Negotiations continue on the abortion issue with the USCCB part of the negotiations and the NRTL Committee a non-player. 25 Democrats and all Republicans voting against health care even if it has perfect pro-life language. 3 pro-life Democrats content with Ellsworth language. 15 still in play.

Talk has it that Stupak has offered a modest compromise — he will allow insurance policies sold on the exchange to offer abortion services so long as it only goes to purchasers that do not receive subidies. This is a break from the conservative stance regarding undocumented immigrants that say even unsubsidized insurance sold on the exchange must be prohibited because federal funds are used to set up the exchange.

It is not clear if USCCB and/nor NRTLC support the modified Stupak Amendment or if Stupak cares if they do.

There seems to be much talk about reducing the number of abortions, as a good. The fatuity of this position is made clear by a simple question: what would a good reduction be? 10,000 less? 100,000 less? 1 million less?

Surely the emphasis is in the wrong place. Abortion is a grevious sin, committed by the persons involved. Therein lies the harm.

And it is like any other virus. Once permitted in no matter how limited a circumstance, it will spread. As it has done.

The discussion should be about whether we will permit our polity to lapse back into this barbarity.

This idea does not deal with political reality. If there may or may not be votes for something, an ultimatum can be effective. The ultimatum itself can change the climate. Who is voting for and who is voting against is not static. But the lack of an ultimatum changes the climate too. “Those pro-lifers are going to vote for our abortion expansion bill anyway,” known in advance, kills the project before it begins. And, by the way, there is a little thing called principle. As in, I won’t vote for a bill that massively expands abortion in number and in prominence and in federal involvement. If there is any concept of making the Democratic party more friendly to members who actually vote pro-life, they have to, you know, actually vote pro-life.

First of all, I don’t even get to vote for a member of Congress, let alone vote on the bill. If I did have a vote, I would vote for whatever pro-life amendments are presented including a vote against the Rule if it was for the purpose of making a pro-life amendment in order. But if I lost on any or all of those, it would mean there are already the votes to pass health care reform without myself and others who would vote for anti-abortion amendments. So this “dealbreaker” talk is for no purpose.

And while I would support any and all anti-abortion amendments, I’m just not into this fetish of what is as what is not taxpayer subsidy. There isn’t one member of Congress (on either side of this issue) that would take an oath that he would apply the same criteria used here to define taxpayer funding to all future (non-abortion related) matters.

If we can in any restrict access to abortion in any way, great. I don’t need to know any more, I support such a move.

Is the premium a person pays for the health insurance they buy “taxpayer money” if the government also pays part of the premium? I don’t know. The premium Church employees pay for their health insurance certainly isn’t acknowledged as a contribution to the Church.

Now, if you will excuse me, I have been asked by the Archbishop to call my elected officials to get them to renew the Opportunity Scholarship Program so that taxpayer funds can be given to the Catholic Church to finance the secular aspects of education of children in the parish schools. I need to make those calls.

Here is an attempt to engage in MM’s points regarding the Ellsworth amendment, rather than ignoring him, as he counsels everyone to ignore those (pro-lifers only) who disagree with him.

If a bill *labels* something as not being federal, or as anything, that doesn’t change what it is—you have to look at what it is, not what people call it, especially when the labelers have political reasons for changing what things are called. We all know that euphemisms are used to cover up injustice, such as in war or against prisoners, and yes in abortion politics too. One word to note here is “tax”—not that no “federal” funding will occur, but no federal “tax” funding. Interesting. But when a federal agency (the public option) runs a program, what it is doing is federal and public no matter what you call it or if it is also “tax,” and moreover, the people getting paid to run the program, at some level, are paid with tax dollars–Sebelius is paid with tax dollars.

Also, it says there will be strict standards to separate the funds? But this is simply not ontologically possible in a situation where the federal government is running a health care plan that covers abortions, that collects and distributes mandatory premiums to cover those abortions, and that is covering the abortions of ***80,000 poor women who don’t currently have abortions because they lack coverage***.

How can I say this another way—you can’t formally cooperate with something by intention (federal plan covering abortion), and then successfully separate it from our federal self by manipulating material circumstances. Look, the federal government will be setting a standard that will push ALL policy with it—abortion, for any reason or no reason, is standard care that everyone deserves for FREE. Good heavens.
What difference does it make if they say, instead of handling the blood money ourselves we’ll hire a company to handle the money? It’s still the *federal government* hiring the company to handle the money, according to this new federal standard that abortion free for everyone is deserved medical care! This is a seismic shift—it ain’t neutrality, and it ain’t abortion reduction. Call it good for other reasons, but don’t claim this to be consistent with “abortion reduction” pro-life Catholic politics.

I am interested in the alleged consceince provisions, but odds are they still fall short–as stated they only apply to insurance plans not to providers and employers, and for all we know, not in a comprehensive fashion.

Here’s what Ellsburgh says, in his own words:

Ellsworth’s proposal would make 5 key pro-life changes to the bill; effectively preventing federal tax dollars from being used to fund abortions and ensuring Americans have access to pro-life insurance options in the proposed Health Insurance Exchange:

•Explicitly prevents all federal tax dollars from being used to provide abortions in the public option;
•Prohibits any funds from the US Treasury from paying for abortion services in any of the plans purchased through the proposed Health Insurance Exchange-private or public;
•Establishes clear, strict rules for separating public funds from the premiums of private individuals (ensuring that no public funds are ever used to pay for an abortion in any health plan offered on the Health Insurance Exchange);
•Guarantees every American participating in the Health Insurance Exchange will always have access to a pro-life insurance option;
•Expands conscience protections to prevent the government from discriminating against pro-life health insurance plans

Matt is right in saying that “if conservatives who would oppose health care plans anyway are to be dismissed and their arguments as Catholics ignored, then liberals who would support the health care plans anyway (because abortion isn’t a deal breaker for them) should be similarly dismissed and ignored.” I don’t like saying this, because I am a Democrat and I want health care reform. But our only hope of getting reform that does not increase the number of abortions is to stand firm behind the Stupak amendment as a deal-breaker, without compromise or equivocation. If we don’t, we’ll end up with a “reform” that victimizes the most vulnerable among us. And nothing is worth that.

Many pro-life Catholics voted for President Obama because of his promise to work for abortion reduction. I was too young to vote at the time, but I probably would have done the same (hindsight being 20/20, I very likely will not be voting to re-elect, though that doesn’t mean I’ll be going Republican). Federal funding of abortion, whether it comes from “taxpayer money” or premium payments on a public plan, will increase the number of abortions. This is a test both of President Obama’s commitment to abortion reduction and his Catholic supporters’ commitment to holding his Administration accountable to this promise. It seems like a no-brainer to me.

The Ellsworth language would become part of the bill (HR 3962) if the House adopts the rule for floor consideration, Slaughter said. The proposal would explicitly prohibit federal funding for abortions and guarantee patients access to “pro life” insurance plans that would not cover the procedure.

Slaughter said she expects the House to consider the legislation during a rare Saturday session on Nov. 7. She predicted a final vote will come about 6 p.m. that day.

By allowing the Ellsworth language, House Democratic leaders hope to nail down support from anti-abortion Democrats who have balked at voting for the bill as currently drafted.

The Ellsworth language basically tracks the Hyde amendment that has banned federal funding for abortion since the 1970s except in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the woman.

This is federal funding and coverage of abortion. Adding a line to your bill that says “we hereby declare that the federal funding and coverage of abortion is not really federal,” doesn’t change anything.

In any event, there will not necessarily be a vote on whether Rep. Stupak’s amendment can get a vote. That is why Rep. Stupak has had to lobby the Speaker for a vote. And it is why he has had to make it a deal-breaker if he doesn’t get a vote. One either stands with the USCCB (or with Rep. Stupak), or one doesn’t. If he doesn’t, fine, but don’t say that Catholics who do are to be dismissed as partisan, while you hold an untouchable high ground.