Catholic Health Group Accepts Abortion Language in Reform Bill

The head of the national association of Catholic hospitals, which holds great sway in the health care debate, threw her support Saturday behind the contested Senate reform bill in a move that could give a major boost to the legislation's prospects.

But the endorsement of Sister Carol Keehan, president of the Catholic Health Association, could also put the nun and her organization at odds with the Catholic hierarchy, which continues to oppose the bill due to its provision on abortion coverage.

As Politics Daily has reported, the Senate bill does not appear to allow for abortion funding, contrary to what many pro-life critics have claimed. But the dispute is proving pivotal to the bill's chances in the House, where a cadre of pro-life Democrats, led by Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) has threatened to sink it if their demands for stronger anti-abortion language are not met.

In her statement Saturday, Keehan made it clear she thinks any qualms about abortion language in the Senate version can be resolved, and in any event are not enough to justify opposition to what Catholic leaders say is a pro-life issue and a "human right" -- universal and affordable health care. Keehan attended a March 3 briefing by President Obama at the White House, an event she said clarified her decision to support the bill.

"As I watched our president present his plan to pass the health reform legislation, it was clear this is an historic opportunity to make great improvements in the lives of so many Americans," Keehan said in her statement. "Is it perfect? No. Does it cover everyone? No. But is it a major first step? Yes."

She "has a major concern on life issues" about the bill, she said, and believes they will require monitoring should the bill become law. But she believes the concerns are adequately addressed by the mechanism to keep abortion coverage apart from the government-regulated health care markets.

"We said there could not be any federal funding for abortions, and there had to be strong funding for maternity care, especially for vulnerable women," Keehan said. "The bill now being considered allows people buying insurance through the exchange to use federal dollars in the form of tax credits and their own dollars to buy a policy that covers their health care. If they choose a policy with abortion coverage, then they must write a separate personal check for the cost of that coverage."

She noted that the bill requires an annual audit of the insurance companies to ensure so federal dollars are used in abortion coverage, and she also pointed to the "wonderful provision in the bill that provides $250 million over 10 years to pay for counseling, education, job training and housing for vulnerable women who are pregnant or parenting. Another provision provides a substantial increase in the adoption tax credit and funding for adoption assistance programs." The House bill, which some pro-lifers find preferable because of the so-called Stupak amendment barring abortion funding, did not have those provisions.

Throughout the debate, the CHA's Keehan has been a target of conservative critics who think she has been too favorable to the Democratic legislation. Keehan has always insisted that she has the same concerns as the Catholic bishops and is in agreement with them on the abortion issue.

But the impending vote in the Senate through a reconciliation process is forcing everyone to show their hand, and could bring the moment when the bishops and CHA diverge.

How such a division could affect the dynamic in Congress is unclear. Some fence-sitters could find Keehan's endorsement the kind of political cover they need to vote for a bill that is so critical to the agenda of the Democratic Party and the president. The Catholic Health Association represents 1,200 hospitals and other health providers.

But Keehan is not part of the Catholic hierarchy, and how the bishops react will undoubtedly carry greater weight with Rep. Stupak and others who have said they will oppose the bill unless they are convinced it will not use taxpayer money to fund abortions.

Electoral politics will also play a critical role.

The anti-abortion lobby is well-organized and its members have been galvanized by the health care debate, and activists -- many of whom have close ties to Republicans and oppose health care reform for reasons beyond abortion funding questions -- are already threatening to make candidates who support the bill pay on Election Day.

Douglas Johnson, legislative director for National Right to Life, told The Associated Press that he'd put his grassroots activists up against Sister Keehan's health care association in a political campaign any day.

''No Catholic hospital executive has ever turned out hundreds of volunteers to man the phone banks or walk the precincts for an endangered congressman or his challenger,'' Johnson said in response to the hospital group's announcement.

Keehan was more diplomatic. ''On the moral issue of abortion, there is no disagreement,'' she told The AP. ''On the technical issue of whether this bill prevents federal funding of abortions, we differ with Right to Life.''

But she did say the CHA would keep any eye on the process in Congress. "We expect to see charges and counter-charges about what is in the bill, and how it will work," she said. "We need to carefully review is provisions, its safeguards and its implementation schedule and help everyone understand what the actual proposal is."