Concessions on abortion coverage were vital in the House’s passage of their health insurance bill last Saturday. But those concessions are not sitting well with a lot of Democrats, including two of the main contenders for Ted Kennedy’s seat. Both frontrunners Attorney General Martha Coakley and Representative Michael E. Capuano have come out against the bill in response to the Stupak-Pitts Amendment, which prohibits federal plans from covering abortions.
“To pretend that now the House has passed this bill is real progress — it’s at the expense of women’s access to reproductive rights, ” Coakley told Boston radio station WTKK-FM.
The president isn’t sold on the abortion provisions in the House bill, either. “There needs to be some more work before we get to the point where we’re not changing the status quo (on abortion), ” President Obama told ABC News on Monday.
While the president is unequivocal about not allowing federal funds to subsidize abortion (this has been barred by the Hyde Amendment since 1976), he promises to balance this against “not restricting women’s insurance choices. ”
This issue gets grey very quickly because reform can affect abortion in a myriad of ways — all that honors the Hyde Amendment — but pan out differently in practice. Unfortunately, this is generating a lot of bombast and misleading statements from both sides. It’s probably creating much more controversy than it should, but certainly understandable since abortion is such an emotionally wrought issue.
Even the White House acknowledges the sensitivity of the issue. They were quick to point out that this is a health care bill, not an abortion bill.
For a good, sober breakdown of the Stupak-Pitts Amendment’s nitty-gritty details, we recommend Politifact’s discussion of the matter.