During the last election cycle, it seemed that social issues took a backseat to economic issues. While abortion and other related issues were not totally ignored, the poor state of the economy and the furor over health care occupied the majority of the electorate’s focus. One notable exception was the great fight over funding of abortions in the health care bill, and recently that fight has arisen again on the Hill. Despite the recent calls for civility in debate, pro-choice activists and politicians have spared no harsh words in their disagreement with House Republicans. Referring to H.R. 3, the “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act,” Rep. Nancy Pelosi boldly declared that “it’s the most comprehensive and radical assault on women’s health in our lifetime.” Talking Points Memo went even further, arguing that H.R. 338 “would allow hospitals to let women die instead of having an abortion.” Senator Frank Lautenberg seemed to have taken a page from Alan Grayson’s campaign ads in what may be the most inflammatory statement. He compared efforts to pass H.R. 3 to what is happening in a “Third World country that’s requiring women to wear head shawls to cover their faces even if they don’t want to do it.” Unfortunately, opponents of H.R. 3 and related bills are using unconvincing scare tactics in what is becoming a more unpopular effort to defend abortion and government support thereof.
First, I will refute the most outrageous accusations against House Republicans. While one might think that it is quite clear that legislators do not want to see women dying on the steps of hospitals or to impose Taliban-esque restrictions, the previous statements unfortunately require me to reiterate this. H.R. 338, the “Protect Life Act,” would make the essence of the Hyde Amendment, the annually-renewed prohibition on federal funding of abortion, a permanent piece of legislation, specifically in regards to the new healthcare bill. It would also allow for hospitals to refuse to perform abortions without fear of loss of funding. As for the wild accusation that this bill would lead to pregnant women dying on the steps of hospitals, current legislation of a similar nature has not led to this scenario. A bill from 2004, the Hyde-Weldon Amendment, already prevented the government from withholding funds from hospitals refusing to perform abortion. This bill simply takes the language of that amendment and applies it permanently to the new healthcare bill. In this case, hot language obscures the clear facts of the legislation.
Despite all the bluster over Republicans coming for Sen. Lautenberg’s daughters or treating them in the manner of a sharia state, H.R. 3 also simply applies long-standing policy to the new healthcare bill. The Hyde Amendment has been in effect since 1976, but actually as a rider attached to every year’s appropriations bill. While it has been approved every year, this means that theoretically, the rider could be stripped and the federal government left with the bill for abortions under the health-care plans it subsidizes. H.R. 3 codifies this yearly amendment as permanent law. Given that H.R. 3, in line with the Hyde Amendment, allows for abortions in cases of rape, incest, or danger to the life of the mother, it is hard to comprehend the war waged against this bill. When it comes to what is ultimately a purely elective procedure, I am perplexed as to why the federal government would be required to cover abortion in its healthcare plans. By accusing Republicans of acting as if they want to put women in burkas next, pro-choice activists present a reality that does not exist under current Hyde Amendment law. It is clear they oppose H.R. 3 not because there is something new in the bill, but because they feel that the federal government should fund elective abortions.
Unfortunately for their elective prospects, the tide of public opinion is turning towards a pro-life disposition. A Gallup tracking poll on abortion views has found that as of May 2010, more Americans have declared themselves “pro-life” as opposed to “pro-choice.” Interestingly, this trend is matched across all ages and both genders. 47% of those respondents in the 18-29 age range identified as “pro-life.” Likewise, 48% of women identified as “pro-life.” This hardly matches the scare language of a tiny cadre of radical Republican men oppressing the entire female population. NARAL’s own polls from 2010 showed that those young people identifying as pro-life were a great deal more passionate on abortion than those identifying as pro-choice. One can only imagine how NARAL felt when it learned that 51% of those identifying as pro-life considered abortion a “very important issue,” while only 26% of those identifying as pro-choice felt the same way. While pro-choice activists might argue that these numbers arise from being on the defensive in a post-Roe world, they must deal with the realities of these polls. Public opinion on abortion is turning against the pro-choice argument, and Republicans are responding to a demand from the electorate. When pro-choice activists already face a tough road in terms of public opinion, it hardly helps their cause to attack reiterations of a well-accepted network of legislation in radical terms. The majority of Americans see themselves as upholding the dignity of life, not running after Sen. Lautenberg’s daughters with head scarves in hand.
Photo Credit: Wikimedia Commons
© 2024 Harvard Political Review. All rights reserved.