at the public till.

And the bill's Byzantine nature and lack of transparency is illustrated by the manner in which the original wording would have let the subsidy created by a "public option" be used to help people buy private insurance to cover abortion, covertly skirting Hyde.

But the abortion issue was just too hot (and clearly too unpopular) to make the cut. And even Madame Speaker was smart enough to realize that.

Christine M. Flowers is a lawyer. Listen to her next Thursday on WPHT/1210 AM, 10 p.m. to 12. E-mail cflowers1961@yahoo.com.