The most controversial part of the health care bill in the last few weeks has been the Stupak amendment, and the severe restriction on abortion services coverage. How is that handled in the Senate bill?

You can read the language yourself; Ryan Grim clipped it. Basically, it mirrors the language that came out of the Senate Finance Committee, which is less restrictive than the Stupak amendment. Like the amendment from Lois Capps in the House, there would be access in the exchange to at least one plan that covers abortion, and at least one plan that does not. The subsidy issue is dealt with, both in the exchange and potentially in the public option, through “segregation of funds.” Public and private dollars would be kept separate in compliance with the Hyde Amendment. This does seem to actually extend current law, whatever you may think of that law. This is how abortion services are delivered in some states through Medicaid, by segregating the federal funds and the state participation.

The Health and Human Services Secretary becomes key in all of this. He or she determines whether or not abortion services are being paid for with federal dollars. He or she also can choose whether or not abortion services are covered in the public option, but she must do several things:

1) ensure no public money is funding them;
2) ensure that the US government does not bear the insurance risk for providing abortion services.

My view is they punted a fair bit of this to HHS, and the executive branch may indeed be controlled by a Republican at some point in the future.

Nevertheless, the National Right to Life Committee is not pleased, and pro-choice members of Congress generally are. Here’s Lois Capps:

“I am pleased that the Senate has adopted a reasonable, common ground approach on this difficult question. It appears that their approach closely mirrors my language which was originally included in the House bill. It ensures that federal funds do not pay for abortions but allows continued access to this legal medical procedure. This is a bill about health insurance reform not about expanding or contracting access to abortion services. I am glad that the Senate has rejected the more extreme Stupak language and look forward to continuing to work with my pro-life and pro-choice colleagues on a reasonable compromise on this issue.”

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand said in a statement, “The anti-choice measure that was included in the House bill is not contained in the Senate bill.” And Barbara Boxer concurred, saying, “Senator Reid also has crafted language that will keep women from being discriminated against when it comes to their reproductive health care. The Senate bill maintains the compromise that has been in place for decades that prohibits the use of federal funds for abortion, but allows a woman to use her own private funds.”

Again, I would say there’s a lot left to the HHS Secretary here, but this definitely does not go as far as the Stupak amendment. And while Orrin Hatch will probably offer an amendment to get that kind of restrictive language into the bill, it doesn’t look right now like he would be successful.

UPDATE: Bart Stupak weighs in, says he hopes his language will be offered as an amendment in the Senate. It probably will be.

UPDATE II: The President weighed in on this with Major Garrett, and said the Stupak language essentially goes too far:

Major Garrett: “Will you sign legislation on health care that includes the Stupak language?”

Obama: “I think that there is a balance to be achieved that is consistent with the Hyde Amendment, what existed before we reformed health care. I believe in the basic idea that Federal dollars shouldn’t pay for abortions, but I also think that we shouldn’t restrict women’s choices, and so I think there is some negotiations going on, not just on the Democratic side, but I think among people who are of goodwill on both sides, to see if we can arrive at something that meets that criteria and I’m confident we can do that.”

Garrett: “Yes or no, does the Stupak language strike that balance?”

Obama: “Not yet.”