• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • A History of Insisting: Abortion and the House of Representatives

    Democratic leaders in the House of Representatives appear to have abandoned their efforts to persuade a small band of pro-life members of their party to vote for a Senate bill that contains numerous provisions that subsidize elective abortion. Instead, the Democratic leaders are daring those pro-life members not to vote for the permissive Senate bill and take what they believe will be heat for defeating health reform. In something of a reverse grief cycle, Speaker of the House Pelosi has moved from bargaining to anger. It remains to be seen whether the death of the health care reform she favors lies along that axis or whether a resurrection is at hand.

    The stakes could not be clearer for the “Stupak 12,” a group of House members largely from the industrial heartland who either have served in Congress for decades or who occupy seats that, though they may “swing” between the two major parties, don’t swing on the abortion funding issue.

    District 1 of Ohio is a case in point. The seat is now held by first-term Democratic Rep. Steve Driehaus, who voted for both the comprehensive Stupak-Pitts pro-life amendment and for the House health care bill. Driehaus is facing a reelection challenge from the candidate he defeated in 2008, Steve Chabot. Chabot also strongly opposes abortion but is a declared foe of the massive health care reform legislation. Cincinnati is one of the most conservative areas in the state and it was long represented by former Cincinnati Mayors Tom Luken and his son Charlie Luken, Democrats who, like Chabot and Driehaus, consistently voted for abortion funding limits like the Hyde amendment.

    Strong opposition to federal payments for abortion permeates Ohio 1 and other districts now held by the Stupak 12. These members of Congress are likely aware that throughout the entire history of the abortion funding debates in Congress, it has been axiomatic that the House of Representatives has favored tighter limits than the generally more permissive Senate. Repeatedly since 1976, when the Hyde amendment was first adopted, the House of Representatives has initiated restrictions on abortion funding on the appropriations bills that, constitutionally, must originate in that chamber. In those years when attempts have been made to liberalize the funding law, it was invariably the Senate that pushed for expansion against strong House resistance.

    It’s the height of irony therefore that President Obama and the Congressional Democratic leadership have been asking the Stupak dozen to accept that the Senate will rescue them politically by adopting abortion funding limits that will be omitted when the Senate bill is approved on the House floor. It is doubly ironic because, once Stupak and company have presumably abandoned their bedrock principles, the Senate bill would go directly to the President for his signature. Senators who favor both abortion funding and Obamacare will have achieved their goal and will have no incentive whatsoever to adopt a reconciliation bill that contradicts their own policy goals.

    Considerations like this have kept the House of Representatives voting time and again over the last 35 years to insist on its position on abortion funding and compel the Senate to give ground in search of a compromise. Speaker Pelosi now seems to have recognized this fact and chosen to move on without as many as a dozen Democratic members she and President Obama desperately need.

    Posted in Obamacare [slideshow_deploy]

    4 Responses to A History of Insisting: Abortion and the House of Representatives

    1. John, Cincinnati says:

      I think out of respect it's important to note that Steve Chabot is a former Congressman (7 terms), this was not noted in the article.

    2. Billie says:

      again, individual people are in control of their personal behavior. Why are the taxpayers held accountable for the consequences of personal behavior?

      And WHY are they SO insistent on implementing this ugly, immoral, provision. They devalue human life so much, who knows what will happen to penalties of murder. Oh wait, I guess we already know their favoring of terrorists and of course, this abortion provision. Something smells worse then it is…

    3. Pingback: “Stupak: Dems Told Me Funding Abortion Is Good, Because Kids Are Costly” and related posts | Socialinks

    4. Jen Kuznicki, Hawks says:

      Stupak hasn't any problems with the rest of the bill. I believe he will cave in the end, either by saying what he said at a Cheboygan Town Hall last year, "I tried," or by accepting assurances that this will all be settled during, "reconciliation" (his favorite word.)

      The last major news report on Stupak has him saying the words, “Money is their hang-up. Is this how we now value life in America? If money is the issue — come on, we can find room in the budget. This is life we’re talking about.”

      Very different than the words he used at the Tawas Town Hall to explain to a supporter his rationalization of the abortion issue v. 45,000 deaths due to no health care.

      "Q7- I was wondering how you derive the dichotomy between the 450,000 people that would die annually without health care, and abortion? How do you deal with that?

      S- How do I deal with it? 45,000 people each year die because they lack health insurance and access to medical care um, they are born, they are into this country, they had an opportunity at life, how do you deny someone that right? So, I think it’s consistent.

      This bill, I’ll probably get a couple of people cranked at me, this bill is really a Right to Life Bill. If you are having a child right now, what do you get on Medicaid? You get 2 appointments before the child is born and one after, and that’s our prenatal health care, which most babies are born on right now.

      So, I think this bill is a pro-life bill, it promotes preventive, healthy living, it promotes healthy babies being born.

      Audience member- What bill are you talking about?

      S- House bill.

      Audience member- But that’s not in play right now.

      S- Yeah, it’s still in play, the Senate can pass it tomorrow if they wanted to, but they don’t want to, they wrote their own bill."


    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.