Abortion is a very controversial subject. It is the only legal health procedure with special regulations in the House's reform. Activist groups like NARAL grudgingly accepted the compromise presented by House leaders, realizing that it was probably the best they could get, but see Stupak's new proposals as a path to banning abortion coverage in the private health insurance market altogether. The 1976 Hyde Amendment already forbids the federal government from funding abortion through Medicaid, its existing public health insurance plan for low-income Americans. However, it doesn't apply to newly provided funds. Rep. Stupak's amendment would expand the Hyde restrictions to the new subsidies, offering even stronger assurance that no federal money will pay for abortion except under certain circumstances (when the life of the mother is in danger, or when rape or incest are involved). House leadership will probably try their best to block the amendment. In that case, Stupak threatens to create a coalition of representatives that will vote no on a procedural vote. That would serve to prevent debate on the House's healthcare reform bill in its entirety. States will be allowed to cover abortion services on a state-by-state basis, but using solely their own money. Some states would be more likely to provide abortions to their residents than others. Whatever your views on abortion (and I realize it's an extremely sensitive topic), that type of law is, in effect, creating unequal access. A wealthier woman's health insurance plan will cover an abortion, while poorer women will see heavier restrictions on the insurance they can buy. Granted, in the case of the subsidies taxpayers could be, however indirectly, funding a procedure they oppose; just like those who are anti-war have to pay for Iraq and Afghanistan.
Stupak's amendment would ban people from using the subsidies to buy private health insurance plans that cover abortions, as opposed to preventing only those specific funds from being used for that purpose. Why not let Stupak propose it? For one thing, it will probably result in division of the Democratic party at a time when unity is essential to reach their goal. There are quite a few pro-life Democrats that would vote for such an amendment; Stupak claims that he can get 40 Democrats on his side, which would eat up most of the party's majority in the House. Despite that, a large percentage of supporters would most likely be Republicans--who wouldn't vote for the final bill anyway, regardless of how stringent its limits on abortion funding are. In exchange, it would alienate some liberal Democrats. These representatives are relatively reliable votes, but they are already skeptical of the bill because they feel the public option doesn't go far enough. Either way, Democrats need virtually all of their caucus to vote with them on healthcare reform, and this issue will certainly be a factor in how they vote. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer claims that progress is being made on the issue, but both sides seem to be standing firm. The future of the House's healthcare reform largely rests on this issue, so it'll be interesting to see how it plays out.
(Image: number of abortions per 1,000 women each year; Guttmacher Institute)
Yamileth Medina is an up and coming expert on Health Insurance and Healthcare Reform. She aims to help people realize that they don't have to go without a health insurance plan while waiting for a public option, if it ever gets passed. Yamileth lives in Miami, FL.
