- 1
- 2
- next
- | single page
E-mail
Print
Reporting from Washington -
Liberals furious over a last-minute deal that secured passage of healthcare legislation in the House by restricting abortion coverage threatened Monday to derail the massive overhaul bill.
At least 40 House members pledged to reject the final bill if the abortion provision survives in the Senate and the conference that joins the Senate and House versions into a single piece of legislation.
At issue are the insurance policies offered in a new "exchange," or marketplace, where many people would use federal subsidies to buy coverage.
The House measure bars any insurance policy from covering abortions if it was purchased with a federal subsidy.
That would probably force insurance companies to drop abortion coverage in the exchange to keep their policies open to the potentially large pool of subsidized customers.
As a result, abortion rights supporters say, even a customer who received no subsidies would be unable to purchase a comprehensive policy covering abortion.
The provision "represents an unprecedented and unacceptable restriction on women's ability to access the full range of reproductive health services to which they are lawfully entitled," the House members wrote to Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco).
It was a tougher line than they had adopted less than 48 hours earlier, when the 40 legislators had, almost to a member, voted to pass the health legislation.
The bill cleared the chamber late Saturday by five votes.
The tumult over abortion now travels to the Senate, where it promises to cause headaches for Democrats still wrestling with fundamental issues of cost, coverage and revenue in their version of the health bill.
The Senate legislation contains looser restrictions on abortion coverage than were approved by the House. But already at least one Democrat, Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska, has signaled that he may be willing to work with abortion rights opponents on developing language similar to the House's.
"He wants to make sure the intent is the same" as the House amendment, said Jake Thompson, a spokesman for Nelson. "The final bill has to satisfy him that it doesn't support federal funding of abortions."
Activists were also focusing on Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.), who opposes abortion rights. Because Democrats will likely need the vote of every member of their caucus to pass the health bill, Nelson and Casey might have significant leverage in demanding tough language on abortion coverage.
President Obama suggested Monday that the House measure might be altered as the legislation moves through Congress, though he did not say that he would push for changes himself.
Obama told ABC News that the bill should uphold the principle that federal money may not be used to subsidize abortions.
"I want to make sure that the provision that emerges meets that test -- that we are not in some way sneaking in funding for abortions, but on the other hand that we're not restricting women's insurance choices," he said.
"I'm confident that we can actually arrive at this place where neither side feels that it's being betrayed."
The House amendment, which was sponsored by Reps. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) and Joe Pitts (R-Pa.), would allow people buying insurance in the exchange to purchase separate "riders" that would cover abortions.
Abortion rights advocates say few would do so because few anticipate an unplanned pregnancy and few insurers are likely to offer such a separate service.
"No one counts on getting an abortion," said Rachel Laser, a lawyer with Third Way, a Washington think tank that advocates centrist policies.
At least 40 House members pledged to reject the final bill if the abortion provision survives in the Senate and the conference that joins the Senate and House versions into a single piece of legislation.
At issue are the insurance policies offered in a new "exchange," or marketplace, where many people would use federal subsidies to buy coverage.
The House measure bars any insurance policy from covering abortions if it was purchased with a federal subsidy.
That would probably force insurance companies to drop abortion coverage in the exchange to keep their policies open to the potentially large pool of subsidized customers.
As a result, abortion rights supporters say, even a customer who received no subsidies would be unable to purchase a comprehensive policy covering abortion.
The provision "represents an unprecedented and unacceptable restriction on women's ability to access the full range of reproductive health services to which they are lawfully entitled," the House members wrote to Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco).
It was a tougher line than they had adopted less than 48 hours earlier, when the 40 legislators had, almost to a member, voted to pass the health legislation.
The bill cleared the chamber late Saturday by five votes.
The tumult over abortion now travels to the Senate, where it promises to cause headaches for Democrats still wrestling with fundamental issues of cost, coverage and revenue in their version of the health bill.
The Senate legislation contains looser restrictions on abortion coverage than were approved by the House. But already at least one Democrat, Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska, has signaled that he may be willing to work with abortion rights opponents on developing language similar to the House's.
"He wants to make sure the intent is the same" as the House amendment, said Jake Thompson, a spokesman for Nelson. "The final bill has to satisfy him that it doesn't support federal funding of abortions."
Activists were also focusing on Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.), who opposes abortion rights. Because Democrats will likely need the vote of every member of their caucus to pass the health bill, Nelson and Casey might have significant leverage in demanding tough language on abortion coverage.
President Obama suggested Monday that the House measure might be altered as the legislation moves through Congress, though he did not say that he would push for changes himself.
Obama told ABC News that the bill should uphold the principle that federal money may not be used to subsidize abortions.
"I want to make sure that the provision that emerges meets that test -- that we are not in some way sneaking in funding for abortions, but on the other hand that we're not restricting women's insurance choices," he said.
"I'm confident that we can actually arrive at this place where neither side feels that it's being betrayed."
The House amendment, which was sponsored by Reps. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) and Joe Pitts (R-Pa.), would allow people buying insurance in the exchange to purchase separate "riders" that would cover abortions.
Abortion rights advocates say few would do so because few anticipate an unplanned pregnancy and few insurers are likely to offer such a separate service.
"No one counts on getting an abortion," said Rachel Laser, a lawyer with Third Way, a Washington think tank that advocates centrist policies.
Digg
Twitter
Facebook
StumbleUpon
Save more than