We Kid You Not Childfree Forums

Anyone else disappointed?


'No easy way out' for Dems on abortion
Politico

Alexander Burns – Wed Nov 11, 4:44 am ET

The sudden spasm of intense debate over abortion on Capitol Hill this week threatens not only to stall the passage of health care legislation, but also to shatter the delicate cease-fire that has governed the abortion issue during the Obama era.

After months of dodging high-profile confrontations over abortion, Democrats — including President Barack Obama — find themselves faced with a stark set of alternatives: Support a bill that imposes limits on access to abortion or demand one that might, however indirectly, fund the procedure with taxpayer money.

It's the kind of decision point the White House and Democratic leaders have consistently attempted to avoid. By playing down divisions over abortion and emphasizing shared goals — such as reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies in the United States — members of the president's party have sought to blur the lines of one of the country's most furious and enduring debates.

"They're looking for an easy way out. And there is no easy way out when it comes to right or wrong or true or false," said former Boston Mayor Ray Flynn, an abortion opponent who served as ambassador to the Vatican during the Clinton administration. "On some of these issues, there's just no compromise."

The House health care bill wasn't supposed to become a referendum on abortion rights. But Rep. Bart Stupak, a Democrat from Michigan, reshaped the legislative landscape when he offered an amendment banning the sale of insurance policies covering abortion through the proposed national health insurance exchange—or to women who receive health care subsidies from the federal government.

Stupak's proposal, which would also bar any public health insurance plan from covering abortion procedures, passed the House on Saturday over objections from a majority of Democratic lawmakers, who voted against the amendment.

Supporters of abortion rights were outraged - especially House Democratic women, many of whom view Stupak's legislation as a betrayal of a key Democratic commitment.

"What they attempt to do here is just ban coverage, totally ban coverage, and that is a different mindset than maintaining current law," said Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) "There's people that don't want to respect that reasonable approach."

As the debate over health care moves to the Senate, Democrats find themselves in the unaccustomed position of taking clear sides on an issue they've often dealt with through avoidance and rhetorical sleight of hand.

On this hottest of hot-button social issues, few Democrats have positioned themselves as cautiously as President Obama. Though his campaign-trail critics warned he would be the "most pro-abortion president in history," Obama has long presented abortion not as an ideological hand grenade but as a social challenge that can be tackled in a measured, nonpartisan way.

"If you believe that life begins at conception and you are consistent in that belief, then I can't argue with you on that because that is a core issue of faith for you," Obama told an audience at Pastor Rick Warren's Saddleback Church in August 2008. "What I can do is say, are there ways that we can work together to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies so that we actually are reducing the sense that women are seeking out abortions?"

Since taking office, Obama has not backed off his support for abortion rights. Just days after his inauguration, Obama reversed the "Mexico City policy" banning federal funding to groups that discuss or provide abortions and withdrew restrictions on embryonic stem cell research. He nominated a lawyer to head his Office of Legal Counsel who once worked as legal director for the abortion-rights group NARAL and plucked a top political aide from the leadership of EMILY's List, the group that helps female candidates who support abortion rights.

When Obama nominated Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, the White House tacitly signaled its confidence in her support for the Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion, with Press Secretary Robert Gibbs telling reporters Obama spoke with his nominee about the concept of "settled law" and "left very comfortable with her interpretation of the Constitution."

But if Obama's policy choices have been aligned with a liberal agenda on abortion, he has also dutifully minimized opportunities for conflict with opponents of abortion. Obama first revealed his method when he signed the executive order yanking the Mexico City policy on funding for groups that provide abortion-related services - in a closed-press ceremony that avoided drawing attention to the policy shift.

The president stuck with that conciliatory pose after a planned commencement speech at Notre Dame drew objections from anti-abortion Catholics opposed to Obama's policies. When it came time for his address, Obama gave a talk urging Americans to engage in civil debate on social issues "without reducing those with differing views to caricature."

Later, after the murder of an abortion provider in Kansas last May, Obama refrained from scoring points against abortion opponents, releasing an anodyne statement saying merely: "However profound our differences as Americans over difficult issues such as abortion, they cannot be resolved by heinous acts of violence."

And if Democrats were ultimately pleased with his choice of Sotomayor for the Supreme Court, they had to take the White House's word that she was a supporter of abortion rights: In her 17-year tenure on the federal bench, she didn't issue a single major ruling on the subject.

Activists on the right say Obama's carefully parsed positions haven't won him any converts--but even they concede the president has succeeded in averting potentially volatile confrontations.

"He wants to say things that he thinks we want to hear," said Marjorie Dannenfelser, who heads the Susan B. Anthony List, a group that seeks to elect female candidates who oppose abortion. "I'm not talking about the pro-life movement; I'm talking about the vast majority of Americans who don't want to spend their money on abortion."

Obama hasn't been alone in his ginger approach to abortion. Joining him have been Democratic members of Congress such as DeLauro and Rep. Tim Ryan (D-Ohio), who introduced legislation to broaden family planning and adoption services in order to reduce the need for abortions in the first place.

"It is a difficult issue. It's a sensitive issue. It's a very emotional issue," DeLauro said, insisting: "There certainly is common ground we have worked to achieve over a long period of time."

Given the sensitivity of the abortion debate, however, the Democrats' balancing act was always precarious.

So far, the president has responded to the Stupak amendment by urging lawmakers to take a step back toward the status quo, long governed by the Hyde amendment restricting federal funding of abortion, without adding any new burdens for seekers and providers of abortions.

"This is a health care bill, not an abortion bill," Obama told ABC News Monday. "We're not looking to change what is the principle that has been in place for a very long time, which is federal dollars are not used to subsidize abortions."

But as the governing party heads for a painful set of decisions, conservatives, for their part, are looking forward to the Democrats' moment of choosing.

"You can't have it both ways. If you're subsidizing private insurance policies, then you are either paying for it with tax dollars or you're not," said Ralph Reed, the former executive director of the Christian Coalition, adding that abortion "looks increasingly like it is a major cleavage running through the Democratic Party and that has potentially huge implications, not only for health care but for the 2010 election."

I would have to say that I am.

And, trying to avoid a long reply here, I will say that despite what anti-abortion supporters are trying to do, while they may even succeed at overturning Roe v. Wade or some how manage to make abortion not federally recognized as "legal," the worst case scenario would simply be that abortion would return to being a state by state law.

Abortion will NEVER be completely illegal in this country. However difficult it could be made to find a clinic, it will never be fully illegal. So, to that end, the federal government needs to grow a pair and make a decision.

My birth control pills have NEVER been covered by insurance. So, I have never expected to have abortion be covered either. Despite what I believe should be covered by my insurance, the feds have to come up with something that is acceptable to everyone. If that means abortion wouldn't be covered but pretty much everything else would be, I think I would have to take it.

BUT I am also a strong supporter of proper sex education that helps young people understand the consequences of their actions. I believe with the right education, unwanted pregnancies could be significantly reduced.

I could go on, but... I won't.

I am not surprised by this. I'm just happy that we finally are losing our status as a third world country and trying to give health care provisions to our people. The right to an abortion is something I believe in firmly but unfortunately there are too many people who don't and politician are mighty sensitive about that. Give it time and hopefully this will happen.

I reluctantly agree with jmk and Eddy. But I am also afraid this will lead to a slippery-slope, turning the clock back assault on a woman's right to choose.

I agree, sad to see women thrown under the bus, so to speak.
I'm hoping they can make the Senate bill better than this.

Nope, Senate is going for the exact same foolishness.

I haven't read the specifics -- what EXACTLY are they banning? I mean, because the procedure -- D&C -- is also use to clean out women after a miscarriage. They can't ban the procedure. So, then, are they banning the use of the procedure for a specific usage? WHat's to stop doctors from helping women, by claiming need of a D&C following a miscarriage?

According to NARAL, here's the scoop:

* The Stupak-Pitts amendment forbids any plan offering abortion coverage in the new system from accepting even one subsidized customer. Since more than 80 percent of the participants in the exchange will be subsidized, it seems certain that all health plans will seek and accept these individuals. In other words, the Stupak-Pitts amendment forces plans in the exchange to make a difficult choice: either offer their product to 80 percent of consumers in the marketplace or offer abortion services in their benefits package. It seems clear which choice they will make.
* Stupak-Pitts supporters claim that women who require subsidies to help pay for their insurance plan will have abortion access through the option of purchasing a "rider," but this is a false promise. According to the respected National Women's Law Center, the five states that require a separate rider for abortion coverage, there is no evidence that plans offer these riders. In fact, in North Dakota, which has this policy, the private plan that holds the state's overwhelming share of the health-insurance market (91 percent) does not offer such a rider. Furthermore, the state insurance department has no record of abortion riders from any of the five leading individual insurance plans from at least the past decade. Nothing in this amendment would ensure that rider policies are available or affordable to the more than 80 percent of individuals who will receive federal subsidies in order to help purchase coverage in the new exchange.

"Disappointed" is not the word I had in mind.

Now it's time for the Senate.
Here's what NARAL is doing:

NARAL Pro-Choice America Delivers Petition with Thousands of Signatures to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid
Pro-choice group exceeds goal of collecting 72,000 signatures in 72 hours; petition delivery coincides with NARAL’s launch of grassroots mobilization campaign

Washington, DC – Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, made a trip to Capitol Hill today to deliver a petition to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid that calls on him to resist pressure from anti-choice groups to insert the extreme anti-choice Stupak-Pitts language in the Senate's version of health-reform legislation.

Keenan said the organization worked with its state affiliates and other progressive partners, including People for the American Way, to collect 97,218 signatures in 72 hours. More than 43,000 of the signatures came from stopabortionban.org, a web site NARAL Pro-Choice America established last week after the U.S. House adopted the anti-choice Stupak-Pitts amendment as part of its health-care bill.

"America's pro-choice majority is speaking up loudly and clearly," Keenan said. "As the fight for health reform moves forward, we are making sure Sen. Reid and his colleagues understand that adding the anti-choice Stupak-Pitts language to the Senate bill is not an option."

The petition delivery marks the next phase of NARAL Pro-Choice America's grassroots mobilization to fight efforts to put the Stupak-Pitts abortion-coverage ban in the Senate bill. The Associated Press reported over the weekend that the leading pro-choice political organization is "sending out automated calls in 17 states to connect abortion rights supporters at the touch of a button to senators who are seen as potential swing votes on the issue, asking them to oppose the 'abortion ban.' Phone banks by nine NARAL state affiliates are pitching in, targeting their calls to states including Nevada, home to Reid."

Keenan cited the Stupak-Pitts amendment, as passed by the U.S. House, which makes it virtually impossible for private insurance companies that participate in the new system to offer abortion coverage to women. The Stupak-Pitts language would have the effect of denying women the right to use their own personal private funds to purchase an insurance plan with abortion coverage in the new health system—a radical departure from the status quo. Presently, more than 85 percent of private-insurance plans cover abortion services.

"This is a critical time for American women," Keenan said. "Since the House passed a bill that included the Stupak-Pitts amendment, our supporters have channeled their outrage into action—and they're ready to go the distance to defeat the Stupak-Pitts abortion-coverage ban in the Senate."

Yup! I signed it.

Jen M.

this was on NPR. i hope the Senate bill is better....

The fight over health care has moved to the Senate, bringing with it the fight over abortion. Earlier this month, the House passed a bill that would ban federal funding of abortion, but most Democrats say it went too far. Now all eyes are on the Senate to see if its version of the health care bill can strike a compromise.

The truth is that no one in the House or Senate is trying to score a big win on abortion. In fact, just about any lawmaker will tell you that if this health care overhaul is going to pass, it shouldn't tinker with current abortion policy at all.

That means it should maintain the fragile truce, of sorts, that lawmakers have had on abortion for decades: the Hyde amendment. Named after the man who authored it in the 1970s, it states that no federal taxpayer funds should go to pay for abortions, expect in specific cases.

What everyone is fighting about tooth and nail is exactly how to write that into the new bill.

First, there was the Capps language, authored by Democrat Lois Capps of California, which stated that insurance companies could cover abortion but couldn’t pay for it using money from a federal subsidy. Instead, they'd have to use premiums or co-pays.

Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) said they thought they'd solved the issue.

"We thought in the House we put forward a good proposal that the Congressional Research Service, a nonpartisan entity, said that we achieved the goal that we all share, of making sure that public funds do not go to abortion," Van Hollen said.

But the language didn't fly. Anti-abortion Democrats said it would encourage private companies to use a simple accounting trick to make public money look like private money and then use it to pay for elective abortions. That's not what's in current law, they said.

Enter the man whose name has become synonymous with the idea of a "pro-life Democrat": Bart Stupak of Michigan. He worked with representatives from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops to create the Stupak amendment — a stronger, more restrictive policy that would ban abortions from a public option and from private plans offered to people who get help from the government to pay for their health care.

That amendment passed the House, with the votes of all Republicans and a few dozen conservative Democrats. But it became clear pretty quickly that the language wasn't going to work in the Senate.

Democrats who support abortion rights said the Stupak language would put such a regulatory burden on private insurers that cover abortion that they would stop. And for the first time, private citizens would be blocked from obtaining a legal medical procedure.

That's not what's in current law either, they said.

So that's how we got to now and the Senate version of the health care bill that Majority Leader Harry Reid unveiled this week. Its abortion language is much closer to House Democrats’ original versio—-- the Capps language. But it’s got a few tweaks, including a mandate that the secretary of Health and Human Services ensure no federal funds are used for abortion.

This appears to be a little closer to that balance everyone is trying to achieve.

"I feel very good about this, because it truly is a firewall. It truly keeps this contentious issue the way it’s been for decades," said Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA).

Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) also approved: "The abortion language would not be the language that I would write and might not be the language that Bart Stupak would write, but I do think that this is a sensible position that we could accept."

Senate Republicans think the new language doesn't go far enough, and Mike Johanns of Nebraska said they probably won't be able to change it.

"I just think that the chance of any kind of amendment passing that would change the dynamic here is really nonexistent, it just won't happen," Johanns said. "This is the vote."

What Johanns means by "this is the vote" is that the Senate health care bill, which faces a key test vote Saturday, should be completely blocked at the first opportunity.

But Johanns' or any other Republican's vote is beside the point. It's the anti-abortion Democrats whose opinions could make or break the whole process of health care legislation. And they haven't tipped their hand about what they think of the new Senate language.
Related NPR Stories