• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Repealing Taxpayers' Conscience Protections on Abortion

    The Senate’s 54-45 vote last evening to table the Hatch-Nelson abortion funding limitation sets the two chambers of Congress on a collision course with one another – with Democrats driving both vehicles involved in the collision. Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) led the way in devising and debating his bipartisan amendment, which would have extended the long-time  Federal Employee Health Benefits (FEHB) abortion funding policy and applied it to the insurance plans that will be subsidized under the bill.

    Conscience protections become yet another banner of liberty trampled by the health care reform stampede, even as its sponsors seek to assure Americans that the overhaul is an expansion of freedom.

    The nearly two dozen abortion funding prohibitions in current federal law reflect two basic principles: 1) that, except in situations involving the life of the mother, rape and incest, the federal government will not pay for or reimburse for abortions under federal programs like Medicaid; and 2) that, with the same exceptions listed above, the federal government will not subsidize insurance plans that offer coverage for abortion, which includes what the federal FEHB web site rightly calls “the widest selection of health plans in the country,” the FEHB system. This is the status quo that Hatch-Nelson would preserve and that the U.S. Senate yesterday voted to change.

    Meanwhile, the health care bill that passed the U.S. House of Representatives on November 7 includes an amendment similar to Nelson-Hatch, called Stupak-Pitts. The fight for this amendment was led by Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI), and 63 other Democrats joined Stupak in the final 240-194 tally in its favor. In the Senate, only seven Democrats voted for Hatch-Nelson. As various commentators have pointed out, neither side in the debate over the future of taxpayer funding for abortion is likely to compromise – the difference in 2009 is that, due to the Democrats’ deliberate strategy of supporting pro-life House members in swing districts in 2006 and 2008, the decisive clash of opinion is the one taking place within the majority caucus.

    Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) previously indicated that some effort will be made to satisfy Nelson if his amendment failed. But that may only occur if his vote is needed to make the 60-vote threshold for moving a final version of the bill. It’s hard to imagine that the Senate’s liberal wing, including those like Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) who spoke against Nelson yesterday, won’t urge Reid to make compromises with Senators like Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and Susan Collins (R-ME) on other features of the bill rather than with Nelson on abortion funding. For now, the Senate bill differs sharply from the House version and the question is whether the new Democratic House members will hold to the commitments they have made.

    At stake is the future of health care in America and with it, a permanent and growing breach in the wall of conscience protection that has kept U.S. taxpayers from subsidizing most abortions for more than 30 years.

    Posted in Obamacare [slideshow_deploy]

    5 Responses to Repealing Taxpayers' Conscience Protections on Abortion

    1. Pingback: With Napalitano’s TSA oversight; we need to add her to the DHS Watch List « VotingFemale Speaks!

    2. Pingback: ADF Alliance Alert » Repealing Taxpayers’ Conscience Protections on Abortion

    3. Pingback: Breaking: Obama announces proposals aimed at saving a job, His « VotingFemale Speaks!

    4. Bobbie Jay says:

      Why was this even considered? Because pregnancy for one, is a result of personal action, abortion is a personal choice, whose expense is put on those involved (personal responsibility). and because it infringes on many beliefs whom value human life, and because there are resources to protect human life, without expense to the potential murderer, WHY IS IT EVEN CONSIDERED? WHERE'S THE EPIDEMIC?

    5. john brandon alabama says:

      Franken & Schumer are just examples of the arrogance & disdain that this Congress has shown toward the American people. They care only for power as they throw us under the bus. The Constitution means nothing to politicians! Healthcare is not a right & it is not in the Constitution but it matters not to them. Our GREAT COUNTRY does not need these politicians either Republican or Democrat! Get people with courage & backbone to fight for ggood Americans!

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.

    ×