House Dems' Emerging Abortion Deal Blasted by Abortion Rights Supporters and Foes
By Dan Gilgoff, God & Country
As House Democrats prepare for a floor vote on the healthcare reform bill, they're working with Indiana Rep. Brad Ellsworth, an antiabortion Democrat, on crafting abortion coverage provisions that will placate antiabortion opposition to the bill. But key players from the antiabortion and abortion rights camps are already denouncing the Ellsworth language—before it has even been unveiled.
In a press release yesterday, Ellsworth says that an amendment he's working on makes "five key pro-life changes" to the healthcare bill:
Explicitly prevents all federal tax dollars from being used to provide abortions in the public option;
Prohibits any funds from the US Treasury from paying for abortion services in any of the plans purchased through the proposed Health Insurance Exchange—private or public;
Establishes clear, strict rules for separating public funds from the premiums of private individuals (ensuring that no public funds are ever used to pay for an abortion in any health plan offered on the Health Insurance Exchange);
Guarantees every American participating in the Health Insurance Exchange will always have access to a pro-life insurance option;
Expands conscience protections to prevent the government from discriminating against pro-life health insurance plans.
Planned Parenthood is already pooh-poohing the plan. Laurie Rubiner, the group's vice president for public policy, released this statement last night:
Planned Parenthood is concerned about Representative Brad Ellsworth's proposed legislative language on abortion care in health care reform. Representative Ellsworth has a zero percent rating from the Planned Parenthood Action Fund and has never been a supporter of women's health and rights.
Representative Ellsworth's language purportedly seeks to amend a carefully-crafted and balanced compromise that should have put this issue to rest months ago. The Capps compromise assures that access to abortion care is neither mandated nor prohibited and that women will not lose the health care benefits they have had for decades. It also stipulates that no federal funds can be used for abortion care. We are concerned that this new language could tip the balance away from women's access to reproductive health care.
The National Right to Life Committee joined Planned Parenthood in slamming the Ellsworth plan, though for different reasons. Here's a statement NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson sent around last night:
Speaker Pelosi, Henry Waxman, and the White House are engaged in peddling another phony compromise. This is all theater. The "negotiations" are scripted and phony. The language being circulated, and loosely associated with Rep. Brad Ellsworth (D-In.), does not mitigate either of the abortion-subsidy provisions contained in H.R. 3962. This language is intended only to wrap the pro-abortion provisions in additional layers of concealment. The latest version being circulated contains a money-laundering scheme that is truly laughable. Some of the people involved in this enterprise apparently think that their constituents are simpletons.
The bill explicitly authorizes the federal insurance plan, the public option, to pay for all elective abortions. When the public option pays for abortions, it will be spending federal funds, because that is the only kind of money that a federal agency can spend in the real world. Henry Waxman and his front men can write language in the bill calling the money anything he wants, but we care about the reality, not what they call it.
Tools: 
Share
|
| Comments (14) | Print
Reader Comments
womens rights and healthcare
We can not go back. Denying women the right to choose abortion is a strike against their sttus as humans with unalienable rights
The actions of independent humans at times angers others. The argument is real but
so is the right to human privacy.
Human rights are independent of financial status.
This bill is a disaster for american women.
a
Democrats Throw Women Under the Bus
The Democrats passed the Stupak Amendment showing that they have no respect for for women's rights, especially poor women's rights, or for Roe v Wade, which is the law. Sexist, regressive, anti-woman groups do not want any tax dollars used to fund abortions--as if they pay all the taxes--and now that ban has been extended to private insurance.
So let me ask, why should my tax dollars be used to pay for some old man's Viagra? Or for the death penalty? Or the war?
During the Democratic primary, I figured out that Obama was sexist, and I didn't vote for him, much to the chagrin of my friends. But I felt that if Obama won, women's rights would be in peril, and I was right. From what I have seen, he has his own issues with women and gays.
Moreover, I am sick and tired of the bigoted Catholic Church sticking its nose into public policy. They need to deal with the perverts and molesters in their own ranks instead of covering up for them. The Catholic Church is morally inferior, and has no business shaping public policy in our great nation.
I am so done with the Democrats.
pro life
pro abortion chicks from the east coast in invaded our state in 1968 thinking they were going to change our pro life law---hillary clinton was one---i vowed then to support pro life and boot these antilife women out of here---it has been against everything i treasure as a nurse---40 yrs. of being in healthcare has been patient centered---now the big honchos are messing with it---not on my watch
advertisement
