The Washington Post ran an article today that outlines the hard-headed tactics some House Democrats are using to hold up the Health Care Bill for their own political agendas. The Anti-Abortion movement has long been apostrophizing lawmakers to establish language that federal funds will not be used for abortion services—even though the Hyde Amendment of 1976 established just that. But some Anti-Abotion Democrats aren't satisfied, as CBS news reported today:
"Anti-abortion Democrats were circulating language to strengthen prohibitions in the bill against federal funding of abortion. The bill stipulates that people getting federal subsidies would have to use their own money to get abortions, but that division is not clear enough to satisfy some lawmakers. Lawmakers are considering language that would make a more straightforward declaration against use of federal funds for abortion."
I'm not sure how much clearer the language could get. The Hyde Amendment states:
"None of the funds appropriated under this Act shall be expended for any abortion except when it is made known to the federal entity or official to which funds are appropriated under this Act that such procedure is necessary to save the life of the mother or that the pregnancy is a result of an act of rape or incest."
But still, House Dems are not satisfied. Namely Rep. Bart Stupak (D.-Mich.), who said yesterday, "I will continue whipping my colleagues to oppose bringing the bill to the floor for a vote until a clean vote against public funding for abortion is allowed." He said he has as many as 40 like-minded Democrats on his side. Forty Democratic "Nays" would derail the vote.
Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, cast Stupak as "attempting to ban abortion coverage in the private insurance market." Her accusation is based on statements made by Stupak and others. Says the Post:
"Democratic leaders early this summer backed a provision that would allow people to use subsidies under the bill to buy insurance plans that cover abortion, but only funds from individual or employer health-care premiums could go toward paying for an abortion. Effectively, insurance companies would be tasked with segregating money from government payments from those coming from private sources, and only the latter could be used for abortion.
But Stupak and some Democrats, along with congressional Republicans, have criticized this provision as an accounting distinction. They say the federal subsidies and the private payments are combined for a person to buy a health plan; therefore, federal dollars are helping fund insurance plans that allow abortions.
In July, during the debate on the legislation in the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Stupak unsuccessfully tried to insert a provision that would bar any health-care plan that covers abortions from being included in the health-care exchanges the law would set up for people to buy insurance. The Senate rejected a similar effort last month in its bill."
So it seems that unless Stupak is successful in banning coverage of abortion by ANY insurance provider, he will continue to thwart the efforts of fellow Democrats who are trying to provide coverage to millions, saving countless lives, despite the concerns he expressed n a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi: "The U.S. government should not be in the business of promoting abortion as health care. Real health care is about saving and nurturing life, not about taking life."
The thing is, I can't for the life of me understand why Republicans would go along with Stupak; he is seeking heavy regulation in the private sector. It's just another example of that party's moral agenda that far outweighs the free-market, small government agenda they publically tout.
