Michele Walk, Associate Editor
Ideology: Moderate | Writing From: George Washington University
Last night, Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats in Congress managed to push through a vote on their controversial health care plan. It wouldn’t have passed, however, without the Stupak Amendment, which barred federal funds from being used for abortions. Abortion is probably the most consistently debated and controversial topic of the last three decades, and the Democratic Congress paired it with the year’s most topical issue, health care reform. Federal funding for abortions has been banned since 1977 under the Hyde Amendment, yet abortion coverage continues to be an issue, and Democrats throughout Saturday afternoon pushed for government-funded abortions.
The so-called Stupak Amendment, proposed by Representative Bart Stupak, put the wording of the Hyde Amendment into the health care bill. The Hyde Amendment, first passed in 1977, is renewed every year and ensures that federal taxpayer dollars cannot be used to finance abortions, whether from Medicaid, Medicare, or other government-run health programs. The debate on the floor, however, made it clear that Democrats wanted to reverse that 32-year ban and require the American taxpayers to pay for elective abortions. Representative Barbara Lee of California was adamant that the Stupak Amendment was an affront to women’s “reproductive rights” – a clear indication that she believed the original version of Mrs. Pelosi’s bill provided federal money for abortions, and that she supported this. Abortion might be a legal procedure – but that doesn’t mean that the American taxpayers should be forced to pay for it, something which polls show they are opposed to.
Some Democrats in Congress, such as Rep. Lee, framed the issue as if barring federal funding for abortions would be depriving women of basic, life-saving care. However, a procedure that kills another human being is the antithesis of health “care.” Furthermore, the Stupak Amendment would allow federal funds to be used if the mother’s health were endangered by the pregnancy. Abortion is a preventable, elective procedure. Allowing federal taxpayer dollars to finance the procedure would only expand the prevalence of abortion, and considering that abortion often carries serious, life-long psychological and physiological after-effects, increasing the prevalence of abortion would not improve women’s health. Furthermore, if a woman feels that she desperately needs to have an abortion, she can do what women have been doing since 1973 and it her elective procedure on her own. However, in the debate, some Democrats framed the abortion issue as if it were akin to, say, a kidney transplant – but the vast majority of abortions are performed when the woman is not in danger and her life is not in danger. It is insulting to people with traditional ailments to compare their life-threatening, unpreventable conditions to the exceedingly-preventable abortion procedure. No other medical procedure is voluntary quite like abortion is.
Some pro-life Republicans opposed the Stupak Amendment, saying, to quote Arizona Representative John Shadegg, “this is a vote to help [Mrs. Pelosi] move the bill forward.” The bill narrowly passed at around eleven p.m. on Saturday with a vote of 220-215, with only one Republican, Joseph Cao of Louisiana, voting in favor of it, which is a clear breach of the Democratic Party’s promises for a truly bipartisan health care reform.
Would the health care reform have passed without the Stupak Amendment? It is possible that the health care bill would not have passed without it, for federal funding for abortions was a major concern of many pro-life Democrats. But the influence of those pro-life Democrats, and the importance of the abortion issue, is questionable. On Saturday afternoon Nancy Pelosi announced that she had garnered the requisite 218 votes – before the Amendment had passed. We will probably never know what the true influence of the Stupak Amendment was.
Where it was such a close vote, pro-life Congressmen – Republican and Democratic – were correct in not risking that “Pelosicare” would cover abortions. Rep. Shadegg was the only Congressman to vote “present” on the amendment – the only pro-life member of Congress to do so. Other Republicans were correct in supporting Stupak, and wisely recognized that they should seek victories where they can. It is important to note that Mrs. Pelosi’s reform is not law; the Senate still has to approve their version of the bill, and it is possible that the Stupak Amendment will be thrown out in committee. Still, the Stupak Amendment is a victory not only for Republicans against the Democrats’ increasingly liberal agenda, but more importantly a victory for America’s pro-life majority. Nancy Pelosi might have been successful in ramming through her controversial bill, but that doesn’t mean that the rights of the unborn have been forgotten.
Michele-
Great article. Even though I’m pro-choice I do not believe that federal funds should be used for abortions. I was happy to see the Stupak Amendment pass last night.
This may have been a feat for the pro-life movement, but I think that it’s a slippery slope when you try to talk about the “rights of the unborn” in association with the Stupak Amendment. It has done nothing to ban abortion, just continue a policy that is already in place. This should be an argument about the funding abortion, not the legality, as you and so many member of Congress (both Republican and Democrat) have tried to do.
The whole idea that abortion is something that matters in American politics is pretty childish when you think about it in a vacuum.
Nevertheless, politicians have an interest in imbuing it with all sorts of importance so that–on nights like last night–they can “reach across the aisle,” or “declare victory,” one way or the other, to accomplish something of actual value and appear praiseworthy afterward…Sure, there are probably some “True Believers” out there in the House, and bless their hearts, but the Big Boys know whats up.
The willingness of the electorate to be deluded is astounding, but I suppose that’s okay so long as the delusion serves something noble/useful…It’s not always like that though, which makes the stakes of electoral politics so frighteningly high.
The amendment was not about abortion, Adam, but rather about whether or not taxpayers should have to pay for other people to have a procedure they think is wrong, as I’m sure you know.
The idea of how taxpayer money is used as something that matters in American politics is something I’m sure you’d agree isn’t childish.
You miss the point. I don’t think we’re in disagreement.
How taxpayer money is spent matters, yes. That there is already a statute that prevents federal money from paying for abortion matters as well. I even don’t see anything wrong with the amendment, I’d have probably voted for it if I wore a pin.
My point in the comment was to take a step back and look at how the seemingly impertinent issue of abortion became a political issue imbued with so much importance, and then offer a device which may account for it.
Emma,
The Stupak-Pitts amendment goes way beyond the scope of the Hyde Amendment. The Hyde Amendment ensures that all women receiving health care via the public option must pay out of pocket for an abortion. If a woman wants to move to a health care plan on the exchange, however, the Stupak Amendment denies her the coverage she currently has. Don’t be fooled by this “it only preserves existing law” propaganda about the Stupak Amendment. It is an affront to a woman’s reproductive freedom on so many different levels and goes well beyond the Hyde Amendment (even my anti-choice friends who have been following capitol hill for the past week or so will concede this).
And it passed! YAY!
Tyler,
I realize that my saying I was happy to see the amendment pass was a little extreme. Despite the fact that I am pro-choice, I have a problem with idea of tax payers paying for something that they personally do not support. I realize the Stupak amendment goes above and beyond this, and in the long run could be hurtful to pro-choice. My point was simply that I think it’s important to remember that the majority of the country is pro-life now and in order to appease their side of the debate, something like the Stupak amendment had to be put in place.
Though I’m pro-life, I’m not sure that a historical precedent (or any legal basis) exists for “exempting” funding from things that people find morally opposing.
Taxes paid by the most anti-war individuals fund war.
Thousands of Churches and Religions are funded by government subsidies, regardless of denomination.
I’m staunchly opposed to the death penalty, but my taxes still fund the execution of other people over my loudest objections.
I approve of efforts to reduce abortion and certainly exempt it from government funding, but why aren’t we doing it with other things, as well.
I’d like to exempt my taxpayer money going to support all those nice little perks heteros get when they marry.
Abortion to the rest of the Western world is not the issue is in America. It will only take time to push the issue (whether or not it should be illegal — and don’t tell me that’s not what these people want) into irrelevancy here in the states as well.
Are you referring to the Marriage penalty?
I happen to be pro-choice and yet I do not support funding abortions (Barack Obama originally promised that he did not, either).