Will Liberals Draw the Line on Abortion? Probably Not.

Anti-abortion members in the House got a big win Saturday with the passage of the Stupak amendment. The amendment aims to prevent federal funds from being used to procure abortions, following current federal policy that bans Medicaid from offering elective abortions. But Stupak's impact will be broader. It will essentially bar women who purchase insurance through the new insurance exchange (that is, predominantly poor women or those who don't currently have coverage) from procuring abortions through plans they buy on the exchange. It does this by preventing insurers from covering the procedure in any plans that customers purchase using federal subsidies. Because insurers in the exchange can't turn customers away, and because it is virtually impossible to separate the funds coming from women who receive subsidies and those who don't, the Stupak amendment will effectively prevent any insurers who participate in the exchange from covering elective abortions.

Pro-choice liberals held their noses and voted for the amendment, knowing that without it, the entire enterprise would likely fail. And yet it still wasn't enough to gain the votes of 38 moderate Democrats or more than one Republican. There was never any real hope that the GOP would vote for the bill, so it's a remarkable statement about our political system that people with no intention of ever voting for the bill could have such an much impact over its content. But the worrying sign for liberals and progressives in the Senate is that it still wasn't enough to get consensus in the Democratic caucus.

Thirty House members who were elected in districts that went for McCain got cold feet and voted against the bill. A few of those who are on particularly shaky electoral ground were probably give a pass by Nancy Pelosi, once she'd reached 218. Another eight elected in districts that Obama won also got gun shy for a variety of reasons, including progressive activist Dennis Kucinich, who worried that the bill didn't do enough to stymie the power of health insurers. (The Wall Street Journal's Washigton Wire blog has a good summary of the reasons various Democrats voted against the bill.)

This no doubt worries Harry Reid─he doesn't have the margins that Pelosi had to play with. Losing 38 Democrats is about 15 percent of Pelosi's caucus. If Reid lost 15 percent of his caucus, the bill would be a miserable failure. Even if he somehow manages to get the two Maine senators, Snowe and Collins, to vote for his bill, he still needs 58 Democratic senators, or 97 percent of his caucus, to fall in line for the bill to even make it to the vote. Compared to Reid, Pelosi's numbers are downright luxurious.

Since Saturday's vote, moderate Senate Democrats, notably Ben Nelson have indicated they'll accept nothing less than the Stupak language in the Senate bill, making the prospect of curbing the Stupak language in the conference process increasingly remote. Liberals are already fuming, and this development won't help. Last night, the president, acknowledging that "there are strong feelings on both sides," told ABC News that "there needs to be some more work done" on the Stupak amendment to bring it in line with the status quo regarding the ban on federally funded abortions. But given the numbers Harry Reid has to work with, the notion that he'll be able to squeeze an abortion concession out of less liberal caucus that Pelosi had to work with is starting to seem fanciful. (Especially if, as Jane Hamsher notes, pro-choice groups don't heat up their lukewarm response.)

The question for progressives is whether this issue is reason enough to jeopardize the entire bill. After Saturday's historic win for health-care reform in the House, it seems deeply unlikely liberals will throw a year's worth of legislative work─and decades of effort─on the trash heap over this issue. Moderates on the other hand, don't seem to share those qualms.