The Senate's Big Abortion Flub
How one missing sentence gave new ammo to foes of the health care bill.
As the battle for health care reform enters the endgame, abortion foes in and out of Congress are trying mightily to block the bill. And one small mistake—essentially, a typo in the drafting of the bill—has given them a major piece of ammo. An accidental one-sentence omission in the Senate’s version of the legislation has provided anti-abortion crusaders an opening to claim that the bill could lead to "hundreds of thousands of abortions per year that taxpayers would be forced to pay for," as the US Conference of Catholic Bishops puts it.
This has become a conservative talking point. For decades, the federal government has been prevented from generally funding abortions, and anti-abortion advocates are making the dramatic assertion that passing the health care reform bill will change that. The National Right to Life Committee maintains that the Senate bill "will allow direct federal funding of abortion, without restriction." Tony Perkins' Family Research Council has warned of the same. Illinois Rep. Daniel Lipinski, a pro-life Democrat, says the measure "allows taxpayer money to pay directly” for abortions.
The pro-lifers are wrong. The Senate bill won't lead to government directly funding abortions. But the Democrats screwed up. They could have easily prevented this particular line of attack. All it would have taken is a single line of text.
Here's what happened: In December, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) was struggling to convince all 60 members of the Democratic caucus to vote to break a possible filibuster of the bill. First, the public option was stripped out to appease centrists like Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.). A few days later, a substitute provision that would have allowed people above the age of 55 to "buy in" to Medicare was also killed. That's when liberals started to revolt.
In a rush to appease them, moderate Democrats agreed to back the liberals on another front: community health care. Liberals wanted to expand the reach of community health centers, which have provided low-cost health care to people in underserved areas since the 1960s. And they wanted the health care bill to commit $7 billion for these health centers. The moderates agreed, and new language was hurriedly added to the Senate bill.
"This is all stuff that was inserted late at night and they were trying to reach a final agreement" on the bill, says Timothy Jost, a professor and health law expert at the Washington and Lee University School of Law. Unfortunately, no one remembered to write in an explicit provision explaining that this $7 billion in spending for the health care centers would be subject to all the usual restrictions on how federal money is spent. One of those restrictions, the so-called Hyde Amendment, prohibits most federal funding for abortions. (Abortion has been a key point of contention in the health care reform debate on another front: whether consumers who purchase private insurance plans with the help of government subsidies can obtain plans that cover abortion.)
Other, similar parts of the Senate bill do include the explicit restriction. A provision providing funding for the Indian Health Service, for instance, notes: "Any limitation pursuant to other Federal laws on the use of Federal funds appropriated to the Service shall apply with respect to the performance or coverage of abortions." A section appropriating money for school-based health centers says the funds "may not be used to provide abortions." That's the sort of sentence that should have been added to the community health center section—but it wasn't.
"It seems that this is something that slipped by," Jost says, "because elsewhere in the bill they made [funding] subject to [the Hyde amendment]."
And that's how a silly slip-up allowed the anti-abortion forces to issue the dubious claim that this bill will unleash a flood of federally-funded abortions. But though the Democrats' omission makes it easier for anti-abortion rights groups to claim the community health care ceneters funding could pay for abortions, it doesn't make it true.
Community health centers don't perform abortions. They never have—not even in the 1960s and 1970s before the Hyde Amendment was introduced. And they don't plan to in the future. In a statement issued last week, the clinics' umbrella organization, the National Association of Community Health Centers (NACHC), said that "health centers do not plan to, nor are they seeking to, become providers of abortion." And Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius has pledged that none of the money from the health care bill will be used to fund abortions at community health centers.
Still, the pro-life groups say the funding for the community health centers funding will be exempt from the Hyde Amendment because it's not being spent through the normal appropriations process. It’s true that these funds will reach the centers through a different legislative route, but it doesn’t matter. As Jost has explained in a detailed analysis (PDF), all of the community health clinic money is going to end up in the same "pot" at the Department of Health and Human Services. And, he writes, since all HHS funding “is subject to the Hyde Amendment, these funds cannot be used to pay for abortions."
Michael Briggs, a spokesman for Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who originally pushed for the health center funding, said that anti-abortion groups were "misinterpreting" the provision. "We trust the association’s analysis, the four-decade track record of the health centers and the statement by the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services," he said. Unfortunately, powerful anti-abortion groups and pro-life lawmakers apparently don’t—and they’re using this flub to hold health care reform hostage. Given all the trouble the White House and Capitol Hill Democrats have had with the health care reform bill, the last thing they needed was another tussle over abortion. But one missing sentence in a 2700-page bill has made overhauling the health care system even harder.
Comments
Joe Lieberman is a "centrist"??
Not to be too nitpicky, but Lieberman is a right-wing, neoconservative independent, not a "centrist."
ObamaCare is a Flub!
Maybe the lesson is that you shouldn't draft major highly-partisan legislation in a rush, in the dark of night, behind closed doors, with special interest lobbyists peeking over your shoulder just so the President can have his legacy?
They should scrap this 2,300 page monstrosity and start over with common-sense reforms.
How Many Pages?
How many pages were in the bill to fund the Iraq War?
How many pages were in the bill to reduce taxes for the wealthy?
It amazes me that none of this was impt until President Obama got elected. No bagger, birther, bircher,deather, or truther made a peep about any of it.
Health care bill, Hyde ammendment SNAFU
Leave it to the Democrats to continue to screw up something that could have been a great thing for the general population. I'm not saying that the Republicans are any better at government, they are actually worse.
The difference is of course is, the real constituents of the Republicans are writing the bills for them so it's iron clad. The banks and insurance companies just hand over the bills get them passed.
Or maybe it means
The Conservatives will use any device to kill this bill, even though it's wording is perfectly adequate.
As you well know
It is a timid bill and leaves health care for US citizens far behind the standards of the rest of the civilized world. This bill will remedy some of the worst abuses of the insurance industry.
The Democrats won sweeping victories over the past few cycles.
It is about time that they brought needed change and common sense to an ossified, corrupt system.
So the rest of the world is
So the rest of the world is "civilized" and our system is "ossified and corrupt"...I think you need to live in one of those "civilized" countries and you will discover that, while our system needs improvement, our healthcare system is the best in the world. Please, go live in one of those "civilized" countries and come back enlightened.
HCR
Wrong. While our health care providers (doctors, nurses, etc.) and technology rank among the best in the world, the problem is that patients cannot access the current healthcare system because of lack of adequate insurance coverage. It's the insurance companies that have come between the patient and the doctor. If you don't have insurance you are pretty much on your own. Our maternal/child death rates have doubled in the last 20 years.
I challenge anyone to explain what aspect of health or healthcare the insurance industry enhances. They don't provide anything but just sit back and collect money. If you can't come up with their ever increasing fees you can't access the system.
I did
I had two children born in the US and one in France. The French system is less expensive, less bureaucratic and friendlier. We has a midwife in the delivery room and a pediatrician on the floor, overseeing several births.
We moved to England, where a child had an accident that severed a finger. It was expertly reattached at Addenbrooks Hospital. I do not think that there is a better team for this anywhere on Earth. I was working for the UK government, so I got the same National Health Care as any citizen. It is excellent care, even if the clinics can't afford original art in the waiting rooms.
So just stop talking if you don't have first hand experience. You talking points are wearing thin.
Best in the world?
When your insurance company starts "strongly encouraging" you to have your surgeries in the posh hospitals in what used to be third world countries because the cost of the care PLUS travel for two is less expensive than what can be had in the US, you'll experience the difference personally. "Strongly encouraging" turns to "incentives" which turns to "required" travel for treatment. I'm a health care administrator and I've seen it already...reform must come or our claim to having the best health care in the world will take on new meaning.
Please get the facts-
Please get the facts-
http://americanaffairs.suite101.com/article.cfm/where_the_us_ranks_in_wo...
Here is how the United States ranks (as of September 2009) world wide in regards to our current health care system:
1st in % of GDP spending - The United States spends 15.8% of GDP on
Health Care.
3rd in per capita spending- The United States spends $3,076 per capita on
Health Care
AND
49th in life expectancy (article states 50th - but if you go to the link the
U.S. is listed as 49th out of 224 countries) - Life expectancy in U.S. is 78.11 years
Here is how Canada ranks world wide in regards to their current health care system:
7th in % of GDP spending- Canada spends 10% of of their GDP on Health Care
What could the U.S. do with 5.8% of GDP freed up?
9th in per capita spending- Canada spends $2,587 per capita on Health Care
What if we could save $489 dollars per capita
on Health care?
8th in life expectancy - Life Expectancy in Canada is 81.23 years
3 years more to live - what is that worth to you?
HMMM- whose system seems more efficient? Whose system is showing better results?
This is just one of many sites where info like this can be gotten - other sites compare things like infant mortality rates etc.
That is- if you should ever be interested in the truth.
Our health care system
Measured by morbidity, longevity, clinical outcomes, infant mortality, etc, our health care system is about the 37th best in the world. Virtually all of the better health care systems have some form of universal health care in place, systems that avoid personal bankruptcies and poor utilization of preventive care. About 90,000 people die in U.S. hospitals every year due to hospital acquired infections or medical mistakes. That is a huge number and does not reflect a properly operating system of health care.
In some hi tech applications and surgeries and in keeping people over 80 alive, we do have the best health care. But, we can only do that for people over 80 because we have a socialized system of social security and medicare for senior citizens.
Canada
I live in Canada and can assure you that your health care system is the worst of the industrialized world. Your infant mortality rate is higher than most nations, your life expectancy is lower. The majority of people who declare bankruptcy are doing so because of medical costs, and the majority of them HAD insurance before they got hit with huge bills from the treatment.
Health care is not, and cannot be, a free market. You don't get to go into a hospital and say "no, don't want a heart attack today, I'll take the broken arm special."
Your suggestion doesn't make
Your suggestion doesn't make sense. Why scrap the entire 2,700 page bill for a no-brainer? The bill has been on the table for more than 14 months as of late. Would you scrap a term paper or research paper this late in the game if one was due?
What exactly do you mean by
What exactly do you mean by common-sense [sic]? You will find that what you consider to be common is really your opinion and that there can be a multitude of interpretations of that word. So stop using it as it were some sort of self-evident truth.
Reply to JohnD
"Maybe the lesson is that you shouldn't draft major highly-partisan legislation in a rush"
I'll give you 'major', and even 'highly-partisan' (due in large part to the Republicans, th tea-baggers, the birthers, and the rest). But, "In a rush". Really? I don't think so. This bill - in all it's reinventions has dragged thru both houses of Congress for the better part of a year. Everyone and his dog has had a chance to comment on it, add to it, subract from it, opine about it, etc.
Give it up -it was an honest mistake. I don't know if I'd call it a typo, since the person who was tasked with putting it all on paper probably simply transcribed what s/he was give - but since the Hyde amendment covers everything else, the 'framers' probably felt it was implicit and never gave it another thought. Is that careless? Sure, maybe even a little stupid. But they weren't trying to put something over on all you good old right-wingers (who apparently never made an error in your lives).
It's time to pass this puppy and move on.
You've learned your talking
You've learned your talking points well. Ditto Heads are good little boys and girls.
Obamacare is a Flub
So after a year of debate, this is still a rush job? You know, people have been talking about reforming healthcare for decades. it's "rushed". And if legislation is important , it's okay to stay at work after 6:00 o'clock isn't it? And legislation is done behind closed doors all the time. Where do all these committees meet? I watch C-SPAN and I never see 30 different groups all huddled together in the main room working on 30 different issues. All your arguments are nonsense. How many pages does it take to craft new Health Care reforms? Seeing how it hasn't been done before, who knows how many pages it takes? I'm really asking. How many pages is enough? Or too little? I know you think 2300 is too much, so I'd like a good number from you and an explanation of why 2300 is too much, seeing as how you've cafted no legislation, it would be interesting to hear your answer. If the conservatives had wanted to do something ,they could have been involved at the very beginning, but all they wanted to do was lie, lie and lie. So now, no no do overs. you should have been in it from the start. Now sit back and watch History happen.
A simple common sense reform would have been extend medicare
It is the opposition to common sense by the special interests that made the bill a monstrosity
It annoys me when lies like these continue to be spread.
Please, everyone, try to understand the issues before you make emotional comments like these. Particularly comments that are obviously not true. About drafting "legislation in a rush" - no. They've been working on this for a year. Highly partisan? Single payer was dropped, then public option was dropped in order to find more common ground. Not to mention a wealth of other compromises that made it into the bill. Including anti-abortion passages which no one really supports but is certainly a nod to the right.
Also, dark of night? The bill has been discussed on major channels, drafted on C-Span, put on the web, summarized for blogs, etc etc. Having our representatives actually work beyond normal office hours to draft this thing doesn't quite qualify as a secretive endeavor.
I have a feeling that once they know what's in the bill, most people would agree that it is quite full of common-sense reform.
Nice spin. And if a frog had
Nice spin. And if a frog had wings...
Maybe if they hadn't tried to rush a 2700 page bill, that no one person seems to have read, in "the dead of night", with only partisan support...
Chickens...roost.
Leaving out "just one
Leaving out "just one sentence" is what happens when you write a 2,700 page monstrosity, with votes in the dead of the night. Doesn't Planned Parenthood conduct abortions? They receive federal money, don't they? I've made many calls to my Rep. and Senator...KILL THIS FREAKIN BILL!!!!
If you or your friends have
If you or your friends have employer provided insurance, you already are funding abortions via the federal subsidies. Seriously, a really dumb argument.
Planned Parenthood
Yes, PP receives federal funds, but those funds are not used to provide abortion services. They are used to provide general gynological care and contraception, pre-natal care, well-baby exams, mammograms and cervical cancer screenings, flu shot clinics, etc. And PP is completely non-profit. Why don't you get your facts straight?
Even beyond the abortion
Even beyond the abortion debate, the healthcare reform proposals are asking people to trust the government; trust lawmakers to set policy that is in the best interest of all citizens (and arguably non-citizens) without negative unintended consequences at a time when most Americans are financially insecure. Those circumstances would be asking a lot to begin with. Then add the dysfunctional process we have seen over the past year of influence peddling, backroom dealing and divisive demonization and even the smallest shred of trust in lawmakers to set policy over our most personal issues and challenges is completely gone for all but those who have nothing to lose to begin with. This process has yet again exposed the yawning gap between the machinations of the political class and the wants and needs of citizens. It's not just one line here or there. Policy makers are asking for a deep level trust where little exists.
You're right. But who else
You're right. But who else can you trust? the Insurance industry? they make money by being conservative with payments and care. If you accept that there is a problem, then you accept that it was because of the Insurance Industry not in spite of them, so there is no help on that side. I'll choose the lesser of two evils here. If indurance companies wanted premiums low, covergae affordable and everyone covered they would have already done that by now. I don't see a choice here. Hoep for the best and for the negative consequences, we can hope that there are those in government who can fix it. otherwise, we'll continue on with premiums rising and businessess passing more of the cost to their employees with no end in sight.
Nice disinformation
If it had been a flub, Rep. Stupak would have had an easier time negotiating a change to the wording to fix the flub. As it stands now, our money will be used to pay(even indirectly) for others' abortions. You might be ok with that, but honesty would both be refreshing and helpful.
Take care!
Changing the Wording
See this comment below: http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/03/senate-health-care-bill-abortion...
They can't change the language under the reconciliation process they're using to pass changes to the bill.
With regards to funding abortions, two points. First, your money already subsidizes others' abortions in some sense. Private health insurance benefits are untaxed income, so anyone who receives private health insurance that covers abortion is having their abortions "subsidized" by the government.
Secondly, I think that even if the health care bill passes, Stupak will win out in the end. I anticipate that the Stupak amendment will replace the Hyde amendment during the appropriations process this year, and it will pass. The anti abortion rights caucus has the votes to force that, and it's very unlikely that pro-abortion rights Dems in the Senate will filibuster an appropriations bill.
Lieberman
jimbowski-
Maybe you should re-examine your opinion on Joe Lieberman.
http://lieberdem.blogspot.com/2006/07/truth-about-liebermans-voting-reco...
Oh please...
The only people that believe Liebrman is right-wing are the ones so far out in left field that they're in the parking lot.
"Michael Briggs, a spokesman for Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), said that anti-abortion groups were "misinterpreting" the provision. "
No, they are interpreting it the same way the courts would.
Lieberman
Lieberman is a Zionist schmuck whose patriotism, loyalties and allegiance lie first and uppermost most with Israel. There is not a Zionist in America, Christian or Jewish, including Blabber Biden and Rahm Emanuel, making a decision on American foreign policy weigh the effects it has on Israel's interest and the nation's interest . Even if the decision is not in the best interest of America but is in Israel's best interest. It has been like this for more than 60 years.
Perhaps
Perhaps the courts would interpret it that way. But it still wouldn't matter in practice. As soon as the new money enters the "pot" with the Hyde-restricted money, it acquires the same restrictions.
Also, there's existing law that restricts the use of HRSA-administered money: http://motherjones.com/mojo/2010/03/another-reason-health-centers-wont-f...
This is pretty clear cut. But they still should have included the explicit language.
"Community health centers
"Community health centers don't perform abortions.. .."
Oh, please. "If you fund it, it will come." Give me a list of federally funded programs that are NOT bigger and more expansive than they were originally designed to be.
The Senate screwed up. Whether they did it intentionally or not is besides the point. They either fix it or they pay the consequence (except, not, really; that's what used to happen when people were still held accountable for their actions).
Congress simply "forgot" to
Congress simply "forgot" to say that the money can't be used for abortions, huh? Is that like when they were "duped" into voting to invade Iraq?
Oops! Silly Congress.
Very sweet of you to claim that "it doesn't matter" but we have these things called lawyers who may well think otherwise. I'm not sure they'll check in with you before the machines start up.
It will all be fixed later, trust us.
I wholeheartedly trust the government to look out for my best interests. I completely expect that no politician will ever take advantage of a typo or loophole to do something against the spirit of a law. What could possibly go wrong with rushing through 2,000 odd pages of legislation in the middle of the night?
Flub? Where's your evidence?
I've read your article twice and I can't find any evidence produced that this was a "flub". You just have outsider abortion proponents saying, "nothing to see here, move along."
The fact that the limiting language appears in other places but not here is strong support for the "conservative talking point." It's a quite common tool in legal interpretation to reason that they knew how to restrict the funding, they did it elsewhere, but they didn't do it here. Therefore they intended to allow funding here.
Simpler Explanation
That doesn't make sense. Liberals really want to pass the bill. Why would they risk the entire bill just to sneak in a loophole that doesn't actually fund abortions?
Excellent point/analysis. Any
Excellent point/analysis. Any first year law student would agree (and I was one of those at some point!) This was not an oversight by the Dems, intentional attempt to let money flow toward clinics that fund abortions. My proof?? Just ask the Dems in support of the bill if they'd agree to a specific reference to the Hyde Amendment language applying to the health care bill in toto and they will NOT agree. They have an agenda. If you're that proud of it, say it out loud, but don't try to hide behind legalistic language. Why not say "this entire bill is governed by the long standing precedent that federal funds will not be expended to provide abortions" - but that would be plain English, understandable by all, debatable by all and they certainly don't want that!
Excellent point/analysis. Any
The article makes clear that these Health Clinics "have not, and will not provide abortions" so how is it that you suggests "This was not an oversight by the Dems, intentional attempt to let money flow toward clinics that fund abortions. " Some times it is not necessary to state the obvious.
Simple solution!
Put the line in and vote again. How simple a fix is that? :)
Senate Re-vote
To add the line would require the Senate to vote on the bill again. With Scott Brown now in the Senate the chances of passing the revised bill are slim.
"But one missing sentence in
"But one missing sentence in a 2700-page bill has made overhauling the health care system even harder."
I love the description - "something that slipped by" - one "error" made late at night when they were finishing up the bill. You think there will only be this one "error". . . with 2700 pages, over 300,000 words done late at night in the sausage factory that is the Congress?
This will work about as well as the old Soviet system of some yahoo in Moscow telling the shoe factories how many and what color shoes they should be making.
Too many people telling too many others how to live should be replaced with FREEDOM.
re: "But one missing sentence in
Well, we live in a well diverse nation, with a well diverse Congress to represent that well diverse constituents. What do you expect?
Passage will Destroy the Democratic Party
It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood .--James Madison
This bill will be over 5,000 pages long. The original Senate bill is 2,700 pages. The House "corrections" bill was just placed online yesterday and THAT bill is 2,309 pages long...read the above. Then remember this:
Homestead Act (1862) - 9 pages.
National Labor Relations Act (1935) [aka "Wagner Act"] - 25 pages.
Social Security Act (1935) - 82 pages.
Civil Rights Act (1964) - 74 pages.
All of these bills had a fundamental impact on altering the way we do many things in this country...not one of these bills exceeds 100 pages...this overt seizure (nationalization) of 1/6th of the economy will wreck what is left, turning a recession into a full blown depression. Perhaps that's the goal of this administration after all, you should never let a good crisis go to waste...
More importantly, I have come to the conclusion that if Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Barack Obama do succeed in ramming this through...over the objection of a strong majority (now @ 68% opposition) to this bill, the Democratic party may very well retain only 100-110 seats in the House, and lose 16 of the 17 Senate seats up for reelection. Losses that great will be the true tragedy of this...
This Nation is now based upon a two party system. That is entrenched within many of the laws in the various states...we as a country cannot afford for one party to be that much ascendant over the other. One party rule is not what this country wants...but ramming this bill through will do exactly that. It will destroy a great party. I say this not as a liberal but as a conservative (not Republican), I hope this bill fails because the ramifications of passage will be...dangerous.
But, my main opposition is that this bill sets up a 2 tiered system of health care. The Congress and all federal employees (judicial and executive as well) as well as unions, will be exempt from the provisions of this bill. So, if you work for the government, you'll have better health care than those who don't. That is the system the Soviet Union had for party members. Dammit if this bill is good enough for me, then it's good enough for EVERYONE!
Smaller = better?!
I'm not sure I agree with the premise that this is a "monstrosity" simply because of its length; if it had come in at a 40 pages I imagine the 'publicans would be yelling and screaming about how the government was trying to write law covering 1/6 of our economy with text much shorter than a Harry Potter children's novel. That is, to them there is no correct bill length because to them there is no correct bill.
Of course, Kucinich provided the shortest bill: extend medicare to everyone. I think that comes in at just a couple pages once you add all the boilerplate.
Overt seizure? Get real!
If you truthfully characterized the health reform bill, you would not refer to it as enabling an "overt seizure" of 1/6th of the economy . That kind of talk is sheer nonsense and nothing more than a Right Wing Talking point. The rest of your commentary is no more enlightening.
health insurance reform
So, the Congressional dolts messed up this one little, teeny, tiny piece of a 2700 page monstrosity of a bill? Gosh, what else could possibly go wrong? I'm hoping this article was a satire and not a serious attempt at defending that POS.
But the Hyde Amendment requires re-authorization
All the Democrats have to do is *fail* to renew it, and the Senate bill fully funds abortion services, via subsidies for insurance, in perpetuity.
that is, re-authorization annually
or the Hyde Amendment goes away.
That Won't Happen
They don't have the votes.
Post new comment
MoJo Comments: Send Us Your Feedback
We changed our spam software to better filter comments. Should you encounter any issues, please let us know.
