# Why don't anti-abortion lobbyists dictate HCR language? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 27, 2010, 5:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-anti-abortion-lobbyists-dictate-hcr-language/530623 "2010-02-27T05:28:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 18\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2010, 5:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-anti-abortion-lobbyists-dictate-hcr-language/530623/1 "2010-02-27T05:28:45Z")
Anti-abortion lobbyists could pen basically any sort of HCR language they want if they persuaded a single Republican Senator to permit an up or down vote on health care reform. The situation would throw Democrats into a tizzy, but it would be an offer they couldn’t refuse, notwithstanding the reconciliation route to health care reform. The single Republican Senator wouldn’t even have to vote for HCR: he would only need to vote for cloture. Now I can understand why all Republican senators place their electoral prospects over the ostensible lives of the unborn. But why does the National Right to Life Committee et al play along? Are they sham organizations? Arguably, the Senate bill isn’t especially pro or anti abortion and its the issue that is a sham and not any particular organization. I’m not sure. Reportedly [it allows states to opt out of abortion coverage](http://www.christianpost.com/article/20091224/pro-life-groups-furious-after-senate-passes-health-bill/index.html), but that apparently isn’t sufficient for some. This question certainly has a speculative GD style answer. But anti-abortion activists might be on record on this issue, which is what I’m curious about. My google-fu fails me though. Is that National Right to Life Committee interested in curbing abortion funding or are they more concerned with staying in the good graces of the Washington Republican leadership? ---
**Author:** ![Lok](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e8c25b/32.png) [@Lok](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lok)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2010, 7:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-anti-abortion-lobbyists-dictate-hcr-language/530623/2 "2010-02-27T07:35:33Z")
Well, despite the vocal anti-abortion folks and the rhetoric at the health care summit, there is not actually any money for abortions in the bills. The House bill says out right that companies can’t offer insurance for abortions to people using federal subsidies, the Senate bill allows the offer of a rider on an insurance policy that would cover abortions, but spends a lot of time and ink making sure that the federal subsidy can’t be used to pay for it. So there is really nothing for a Republican senator to offer. And frankly, after the Republicans have repeatedly voted against the bills despite the large number of Republican ideas that are included in them, why would the Dems believe one that says, “This time I will vote for it, really.” ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2010, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-anti-abortion-lobbyists-dictate-hcr-language/530623/3 "2010-02-27T23:52:07Z")
> [@Lok](#): > > Well, despite the vocal anti-abortion folks and the rhetoric at the health care summit, there is not actually any money for abortions in the bills. The House bill says out right that companies can’t offer insurance for abortions to people using federal subsidies, the Senate bill allows the offer of a rider on an insurance policy that would cover abortions, but spends a lot of time and ink making sure that the federal subsidy can’t be used to pay for it. That’s my impression as well: both bills contain strong concessions to the anti-abortion lobby. The House bill is only slightly tougher. But that’s not what the players are saying. My link shows that Concerned Women for America was _terribly_ disappointed in the Senate language. There was much hyperventilating about Ben Nelson of Nebraska (!) – he was even called a traitor. Now the Senate abortion provisions apparently can’t be fixed via reconciliation (majority Senate rules), since the latter only applies to budgetary issues, not regulatory ones. But the anti-abortion lobby could do an end-run, by having a single Republican Senator vote for cloture on a combination HCR/abortion package. > [@](#): > > And frankly, after the Republicans have repeatedly voted against the bills despite the large number of Republican ideas that are included in them, why would the Dems believe one that says, “This time I will vote for it, really.” Well, the Republicans have been obstructionists, but there aren’t a lot of reports of broken promises. There have never been any strings attached to their amendments. So I maintain that a single Republican Senator push whatever anti-abortion language they want (consistent with Roe v Wade of course). Stupak (D) and Cao (R) in the House could declare victory and lots of liberals would be pissed, which plays well among modern conservatives. I’m not surprised that no Republican Senator volunteers to do this. I always suspected that the social wing of their party was all bark and no bite. But it seems to me that either the Senate abortion language doesn’t actually offend anybody- even the most staunch abortion opponents, or nobody takes this stuff especially seriously anyway, at least relative to Republican electoral prospects. After all, if HCR fails the Republicans will do that much better during this off-year election. So which is it? Are the [attacks of anti-abortionists on HCR](http://www.nrlc.org/) wholly phony? Or are they real, but just of lesser importance than offending their Republican congressional masters? ---
**Author:** ![Lok](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e8c25b/32.png) [@Lok](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lok)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2010, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-anti-abortion-lobbyists-dictate-hcr-language/530623/4 "2010-03-01T00:00:51Z")
Republicans are not supporting it anyway. They really have nothing to win by allowing any changes. They have staked their last year and the coming elections on blocking HCR in any form. One of them switching, even to do what you suggest, would be screwing the rest of them. Plus, the only ones that would really be amenable to the idea are probably from conservative parts of the country. When they next have to go through a primary, what do you think their opponent would say? “He voted for the HCR bill in the Senate! It is his fault!” Even if he only votes for cloture, that is the message that would play. Ask John Kerry how that works. ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2010, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-anti-abortion-lobbyists-dictate-hcr-language/530623/5 "2010-03-01T01:26:09Z")
Given that this is basically a political question, it’s better suited to GD than GQ. Colibri General Questions Moderator ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2010, 8:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-anti-abortion-lobbyists-dictate-hcr-language/530623/6 "2010-03-07T08:05:24Z")
> [@Lok](#): > > Republicans are not supporting it anyway. They really have nothing to win by allowing any changes. They have staked their last year and the coming elections on blocking HCR in any form. One of them switching, even to do what you suggest, would be screwing the rest of them. I tend to agree with you. But what about the anti-abortion _lobbyists_? Why are they playing along? They seem more concerned with keeping elected Republicans comfortable than actually opposing abortion funding. Here’s another example. Currently Stupak (D) in the House is saying he doesn’t want to vote for the Senate bill because it’s somewhat less restrictive on abortion than the House bill is. But as Matt Miller points out, [the Feds already subsidize middle class abortions](http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/03/stupaks_abortion_argument_stil.html): “Today the feds devote at least $250 billion a year to subsidizing employer-based coverage, a subsidy that skews incentives horribly (but which big business and big labor wouldn’t let the politicians touch this year). A Guttmacher Institute study says that 87 percent of typical employer plans cover abortion, and a Kaiser study found that 46 percent of covered workers had abortion coverage.” Again, I can understand why the Republican Party doesn’t care about that. But where is the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) et al? The abortion restrictions in the Senate bill seem a heck of a lot more restrictive than the massive federal abortion subsidies for the middle class enjoyed for the past 40 years or so. I’m beginning to think that the NRLC are a bunch of phonies. They have no objections when the federal government subsidizes middle class abortions: they just don’t like it when choice is exercised by the poor. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2010, 8:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-anti-abortion-lobbyists-dictate-hcr-language/530623/7 "2010-03-07T08:29:24Z")
> [@Lok](#): > > Well, despite the vocal anti-abortion folks and the rhetoric at the health care summit, there is not actually any money for abortions in the bills. The House bill says out right that companies can’t offer insurance for abortions to people using federal subsidies, the Senate bill allows the offer of a rider on an insurance policy that would cover abortions, but spends a lot of time and ink making sure that the federal subsidy can’t be used to pay for it. Yes. [Timothy Noah of Slate gives the rundown](http://www.slate.com/id/2246905/): > [@Timothy Noah](#): > > If a health insurer selling through the exchanges wishes to offer abortion coverage—the federal government may not require it to do so, and the state where the exchange is located may (the bill states) pass a law forbidding it to do so—then the insurer must collect from each enrollee (regardless of sex or age) a separate payment to cover abortion. The insurer must keep this pool of money separate to ensure it won’t be commingled with so much as a nickel of government subsidy. (This is on Pages 2072-2074.) There are further details: those interested should click the link. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2010, 1:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-anti-abortion-lobbyists-dictate-hcr-language/530623/8 "2010-03-07T13:30:09Z")
Maybe there is no especially charitable answer, as you intimate. Here’s two possibilities. (1) They weigh whatever benefit to the cause comes from making the bill more anti-abortion against whatever benefit to the cause they foresee by killing the bill and the political gains the GOP will thereby reap. Presumably, an empowered GOP could do more for NRLC than any tweak in the language of health care reform. This is basically what you’re suggesting is the case, but I think this is a more charitable spin on it. (2) There is no Senator who would switch on this one issue, because he foresees the political benefit of killing the bill to be greater than the political benefit of NRLC support, and we just don’t see the behind-the-scenes NRLC efforts to find such a Senator. Some groups just are more partisan than others, for whatever reason (personnel, strategy, etc.). The ACLU has attacked Obama pretty vigorously over several issues so far in his term, but I haven’t seen much from NRDC even though there have been some things to complain about. The NRA hasn’t given Obama any praise for the various pro-gun bills he’s signed and rules he’s allowed to take effect. What is the difference between these three orgs.? I don’t think the tactics of all three can be equally rational. I think it has something to do with the sub-cultures in which they operate and the kind of people who work there. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2010, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-anti-abortion-lobbyists-dictate-hcr-language/530623/9 "2010-03-07T19:05:27Z")
Which Senator? Presumably the House bill would be the most restrictive anti-abortion language one could put in this bill, so which GOP Senator is so rabidly anti-abortion, but neutral enough on government health care to switch his vote? ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2010, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-anti-abortion-lobbyists-dictate-hcr-language/530623/10 "2010-03-07T19:54:03Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > I tend to agree with you. But what about the anti-abortion _lobbyists_? Why are they playing along? They seem more concerned with keeping elected Republicans comfortable than actually opposing abortion funding. I am a child of the Religious Right. Let me tell you a secret. There are “leaders” of the “Family Values”/“Pro-Life” movement that get out there & tell you to vote GOP because the Dems are baby-killers. Ralph Reed was one, James Dobson is another. They don’t really want to stop abortion. At all. They want to keep people voting GOP, or some other sort of “conservative” which seems to amount to what Paul Krugman calls “Bourbon Democrats.” Mostly they want low taxes & a cheap-labor market & the freedom for moneylenders & other “businessmen” to fleece & scam without oversight. The Christian Coalition existed for one purpose: to keep the GOP viable through religious propaganda. There are plenty of progressive Dems who are for fetal rights. There are plenty of elitist conservatives who don’t give a fig for the abortion issue. The so-called “Family Values”/“Pro-Life” lobbies mainly stump for the latter. It’s a big giant scam, & one that’s angered me since I was a young true believer. There is no way in Hell or on God’s Green Earth that Concerned Women for America or Focus on the Family will ever support this bill, because their real reason for existing is to keep business “conservative” in the sense of unregulated, free, & easy, no matter how abusive. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2010, 1:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-anti-abortion-lobbyists-dictate-hcr-language/530623/11 "2010-03-08T01:18:01Z")
**foolsguinea** : I’ve been a progressive for a while now, and I had never seriously considered your interpretation, before this year. > [@Richard Parker](#): > > (1) They weigh whatever benefit to the cause comes from making the bill more anti-abortion against whatever benefit to the cause they foresee by killing the bill and the political gains the GOP will thereby reap. Presumably, an empowered GOP could do more for NRLC than any tweak in the language of health care reform. This is basically what you’re suggesting is the case, but I think this is a more charitable spin on it. Well articulated. I guess what the NRLC (ostensibly) needs is a compliant Supreme Court. Everything else is phony: their supporters are being manipulated voluntarily or otherwise. > [@jtgain](#): > > Which Senator? Presumably the House bill would be the most restrictive anti-abortion language one could put in this bill, so which GOP Senator is so rabidly anti-abortion, but neutral enough on government health care to switch his vote? Fair question. a) But even if there were no candidates, that would not explain the public position of the lobbyists. With sufficient noise, a shift would be in some Senator’s interest. b) (Googling) [maxwell smart]Would you believe [Mike Johanns (R-NE)](http://johanns.senate.gov/public/?p=Transcripts&ContentRecord_id=87c21993-ed46-4edc-a940-ddd33cada4a0&ContentType_id=b6318fce-8687-41ec-8756-d043d52ef7d2)? [/maxwell smart] “…very simply, there aren’t enough pro-life Senators to break this provision and get the Stupak amendment passed on the Senate floor if we propose it as an amendment–and I am sure it will be–there just aren’t enough. … **The most important pro-life vote that a pro-life Senator will cast, I believe, in the entire time they are here** is on this motion to proceed.” I added emphasis. Well golly gee Senator Johanns, if it’s that important you, just vote for cloture on a Senate HCR bill with the Stupak language. And don’t say you haven’t thought about it: last November when the Dems had 60 votes [Senator Johanns](http://congress.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/11/19/pro-life-senator-challenges-dems-on-abortion/) said, “We don’t need 40 Democrats to stand up for what’s right. We need just one. if just one pro-life Democrat would say i will not vote to move this bill until it’s fixed, until it’s truly pro-life, that would happen. So those who say they are pro-life but refuse to take that stand, I worry are not standing up for life.” Well, I disagree: the Senate language is fine. But now that the shoe is on the other foot, Senator Johanns, how about voting for cloture, you hypocritical gasbag? ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2010, 1:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-anti-abortion-lobbyists-dictate-hcr-language/530623/12 "2010-03-08T01:40:03Z")
More controversially, I wonder about the positioning of the [United States Conference of Catholic Bishops](http://usccb.org/healthcare/). Why are they focusing on the abortion language in the Senate bill and where have they been on the abortion subsidy via the employer deduction for health care? Frankly, I think the link to abortion in both cases is tenuous, but the $250 billion a year subsidy for employer-based coverage has to be more significant. Why is the Catholic Church’s main representative in American public life so gung-ho on advancing Republican electoral prospects? What about the death penalty and the theory of the just war as it applies to Iraq? Rome needs to crack down on these deviationists. Following jtgain, I understand that 6 ostensibly anti-abortion Republican Catholic Senators are Martinez (FL), Brownback (KS), Bunning (KY), Vitter (LA), and the two newly elected senators Johanns (NE) and Risch (ID). Two Catholic Republican Senators who often support international family planning organizations are Murkowski (AK) and Collins (ME). [Cite, from a conservative blog](http://proecclesia.blogspot.com/2009/01/only-6-of-24-catholic-senators-vote-to.html). FTR though, the Catholic Bishops claim that their position on HCR follows: > [@United States Conference of Catholic Bishops](#): > > USCCB Position on Health Care Reform > > ``` > * a truly universal health policy with respect for human life and dignity > * access for all with a special concern for the poor and inclusion of immigrants > * pursuing the common good and preserving pluralism including freedom of conscience and variety of options > * restraining costs and applying them equitably across the spectrum of payers > > ``` ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2010, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-anti-abortion-lobbyists-dictate-hcr-language/530623/13 "2010-03-08T23:09:22Z")
Sam Brownback (R-KS) is kind of an odd case. He was baptized into the Roman Catholic Church as an adult but keeps attending a “Bible Church” as well. Some speculate that his putative religious identity is a matter of appealing to a given voter base as much as anything else. ---
**Author:** ![Katriona](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/katriona/32/113_2.png) [@Katriona](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Katriona)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2010, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-anti-abortion-lobbyists-dictate-hcr-language/530623/14 "2010-03-09T00:11:59Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > Sam Brownback (R-KS) is kind of an odd case. He was baptized into the Roman Catholic Church as an adult but keeps attending a “Bible Church” as well. Some speculate that his putative religious identity is a matter of appealing to a given voter base as much as anything else. Yeah, my guess is that it’s purely political. He’s retiring from the Senate to run for governor of KS, and “Bible Church” plays better in the more…rural parts of the state. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2010, 5:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-anti-abortion-lobbyists-dictate-hcr-language/530623/15 "2010-03-09T05:30:03Z")
[Representative Stupak (D) is optimistic that a deal can be reached](http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2011292533_health08.html). I’m optimistic too. Abortion opponents have no basis to complain if the bill isn’t to their liking, for they would need only persuade one Republican Senator to vote to end debate on the Senate bill and they could get whatever they want, subject to Roe v Wade. **Crickets…** Incidentally, I’ve tried to find a reference to the tax exclusion on employer-provided health care on the [nrlc.org](http://nrlc.org) website without luck. They don’t even _mention_ the issue AFAIK. Separately, the libertarian outfit Cato has a chapter on the topic in the Cato Handbook for Policymakers, 7th Edition (2009). It doesn’t mention abortion though, notwithstanding Cato’s [opposition to the procedure](http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10537). But perhaps that was an oversight. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2010, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-anti-abortion-lobbyists-dictate-hcr-language/530623/16 "2010-03-15T01:58:19Z")
By now, it is clear that abortion opponents who attack the Senate bill while turning a blind eye to the $250 billion a year subsidy for employer-based coverage lack personal integrity and should therefore either have their arguments subjected to intensive scrutiny or be dismissed outright to save time. Such it is for the NRLC. But some abortion opponents possess a conscience. The [Catholic Health Association](http://www.chausa.org/The_time_is_now_for_health_reform.aspx) lobbied hard for a health care package that would reflect their views: > [@SR. Carol Keehan](#): > > CHA has a major concern on life issues. We said there could not be any federal funding for abortions and there had to be strong funding for maternity care, especially for vulnerable women. The bill now being considered allows people buying insurance through an exchange to use federal dollars in the form of tax credits and their own dollars to buy a policy that covers their health care. If they choose a policy with abortion coverage, then they must write a separate personal check for the cost of that coverage. > > There is a requirement that the insurance companies be audited annually… > > In addition, there is a wonderful provision in the bill that provides $250 million over 10 years to pay for counseling, education, job training and housing for vulnerable women who are pregnant or parenting. Another provision provides a substantial increase in the adoption tax credit and funding for adoption assistance programs. I don’t share Ms Keehan’s concerns about abortion. But surely it is dismaying to see abortion opponents continue their phony attack on the Senate bill without acknowledging any of the above. [Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good](http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/12/senate-abortion-restrictions-are-sufficient-catholic-group-says/) are another operation supporting the Senate plan: they sent off a public letter last Friday. Props to Steve Benen of [The Washington Monthly](http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_03/022855.php) for providing the links for this post. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2010, 7:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-anti-abortion-lobbyists-dictate-hcr-language/530623/17 "2010-03-18T07:17:46Z")
Nuns representing 59,000 Catholic sisters come out in favor of health care reform. They join the Catholic Health Association and Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good. [Here are excerpts from their letter](http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/03/nuns-urge-congress-to-pass-health-care-reform.php?ref=fpb): > [@](#): > > We write to urge you to cast a life-affirming “yes” vote when the Senate health care bill (H.R. 3590) comes to the floor of the House for a vote as early as this week. We join the Catholic Health Association of the United States (CHA), which represents 1,200 Catholic sponsors, systems, facilities and related organizations, in saying: the time is now for health reform AND the Senate bill is a good way forward. > > …The health care bill that has been passed by the Senate and that will be voted on by the House will expand coverage to over 30 million uninsured Americans. While it is an imperfect measure, it is a crucial next step in realizing health care for all. It will invest in preventative care. It will bar insurers from denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions. It will make crucial investments in community health centers that largely serve poor women and children. **And despite false claims to the contrary, the Senate bill will not provide taxpayer funding for elective abortions. It will uphold longstanding conscience protections and it will make historic new investments - $250 million - in support of pregnant women. This is the REAL pro-life stance, and we as Catholics are all for it.** Emphasis added. Not to put too fine a point on it, but methinks Catholic nuns have retained greater moral credibility over the last 20 years than the US Council of Catholic Bishops. Just saying. Jesus was known as a healer and was worshiped as such by the early Christians. Legend has it that the gospel according to Luke was written by a physician. So it is entirely in keeping with Christian tradition for the nuns to pray for those lacking health care and the 45,000 who lose their lives each year due to lack of the same. “For us, this health care reform is a faith mandate for life and dignity of all of our people.” ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2010, 2:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-anti-abortion-lobbyists-dictate-hcr-language/530623/18 "2010-03-19T02:41:15Z")
We can add another phony abortion opposition group to the list, [the Susan B. Anthony list](http://www.sba-list.org/site/c.ddJBKJNsFqG/b.4009925/k.BE63/Home.htm), an operation that funds female anti-abortion candidates. In health care reform’s last minutes, [they are telling their members to call _democratic_ congress reps](http://www.sba-list.org/site/apps/nlnet/content.aspx?c=ddJBKJNsFqG&b=4186739&ct=8078419¬oc=1). They don’t even _mention_ the possibility of prevailing on a single Republican Senator to insert the abortion language of their choice. Nor can I find any coverage on their website of current $250 billion abortion subsidies via the tax system. There is some evidence that the current bill will reduce abortions [to the extent that medical care access can profoundly affect the decisions made by women and couples facing unwanted pregnancies](http://www.sba-list.org/site/apps/nlnet/content.aspx?c=ddJBKJNsFqG&b=4186739&ct=8078419¬oc=1). Indeed in Massachusetts, [the number of abortions declined by 1.5% (7.4% among teenagers)](http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/03/18/massachusetts-study-health-care-reform-could-reduce-abortions/), while nationally abortions were increasing. Now frankly, I’d like to see the details of that study. But supporters of these anti-abortion tanks should be ashamed that such issues are not a matter for debate: apparently opposing abortion isn’t about reducing abortion, it’s about simply sticking it to those who lack or lose health insurance. Or maybe they just like Republicans. "Blessed are they whose ways are blameless, who walk according to the law of the Lord. Blessed are they who maintain justice, who constantly do what is right. It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick."