It could all come down to abortion. Health-care reform hangs in the balance. Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the House of Representatives, is desperately trying to round up the last few votes. If the House passes a bill the Senate passed in December, it can then be tweaked through the “reconciliation” process and sent to President Barack Obama for signature. But every single House Republican is likely to vote no, so Ms Pelosi needs 216 Democratic votes (out of 253) for a majority. This is proving surprisingly hard. Among the holdouts are a dozen or so pro-life Democrats, several of them Midwestern Catholics, who object to the abortion provisions in the Senate bill.
Thanks to the Supreme Court, abortion has been legally protected since 1973 and neither Congress nor any state has the power to ban it. But a law called the Hyde amendment bars federal funding for abortion, except in cases of rape or incest, or to save the life of the mother. The question now is whether Obamacare will use taxpayers’ money to subsidise abortion more widely. Mr Obama insists that it will not. Under his plan, many individuals and small businesses will buy subsidised health insurance through state-sponsored exchanges. Under the Senate bill, they would only be able to obtain abortion coverage through these exchanges if they paid for it with a separate, unsubsidised, cheque. Thus, federal dollars would be kept out of abortion clinics, say the bill’s supporters. But many pro-lifers are not convinced. So the version of the health bill that was passed by the House would have required those who wanted abortion coverage to buy a completely separate insurance policy. The Democrat who wrote the House abortion provision, Bart Stupak, says he won’t back the Senate bill. Several other pro-life Democrats may also balk.
Well, I thought that was a fair and balanced article.
This article is a good example of how the press uses the “he said, she said” form to achieve what it considers balance. The Dems say the bill won’t fund abortion, the Rs say it will. Who’s right? You decide.
But the truth is that the bill at least potentially funds abortion, period. The Community Health Centers provisions that Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont snuck in at the last moment provides $10 billion for funding such centers, no strings attached. No prohibition on usage for abortion, and because it’s a separate appropriation from that of HHS, the Hyde Amendment doesn’t apply.
Here’s the real tell-tale: Bart Stupak and at least four other colleagues of his want to vote for health care reform. They did the last time. Does anyone really think that they would be putting up such strong resistance, and risking the wrath of Speaker Pelosi, if they weren’t certain that the bill funded abortion?
And the RC bishops, very supportive of health care reform overall, who supported the House version, have come out strongly against the current bill (which, of course, isn’t finished so no one really knows what’s in it) because of the funding of abortion (see here). An excerpt:
David (#2), and Branford (#3),
I agree. I hope that it all does in fact come down to the abortion issue, as intimated in the article’s opening sentence. And I hope the bill loses. For multiple reasons actually, but especially because of its abortion provisions.
David Handy+
PS. I’m afraid that I can’t agree with #1 that this article is “fair and balanced.” IMHO, it displays a clear liberal bias, but it is informative and helpful nonetheless. As evidence of the liberal tilt, look at how the opposition to “gay rights” is dismissed so casually, and the rather smug ending. But I’ve certainly seen a lot worse stuff in the “mainstream” news media.
David Handy+
Catholic hospitals, however, do support the bill.
Most likely, with universal coverage, abortions would decrease.
I believe that Pres. O has said that the Health Care bill will cost us all about $950B over the next 10 years.
Let’s, just for the sake of discussion, accept that fantasy number.
Where is the reporting on how we will pay for it? Where are the “real” numbers that demonstrate our ability to pay for this great big Candy Land giveaway?
Where is the reporting about the constitutionality of forcing people to purchase health insurance? What legal arguments will be made pro and con?
None of what we have had so far is reporting. It has been some sort of mutation between cheerleading and horse race announcing.