USA: Healthcare reformers battle over abortion

Opponents and supporters of abortion rights agree on something, writes Tom Kisken in the Ventura County Star. Both sides say they could have predicted that federal funding of abortion would emerge as a dividing line in the fight for healthcare reform.

’I would have thought it was a miracle if it hadn’t,’ said Christine Lyon of Planned Parenthood for Ventura, Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo counties. She contends the perpetually scalding issue is being thrown into the healthcare fire in efforts to kill reform proposals and limit access to abortions. ‘I think we’re experienced, politically savvy enough to know that when these opportunities present themselves, they’re not going to be overlooked’.

The Rev. Rob McCoy of Calvary Chapel Thousand Oaks also believes the issue was fated to be a roadblock but for a different reason. He said Americans who believe abortion is innately wrong are worried the government is trying to use healthcare bills to extend abortion rights and allow more funding. ‘The government doesn’t give back power, they take it,’ he said. ‘… This is a conscience issue, and it has every right to be in the debate.’

There were reports late on 15 January that Senate and House leaders were very close to agreement on several key healthcare reform issues involving cost and coverage but still had to resolve abortion differences. The dilemma revolves around how to balance current bans on using federal money for abortion, except for rape, incest or when a woman’s life is in jeopardy, with the ability of insurers to cover the procedures.

The US House of Representatives bill constructs a wall blocking any person receiving government insurance subsidies from buying plans that cover abortion. Advocates of abortion rights worry the measure will mean millions of low- and moderate-income Americans won’t have a choice because they won’t be able to afford an abortion.

The Senate proposal, negotiated in an effort to guarantee passage of the reform bill, allows health plans subsidised by the government to cover abortions, but they would be funded through private money. That means people in those plans would send in two premium checks — one for the part of their coverage subsidised by the government and the other for coverage of abortions. States could also decide on their own to prohibit the plans from covering abortions.

People on both sides of the abortion debate say they’re unsure exactly how the two-check rule would work, writes Kisken. Opponents of abortion rights worry the federal government would end up funding abortions.

Some people involved say the final bill won’t include either the Senate or House amendment but some modification. Many predict the language will be closer to the Senate proposal in order to protect the 60 votes needed to pass reform.

Like every other abortion fight, the debate is often cast as liberals against faith-driven conservatives. But, argues Kisken, it’s the Democrats who wrote both amendments and are now fighting to see who wins.

John Green, an Ohio professor who studies the intersection of politics and religion, said the divide has grown because of an increase of Catholic Democrats in Congress who oppose abortion rights.

‘If abortion was not an issue within the Democratic party, then the debate would be very different,’ added Susan Estrich, a professor of law and political science at USC. ‘I think the Democratic party is a bigger tent than some people realise and some people want.’

Read the full article here:

Abortion is divisive in reform of healthcare. By Tom Kisken. Ventura County Star, 15 January 2010

Also read:

Senate and House Health Reform Bills Change Abortion Status Quo: Changes in Conference Needed to Preserve Abortion Neutrality. By Jessica Arons. Center for American Progress, 14 January 2010

Catholic bishops too powerful? By Jon O’Brien, President, Catholics for Choice. Washington Post, 15 January 2010

Don’t Want to Pay for Abortion Coverage? I Don’t Want to Pay For (Fill In The Blank). By Amie Newman, Managing Editor, RH Reality Check, 15 January 2010