Does House Healthcare Bill Fund Abortion? Depends on Whom You Ask

August 4, 2009 RSS Feed Print

By Dan Gilgoff, God & Country

Does the House healthcare bill directly fund abortion with taxpayer money? Depends on whom you ask.

Abortion-rights groups like Planned Parenthood call the claim a "myth" that's part of a broader "right-wing campaign against healthcare reform."

But abortion-rights foes say such groups are being disingenuous and that the bill clearly authorizes federally financed abortion as part of its public healthcare option.

Even with the House adjourned for August recess, the disagreement over whether its healthcare bill funds abortion with federal dollars is growing more intense. Last night, Family Research Council Action President Tony Perkins reissued an earlier invitation to Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards to debate the question. Perkins insists that Obama's healthcare reform plan includes taxpayer-financed abortion.

The question revolves largely around an amendment to the House healthcare bill that was adopted by the Energy and Commerce Committee last Thursday. The amendment prohibits federal funds from explicitly subsidizing abortion in the private healthcare plans to be offered through the health insurance exchange (read it here). But it doesn't prevent "the public health insurance option from providing for or prohibiting coverage" of abortion.

That means the public healthcare option could cover abortions that the government is currently barred from funding by way of the Hyde amendment, a rider to the annual health and human services appropriations bill that keeps Medicaid from funding abortion except in rare circumstances. But Democrats say the entire healthcare bill is subject to the Hyde amendment, meaning that public funds are still barred from covering abortions, so long as the amendment continues to be reauthorized annually.

"For the last 30 years, this is the consistent common ground: We don't use public funds to provide abortion services," says an aide to Democratic California Rep. Lois Capps, who authored the abortion-related amendment adopted last week by the House. "Federal law—the Hyde amendment—prohibits it."

The aide, who spoke on background, said that abortion coverage in the public healthcare option would be financed by premiums paid by individuals. The Capps amendment makes clear that abortions covered by the private healthcare plans would be paid for that way, but it is silent on how abortions in the public option would be funded.

Conservative antiabortion groups have pounced on that silence to allege that the Democrats are sneakily laying the groundwork for taxpayer-funded abortion. They reject claims that the healthcare bill is subject to the Hyde amendment, which has been reauthorized annually for three decades.

"The Hyde amendment is not a governmentwide law," says Douglas Johnson, legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee. "It affects Medicaid but has no bearing whatsoever on money that flows through the public healthcare plan. The Capps amendment authorizes government-funded abortion from Day 1."

With the Senate working up its own healthcare reform proposals, it's unclear whether the Capps amendment will be the last word on how President Obama's plan deals with abortion coverage. Obama has suggested that he wants to uphold the spirit of the Hyde amendment in government-controlled healthcare. "I'm pro-choice, but I think we also have the tradition in this town, historically, of not financing abortions as part of government-funded healthcare," he said recently.

For now, even Democratic groups are reading the Capps amendment's stipulations for abortion coverage differently. Chris Korzen, executive director of Catholics United—a progressive group allied with the White House and supportive of Obama's healthcare reform—said he interpreted the Capps amendment to bar federally financed abortion, but not because he believes the healthcare bill is subject to the Hyde amendment.

Rather, Korzen said, he read the amendment's prohibitions on government-backed abortion in the private healthcare plans as also applying to the public option.

"Our concern here is making sure the abortion issue doesn't derail the greater interest of having health insurance coverage for all Americans," he said. "I've read Capps to preserve current policies" that forbid federal funding of abortion.

Tags:
abortion,
religion

Reader Comments Read all comments (62)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

hasp timesbu matrix mace bears arial policythe transcripts abdn creature decocts

Buy Ambien of AL 6:56AM April 05, 2010

Oh give me a break!!!! Obama is not for government funding abortion. I find is disturbing that the same people who are fighting for unborn child, would like to deny a child healthcare. What is wrong with this? People do not want to pay taxes for others healthcare...greed. Take a long look at yourself. I do not believe in Abortion I believe it is murder...but Only God will judge a mother who took that action to do so. Children are murdered each day by a mother..is the crime more worse because the child is in womb? I don;t think so. Health care and abortion are two separate fights do not let politicians get away with siding with Insurance companies. Insurance companies have let men, women and children die for the sake of profit..wake up people.

Mother of 2 Breast cancer stage 4 Denied heathcare pre-existing condition of TN 9:43AM March 26, 2010

If federal money is actually used for individuals to pay for abortion then the only recourse left to people of conscience is to find ways to not pay taxes. It would be wrong to knowingly fund a government to allow people to kill their babies. We don't know what proportion of our tax money will be used to pay for this atrocity. Even if it's only a penny it would be wrong. Was it not right for those in Nazi Germany to resist the government's killing policies in ways that that government considered illegal? Would it not be right for us in this country to resist our government's policies allowing innocent babies to be killed mercilessly and actually using public money to pay for it?

mark james of GA 6:21PM March 23, 2010

God & Country

U.S. News Weekly

Subscribe Now!

Order the new U.S. News Weekly digital magazine at a special low introductory price!

Dan Gilgoff covers religion for U.S. News & World Report. He is the author of The Jesus Machine: How James Dobson, Focus on the Family, and Evangelical America are Winning the Culture War, and is a former politics editor at beliefnet. E-mail Dan at godandcountry@usnews.com.

Is increasing access to healthcare a moral or faith-based cause?

View Results

Follow Dan Gilgoff on: Facebook | Twitter | MySpace

Photo Gallery

Faith Photo of the Day

See what's going on in the faith world across the globe every day.

SPECIAL REPORTS

Secrets of Islam

A guide to the world's fastest growing religion.

Sacred Places

Explore the significance, history, and enduring power of places people consider most sacred.

Women of the Bible

The "daughters of Eve" play many roles in the Old and New Testaments.