Reid Schedules Vote To Move Reform Bill to Floor as Abortion Debate Continues November 20, 2009 — Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is working to secure the support of 60 senators ahead of a vote on Saturday evening on whether to advance the chamber's version of health care reform legislation to the Senate floor, the Washington Post reports. According to the Post, Reid has been courting the votes of Democratic Sens. Mary Landrieu (La.), Blanche Lincoln (Ark.) and Ben Nelson (Neb.), as they "remain the biggest question marks." Nelson, who opposes abortion rights, has said he is not satisfied with Reid's language on abortion and would like to see stronger restrictions on coverage of the procedure (Montgomery/Murray, Washington Post, 11/20). Although Reid's bill contains several abortion-related restrictions, it does not go as far as the House version in restricting coverage, CQ Today reports. The Senate bill would allow people who receive federal subsidies to select a plan that covers abortion, but it requires insurers to use money contributed by consumers, not federal subsidies, to cover the cost of abortion care. The bill also would require that the insurance exchanges offer at least one plan that covers abortion and one that does not.
Abortion-rights opponents are urging the Senate to adopt language similar to an amendment by Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) in the House bill (HR 3962) that would prohibit the public option from covering abortion care and bar women who receive federal subsidies from purchasing plans that include abortion coverage.
Focus Shifts to Nelson
In a floor address on Thursday, Sen. Mike Johanns (R-Neb.) began a campaign to convince Senate Democrats who oppose abortion rights -- including Nelson, his home-state colleague -- to vote against the motion to open debate on Reid's bill. Johanns called the motion-to-proceed vote "our last chance to protect life in this debate" (Wayne, CQ Today, 11/19). According to Democratic and Republican aides, Johanns speech marks "an unusual intrastate disagreement" with Nelson, CongressDaily reports (Friedman, CongressDaily, 11/20).
Nelson said he disagrees with Johanns' perception of the vote, saying, "It's not the key vote. If cloture is obtained, then you have the opportunity to amend or improve the legislation" (CQ Today, 11/19). Nelson "hinted" that he will vote to bring the bill to the floor, according to Roll Call. He said that although he would prefer stronger language on the abortion-coverage restrictions, "that's one of the things that could be amended" if the bill reaches the Senate floor (Dennis, Roll Call, 11/19).
Advocates' Views Mixed on Senate Bill
Abortion-rights supporters have said they are pleased that Reid's bill does not include the language found in the Stupak amendment. Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif) said Reid's bill "maintains the decades-long compromise of no federal funds for abortion, while allowing a woman to use her own private funds for her reproductive health care" (Pear, New York Times, 11/20). White House Office of Health Reform Director Nancy-Ann DeParle said Reid's abortion restrictions were "carefully worked through by the leader, who cares a lot about making sure this maintains the status quo on abortion policy." She added that President Obama has said he wants health care reform legislation to remain neutral on the issue of abortion and that Reid's bill achieves that goal (Alonso-Zaldivar, AP/Yahoo! News, 11/20).
Meanwhile, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) indicated that House abortion language would not survive when the chambers' bills are combined. "We all have agreed -- on all sides of this issue -- that we would maintain the status quo, that we would have no federal funding for abortion, and that we would pass health care reform," Pelosi said. She added, "We're going to pass a bill. For those who want to use any excuse not to pass a bill, well, that's another story. This is not a bill about abortion. This is a bill about health care."
Several abortion-rights groups have said they will support the Senate bill, although "they are not rushing to embrace it," the New York Times reports. Marcia Greenberger, co-president of the National Women's Law Center, said that as long as further restrictions on abortion coverage are not added, her group would support the bill in order to see health reform legislation passed. However, the bill "is not the pro-choice position," she said. In a statement, the Planned Parenthood Federation of America said the Senate bill "respects" current restrictions on the issue, "while allowing women with private health insurance the choice of plan, coverage and providers." NARAL Pro-Choice America has not taken a position on the Senate bill but said it was "encouraged" that it does not include the "extreme new anti-choice restrictions" of the House bill. The group added that "the legislation includes a compromise that continues existing laws that unfairly single out abortion care" (Seelye, New York Times, 11/20).
Mikulski To Introduce Mammogram Amendment
In related news, Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.) on Thursday said she will introduce an amendment to the Senate bill that would guarantee women universal access to mammograms beginning at age 40, the Baltimore Sun reports. Mikulski's amendment is in response to new U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendations stating that most women do not need mammograms until age 50 and only every two years after that. The recommendation "attacks the whole concept of preventive services for women," Mikulski said in a statement, adding, "They say we don't need mammograms until we are 50. I believe that where data is conflicting, it is better to be safe than sorry" (Cohn, Baltimore Sun, 11/20).
Stupak Amendment Would Be 'Major Step Backward,' Capps Writes in Opinion Piece
In a Politico opinion piece, Rep. Lois Capps (D-Calif.) writes that the Stupak amendment "goes well beyond the status quo" and "would result in a major step backward for women's access to abortion, a legal medical procedure." The "goal is to pass meaningful health care reform legislation," and "[w]e must not allow abortion opponents to use our health care reform process to drastically restrict a woman's access to a legal medical procedure," which is "exactly what the [amendment] does," she says (Capps, Politico, 11/20).
NPR, Newsweek Examine Efforts To Block Stupak Language in Senate
NPR's "Morning Edition" on Friday examined efforts by Senate Democrats to block language similar to the Stupak amendment from being added in the chamber's version of health reform legislation (Seabrook, "Morning Edition," NPR, 11/20).
Meanwhile, Newsweek reports that although abortion-rights supporters' efforts to block the Stupak amendment in the House failed, the lack of such language in the Senate's bill "indicates that their predictions that they would be more effective in the Senate are being vindicated" (Beyerstein, Newsweek, 11/19).
|
New ACOG Recommendations Call for Less Frequent Cervical Cancer Screening
November 20, 2009 — New guidelines for cervical cancer screening from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists say that women should delay their first cervical cancer test until age 21 and be screened less often than older guidelines recommend, the New York Times reports. The new guidelines make additional recommendations, including that women ages 21 through 29 be screened every two years and that women ages 30 and older who have had three consecutive normal tests and who have no history of serious, abnormal findings can wait three years between screenings. In addition, women who have had a total hysterectomy for a noncancerous condition and who have had no previous abnormalities can stop having screenings entirely. Women ages 65 through 70 can stop having Pap tests if they have had three or more negative tests in a row and no abnormal test results in the last 10 years.
ACOG's older guidelines recommend that women have tests more frequently, starting within three years of first sexual intercourse and no later than age 21. The group cites the potential for harm from the unnecessary testing and potentially harmful treatment as the basis for the new recommendations. According to the Times, young women especially are prone to develop abnormalities in the cervix that disappear if left alone. When cervical cancer tests find abnormalities, physicians often remove them through procedures that can damage the cervix and lead to problems later if the woman becomes pregnant, such as premature birth and an increased risk of caesarean section (Grady, New York Times, 11/20).
The AP/Miami Herald reports that the new guidelines also better address how human papillomavirus -- which causes cervical cancer -- relates to a woman's age. Although HPV infection is high among sexually active teens and young adults, the infection is more likely to be transient in younger women. ACOG said cervical cancer in teenagers is rare, at one or two cases per one million women ages 15 to 19 (Neergaard, AP/Miami Herald, 11/20). Cervical cancer can develop 10 to 20 years after exposure to HPV.
The new recommendations do not apply to women with certain health issues that could make them more likely to develop aggressive cervical cancer, including HIV, an organ transplant or other conditions that can suppress the immune system (New York Times, 11/20).
Thomas Herzog of Columbia University, chair of an ACOG subcommittee on gynecologic cancers, said, "Overtreatment of minor abnormal Pap tests in young women and adolescents can lead to consequences such as preterm labor in some cases. It increases the risk." Jennifer Milosavijevic, an ob-gyn specialist at Henry Ford Health System, said that preterm delivery is a "huge problem" in the U.S., adding that she supports the new guidelines (Steenhuysen, Reuters, 11/20).
Alan Waxman, an professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of New Mexico who co-authored the revisions, said, "We really felt that the downsides of more frequent screening outweighed any benefits," adding, "More testing is not always more intelligent testing" (Stein, Washington Post, 11/20).
Some experts criticized the new guidelines for not being stringent enough. Carol Brown, a gynecologic oncologist and surgeon at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, said that the new guidelines should not be applied to all women because some girls have sex at age 12 or 13 and might be prone to cervical cancer at a younger age (New York Times, 11/20).
Some physicians said that an annual Pap test might be the only time some women see a physician and that the new guidelines might lead them to miss out on preventive care. Robert Smith, cancer screening director of the American Cancer Society, said, "I understand some people may have a cynical view of this," adding, "But we want to assure women this is not motivated to save money" (Roan, Los Angeles Times, 11/20).
|
Senate Confirms Hamilton to Federal Appeals Court
November 20, 2009 — The Senate on Thursday voted 59-39 to confirm U.S. District Court Judge David Hamilton to the Chicago-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, the New York Times reports. Hamilton's home-state senator, Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), was the only Republican to vote for his confirmation.
Hamilton was President Obama's first judicial nominee, announced March 19, but Republicans have opposed the nomination (Phillips, New York Times, 11/20). On Tuesday, the Senate voted 70-29 to invoke cloture and end debate on Hamilton's nomination, setting up a confirmation vote.
CQ Today reports that Hamilton's confirmation is significant because it shows that the Senate will be able to confirm Obama's judicial nominees if Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) elects to invoke cloture -- as long as the Democratic caucus remains united. The Republican caucus's inability to block Hamilton -- "the most controversial of the pending judicial nominees" -- shows that "it is unlikely that the GOP can hold up any others that Reid might bring to the floor," according to CQ Today (Vadala, CQ Today, 11/19).
Hamilton received strong support from Lugar as well as the backing of the conservative Federalist Society (Women's Health Policy Report, 11/17). However, Senate Republicans, led by Senate Judiciary Committee ranking member Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), labeled Hamilton an activist, citing his rulings on abortion and Christian prayer, the AP/Houston Chronicle reports.
With the addition of Hamilton, the 7th Circuit will have seven Republican-nominated judges and four chosen by Democrats (Margasak, AP/Houston Chronicle, 11/19).
|
Veracruz, Mexico, Approves Law Defining Conception as Start of Life; Mexican Congress To Consider Constitutional Abortion Ban
November 20, 2009 — Veracruz, Mexico, on Wednesday became the 17th of the country's 32 states to enact a law defining life as beginning at conception, the AP/Google News reports. States began adopting such laws -- most of which make abortion a homicide -- in 2008 after Mexico City enacted a law legalizing abortion in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy.
Veracruz lawmakers also adopted a proposal requiring the Mexican Congress to consider a constitutional amendment outlawing abortion. Mexico allows any of its state's legislatures to propose a constitutional amendment. If the bicameral Congress and a majority of states support the measure, the amendment is added to the national constitution.
Abortion-rights supporters said Wednesday that the amendment stands a good chance of passing because both the majority National Action Party and the Institutional Revolutionary Party supported the state law. The Roman Catholic Church is expected to lobby heavily for the amendment. Noemi Ramirez, director of the Mexican Academy of Human Rights, said that "it is quite probable" that Congress will support the measure. Maria Luisa Sanchez of the Group for Informed Reproductive Rights described the Veracruz developments as "outrageous, disappointing and very frustrating," adding, "It is very serious that they have brought it up on the federal level."
The Veracruz law includes a clause that allows alternative sentencing options, such as mandatory "education programs" rather than jail time, for women convicted of violating the abortion ban. The law also includes exceptions for rape, fetal abnormality or danger to the woman's life. According to abortion-rights advocate Rosalia Cruz Sanchez, those exceptions have little impact in practice. Sanchez said that some doctors who fear prosecution for performing abortions require women who say they were raped to produce a letter from a prosecutor corroborating that fact. Officials often drag out the process for more than 12 weeks, after which point most states prohibit the procedure (Stevenson, AP/Google News, 11/19).
|
Family Planning, No-Cost Condom Distribution Could Reduce Global Warming, UNFPA Says
November 20, 2009 — Slowing global population growth through no-cost condom distribution and wider access to family planning services would help aid the fight against climate change, the United Nations Population Fund said in a report released Wednesday, the AP/Yahoo! News reports. The agency said that women with access to reproductive health services "have lower fertility rates that contribute to slower growth in greenhouse gas emissions." The report added, "As the growth of population, economies and consumption outpaces the earth's capacity to adjust, climate change could become much more extreme and conceivably catastrophic."
Thoraya Ahmed Obaid, executive director of UNFPA, said that global warming would be catastrophic for people in low-income countries, especially women. She said, "We have now reached a point where humanity is approaching the brink of disaster."
The report said that there is no doubt that "people cause climate change," adding that developed countries have been responsible for a much larger share of the world's greenhouse gas emissions than developing countries. The connection between climate change and population control is "in most cases complex and indirect," the report said. A 2006 U.N. report found that the world's population is likely to increase from 6.7 billion to 9.2 billion by 2050, with a majority of the growth occurring in developing regions (Cheng, AP/Yahoo! News, 11/18).
|
U.S. 'Took Too Long' To Lift HPV Vaccination Requirement for Immigrants, Editorial States
November 20, 2009 — Although "it took well over a year," the "federal government has finally realized that it was out of bounds to require immigrant women" to be vaccinated against the human papillomavirus, a Los Angeles Times editorial states. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently announced the revision of 2008 guidelines that required female immigrants ages 11 through 26 seeking legal U.S. permanent residence to be vaccinated against HPV at their own expense. The new guidelines take effect Dec. 14.
The editorial notes that "the vaccine is not required for [U.S.] citizens, and the virus is not spread through casual contact." In addition, at "a cost of about $400 for a series of three inoculations, ... the requirement placed an additional burden on girls and women who sought residency in this country," the editorial says. It continues, "Worse, by requiring the vaccine for immigrants but no one else, the government sent a tone-deaf message that immigrant women were somehow 'unclean' and more likely to spread sexually transmitted diseases." The editorial argues that "authorities should recommend [the vaccine] to immigrants and explain its ability to fight a frightening disease."
The editorial concludes, "If the vaccine isn't required for citizens, then it shouldn't be required for immigrants," adding, "The federal government took too long to discover that simple logic" (Los Angeles Times, 11/19).
|
Columnists, Cancer Groups Weigh In on Breast Cancer Screening Recommendations
November 20, 2009 — Several newspapers recently published opinion pieces regarding recent recommendations by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force that recommend mammograms every two years for most women starting at age 50, rather than at age 40 as previously recommended. The recommendations also say that doctors should not instruct women on breast self-examinations. Summaries of the opinion pieces appear below.
~ Kathleen Parker, Chicago Tribune: "While some cancer groups, including the American Cancer Society, have objected strenuously to the panel's recommendations, Susan G. Komen for the Cure ... is aiming for a more measured -- strategic -- tone," columnist Parker writes. According to Parker, Komen founder Nancy Brinker "sees the report as yet another opportunity for activism. If current screening is imperfect, then why not make it better?" Parker continues, "Brinker sees the federal report as a good thing -- a 'clarion call' for funders, researchers and government to deliver a lower-cost, more-effective screening tool." Parker writes, "If Brinker has her way, the debate ... will lead to improved technology so crucial to detection" of breast cancer (Parker, Chicago Tribune, 11/18).
~ Gail Collins, New York Times: According to columnist Collins, the Obama administration "scurried away" from the task force's report because there "is no possible political advantage in coming out against medical testing," while Republicans "depicted it as the first step toward rationing" under health care reform. She notes, "Has anybody noticed that the people who darkly warn about government bureaucrats forcing insurance companies to cut back our coverage appear to be the same ones who just voted to force insurance companies to stop covering abortions?" Collins continues, "Every rational American wants qualified experts to keep re-examining current medical practices," adding, "The only thing that bothers me about the mammogram report is all the emphases on the 'anxiety' that might follow a false positive." She writes that the "real problem with a test that creates a lot of false-positive results is that it leads to a lot of other medical procedures" (Collins, New York Times, 11/10).
~ Otis Brawley, Washington Post: The task force "took a step backward in the fight against breast cancer," Brawley, chief medical officer of the American Cancer Society, writes. According to Brawley, "This rigorous discussion is an important part of reaching clear and understandable public health guidance. But it can be messy and confusing to the public." He continues, "And, in this case, it could result in fewer women getting screened and a return to the days when we caught cancers only when they were big enough to feel." He writes that current mammograms are "far from perfect" but are "the best way we have to find tumors early." Brawley concludes, "Let's not behave as though we lack a tool with proven benefits to women's health" (Brawley, Washington Post, 11/19).
|
Blogs Comment on Abortion Coverage, Abstinence-Only Funding in Senate Health Reform Bill, Other Topics
November 20, 2009 — The following summarizes selected women's health-related blog entries.
~ "Two New Analyses Show Women Have 'Much at Stake' Under Stupak Amendment," Jodi Jacobson, RH Reality Check: Jacobson explains how two new reports -- one from the Kaiser Family Foundation and one from the George Washington University School of Public Health -- "show just how much" the Stupak amendment to the House health reform bill (HR 3962) "would undermine women's basic human rights to exercise choice over childbearing, to access comprehensive reproductive health care, to access abortions (a legal procedure in the United States) and to ensure they are covered by insurance for unanticipated pregnancy-related conditions that could, absent coverage, leave them and their families with enormous debt." According to the KFF report, "The House bill places a number of restrictions on coverage of abortion, with the most direct impact on the plans that will be offered in the new health insurance exchange." It is unclear whether insurers would offer the "abortion riders" allowed under the Stupak amendment or how much such riders would cost, the report says. It adds, "This complex combination of restrictions means that many women who will obtain coverage under health reform either through Medicaid or the exchange would have to pay for an abortion out-of-pocket, the cost of which varies depending on factors such as location, facility, timing and type of procedure." Jacobson continues that the GWU report "focused on the implications of the Stupak amendment for the health benefits industry on the whole, the growth of the public market for supplemental coverage and the implications for covering abortions that are a consequence of an unexpected condition." The report concludes that the Stupak amendment "will have an industry-wide effect, eliminating coverage of medically indicated abortions over time for all women, not only those whose coverage is derived through a health insurance exchange" (Jacobson, RH Reality Check, 11/19).
~ "Senate Bill Restores Abstinence-Only Funding," Sarah Kliff, Newsweek's "The Gaggle": The Senate health reform bill includes a provision that would restore funding for the Title V abstinence-only sex education program, which was allowed to lapse in June. If the language in the bill survives, the Title V program, which allocates $50 million to states annually, would be extended through 2014. The provision was added in the Senate Finance Committee via an amendment by Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah). Abstinence-only groups praised Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) for including the language, according to Kliff. Kliff writes that she expects the language to survive, arguing that the most ardent backers of health reform will not jeopardize the bill over abstinence-only education. The language also could help in swaying the vote of Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.), who supported the amendment in the Finance Committee and is undecided on health reform. Meanwhile, abortion-rights groups that oppose abstinence-only education are too busy fighting the bill's abortion restrictions "and likely do not have the resources for a serious two-front battle," according to Kliff (Kliff, "The Gaggle," Newsweek, 11/19).
~ "Pew: Abortion Low on List of Concerns for Healthcare Reform Opponents," Dan Gilgoff, U.S. News & World Report's "God & Country": Gilgoff writes that a new survey from the Pew Forum for People and the Press finds that "[a]bortion coverage is way down on the list of concerns of those who oppose Democratic-led health care reform." He continues that the poll shows a "majority of Americans -- 55% -- oppose abortion coverage as a 'guaranteed medical benefit' in a government-run health insurance plan, but just 3% of those who oppose Democratic-led reform volunteer abortion as their top concern." According to Gilgoff, "This is welcome news to Democrats, since the debate over how a government-managed health care plan should treat abortion coverage threatens to derail the whole reform effort." He adds, "But it's important to note what the Pew survey didn't ask: What qualifies as government-funded abortion?" Gilgoff writes, "There's general agreement in Washington that health care reform should maintain the status quo of no federally funded abortion." He concludes, "The argument is over what that actually means," and it would "be interesting to hear what the American people think" (Gilgoff, "God & Country," U.S. News & World Report, 11/20).
~ "Women in Their 40s Ponder Whether To Skip the Mammogram," Deborah Kotz, U.S. News & World Report's "On Women": Kotz writes, "I'm guessing that I'm not the only woman confused about" when to get a mammogram after the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force released new guidelines saying that most women should begin routine mammograms to screen for breast cancer at age 50, not 40 as previously recommended. She reports that she contacted Susan Love, a breast surgeon and clinical professor of surgery at the University of California-Los Angeles' medical school, who said Kotz should wait until she is 50, "provided I am not at a higher-than-average risk of getting the disease." Kotz writes that she then contacted Isaac Schiff, chief of obstetrics and gynecology at Massachusetts General Hospital, who said he is abiding by the old guidelines, as he "worries that the ... [new] recommendations are based on cost-effectiveness and the push to drive down health care costs." According to Kotz, Schiff said that getting diagnosed early "simply makes sense, since a smaller tumor often means a smaller biopsy, lumpectomy instead of mastectomy, less aggressive chemotherapy." Kotz adds, "Love would argue that while that may be true in some cases, it's not true all the time." Kotz writes, "Clearly, there's still a lot to be learned about breast cancer" (Kotz, "On Women," U.S. News & World Report, 11/20).
~ "Hold Off on That Mammogram," Mary Elizabeth Williams, Salon's "Broadsheet": Williams writes that while she is "skeptical of the new guidelines that have raised the suggested age to start getting mammograms to 50," there is also "plenty in the guidelines worth considering." She says that "the report does make a persuasive case that not all cancers are life-threatening and that 'over-detection' and 'over-treatment' pose their own -- often considerable -- health risks." However, the report also notes that false positives resulting from frequent mammography can cause anxiety for women. Williams writes that "given the choice between 'anxiety' or not living to see my children grow up, I'd go for the first one." Ultimately, after reviewing several factors in her own life that could put her at high risk for breast cancer, Williams says, "Every woman with an opinion about breast cancer has to figure out her own risks -- and share them with her doctors." She adds, "Blanket guidelines are just that -- they're fine for covering the many, and they are not laws we have to follow" (Williams, "Broadsheet," Salon, 11/18).
~ "Senate Health Bill Rejects Anti-Choice Extremes," John Nichols, The Nation's "The Beat": "The Senate health care bill unveiled Wednesday ... is not exactly the cure for all of what ails America," but "in many respects" the bill is "better" than the House version, Nichols writes. With regard to abortion coverage, the Senate bill is "dramatically better" because it omits the "draconian 'Stupak' language, which was written into the House bill with the intent of establishing radical new limits on access to reproductive health services," according to Nichols. While Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's (D-Nev.) bill is hardly a "pro-choice bonanza" because "[i]t preserves existing limits on public funding of abortions," that concession could help Reid gain the votes needed to secure passage of the legislation, Nichols notes. "If the Senate passes the bill as written by the majority leader -- and that remains a big 'if' -- the Senate and House measures will then have to be reconciled in a conference committee," Nichols writes, adding that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) "will, unquestionably, need an assist from the White House" in order to gain sufficient support for the bill in the House (Nichols, "The Beat," The Nation, 11/19).
~ "Welcome to Abortion's Middle Ground," Tracy Clark-Flory, Salon's "Broadsheet": "There's nothing like an extreme assault on women's reproductive rights to make you truly appreciate moderation," Clark-Flory writes, referring to the abortion coverage restrictions in the Senate health reform bill, "which trades the House's stringent Stupak-Pitts language in favor of a limited ban on federal funding of abortions." The "key details" of the Senate bill are that both public and private insurance plans could offer abortion coverage, she writes, adding, "It empowers consumers to use government subsidies to purchase insurance that covers abortion, but requires that their premiums (and not federal funds) pay for the actual procedures." The bill is "a true compromise bill" because "now both sides have something to be unhappy about," Clark-Flory writes (Clark-Flory, "Broadsheet," Salon, 11/19).
~ "Health Care and Abortion Funding: Dealbreaker or No Big Deal?" David Gibson, Politics Daily's "Disputations": The "brain-twister for the day" comes from recent polls that "show that a majority of Americans do not want federal funds to subsidize abortion coverage," but "hardly anyone cites taxpayer funding of abortion as a reason they oppose health care reform packages under consideration in Congress," Gibson writes. He adds, "And yet abortion funding has become the make-or-break issue for health care reform." According to Gibson, a CNN poll released Wednesday found that 61% of respondents oppose federally subsidized abortion coverage, while a Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life poll released Thursday showed that 3% of respondents named the issue as their main reason for opposing health reform. "Either way, the overall numbers on health care reform are what count in the end, and on that score there was some good news for the reform camp," Gibson writes, adding that the Pew poll indicated that respondents favor current versions of health care reform legislation by a 42% to 39% margin (Gibson, "Disputations," Politics Daily, 11/20).
|
