Current Conditions
31°F - CLOUDY
(1410) (1218) (836) (640) (540) (270) (230) (46) (39) (15) (8) (7) (6) (5)
But the congressman, who has long been an anti-abortion crusader in the House, says opponents of the so-called Stupak-Pitts amendment passed in the House earlier this month are distorting the impact it would have.
The debate, which has intensified as the Senate moves closer to taking up its own version of a health-care reform bill, focuses on whether Stupak-Pitts could make it more difficult for women buying private health insurance with their own money to find plans that cover abortion.
Both Planned Parenthood and the National Organization for Women say it would, and are planning a large rally against the proposal in West Chester — just a few miles from his home — on Saturday.
"What the House did is they passed a health-care bill for half the population and an anti-abortion law for the rest of it," Terry O'Neill, the president of NOW, said in an interview this week. "We absolutely are going to replace — we will work very hard to replace — anyone who votes for anything like Stupak-Pitts."
NOW's political action committee, meantime, has endorsed Lois Herr, the Democrat from Elizabethtown seeking to unseat Pitts.
The amendment, which Pitts co-authored with Democratic U.S. Rep. Bart Stupak of Michigan, extends a current prohibition on federal funding of abortions to any government-run health-care program — a ban, Pitts' staff points out, several polls show most Americans support.
"We're not trying to eliminate private insurance coverage for abortions," Pitts' spokesman Andrew Wimer said. "At any time, they can use their own money to purchase supplemental insurance. We're not preventing that."
The amendment states that the government-run health plan — often called the public option — will not cover abortion unless a doctor certifies that a woman is in danger of death without one or the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest.
Private insurers that offer policies through a federally regulated exchange would be allowed to cover abortion, but they must also offer a near-identical plan that does not cover abortion.
The amendment prohibits women who get federal subsidies for health care — those in families of four with incomes of $88,000 a year or less — from using that money to buy private insurance plans that cover abortion.
The House-passed measure, then, effectively requires women buying health insurance with their own money to purchase abortion coverage through a separate supplemental plan, as a so-called rider on the policy.
Critics argue that making insurers in the exchange offer two separate plans — one covering abortions, the other not — will be too cumbersome. They say in the end some insurers will drop the policy covering the procedure.
Gabe Neville, another spokesman for Pitts, said: "If there's a market for it, they'll offer it."
Critics say, however, that insurers will be reluctant to offer riders for abortion coverage, thus limiting the coverage options for people on the exchange who don't take subsidies.
"It's a disincentive for companies to offer such programs," Herr said. "Also, it's one thing to say there's a rider available. That implies that women know they're going to need that particular kind of coverage. In many cases, the very nature of an unintended or dangerous pregnancy is not predictable."
Herr said Pitts "will pay for this amendment with his seat in Congress. It's very serious. It's a very serious issue and one that many people care deeply about, whether or not they're supportive of abortion itself."
She criticized Pitts and Republicans for a "certain amount of hypocrisy" in their arguments in support of the amendment.
"They advocate and argue that government should not be involved in health care," she said. "Here they're turning around and regulating a very intimate health-care procedure for women. They don't want the government in health care unless it controls women's bodies and women's lives."
Neville pointed out that Stupak-Pitts passed the House by a substantial margin, 240-194. Sixty-four Democrats joined 176 Republicans in voting for it.
"All it does is make sure current law continues if the Democrats' health legislation becomes law," Neville said. He said Herr's position on the issue is "more evidence of how insanely liberal" she is.
"Nancy Pelosi wants the 'public option.' Lois Herr wants to ban private insurance entirely. The House of Representatives doesn't want to fund elective abortion. Lois and her friends don't just disagree, they're 'mad' and 'outraged,' " Neville said. "Clearly, Lois Herr is out of step with mainstream America — and wildly out of step with Lancaster County."
Neville cited polls showing 69 percent of Americans oppose government funding for abortion, and suggested that number is likely much higher in Lancaster County.
"Does she really believe that the government should be paying for elective abortions, when the vast majority of the people she wants to represent clearly don't want it to?" he asked.
NOW officials would not say how much the organization would spend to try to unseat Pitts, whose 16th Congressional District seat has historically been held by a Republican and is considered a relatively safe seat for the GOP.
"We can't come up with a figure," NOW spokeswoman Mai Shiozaki said. "However, our strength is our grassroots, and people really underestimate it. When women come together — and we are very angry about Stupak-Pitts — we are very energetic. Women are fired up. We're going to bring that energy to Pennsylvania."
CQ Politics, a publication of Congressional Quarterly, rates this race as "safe," meaning the incumbent party is "virtually certain to win the seat." Roll Call scores it the same way. The Cook Political Report has called it "solid Republican," while noting the district's GOP influence has slipped in recent years.
The rally in opposition to Stupak-Pitts in West Chester will be held on the steps of the Chester County Courthouse at 2 N. High St. It begins at 10:30 a.m.
