Anti-Choice Democrats Use Abortion to Hold Health Care Reform Hostage

We all knew that at some juncture in the health care debate, pro-life and pro-choice advocates would confront each other...and abortion would become a sticking point. Several issues previously targeted as potential deal breakers -- including a public option -- have been resolved through compromise and careful negotiation. But abortion has never engendered civil discourse between opposing sides.  One of the prime arguments put forth by abortion opponents is that the issue could derail health care reform...so pro-choice advocates had better back off in pushing for it.

We have just reached the crossroads where push comes to shove.

As the Christian Science Monitor notes, one member of the House claims there are enough anti-abortion Democrats to prevent health care reform supporters from reaching 218 votes, which is the minimum count needed for a majority in the House. That person is Representative Bart Stupak (D-Michigan) who says he has 40 Democrats who'll side with him in opposing anything that might allow federal funds to be used for abortion. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has received letters (signed by some of those supporters) asking that an anti-abortion amendment to the reform bill be considered.

Yesterday afternoon, Stupak's office released a statement which made clear where he draws the line in the sand: "I will oppose bringing the bill to the floor until an amendment can be offered or language agreed to that will prevent public funding for abortion."

Is this really necessary? As the Monitor points out:

Currently, a federal law known as the Hyde Amendment already prevents the federal funding of abortion. In the drafting of health reform legislation, members of Congress worked to keep the reform "abortion neutral."

In what is known as the Capps Amendment, named for its author, Rep. Lois Capps (D) of California, the reform would allow private health care plans included in a new insurance marketplace to cover abortion, as long as the funds were segregated. In other words, an individual's private funds would be used for abortion coverage, not federal monies....

Advocates of abortion rights argue that the Capps Amendment's provision that separates public from private funds succeeds in keeping the legislation "abortion neutral." Keeping funds separate is a technique already used by the government....[F]ederal Medicaid funds and state matching funds may not be used for abortion, but states have the option of providing supplemental abortion coverage.

Pro-choice advocacy groups such as NARAL believe that Stupak is seeking an outright ban on abortion in the new system health care reform would create. At the very least,  his efforts will reduce the reproductive health care coverage women currently have, as NARAL states 85% of private insurers cover abortion.

Even USA Today supports abortion coverage for women and decries its use as weapon against health care reform. Here's what they said on their opinion page:

As long as abortion remains a legal, constitutionally protected medical procedure, it ought to be covered by insurance plans, private or public. Regardless of how the issue plays out in Congress, though, it mustn't be allowed to scuttle the urgently needed effort to overhaul the nation's dysfunctional health care system.