The House first passed an amendment, 240-194, that would prohibit coverage for abortion in the newly formed health insurance exchanges. Federal funding for abortion is already prohibited, and supporters of the Stupak amendment say they are merely extending that prohibition to the new health care plan.
But opponents of the amendment -- including the South Bay's three Democratic representatives, Jane Harman, Laura Richardson and Maxine Waters -- say it is a significant expansion of the Hyde amendment of 1977, and would prevent women even from spending their own money on health insurance that includes coverage for abortion.
Each South Bay Democrat voted against the Stupak amendment before voting for the full bill. (Waters cast the 218th vote for the full bill, putting it over the top.) The South Bay's lone Republican representative, Dana Rohrabacher, voted the for the Stupak amendment and against the full bill -- as did all other Republicans except one.
In a statement, Harman says she will have to reconsider her support for the health care bill if the Stupak amendment is contained in the version approved by the conference committee. Full statement after the jump.
It is going to be very difficult for me to vote for a health care bill that contains the Stupak amendment on abortion.
Far from codifying the Hyde language, which has been included in House appropriations bills since 1976, the Stupak amendment would essentially make it impossible for most women to use their own funds to purchase insurance to pay for abortions. This is not chipping away at a woman's right to choose, this is an outright assault on my constitutional rights - and it is wrong.
I respect the right of any woman or man to oppose abortion. But, in return, I expect those who are anti-choice to respect my views. My views are that abortion should be safe and rare - but that a woman's constitutional right to privacy as articulated in Roe v. Wade is inviolable.
I am old enough to remember the days of back alley abortions. Some women I know had them. I cannot bear the idea that the 111th Congress would restore that horror.
The Stupak amendment is insulting and destructive. Its passage would pair us with the government of Afghanistan in sending women's rights back to the Stone Age. I intend to vote for this bill, but if it contains the Stupak amendment when it emerges from Conference Committee, my conscience demands that I reconsider my support.
I am embarrassed to say I grew up in Bart Stupak's district and cast my ballot for him in the first election I ever voted in. I am glad Harmon is there to at least talk some sense into these imbiciles.