 "Photo: Sun-Mee Paik '10")
This past weekend, the health care bill was narrowly passed by the House by a margin of 220-215, marking a milestone in the path towards health care reform. The small margin of votes, however, illustrates the divisive nature of the bill—not only pitting Republicans against Democrats, but also internally dividing pro-life and pro-choice Democrats against each other with a controversial provision on abortion. Democratic leaders were finally forced to include an amendment that tightened restrictions on abortion in order to pass the bill.
Now the tables are turned: Rep. Diana DeGette (D-CO) has already collected more than 40 signatures from pro-choice Democrats vowing to block the final bill if it includes restrictions on abortion, which is enough to prevent the bill from being passed.
The precarious numbers game that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi faced in garnering votes—218 votes were needed for passage, meaning that she could only have af-
forded to lose 40 members of her caucus; 39 ended up voting against the bill – may prove to be a risky gamble in the Senate, where individual members have much more influence.
Democrats must now choose between the politically expedient route of passing a version of the health care bill that greatly restricts abortion coverage, and recognizing the woman’s right to privately buy coverage for abortion.
For the sake of the greater health care reform effort, both wings of the party, as well as Republicans, need to come to a compromise that places fewer restrictions on abortion coverage, while stopping short of providing direct federal subsidies for abortion.
The House bill sets up insurance exchanges for individuals who do not have coverage through their employers. Originally, these exchanges would have allowed individuals to buy private plans that include abortion services as part of their coverage. Since the federal government is prohibited by the 1976 Hyde Amendment from subsidizing abortion except in cases of rape, incest, or when the life of the mother is endangered, insurance companies would have been required to separate federal subsidies from private premiums and co-pays so that only the latter two would be used to pay for abortion.
During the House debate on Saturday, however, anti-abortion Democrats led by Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) held the balance of power and used it to extract tighter restrictions on abortion. The resulting Stupak Amendment not only explicitly prohibits the public plan from covering abortion, but also prohibits individuals who receive federal subsidies from buying private plans that cover abortion—even if they are paying for it with their own money.
Those who want abortion covered must purchase a separate “rider plan” by themselves. Currently, most private insurance plans cover abortion. The added restrictions amount to taking away benefits that currently exist and thus, this impinges on personal economic liberty.
If the government is already prohibited from subsidizing abortion, placing further restrictions on the ability to privately purchase abortion coverage does nothing to remedy the supposed danger of federally funding abortion; it is simply pandering to the anti-abor-
tion wings of both parties. Conservatives should also take note that the amendment further extends the long arm of big government by imposing even more regulations on the
private insurance market.
Democratic leaders need to roll back the Stupak Amendment’s restrictions so that individuals without employer-based coverage will have the option of buying a private
insurance plan that covers abortion with their own funds, if they should so choose to do so. Individuals who do not wish to purchase a plan that covers abortion should also have that choice available to them.
At the moment, there is no point in engaging in an ideological debate on whether the federal government has the power or responsibility to directly subsidize abortion—that is another battle for another time.
But for now, Democrats on both ends of the abortion spectrum need to find a middle ground so as to focus on the greater goal of passing the health care reform
bill. Failing to expand coverage for 30 million Americans because of one hyperbolic and factually distorted internal battle would be a true travesty.
Be the first to comment on this article!