February 23, 2010 12:15 PM

Stupak: Abortion Language in Obama's Health Care Plan "Unacceptable"

By
Brian Montopoli
Topics
Health Care
(AP)
Michigan Democratic Rep. Bart Stupak, who opposes abortion rights, has released a statement saying the White House health care reform plan is "unacceptable" because it "encompasses the Senate language allowing public funding of abortion."

"The Senate language is a significant departure from current law and is unacceptable," said Stupak. "While the President has laid out a health care proposal that brings us closer to resolving our differences, there is still work to be done before Congress can pass comprehensive health care reform."

Stupak drafted language in the House version of the health reform bill -- the so-called Stupak amendment -- barring coverage of abortions in government-run health care plans and keeping people who get federal health subsidies from purchasing plans that provide coverage for abortion.

The House health care bill would likely not have passed without the Stupak amendment, which attracted the support of 64 Democrats when it came up for vote.

While the Senate and White House plan bans direct funding of abortions, it allows subsidized individuals to pay for covered abortion services with personal funds.

Meanwhile, according to Politico's Mike Allen, there are currently not enough votes in the House or Senate to pass a health care reform bill.

"Moderate and endangered lawmakers want the spotlight off comprehensive health reform," he writes. "Instead, it's about to take center stage."

More CBSNews.com Coverage:

A War of Words Before the Health Care Summit
Obama's Health Care Plan Unveiled
Dems Warily Adopt Obama's Health Care Plan
Will Obama Health Care Plan Pass Via Reconciliation?
No Public Option in Obama Health Care Plan
@katiecouric: GOP Has "No Incentive" to Work With Democrats
CBSNews.com Special Report: Health Care

Add a Comment See all 14 Comments
by knews5 July 22, 2010 12:28 PM EDT
So, will the one no-abortion insurance option be 1$ cheaper than all the others, but have the exact same coverage (except the free baby elimination service)?
Reply to this comment
by glennelg March 1, 2010 5:49 PM EST
CONGRESSMAN STUPAK WILL LOSE IN NOV. IF HE DOESN'T DELIEVER HIS VOTES TO PASS THE SENATE VOTE. ISN'T THE HYDE AMENDMENT ALREADY LAW.


I WATCHED THE ENTIRE SUMMIT THURSDAY AND WAS IMPRESSED WITH THE DEMOCRAT MEMBERS PRESENTATION AND SAW NOTHING NEW IN THE REPUBLICAN PRESENTATIONS, JUST THE SAME OLD TALKING POINTS. IT SEEMS LIKE THEY ARE TONE DEAF. SURE THE PUBLIC HAS A NEGATIVE VIEW OF HEALTH CARE REFORM WITH ALL THE NEGATIVE CRAP THEY HAVE BEEN PUTTING OUT AS WELL AS THE LIES, DISTORTIONS,MISREPRESENTATIONS AND ALL THE REST. THEY OUGHT TO BE EMBARRASSED, BUT THEY KNOW 95% OF THE PUBLIC HAVE NO IDEA WANTS IN THE BILLS AND THEY CAN GET BY WITH IT. ONE POINT I WANTED TO MAKE IN SUPPORT OF THE PUBLIC OPTION, IS THIS- THE PRESIDENT POINTED OUT THAT INSURANCE ADVANTAGE PLANS[WHICH I HAVE], WHERE BEING SUBSIDIZED AT 15%OVER THE COST OF THE PLAN FOR SENIORS IN PLACE OF THEIR ORIGINAL MEDICARE. LAST YEAR I HAD NO EXTRA PREMIUM ON MY PART. I ASKED MY AGENT HOW THAT COULD BE AND HE TOLD ME THAT THE PRIVATE COMPANIES WERE GETTING MY $105.00 TAKEN OUT OF MY SS CHECK AND AN ADDITIONAL $800.00 TO
HANDLE MY ACCOUNT . THAT'S $905.00 FOR ONE MONTHS PREMIUM. FOR APX. $200.00 I COULD BUY A SUPPLEMENT PLAN THAT WOULD PAY ALL THE CO-PAYS. SO MY SUMMERY IS THAT THE INSURANCE COMPANIES ARE GETTING MANY TIMES MORE THAN A 15% WINDFALL. PROBABLY MORE LIKE 500%. THE POINT TO THIS IS THAT IF THE GOVERNMENT IS GOING TO SUBSIDIZE PEOPLE IN THE EXCHANGE, I WOULD SUSPECT THAT THE GOVERNMENT IS GOING TO GET JABBED IN THE REAR LIKE THE ADVANTAGE PLANS. THEREFORE I BELIEVE THE PUBLIC OPTION PLAN ADDED TO THE EXCHANGE WOULD SAVE THE GOVERNMENT BILLIONS OF DOLLARS. I BELIEVE THAT THE GOVERNMENT COULD ADD SOME OF THE PROVISIONS IN THE ADVANTAGE PLANS TO ORIGINAL MEDICARE AND USE THAT SAME BASELINE FOR THE PUBLIC OPTION COVERAGE WOULD SAVE BILLIONS ON BOTH PROGRAMS.

HEALTH CARE REFORM IS NO REFORM WITHOUT THE PUBLIC OPTION. GO RECONCILLEATIONS
after watching the white house health summit, the Republicans tried to twist around everything they could by misrepresenting, i guess outright lying and more or less just say no. their so called ideas are no ideas at all or presenting things that they know the democrats would reject or to protect their insurance contributors. they didn't fool anybody so their pundits like fox, and right wing talk[up front Limbaugh,Hannity and beck] trying their best to put a good front on their performance by demonizing the democrats and president by attacking the messenger. i finally understood what they were referring to when they use the talking point, government take over. they are basically saying no regulations, let the fox guard the hen house. i agree, without a health care exchange with basic coverage would be open for abuse as well as no controls across state lines basic coverage regulations as well as pre-existing conditions, non cancel policies and
annual/life time caps. wouldn't repealing Mccarran-Ferguson go a long ways in solving the state line problem. another area i heard them promote was health savings accounts[i thought we already had them] i would assume if you had the extra money to put into a health savings, you either already have or could afford to buy health insurance. it reminds me of the argument about vouchers for schools. private schools cost from $ 8.000 for religious school to $15.000 for a otherwise school . i believe vouchers are no more than $4,500. where is a low or middle class person going to come with the balance. it would only benefit middle class parents who probably already send their kids to private school and have the means to do so.President Obama pointed most of this out but i feel it fell on deaf ears. i wonder when the democrats are going to wake up and realized the republicans goal are to destroy the bill and do nothing. the insurance companies have spent
millions on adds and contribution as well as lobbyist, so the republicans owe them big time. the public option along with the other changes should really make health
care affordable. i believe small businesses should be able to buy from a public option. 50 or less employees i.e. use the PO as their group insurance. the whole bill should be federally regulated for standard rules across the nation. with the public option, which would consist of a small premium, would be cheaper than [A]extending the medicaid roles [B] subsidizing private policies in the exchange. most of what i have mentioned would make the over all cost much cheaper. i.ei.you wouldn't have the issue of medicare advantage in Florida sweet heart deal, all medicare would resemble the medicare advantage plans and would save a lot of seniors from buying supplement policies. many seniors don't even know about medicare advantage which i don't think would add that much to original medicare. it was pointed out that we gave insurance companies a 15% bonus to add the extras to medicare, which in reality was probably more like 200+%
Reply to this comment
by generationtruth February 23, 2010 5:50 PM EST
Also, last time I checked, abortion IS legal in this country. Who is telling you what you can do with your bodies. You can legally go out and find someone to kill your unborn baby for you. No one is stopping you. Just pay for it yourself.
Reply to this comment
by generationtruth February 23, 2010 5:45 PM EST
Women don't need tax payer dollars to get pregnant, and they don't need them to kill their unborn child. Go to a planned parenthood and pay for it yourself.
Reply to this comment
by peregrine3 February 23, 2010 3:45 PM EST
then simply vote aginst it. this train has been at the platform to long.
Reply to this comment
by cjkahler February 23, 2010 1:15 PM EST
All Federal employees have this already and GOP Employees.
Rep. Bart Stupak, just wants to control women's bodies.
Thus killing the woman and child in cheap and unsafe back ally abortions.
What an idiot!
Reply to this comment
by endurorob_5 February 23, 2010 1:18 PM EST
It is not about controlling women it is about not allowing tax payer funds to pay for elective abortions. i am pro choice but I do not want my tax dollars paying for elective abortions.
by Joanie_O_Conn February 23, 2010 2:35 PM EST
Yes, even if it is "their personal funds", I don't care, men should be able to tell us women what to do with our bodies.
See all 6 Replies
by endurorob_5 February 23, 2010 1:07 PM EST
This bill is going nowhere. can't even get concensus omong dems.
Reply to this comment
by ALBrainTrust10 February 23, 2010 1:03 PM EST
KUDOS MR. STUPAK. IT HAS BEEN CLEAR THAT THE SENATE BILL LANGUAGE WILL NOT PASS IN THE HOUSE BECAUSE OF THE "STUPAK BLUE DOGS."

THE LEFT PART OF THE DEMOCRAT PARTY DOES NOT SEEM TO UNDERSTAND WHAT "HELL NO" MEANS!

KEEP UP THE FIGHT MR. STUPAK..... THOSE WHO ARE NOT EVEN BORN YET ARE COUNTING ON YOU AND YOUR LIKE MINDED CONGRESS MEMBERS.
Reply to this comment
See all 14 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...