Opponents of Rep. Tom Perriello, D-5th District, are accusing him of flip-flopping on abortion funding in federal health care reform after he issued a statement Tuesday supporting the language in the Senate bill.
As Congress inches closer toward a decision on health care reform, Perriello reinforced his position that he would not support a bill that funded abortions with federal dollars — and that the Senate version of the legislation meets his standards. But critics of the legislation — and of Perriello — say the bill does provide federal funding for abortions.
The House of Representatives’ version of the bill included the Stupak Amendment (the Senate version did not) which prohibited any federal funds from being used for abortions beyond the existing 1976 Hyde Amendment. According to the National Abortion Federation, the present version of the Hyde Amendment requires federal payment for Medicaid abortions in cases of rape, incest and life endangerment.
“I have maintained a pledge that I would not support any health care reform bill that includes federal funding for abortion, and I stand by that pledge today,” Perriello said in a statement.
“…As health care experts and pro-life leaders agree, the abortion language in the Senate bill upholds the Hyde Amendment standard,” he said. “The Senate health care bill prevents federal taxpayer dollars from funding abortions, as the Catholic Hospital Association and legal experts have recently stated and as my own research has confirmed.”
However, National Republican Congressional Committee Spokesman Andy Sere accused Perriello of breaking his promise. Many pro-life organizations and politicians, such as the National Right to Life Committee, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and even Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich. — author of the Stupak Amendment — argue that the Senate version of the bill allows for public funding of abortion.
“(Perriello) can say ’til he’s blue in the face that this bill doesn’t fund abortions, but (leading pro-life supporters) say it does,” Sere said. “The brazenness with which he’s discarded a solemn pledge … is shocking. And no amount of slick politician spin will change that … For Perriello to say that all of a sudden they’re wrong and he’s right is the height of disingenuousness.”
In a statement Tuesday reported by the New York Times, the Catholic Bishops opposed the Senate bill’s exclusion of explicit language upholding the Hyde Amendment. Stupak issued a similar statement in February, unhappy that the Senate language allowed for federally-funded abortions, and has since said publicly he would not support the Senate bill.
“The fact is that (Perriello) wants to vote for Obama’s health care takeover so bad that he was willing to throw pro-life principles by the wayside,” Sere said. “He’s looking for any excuse to break his promise so that he can vote for this bill.”
Timothy Jost, a health law professor at Washington & Lee University in Lexington, said he is both pro-life and supports the Senate version of the bill. One of the major arguments, Jost said, is that the $7 billion appropriated to community health centers would allow for federally-funded abortions because the centers are not explicitly linked to the Hyde Amendment.
“That’s actually not true,” Jost said. “…That’s just a red herring.”
Jost said that the money appropriated is done so through the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, which would channel it along with money from the regular appropriations bill, covered by the Hyde Amendment. Community health centers “would have no way of separating out these funds from those funds,” Jost said.
The other argument is that the Senate version’s provision for segregating funds paid for public health plans’ subsidies is not as effective as the Stupak Amendment in ensuring federal funds are not used. But Jost said if a patient wants abortion coverage, they must pay privately. Any insurance funding used for abortions will be audited by states to ensure that no federal money was used, and patients will receive separate bills and separate premiums for abortion coverage.
“The Senate bill says that if you get federal money to buy a health plan, that money cannot be used to pay for an abortion coverage,” Jost said. “…It creates an airtight wall between the federal money and the private money used to pay for abortions.”
Jost also noted that because the Stupak Amendment does not use federal funds, it cannot be enacted through reconciliation, which can only be used for laws that affect federal revenues.
“I think Congressman Perriello is definitely making the right choice,” Jost said. “…We either get the (Senate version) or we get no health care at all. I think this is pro-life legislation. I think it’s going to save a lot of lives.”
Carol Slaughter, director of Danville’s Little Life Pregnancy Medical Center, which provides free support services for unintended pregnancies, said she was not familiar enough with the legislation to comment on Perriello’s stance. But she said she wanted “no taxpayers’ money going to fund abortion” in any health care legislation.
“If Perriello votes in that direction I would support his decision,” Slaughter said.
Local Democrats “overwhelmingly” believe that Perriello is committed to health care reform without funding abortions with federal money, acting city chairman Bernard Baker said.
“There have been people who have questioned that within the committee and we have let them know he has not turned his back on anyone,” Baker said. “…he has made it clear that he will not support that … I do know this — I do trust Tom Perriello to vote his convictions and to serve us well.”
In his statement Tuesday, Perriello touted various pro-life supporters who backed the Senate version of the bill, such as the Catholic Health Association and a letter to Congress from 25 pro-life leaders across the country. He also noted the provision in the bill, such as $250 million over 10 years for programs to support pregnant women and parenting teens, that could help to reduce abortions.
Political analyst Bob Holsworth, president of VirginiaTomorrow.com, said the debate puts the issue of abortion “in the heart” of the upcoming congressional campaign. Republicans like the NRCC and the seven candidates running in the GOP primary to challenge Perriello will use his support of the bill against him — because unlike some Democrats, Perriello is not backing down from polarizing national issues.
“What this does is that it heightens the visibility of the overall vote and the stance on choice and life issues in the campaign,” Holsworth said. “I think it looks to me as if he has taken the position that he understands he’s gonna be linked with Obama, he’s gonna be linked with the national Democrats and he’s going to run with issues on the ground.”
Amos is a staff writer for the Danville Register & Bee.
Email
Facebook
Google
Twitter
Favorites
More
Advertisement