House Votes to Ban Abortion Subsidies

Gov't-Run Health Plan Would Be Barred From Funding Abortions; Some Insurers Required to Offer No-Abortion Coverage

(AP)  A bipartisan House coalition voted Saturday to prohibit coverage of abortions in a new government-run health care plan that Democrats would establish to compete with private insurers.

The 240-194 vote on an amendment by Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., was a blow to liberals, who would have allowed the Obama administration and its successors to decide whether abortions would be covered by the government plan.

Sixty-four Democrats joined 176 Republicans in favor of the prohibition.

Stupak's measure also would bar anyone getting federal health subsidies from purchasing private insurance polices that included abortion coverage.

"Let us stand together on principle - no public funding for abortions, no public funding for insurance policies that pay for abortions," Stupak urged fellow lawmakers before the vote.

The amendment would bar the new government insurance plan from covering abortions, except in cases of rape, incest, or where the life of the mother is in danger. The Democrats' original legislation would have allowed the government plan to cover abortions, if the Health and Human Services secretary decided it should.

The amendment also would prohibit people who receive new federal health subsidies from buying insurance plans that include abortion coverage.

The Democrats' original bill would have allowed people getting federal subsidies to pay for abortion coverage with their own money. Abortion opponents dismissed that as an accounting gimmick.

CBSNews.com Special Report: Health Care Reform

Abortion rights advocates called the measure the biggest setback to women's reproductive rights in decades. Anti-abortion Democrats forced House leaders to bring it up for a vote by threatening to oppose the underlying bill, and efforts to reach a compromise fell apart Friday night.

"Like it or not, this is a legal medical procedure and we should respect those who need to make this very personal decision," said Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Colo.

Some Republicans considered voting "present" in hopes that might unravel support for the underlying health care bill among anti-abortion Democrats, but only one did, Rep. John Shadegg, R-Ariz.

"If I felt that the (health overhaul) bill could be killed by not advancing the Stupak amendment then it seems it would be prudent to vote in such a way that wouldn't advance the bill, but it doesn't appear that that's a possibility," Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., said before the vote.

The National Right to Life Committee and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops lobbied lawmakers in both parties on the abortion measure. The bishops said they would oppose the bill if it lacked a strict prohibition on any federal funding for abortions.

Stupak's language applies to policies sold in a federally regulated insurance exchange that would be set up in 2013. The overhaul bill envisions both private companies and the government offering policies in the exchange.

Under the Stupak amendment, people who do not receive federal insurance subsidies could buy private insurance plans in the exchange that includes abortion coverage. People who receive federal subsidies could buy separate policies covering only abortions if they use only their own money to do it.

Companies selling insurance policies covering abortions would be required to offer identical policies without the abortion coverage.

Abortion-rights supporters say private insurers will not likely offer policies with abortion coverage in the exchange because many potential buyers will be getting federal subsidies and therefore wouldn't be able to purchase them.

Around 21 million people are expected to get coverage through the exchange by 2019, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

The majority of Americans who get their insurance coverage from their employers would not be affected.

Abortion-rights supporters say the restrictions in the amendment go further than current law.

A law called the Hyde amendment - which must be renewed annually - bars federal funding for abortion except in cases of rape, incest or if the mother's life is in danger. The restrictions apply to Medicaid, forcing states that cover abortions for low-income women to pay for them with state revenues. Separate laws apply the restrictions to the federal employee health plan and the military.

Currently abortion coverage is widely available in the private market. A Guttmacher Institute study found that 87 percent of typical employer plans covered abortion in 2002. A Kaiser Family Foundation survey in 2003 found that 46 percent of workers in employer plans had abortion coverage. The studies asked different questions, which might help explain the disparity in the results.

Abortions in the first trimester typically cost between $350-$900, according to Planned Parenthood.

A health overhaul bill pending in the Senate also bars federal funding for abortion, but the language is less stringent. Discrepancies between the House and Senate measures would have to be reconciled before any final bill is passed.

[Stop_the_crying]

Until such time as the government issues permits for sex, they have no right to take away a womens decission to have an abortion. Or if those that say no must stand in line and take into there family one of these unwanted babies and raise them!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[mnbrant]

Good. That was my biggest stumbling block to universal health care. Glad its gone. As far as even 46% of health plans covering abortion I dont even believe 46% of insurance plans cover fertility counseling. They sure shouldn't be covering abortion. Who supports abortion? I would guess that the people in support of abortions aren't actually having them. They are nasty procedures. By in large the abortion booster is going by what they were taught in the colleges. I really don't think the participant in an abortion is going to any NOW rallies anytime soon. Just my thought on the matter.

[P0STING_AWAY]

by ToolMangler1 November 8, 2009 5:06 PM EST
The whole 'KEY' to this issue is,
(1) Abortion for the sake of birth control is wrong.(murder)
(2) Birth control must be practised in some way or the earth will becomme unable to sustain life. 'as we know it'..
(3) Pregnacy should be a sought after event between a man and his wife. not a dreaded event where the child must be killed because those responseable don't want one...
====================================================
No Doofus ... the whole "KEY" to the issue is getting MoronGelical
christians like yourself OUT of everybody else's business. Women
bear 99.99% of the grief / work involved in the child bearing /
rearing process. IF YOU ARE OPPOSED TO ABORTION, THAT IS YOUR BUSINESS.
THAT, HOWEVER, DOES NOT GIVE YOU -ANY- RIGHT TO TELL ME WHAT TO DO.

[eyesopenwide]

Imagine if you will a hypothetical situation.

A street hoe hooks up with a street thug and viola a baby is coming.
The street hoe is all set on getting an abortion when the time comes.
But she makes the street thug think she's carrying it all the way.
Things get tense, he gets worried and scared of 18 yrs of child support.
She decide its time and the appointment for the abortion is tommorow.
The street thug is still unaware and the street hoe has been using him for every advantage prior to actually getting the abortion.
He gets mad, real mad, and rams a 6 inch knife deep in her belly killing the baby, but the mother survived.

Enter law enforcement:

The street thug is arrested and charged with 1 count of murder for the baby, and aggravating domestic assault with intent to do great bodily harm. He's tried and sentenced to 45 years in prison.

My question has to do with killing babies.

The baby in question in my story had every right to live but both the father and the mother didnt want it.

So a plan is formulated to do away with the problem, have a doctor kill it tommorow.

But interestingly enough the street thug unwittinly performed the exact same procedure, the killing of the baby, that the doctor was supposed to do hours later.

Seems like the street thug did what the doctor was going to do only hour later, but one is murder and one a medical precudure which both result in the child dead.

Poor kid never had a chance with several folks wanting him/her dead.

[ToolMangler1]

by P0STING_AWAY November 8, 2009 6:40 PM EST
"No Doofus ... the whole "KEY" "




First off!! I never called you a name.
Second!! I 'Never told 'you' what to do!!
Third!! I must have hit a very raw nerve!!!
Fourth!! It doesn't make any difference If 'Christians" make the call or if the surgeon General makes the call, Ending a life prematurely by another individual is "Homicide" and most likely murder!!!!
Fifth!!! You have no Idea what my position is on religion. However I am Christian.

OOOOPPPPSSS!!!!!! I just saw your eyes glaze over, Mercy!! That really galls you, doesn't it? You are so busy "Telling me what I can't tell you", did you ever think that "you" have no 'Right' to tell me what I can say????????

The only "RIGHT" you have here, is not to listen (or read).
If you don't like what 'I' just said!! Hit the 'back' button and go elswhere.

"eyesopenwide" Has a different POV for you. Factor in that scenario and see what you get.

[ibsteve2u]

Is pretty funny, knowing that so many members of the House can be so rabid on preventing what they consider to be the taking of a life while being equally rabid about preventing any legislation designed to extend a life.

I wonder how they'd vote on each issue if, by some miracle, health care were truly free, with no taxpayer funding involved whatsoever?

I'd wager - a LOT - that at least some of those who oppose health care now would continue to oppose it, insisting that health care should never be free and that instead it should be privatized so that themselves or those they represent could make a profit.

lolll...you know that is how the Republicans look at things...given the chance, they'll be privatizing the supply of air...

[dontknowitall]

ibsteve.. A lingering thought of mine is:how many politicians and clergy have used abortion to mend their indiscretions?

[ibsteve2u]

Good question, knowitall.

From the procedures carried out in the safe, sterile environments of a good health care facility, to the hand-in-the-small-of-her-back "Ooops!" at the top of the family mansion's - or the choir loft's - stairs...

[dontknowitall]

Will it doesn't sound logical to me. If I may state my point of view. In order for the government to save under $1000.00 for the abortion of a child that is not wanted. Our illustrious government would prefer to spend tens of thousands of dollars over the course of 18 years. Supporting children that will probably quit school and start having their own children at the age of 14 and on and on it goes. Our government also has to apease the religious baffoons and right to lifers that will do absolutely nothing to support or raise these unwanted children. Yup sounds like a plan to me.

[saturn05]

I totally agree. I also don't think their personal religious beliefs or whatever excuse they use, should make law. A choice to do what is right for your body and your life should be the WOMAN'S right, not Congress. As a taxpeyer, there are a lot of procedures and other medical choices that I don't want to pay for. But so what. We need to take of everyone and abortion should have a name change. It is a medical procdure and no one's business besides the woman and her doctor. How many men in Congress decided on this anti-choice part of the bill. I will never understand why we let men make decisions on our rights and our bodies. In closing, I think the Dems should be totally ashamed of thier decision on this matter. I will find out their names and I plan to start a campaign against them. They have no business in their position of power when they use their personal religious beliefs to make law.

[P0STING_AWAY]

Let us all get to work sending America's version of the Taliban,
MoronGelical christians, off to the middle of the Sahara desert.
That way the rest of us will be free to live our lives without
these religious zealots attempting to cram their nonsense down
our throats.

[ToolMangler1]

Au`Contraire!!!
Their stance is, "If Religion can be banned from any Government property, then they will not allow government sanctioned murder (no matter how you dance around it).
I can understand their POV. Government (federal) has no right to ban anything from the aforementioned property without 'asking us first'.... that is our property, not theirs. (without us, they do not exist).

I am curious about how they will rationalize 'Population control' (like China has). That issue 'will' have to be addressed in the near future.

[ibsteve2u]

by ToolMangler1 November 8, 2009 4:53 PM EST "Au`Contraire!!! Their stance is, "If Religion can be banned from any Government property, then they will not allow government sanctioned murder (no matter how you dance around it)."

Au contraire, deux fois! They do indeed support government-sanctioned murder in the form of the death penalty - for crimes that don't involve le col blanc, of course.

Heck, some of the righties insist it is OK for the government to kill convicted criminals who turn out to be innocent. To quote Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia:

[bq]
This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is ?actually? innocent.
[eq]

[kastner63]

The way the evangelical fundamentalists and the catholic church (also by now fundamentalist) join in determining politics in a state that is supposedly secular reminds me of the Taliban concept. Of course they have turned violent because the American soldiers are preventing them from letting religion determining peoples' lives. American soldiers lose their lives for fighting something that the American religious right insists on: a religious movement dominating politics. For people who do not want the Taliban religious concept of statehood including burkas and lack of education beyond reading the koran, the Taliban are as repressive as the American religious right is for people who believe that abortion is for everybody to decide privately and therefore should not be made impossible. And of course, Stupak's amendment has a social component. Those of us who have the money can have the abortion privately or move to Canada for the procedure. It is those who do not have the money to whom abortions are made impossible which is the same as forbidding abortion. So they achieve something they could not achieve in the Supreme Court by religious-fundamentalist law-making. It seems those who are willing to fight the Taliban and the Ultra-orthodox jews are forgetting the fundamentalists at the Christian hearth.

[ToolMangler1]

The whole 'KEY' to this issue is,
(1) Abortion for the sake of birth control is wrong.(murder)
(2) Birth control must be practised in some way or the earth will becomme unable to sustain life. 'as we know it'..
(3) Pregnacy should be a sought after event between a man and his wife. not a dreaded event where the child must be killed because those responseable don't want one....

[slownewsday-05]

"not a dreaded event where the child must be killed"

Infanticide is illegal. If you see someone killing a child, please report it to the police.


.

[kbbpll]

So if a woman would be killed by continuing a pregnancy, she has to pay for the abortion herself. What exactly is the definition of "health care"?

[AnnieDanny]

You didn't even read the article. Go back and read it!!

[pickaguitar1]

Some folks are still so backazzwards!

Abortions should be included/covered.

[band3x]

I agree. I am tired of supporting unwanted children with my paycheck.

[Fatesrider]

Once again the ignorance of the few outweighs the common sense of the many. Those who have to get the 'public option' are the least able to pay for the things a child needs, so will be the biggest drain on the system.

Great move, there, Congress. What's next? Outlawing common sense as a way of life?

[thesevenveils]

Is there a public option to opt out of this law?
How is it the small voice of two ultra conservative lobby groups can sway Congress with their extremest theopolitical views and force a nation to accept their religious positions and customs into law?