Senate Health Proposal is NOT a More Pro-Life Proposal
My friend Blake Rutherford and I disagree both on the health care reform bill and on the issue of abortion in general. We do agree on some things, such as the value of adoption programs and the importance of creating a world in which there are no “unwanted babies.” But today he makes an argument that the current health care proposal passed by the Senate is more pro-life than the House health care bill with the Stupak Amendment and that Rep. Berry is incorrect to oppose the bill for this reason.
Citing Washington and Lee law professor Timothy Jost, Blake argues that the Senate Bill is better because it 1. contains a provision that allows states on an individual basis to not allow health exchanges that provide for abortion and 2. contains additional tax credit for adoptions.
We had a good discussion by email on this issue and I thought a comment here was in order.
Simply put, the Senate bill is a repulsive piece of legislation to anyone who even leans pro-life. The health exchanges created through the plan will allow for abortion coverage for participants. The fact that an accounting ledger sheet divides the federal dollars from the payments from participants is immaterial.
Also, the fact that states can opt out is irrelevant. Those who oppose their tax dollars providing for abortions do not feel better about those dollars spent on abortions in New York instead of abortions in Arkansas. And the adoption provision, while a positive inclusion, does not make this a better bill than the house bill which specifically banned coverage for abortions in all health insurance plans benefited by the legislation.
This vote is a test of Democrats who have told votes than are pro-life and that they will not support federal dollars for abortions. Rep. Berry should be commended for this one. And thanks Blake for making me defend a Democrat, you evil genius.