• Article Tools
• Print
• RSS

Health Care Reform, Abortion and the Hyde Amendment

by Charlie Spiering 

Will health care reform allow taxpayer funding for abortions? This question is one of many surrounding the health care battle that raged all summer, and a major element at the center of that debate is the Hyde Amendment.

For years, pro-life activists and legislators have effectively restricted the use of taxpayer dollars from abortion funding. King among such legislation is the Hyde Amendment: No federal funds can be used toward abortion except to preserve the life of the mother or in cases of rape and incest. For decades, this restriction has been maintained in America’s legislative process, frustrating pro-abortion activists.

That’s why the abortion industry has fought tooth and nail to oppose similar restrictions for the health care bill. So far they have won the most important battles, paying lip service to the Hyde Amendment while looking forward to an era when it no longer forces them to jump through hoops to acquire funding.

Rep. Lois Capps’ amendment on abortion funding in the House version of the bill was offered as a compromise, that would “continue the current ban on federal funding for abortion” as articulated by Hyde.

But her colleague in the House, Rep. Bart Stupak – a leading Democrat abortion opponent – said the abortion restrictions in the Capps Amendment are an illusion.

“For the first time ever, federal policy is saying that abortion is a covered service. That is completely opposite of Hyde,” said Rep. Stupak.  “Second, if I’m in the public plan, I have to give one dollar per month (to abortion coverage). I’m a man, and I can’t get an abortion, but I have to pay for it. Those are two major differences from Hyde.”

Under enormous pressure from pro-choice activists, congressional members in both the Senate and House have rejected attempts to include language similar to the Hyde Amendment in the health care bill, and now  political figures are employing political doublespeak to ward off criticism.

For example, an amendment recently proposed by Sen. Orrin Hatch would have barred any federal assistance to health care plans that include coverage for abortions.

Prior to voting against the amendment, Sen. Max Baucus insisted, “No federal funds will be used for abortion. Period.”

His colleague Sen. Olympia Snowe similarly asserted, “We want to preserve the status quo on abortion.”

The vote was narrowly defeated in the Senate committee 13-10. What is more scandalous is that three Catholic senators joined their colleagues voting against the amendment.

Critics insisted that the abortion restriction amendment went “too far,” even though it only sought to continue the tradition of the Hyde Amendment. As Sen. Hatch put it, “All I’m asking — my gosh — is for specific language in the bill that prohibits federal dollars from being used to fund abortions.”

This outright refusal to apply principles of the Hyde Amendment may discourage many pro-life politicians from supporting the bill in its final form. Rep. Stupak told the New York Times that he had commitments from 40 Democrats to block the health care bill unless they have a chance to include the restrictions.

Now that the bill has moved out of committee without protections against abortion, the USCCB has voiced their “disappointment” with the final bill, vowing to oppose the health care bill until it is corrected.

Richard Doerflinger, associate director of pro-life activities for the USCCB, noted that “no current health care bill approved by committee is consistent with longstanding and widely supported federal policies on abortion and conscience rights.”

That hasn’t stopped the Obama administration and pro-abortion supporters from citing the Hyde Amendment to cover their actions. White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs continues to suggest that the Hyde Amendment will serve as a safeguard against funding abortion.

These assertions are incorrect.

According to the Associated Press, proposed legislation would permit government-sponsored health plans, open to non-Medicaid patients, to cover abortions.

Political assertions are even more suspect as lawmakers vote for provisions that mandate the availability in each state of at least one plan that covers abortion.

“One more misunderstanding I want to clear up – under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place,” Obama stated in his address to Congress.

If this is really the case, why has Congress voted multiple times against these very restrictions?

Currently the plan doesn’t send federal checks to abortion clinics, but it will pay into a system covering abortions in America. It’s like saying that federal funds won’t be used to pay for marijuana but will offer funding for programs that will fund marijuana. Pro-abortion activists are working to protect their new system of funding for the abortion industry using health insurance companies as a middle man.

As a result of continued muted doublespeak, only politicians who are staunchly pro-life will oppose the health care bill. Others will continue to enjoy wiggle-room on the funding question, unless pro-life activists refuse to back down.

Catholics would do well to join the U.S. bishops in writing a letter to congressional members stating, “We remain apprehensive when amendments protecting freedom of conscience and ensuring no taxpayer money for abortion are defeated in committee votes. If acceptable language in these areas cannot be found, we will have to oppose the health care bill vigorously.”

Planned Parenthood, the largest provider of abortions in America, notes on their website, “If our opponents are successful, access to abortion will be practically eliminated in health care reform.”

Judging by their victories so far, they have no reason to worry.

 

---

(The views expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the positions of Headline Bistro or the Knights of Columbus.)