A Win for Abortion Opponents in House Bill

Major Health Care Reform Bill Passes House, But Amendment Banning Coverage of Abortions Needed to Secure Winning Votes

(CBS)  Last night's vote to pass a major health care reform bill in the House of Representatives only came after a trade-off on abortion funding that was opposed by House liberals, as CBS News correspondent Michelle Miller reports.

The abortion debate heated up in the halls of Capitol Hill - and on the House floor itself.

"It's outrageous," said California Rep. Barbara Lee. "It further places the religious views of some into our public policy."

Special Report: Health Care Reform
Related: House Votes to Ban Abortion Subsidies

The controversial amendment introduced by Democrat Bart Stupak and Republican Joe Pitts would bar any new government insurance plan from covering abortions, an extension of a law, its authors say, that has been on the books since the 1970s.

"I'm not writing a new abortion policy," Stupak said. "The Hyde amendment already prohibits federal funding of abortion."

Late last night the amendment passed 240 to 194. And Democrats acknowledged that without it, the health care bill faced defeat.

"I was part of recommending that it come to the floor," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said.

It was a major concession for pro-choice Democrats, to ensure the success of the overall health care bill and secure the 218 votes needed to win passage. But abortion rights activists say it was a huge step back.

"Right now about 80 to 85 percent of private insurance companies cover abortion care. This means that women without their own money in this country are not going to be allowed to access that care," said Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America.

Sixty-four Democrats joined 176 Republicans to vote for the amendment. And anti-abortion activists say that may be a sign.

"It was very exciting last night to see demonstrated that there is bi-partisan pro-life majority in the House and that reflects the pro-life majority in America," said Dr. Charmaine Yoest of the group Americans United For Life Action.

But abortion opponents aren't declaring victory just yet. The bill now goes to the Senate, where ardent defenders of abortion rights are promising to reverse the amendment's impact on the health care bill in its final version.

[Hosheen]

This is another victory for the religious reich who fully intend to force their sick, twisted views upon the rest of the world whether they agree with them or not. In this regard, they are no better than the Taliban or Al Quaeda. They are truly domestic terrorists and should also be fully engaged in the "war on terror".

[sam-kiley]

bonjour
by mnbrant November 9, 2009 1:04 AM EST
hmm wheres my comment...
mdrrr..

cela dit oter la vie est un crime, donc l'avortememnt est un acte criminel
délibéré..les moyens de contraception existent que je sache..au revoir

[r_mcdonald1]

this is a smoke screen - they, more than likely, agreed to take the Abortion payment program out of the bill in order to make the opposition feel good and then agree to passage. exactly what leverage can Mr. Obama use against the "no" votes? simple, bribe them into going along with the deal. how much money will now be redirected back to the "on the fence" members when the rest of the TARP money and the stimulus package balance is divied up? WHAT A COUNTRY!

[skeezix06]

I see the "women's only reason to exist is to be a vehicle for a fetus" contingent is here.

[jeff-fla]

What gives anyone the right to not allow a woman to have control of her own body? Stop trying to control others and worry just about yourself. You will be allot happier.

[mnbrant]

hmm wheres my comment

[mnbrant]

Yeah I don't think it will stop baby killings. Its a nasty procedure that won't go away. By procedure I mean murder for hire. By hire I mean that you are paying the doctor 300 bucks to put a hit on your baby. Funny if someone kills your fetus against your will its murder but if you pay someone 300 bucks to suck its brains out or put a needle in it's eye then its ok.

[joymotte]

I completely agree with you. This is a barbarik procedure that ends a human life. Why should insurence companies pay for the termination of an unborn life?

[Ruck_Fepublicans]

What article did you read, Virgil-1? Or are you just trolling like the troglodyte you are? At what point did this article claim that not including federal provisions for abortions in the health care bill would stop abortions?
But in response to your question, yes, this probably would decrease the numbers of abortions as pregnant women would undoubtedly be denied coverage for abortions.

[Virgil-1]

Think this will stop baby killings?

[slownewsday-05]

It's actually abortion being discussed.

If you someone killing babies, call the police.

[cidaia]

Oh come one. If it's five months but out of the womb, it's a baby. If it's nine months but hasn't been born yet, it doesn't matter that it's a fully formed human being. It's not a "baby" it's a "fetus", and therefore it's okay to kill at will. It's perfectly ethical to kill a baby as long as you don't use that WORD.