THE HILL
 

Abortion struggle came down to the wire

By Mike Soraghan - 11/07/09 10:21 PM ET

Rep. Bart Stupak says he was willing to settle for less.

Stupak (D-Mich.), a staunchly anti-abortion Democrat, won from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi an up-or-down vote on his amendment imposing tight restrictions on abortion in the Democrats' healthcare bill. The amendment passed Saturday night 240-194.

The victory came only after bitter intra-party struggle that threatened to block the Democrats' historic drive for universal healthcare.

But he got it only after negotiations with Pelosi (D-Calif.), an ardent supporter of abortion rights, fell apart late Friday night.

"I think the other side overreached," Stupak said Saturday afternoon. "It's more than what we thought we would get."

But abortion-rights supporters dismiss the idea that they made a tactical mistake. They say the deal they were offered late Friday would have required them to vote for restrictions they oppose or risk blocking the healthcare bill, the Democrats' top domestic priority. Aides said it was important that abortion-rights supporters got the chance to vote against it and try to defeat it.

"We were at an impasse," said House Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), a lead negotiator for Democrats. "The way you resolve an impasse in Congress is to put it to a vote."

The abortion issue has simmered since July, when Stupak lost a vote on his amendment in committee.

Federal law has blocked taxpayer dollars from funding abortions for decades. Both sides in the debate say they simply want to maintain that existing law, known as the "Hyde Amendment." But the Democrats' proposed expansion of the federal role in healthcare would make it trickier to block such funding while maintaining access to abortion services.

Stupak's amendment imposes tight restrictions on abortions that could be offered through a new public health insurance option and through private insurance purchased with government subsidies for lower- and middle-income people.

Critics call it a "de facto" abortion ban, because private companies would stop offering the coverage in order to get access to the subsidized customers though "exchanges" created by the bill.

The issue came to the fore after a divisive fight over the public option, and in the final days threatened passage of the $1 trillion bill.

Stupak had been threatening since July to use a procedural move to block consideration of the health bill if stronger constraints weren't imposed on taxpayer funding for abortion. He said he had 40 Democratic lawmakers with him, enough, combined with all Republican House members, to succeed in blocking the bill.

Early this week Rep. Brad Ellsworth (D-Ind.) came out with a compromise proposal that built on the existing restrictions in the bill, which were authored by Rep. Lois Capps (D-Calif.).

Among other provisions, Ellsworth's legislation would have required any payment for abortion by the public plan to be handled by private contractors to ensure no tax dollars are funding abortions.

Abortion-rights supporters said they could accept it, but anti-abortion groups attacked it as a "money-laundering" scheme. Still Ellsworth said he had three lawmakers who would support his language. That would have appeared to eliminate Stupak's ability to block the bill. But it would have been close, and leaders couldn't have lost votes on other issue.

A significant problem was that the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops would not agree to the language, lawmakers said.

"Other members felt like they needed the … blessing of the Catholic Bishops," Ellsworth said.

That prompted complaints from abortion-rights supporters that the religious group was being given too much deference.

"When did the Bishops become members of Congress?" said Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.). "Who elected them?"

Negotiations got intense on Friday, as Stupak returned the House after being out for a death in the family, and the Rules Committee met to determine the parameters of the debate.

Stupak said that by 8 p.m., he'd struck a new deal with Pelosi on a new compromise, called Stupak-Ellsworth by some. Stupak said the plan would have permanently banned tax dollars from supporting abortion in the public plan, and for private insurers, it would have to be voted on every year.

Stupak said his group of 40 votes was willing to go along with it. But an hour later, Pelosi called and said abortion-rights supporters were balking at the deal.

"She said, 'I can't hold our side on it. I have no choice but to give you a vote on your amenedment,'" Stupak recalled.

Early Saturday morning, the Rules Committee, which Pelosi controls approved an up-or-down vote on Stupak's amendment. Besides a Republican substitute, it is the only amendment the speaker and the committee allowed.

Aides say it wasn't a matter of divisions on the abortion-rights side. The problem, they say, was that abortion-rights lawmakers didn't support the Stupak-Ellsworth compromise and didn't want to be forced to vote for it in order to get to the healthcare bill. The compromise would have been put into the "rule," which Democrats neeeded to pass to get the bill to the floor.

Instead, they decided to hold Stupak to his promise that he wanted only an up-or-down vote on his amendment.

But Stupak said the up-or-down vote didn't automatically win his vote, or the contingent of lawmakers he'd put together. It only meant he wouldn't oppose the bill based on abortion concerns if he lost.

He said 15 of the 40 would oppose the bill on final passage no matter what. But he said if he got the vote, and it failed, about 20 of the 40 would then vote yes on the bill.

As for himself, Stupak said he was undecided.

"I would like to vote for this bill," but he had concerns with a tax provision recently added to the bill that he worries will harm paper mills in his district.

The late-night dealmaking kicks the problem down the road to the Senate and any conference committee that tries to hammer out a final version. Unless another compromise is found, the issue could still derail the bill even when Democrats on the cusp of victory.

Stupak says to get his vote on the final bill, "there will have to be some kind of Hyde language in there."

Abortion-rights supporters say they can support the bill with Stupak's language in it now. But they expect the abortion language will change.

"I feel certain it will come out of the bill before it comes back from committee," Woolsey said. "I will insist that it come out."


Source:
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/66847-abortion-struggle-came-down-to-the-wire

Comments (13)

Stupak is a great example of why the Republicans can always put through their agenda and Democrats, even with great majorities, cannot. There are many, who, like Stupak, cut off their noses to spite their face; They are 99% progressive, but for this one issue, abortion, they thwart the big picture, progressive agenda. Many Catholic progressives are this way. As useful as Stupak may be on other progressive issues, the Democratic Party needs to find, endorse and get elected, true blue, 100% progressives.BY Jorge R on 11/07/2009 at 22:45
Isn't abortion a medical procedure? Why is it always singled out?RELIGION.BY rosemarie ruhl on 11/07/2009 at 23:54
Removing a wart is also a medical procedure. Killing an unborn child seems a bit more controversial.BY Point of View on 11/08/2009 at 01:06
Did Stupak get any guarantees that the amendment will survive conference…if not he got nothing and gave away the store…Rose Marie…a doctor is present at lethal injection executions but that isnt called a medical procedure nor is an abortion a medical procedure either…they are both actually the same thing…killing a human being.BY bruce nahin on 11/08/2009 at 01:07
Abortion IS a medical procedure, same as a vasectomy—is not one sperm an "unborn child?" Get real! A fetus is not a child person until it is born, it takes a breath and the umbilical cord is cut. Anything before that is the choice of the woman who chooses to carry it. Science, not theology. Church AND State, not Church with State!BY j k  on 11/08/2009 at 01:40
Ah, the age old debate. When does "life" begin? And what is the purpose of there even being women on the earth if not to give birth? How can a woman even be a woman if she doesn't want to give birth to a man's offspring? What kind of woman does not feel an instant connection to the "life" growing inside her and want to give birth to that "life"? Answer: A woman who has the audacity to believe she's a free and equal human being, her body is her own, her destiny is her's to make and knows an embryo or fetus is not a baby. Abortion is a legal medical procedure and Stupak's amendment is a violation of a woman's right to equal treatment under the law.BY GrrrlRomeo on 11/08/2009 at 04:27
Abortion is singled out because there is a valid state interest, recognized by the Supreme Court, in not encouraging elective abortion. Remember, we're not even talking about abortions involving rape, incest, or the life of the mother - federal funds are all over that. So much for the Catholic prohibition on directly taking innocent human life (remember, the "life" in this case is sheer biological fact, unlike personhood, which is debated). Thus it emerges that the real issue here is whether it's a good idea for the government to assist its citizens to kill off the next generation in a nascient form for lesser reasons than the ones stated above.BY K Gilbert on 11/08/2009 at 08:25
How would YOU like to lose control over half the people in your organization? This is what abortion is about - keeping the (religio L.v) yoke on women despite their protest and right to privacy. Let's discuss keeping the insurance companies, religious fanatics government out of our business.BY Kathy in Tampa on 11/08/2009 at 19:05
You pro-choicers should just listen to yourselves. It is all about you. No consideration for the life that YOU helped to create living within you! Who put this idea in your minds that killing the most vulnerable, innocents among us is your right? It may be your right according to this government, but is the most evil sin in Gods eyes unless, you do not beleive there is a God. Don't give me the crap about your precious body being your own either. YOU created this new life and then want to snuff it out like so much trash. At twelve weeks the baby does many things inside the womb and babies are born weighing a pound and survive. Where is your humanity?BY Reneeca on 11/08/2009 at 20:53
As the article stated Abortion has never been covered by any Government Funds, including Medicaid.The Congress does not process Health Claims, that's the irony of this entire debacle.The Health Insurance companies/carriers process the health claims and Deny Abortions, the doctors forward their bills already coded with the code "Elected Abortion to the Private Insurer or Medicaid Insurer and these claims are automatically denied.Health Insurance companies/insurers have been denying these claims for yearsThis entire debate is about sematics. Congres does not and will not process any not one Abortion claim.Dems spent so much time adjusting the language for something that is already in the SPD (SUmmary Plan Description) the plan of both Private and Medicaid plans.Not covered means not covered. The health insurers computer programs are programmed to automatically deny these claims.After all this rangling Congress is not the ones responsible for processing Abortions Claims, that's why this entire delay is just a waste of tax payer moneyWomen are not bent out of shape about this they have never had Abortion claims paid by private or Medicaid health claim insurance companies, thus the women electing abortions pay for them''The Private or Medicaid Health Insurer simply deny the Elected Abortions Claims as Not Covered and bill the patient then it's up to the patient to pay the doctor.Republicans nor dems understand what happens to this legislation once it leaves their chambers and is placed in the hands of the people who are actually responsible for carrying out the legislation, it's a shameA lot of lies can be stopped if in the future Congress would just ask the Experts in the Insurance industry whether Medicaid or Private carriers how such procedures are handled.COngress can take years implementing and documenting language but if those who are responsible for implementing and processing that language are not involved, it's a total waste.In this case the process is already in place and has been for yearsThere's no reason for women to be angry the Government nor Private Health Insurance companies have never paid for one Elected Abortion.What a waste of time.BY Julie on 11/08/2009 at 20:56

Add Comment

Name (required)

E-Mail (will not be published) (required)

Your Comments

You need Flash Player 8 (or higher) and JavaScript enabled to view this content

Get latest news from The Hill direct to your inbox, RSS reader and mobile devices.