The Stupak amendment is back and may yet derail or delay passage of healthcare reform legislation that the House of Representatives is expected to vote on tomorrow. Last year, Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) managed to get language into the House-passed healthcare bill that forbids federal funding of abortion under the healthcare measure and stipulates that nothing in the legislation or the rules to be promulgated by the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare will require any health insurance policy to include abortion coverage. The Senate bill, now before the House, lacks the clear ban that Stupak is demanding in order to support the bill. Other anti-abortion Democrats are expected to oppose the bill without the Stupak amendment.

In a bit of parliamentary maneuvering to counter that being planned by the Democratic leadership, Stupak has offered his amendment as an "enrollment corrections" bill to be adopted before the health care bill can be sent to the President for signing. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said earlier this week that she planned to have the Senate bill voted on by the House on Sunday in the form of a reconciliation bill that would "deem" the changes passed by the House to be accepted by the Senate.  The reconciliation move is designed to avoid an anticipated Republican filibuster of the measure in the Senate that could kill final passage.

Saturday's New York Times reported that House Democratic leaders late Friday were "exploring the possibility of a deal with abortion opponents that would clinch the final votes to pass major health care legislation." But that effort, if actually pursued, could trigger a revolt by staunch supporters of abortion "rights."

"We don't want another vote on abortion," said Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.). "We are not going to vote for a bill that restricts women's right to choose beyond current law." DeGette, who co-chairs the Pro-Choice Caucus in the House, said Stupak's enrollment resolution could result in the loss of 40 to 55 votes for the health care bill.

The Stupak measure, four pages long, says in part: "Nothing in this Act shall be construed to require any health plan to provide coverage for abortion services or to allow the secretary (of Health and Human Services) or any other person or entity implementing this Act to require coverage of such services." It also states that "None of the funds appropriated by this Act ... shall be expended for any abortion or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion, except in the case where a woman suffers a from a physical disorder, physical injury or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed ... or unless the pregnancy results from rape or incest."

The three-fold exception that is included is in virtually all efforts to limit abortion-the exception for cases of rape, incest, or where the life of the mother is at stake. But any medical procedure that is aimed strictly at saving the life of the mother and is not an effort to destroy the infant in the womb is not an abortion. And if pro-life legislators oppose abortion because it is the deliberate killing of innocent human life, then one might wonder at the willingness to permit the killing of infants who, through no fault of their own, were conceived by rape or incest.

The issue that appears to be given little consideration or debate in Washington, meanwhile, has to with the fact that Congress has no authority under the Constitution to be in the health insurance or any other insurance business, or to require individuals or businesses to purchase coverage. While the unconstitutional measure may yet be enacted by parliamentary procedures that may themselves circumvent the requirements of the Constitution, the battle has already begun over fixing the blame if the ambitious plan is defeated.

"We compromised to the concept of 'no federal funding for abortion,' which is current law - we don't like that," DeGette said. "And so if Mr. Stupak and a few members, along with Republicans, decide to use this to take healthcare down, then that loss of healthcare coverage is going to be on their hands."

But Stupak and others could just as logically argue that if DeGette and her "pro-choice" allies oppose the bill because of Stupak's amendment, the defeat of federal health care program will be on their hands.

Photo: Rep. Bart Stupak

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (9)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Tony Paskitti said:

... Don't give up Congressman Stupak! Don't vote yes before your amendment is passed! Never trust Pelosi, she is a liar.

March 20, 2010

Maximus said:

Stop the Bill - Congressman Stupak, although i disagree with his perspective, should be applauded for standing by his principles. If there were more such noble men and women in Congress, we would not need reconciliation or other such measures, in order to pass what the American people want. Since the public is so against this bill, then why is Congress pushing it to such ends...?

March 20, 2010

Carol B said:

... Do not give up Congressman Stupak -- we are behind you! You are our only hope for those American citizens who oppose having to pay for the abortion of innocent children. This bill will also kill jobs, increase costs for corporations, who will pass the increase onto consumers and increase health care costs! The reason the Democrats are pushing so hard for this is not to fix health care, but to make the USA a Socialist society. Why else would politicians waste all these months creating a crisis instead of concentrating on the true problems: lack of jobs and providing capital to small businesses. No Comrads Pelosi & Obama, you do not know what is best for the average American!

March 20, 2010

Amanda P. said:

Freedom As someone who actually needs health care, and hasn't had any for over two years, I still don't want what Washington is doling out. Nothing is ever free, and I don't care whether the money is coming from the Federal Government or the State. They both get their money by garnishing my wages. If you want to reform healthcare in a meaningful was open up interstate insurance commerce; don't just make it illegal for me to not have coverage! America is a land where I am supposedly responsible for myself, for my success or failure; the government doesn't have the right to take my freedom of choice from me in order to "protect" me.

March 20, 2010

Karen said:

... I believe that better health care access for woman and their families, and more affordable pre natal and child birth care would encourage wavering women to carry pregnancies full term; I am thinking that the proposed health care reform bill, if passed, would do much more to protect the unborn - before and after birth, than maintaining the status quo, as failing to pass to pass the pending legislation would do. Please reconsider your objection to moving the current bill forward. The 30 million Americans without access to health care today will thank you. Sincerely, Karen D. Kendrick-Hands a Michigan resident.

March 20, 2010

Jo2882 said:

Pro Choicers are going to destroy health care for everyone Pro choicers know that this bill will send taxpayer dollars to the abortion industry in some way or another and that is why they oppose the explicit language on abortion. Most Americans DO NOT WANT abortion covered under a gov't health care plan. This bill will pass if pro abortion radical leftists in the democratic party will simply stop trying to force abortions down the throats of the american taxpayer. This bill funds abortion explicitly and if the bill simply scraps abortion funding, it will pass.

March 21, 2010

Dennis Darby said:

member American Counseling Association We live in a free society where some men and women think that life is a government controlled right, and that rights are self determiined and not affected by natural moral law. A failure of the supreme court to accept this cannot be improved upon by Woman or Men who think that their is any such thing that is an abortion right that in fact violates natural law. We can't legislate away gravity, we can't legislate away rain and we can't legislate away the inalienable right of life for all, based on the feminist self deception of reproductive rights that claim the innocent life of others. A right of an individual is a duty of society. This is how it is now and has always been. Strong men like Stupak only come around every 50 years or so. Keep the faith.

March 21, 2010

Joni said:

My right to not pay for your 'choice' So proud of Stupak for holding true to his belief. In no way does this amendment restrict a woman's choice. But it does allow her to pay for her own choices. OK, it is legal for women to kill their babies, but for those of us, like me, who feel abortion is against God's wishes, that doesn't mean that we should support it or pay for it. http://www.retirelikeme.com/

March 21, 2010 | url

Lee Gonzales said:

Stupak has betrayed you. This clever politician -Stupak - claims to love the unborn has already shown his true colors. He is taking the word of an anti-pro-life president. Imagine that! He would rather believe Obama and to cast his vote in the House in favor of a bill that is as un-American as you can get. Stupak's opposition to Omamacare was bogus along. Now we know how committed he was to the unborn. Stupak is a fool, a dupe or just another politician who used his phony "pro-life" card for political expediency. Voters have got to wisen up to these phonies!

March 21, 2010