Late Clash on Abortion Shows Conservatives Sway
By JENNIFER STEINHAUER
Published: April 8, 2011
WASHINGTON — The emergence of abortion as the last and most contentious of the issues holding up a budget deal highlighted the enduring influence of social conservatives within the Republican Party even at a time when the Tea Party movement’s focus on fiscal austerity is getting most of the attention.
Blogs
The Caucus
The latest on President Obama, the new Congress and other news from Washington and around the nation. Join the discussion.
The intensity of the push to retain restrictions on funds for abortion providers — including family planning services by Planned Parenthood and other groups — in any budget deal appeared to come from veteran Republicans. Major supporters included RepresentativeChristopher H. Smith of New Jersey, Representative Joe Pitts of Pennsylvania and Representative Mike Pence of Indiana, all of whom have proposed anti-abortion legislation numerous times and view the issue as a nonnegotiable matter of principle.
They have had a welcome ear in Speaker John A. Boehner of Ohio, who has won awards from opponents of abortion rights and during the debate over health care of provisions was a visible supporter of preventing federal money from going to abortion providers. (It is already illegal to use federal money for abortions.)
The main restrictions on financing for abortion providers were included in the first spending bill passed by the House, in February. They have the backing, with varying degrees of intensity, not just of Republicans identified primarily as social conservatives but also of many fiscal conservatives.
“The life issue is important to a lot of us,” said Representative Steve Chabot of Ohio, who has been very involved in anti-abortion measures in the past. “For some, people, for example, abortion is more important. For some people, spending is more important. For me, it would be hard to say one over the other.”
Republicans sought to take away federal money for family planning for poor women and give that money instead to states, to forbid the District of Columbia from using its own tax dollars to help the poor obtain abortions, and to end family planning subsidies to some international organizations.
In one sense, the flashpoint nature of the battle presented both parties with an opportunity to energize their bases.
Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic majority leader, stressed repeatedly on Friday that his party would defend abortion rights, and he characterized the fight as one over women’s health. Equally, House Republicans portrayed themselves as determined to stand by their principles and use their leverage to impose restrictions that would otherwise have little to no chance of passing the Senate or winning President Obama’s signature.
But the fight held political peril for Republicans in particular when it comes to appealing to women and the broad center of American politics.
In polls taken this year and last by The New York Times/CBS News, when Americans were asked to name the most important problem facing the country, fewer than 1 percent cited abortion. In December, when respondents were asked how available abortions should be to those who seek them, 36 percent said generally available, 40 percent said available with limits, and 20 percent said abortions should not be permitted.
The risks are not lost on Republicans like Senator Susan Collins of Maine, who favors abortion rights. “Senator Collins does not believe this rider belongs on this bill,” said a spokesman, Kevin Kelley, in an e-mail. “She believes it is the height of irresponsibility for Congress to jeopardize pay for our dedicated troops, who are serving in harm’s way in three wars, because of a policy debate that can occur later this year.”
Other Republicans, including Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, also suggested that the party should not sacrifice what is otherwise a good budget deal if they cannot win on the abortion issue.
Few Republicans wanted to be seen as shutting down the government over the issue, which may be why House freshmen insisted that the issue was irrelevant to the budget battle, even as aides to lawmakers negotiated them down to the wire.
“This is not about policy riders,” said Representative Raúl R. Labrador of Idaho, echoing almost word for word seven other House Republicans and Mr. Boehner as well. “It’s about spending.”
America has seen this play before.
Over the nearly four decades since the Supreme Court affirmed women’s abortion rights, Congress has worked to chip away at them, often through measures like those on the table in the final stages of the budget battle. Those efforts have largely been led by Republicans, but by no means exclusively; it was Democrats who favored restrictions on abortion who came close to unraveling the 2009 health care overhaul.
While the 87 freshmen Republicans in the House ran on a platform of containing federal spending, and while some prominent Republicans, like Gov. Mitch Daniels of Indiana, have suggested de-emphasizing social issues until the nation’s fiscal problems can be addressed, the desire among social conservatives to curb abortion rights has never gone away, especially among older members.
While few of these measures sought by Republicans would cut spending — in the case of funds now used by Planned Parenthood, it would simply move them — Republicans repeatedly said providing money to family planning organizations was a waste of taxpayer funds.
“This has been an ongoing struggle for decades,” said Norman J. Ornstein, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative research group. “But in this particular context, there is a different twist. It is one thing to be deeply opposed to a policy and look at every vehicle you can for changing it. It’s another when you frame the entire narrative around the debt crisis we face.”
Using the amendment process to pull away at abortion rights has a history that dates back almost as far as Roe v. Wade, which was decided in 1973. In 1976, the House passed the Hyde Amendment, which excludes abortion from health care services provided throughMedicaid.
The amendment has been tacked on to annual appropriations bills ever since. Under the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, health maintenance organizations gained the right to refuse to cover counseling or referrals for abortion on moral or religious grounds. The law restricting the use of District of Columbia funds for abortions, known as the Dornan Amendment, was first introduced in 1988.
Mr. Reid repeatedly denounced the effort on Friday, at news conferences, in news releases and on the Senate floor. He was often joined by Senator Patty Murray, Democrat of Washington. “People in this country ought to be furious,” she said. “Women are not going to be thrown under the bus for this agreement.”
No comments:
Post a Comment