WASHINGTON – The White House is on a collision course with Catholic bishops in an intractable dispute over abortion that could blow up the fragile political coalition behind President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul.
A top Obama administration official is praising the new Senate health bill’s attempt to find a compromise on abortion coverage – even as an official of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops says Sen. Harry Reid’s bill is the worst he’s seen so far on the divisive issue.
The bishops were instrumental in getting tough anti-abortion language adopted by the House, forcing Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., to accept restrictions that outraged liberals as the price for passing the Democratic health care bill.
Reid, D-Nev., now faces a similar choice: Ultimately, he will need the votes of a handful of Democratic senators who oppose abortion to get his bill through. Republicans hoping to block the health bill in the Senate are relishing the Democrats’ predicament.
“Obviously, it’s a problem (for Reid),” Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., the No. 2 Republican, said Friday. He said there’s been an understanding in Congress that federal funds will not be used to pay for abortion, except in cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother. “What this legislation does is move that fulcrum to the left,” Kyl said.
Reid has steered the Senate bill in a direction that abortion-rights supporters can live with: allowing coverage for abortion in federally subsidized health care plans, provided that beneficiaries’ own premiums are used to pay for the procedure. But abortion opponents say his compromise would gut current federal restrictions on abortion funding.
Despite criticism, Reid is expected to prevail on an initial Senate showdown set for Saturday night. He needs a 60-vote majority to advance the health bill toward full debate. It’s during that debate – expected to begin after Thanksgiving and last for weeks – that the battle over abortion will be joined. Reid will need the votes of anti-abortion Democrats to clear other 60-vote hurdles before the Senate can take final action.
At the White House, health reform director Nancy-Ann DeParle praised Reid’s effort to find a compromise on abortion.
“It was carefully worked through by the leader, who cares a lot about making sure this maintains the status quo on abortion policy,” DeParle told reporters on Thursday. Obama has said he wants the bill to remain neutral on abortion, and DeParle said Reid struck just the right balance.
But Richard Doerflinger, associate director of the bishops’ conference Secretariat of Pro-Life Activities, said Reid’s “is actually the worst bill” on life issues.
He called it completely unacceptable, adding that “to say this reflects current law is ridiculous.”
The bill would forbid including abortion coverage as a required medical benefit. However, it would allow a new government insurance plan to cover abortions and let private insurers that receive federal subsidies offer plans that include abortion coverage.
In all cases, the money to pay for abortions would have to come from premiums paid by beneficiaries themselves, kept strictly separate from federal subsidy dollars. Government funds could be used for abortions only in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother – reflecting a current law known as the Hyde amendment.
The Hyde amendment restrictions apply to Medicaid, military health care and the federal employee health plan. Many states provide abortion coverage to low-income Medicaid beneficiaries, but they must do so separately with their own funds.
Abortion opponents say Reid’s bill circumvents Hyde. For example, they say that any funds a government insurance plan would use to pay for abortion would be federal funds by definition – even if the money comes from premiums paid by beneficiaries.
“All the money the government has starts out being private money,” said Douglas Johnson, legislative director for National Right to Life. “Once the government has them, they’re federal funds.”
The restrictive language passed by the House would forbid any health plan that receives federal subsidies from paying for abortions, except as allowed by the Hyde amendment. Women would have to purchase separate coverage for abortion services.
Abortion rights supporters say that fencing off government funds from private premiums would achieve the same goal, without forcing women to get special coverage for a legal medical procedure now routinely included in many private health insurance plans.
Associated Press Special Correspondent David Espo contributed to this report.
Copyright 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Beliefnet
Advertisement
posted November 20, 2009 at 7:28 pm
Interference by the RCC or any religion in this situation is totally NOT something that should be happening. Separation of church and state in this country is just that. KEEP those pushy RCC bishops out of it…IT IS NONE OF THEIR BUSINESS what women…especially non-Catholic women…do with their bodies. If the RCC followers want to do as the boss says…fine…some do and some don’t…but why should they ahve any control over other women. It is so irritating and IMO wrong.
posted November 20, 2009 at 8:26 pm
It has been over thirty years since Roe Vs Wade was passed. Abortion is legal in the U.S.A. A womans entire health problems should be covered for whatever reason in 2010 by insurance or just by herself. The Churches should not be involved in this matter unless they are invited by an individual to comment. Are mens health matters a personal concern to the Churches? I am not concerned about anyones health problems, it is theirs to work out. I don’t sit on judgment with what my neighbors, friends, or relatives do with their bodies healthwise. No Religious order should be holding back womens health care in the U.S.A. Our government doesn’t dictate to the Churches and the Churches should not dictate to a secular government.
posted November 20, 2009 at 9:01 pm
I would like to see some kind of scientific method for measuring the amount of the human conscience that needs to be jettisoned for a person to embrace and justify abortion.
It must be a kind of mental alzheimer’s condition that eats it away.
posted November 20, 2009 at 9:17 pm
No, Alzheimers involved, MC. Just the right of a woman to control her own body…a right no one has the right to remove. If you’re female, don’t have one. IF male, not your business at all. Your religion has no business in my personal, private business. Really simple, actually.
posted November 20, 2009 at 11:35 pm
It’s a decision point for the RC bishops: Get health insurance for a lot of people who don’t have it, including a lot of Catholics while letting government abortion policy stay what it’s been for some years, or kill the chance of covering those people and let government abortion policy stay what it’s been for years.
And they seem to have chosen option two. Those bishops are really, really morality challenged.
posted November 21, 2009 at 1:05 am
The truth is, MC, abortion is about as old as medicine, maybe older. And making it illegal or unavailable in safe situations will not end it – it will barely slow it down. This is proven historically. People get abortions because they need them.
Those blastocysts, zygotes, embryos and fetuses (bzefs) are not babies or children or any of the other emotion-laden things some folks call them. They are somewhere between a combination of a sperm cell and an egg cell, and a baby at birth. We can disagree about where to start calling it a “baby” but calling a clump of ten or so cells a baby is inane. The simplest and most obvious boundary line, which has worked for thousands of years, is to call someone recently born a baby.
And killing one in an abortion is not murder in the usual sense which most of us reasonably abhor. Such murders very often involve fear and pain. The bzef may or may not be developed enough to feel pain but it would not feel it for long and it would not experience fear for any length of time.
So, MC, relax a little and take a deep breath. Those abortions you’ve been trained to abhor are necessary to the people having them and they aren’t about babies and they aren’t murder.
But if you want to cut down the number of them, as anyone reasonably might, support effective sex education and availability of real birth control.
posted November 21, 2009 at 3:57 pm
Well Said, nnmns, well said!
posted November 22, 2009 at 12:24 am
pagan you keep spouting about a woman’s right to control her own body, how about her obligation control her actions that lead up to abortion/conception, and not cheapening the gift.
nnmns quote, “Those blastocysts, zygotes, embryos and fetuses (bzefs) are not babies or children”
This is one of the reasons I could never respect you or consider you a good person nnmns. Poison in it’s purest form
posted November 22, 2009 at 12:36 am
cknuck I’m sorry truth has such a strong effect on you, and I’d rather you did respect me but there are any number of people here whose respect I value far more than yours.
posted November 22, 2009 at 4:49 pm
Women are controling their own body,cknuck, when they have sex (unless violated, and given no choice) as are the MEN involved. (again unless violence is involved, but that isn’t the discussion here). And they also are controling their bodies when they have a abortion, which is still legal in this country. STuff happens. And for more reasons than you can imagine, abortion is sometimes a necessary action. Besides the problem here is: The RCC having ANYTHING AT ALL with a decision of the US legislature. They are messing with government decisions and they are a tax free organization…a church…and that goes against the “rules” of our country. IF they want to be in politics…start paying taxes and get elected to the senate or house. STAY OUT OF MY PERSONAL LIFE, RCC.
posted November 22, 2009 at 7:48 pm
…and that goes against the “rules” of our country.
If it did actually go against the rules of our country, believe me when I tell you the ACLU would’ve been all over it. Of course they are tackling ever important matters like crosses in deserts, engravings in court houses and public nativity scenes; the instruments of the mean ole oppressive Christianists.
STAY OUT OF MY PERSONAL LIFE, RCC.
With all do respect, PS, you’re a little beyond child bearing years. And call it a hunch, but I don’t believe the RCC is the least bit interested in your personal life (or mine for that matter). I can respect you position, but for heaven’s sake let’s keep a little perspective here.
Peace
posted November 22, 2009 at 8:31 pm
Yes, Tom, I am way beyond child bearing years. Fortunately Roe V Wade was passed while I was still young enough to have children, had I needed it. When I write “stay out of my personal life” I’m thinking of all the women who are in their child bearing years (many in my family)who don’t need the RCC’s interference. And you’re right, the RCC certainly has no interest in my personal life anymore. However they also have no business in non-Catholic women’s lives either. It’s up to a Catholic woman to make up her mind how far the church is allowed to tell her what to do.
Perspective is not always easy, being a woman (even at my “age”). There are women who will need this procedure…they should be allowed to have a safe, legal one. None of the RC’s business at all. Does the RCC really think that there will never be another abortion if the law was restricted or over ruled? There has been and will always be women who need abortions. Do I like that? No, but it is a fact. Women will find a way…better it be safe.
posted November 22, 2009 at 10:08 pm
nnmns quote, “there are any number of people here whose respect I value far more than yours”
Water does seek it’s own level nnmns of course there are a number of people whose respect you would value and you all sit around with blood on your hands and dripping from your lips saying things like “they are not babies or children just unpronouncible forms of life we can disregard for our own convenience.”
As for people whose respect I value we agree with Psalms 139 “For You formed my inward parts; You wove me in my mother’s womb.”
posted November 23, 2009 at 12:42 am
cknuck perhaps you don’t remember or perhaps you just don’t care but not so long ago when abortions were much harder to get some places (before Roe v. Wade) women desperate for abortions went to back alley quacks. The coat hanger (metal then) was a very meaningful symbol of the chances those desperate women took and the injuries and deaths that happened to many of them.
So if abortions become hard to get you and your pious self-satisfied verse-chanting cohorts will be the ones with blood on your hands; the blood of actual people. Often the mothers of actual children.
And once again, as was happening then, people will realize the horrible costs of abortion being un-available and it will become available again. But only after lots of actual people have been injured and died needlessly.
posted November 23, 2009 at 1:34 am
Oh and by the way, cknuck, some of the people whose respect I value much more than yours I disagree with about various things, including abortion. But they are able to debate ideas, without getting nasty. You are not and, I’m afraid, sometimes I react by coming down toward your level. That’s a fault I’ll try to fix. It would be nice if you could learn to debate without being insulting.
posted November 23, 2009 at 7:27 pm
getting nasty does not compare to murder and promoting murder my “getting nasty” only hurts for a minute life loss is forever.
posted November 23, 2009 at 9:31 pm
It’s not murder, and it’s unnecessarily difficult to have a sensible discussion when one participant acts red faced because he can’t win any of the arguments.
posted November 24, 2009 at 12:38 am
actually nnmns your argument for murdering babies next to my argument of not I think I’m doing pretty well. I’d rather be me and be on the side of compassion than murder a million babies a year.
posted November 24, 2009 at 9:02 am
And ignore the needs of whatever the actual number is, of women a year to cater to your fantasies of saving pretend people. No thanks. You claim to think you are doing good but you are just furthering your disrespect of women.
posted November 24, 2009 at 4:29 pm
nnmns I have a great respect for women and I know some great women very accomplished. Turn on the faucet of abortions is not a help. Teaching self respect, responsibility, discipline and restraint is a better help.
posted November 24, 2009 at 7:49 pm
Making abortions harder to get or once again illegal won’t stop them, cknuck. Women for centuries have had abortions…even RCC women!! GASP!
The whole thing is that the RCC has no business in our government.
posted November 24, 2009 at 10:17 pm
pagan don’t be silly the RCC and other denoms ae always been “in our government.” It is not a enemy of the state.
posted November 25, 2009 at 8:40 pm
Yes, it is probably an unfortunate fact that the RCC (and others) have been in the government. It may not be an enemy of the state, the point is…they have no business trying to tell elected officals what to do. I didn’t elect the RCC to run this country. Talk about a scary thought!!
posted November 28, 2009 at 2:29 pm
pagan you sound like a dishonest politician. Historically our presidents and statesmen have been religiously attached to churches, no the church has not and will not ever run the country but the godly men who have, have for the most part did well by us up till recently.
posted November 28, 2009 at 7:15 pm
“pagan you sound like a dishonest politician”. cknuck
And?
Yep, some of our presidents and statesmen (and women) have been attached to churches. And some have not. Just like everyone else, some were able to put aside those “attachments” while making decisions which were best for our country. Works out in the long run. The RCC however wants to push their way into the decision making…and it simply (as said above) not their job. No one elected them to any damn thing. JFK made it very clear that the Vatican wasn’t running this country. The RCC needs to follow JFK’s advice and let the elected folks do their job.
posted November 29, 2009 at 5:07 pm
So you are saying JFK meant that we should silence the RCC? Or do you think they should be silenced?
posted November 29, 2009 at 6:26 pm
IMO, JFK meant he wasn’t letting the Pope tell him what to do. I would assume he meant the other dudes too…bishops, archbishops, etc. IOW, he was his own man. Should they stay out of politics…Yep. Vote, of course, and express their opinions…which they do anyhow, in their pulpits….but if they want to lobby…get a permit and pay for it in taxes. JFK’s little brother, Ted, pretty much did as he chose to, and stayed RC…as has Patrick. I admire their independent thinking. No religion has any business lobbying the government and trying to tell the representatives and senators what to do. If religions want to lobby congress, let them start being taxed. Their influence can be expressed to their congregations. No, they should be heard…just do it the right way…votes, letters, etc.
posted November 29, 2009 at 8:51 pm
You always say “let them be taxed” but other non-profits that you would support because of your homosexual agendas non profit status would be affected also.
Our Kennedy friends should have taken counsel from the church for adultery (sex addiction) and drug addictions.
posted November 30, 2009 at 3:27 pm
If the homosexual non profits were doing what the RCC is doing, sure they should be taxed too. Why would I be against that?
And for sure the Kennedy’s weren’t perfect at all…but then, who is? Yes, JFK and other Kennedy males have a reputation for having extra affairs. I’m only referring to the fact that when it came to decisions regarding the country, no pope was telling them what to do. What happened between them and their priests…no one’s business. (unless Tobin was involved with his mouth).
posted December 13, 2009 at 12:44 pm
I for one cannot fathom how a human being, let alone a “Christian” can ever think abortion is ok/good/acceptable in a civilized world. If one ever watched an abortion and what happens to these babies and STILL said it was ok, I would have to think such a person was feelingless/inhuman/barbaric, etc and such a person would have absolutely NO right to ever speak out against any form of abuse/murder/torture, etc, because they too are guilty of approving “crimes against humanity”…………….