The bipartisan amendment in the health care bill, proposed today by Democratic Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska with eight Republicans and Democratic Sen. Robert Casey from Pennsylvania, is similar to a measure already passed in the House health care legislation. It would prohibit private insurers that get federal money from providing abortion and would also bar recipients of federal affordability tax credits from purchasing a policy that covers abortion.
The amendment is expected to come to a vote on Tuesday.
The House amendment, crafted by Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., took similar steps by not only cutting federal funding for abortion-related services, but also limiting access to abortions for people who receive federal subsidies and those who purchase insurance through a health insurance exchange, a marketplace where people would be able to shop for and compare insurance plans.
The current language in the Senate health care bill restricts the use of public funds for abortion services. But private insurance plans that are offered in the insurance exchange can cover abortion if funds for the procedure are used only from premiums paid by beneficiaries.
"As written, the Senate health care bill allows taxpayer dollars, directly and indirectly, to pay for insurance plans that cover abortion," Nelson said in a statement. "For more than 30 years, taxpayers' money hasn't been used for abortions, a standard that has the broad support of the American people. This rule now applies to federal health programs covering veterans, federal employees, Native Americans, active duty service members and others, and should extend to those covered by any new health care bill."
Democrats are deeply divided over the abortion language in the bill. Casey today expressed optimism that his party members will come to a consensus on the issue, even as some liberal Democrats expressed outrage.
"The public option obviously is a lot more similar or akin to Medicaid, a government program that has public money," Casey said in an interview with MSNBC today. "It is more difficult -- and this is where the conflict arises -- in the exchange, something we've never had to deal with before. But I believe that the intent of a lot of members of the Senate on the pro-choice and pro-life side is to prevent public dollars, taxpayer dollars from paying for abortion."
Liberal Democrats say such a move must be defeated because it would bar even those procedures that would be paid for by the consumers themselves.
"Let's be clear, the bill as it stands does continue the current law. What this amendment does, is it goes further. You can't use private money in the private market and, frankly, I think that goes too far," Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., said on CBS' "The Early Show" today.
"I think the majority of the Senate will oppose this amendment and leave the current law in place: no federal money for abortion services," McCaskill added.