Bill Clinton Tackles Senate Abortion Rift

Ex-President Wades Back into His Party's Push for Health Reform; Can He Bridge the Crucial Democratic Divide?

(CBS/AP)  Former President Bill Clinton knows just how high the political stakes are in the fight to overhaul America's health care system.

His failed attempt to revamp the delivery of medical care contributed to the Republican takeover of the House and Senate in 1994.

Now, with the fate of health care legislation in the Senate's hands, Clinton is heading to Capitol Hill where he's expected to speak to Senate Democrats during their weekly caucus on Tuesday, officials said. They spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss his schedule.

CBSNews.com Special Report: Health Care

President Obama wants to sign the legislation into law by the end of the year. But abortion opponents in the Senate are seeking tough restrictions in the health care overhaul bill, a move that could roil a shaky Democratic effort.

Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska said Monday he could not support a bill unless it clearly prohibits federal dollars from going to pay for abortions. Nelson is weighing options, including offering an amendment similar to the one passed by the House this weekend.

"I want to make sure something comparable ... is in there," Nelson said.

The House-passed restrictions were the price Speaker Nancy Pelosi had to pay to get a health care bill passed, on a narrow 220-215 vote. But it's prompted an angry backlash from liberals at the core of her party, and some are now threatening to vote against a final bill if the curbs stay in.

CBSNews.com's Stephanie Condon reports that the inclusion of Rep. Bart Stupak's restrictive abortion amendment in the bill has prompted well-established abortion-rights groups to oppose the entire House bill, and it is drawing the ire of feminist bloggers and activists. Read Condon's story in Political Hotsheet.

Mr. Obama said the legislation needs to find a balance.

"I want to make sure that the provision that emerges meets that test - that we are not in some way sneaking in funding for abortions, but, on the other hand, that we're not restricting women's insurance choices," Mr. Obama said in an interview with ABC News.

Senate Democrats will need Nelson's vote - and those of at least a half-dozen other abortion opponents in their caucus. They face a grueling debate against Republicans who are unified in their opposition to a sweeping remake of the health care system. It's unclear how the abortion opponents would line up; the pressure on them will intensify once the legislation is on the floor.

Abortion-rights groups, meanwhile, are stepping up to pressure President Obama and the Senate to keep any Stupak-like measure out of the final health care bill. The National Organization for Women held a rally at the Capitol Monday in opposition to the amendment and is fundraising to lobby on the issue, reports Condon.

An intraparty fight over abortion is the last thing that Majority Leader Harry Reid needs. Reid is already facing a revolt among Democratic moderates over the government-sponsored health plan that liberals want to incorporate in the legislation as a competitor to private insurance companies.

Reid, who is himself opposed to abortion, will have to confront the issue directly as he puts together a Democratic bill for floor consideration. Two Senate committees approved separate health care bills which differ on abortion, but none would go as far as the restrictive amendment passed by the House.

The House bill would bar the new government insurance plan from covering abortions, except in cases or rape, incest or the life of the mother being in danger. That's the basic rule currently in federal law.

It would also prohibit health plans that receive federal subsidies in a new insurance marketplace from offering abortion coverage. Insurers, however, could sell separate coverage for abortion, which individuals would have to purchase entirely with their own money.

At issue is a profound disagreement over how current federal restrictions on abortion funding should apply to what would be a new stream of federal funding to help the uninsured gain coverage.

[Sloughfoot]

It is a Love/Hate relationship we have with ol' Bill. However, unlike the peanut farmer, Bill does not alienate the parties he is trying to unite. The more and more we see of Hillary the more and more we become empathetic to Ol' Bill - whips and spurs do get old after a while.

[LtSmily]

Wow, so much vitriol spewed (pun) around here. One question: Why is it so hard to expect girls to not have sex? Do we as parents just give up on them and figure, oh well, they are gonna do it anyway why bother? Religious people need to relax their s_e_x education stance (assuming they can't take responsibility to speak with their own children) and the "other" side needs to realize it's more than just handing out condoms and saying be careful.
Women on here are saying HOW DARE YOU TELL ME,AN AMERICAN WOMAN, WHAT I CAN AND CANNOT DO WITH MY BODY. Who cares about your body and what you do with it, unless you have long legs runnin up to an apple bottom with hazel eyes and long brunette hair.... off topic. The point is there should be no Federal legislation at all for or against abortion. Assuming you are of age or at least 18, I could care less who you spread your legs for, if you reap the consequences of irresponsibility, then get a job and pay for it. Maybe, if you were better in bed the guy would stick around and help pay for it, it's in his self interest if he finds a girl that actually participates in good s_e_x. Maybe we could all get a tax form that has all the things government spends OUR money on and you could fill out a check box where you want YOUR money to go. Maybe we could all crap in one hand and make a wish in the other and see which one fills up first. Abortion is a non starter at the Federal level, takes up too much time and money, but think about it, this is a great way to keep all the sheeple in line arguing about inane topics while they do the "real" work of narcissistic sociopaths who seek power for the sake of power.... I'm talkin to YOU Obama & Bush , Cheney, and that waste of good oxygen Emanuel

[jab712]

Let,s look at bill Clinton,s record.he backed McAulle in the Va.primary & lost.he backed the Dem. in the Va. election & lost
he backed the Dem. in N.J. & losted.he went to S.F. to back
OZZY Newsom for Gov.& Ozzy drops out & Bill says the only thing straight out in S. F. is the bridge !
Rember Bill, motto= "Not only that I MUST suceed but my FRIENDS
MUST also fail."

[briannorwood]

Here's my common sense solution to the abortion issue:

Simply cut the fetus in half. Give the left half to the pro-abortion group, and the right half to the anti-abortion group.

Problem solved!

[Stop_the_crying]

Solamans idea.

[stn_sage]

It appears that MOST...if not ALL actions taken to unite Congress and 'fix' the health bill...are having just the OPPOSITE effect of CAUSING further disunity and fragmenting of the 'whole'!

Is this a coincidence? I think not!

Now, Bill Clinton gets to 'stick his nose into it'! WHICH, will undoubtedly upset certain legislators and senators probably causing them to vote against it!

In the end...after all is said and done...we will probably have NO health care bill...OR...it will be the WORST monster ever created by this lackluster Congress...and everyone...except the insurance industry...will be indisposed by it and thoroughly hate it!

[Ms_enza]

Just make a decision on one question -- WHEN DOES LIFE BEGIN?

Conception?
Viability?
Birth?

After that point all of our laws will apply to the fetus as they do to everyone else. They will be issued social security numbers and passports. Any miscarriages (stillbirths), or terminations of the pregnancy will be investigated as possible homicides. If conception or viability are the chosen point of life, then all women traveling abroad will need to take pregnancy tests before leaving, and returning to, the country (can't have little rich girls killing US citizens abroad).

Pick a point, vote on it, and let the law work. Personally, I'd go for viability (26 weeks), this allows cases of rape and incest to be handled more easily, and pretty much keeps the government out of the bedroom.

Most women show at the point of viability so it makes it easier to keep track of those who would abort their children in Europe or someplace else where later term abortions are legal.

[element51]

I agree with you. I also go for "viability." Once the fetus can live on its own, to abort it is to commit a murder. If this were adolped as law, there should be no arguement. While I personally find abortion to be very distasteful, I do not believe that I have the right to tell women that they cannot have access to it up to a point. We need to do everything we can to reduce the demand for abortions but the religious fanatics refuse to allow sex education to be taught in schools. How can you expect young people to abstain or to protect themselves if they are ignorant? Myths like, "you can't get pregnant if the girl is on top" are still out there and many kids beleive that. Kids are not equiped to make the decisions that are involved in becoming sexually active and certainly can't if they have no education. And keep this in mind. When abortion was illegal, wealthy women had access in clean doctor's offices and D&C appeared on their medical records where poor women went to back alley butchers and died by the thousands. Wanna go back to those days?

[Stop_the_crying]

Sounds good. Call a congressman.

[Void_Master]

by Jesus_BubbleHead November 10, 2009 8:05 AM EST

Here I come to save the day!

***

lol - What are you smoking and can I have some?

[Void_Master]

by Void_Master November 10, 2009 7:43 AM EST

by docpeter1953 November 10, 2009 7:33 AM EST

***

I misunderstood your post that I commented on. I thought you were speaking of doctors' fees. I see you spoke of hospitals' costs. I realize the have them.

I'm guessing from your post that you work in a hospital, perhaps in accounting or are maybe the admin. Let me ask you a couple of things.

Given that hospitals are already prohibited from charging different rates to different people, why do insurance companies always get a big discount?

Also, why won't hospitals publish their price lists so that people actually *can* comparison shop?

[MPHgrad]

I am against abortion PERIOD. However, the issue for me is that if a woman chooses to have one, she should find the funds. I don't think federal funding should pay for one. With that said, federal funds should go towards reproductive education, contraception, and protection. The focus should be on pregnancy prevention. If the senate is only voting against without providing substantive alternatives, that is simply silly.

[Void_Master]

by docpeter1953 November 10, 2009 7:33 AM EST

At the onset I might agree with you concerning hospital bills, BUT...

Have you ever seen a $250K+ monthly electric bill or a $75K+ water monthly bill. payroll per month is close to $1M+, oh add in liability and malpractice insurances. And remember, companies that supply IV sets, needles, sterilizers, food, cleaning supplies, gowns, masks, gloves, etc... don't do that for free, these thiongs are not gimmes, and I expect you want them there when you arrive and don't really want the hospital to have to order them and wait a week or so for them to come in while you wait for your room to clean itself with cleaners that have not been ordered yet.

Yes, most hospitals are in it for a profit. But, you likely have a choice. If you don't want to go to the for profit hospital you can try the area county hospital and indigent care.

***

Well, first of all, I believe I was pretty much defending what most doctors charge.

As for the hospital part, while a valid argument on the surface, consider this. Several years ago our local officials sold the county hospital to Universal Health Services -- a for profit hospital system that is run by (drum roll please) an insurance company. There are no publicly run hospitals within 300 miles of me. And I'm sure where I live is not an isolated case.