WASHINGTON, Nov. 8, 2009
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
-
(CBS/AP)
-
Interactive Abortion Debate It's one of the most hotly debated political and social issues in America. Review a history of that debate since the historic Roe v. Wade decision.
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.
By Associated Press Writer Erica Werner
© MMIX The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
More From Politics
Add a Comment See all 51 Comments
- 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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
- Reply to this comment
- 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.
- Reply to this comment
- 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. - Reply to this comment
-
- 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.
- 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.
- All females should have tubes tied at birth. If you want a kid you pay for reversal. They have no problems snipping the males foreskin.
- Imagine if you will a hypothetical situation.
- 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... - Reply to this comment
-
- ibsteve.. A lingering thought of mine is:how many politicians and clergy have used abortion to mend their indiscretions?
- 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.
- Reply to this comment
-
- 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.
- 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. - Reply to this comment
-
- 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.
- 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]
- By the way, ToolMangler: Their attempts to block health care? Their desire to eliminate Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid? Their desire to stop funding for education? Their desire to stop Welfare, WIC, pre-natal care programs, on and on?
lolll...the Republicans ARE practicing population control.
In fact, they're attempting to practice eugenics, in that their people will inherit all wealth in a world where only those with wealth will be able to afford the health care required to have healthy babies who can survive childhood and the become educated enough to amass sufficient wealth to pass the ability to survive in a wealth-centric world down to their own children.
The Republicans just console their consciences with the idea that they're not REALLY practicing population control and eugenics 'cuz they oppose birth control, sex education, and abortion.
- by ibsteve2u November 8, 2009 5:38 PM EST (X2)
cute POV!! LOL
You know that I was referring to (the murder of the children). I am not considering State murder of convicted killers in this comment.
(ref [bq],[eq])
(That is correct, the Constitution makes no law pertaining to that. That is a 'fluid' state of affairs, (changeable as to circumstances). What is good for today might be wrong for tomorrow.)
(lolll...the Republicans ARE practicing population control.)
More like selective breeding.
- Au`Contraire!!!
- 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.
- Reply to this comment
-
- 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....
- "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.
.
- by slownewsday-05 November 8, 2009 6:52 PM EST
"Infanticide is illegal. If you see someone killing a child, please report it to the police"
What is in play here is symantics. From the moment of conception I want you (or someone) to pick a point in the growth cycle that defines it a anything "other than" a human being.
All things being equal if this brand new life is provided sustenance and no harm befalls it, It will not die until its alloted lifespan (deemed by genetics) is completed (0-120 years average). True or false???
If the answer is yes, then that Conceptual organism is a human being from the "Very beginning" and ending that life prematurely is murder (state sponsored or not).
Rebuttal???
- The whole 'KEY' to this issue is,
- 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"?
- Reply to this comment
- Some folks are still so backazzwards!
Abortions should be included/covered. - Reply to this comment
- 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? - Reply to this comment
- Had abortion been left in the bill it would have failed. It makes no difference whether abortion is legal or not, wealthy women will always be able to obtain an abortion if they want one. It is the poor who will be penalized just as it has always been. As long as the wealthy can get what they want it is easy for them to be so self-righteous. The influence of the Catholic Church and the evangelical Confeferates on our government is much stronger than many of you realize. We hear the right wingers ranting about our freedoms being taken away by the left wing but it is the fundamentalist who are the ones who really want to take away our freedoms. If they ever get their way, and they well could, they will make the Taliban look tame. They are in such a rush to see Jesus that they will back any bogus war that will benefit their cause. Personally I find abortion to be dis-tasteful but it is not my right to impose my will on everyone. I believe that once a fetus is viable outside the womb that abortion SHOULD be illegal and that it is murder but that is only my opinion. Instead of screaming about making abortion illegal again we need to educate young women and men in an effort to reduce the demand for abortion. But the right wing religious fanatics will not allow sex education to be taught in schools. I guess it's better for young people to remain ignorant and become pregnant than to educate them so they can protect themselves. Seems kind of stupid to me.
- Reply to this comment
- The Blue Dog Democrats won a victory. The Democratic Party expanded the base to include more conservative leaning legislators. This is a result of a broader coalition and a bigger tent in the Democratic party. Abortion has not been illegalized. Federal subsidization of abortion procedures will not be available. The blue dog democrats would not accept healthcare reform which did not contain this measure. As a matter of fact, if Democrats had not broadened the base, reform of health insurance companies would not be possible. Thank the blue dogs, they are standing by their principles and were of fundamental importance in passing reform in the House of Representatives.
- Reply to this comment
- It will be landmark now if the Catholic Church supports healthcare reform. If.....
- Reply to this comment
- Shame on those that deny equal rights to those less able, another opportunity to keep women downtrodden. A pox on all your houses!
- Reply to this comment
-
- Keeping women downtrodden is not the issue here..
Try this.. When a woman becomes pregnant the man is held responsible for the health and welfare of that baby. If he fails, then they should cut off that which makes him a man. "You are not allowed to fail without that consequence..
(There might be more gays, but the population will be sustainable).
- Keeping women downtrodden is not the issue here..
- The only thing left to do in this area is put shovels and picks and hammers in the hands of dead beat parents. Those of you who have grandchildren in your home because your children are too lazy or uneducated or drugged up to support thier own children. These people and grandparents are just as guilty of stealing from thier brothers and sisters as your children are of taking advantage of the love of the grand parent for thier grand children.dead beat parents are not the worth the price of the gunpowder it takes to push a bullet into thier worthless heads.
- Reply to this comment
- I don't know what to say about other parts of the Bill, but I am quite happy that federally funded abortions are officially out of this Bill! I pray to God that the Senate does the same, because it would be a travesty for my tax dollars to fund the murdering of babies.
Before you dismiss me as some rightwing nut I've got two things to say: 1) I am an independent, because I do not side with either party completely. Both parties have idiots/crooks and both parties have members who sincerely want to better America. 2) If you google Planned Parenthood you will see that they make over 100 million dollars annually on baby deaths. Like they need a tax break give me a break! - Reply to this comment
-
- Of course you applaud efforts to prohibit coverage of abortions. You and other mindless religious sycophants of The Military Industrial Complex want those unwanted children to be brought into the world and raised to a proper age to become cannon fodder for future undeclared, illegal wars.
- "because it would be a travesty for my tax dollars to fund the murdering of babies."
Nobody is murdering babies. We're discussing aborting fetuses.
If you see someone committing infanticide, call the police.
.
- Consider this;
The current economic downturn can be laid squarely at the doorstep of the abortionists. Japan's current economic stagnation has been clearly demonstrated to have occurred when their population reached an average age of 37. Why? because more people were withdrawing from retirement savings than were saving for retirement.
With over 50 million aborted in the US since 1972, we have lost those potential wage earners, and our average age has now reached the magic mark of 37. Those 50 million lost to abortion would also have had children, which would have further contributed to keeping the average age below 37.
Now we are all going to pay.
Look for at least 20 years of economic downturn.
- Placate the right....and they don't vote for the bill anyway.
- Reply to this comment
- Once again, people's personal religious views were included in political decisions. I may never have an abortion myself, but I stand firmly behind that it is a very hard choice most women do not take without much consideration. I believe an abortion should just be another medical procedure and leave it at that. What offends me the most is that idiots have taken this religious ideology as a right to pass legislation to back up their perosnal belief and do not consider the ramifications to a true living person. This stands in the face of separation of church and state. For me, that is the more important that a person religious bent. I don't want my taxpayer money going to fools who smoke and then have to have very expensive and long medical procedures.
- Reply to this comment
-
- These are the same arguments that were used to keep slaves. The underlying values are identical. Does someone have the right to act in their self-interest if injures another?
Slave owners had the weight of history on their side. The Bible described slavery, but gave counsel to choose freedom if you had the option. So it was used by both sides of the argument.
The slave-owners saw it as an infringement on their rights by the religious extremists in the abolitionists. The abolitionists saw it as a humans rights issue for the slaves themselves. Some of the advocates for slavery said that slaves were not humans. Some of the advocates for abortion say that the unborn are not humans.
Its all the same. Only the names have changed.
Abortion is the Slavery issue of this generation.
- These are the same arguments that were used to keep slaves. The underlying values are identical. Does someone have the right to act in their self-interest if injures another?
- good. Now it's time to pass a bill that mandates if you are receiving welfare, you cannot own a pet (so you can't feed it with your food stamps). Makes about as much sense as the abortion provision above.
- Reply to this comment
- Ironically most if not all of the money grabbing US politicians that have sold out the people are same men and women that we're demonstrating against the Vietnam War and the government. Pot smoking, draft card burning,banning the bra (no Nancy please don't) peace loving communist hypocrits. Who really won the Cold war? Eh.
- Reply to this comment
-
- dontknowitall.....I find your description interesting. I do not believe that everyone who was against the was in Viet Nam were "pot smoking, draft card burning, bra banning, peace loving communist hypocrits." Once it became apparent that we had been lied to, sound familiar, and that the war was immoral it became the duty of every citizen to oppose the war. And I have to ask, what is wrong with wanting peace? How can you say that war is preferable? Are you some kind of nutcase?
- Oh, you mean like John Kerry, Daniel K. Akaka, Thomas Carper, Medal of honor winner Daniel Inouye, Frank Lautenberg, John McCain and Jim Webb - all of whom are combat veterans? Or the other thirty or forty members of congress who served their country in the US Armed Services but didn't actually see combat?
Before you seek a remedy for that extreme case of foot in mouth disease of yours (assuming making a fool of yourself again is something you're interested in avoiding), you might try doing a bit of research first. It took me exactly five seconds to get those names, along with what service they were in and their years of service.
Get your head out of the 60's and grow up.
The road ahead in Afghanistan, and the crucial decision Obama faces.
