Amendments Divide Abortion Foes

Anti-abortion forces split openly in the House on Tuesday, further complicating work on a comprehensive health care overhaul and adding to Democratic leaders' difficulties in getting a bill to the floor this week.

Brad Ellsworth, D-Ind., an abortion opponent, said he approached House leaders about adding language to the health care bill (HR 3962) that would not only explicitly prohibit federal funding of abortions but also guarantee every American access to "pro-life" insurance plans that would agree to refrain from covering the procedure.

Ellsworth said he would withhold his vote for the bill until he is allowed to offer his proposal as an amendment on the floor.

"When you're going into battle, it's a good idea to have a contingency plan," Ellsworth said in a statement. "The bottom line is we're going to exhaust every avenue to ensure pro-life concerns are addressed in this legislation."

But Ellsworth's overture to leadership was quickly condemned by the National Right to Life Committee, which endorsed an anti-abortion proposal by Bart Stupak, D-Mich., that would prohibit any insurance plan receiving federal subsidies from covering abortion, including a government-run "public option."

"I say, when you're going into battle, it is always unpleasant to be bayoneted in the back by somebody who said that he was on your side," said Douglas Johnson, legislative director for the Right to Life Committee. "The Ellsworth language serves no purpose except to assist the pro-abortion House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, to peel votes away from the authentic pro-life amendment, the Stupak amendment."

Ellsworth and his aides did not immediately respond, and it was unclear how many votes he could marshal for his proposal.

But the split added a new wrinkle to what has become the most contentious issue confronting Democrats eager to move the health care bill to the floor this week.

Current language in the bill would neither forbid nor require any health plans to cover abortion, except one: a new government-run plan, which would cover the procedure. But any plans covering abortion, including the public option, would have to use money derived from premiums paid by their customers to pay for the service, rather than money from federal subsidies provided to low-income people.

Democrats who oppose abortion want stricter language than what is now in the health bill or is in the so-called Hyde amendment, a provision renewed annually as part of appropriations bills that prohibits federal funding of abortion, except in cases of rape or incest or when the mother's life is threatened.

Disagreement Results in Delays Democrats' inability to reach agreement on changes to language in the bill regarding abortion and immigration caused the timetable for debate to slip again Tuesday.

Democratic aides had said that a manager's amendment, required before debate could begin, would be ready Tuesday, and it was released late Tuesday night.

House leaders have agreed to allow public review of the amendment for 72 hours before beginning debate, meaning the bill can now come to the floor on the night of Nov. 6.

Members involved in talks on both abortion and immigration were tight-lipped about the progress. Some Democrats who support the health care bill suggested that colleagues who oppose the measure had raised the issues merely to make trouble for the legislation.

"Those who are opposed to health reform are just trying to find the hot-button issues right now," said Ron Kind, D-Wis. Kind and some other Democrats who support abortion rights say they would accept simply extending the prohibitions of the Hyde amendment to the health bill, as long as it is not made permanent.

Immigration Provisions The debate over immigration is even murkier than that over abortion. An unknown number of Democrats have asked their leaders to tighten the bill's prohibitions against illegal immigrants gaining access to the legislation's benefits, including tax credits to purchase insurance.

These Democrats, according to aides and Jason Altmire, D-Pa., want language in the bill similar to a provision in the Senate Finance Committee's health care bill (S 1796). The Finance bill would prohibit illegal immigrants from buying insurance policies through new government-run "exchanges" that the bill would create, even if the immigrants use their own money and receive no subsidies.

Robert E. Andrews, D-N.J., said "relatively few" Democrats are concerned about the issue. Altmire, who acknowledges that he is one of those concerned, has said the immigration issue alone would not cause him to vote against the bill.

Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, who chairs the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, and Xavier Becerra of California, vice chairman of the Democratic Caucus, have been negotiating the issue with concerned Democrats. Van Hollen, Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer, D-Md., and a Becerra spokesperson would not comment on the talks Tuesday.

Keith Perine contributed to this story.