Bart Stupak is not wrong

In response to Rob's recent post, I would echo what one of the commenters observed, namely, that the health-insurance-funding measure(s) currently under consideration fund abortion not only through the subsidization of insurance policies that "happen to cover abortion", but also through direct funding of "community health centers" (e.g., Planned Parenthood clinics) that provide abortions.  This funding comes with no anti-abortion restrictions.  In addition, the last I heard the current proposals include direct funding for abortions in Indian Country.  (If this is no longer on the table, I'd welcome correction).

Charmaine Yoest writes, in a recent WSJ op-ed, that:

The president's latest proposal mirrors legislation that has passed the Senate, which doesn't include a Hyde Amendment, and would inevitably establish abortion as a fundamental health-care service for the following reasons:

• It would change existing law by allowing federally subsidized health-care plans to pay for abortions and could require private health-insurance plans to cover abortion.

• It would impose a first-ever abortion tax—a separate premium payment that will be used to pay for elective abortions—on enrollees in insurance plans that covers abortions through newly created government health-care exchanges.

• And it would fail to protect the rights of health-care providers to refuse to participate in abortions.

The president's plan goes further than the Senate bill on abortion by calling for spending $11 billion over five years on "community health centers," which include Planned Parenthood clinics that provide abortions.

It seems to me that the President's pro-life supporters -- who also support some kind of overall of the health-insurance-funding system -- should be asking themselves, and him:  "Why is he so insistent on abortion-funding when, if he were willing to just go along with Stupak and the Bishops, he could -- his party enjoys a huge majority, after all -- sweeping health-insurance reform?"  Is it so important to deny those pesky pro-lifers a "victory"?