He includes a closing quip about why this means reform shouldn’t pass, but because you are again for the bill on the grounds that, “health care reform [even this bill] is better than no health care reform,” I’m sure you’ll ignore it. I myself am actually beginning to have my doubts.

At the very least, it is absolutely fair to say that a) it is uncertain at the very least that plans in the exchange will be effectively prevented from offering abortion coverage, even if it is paid for via out-of-pocket copays, and b) women employed at small companies have very reason to fear losing abortion coverage they already have, because small employers will have an incentive to mover their employees into the exchange in order lighten the burden of providing heath insurance for their workers (that’s part of the very point of this reform, after all).

Sorry, that was over-broad. It should have been, “if it doesn’t bar any company that insures subsidy-eligible individuals in the exchange from offering plans that cover abortions, doesn’t pass muster by its own fungibility test.”

…anti-choice members of Congress and their allies distorted key elements of the Stupak-Pitts amendment to make the proposal appear less extreme. Here are rebuttals to these distortions, including the myth of an abortion “rider” that they say women could purchase in addition to their insurance plan:

-The Stupak-Pitts amendment forbids any plan offering abortion coverage in the new system from accepting even one subsidized customer. Since more than 80 percent of the participants in the exchange will be subsidized, it seems certain that all health plans will seek and accept these individuals. In other words, the Stupak-Pitts amendment forces plans in the exchange to make a difficult choice: either offer their product to 80 percent of consumers in the marketplace or offer abortion services in their benefits package. It seems clear which choice they will make.

-Stupak-Pitts supporters claim that women who require subsidies to help pay for their insurance plan will have abortion access through the option of purchasing a “rider,” but this is a false promise. According to the respected National Women’s Law Center, the five states that require a separate rider for abortion coverage, there is no evidence that plans offer these riders. In fact, in North Dakota, which has this policy, the private plan that holds the state’s overwhelming share of the health-insurance market (91 percent) does not offer such a rider. Furthermore, the state insurance department has no record of abortion riders from any of the five leading individual insurance plans from at least the past decade. Nothing in this amendment would ensure that rider policies are available or affordable to the more than 80 percent of individuals who will receive federal subsidies in order to help purchase coverage in the new exchange.

It seems to me that the situation you describe — ‘unsublidized plans’ offering abortion coverage — is exactly the compromise that was superceded by Stupak et al on the grounds that money is fungible. The fungibility argument, in any case, is a universal acid. If that is the logical justification, then any company that offers any plan that covers abortion that also insures someone receiving subsidies is therefore being subsidized for covering abortions. The Stupak amendment, in other words, if it doesn’t bar any insurance company participating in the exchange from offering plans that cover abortions, doesn’t pass muster by its own fungibility test.

Where I am now is – healthcare reform is better than no healthcare reform. Even this bill. I would vote for it if I had the chance, though I would have – if I were a Republican congressman – pushed very hard to incorporate more competition, etc. into the bill first.

Regarding “most insurance companies” not being able to offer abortion coverage – that’s total nonsense. In fact, there will be plans even on the exchanges (which is the only place private insurers will be effected at all) that will offer abortion coverage, only they will be unsubsidized plans. Where did you see anything saying that most private insurers will no longer be able provide abortion coverage? That sounds like fear-mongering rhetoric coming from the pro-choice side to me.

(1) Read up on this a bit more. It is not equivalent to the Hyde Amendment. That is anti-abortion propaganda and completely false. It effetively prevents most insurance companies from covering abortion, period. Read more, you’ll see. 2) Think again about whether you are really in a position to speak for those on the other side of the issue about whether this is a good compromise for them. At one point, perhaps your view on the health bill were such that you might be able to say this is a decent compromise for a good bill. But then you threw your lot in with Mark Thompson. You are on the record agreeing with him this (H.R. 3200, which is not substantiall different from what has passed) is a horrible bill. Additionally, you are pro-life. (Right?) You’re not in a position to make EITHER of those judgments. The first — ‘this is a good bill’ — you are on the record to the contrary of, and the second — ‘this is a fair compromise for that good bill’ — you are not in a position to judge given that you favor greater restrictions on abortion (unless I am mistaken). This is concern trolling across two dimensions, my friend. I beg you to reconsider this tack. By all means state your support for the Stupak amendment on the merits, and then go over to the League and unambiguously come out in favor of the health bill as it stands. But don’t pose as a fellow-traveller to those who are now legitimately in this wrenching moral-political bind. Just be who you are, man.

Also, don’t be so sure that House liberals at this point wouldn’t happily axe a conference report that both undersubsidizes the mandate and pays for it on the backs of the middle class, AND has the Stupak amendment. The bill likely to come out of the Senate even without Stupak would have been a tough go in the House. I think liberals are sufficiently pissed at Obama at this point that they would have no problem with the consequences of spiking this if they have to make this odious compromise for a bill they would already have had to hold their noses for.