Abortion Divides House Dems on Health Bill

Two Dozen Anti-Abortion Democrats at Odds With Leadership over Whether Bill Would Allow Federal Funding of Abortion

(AP)  House Democrats are at an impasse over whether their remake of the nation's health care system would effectively allow federal funding of abortion.

At least two dozen anti-abortion Democrats believe it would, and while their opposition is unlikely to stall the legislation in the end, they are at odds with Democratic leaders just weeks ahead of anticipated floor action on the bill.

Lawmakers on the other side say they've compromised as far as they can to address the anti-abortion lawmakers' concerns by specifying that people receiving government subsidies to buy health insurance couldn't use that money for abortions.

Negotiations to find common ground have not yielded fruit.

Track the Progress of Health Care Reform
CBSNews.com Special Report: Health Care

"We have a difference of opinion at the moment we cannot bridge," said Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, where the abortion language was approved. "We have done everything we can to ensure that there will be no federal funds for abortion services."

Waxman said he's still working on the issue with Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., the leader of the anti-abortion group. On Thursday the two had an earnest discussion on the House floor but afterward they said nothing had really changed.

Stupak, who's on the tall side, made a joking reference to Waxman's diminutive stature when asked whether their conversation had yielded a meeting of minds. "I'm a little taller. Our minds don't meet," Stupak said.

The main point of contention is the proposed new federal subsidies that would help lower-income people purchase health care coverage from private plans and potentially from a new government-sponsored plan - within a new purchasing exchange.

Currently a law called the Hyde amendment bars federal funding for abortion except in cases of rape and incest or if the mother's life would be endangered and applies those restrictions to Medicaid, forcing states that cover abortion for low-income women to do so with their own money. Separate laws apply the restrictions to the federal employee health plan and military and other programs.

But the Democrats' health overhaul bill would create a new stream of federal funding not covered by the restrictions.

Stupak says language specifying that someone obtaining an abortion must use her own money, not federal money from the subsidies, doesn't go far enough because it's impossible to clearly segregate funds in that way.

"Once you get the affordability credits (subsidies) in there, that's public funding of abortion. We're not going there," Stupak said. "How do you get past the affordability credits is really the issue. And we can't."

Waxman said that if the language is changed to Stupak's preference to bar any subsidy money from going to any insurance plan that includes abortion coverage the result would be to deny women legal and sometimes medically necessary procedures. The advocacy group NARAL Pro-Choice America is dissatisfied with the language now in the bill, contending that it "singles out abortion from other health care services, but apparently it was necessary to stop anti-choice politicians from continuing to use health care reform to attack a woman's right to choose," according to a statement from the group's president, Nancy Keenan.

NARAL recently sent a letter to supporters singling out Stupak for criticism and asking them to call their members of Congress to make sure he doesn't prevail.

On the other side, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops said it can't support a health overhaul bill unless the anti-abortion language is strengthened.

Unless an eleventh-hour agreement is reached, Stupak intends to carry through on a threat he's been holding over House leaders for months: to block action on the larger health overhaul bill unless he's allowed to offer a stand-alone amendment during floor debate to include the Hyde amendment restrictions in the health overhaul bill.

Such an amendment would be almost certain to prevail, since it likely would attract the votes of most Republicans as well as some Democrats. So Democratic leaders won't let Stupak offer it.

Instead, it appears they may have to take the risk of letting Stupak try to block action on the underlying bill, which he intends to do by assembling "no" votes on a procedural measure that needs to pass before debate can begin.

In the Senate, where the leading health overhaul bill includes language similar to that in the House, abortion has been much less of an issue.

[dicere]

Politicians have a propensity to use statistics to pit those who have something against those who do not by measuring our differences, pointing them out in the form of legislation designed to narrow the differences and gain votes. When is comes to abortion the government is silent on statistics; since roe vs wade there have been over 40,000,000 abortions, let us do a little statistical extrapolation and say the decision goes the other way.

Today of the total 10% of those were eliminated by mortality, 10% were unproductive due to physical or mental morbidity, and 10% fell off the end of the earth, leaving 28,000,000 people left to grow the population of the US. Those people would have been born in the US, educated in the US, made scientific discoveries we will never know, been the next great world leader, the list goes on. Now economically those people would be paying taxes into the social security system, corporate taxes, personal taxes, estate taxes. So how do we fill the hole?

Allow an equal number of people to cross our boarders over the same number of years, most not in the systems, working for cash, sending a good part of it home, operating small businesses out of homes for cash in the cash economy. The over crowding in California prison system is around 30%, the percentage of foreigners in prison system 30%. The overcrowding in schools, hospitals, the burden of federal mandated programs all statistical equate with the number of foreigners in the respective region.

The democrats want the foreigners made citizens for the votes, both the Democrats and the republican want them to save social security and to keep wages down. We import labor by exporting our manufacturing as GM seeks government assistance, the plan is to move more manufacturing jobs overseas where production cost are less. I hear no outcry from either party on this issue. Between those allowed into the states via illegal entry, those entering the country under work visas who are highly skilled who are willing to work for less, and those jobs exported over seas there is little motivation to increase wages for middle class Americans.

[stn_sage]

Listen! This is a non-issue!

If language is included in the bill preventing any health care bill monies being used to fund abortions, then anti-abortion Dems really should have NO problems with it!

The 'issue' is dead! With the 'non-funding' requirement, it doesn't exist!

They'll have to come up WITH SOME OTHER REASON to vote 'NO', on a bill that the public WANTS and EXPECTS!

The Congressional 'slackers' will have to 'go back to the blackboard!'

[sbelknap01]

The federal government gives out billions every year as an Earned Income Tax Credit - a cash payment - to millions of low income families. At least a few of these families spend the money on things many of us would object to - including, no doubt, abortions. Our tax dollars also offset the expenses of the Catholic Church, which is tax-exempt, and they just spent another couple of million on yet another pedophile priest. While I'm not opposed to abortion I do understand that there are folks out there who don't want the federal government mailing a check to an abortion clinic and that is NOT going to happen. If you get too picky on the subject of 'how the government spends my money' you end up with nothing. My tax dollars have bought bombs and guns and ammo to kill people that I personally don't think belong on the better dead list...let's recognize that no health care kills people, babies too, and pass this thing. Email your lawmakers.

[Mortarman_29]

Hey, dont we also have businesses such as the United Way, etc that are non-profit? Why arent they paying taxes?

[mrsherman]

Abortions are bad. I hate them. In the past I've even gone on anti-abortion marches. What good did I do? Aside from burning a few calories on the walk, probably none.
Now I support the idea of working with those people and agencies that promote abstinence first in preventing pregnancies from occuring. Fewer unwanted pregnancies equals fewer abortions. Creating a society where abortions don't have to be illegal because they don't happen takes work, and MOST right-to-lifers I met are too lazy to get involved.
To those of you I just mentioned: Have you ever considered what would most likely happen if the preganacy came to full term? That child would be neglected, abused, and very likely killed anyway. A lifetime of suffering, pain and terror is what you are foisting on another because of your belief systems. Are you proud of that? SHUT UP AND GET INVOLVED WITH THE LIVES OF THOSE WHO YOU WANT TO CONTROL!
Then maybe I will listen to you.

[Mortarman_29]

So, killing the baby is the answer?

So, let's say the baby is 6 months old, then daddy gets laid off, blah, blah, blah.

Can we kill the baby then...since he is probably going to be neglected, abused and very likely killed anyway.

[sbelknap01]

You and I could get along - even though we radically differ on the baseline (I don't think abstinence counseling works, but it can't possibly HURT) I'm in favor of legal, free abortions, too - but I went down to see if we could get a foster kid (can't-we're too old and too poor) so I started free babysitting for Alcoholics Anonymous and I am a big proponent of adoption. (There is an awesome tax credit for people who adopt, if you are even thinking about it check into the tax credit). So you go, girl - you talk abstinence and I'll babysit the kiddies and we can both promote fostering and adoption and pretty soon the politicians who make their living pretending we hate each other will be out of work and the abortions per year will drop!

[slownewsday_5]

"by Mortarman_29
So, killing the baby is the answer? "


Bad comparison - it's not a baby until it's born, Mortimer. If you see people killing babies, call the police.


.

[patocc123]

So if you punch a pregnant woman and thus causing the unborn baby(sorry makings of a baby)to cease in life. Then that person should only be charged with assault right? Thats what your saying.

[cidaia]

The baby is just going to suffer anyway, so that makes it ok to kill it?

Wow, what logic.

Can I decide who "isn't likely to be very happy" and is therefore OK to kill, or are you the only one who gets to do that?

[NGRichardson]

Eliminating funds or making abortion illegal, doesn't stop abortion, it stops safe abortion.

Those of you who were not raised in a world where many young girls as well as their babies were left dead in a motel room ought to re-think and stop this knee jerk reaction....A family member may suffer.

[Mortarman_29]

Abortion is safe? For who? Certainly not the baby.

[slownewsday_5]

You mean the fetus, Mort.

[cidaia]

I have yet to see any compelling evidence saying that a baby changes what it is the day it is born.

It is the same before it is born as after.

An eight month baby can live outside the womb. But, by your reasoning, it isn't a "baby".

Whereas a baby that needs a life support system, that is born premature, would be a "baby", even though it's a tiny little preemie.

It sounds to me like you chose an arbitrary definition, based on what's convenient for the promiscuous sort of woman, not based on anything real.

[NGRichardson]

Eliminating funds or making abortion illegal, doesn't stop abortion, it stops safe abortion.

Those of you who were no raised in a world where many young girls as well as their babies were left dead in a motel room ought to re-think and stop this knee jerk reaction....A family member may suffer.

[outwestbutnotca]

It's interesting that Stupak is from the state with the highest unemployment rate in the nation. I wonder how many of his uninsured constituants really support his attempts to torpedo the healthcare reform process just so he can trample women's private health decisions.

[Mortarman_29]

Probably because he is promoting the baby's life decisions.

[cidaia]

It has been my experience that poor people are not as gung ho about abortion as rich feminist types. Poor people are more likely to see the connection between "life becomes disposable when it is inconvenient" - and themselves, who are also on the same "short list" of people who become disposable when rich liberals find them inconvenient.

[BlueDogDem]

I am pro-choice, but the Democrats should not put abortion as a covered service in the health care bill. Most (though not all) women who have abortions got pregnant because they didn't take precautionary measures. As such, there's nothing immoral in having them pay for abortions out of their own pocket.

This is a highly explosive issue and it makes no sense to hold up passage over this one issue.

[sbelknap01]

Abortion is NOT a covered service - just to clarify - it is NOT and NEVER HAS BEEN a covered service. The problem is that part of the bill will give me (working poor) a tax credit with which to pay my health insurance premiums and they are afraid that I might use it to buy an abortion. It's one of those insane things that screws everything - you may know about the $8,000 first time homebuyer's credit that has been going on...folks have been receiving HUGE checks from the government as sort of a 'reward' for buying a home. BUT, some of those thousands of folks have almost certainly used the cash for cigarettes, alcohol, maybe even firearms or abortions. The argument that these guys are making is specious - if we buy into it, we must immediately shut down ALL tax credits for ALL reasons - because the recipients might use the tax savings on something aweful. Remember, NO TAX DOLLARS will be sent to abortion clinics or doctors. None. Let's recognize that as reasonable considering the strong feelings of some citizens and get this thing passed. No health care kills people every day.

[cidaia]

As such, there's nothing immoral in having them give birth. If their own actions are what led to the creation of the baby, then they aren't the "victim" here - they are the one who took the action that made the consequences they are claiming to be victimized by.

[ianlou]

My answer is No on paying for abortions,
Yes on Birth control and No on Viagra.

Health care reform is way too important
to be risked over the abortion issue.

I support birth control coverage because it is a money saver.
The Pill is a lot cheaper than prenatal care and birth costs.

I don't support Viagra and the like because these are recreational drugs. Whether a man can get it up is as important as whether he can grow hair on his head - not health issues.

[docpeter1953]

RE: ianlou

"I don't support Viagra and the like because these are recreational drugs. Whether a man can get it up is as important as whether he can grow hair on his head - not health issues"

__________________________

At least it is until you can't get it up then it is a health issue.

[Lawyers-Guns-n-Money-01]

by N-Y-Joe-11 October 23, 2009 3:54 PM EDT
by ianlou October 23, 2009 2:33 PM EDT

Do you support the government funding medical weed ? that is a health issue for many, on par with other pain medications.

Be aware, some drugs used for one purpose (viagra) are also used in treating heart disease and other circulatory problems....so how would you react to that ?
====================================================================

How about we develop a hybrid? You know, for the guy stricken with glaucama that can't see his flaccid weiner.

(Take two viaweeds, a Britney Spears video and have your wife call me if it don't work out for you.)

[ianlou]

by N-Y-Joe-11 October 23, 2009 3:54 PM EDT
by ianlou October 23, 2009 2:33 PM EDT

Do you support the government funding medical weed ? that is a health issue for many, on par with other pain medications.

Be aware, some drugs used for one purpose (viagra) are also used in treating heart disease and other circulatory problems....so how would you react to that ?

I support medical weed coverage in pill form.
Coverage for smoke is too easy to abuse.
I also think it should be legalized.

Viagra for circulatory problems, yes it should be covered.
For Limp Stick Syndrome, No.

[chonder2]

Good news about the pilots that over ran the airport by 150 miles and didn't hear all the REPEATED WARNINGS,they are exonerated-apparently they were SEC inspectors.

[Questionews]

Pro-abortion Dems need to put the smackdown on these renegade anti-abortion Dems & force them to go along with something they don't support. Kidnap their children, threaten to be-head their Granny, water-board them. They must be forced to conform!! Assimilation is inevitable. Resistance is futile!

[docpeter1953]

Spoken like a true Obamanian

[Questionews]

I also do a pretty good John Wayne..........Pilgrim!