Abortion Fight Moves to Mikulski Amendment

December 3, 2009 RSS Feed Print

By Dan Gilgoff, God & Country

The Mikulski "women's health amendment" to the Senate healthcare reform bill didn't include the word abortion. But opponents of abortion allege the amendment, which was passed today, leaves the door open for the Health Resources and Services Administration to include abortion as "preventive care" in its guidelines and therefore guarantee no-cost coverage for the procedure.

"Because today's bill as written has no exclusion for abortion in its language, there is no doubt that Sen. [Barbara] Mikulski's amendment opens the floodgates to massive public underwriting of abortion, a position Planned Parenthood has always favored," Family Research Council President Tony Perkins said in a statement. "Without the adoption of 'Stupak-Pitts' amendment language in the Senate version of the bill, it's now very clear that taxpayers will be forced to pay for abortions."

Planned Parenthood praised the Mikulski amendment's passage, but its new release, while it mentioned reproductive health, was mum on the implications for abortion coverage.

"More than 90 percent of the care Planned Parenthood affiliate health centers provide is primary and preventive, and the doctors and nurses who deliver that care witness on a daily basis the real need to ensure that women have access to critical tests, screenings, and regular checkups," said Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America. "Women of childbearing age spend 68 percent more in out-of-pocket healthcare costs than men, in part because of reproductive health-related needs."

Tags:
abortion,
Barbara Mikulski,
religion

Reader Comments Read all comments (6)

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

Part of the public policy debate centers around taxpayer-funded abortion in the health care bill.

Keep the status quo. Federal tax funds have not been used for abortions. With the current deficits, why start now?

Because of politics...

And payback to Planned Parenthood for their support of Obama & the Democratic Party.

Because of money...

Abortionists are getting filthy rich doing the bidding of ending unborn lives and they will only get wealthier when the federal dollars come pouring into their abortion clinics.

Big Apple of NY 1:18AM December 06, 2009

Abortion is a legal medical procedure and should be required in every private ins. plan and a public option.

Second, taxpayers don't have a line item veto when it comes to where there tax dollars go. Make that possible by law and I will pay for the abortions of poor women and teens while those opposed to abortion can pay for the wars in Iraq and Afgan.

I don't give a rat's behind if you find abortion morally wrong. I find the wars morally wrong but I can't direct that my very own tax dollars don't pay for it just as you can't direct that your taxpayer dollars don't pay for a legal medical procedure like abortion.

And for Arthur - Google illegal abortion pictorial for a look at what illegal abortion does to a woman and view that a "baby" doesn't get saved when abortion is illegal.

Peggy

Peggy Loonan of CO 5:44PM December 04, 2009

the past 30+ years. No one on the Right was vocal about a problem with the Hyde Amendment being insufficient before.

This is just another "red meat" topic as an effort to delay legislation. The Republicans are so transparent about their stalling tactics.

The bill in the Senate already says no abortion with federal money. It is unconstitutional to legislate blocking a legal procedure as defined by the Supreme Court if a private insurance company wishes to offer coverage. The Stupak amendment goes too far.

Everyone has a right to their own views about abortion. It is a complex issue. But it IS LEGAL. Coverage of a legal procedure should not be blocked.

The law is not about emotional opinions. The law is supposed to include providing a structure that ensures the freedoms described in the bill of rights. This means that no one religious view can dominate. Religious views are personal - and we should all follow our own beliefs and consciences. The law is the law, and applies to everyone.

I am so weary of a religious group trying to force all of us to do as they wish. I respect their desire to follow their own beliefs. Let me folow mine.

DeeToo of SC 9:45AM December 04, 2009

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.