Eighth District U.S. Rep. Brad Ellsworth, D-Ind.,
might have expected that his amendment to the health
care reform bill, which he says will ensure no
federal funds are used to provide elective
abortions, would be opposed by Planned Parenthood.
The abortion rights group weighed in with a
statement of opposition on Tuesday.
But the Ellsworth amendment, which House leaders
have said they may incorporate into the bill, also
has sparked a furious backlash among national, state
and local anti-abortion groups who typically support
Ellsworth.
Pitted against the Ellsworth amendment are the
U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the National
Right to Life Committee, Indiana Right to Life and
Vanderburgh County Right to Life.
"It was a bayonet in the back from someone who
said he was on our side," said Doug Johnson,
Washington, D.C.-based legislative director for the
National Right to Life Committee.
"The pro-abortion side is using Ellsworth's phony
language to undercut the real pro-life amendment,
which is Congressman Bart Stupak's amendment. Mr.
Ellsworth is allowing himself to be used to,
perhaps, score brownie points with House Democratic
leaders."
Ellsworth spokeswoman Liz Farrar provided a
written statement from Ellsworth:
"As I have said repeatedly, I will not support a
bill that I believe would result in federal tax
dollars being used to pay for abortions, and, with
the help of pro-life constituents, I am leading the
effort to protect federal tax dollars and provide
pro-life insurance options to Americans," it said.
Farrar said Ellsworth's amendment could change.
Private contractors
The crux of the Right to Life case against the
Ellsworth amendment is that it does not strike what
Johnson calls "trump-all" language in the health
care reform bill that states, "Nothing in this Act
shall be construed as preventing the public health
insurance option from providing for or prohibiting
coverage of services described in paragraph (4)(A)."
The services described in paragraph (4)(A) are
"abortions for which the expenditure of federal
funds appropriated for the Department of Health and
Human Services is not permitted."
That means elective abortions, which are not
funded under Medicaid because that program is funded
through the annual Health and Human Services
appropriations bill.
But Farrar pointed to a Congressional Research
Service report that says Ellsworth's plan "would
seem to broaden (bill language) to ensure that no
federal funds are used to pay for elective abortions
by health benefits plans participating in the
Exchange."
"You don't have to remove (the 'nothing shall be
construed' language) as long as our language ensures
federal funds cannot be used to provide abortion,"
she said.
The Congressional Research Service report did not
address that question.
The Ellsworth amendment creates a procedure by
which Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen
Sebelius must hire private contractors to segregate
premiums paid for elective abortions under the
public health insurance option from other amounts
paid to the government.
With the premiums, the contractor would pay the
abortion provider that was billing the public plan.
"It's not government funds that are coming into
that contractor," Farrar said.
"It's a private individual that's sending it to
this private company that is then reimbursing
private doctors, private hospitals, for procedures.
So it never comes into the treasury. It's not public
funds."
Johnson called that "a money-laundering scam."
"Do you suppose that if the CIA collected money
from citizens and used it to hire private
mercenaries to engage in covert missions, Speaker
(Nancy) Pelosi would agree that this was 'private'
activity rather than federal government activity?"
he said.
"We don't care what they call the funds or who
they hire to collect the funds or write the checks.
If the federal government plan pays for abortions,
that is federal funding of abortion."
Stupak's amendment
Stupak, a Michigan Democrat and co-chairman of
the Congressional Right to Life Caucus to which
Ellsworth belongs, seeks to forbid a public
insurance option from covering elective abortions
and subsidies for private plans that cover elective
abortions.
The Stupak amendment would strike the bill's
"Nothing in this Act shall be construed" language.
But House leaders will not allow a floor vote on
Stupak's amendment, so he has threatened to line up
at least 40 anti-abortion Democrats to vote against
the rule governing debate on the bill.
With Republican votes, that would be enough to
defeat the rule — meaning the health care reform
bill could not go to the floor for a vote and
Democratic leaders presumably would have to
negotiate with Stupak.
Instead of rallying anti-abortion Democrats
behind Stupak's plan, Ellsworth began circulating
versions of his own amendment last week. Farrar said
Ellsworth isn't trying to undercut Stupak but
intends to offer an alternative that might attract
more support.
House Rules Committee Chairwoman Rep. Louise
Slaughter, D-N.Y., said Wednesday that Ellsworth's
language would be incorporated into the House health
care reform bill in the rule, but on Thursday other
House leaders stopped short of making a commitment.
Congressional strategy
Kasey Hunt, a reporter for Congress Daily AM, a
subscription-only publication of National Journal
magazine, said House leaders view Ellsworth's
amendment as a compromise that could peel away
enough Democratic support from Stupak's amendment to
negate Stupak's threat.
"They're trying to get all the centrists and
pro-life Democrats who want to vote for the health
care reform bill to sign onto something that is (a
compromise)," Hunt said.
Stupak was unavailable to comment, but his
spokeswoman, Michelle Begnoche, said he has reviewed
the Ellsworth amendment.
"(Stupak) is continuing to hold firm on his
amendment," Begnoche said.
