Truemors
is reporting from
Member
NP Rank:
NP Rank:
Abortion a big obstacle in Senate healthcare reform debate
Share:
by smkovalinsky | November 9, 2009 at 07:36 pm
160 views | 24 Recommendations | 14 comments
Videos
Pro-Life Groups Run New Ad on CNN Exposing Abortion Funding in Health Care Bill
sourced by smkovalinsky
Photos
Abortion a big obstacle in Senate healthcare reform debate
uploaded by smkovalinsky
In the US Senate, opponents of abortion are looking to enact tough restrictions within the health care reform bill. This may make it difficult to pass the bill before January.
Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., has said Monday he will under no conditions support any bill which does not prohibit federal funding of abortions.
The House-passed restrictions were the price Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., had to pay to get a health care bill passed, on a narrow 220-215 vote. But it's prompted an angry backlash from liberals at the core of her party, and some are now threatening to vote against a final bill if the curbs stay in.Obama said the legislation needs to find a balance.
"I want to make sure that the provision that emerges meets that test — that we are not in some way sneaking in funding for abortions, but, on the other hand, that we're not restricting women's insurance choices," Obama said in an interview with ABC News.
Senate Democrats will need Nelson's vote — and those of at least a half-dozen other abortion opponents in their caucus. They face a grueling debate against Republicans who are unified in their opposition to a sweeping remake of the health care system. It's unclear how the abortion opponents would line up; the pressure on them will intensify once the legislation is on the floor.
Former President Bill Clinton, whose failed effort to revamp the health care system contributed to the Republican takeover of the House and Senate in 1994, was expected to speak to Senate Democrats about health care legislation during their weekly caucus on Tuesday, officials said. They spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss his schedule.
And many believe that the issue of abortion is a "make or break" one: And interestingly, it is the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, so anti-abortion in its ideology, who have been one of the biggest proponents of universal healthcare coverage as a basic right to life issue.
Antiabortion groups like the Family Research Council and Focus on the Family Action have spent the last month pummeling Democratic healthcare reform proposals over abortion coverage. They've attacked the House Democrats' healthcare bill, for instance, for leaving the door open to abortion coverage in the public health insurance option and for using federal funds to underwrite private healthcare plans that cover abortion. But conservative Christian groups have also made little secret of their opposition to the very idea of a greater government role in healthcare, the abortion controversy aside. A recent E-mail update from the Family Research Council blasted President Obama's push for healthcare reform without ever mentioning abortion. "The American people," it said, ". . . don't want healthcare delivered with the empathy of the IRS, the efficiency of FEMA, or the mismanagement of the post office."
What is NowPublic?
NowPublic lets people work together to cover news events around the world.
Crowd Power
smkovalinsky
New York, New York, United States
Related Stories
Recommendations (24)
Hugh Askew
Omaha, Nebraska, United States
albertacowpoke
Canada
generaldecay
Yorkshire, United Kingdom
a211423
Clearlake, California, United States
Most RecentMost Recommended Comments (14)
at 22:15 on November 9th, 2009
Thanks for this, SMK. Through my reading around this, I've seen that abortion seems to be the biggest obstacle for many people to moving things forward.
at 06:02 on November 10th, 2009
"Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., has said Monday he will under no conditions support any bill which does not prohibit federal funding of abortions."
Ben's my man, got my vote.
at 09:13 on November 10th, 2009
I'm sure it will sit well with women that want the government making reproductive health care choices for them. This isn't about abortion. It is about making health care more difficult for women. I'm surprised the Catholic Bishops aren't complaining about Viagra being covered as a "medication."
at 10:07 on November 10th, 2009
It's a big roll back of womens' rights. I think he will have mightily peed off a lot of women not just liberal women, but all women that think it is their right to make that decision or not. This bill is getting so compromised I think if it gets any more watered down many liberals will walk away from it, which is a great shame both politically as the party of no would have won, and to the detriment of a country hamstrung with an overly expensive and ineffective health system
at 10:27 on November 10th, 2009
From a Canadian perspective, either way it will be expensive. Although I think the United States desperately needs Health Care Reform, I think this bill made it way too complicated. If it passes it will be years before the lawyers have it all figured out.
President Obama should have bit the bullet, communicate his vision of health care an not left it for Congress to take lead in every direction.
There are many examples in Europe and Canada of effective universal health care, despite some of the ads by the opponents of the universal option.
There is every indication now, that if the bill even makes it through the Senate, it will be totally watered down to appease lobbyists and interest groups.
at 10:33 on November 10th, 2009
There is also a lot of evidence that while health reform is initially suspect it soon becomes approved by the public as they experience the benefits.. He should have stuck to his guns told the republicans so and rolled out the reform as needed. Within a few years the republicans would have had to back-flip as the public liked the change. This compromise nonsense will causse him more political damage in the long run and not give the American public what it needs
at 10:55 on November 10th, 2009
Hopefully, it will get hamstrung badly enough as to be unable to limp to a vote.
"think it is their right to make that decision or not."
Okay for women to have the right to kill an unborn child, but not okay for folks to make choices about having - or not having - health care.
Makes perfect sense to me.
at 11:01 on November 10th, 2009
People can elect not to have health care. They would receive a tax penalty to offset the cost of the rest of us having to pay for their care.
It is her decision not yours, whatever you or anyone else thinks. In exactly the same way as I don't tell you tat more than 2 kids is higher than the replacement rate and adds burden to the environment and infrastructure. Your decision to have kids, hers not to. Seems equitable to me - or are men just allowed to make all the decisions?
at 14:47 on November 10th, 2009
ummm, no, if Pelosi &/or Obama has their way, we really won't have a choice.
I did an article on Pelosi's version that included jail time/fines for those that "choose not to have health care. You might want to re-read that.
In an interview with ABC's Jake Tapper yesterday (11/9/09), President Obama said, “What I think is appropriate is that in the same way that everybody has to get auto insurance and if you don't, you're subject to some penalty, that in this situation, if you have the ability to buy insurance, it's affordable and you choose not to do so, forcing you and me and everybody else to subsidize you, you know, there's a thousand dollar hidden tax that families all across America are -- are burdened by because of the fact that people don't have health insurance, you know, there's nothing wrong with a penalty.”
So, no, we really won't have a "choice", regardless of how much he hems and haws to avoid saying it directly.
Yes, yes, you can call it a "Tax Code" violation if you like, or some other pretty name. Shake it all out, the fact is, we will be forced to comply - pay, or pay and go to jail.
at 11:16 on November 10th, 2009
The government has no constitutional power to do this. Plain and simple. This is all out of the unconstitutional play book of FDR who lost in the Supreme Court over and over again.
You can raise my taxes. You cannot make me buy health care. You can charge me when I go to the hospital and you can come after my money and "estate", but this is unconstitutional and reflects the elitism and narcissism of its chief architects.
at 11:29 on November 10th, 2009
That is a different and far more interesting argument. That may well end up for the Supreme Court to rule on. The elitism/narcissism thing is your thing, I don't think that is the driver t all - I think it is political convenience and maneuvering,...but it will be interesting to see if it gets passed, and if it gets challenged.
at 14:23 on November 10th, 2009
How elitist for people to care about the less fortunate, that we may all share in the burden of providing for them.
at 14:52 on November 10th, 2009
Interesting that more liberals don't dig into their own pockets to help the less fortunate.
Wouldn't mind seeing John Kerry spend of few of his bucks to pay for health insurance for those that can't afford it. 'Course with his schedule and all, he likely can't be bothered.
at 15:20 on November 10th, 2009
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/gpr/10/1/gpr100112.html
If you are interested in the history of federal funding for abortions and where we stand now, this website is informative.
Wealthy and middle income women don't need Medicaid or health insurance to obtain an abortion. The real issue is how can the government control the lives of low income women. They are the penalized group here, not anyone else. So when we speak here of funding abortions, lets make it clear the group to whom we are addressing. And when legislators pontificate on the righteousness of not allowing a women choice, they are legislating against poor women.
Only 17 states currently are allowing pro choice abortions, so it's going to be a difficult challenge to pass health care reform without concessions. If the Senate has to use abortion as a compromise measure, then it must be. At least in my state, poor women can still get an abortion using MediCal, but there are 33 other states where they cannot.
Health Care Reform should not be contingent on whether or not to allow abortions, but if compromising on the issue gets it passed, then I would be in favor of it.