Rule For House Health Reform Bill To Include Ellsworth Language On Abortion Coverage

Main Category: Abortion
Also Included In: Health Insurance / Medical Insurance
Article Date: 06 Nov 2009 - 2:00 PST

email to a friend   printer friendly   view / write opinions

New abortion-related language proposed by Rep. Brad Ellsworth (D-Ind.) regarding abortion coverage will be included in the rule required to bring the House health care reform bill (HR 3962) to the floor, House Rules Committee Chair Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.) said on Wednesday, CQ Today reports. According to CQ Today, the language would "explicitly prohibit federal funding for abortion services" and guarantee patients access to insurance plans that do not cover abortions (Epstein [1], CQ Today, 11/4). The language also requires federal health officials to hire private contractors to handle payments to abortion providers, the Washington Post reports (Montgomery, Washington Post, 11/5). Ellsworth said the Congressional Research Service confirmed that his proposal would mean the House health reform legislation would include no federal money for abortion (Hunt/House, CongressDaily, 11/5).

Slaughter said that a final vote on the House bill could occur by 6 p.m. on Nov. 7, when the House will meet for a special session (Epstein [1], CQ Today, 11/4). President Obama is scheduled to visit the Capitol on Friday to meet with the House Democratic caucus, the New York Times reports (Pear/Herszenhorn, New York Times, 11/5).

By including Ellsworth's language in the rule, House Democratic leaders hope they can attract the support of some antiabortion-rights Democrats who have threatened to vote against the bill, CQ Today reports. However, some of those Democrats say they are still not satisfied with the abortion language (Epstein [1], CQ Today, 11/4). Ellsworth said that at least three antiabortion-rights Democrats approached him to say they could support the bill in light of the CRS report. If his language is included in the rule, "I can vote for the rule and rest assured that no public dollars are going to fund abortion," Ellsworth said (CongressDaily, 11/5). Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), who has led House efforts to add further restrictions to abortion coverage, said in a statement that he still plans to try to block the bill "until there is satisfactory language to prevent public funding for abortion," including prohibiting coverage of abortion services from both the public plan option and private insurance plans that receive federal subsidies (Washington Post, 11/5).

Ellsworth said he is still working with Roman Catholic bishops to gain their support (The Hill, 11/4). Richard Doerflinger, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' secretariat on abortion issues, sent a memo to congressional staff saying that Ellsworth's proposal is insufficient and would provide "direct and potentially unlimited federal taxpayer funding" for abortion in public and private plans. According to CQ Today, one of USCCB's main objections is to a provision stating that the federal government could not discriminate among health insurance plans based on whether they covered abortion (Epstein [2], CQ Today, 11/4). Democratic leaders have also asked USCCB about adding additional "conscience clause" language for health care workers who object to medical procedures and services for religious reasons (Dennis/Newmyer, Roll Call, 11/5).

According to the Times, some abortion-rights supporters in the House are also displeased with Ellsworth's language, though they said they would not challenge it. Rep. Diane DeGette (D-Colo.), a leader of the Congressional Pro-Choice Caucus, said, "We are not enthusiastic about his language, but we won't object to it" (New York Times, 11/5). DeGette added that if Ellsworth "feels he needs this clarifying language to just confirm that we're not going to have federal funding for abortion in the bill, we are not going to object to the rule because it's in there" (CongressDaily, 11/5).

However, some abortion-rights advocacy groups say Ellsworth's language goes too far in restricting abortion coverage, the Times reports. Laurie Rubiner, vice president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said the language would "tip the balance away from women's access to reproductive health care." She added, "Abortion should not be treated any differently from any other medical benefit or procedure. It is our hope and expectation that the [HHS] secretary would decide to include coverage of abortion in the public option" (New York Times, 11/5).

Although the abortion coverage issue continues to affect the debate on the overall bill, several Democrats "appeared to be coalescing around" Ellsworth's language, Roll Call reports (Roll Call, 11/5). Ellsworth would not reveal the names of the antiabortion-rights lawmakers who said they would support his proposal instead of Stupak's efforts to block the bill (Soraghan/Hooper, The Hill, 11/4). According to Reuters, support from a few antiabortion-rights Democrats may be enough to reach the 218 votes needed to pass their reform bill (Reuters, 11/4). Rep. Mike Doyle (D-Pa.) and 13 other antiabortion-rights Democrats met with House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) to discuss Ellsworth's proposal and the CRS report. Some members, including Rep. Earl Pomeroy (D-N.D.) and Tim Ryan (D-Ohio), appeared satisfied, though others seemed "to want more assurances," according to the The Hill (The Hill, 11/4).

According to CQ Today, Democratic leaders "are trying to telegraph a sense of inevitability" that the health reform bill will pass this week. On Tuesday, they introduced a 42-page manager's amendment to the bill, launching a 72-hour public review period for the amendment (Epstein [2], CQ Today, 11/4). House Democrats on Thursday expected to receive the endorsement of AARP, which could be a "big boost" for their efforts, the AP/GoogleNews reports.

Democratic leaders on Wednesday stopped short of saying they had the necessary 218 votes to pass the bill, noting that negotiations over language on abortion and immigration were ongoing. However, scheduling the rule vote for Saturday "meant those issues would have to be resolved and undecided lawmakers would have to declare themselves," the AP/Google News reports (Werner/Alonso-Zaldivar, AP/Google News, 11/5). House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said, "We have come to a place where we don't lose votes," adding, "The whole idea is to get votes" (CongressDaily, 11/5).

Koop, O'Neil Weigh In on Health Reform

In related news, C. Everett Koop, a former U.S. surgeon general, on Wednesday sent a letter to Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) expressing his "deep personal concerns" about what he called a lack of protections against the use of federal funding for abortion, Politico's "Live Pulse" reports. Koop wrote, "I am troubled about the possibility of federal dollars being used to pay for elective abortions and Americans being forced to subsidize them" (Budoff Brown, "Live Pulse," Politico, 11/4).

Meanwhile, Terry O'Neill, president of the National Organization for Women, wrote in a Washington Post opinion piece on Wednesday that women "are providing more health care services, unpaid, to their family members and receiving fewer health care services themselves under the current system." She added that a "new paradigm for health care that doesn't address this disparity won't be any fairer to women than the failed system we have now" (O'Neill, Washington Post, 11/4).

Reprinted with kind permission from http://www.nationalpartnership.org. You can view the entire Daily Women's Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Women's Health Policy Report is a free service of the National Partnership for Women & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.

© 2009 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.