Newsweek - National News, World News, Health, Technology, Entertainment and more... - Newsweek.com
SPONSORED BY
Full Post
Posted Wednesday, November 18, 2009 6:23 PM

Stupak Abortion Measure Stopped...for the Moment

Eleanor Clift
In a city where few secrets are kept, Democratic Majority Leader Harry Reid managed to keep the latest iteration of the Senate’s health-care reform bill under wraps even as the Congressional Budget Office scored it just a few hours ago as costing $849 billion over 10 years, big news in the yearlong debate. A source in the leader’s office confirmed to NEWSWEEK that the abortion language Reid includes in the bill is less restrictive than what the House passed last week. The Senate maintains the status quo of 30 years, in which public funds cannot be used to pay for abortion services. The language resembles what the House bill originally had before a power play by the Catholic Bishops forced the Democratic pro-choice majority to accept an amendment offered by pro-life Democratic Rep. Bart Stupak.

This small victory by the pro-choice side does not mean the fight is over—far from it. One analyst on the Democratic side said that Reid’s choice of the less-restrictive language leaves room to move to the right, hopefully not all the way to the Stupak amendment, but to a compromise embodied in language offered by another pro-life House Democrat, Indiana Rep. Brad Ellsworth. His amendment would allow health providers to segregate funds between public money and private money, which is done all the time. The bishops protested last week that because money is fungible, separating funds is unworkable. But it’s done routinely by Catholic institutions that receive federal money to run soup kitchens and other social services, and don’t use government money to proselytize.

Right-to-life forces were thrilled last week with the Stupak amendment. It was the biggest gain they had made legislatively in 30 years. The fact that it’s not in the bill Reid is unveiling is one small step along a still very rocky road for both sides in the abortion debate. Red-state conservative Democrats—Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu, and Blanche Lincoln—have backed down in recent days, saying they would be satisfied with language that bans federal money from abortion but doesn’t broaden the restrictions to force women to buy separate abortion riders, which seem nonsensical on their face. Who plans to have an abortion?

The fights will now move to the Senate floor. There are two numbers to watch: (1) Can an anti-abortion amendment offered by, say, Utah Republican Orrin Hatch, or pro-life Democrat Bob Casey, get 60 votes? Probably not, but Reid will have to get 60 votes to even proceed with debate on the bill. (2) Getting that 60 could mean putting stronger anti-abortion language in the bill to get those red-state Democrats. Looking at it from the positive side, it’s an arrow in Reid’s quiver to get votes, just as Nancy Pelosi did when she caved in to the bishops. It’s not pretty, but it’s how the legislative process could well unfold.
Advertisement
You must be a registered user to comment.  Click here to register.  Already a user?  Click here to login.

Member Comments

Posted By: rockyraccoon (November 19, 2009 at 2:57 PM)

Askme,

Abortion is one of the safest medical procedures performed today (as long as it is performed legally and supervised by a doctor). There is always the chance of complications with any medical procedure-this is an unfortunate side effect. However, in most cases there are not severe complications and women are typically able to safely terminate an unwanted pregnancy. One of the most common misconceptions about abortion is that it results in increased difficulty in carrying a pregnancy to term in the future. This is not truthful and largely used as scare tactic to prevent women from obtaining the abortions they want or need. The only risk to future fertility is if the uterus is injured or an infection ensues and remains untreated. However, these complications are rare and the result of inadequate medical care.

I do agree that people should practice safe sex if they are not prepared to deal with an unwanted pregnancy. IUDs are a wonderful method of birth control, however, not suitable for every woman. They can be extremely painful for women who have not given birth before (in which case I would recommend a copper IUD-hormone free and has a higher success rate for those who have not had children before). Tying your tubes is NOT an acceptable or recommended form of short-term birth control. While these surgeries can be reversed, the ability to success rate of the reversal rate is very low. This method should only be pursued by woman who are fairly certain they have no desire to have a larger family, as there is a heightened chance of inability to conceive after the procedure has been performed.

I caution you from giving medical advice when you are not qualified, as it may be very confusing for individuals seeking accurate and reliable information.


Posted By: Askme (November 19, 2009 at 10:38 AM)

Ladies, lets block the Uterus. Blocking the Uterus is the answer to stop getting pregnant which then there is no need for abortion. Mirena IUD device, a doctor inserts a T-shape device in the uterus to prevent a woman from becoming pregnant  Abortion can result in 1.cut/torn cervix 2.blood clots in uterus 3.pelvic infection 4.incomplete abortion 5.death 6. complications from anesthesia 7. repeated abortion if the 1st try didn't end the pregnancy 8. pelvic infection(germs from vagina or cervix enter the uterus) 9.perforation of the uterus 10. problems with childbearing in the future, plus there is the emotional. I have known women who went for the more permanent method which is tying the tubes which I have read is reversible.


Posted By: Davole (November 19, 2009 at 9:11 AM)

Typical democrat tactic - they were for it, before they were against it!

Today, the democrats will, in unison, raise their index fingers in the air to decide which way the political wind is blowing.