Obama, Abortion-Rights Supporters Unhappy With Stupak Amendment, Will Work To Revise Language In Final Bill

Main Category: Abortion
Also Included In: Health Insurance / Medical Insurance
Article Date: 11 Nov 2009 - 3:00 PDT

email to a friend   printer friendly   opinions  

President Obama in an ABC News interview on Monday indicated that he is uncomfortable with abortion restrictions voted into the House health care reform bill (HR 3962) and that he is encouraging Congress to revise them, the New York Times reports. The amendment, introduced by Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) and approved Saturday evening, would prohibit the use of federal funding for "any health plan [public or private] that includes coverage of abortion," except in cases of rape, incest or to save the woman's life (Pear, New York Times, 11/10).

During the interview, Obama said that he wanted to adjust the language so that "neither side feels that it's being betrayed." He continued, "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" (Newmyer/Dennis, Roll Call, 11/10). He added that "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." He noted that he has previously said that "if you're happy and satisfied with the insurance that you have, it's not going to change." Obama also said, "There needs to be some more work before we get to the point where we're not changing the status quo," adding, "And that's the goal."

According to the New York Times, most private insurers would receive federal subsidies from low- and middle-income people through the bill and thus would be affected by the amendment (New York Times, 11/10). The amendment stipulates that women who receive federal subsidies to purchase insurance would have to buy special riders to obtain abortion coverage, which abortion-rights advocates say most women are unlikely to do, Roll Call reports (Roll Call, 11/10).

According to the AP/Houston Chronicle, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Monday that allowing a vote on Stupak's amendment was necessary for the bill to pass. During a news conference following a tour of Seattle's Swedish Medical Center, Pelosi said that although she opposes the amendment, the bill's supporters felt it would be better to include the language as an amendment for a vote than as a provision "that could take down the whole bill." Pelosi also said that she thinks both sides can reach "common ground" on the issue and that the amendment "was necessary in order to give them a chance to vote on that so that we could pass the bill" (Tibbits, AP/Houston Chronicle, 11/10).

Although the amendment passed with 64 Democratic votes and the support of all Republicans who voted, many within the Democratic caucus are unhappy with the change, Roll Call reports. Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.), co-chair of the Congressional Pro-Choice Caucus, on Monday said she has gathered signatures for letters to Obama and Pelosi regarding concerns with the amendment. The letters state, "Health care reform must not be misused as an opportunity to restrict women's access to reproductive health services" (Roll Call, 11/10). They also say, "We will not vote for a conference report that contains language that restricts women's right to choose any further than current law" (Young, The Hill, 11/9).

The letter's signatories requested a meeting with Obama next week to discuss the issue, and aides said DeGette and Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.), the group's other co-chair, were in contact with Pelosi about the issue Monday, Roll Call reports. DeGette said that the Pro-Choice Caucus would not support "a devil's bargain" to support the amendment's language in a final bill (Roll Call, 11/10). She added, "Frankly, the women of America should be furious because this does not just say no federal funding for abortion, this says women cannot use their own money to buy an insurance policy that would include a legal medical procedure."

According to The Hill, many House Democrats who support abortion rights voted for the bill despite being opposed to the amendment, saying that they believe "its place in the bill is temporary," The Hill reports. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) said she is "confident that when it comes back from the conference committee that that language won't be there" (The Hill, 11/9).

Debate Moves to Senate

Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) on Monday said he plans to insist that similar language is included in the Senate's version of health reform legislation before he will vote for a bill, the Wall Street Journal reports. Nelson, who is considered a swing vote on health reform, said, "If it isn't clear that government money is not being used to fund abortions" in the bill, "you can be sure I will vote against it" (Bendavid/Adamy, Wall Street Journal, 11/10).

The bill (S 1796) passed by the Senate Finance Committee includes compromise language on abortion coverage that prohibits federal funds from paying for abortion coverage but allows health plans to offer coverage if insurance providers separate federal subsidies from private funds used to pay for abortion services, the AP/Sacramento Bee reports (Alonso-Zaldivar, AP/Sacramento Bee, 11/10). The committee rejected an amendment by Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) in September's markup that was similar to Stupak's (Schatz, CQ Today, 11/9).

The Finance Committee's language has appealed to several Senate Democratic leaders and some Senate Republicans, CongressDaily reports. Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) said the committee "did a good job of putting up a firewall that prevents federal funds (from being) used to finance abortions," adding, "If the Congress makes the mistake of establishing a new government insurance company, it would need to extend the prohibition to that company because it is using federal funds" (Edney/Friedman, CongressDaily, 11/10). However, Collins said that if a public plan option -- which is not included in the Finance Committee's bill -- is added to the Senate's final bill, language regarding federal funding for abortion coverage "will have to be extended to the new program as well," CQ Today reports (CQ Today, 11/9).

While abortion coverage has not been a major issue in Senate negotiations so far, Democratic leaders "expect that to change after its eruption among House Democrats over the weekend," the Journal reports. According to the Journal, Nelson and fellow antiabortion-rights Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.) have discussed how to ensure that federal funding is not used for abortion coverage in the legislation. Sixty Democratic votes are needed in the Senate to overcome a filibuster, and all 40 Republicans are likely to vote against the chamber's final bill, making Casey and Nelson's votes necessary for the bill to pass, the Journal reports (Wall Street Journal, 11/10).

According to CQ Today, a group of female senators who support abortion rights is working to find an alternative to Stupak's amendment. Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) said the Pro-Choice Caucus plans to meet Nov. 12 to discuss ways to block Stupak's bill from becoming part of the Senate bill. While negotiations on the issue continue, the Senate "remains in a holding pattern" as it awaits Congressional Budget Office cost estimates. Aides say the estimates could arrive as early this week or over the weekend (CQ Today, 11/9).

Advocates Threaten Opposition

Several abortion-rights advocates have criticized Stupak's amendment, threatening to withdraw their support for health care reform if the language finds its way into a final version of the bill, Politico reports. Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, said the group "is not going to stand for a bill that has this kind of language in it," adding that NARAL would work against a final bill that includes similar language. "We are prepared to stop at nothing," she said.

Laurie Rubiner, vice president for policy at the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said that the group is "not finished," adding that the Senate "is always a cooling-off place." She said PPFA "expect[s] that will be true in this instance as well" (Budoff Brown/Allen, Politico, 11/9). PPFA President Cecile Richards said she does not expect the Senate to include an amendment like Stupak's. "The most important part of health care reform to us has been the guarantee that the president made that no one would lose their benefits as a result, and the Stupak amendment undercuts that promise," Richards said, adding, "I think cooler heads will prevail in the Senate."

Impact of Stupak Amendment Unclear, Los Angeles Times Reports

It "remains unclear" what kind of impact Stupak's amendment would have if it is included in Congress' final health reform bill, the Los Angeles Times reports. According to the Guttmacher Institute, 13% of abortions in 2001 were billed directly to insurance companies. However, that figure does not include cases in which patients paid for the services out-of-pocket and then requested reimbursement from their insurers, so the figure may be understated, the Los Angeles Times reports. Willie Parker, a board member at Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health, said Stupak's amendment could have the greatest impact on women whose underlying health conditions require hospitalization for a safe abortion (Oliphant/Geiger, Los Angeles Times, 11/10).

Broadcast Coverage

Several radio and television programs on Monday reported on the Stupak amendment and the debate over abortion coverage in health reform legislation. On MSNBC, "The Rachel Maddow Show" included Maddow's pointed analysis of the amendment and a discussion with DeGette about her efforts to remove the amendment from the final bill (Maddow, "The Rachel Maddow Show," MSNBC, 11/9). Also on MSNBC, "Countdown with Keith Olbermann" included a discussion with Chris Hayes of The Nation, while Rep. Jim Cooper (D-Tenn.) and Planned Parenthood Federation of America President Cecile Richards appeared on "Hardball with Chris Matthews" (Olbermann/Matthews, "Countdown with Keith Olbermann"/"Hardball with Chris Matthews," 11/9).

NPR's "All Things Considered" included a segment explaining what the amendment "says, translated to plain English." According to "All Things Considered," "What everyone is fighting about now is how this might play out in a whole new medical system, and what it means in the broader narrative of abortion in America" (Seabrook, "All Things Considered," NPR, 11/9).

PBS' "NewsHour with Jim Lehrer" examined various obstacles as the Senate takes up health reform, including abortion issues. The segment included a discussion with Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute (Bowser/Woodruff, "NewsHour with Jim Lehrer," PBS, 11/9).

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.

• Additional
• References
• Citations