The National Right to Life Committee blasts the Senate health care bill for allowing people who receive federal premium assistance to purchase insurance that covers abortion.
"Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nv.) has rejected the bipartisan Stupak-Pitts Amendment and has substituted completely unacceptable language that would result in coverage of abortion on demand in two big new federal government programs," reads a statement from NRLC director Douglas Johnson. "Reid seeks to cover elective abortions in two big new federal health programs, but tries to conceal that unpopular reality with layers of contrived definitions and hollow bookkeeping requirements."
The key: "the bill creates new tax-supported subsidies to purchase private health plans that will cover abortion on demand."
The Stupak amendment to the House bill would prevent anybody who receives such subsidies from buying insurance that covers abortion, except in rare instances.
You can read the entire statement below the fold.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nv.) has rejected the bipartisan Stupak-Pitts Amendment and has substituted completely unacceptable language that would result in coverage of abortion on demand in two big new federal government programs.Reid seeks to cover elective abortions in two big new federal health programs, but tries to conceal that unpopular reality with layers of contrived definitions and hollow bookkeeping requirements.
Rep. Lois Capps (D-Ca.), who has a 100% pro-abortion voting record, said in a press release following release of the Reid language: "It appears that their approach closely mirrors my language which was originally included in the House bill." The Capps language referred to was opposed by NRLC and other pro-life organizations and was deleted by the House by a vote of 240-194 on November 7, as 64 Democrats (one fourth of all House Democrats), along with 176 Republicans, voted to replace it with the Stupak-Pitts Amendment.
The Stupak-Pitts Amendment would prevent federal subsidies for abortion by applying the principles of longstanding federal laws such as the Hyde Amendment to the new programs created by the health care legislation. Those principles prohibit both direct funding of abortion procedures, and subsidies for plans that cover elective abortions, in existing federal programs such as Medicaid, the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, and the military.
Regrettably but predictably, Reid rejected the bipartisan Stupak-Pitts language. Instead, Reid has sought to please the militant minority that demands funding of abortion through federal programs, even though substantial majorities of Americans believe that abortion should be excluded from government-funded and government-sponsored health programs.
The Reid bill establishes a big new federal health insurance program, the public option (although now referred to in Reid's bill as the "community health insurance option"). The bill authorizes (on page 118) the federal Secretary of Health and Human Services to require coverage of any and all abortions throughout the public option program. This would be federal government funding of abortion, no matter how hard they try to disguise it.
In addition, the bill creates new tax-supported subsidies to purchase private health plans that will cover abortion on demand.
National Right to Life will continue to fight for the Stupak-Pitts Amendment, and to oppose the stubborn attempts of congressional Democratic leaders to establish new federal government programs that will fund coverage of elective abortions.

TPM Stories Now Surging on Digg.com

musgrove
November 19, 2009 1:47 AM
Maybe the right to life people forgot that abortion is still legal in the United States.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kash79
November 19, 2009 10:18 AM in reply to musgrove
And in many instances, for many women, having a choice itself is a right to life. These fuckards think life ends once you're into this world.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
midnight rambler
November 19, 2009 5:15 AM
Funny, I've never heard them complaining before about insurance premiums being tax-exempt, which is effectively the same thing as a subsidy.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
November 19, 2009 8:26 AM
Wear it as a badge of honor Harry. Fuck them
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
EastWest
November 19, 2009 8:44 AM in reply to lousgirl84
Took the words right out of my mouth. Fuck 'em.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
xargaw
November 19, 2009 8:50 AM
Abortion is a legal medical procedure. Frankly, as a taxpaying American, I did not support the War in Iraq. I thought it was a crime committed by the Bush Administration, but my tax dollars supported the War, just as I don't support other things my government spends money on. This idea that you can choose where your tax money goes because you don't personally approve of something is nonsense. We have courts to determine legality and they have ruled. I am sick of the extremists forcing their beliefs on the rest of us. If you are against abortion, don't have one. If you against gay marriage, remain hetero. If you don't believe in science, don't take advantage of medicine and technology, but don't tell others what they can and can't do.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
NJBOOMER
November 19, 2009 10:37 AM in reply to xargaw
Here, Here, Xargaw. Your analysis is excellent. I am still grappling with how the public option and the healthcare bill are the government coming between me and my doctor but the Stupak bill isn't. My medical care is between me and my doctor and is none of Bart Stupak's or the pro-life movement's business. Abortion is legal and they are attempting to circumvent a law that they have so far been unable to repeal.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
froggy
November 19, 2009 9:06 AM
This is just another conservative ploy to brand Democrats and progressives as the "immoral, unamerican enemy" to their ever dwindling base.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Bullsmith
November 19, 2009 9:18 AM
I'd have so much more sympathy for the "right to life" movement if I saw them just once getting loud and active about protecting actual post-birth lives. Wars, the death penalty, allowing people to die because they can't afford simple and available medical procedures are all at least as much affronts to the principle of the sanctity of life as abortion is, but at most these issues get a bit of lip service.
When a bishop can deny John Kerry communion for not opposing abortion, but says nothing about Bush and the war in Iraq, all I see is morals being twisted in the interest of politics. And having read the bible, the idea that anyone can withhold communion is outrageous. Jesus didn't die so some guy in a fancy hat can play doorman to heaven.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
scapegoat
November 19, 2009 9:56 AM in reply to Bullsmith
Spineless Dems (except bravely EX-Catholic Kucinich) never shame these Nazi pedophile priest-serving, mother-killing petri dish idolators on their blood-drenched history of GENOCIDE. These gay-bashing fetal fascists don't know and don't care that they are obeying the corrupt heresies of bonafide Nazi genocider and closet gay Pope Paul VI who deliberately funded the grisly Catholic Nazi Croatian Ustashi slaughter of a MILLION Serb Christian "heretics" in WWII when he was Pius XII's undersecretary of state.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jdb316
November 19, 2009 10:27 AM in reply to Bullsmith
That's it. They don't realize that there is a lot more to being "PRO-LIFE" than simply being anti-abortion rights.
Say what you want about the Council of Catholic Bishops, but they seem to get it. They wanted the Stupak-Pitts Amendment, and once they got it, they supported the House Bill because of its social justice benefits.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
VictorLH
November 19, 2009 9:35 AM
These cranks are such hypocrites - they cheer lead for wars, death sentences and starving the poor. As other's have said - Fuck-Em!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mjshep
November 19, 2009 10:41 AM
If the National Right to Life Committee is against it, it must be good.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Powkat
November 19, 2009 11:38 AM in reply to mjshep
Agreed.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
paradox512
November 19, 2009 12:32 PM
Did any of you actually read the press release? (Or just jumped to comments?) Abortion may be legal, but it has not been government funded for decades and it is after all, an elective surgery. Breast augmentation is legal, I'm not sure I want to pay for those either. Those who want to fund abortions find them selves in an ever increasing minority. Harry Reid is a troll in bed with the worst kind of people - fuck him. And it is a shame that the only thing you know about anti-abortionists is what Rachel Madcow tells you.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?