Abortion-Rights Advocates, Opponents Prepare for House Hearings

February 8, 2011 — Two House hearings on antiabortion legislation this week have "riled forces" on both sides of the issue, Politico reports. Abortion-rights advocates are particularly concerned that Republicans could impose further restrictions on abortion access by attaching the antiabortion measures to "must-pass legislation," according to Politico (Kliff, Politico, 2/8).

The House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution has scheduled a hearing for Tuesday on a bill (HR 3) introduced by Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.). The bill, titled the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, would impose tax penalties on individuals and small businesses whose health plans cover abortion and codify federal restrictions on abortion access, renewed each year in appropriations legislation, that prohibit federal funding for abortion care except in cases of rape, incest or when a woman's life is threatened by continuing a pregnancy (Women's Health Policy Report, 2/4).

The House Energy and Commerce Health Subcommittee will hold a hearing on Wednesday and have a markup on Friday for a bill (HR358) introduced by subcommittee Chair Joe Pitts (R-Pa.) that would amend the federal health reform law (PL 111-148) to restrict private insurance coverage of abortion services in plans sold through health care exchanges. Abortion-rights groups say a modified version of the bill would allow hospitals to deny abortion care in situations when a woman's life may be in danger because it allows hospitals to refuse to provide care as required under the 1986 Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (Women's Health Policy Report, 2/7).

EMILY's List on Monday published a piece co-authored by Sens. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) denouncing the legislation, stating that "a woman's right to make her own health decisions must be protected." The senators last week sent a letter to fellow lawmakers urging them to block Smith's bill from gaining any "traction."

"We certainly have allies in the Senate, but I'm too experienced to say this could never (pass)," Judy Lichtman, senior adviser at the National Partnership for Women and Families, said, adding, "Terrible amendments have been introduced to must-pass bills where lots of other things are at stake. To argue that this would never happen would give women and families a false sense of security. With the anti-choice forces in the Senate, I'm very nervous."

Sara Rosenbaum, chair of the George Washington University health policy department who will testify at both hearings, said the bills are "a legal maneuver to ... essentially reinvent [conscience clauses] as a right over which individual institutions can sue and get damages." In opposition, George Mason University associate law professor Helen Alvare, who previously worked at the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops' Pro-Life Secretariat and will testify at Wednesday's hearing, said, "It's a bad idea to suggest abortion should be made available at the conscience-driven providers."

Abortion-rights groups, such as NARAL Pro-Choice America, have mobilized forces to push back on the bills, which they say could imperil women whose lives could be threatened if further restrictions are placed on abortion. Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee plan to call a female witness to recount her experience when her pregnancy encountered complications and speak about the importance of insurance coverage for abortion, Politico reports (Politico , 2/8).