Web Search powered by YAHOO! SEARCH

options

ALEX BRANDON / Associated Press

Speaker Nancy Pelosi , with Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (left) and Rep. George Miller, after the House's vote.

1 of 2

View images

READER FEEDBACK

Abortion threatens health bill

As the battle moves to the Senate, both sides dig in as efforts to restrict coverage stir a backlash.

By Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar

Associated Press

WASHINGTON - A political storm gathered yesterday over efforts to restrict coverage for abortion in the health-care overhaul, threatening to swamp Democrats' efforts to pass President Obama's signature legislative initiative by year's end.

As the Senate takes up its version of the legislation, abortion opponents there are seeking tougher curbs at least in line with those just approved in the House.

Sen. Ben Nelson (D., Neb.) said yesterday he could not support a bill unless it clearly prohibited federal dollars from going to pay for abortions. He said he was weighing options, including an amendment similar to the one passed by the House over the weekend.

"I want to make sure something comparable . . . is in there," Nelson said.

The House restrictions, offered in an amendment by Rep. Bart Stupak (D., Mich.) and Joseph R. Pitts (R., Pa.), were the price that Speaker Nancy Pelosi - who supports abortion rights - paid to get a health-care bill passed, on a narrow 220-215 vote.

But it has prompted a backlash from liberals at the core of her party.

Abortion-rights supporters in the House were circulating a letter addressed to Pelosi, threatening to vote against a final bill that restricts access to abortion coverage. At least 40 lawmakers had signed on by early yesterday - enough to block passage.

They are likely to have help in the Senate from two Republican women who support abortion rights, Sens. Olympia J. Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine. Collins indicated yesterday that she thought the House went too far.

"I think the Senate Finance Committee did a good job of putting up a fire wall that would prevent federal funds from being used for abortion," she said. "Generally, I prefer the Senate approach."

Although House liberals voted for the bill with the amendment to keep the process moving forward, Rep. Diana DeGette (D., Colo.) said: "There's going to be a firestorm here. Women are going to realize that a Democratic-controlled House has passed legislation that would prohibit women paying for abortions with their own funds. . . . We're not going to let this into law."

The other side in the abortion dispute also has more than enough votes to kill any final overhaul package.

Obama said the legislation needed to find a balance.

"I want to make sure that the provision that emerges meets that test - that we are not in some way sneaking in funding for abortions, but, on the other hand, that we're not restricting women's insurance choices," Obama said in an interview with ABC News.

Senate Democrats will need Nelson's vote - and those of at least a half-dozen other abortion opponents in their caucus.

They will face a grueling debate against Republicans unified in opposition to the health-care overhaul.

"This is a very important issue to Sen. Nelson, and it is highly unlikely he would support a bill that doesn't clearly prohibit federal dollars from going to abortion," said his spokesman, Jake Thompson.

An intraparty fight over abortion is the last thing that Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) needs.

Reid is already facing a revolt among Democratic moderates over the government-sponsored health plan that liberals want to incorporate in the legislation as a competitor to private insurance companies.

Reid, who is himself opposed to abortion, will have to confront the issue directly as he puts together a Democratic bill for floor consideration. The committee-passed Senate versions differ on abortion, but none would go as far as the amendment passed by the House.

The House bill would bar the new government insurance plan from covering abortions, except in cases of rape, incest, or the life of the mother being in danger. That's the basic rule currently in federal law.

It would also prohibit health plans that receive federal subsidies in a new insurance marketplace from offering abortion coverage. Insurers, however, could sell separate coverage for abortion, which individuals would have to purchase entirely with their own money.

At issue is a sharp disagreement over how current federal restrictions on abortion funding should apply to what would be a new stream of federal funding to help the uninsured gain coverage.

Abortion opponents have sought to impose the same restrictions that now apply to the federal employee health plan, military health care, and Medicaid, the federal-state health program for the poor.

Abortion-rights supporters say such an approach would threaten women's right to a legal medical procedure already widely covered by private insurance.

The Senate Health Committee bill is largely silent on abortion, a stance that abortion opponents interpret as permitting coverage by private insurance plans that would receive federal subsidies.

The Senate Finance Committee bill attempts to craft a compromise, as the House unsuccessfully tried to do before this weekend's vote tightened restrictions.

The Finance plan would require insurance carriers to separate federal subsidy moneys from funds used to provide abortions, and it would prohibit abortion coverage from being included in a minimum-benefits package. It would require state and regional insurance markets to offer one plan covering abortion and one that did not.

Abortion opponents - including U.S. Catholic bishops - rejected a somewhat similar approach in the House, saying that the approach of keeping federal funds separate amounted to little more than an accounting gimmick.

Visiting Seattle's Swedish Medical Center yesterday, Pelosi said the antiabortion language "would have been in the bill one way or another," so bill backers decided it would be better to include it as an amendment so it would not jeopardize the entire measure.

She said she would continue seeking common ground with abortion opponents.

This article includes information from the Washington Post.

CURRENTLY SHOWING ON PHILLY.COM

A Philly girl's love for Michael Vick

Philly Uncorked: Cooking and wine

Mob Scene: Bad Cop

SnapGlow.TV: Frame your face

The Gossip with Marnie Hall: El Cafeito

Comments

Posted 06:54 AM, 11/10/2009

James

The Catholics want to ban abortions for Jewish people, Protestants. Lutherans and Baptists. Even people under Islam. They are not seeking to ban abortions for Catholics only but all other religion faiths. A court of law will block abortions from being excluded as it violates women's rights. That is why we have a constitutional government with the three branches, Executive, Legislative and Judiciary all having 1/3 of the power and watching each other to ensure no one exceeds their power.

Posted 07:21 AM, 11/10/2009

yeswecant

that was very insightful James now go back to taking your meds. Why is it unreasonable to make those getting abortions to have to pay for it themselves? I find abortions very offensive but believe it is a necessary evil but to provide federal subsidies (using my tax $$) is simply wrong. Pay for your own abortions don't use my tax dollars!! The liberals are so out of touch it is scary.

Comment removed.

Posted 08:37 AM, 11/10/2009

iladelph

I agree Andy...it's smoke and mirrors. Their plan is to solve the abortion issue to both parties' liking, and then everything will be perfect. As every day passes I am glad I did not vote for our president.

Posted 08:42 AM, 11/10/2009

Mommiekins

What really bothers me about this is that a rich woman could always get a legal abortion even in the 60's - '66 '67. I worked for one of our local hospitals then. (I won't indicate which one.) If the woman had the money to pay for a psychiatrist to write that carrying the baby would threaten her life, - meaning that she would take her own life - she could have that "product of conception" removed in a hospital setting, safely. In fact, she needed to have several psychiatrists testify to this fact which would cost much money even then. The procedure was called a "D&E" - a dilatation and evacuation of the products of conception. Will we return to that time where only the rich can afford to have a save abortion? I am not, personally, one who would have this done, but life can be a strange place to be, and one never knows what may happen to women in the future if we place their lives at risk. It is a far better thing to keep the procedure safe.

Posted 08:53 AM, 11/10/2009

SilverCTS

When it comes to this bill, abortion (whether in or out) is far from the biggest issue.

Posted 09:27 AM, 11/10/2009

mindstorms

I find it ironic that abortion has become a key issue in this bill. On the one hand you have people who are determined to save the life of a fetus and on the other hand the bill would provide health care for millions of children who do without such care now. In essence it becomes a choice between helping a fetus or a child.

Posted 10:03 AM, 11/10/2009

Simone

Next they will try to prohibit coverage for contraception, if they haven't already done so. Yes, Mindstorms, access to decent housing, healthcare, education, etc. has long been held hostage to abortion opponents - but they don't realize they undercut the moral high ground that supports their "pro-life" position by holding children hostage to their single issue dogmatism. BTW "moderate" Dems are actually "conservative" RepugliDems - Republicans in disguise.

Posted 10:08 AM, 11/10/2009

FedupDem

why should we care if the poor and underinsured get abortions? if we allow it it'll save money in the long run cause they'll have less children WE have to support.lol

Posted 10:08 AM, 11/10/2009

Sam D

Yeswecant: Rather mean comment about someone taking meds. Then you say "Why is it unreasonable to make those getting abortions to have to pay for it themselves? I find abortions very offensive but believe it is a necessary evil but to provide federal subsidies (using my tax $$) is simply wrong." Well, how about those of us who opposed the war in Iraq from the start? We saw it as evil and absolutely wrong, and we knew it was based on lies. Yet I had to pay my share of the war's cost, even though it was offensive to me - I had to follow the law. Given that abortion is legal in the US, I believe that puts it in the same category as the war in Iraq. Just because you don't like it, you still have to pay for it. I had no choice in the war cost; you shouldn't have that choice on the abortion issue.

Posted 10:19 AM, 11/10/2009

Mr Poon

This isn't a health bill, it's a power grab, private insurance-killing bill.

Posted 11:02 AM, 11/10/2009

Melyssa

Abort the politicians and those who bribe them.

Posted 11:07 AM, 11/10/2009

Philly-d-kidder

ABORTION is an elective Surgery James.. BTW why will we have to Pay for all mental disorders depression. Drug Addiction Suicide attempts alcoholism Breast cancer as a result of Abortion..

Posted 11:13 AM, 11/10/2009

Philly-d-kidder

Why does the catholic church which is the largest provider of health care in the USA have to Offer Abortion and all its evil side affects... US Church is Largest Hospice Provider for AIDS Patients Chemical addiction treatment Alcohol treatment The Largest number of Hospital Beds.. etc... Us Catholic Church represents 18% of the Health care system..