July 21, 2009 11:08 PM

Obama: Abortion Funding Not Main Focus of Health Reform

By
Stephanie Condon
Topics
White House
President Obama on Tuesday said he would "rather not wade into" the issue of whether or not health care reform should include federal funding for abortions.

The president told CBS Evening News anchor Katie Couric that he is "not trying to micro-manage what benefits are covered."

"I'm pro-choice, but I think we also have the tradition in this town, historically, of not financing abortions as part of government-funded health care," he said, adding: "My main focus is making sure that people have options of high quality care at the lowest possible price."

A contingent of Democrats and Republicans who oppose abortion rights have rankled congressional leadership with complaints that there is a so-called "hidden abortion mandate" in health care legislation.

As legislation in the House and the Senate is currently drafted, either the Secretary of Health and Human Services or a panel of experts would be responsible for defining an "essential benefits package."

While there is nothing in either bill requiring the benefits package to include abortion services, anti-abortion Democrats and Republicans suggest that will be the final outcome. Subsequently, they are requesting the explicit exclusion of abortion services from any government-defined or funded insurance plans.

On Wednesday, House Democrat Bart Stupak of Michigan and Republican Joe Pitts of Pennsylvania, the co-chairmen of the Pro-Life Caucus, will hold a press conference on the so-called "abortion mandate." Later in the day, Stupak will discuss the issue on CBSNews.com's Washington Unplugged.

Stupak was one of 19 Democrats who sent a letter to Pelosi in late June, calling the issue a deal-breaker.

"We cannot support any health care reform proposal unless it explicitly excludes abortion from the scope of any government-defined or subsidized health insurance plan," the letter said. "Without an explicit exclusion, abortion could be included in a government subsidized health care plan under general health care."

The letter cites research from the Guttmacher Policy Review, a leading abortion rights research organization, that finds "that about one third of women who would have had an abortion if support were available carried their pregnancies to term when the abortion fund was unavailable."

The Guttmacher Institute also provides research showing that, in 2002, more than 86 percent of employment-based insurance plans routinely covered abortions. So ostensibly, if no federal dollars were allowed to fund abortion, many women could end up losing benefits they currently have. Medicaid funds are already prohibited from funding abortions.

Add a Comment See all 28 Comments
by bennfranklin July 27, 2009 1:52 PM EDT
Roe v. Wade guarantees a right to privacy, not a right to elective abortion. I suggest the writers of the government option use the word "elective" abortion to exclude it, to innoculate itself from charges it will deny medically necessary abortions, and that the "mental health" loophole be eliminated.

Although pregnancy carries its mental risks, there is no scientific evidence or study to suggest the trauma of an abortion procedure is any better for women's long term mental health. Raising a child is another matter, and giving a life to adoption is not risk of mental health. Public dollars should not be used to fund procedures based on the unproven assertions on the matter the alleged mental health benefits of induced abortion.
Reply to this comment
by JDangerousely July 26, 2009 10:31 AM EDT
Women say they want the right to choose what happens to their own bodies. Even to the point to say no man has the right to have an opinion on it what-so-ever. For fear that the selfsih ogre-like man only wants to oppress and ensalve women. What about the female babies that are being ripped out of thier mothers wombs? Don't those future women have a right to what happens to thier own bodies? Of course not they must make it through the gauntlet of conception, survive the gestation period in wht is supposed to be the safest place in the world. And who is possibly the worst enemy of these tiny defenseless women? Their mothers who hold high torch and pitchfork shouting for the right to rule over their bodies. Women these women are clamoring for the arbitrary right to decide who lives and dies. Decisions made agaist the dackrop of a career or somthing as trivial as I want to look good im my prom-dress. Getting pregnant may or may not have been their choice but never the less they are in possesion of the greastest treasure in the entire world. Entrusted to protect and care for and love them as such. What ever happened to being as safe as a baby in her mothers womb? I'd feel safer in the inner city than most babies right now.

May God bless you all with his wisdom and peace. May he protect those who cannot defend themselves. May his love for all prevail Amen.
Reply to this comment
by MarjinDC July 23, 2009 1:39 PM EDT
In saying that lawmakers should "not get distracted by the abortion debate" as they weigh health reform legislation, President Obama put politics before principle - and before health care. (Reproductive health care is basic health care for women and it includes abortion, which is a medical procedure.) This is a great disappointment to those of us hoping for presidential leadership.
Reply to this comment
by calgal4 July 22, 2009 1:29 PM EDT
Seeing as how our population has risen to almost double what it was when I was born (in the 1950's), I think keeping abortions legal and funded is vital! Unfortunately, the many of the same people who claim to be pro-life also don't want to teach kids about birth control or sexual responsibility. We can't have it both ways!!!
Reply to this comment
by Sumballo July 22, 2009 12:05 PM EDT
I'm pro-life. I consider abortion the killing of a baby.

There are no situations where I want my tax dollars going to the government in order to support abortion, or "family planning" or "reproductive health", etc.

It's simple; don't include it in "healthcare".
Reply to this comment
by Solarrays247 July 22, 2009 10:21 AM EDT
Question: Does anyone know for certain if birth control pills/methods and Viagra will both be covered under the proposed health care program? Just wonderin'.....
Reply to this comment
by sddemocrat July 22, 2009 9:57 AM EDT
Abortion has always been a very hot issue in this country. Legalized abortion has pretty much stopped all the back alley abortions that used to occur. I guess when I look at the recent child abuse and child murder cases in the news, I have to wonder if some women should even have children. The pain these children endure at the hands of these abusers must be horrible.
Reply to this comment
by calgal4 July 22, 2009 1:24 PM EDT
Amen!!!
by sandy19731 July 22, 2009 9:55 AM EDT
I?ve asked this one before, but I rarely get a straight answer: If a woman intentionally terminates a pregnancy in a pro-life nation, how much time should she do? If a fetus is a person and a woman intentionally terminates the life of that fetus, should she go to jail? Be up for the death penalty? In almost any other circumstance, a person who intentionally kills another person ? or who pays someone to do the killing for them ? is prosecuted. Why should women who terminate pregnancies be exceptions? And if women who terminate pregnancies should be excepted because they just don?t know better, should the same hold true for women who intentionally kill their born children? For women who intentionally kill strangers?
Reply to this comment
by mnbrant July 22, 2009 11:21 AM EDT
I think 9 months if its against the law would be fair.
by sandy19731 July 22, 2009 9:49 AM EDT
If a fetus is legally entitled to use a woman?s body to sustain its own life, should we begin researching other ways for humans to share bodily functions? It could save lives, after all. If, say, my kidneys fail and there is a way that you and I can be physically attached for about a year, can I can use your body to clean out my own?
Reply to this comment
by mnbrant July 22, 2009 11:16 AM EDT
This would be called a grey area. I did check out abortion law in Ireland. According to wikipedia it said that people who need abortions fly to Briton to get one. Laws banning such travel never got off the ground. There are of course actual fact surrounding the abortion debate but, most pro-choice ones are using facts that they heard on tv or read somewhere in the 70's. I of course rely on facts and eyewitness accounts . And really if you want to have your abortion in some slimy abortion clinic that is probably located in a back alley somewhere. Don't try to give the pro-lifer the bill. Otherwise we will get p i ss e d and you will be going to jail after we change the laws around here.
by mnbrant July 22, 2009 9:23 AM EDT
pretty clear the democrates are trying to bow out of doing anything and losing gracefully in the next election by allowing the abominable immoral choice of a few men and woman decide the next next election. I don't think that anybody pretends that only women make the choice to have an abortion. It's usually men making that choice. Women on the other hand, usually are the ones deciding to have the baby. God bless women. God D a m n pro=choice.
Reply to this comment
See all 28 Comments
.

Follow Political Hotsheet

Scroll Left
Scroll Right More »
CBS News on Facebook
  • Building You a Better Morning

  • CBS This Morning

    "CBS This Morning," anchored by Charlie Rose, Gayle King and Erica Hill, airs weekdays from 7 to 9 a.m. ET and at the same time in other time zones.
    Learn more...