Abortion funding in Max Baucus’s America’s Healthy Future Act

The Senate Finance Committee (namely Max Baucus) has released its version of proposed health reform legislation, America’s Health Reform Act of 2009. The proposed act does have a clause in it regarding abortion. It states:

This provision would ensure that state laws regarding the prohibition or requirement of coverage for abortions, and state laws involving abortion-related procedural requirements are not preempted. The provision similarly provides that Federal conscience protections and abortion-related anti-discrimination laws would not be affected by the bill.

This provision provides that abortion cannot be a mandated benefit as part of a minimum benefits package except in those cases for which Federal funds appropriated for the Department of Health and Human Services are permitted. A qualified health plan would not be prohibited, however, from providing coverage for abortions beyond those for which Federal funds appropriated for the Department of Health and Human Services are permitted. Federal funds continue to be prohibited from being used to pay for abortions unless the pregnancy is due to rape, incest, or if the life of the mother is in danger.

The Hyde amendment, even when it is in force, only applies to funds appropriated through the annual HHS appropriations bill (and, through a separate statute, to the Indian Health Service). Even when it does apply, thanks to the Clinton Administration’s interpretation of the Hyde Amendment, several states were formally threatened with loss of all Medicaid funds unless they complied with the new federal standard (which required the states to fund abortions “in cases of rape and incest” even if no rape or incest had ever been reported to law enforcement or public health authorities.) The states that were threatened under the Clinton Administration were forced to pay for abortions, even if their own stricter policy against abortion funding was in their state constitutions. Some of the states’ laws restricting abortion coverage had been passed by public referendum. And 32 states had laws prohibiting public funding for abortion except in cases where the life of the mother would be endangered. States battled suits in both federal and state courts and as a result, many states were forced to fund abortions against their will; some courts invalidated state laws in their entirety, requiring states to fund abortions without meaningful restriction. As of 1998, every state engaged in a law suit had lost in court. The outcome is that states must now comply with the Clinton Administration mandate to cover abortions.

Congress proposed amendments that would have clarified the issue by permitting, but not requiring, states to fund rape and incest abortions. These amendments never became law.

What are the implications of the rape and incest provisions? According to Planned Parenthood’s own research arm, about 13,000 abortions each year are attributed to rape and incest—representing a mere 1 percent of all abortions (Guttmacher Institute, 2001). Even smaller numbers represent cases where abortion was indicated to save the mother’s life, despite the fact that saving the mother has served as a pillar for apologists of unfettered abortion rights.

Byron Barlowe of Leadership University wrote, on the 30th Anniversary of Roe v. Wade:

“Now, the very foundation of both the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton cases – the cornerstone judgements ensuring unfettered rights to abortion-on-demand – have been undermined by the actual plaintiffs in both cases. According to an article published in Focus on Family magazine, 30 Years of Lies, the plaintiff for the Roe v. Wade case, Norma McCorvey, never even got an abortion after lying to her lawyers about being gang-raped. “When she found out the case went all the way to the Supreme Court and resulted in legalizing abortion in all 50 states, she was stunned” and attempted suicide, writes Tom Neven. Sandra Cano, the “Doe” of the companion case known as Doe v. Bolton, claims that she was played as a pawn by her lawyer, who surreptitiously had her sign an affadivit stating that “she had applied for an abortion, had been turned down and had therefore sued the state of Georgia…. This is a lie,” states Cano. She was even opposed to abortion, so the case was not even representative of her views. Both women have begun new lives as followers of Christ and are seeking to have their infamous cases overturned as part of a campaign called Operation Outcry.”

If you feel comfortable with the Hyde Amendment’s application to America’s Healthy Future Act, as America’s only protection against federal funding of abortions, think back to the details of the Mexico City Policy. The Mexico City Policy required non-governmental organizations to “agree as a condition of their receipt of [U.S.] federal funds” that they would “neither perform nor actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in other nations.” Even the Mexico City Policy had exceptions for abortions performed in response to rape, incest, or life-threatening conditions.

Shouldn’t this exceptions clause have been enough for Democratic administrations with regard to federal funding for only medically necessary abortions? Obviously having that provision in the Mexico City Policy was not enough. The Mexico City Policy, and its resulting ban on federal funds being spent on overseas abortions, was put in place in 1984. It was rescinded in January 1993 by Bill Clinton. It was re-instituted in January 2001 when George W. Bush took office, but was yet again rescinded January 23, 2009 as one of Barack Obama’s first acts as President. It should be noted that even when the Mexico City Policy was in place, pro-abortion Senators were looking for ways to bypass it, once again allowing federal funding of overseas abortions. In September 2007, Barbara Boxer and Olympia Snowe created an amendment designed to lift the funding conditions put in place, and that amendment passed by a vote of 53-41. Bush threatened to veto any legislation eliminating the policy, but it was ultimately rescinded by Obama once he was sworn in as President. Obama’s action on the policy immediately earned condemnation from the Vatican.

It is Political Integrity Now’s contention that an abortion clause, such as the one proposed by Max Baucus, is purposefully vague to intentionally leave it open to interpretation from both individuals and courts. As we have seen in the past with both the Hyde Amendment and the Mexico City Policy, even when legislation is in place to prohibit federal funding of abortions, pro-abortion legislators and administrations can and will find ways around them. Additionally, the Capps Amendment was passed 30-28, and was specifically designed to protect the ability of private insurance plans to provide coverage for abortion care, whether or not other aspects of the plan receive government subsidies. What good are promises to the American public if those making the promises have shown in both words and deeds that they have no intention of keeping said promises?