E.J. Dionne / Syndicated columnist
Abortion fight shouldn't undermine health-care reform
Democratic supporters of abortion rights need to accept that their House majority on health-care reform depends on a large cadre of anti-abortion colleagues, writes columnist E.J. Dionne Jr. They can denounce that reality, or they can learn to live with it.
WASHINGTON — For some years, Democrats have denounced parodies casting their party as utterly closed to the views of those who oppose abortion. Last weekend, Democrats proved conclusively that they are, indeed, a big tent — and many in the ranks are furious.
From the outraged comments of the abortion-rights movement, you'd think that Rep. Bart Stupak's amendment to the House version of the health-care bill would all but overturn Roe v. Wade.
No, it wouldn't. The Michigan Democrat's measure — passed 240-194, with 64 Democrats voting "yes" — would prohibit abortion coverage in the public health-care option and bar any federal subsidies for plans that included abortion purchased on the new insurance exchanges.
Stupak argues that the federal government has stayed out of the business of financing abortion since passage of the Hyde Amendment in 1976 and that none of the policies available on the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program cover elective abortion. The structures that reform would create, he says, should carry the same restrictions, which do not apply in cases involving rape and incest or when a mother's life is in danger.
Abortion-rights supporters counter that, at the very least, individuals who pay part of the cost of their policies should be allowed to choose abortion coverage.
Whatever else is true, Stupak's amendment is unlikely to have a significant effect on the availability of abortion, since most abortions are not paid for through health insurance. The Guttmacher Institute, for example, reported that only 13 percent of abortions in 2001 were directly billed by providers to insurance companies — although the institute cautioned that this figure did not include "women who obtain reimbursement from their insurance company themselves."
The odd thing is that everyone in this fight insists that the only goal is to maintain the status quo on abortion. But defining the status quo has been a legislative and negotiating nightmare.
Democratic leaders once thought they had found the middle ground with an amendment offered by Rep. Lois Capps of California. She proposed segregating the money paid in for health insurance. Abortion coverage could be purchased with the premiums paid by individuals, but not with government money.
Abortion opponents argued that this separation of funds was artificial, and that all money paid to the government plan was, by definition, public. So Rep. Brad Ellsworth, a right-to-life Democrat from Indiana, suggested an alternative that became known as "Capps on steroids." It substantially strengthened the barriers between public and private funds, particularly in the public plan.
But a key group of Democrats who supported the rest of the House bill (roughly 10 by the best count I have been able to get) was still not satisfied, partly because the Roman Catholic bishops were not satisfied. These Democrats turned out to be essential on a bill that ultimately passed by five votes.
Last Friday night, Stupak put forward a final compromise to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi that would have prohibited abortion coverage in the public plan but would have allowed an annual vote on the abortion ban for the private plans. Pro-choice Democrats rejected this, and the stronger version of Stupak's proposal then passed.
What happens now? Democratic supporters of abortion rights need to accept that their House majority depends on a large cadre of anti-abortion colleagues. They can denounce that reality, or they can learn to live with it.
There is also a challenge for abortion's foes, above all the Catholic bishops who have a long history of supporting universal coverage but devoted most of their recent energy to the abortion battle. How much muscle will the bishops now put behind the broader effort to pass health-care reform? Their credibility as advocates for social justice hangs in the balance.
And if the Senate forces a change in the Stupak language, one obvious approach would involve a ban on abortion in the public plan — if such an option survives — and the application of Ellsworth's rules to the private policies sold in the insurance exchange. The alternative would be Stupak's original compromise offer to Pelosi. There are not many other options.
The truth is that even with the Stupak restrictions, health-care reform would leave millions of Americans far better off than they are now — including millions of women. This skirmish over abortion cannot be allowed to destroy the opportunity to extend coverage to 35 million Americans. Killing health-care reform would be bad for choice, and very bad for the right to life.
E.J. Dionne's column appears regularly on editorial pages of The Times. His e-mail address is firstname.lastname@example.org