Senate Rejects House Abortion Language for Health Reform

The Senate today rejected the controversial abortion amendment that divided Democrats. My colleague, Z. Byron Wolf, has more from Capitol Hill: Senators rejected language to further restrict insurance coverage for abortions for people who get government help under Democrats’ health reform proposal. The vote was 54 to 45 with Democrats Evan Bayh of Indiana, Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, Kent Conrad of North Dakota, Byron Dorgan of North Dakota, Ted Kaufman of Delaware, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, and Mark Pryor of Arkansas voting in favor of the amendment. Republicans Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, both of Maine, opposed it. Abortion will remain an important issue in the health reform debate. The vote may alienate Democrat Ben Nelson, who opposes abortion rights. His vote would be needed to break a Republican filibuster of the bill. Even if Nelson can be brought on-board, a House bill, which narrowly passed last month, includes the more restrictive language. The two would have to be reconciled. And the emotional chord that the issue strikes was evident on the Senate floor. The Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, opposes abortion rights, but voted against the more restrictive language today. Reid is not normally an engaging speaker, but in explaining his vote he raised his voice, saying that expanding health insurance coverage “chooses life” just as much as opposing abortion. “No one should use the issue of abortion to rob millions of the opportunity to get good health care,” Reid said. “We cannot be distracted by detours or derailed by diversions,” he said, adding later, “This is a health care bill. It is not an abortion bill. We cannot afford to miss the big picture.” Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska, the author of the amendment and another Democrat who opposes abortion rights, said that his amendment simply continues current law, in place for 30 years, that prohibits the use of federal dollars for abortions. “Taxpayers shouldn't be required to pay for people's abortions. It’s just that simple,” Nelson said on the Senate floor. “All current federal health programs disallow the use of federal funds to help pay for health plans that include abortion. our amendment only continues that established federal policy,” he said. But several Democratic women gave impassioned speeches against the amendment. They said it goes much further than current law because it would ban coverage for abortion for people receiving federal assistance even if those people pay for the abortion coverage themselves with premiums. This so-called firewall between what public funds pay for in coverage and what premiums pay for is used elsewhere, but not for people on Medicare or federal employees. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.,  called the amendment a “harsh and unnecessary step back.” Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., saw the amendment as an attempt to roll back a woman’s right to seek an abortion at all. “You have to look behind at this amendment to really understand how pernicious it really is. because the whole point of it is, and I — five male colleagues on the other side of the aisle were on the floor for, I don't know, at least an hour talking about this amendment. and each and every one of them want to make abortion illegal,” said Boxer. “There's no question about it. they want to take away a woman's right to choose, even in the earliest stages of a pregnancy. even if it impacts her health, her ability to remain fertile, her ability to avoid a very serious health issue, such as, a heart problem or a stroke. they don't want to have an exception for women's health. no questions that what they want."