This morning, David Brody of the Christian Broadcasting Network posted a video of California Democratic Rep. Zoe Lofgren being questioned at a public meeting about coverage of abortions in the health-care-reform legislation. As many town-hall meetings have illustrated this week, there’s much misinformation circulating about the reform bills, and it's seriously hindering rational debate over health care. Many of the crazier myths─like the one about death panels─are easy to dispel. But the question of whether the government will fund abortion is a little trickier. Why? Mainly because we’re still not sure what the final legislation will look like, but also because the answer is convoluted.

The House bill (H.R. 3200) doesn't mention abortion at all, prompting opponents of abortion in both parties to worry that federal funds could used to pay for the procedure. Twenty House Democrats signed a letter to their leadership emphasizing this concern. Their worries aren't entirely unfounded, but they are misleading. This issue isn't new, however─it was the impetus for a 1976 provision, the Hyde amendment, which prohibits Medicaid funds from being used for elective abortions. That won't change. Medicaid still won't be able to fund elective abortions. Rep. Lois Capps (D-Calif.) offered a Hyde-like amendment that was approved by the House Energy and Commerce Committee and has a good chance of ending up in the final legislation. (It is critical to remember here that we do not have a finalized piece of legislation yet, so both the concerns and their solutions are still somewhat speculative.) The Capps amendment bars the public option from using federal funds to cover abortion, but allows for private plans in the exchange to cover them. It does not require private plans to cover abortion, nor does it prohibit them from doing so. Abortions provided under a public plan could only be funded by premiums, not by federal subsidies. It's an attempt at a middle ground.

But critics on both sides are unhappy. Pro-choice advocates see no reason why a public option shouldn't cover abortions, which are, of course, a legal procedure. Anti-abortion activists worry that taxpayers' money will ultimately end up funding abortions. This is where it gets a little complicated. Bear with me. Basically, H.R. 3200 will set up regional insurance exchanges where those people eligible to participate (mainly the currently uninsured or workers in very small businesses) can shop for plans that suit their needs. In the exchange, private plans will compete with a public option. For low-income people using the exchange, the government will provide a subsidy that they will then put toward a plan of their choice. If the chosen plan covers abortions, then it's conceivable that, for women who seek terminations, part of the cost will be paid for by the federal subsidy that has helped those women pay for their insurance in the first place. 

So there is a small chance that some money that anti-abortion advocates pay in taxes will end up, in a roundabout way, paying for abortions. But that raises another question: how is that different from now? Federal money is already funneled to hospitals that perform abortions. While these funds don't directly pay for the abortions, they help keep those hospitals running. They help hospitals pay for the electricity bills, supplies, and wages that keep them open, and thus indirectly enable abortions to be performed. The government also funds family-planning clinics, which both perform terminations and advise women on them. And even though Medicaid doesn't cover abortions, some state governments help poor women pay for them. Similarly, if a private insurer covers abortions, there's no guarantee that the premiums paid by an abortion opponent who's covered by that insurer won't end up paying for a termination. Of course, that abortion opponent could opt for a different plan, but most people don't have that luxury, as they're tied to the insurer their employer has chosen.

There's perhaps no easy way to solve this issue and keep both sides happy. But, if you'd like some more reading, here are a couple of ideas, from Slate's Meredith Simons and BeliefNet's Steven Waldman, that might just work.