National Affairs Rory Leishman
In a headline story on Nov. 8, the New York Times reported that, by voting to ban federal funding for abortion from the major health-care reform bill under consideration in the United States Congress, the House of Representatives “has energized the opponents of abortion with their biggest victory in years.”
Quite so. The $1.1 trillion House health-care reform bill proposes to extend insurance coverage to 36 million uninsured Americans by subsidizing health-care premiums for everyone who earns less than the equivalent of $88,000 for a family of four. Under terms of an amendment sponsored by Congressman Bart Stupak, a pro-life Democrat from Michigan, no money authorized by the bill can be used to offset any of the costs of an insurance plan that covers abortion, except in the case of rape, incest or risk of death to the mother if the pregnancy continues.
The vote on the Stupak amendment was not even close: 240 Congressmen, including 64 Democrats, voted in favour, while 194, all of them Democrats, were opposed.
Meanwhile, the United States Senate is devising a health-care reform bill of its own that may or may not ban federal funding for abortion. Even the courts will probably go along with the ban. In 1980, the United States Supreme Court held in Harris v. McRae that there is no constitutional right to federal funding for abortion.
Pro-abortion activists in the United States are alarmed. Rep. Diana DeGette (D – Col.), co-chair of the Congressional Pro-Choice Caucus, had decried the Stupak amendment, saying it “sets a terrible precedent and marks a significant step backwards.” Laurie Rubiner, vice-president of public policy for Planned Parenthood, pointed out that private insurance companies are bound to cease coverage for abortion in order to qualify for the proposed federal subsidies and remain competitive.
Passage of the Stupak amendment in the House is just the latest in a series of legislative measures over the past 20 years to curtail abortion. The Hyde Amendment, an annually renewed provision introduced by the late pro-life Republican Congressman Henry Hyde, forbids federal funding for abortion under the Medicaid program for the poor, except in cases of rape, incest or some physical condition that would endanger the life of the mother if the pregnancy were to continue. A similar legislative ban on abortion funding applies to insurance plans for federal employees and the military.
President George W. Bush signed into law the Born Alive Infants Protection Act in 2002 and the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act in 2003. Meanwhile, numerous state legislatures have also adopted funding restrictions and informed consent laws for abortion. For example, in 2006, the Michigan legislature enacted the Ultrasound Viewing Option, a law that requires an abortionist to give the mother an opportunity to view an active ultrasound image of her growing baby.
There can be no doubt that these laws have been effective in reducing abortion. In a comprehensive recent study of the consequences of enacting and quashing laws restricting abortion in various states, Michael J. New, an assistant professor in the department of political science at the University of Alabama and an associate of the Harvard-MIT data centre, concluded that public funding restrictions and informed consent laws have had “the largest and most statistically significant impact” in reducing abortion.
The Guttmacher Institute, which serves as the “research arm” of Planned Parenthood in the United States, has found that restrictions on funding in the Hyde Amendment alone have cut the abortion rate among Medicaid recipients by 25 per cent. If the expanded ban on federal funding for abortion in the Stupak amendment is finally enacted into law, it’s certain that many, many more babies will be saved from death by abortion.
In recent years, the abortion rate in the United States has steadily declined to 19.4 per 1,000 women of child-bearing age in 2005. While that’s still appallingly high, it’s down 34 per cent from the peak of 29.3 per 1,000 women in 1980.
Canadian pro-lifers should take note: there is reason to hope that a concerted effort to promote the enactment of informed consent laws and restrictions on public funding for abortion within Canada would likewise result in a substantial reduction in the death rate from abortion here.
