In a city where few secrets are kept, Democratic Majority Leader Harry Reid managed to keep the latest iteration of the Senate's health-care reform bill under wraps even as the Congressional Budget Office scored it just a few hours ago as costing $849 billion over 10 years, big news in the yearlong debate. A source in the leader's office confirmed to NEWSWEEK that the abortion language Reid includes in the bill is less restrictive than what the House passed last week. The Senate maintains the status quo of 30 years, in which public funds cannot be used to pay for abortion services. The language resembles what the House bill originally had before a power play by the Catholic Bishops forced the Democratic pro-choice majority to accept an amendment offered by pro-life Democratic Rep. Bart Stupak.
This small victory by the pro-choice side does not mean the fight is over—far from it. One analyst on the Democratic side said that Reid's choice of the less-restrictive language leaves room to move to the right, hopefully not all the way to the Stupak amendment, but to a compromise embodied in language offered by another pro-life House Democrat, Indiana Rep. Brad Ellsworth. His amendment would allow health providers to segregate funds between public money and private money, which is done all the time. The bishops protested last week that because money is fungible, separating funds is unworkable. But it's done routinely by Catholic institutions that receive federal money to run soup kitchens and other social services, and don't use government money to proselytize.
Right-to-life forces were thrilled last week with the Stupak amendment. It was the biggest gain they had made legislatively in 30 years. The fact that it's not in the bill Reid is unveiling is one small step along a still very rocky road for both sides in the abortion debate. Red-state conservative Democrats—Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu, and Blanche Lincoln—have backed down in recent days, saying they would be satisfied with language that bans federal money from abortion but doesn't broaden the restrictions to force women to buy separate abortion riders, which seem nonsensical on their face. Who plans to have an abortion?
The fights will now move to the Senate floor. There are two numbers to watch: (1) Can an anti-abortion amendment offered by, say, Utah Republican Orrin Hatch, or pro-life Democrat Bob Casey, get 60 votes? Probably not, but Reid will have to get 60 votes to even proceed with debate on the bill. (2) Getting that 60 could mean putting stronger anti-abortion language in the bill to get those red-state Democrats. Looking at it from the positive side, it's an arrow in Reid's quiver to get votes, just as Nancy Pelosi did when she caved in to the bishops. It's not pretty, but it's how the legislative process could well unfold.
Uncommon Knowledge
Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.
Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.
