Crib Sheet: Who's Opposing Senate's Healthcare Abortion Compromise--and Why

December 21, 2009 RSS Feed Print

By Dan Gilgoff, God & Country

The Democrats' Senate abortion compromise won over the party's last healthcare holdout, Nebraska's Ben Nelson, this weekend but is drawing lots of fire from both sides of the abortion issue—even though it paved the way for the Senate vote to end debate on the bill early this morning. The new abortion language includes steps to segregate federal funds from abortion coverage through separate accounts that would pool private premiums to pay for abortions; an explicit option for individual states to bar healthcare plans participating in their health insurance exchange from offering abortion coverage; protections for conscience rights; new tax credits for adoption, and new federal assistance for pregnant women.

Here's a weekend roundup of statements from all sides of the abortion wars vowing opposition to the new language:

The National Right to Life Committee:

The so-called "firewall" between federal funds and private funds is merely a bookkeeping gimmick, inconsistent with the long-established principles that govern existing federal health programs, such as the Hyde Amendment. Moreover, the Reid "firewall" is made of rice paper—it exists only so long as the annual appropriations bill for the Department of Health and Human Services continues to contain the Hyde Amendment.

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops:

The amendment includes some improvements from Senator Casey's proposal, including adoption tax credits and assistance for pregnant women, but differs from that proposal in other ways: It does not seem to allow purchasers who exercise freedom of choice or of conscience to "opt out" of abortion coverage in federally subsidized health plans that include such coverage. Instead it will require purchasers of such plans to pay a distinct fee or surcharge which is extracted solely to help pay for other people's abortions. … This legislation should not move forward in its current form. It should be opposed unless and until such serious concerns have been addressed

Family Research Council President Tony Perkins:

The Senate health care bill will set up the federal government as being brokers for the abortion industry. No Senator or organization can call themselves pro-life if they support such language.

This so-called "compromise" includes the accounting gimmicks that we have seen previously proposed. The new language also does nothing to protect individual consciences. Every purchaser of insurance will be forced to pay for other people's abortions in a more direct manner than ever before.

Michigan Rep. Stupak, the antiabortion Democrat who coauthored the House healthcare bill's strict ban on federal funds for abortion coverage:

While I appreciate the efforts of all the parties involved, especially Senator Ben Nelson, the Senate abortion language is not acceptable... A review of the Senate language indicates a dramatic shift in federal policy that would allow the federal government to subsidize insurance policies with abortion coverage.

NARAL Pro-Choice America:

It is outrageous that, two weeks after pro-choice Americans came to Capitol Hill united against the egregious Stupak-Pitts amendment, the Senate has succumbed to including further anti-choice language in its bill. While the Senate bill does not include the Stupak-Pitts provision, this new language is unacceptable. It is inexplicable that a bill seeking to expand health coverage for Americans would impose such great administrative burdens on women who purchase abortion coverage and plans that offer it…

[T]he language regarding abortion coverage comes at too high a price for reproductive health. Thus, we must oppose this new Nelson language. And NARAL Pro-Choice America withholds support from the overall health-reform legislation until we assess the totality of provisions in the final bill that comes out of a conference committee between the House and Senate.

Planned Parenthood Federation of America president Cecile Richards:

"Planned Parenthood strongly opposes the new abortion language offered by Senator Ben Nelson in the manager's amendment. Last week, the Senate rejected harsh restrictions on abortion coverage, and it is a sad day when women's health is traded away for one vote.

Tags:
abortion,
healthcare,
religion,
healthcare reform

Reader Comments Read all comments (14)

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

http://godslegacytrust.blogspot.com

This is the solution to our health care crisis. We all ultimately turn to God during times of crisis. This will create a propagating, everlasting, taxable income stream that will create jobs, pay for socialized health care and rebuild social security.

Nathan J. Isbell of AL 10:27AM January 07, 2010

A very good point made by the previous poster. I think that is a stance not much mentioned. Fight against the reasons, not the unborn baby. I hate the evil I have done before turning to Christ. I was a young man who was trapped in sexual immoralities. I have experienced the pains from the perils of legalized abortion. It is only through the grace of God that I have come to realize the evils of this horrific practice of killing the unborn. Parents are given a responsibility to care for their children's well being. This is a God-given responsibility that is to not be taken lightly. Due to our present social numbness and the "dumbing down" of our spiritual accountability in the sight of God, we, as a society, have allowed manifold immoral practices to steer us, as a people, a nation, and the nominal church as well, toward a downward spiral of ungodly, pseudo-social norms that are further deceiving the masses. It shows the sinful nature and spiritual deadness of the soul's pre-saved condition. It is like it was in the garden of Eden, after Adam's trangression, it the sense that people still continue to attempt to hide from God. The foolish nature of the spiritually ignorant still thinks that the all-seeing, all-knowing, omnipotent Creator of heaven and earth, does not see their evil works. Abortion is an evil practice. This not something that should even be legal, much less forced upon the American people through federal taxing, or other hidden loopholes. This healthcare bill was pushed through before CHRISTmas. That is upsetting, in light of the unresolved issues that this bill promotes and allows. Dispite our calamities, there is Hope, and this Hope is why we celebrate CHRISTmas. CHRISTmas is a national holiday that many are well aware of. The bad thing is, that many do not know the Saviour. Therefore they still remain under the wrath of God and are basically spiritually dead. God help us! Jesus Christ came so that we may have life, and have it more abundantly. He came so that we may have communion with God. Jesus Christ came so that we (who could never recieve remission for sins, if left on our own) may have forgiveness of sins. By His stripes, we are healed. He has suffered the eternal punishment that our sins have made us worthy of, and then was raised from the dead to justify those of THE faith in the sight of God. Blessed be His name! Many people address various religions as "this faith" or "that faith", but the Bible declares that there is "one faith" and this faith is in Jesus Christ our Lord. All other belief systems result in condemnation, with the stregth of the law of God as the Judge. Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life, no one comes unto the Father but by Him. Repent and believe the Gospel!

PS. Merry CHRISTmas brethren!

stephanos of TX 5:45PM December 25, 2009

The country is filled with people who don't want to be held responsible and wish to adhere to a lifestyle of moral relativism. If such a worldview is true, why the fuss? In fact, what's the point in having a government and laws?

If we want to "control ourselves", then let's stop fooling around when we know we can't afford to pay the consequences for doing so. Should we buy a puppy and then kill it when we realize we can't afford it?

Is it really the child's fault some families are in poverty? If poverty is the reason for abortion, let's fight against poverty. If it's rape, let's fight against sex crimes. If it's pregnancy complications (which are few now, though still possible), let's fund research to end such complications. Why kill an unborn human when he/she didn't have a say in the matter? What's the difference between this and the Holocaust?

Dr. Shade of NC 4:56PM December 23, 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.