|
Senators reject stronger anti-abortion language
2009-09-30
WASHINGTON - In a vote with far-reaching political implications, senators writing a health care overhaul Wednesday rejected a bid to strengthen anti-abortion provisions in the legislation -- which could reach the Senate floor in the next two weeks. The 13-10 vote by the Senate Finance Committee could threaten support for the health care bill from some Catholics who otherwise back its broad goal of expanding coverage. But women's groups are likely to see the committee's action as a reasonable compromise on a divisive issue that is always fraught with difficulties. Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, argued that provisions already in the bill to restrict federal funding for abortions needed to be tightened to guarantee they would be ironclad. But his amendment failed to carry the day. One Republican -- Olympia Snowe of Maine -- voted with the majority. One Democrat -- Kent Conrad of North Dakota -- supported Hatch. Separately, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said that the full Senate could start voting on health care legislation the week of Oct. 12, after the Columbus Day holiday. Reid has to meld the Finance bill with legislation that the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee approved this summer. The abortion debate in the Finance Committee is certain to be waged again -- with higher stakes and greater intensity -- on the Senate floor. Finance chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., argued that his bill already incorporates federal law that bars abortion funding, except in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother. It would require health plans to keep federal subsidies separate from any funds used to pay for abortions in all other cases. A major concern for abortion opponents -- including Catholic bishops -- is that those underlying restrictions have to be renewed every year. If Congress fails to renew the ban one year, plans funded through the health care overhaul would be allowed to cover the procedure, abortion opponents contend. Abortion rights supporters respond that adding a permanent restriction on abortion funding to the health bill would actually go beyond current federal law_in which such curbs have to be renewed every year. "This is a health care bill," said Baucus. "This is not an abortion bill. And we are not changing current law." Hatch said his language, "would codify it, so we don't have to go through it every year." Abortion rights supporters said the Hatch language could deny coverage for abortion to working women signing up for coverage through private plans. Its approval would be a "poison pill...if it is hung on this legislation," said Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash. The committee also rejected 13-10 a second Hatch amendment that would have strengthened current legal protections for health care professionals who refuse to perform abortions or other procedures on grounds of moral or religious objections. With Finance on its sixth day of work, the bill still faces major obstacles on its path to the Senate floor. Minority Republicans are expected to offer amendments to strengthen prohibitions against illegal immigrants getting federal funding to buy insurance. On the other side of the political spectrum, Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., is challenging how Baucus would treat a popular children's health program in a revamped health care system. Abortion and immigration are also pending controversies in the House, where Democratic leaders hope to finalize legislation this week that would merge the work of three separate committees into one. House Democrats are struggling over how to pare the bill down to $900 billion over 10 years -- Obama's preferred price tag and about how much the Senate Finance version costs. ___ AP writer Erica Werner contributed to this report.
| 
