The answer was going to be that the funds would be segregated, no government subsidy would pay for abortion (even though it is a legal procedure in all 50 states); coverage would be paid out of the individuals’ share of the premium. Ironically, this construct is similar to how catholic schools get money; the money only pays for the sectarian part of the education, not the religious part. (If one of these mechanisms is a gimmick, aren't both of them?)
Suddenly in the final days before the vote, that answer was no longer acceptable. Thus the Stupak amendment came to pass.
Following is an excerpt from Prescriptions: Abortion Puts Some in Congress in a Bind
By By KATHARINE Q. SEELYE
Robert J. Blendon, a professor of health policy at Harvard, said the choice between trying to stop an erosion of abortion rights and trying to improve health care for women pitted “what are described as two fundamental human rights — the right to universal coverage and the right of access to reproductive services — against each other.”This issue isn’t going away. As outlined in this Reuters’ analysis by Ed Stoddard there are no easy solutions but lots of potential damage: ANALYSIS-Abortion exposes divisions among U.S. Democrats
“They aren’t just policy trade-offs,” he said. “And that’s why this is so wrenching.”
What do I think? As I'm writing this on Sunday afternoon (11/15/09) I’m not sure. Some Democrats are saying they won’t vote for a final bill that includes the Stupak amendment – is that the right response? I vehemently believe in a women’s right to choose, that part of me says don’t vote for the bill. I also vehemently believe that we must pass some form of health reform this year to expand coverage and start to rein in costs – to not do so will be to miss an historic opportunity and result in a continuation of unnecessary deaths. All I can say today is I’m saddened by the forces in this country that continue to work towards division instead of compromise.
