The Next Healthcare Reform Fight: Make the Abortion Executive Order Law

March 24, 2010 RSS Feed Print
  • Comment (12)

By Peter Roff, Thomas Jefferson Street blog

Despite the fact that the new nationalized healthcare law is less than a week old, groups on both sides of the issue are already plotting how to expand or curtail its provisions.

One issue that remains especially difficult to resolve is the way the new law deals with the use of federal funds to pay for abortions and abortion-related services. For many months, the Democrats, led by the White House, have maintained that the language included in the Senate version of the bill, which ultimately became the law, should have been sufficient to satisfy any concerns the anti-abortion-rights community might have had. Opponents of federally funded abortion, however, were unconvinced, demanding that tougher language be inserted into the bill before the House passed it or, failing that, into the package of reconciliation fixes currently being debated.

Under a compromise brokered by Michigan Democrat Bart Stupak, who forced the insertion of tougher--some called them "ironclad"--restrictions into the version of the healthcare bill that passed the House last November, the anti-abortion-rights holdouts agreed to vote for the version of the bill that eventually became law in exchange for a presidential executive order dealing with abortion funding in the new healthcare system.

The Stupak deal is highly controversial, having made the difference between the passage and the defeat of the healthcare bill. It has cost him considerable support in the anti-abortion-rights community, which views his deal as a sellout and the executive order, which President Barack Obama signed Wednesday at a closed-door White House ceremony, as meaningless because it does not carry the force of law.

The next step, at least as far as this issue is concerned, should be for those members of Congress who care about the issue to take the language of Obama's executive order and introduce it in the House in the form of legislation.

Such a bill could garner majority support if Speaker Nancy Pelosi would permit it to come to the floor for a vote--but she is something of an extremist on the issue, and not in a way that works to the advantage of those who shared Stupak's concerns. Therefore, at the moment the bill is introduced, it should be accompanied by a discharge petition, a parliamentary device used to bring legislation to the floor over the speaker's objections as soon as it is signed by a majority of House members.

As the names of members who sign discharge petitions are a matter of public record, even if the measure fails to get the requisite number of signatures to force it to the floor, the voters would still have the chance to see which members of Congress are really willing to walk the talk, since "the abortion issue was the pivot point for the passage or failure of the entire bill," according to Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the anti-abortion-rights Susan B. Anthony List.

The Democrats who joined in the compromise "chose a last minute fig leaf rather than standing up for the pro-life American majority," Dannenfelser said, adding that the "closed door ceremony reveals just how quickly this pro-abortion president and his enablers want this issue to go away."

Strategically, the issue remains a winner for the opponents of the new healthcare law. More than a few Democrats who voted for the bill, or who changed their votes from "No" to "Yes" in the closing days of the debate, represent districts with vocal, powerful pro-life constituencies. For them, the issue remains unsettled, meaning that the Democrats who represent those congressional districts will have to work to regain their trust. And their voters have a right to know where they stand. Seeing if they would get behind an effort to give the Obama executive order the force of law would be a good place to start.

Tags:
health care reform,
health care

Reader Comments Read all comments (12)

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

This is an interesting article. Thanks for sharing. Your site is very useful for me .I bookmarked your site!

LeBron James shoes of AL 12:15PM April 17, 2010

I thought the Stupak amendment was to curtail funding for abortion through private policies? If that's left out, I'm surprised people are still concerned because Hyde remains in place.

I think those who believe they will run Stupak out of town and overturn Hyde are facing an uphill battle. Too many people do not understand Roe vs. Wade. It has to do with the right to privacy - the government is not allowed to interfere in a woman's right to choose. Despite the fact the pro-choicers claim that Hyde harms indigent women by not providing them the funds/insurance coverage to pay for it, they do not realize that the government does not have to cover something it is barred from scrutinzing. All Americans have the "right" to purchase anything that's legally for sale - that doesn't mean the government has to pay for it. And the government NOT paying for it is not an imposition on the exercise of that right.

Now it is true that people, with their tax dollars, are legally required to pay for things they as individuals might find morally objectionable. But it is the government's action with that money that is key - and the government does not pay for things it has absolutely no involvement in.

MiddleGrounder of MD 5:12PM March 30, 2010

Abortions cost between $300 and $700 and are done as outpatient surgery. By contrast, a baby costs about $8000 plus the care of the child afterward. Generic birth control pills cost as little as $180 per year.

If you really want to get rid of abortion, you should put taxes on abortion and use the money to pay for universal voluntary free birth control. It would get rid of half of the abortions almost immediately. An immature 19 year old girl with a short paycheck is going to choose paying for her cell phone bill over birth control every time!Especially if she has no health insurance to get them at cheap cost!

Chris in KY of KY 2:46PM March 25, 2010

Peter Roff

Peter Roff

Peter Roff is a contributing editor at U.S. News & World Report. Formerly a senior political writer for United Press International, he’s now affiliated with several public policy organizations including Let Freedom Ring, and Frontiers of Freedom. His writing has appeared in National Review, Fox News’ opinion section, The Daily Caller, Politico and elsewhere. Follow him on Twitter @PeterRoff.

advertisement

Robert Schlesinger

JFK's Virtuoso Turn at the Bully Pulpit

Kennedy presented a radical idea: Peaceful coexistence.

Mary Kate Cary

A Democracy in Crisis

Can the country long survive an ever-growing government?

Latest Videos

advertisement