The Politics of Loosening Healthcare's Abortion Restrictions

By Dan Gilgoff, God & Country

With abortion-rights groups fuming over the House healthcare bill's ban on abortion coverage in federally subsidized health insurance plans, President Obama said yesterday that there's more work to be done on the legislation before it meets his definition of abortion neutrality.

You could hear abortion-rights supporters breathing sighs of relief—and abortion foes grinding their teeth.

Here's what Obama said in an interview with Jake Tapper of ABC News:

You know, I laid out a very simple principle, which is this is a healthcare bill, not an abortion bill. And 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. And 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, because one of the pledges I made in that same speech was to say that if you're happy and satisfied with the insurance that you have, that it's not going to change. So, you know, this is going to be a complex set of negotiations . . . . I think that there are strong feelings on both sides. And what that tells me is that there needs to be some more work before we get to the point where we're not changing the status quo. And that's the goal.

That's welcome news for abortion-rights groups, which allege that the House bill's ban on abortion coverage in government-subsidized healthcare plans will roll back coverage for women who wind up switching from their current plans to the public plan or one offered through the government-run health insurance exchange.

It's bad news for antiabortion advocates, who think the just passed House healthcare bill succeeds in extending the status quo, which denies federal funds for abortion except in rare instances.

Here's my take on the politics here: It's easier for Obama and the Democrats to roll back the House's sweeping ban on abortion coverage in federally subsidized healthcare plans than it would have been to press forward with a bill that excluded such a ban and that abortion foes claimed supported abortion with federal dollars. It's easier for the president and the Dems to claim the current bill goes too far than it would have been to withstand the blizzard of criticism from abortion foes had they thought the bill didn't go far enough. It's easier to be on the offensive than the defensive, and never more so than in culture war battles.

• View our Daily Faith Photo gallery.
• Follow Dan Gilgoff on Twitter.