At least 40 members of the U.S. House of Representatives pledge to vote against a final healthcare bill if it contains the strict abortion restrictions presently in the House version.

According to the Los Angeles Times, "liberals furious over a last-minute deal that secured passage of healthcare legislation in the House by restricting abortion coverage threatened Monday to derail the massive overhaul bill."

At issue has been the insurance policies provided in a new "exchange" or marketplace, where numerous people would utilize federal subsidies to purchase coverage.

The House measure prohibits any insurance policy from paying for abortion if it was purchased with a federal subsidy. That would probably compel insurance corporations to drop abortion coverage in the exchange to maintain their policies open to the potentially large pool of subsidized customers.

As a consequence, abortion rights suporters argue that even a customer who received no sibsidies would be unable to buy a comprehensive policy covering abortion.

As reported by the L.A. Times, "the provision 'represents an unprecedented and unacceptable restriction on women's ability to access the full range of reproductive health services to which they are lawfully entitled,' the House members wrote to Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D.-San Francisco)."

It was a tougher stand than they had adopted less then 48 hours earlier, when the 40 legislators had, almost to a member, voted to pass the ObamaCare legislation. Last Saturday, the bill cleared the chamber by five votes.

The turmoil over abortion presently travels to the Senate, where it probably will cause difficulties for Democrats still struggling with fundamental topics of cost, coverage and revenue in their version of the health bill.

The L.A. Times reports that, "the Senate legislation contains looser restrictions on abortion coverage than were approved by the House. But already at least one Democrat, Sen. Bill Nelson of Nebraska, has signaled that he may be willing to work with abortion-rights opponents on developing language similar to the House."

To read the entire article from the Los Angeles Times, link here:

This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it

Comments (0)

Comment	smaller | bigger
Name
Write the displayed characters
Subscribe via email (Registered users only) I have read and agree to the Terms of Usage.
	Add Comment