The Democrats' Senate abortion compromise won over the party's last healthcare holdout, Nebraska's Ben Nelson, this weekend but is drawing lots of fire from both sides of the abortion issue--even though it paved the way for the Senate vote to end debate on the bill early this morning.
|
|
The new abortion language includes steps to segregate federal funds from abortion coverage through separate accounts that would pool private premiums to pay for abortions; an explicit option for individual states to bar healthcare plans participating in their health insurance exchange from offering abortion coverage; protections for conscience rights; new tax credits for adoption, and new federal assistance for pregnant women.
Here's a weekend roundup of statements from all sides of the abortion wars vowing opposition to the new language:
The National Right to Life Committee:
The so-called "firewall" between federal funds and private funds is merely a bookkeeping gimmick, inconsistent with the long-established principles that govern existing federal health programs, such as the Hyde Amendment. Moreover, the Reid "firewall" is made of rice paper--it exists only so long as the annual appropriations bill for the Department of Health and Human Services continues to contain the Hyde Amendment.
The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops:
The amendment includes some improvements from Senator Casey's proposal, including adoption tax credits and assistance for pregnant women, but differs from that proposal in other ways: It does not seem to allow purchasers who exercise freedom of choice or of conscience to "opt out" of abortion coverage in federally subsidized health plans that include such coverage. Instead it will require purchasers of such plans to pay a distinct fee or surcharge which is extracted solely to help pay for other people's abortions. ... This legislation should not move forward in its current form. It should be opposed unless and until such serious concerns have been addressed
Click here to continue reading.
