Pro-Life Gains In Health Care Reform Not Secure
- Nov 17, 2009 -
The recent House passage of an amendment prohibiting federal funding of most abortions under the health care reform bill dealt abortion advocates a serious blow. Abortion coverage, after all, is an essential trimming to the $1.2 trillion government takeover, according to a sizeable bloc in Congress. But the pro-life achievement, a critical improvement to what remains a deeply flawed bill, is far from secure.
Protests from abortion advocates immediately rang out. Two days after the House narrowly passed — by a mere three votes — the 2,000-page Affordable Health Care for America Act (H.R. 3962), which includes the Stupak-Pitts abortion-restriction amendment approved by a 240-194 bipartisan vote, 41 representatives vowed in a letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) to reject a final bill, to be negotiated with the Senate, if the pro-life amendment is retained.
A principle has been in effect for 33 years—the Hyde Amendment—barring the government from funding abortions, except in rare instances. But this provision bears no impact on health care reform. It applies only to Medicaid. In reality, the House-passed pro-life amendment is crucial in the pro-life effort to prevent federal funding of abortion in health care.
As the focus shifts to the Senate, pro-lifers must insist on an explicit ban on abortion coverage. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) will soon unveil his health care reform bill, written behind closed doors, setting up a procedural vote as early as this week. The first Senate vote on health care reform will be a vote to start debate. This requires 60 votes.
The importance of this vote cannot be overstated. Sen. Mike Johanns (R-NE) said the vote “might well become the deciding factor in this debate over federal funding of abortion.” He cautioned, “Don’t be fooled by claims that the motion to proceed to the bill is the first step to improving the bill. It will be the final say for the pro-life community.”
Of concern recently, Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) has commented that he would support pro-life language that is weaker than the Stupak-Pitts Amendment that was added to the House-passed bill. Sen. Nelson’s vote is indispensable in preventing federal funding of abortion through the health care system.
While pro-lifers should fight abortion coverage to the bitter end of this debate, more than the potential of federal funding of abortion sours health care reform. Higher taxes, rationed care, and poorer service are rolled up in the package affecting one-sixth of the economy. This is the wrong direction for America.
If you agree, please tell your senators, and especially Sen. Ben Nelson, to oppose any procedural votes on a health care bill that does not include, at a minimum, the Stupak-Pitts Amendment prohibiting funding of abortion under health care.