There are some individuals who honestly believe that the health care reform bill passed by the U.S. Senate would usurp years of federal policy and allow for taxpayer funds to pay for abortions. Those people -- including Michigan anti-abortion Democratic Rep.
Bart Stupak -- are wrong.
Stupak, who is backed by the like-minded U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, stated this week that he and 11 other members of the U.S. House are willing to completely derail reform efforts if the language he was able to insert in the House bill is not included in the Senate package. As U.S. Sen. Tom Harkin
explained to me and other reporters on a conference call this week, however, the language will not be inserted into the bill because it is a policy issue not a budgetary concern. (A requirement of reconciliation.)
Because such rumblings could effectively kill all health care reform,
Slate has taken a look at why Stupak and others believe the Senate bill allows government coverage or subsidy of abortion. According to reporter Timothy Noah, despite all the grumbling about taxpayer-funded abortion, the argument isn't really about that at all. Instead, the Bishops and lawmakers of the same ilk as Stupak are upset because of "market economics" and not being able to forever change the policies that have governed abortion in America.
... A common misconception is that the government's ban on abortion funding
through the Hyde Amendment (which covers spending by the Health and
Human Services Department, chiefly through Medicaid; other laws ban
abortion funding through other government agencies) has the force of
permanent law. It does not. It is merely a rider routinely attached to
annual appropriations bills. Should the appropriations committees in
Congress decide one year not to attach it, then HHS will
become free to fund abortions. Pro-lifers live in fear that this will
happen, but they don't want to draw too much attention to the
possibility, lest they discourage the public from thinking the Hyde
Amendment is writ in stone...
In fact, it is this fear that the Bishops forwardly
state in a press release: "...this annual rider is far less secure than the House bill's permanent provision."
Stupak is a bit more coy about this. His amendment prohibits
government subsidies to anyone purchasing health insurance through the
exchanges if that insurance covers abortion. To Stupak, it doesn't
matter that the Senate bill already prohibits any federal dollars from
paying for abortions. "Our amendment maintains current law," he has written,
"which says that there should be no federal financing for abortion."
This is wrong on two counts. Current law doesn't care one way or the
other whether private insurers cover abortion. And to the extent it
cares about government funding for abortion, it doesn't ban it forever.
It bans it for this year.
In a better world, Stupak and
the bishops believe, the federal ban on taxpayer-financed abortions
would be permanent. It's true that the Senate-passed bill is at odds
with this Platonic ideal. But the bill is completely consistent with
the earthbound status quo. Why can't they accept that?
Don't be confused by the verbal gymnastics on display by those who want to equate the abortion debate with the health care reform debate. The Senate bill, which will likely be the bulk of the eventual plan, maintains the status quo and does not allow for government funded or subsidized abortion services.
