Reproductive Rights Prof Blog

Key Pro-Choice House Dem Suggests She May Support Senate Abortion Language

Huffington Post: Rosa DeLauro, Key Pro-Choice Dem, Makes Case For Senate Abortion Language, by Sam Stein:

A key pro-choice House Democrat, working on health care in Congress, hinted on Monday that said she might be willing to support the Senate's abortion language.

Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) who has been tasked by leadership with helping hammer out a compromise on abortion between the two chambers, said she was not thrilled with either the House or Senate legislation's provisions. But in an interview with the Huffington Post, the Connecticut Democrat did say she would support the Senate's version of abortion-related language provided that she could confirm her belief that it did not go beyond current law. . . .

Proponents Hope Health Care Legislation Will Save Abstinence-Only Sex Education

Wash. Post: Abstinence proponents look for aid from new health bill, by Rob Stein:

Proponents of sex education classes that focus on encouraging teenagers to remain virgins until marriage are hoping that the rescue plan for the nation's health-care system will also save their programs, which are facing extinction because of a cutoff of federal funding.

The health-care reform legislation pending in the Senate includes $50 million for programs that states could use to try to reduce pregnancies and sexually transmitted disease among adolescents by teaching to them to delay when they start having sex.

Under the federal budget signed by President Obama, such programs would no longer have funds targeted for them. . . .

In Split With Bishops, Catholic Health Association Supports Senate Health Care Compromise on Abortion

NY Times: Catholic Group Supports Senate on Abortion Aid, by David D. Kirkpatrick:

WASHINGTON — In an apparent split with Roman Catholic bishops over the abortion-financing provisions of the proposed health care overhaul, the nation’s Catholic hospitals have signaled that they back the Senate’s compromise on the issue, raising hopes of breaking an impasse in Congress and stirring controversy within the church.

The Senate bill, approved Thursday morning, allows any state to bar the use of federal subsidies for insurance plans that cover abortion and requires insurers in other states to divide subsidy money into separate accounts so that only dollars from private premiums would be used to pay for abortions.

Just days before the bill passed, the Catholic Health Association, which represents hundreds of Catholic hospitals across the country, said in a statement that it was “encouraged” and “increasingly confident” that such a compromise “can achieve the objective of no federal funding for abortion.” An umbrella group for nuns followed its lead.

Pro-Choice Legislators and Advocates Offer Contrasting Reactions to Senate's Abortion Compromise in Health Care Bill

Newsweek: The New Abortion Divide, by Sarah Kliff:

At first, it seemed like abortion-rights activists could count on their allies in Congress. When the House of Representatives voted to approve the Stupak amendment in early November, prohibiting plans on the public exchange from covering abortion, abortion-rights groups reacted with immediate outrage and activism. On Dec. 2, strong supporters of abortion rights—congresswomen such as Patty Murray, Barbara Boxer, and Lois Capps—gathered at a rally, surrounded by women in pink with STOP THE ABORTION BAN! signs. They both spoke out against the language. "I am one who cannot even envision voting for health-care reform that takes us back on women's rights," Capps told a cheering crowd.

But now there is fissure between pro-choice leaders inside and outside of government. . . .

When the Stupak amendment passed, there was common outrage among pro-choice organizations and their counterparts in Congress. But this time, it's different: while leaders of pro-choice groups call the Nelson language "outrageous" and "absurd," a number of their strongest supporters in Congress are taking a nuanced stance: we don't love it, we don't even like it, but if this is what it takes to move forward with health-care reform, we will live with it. . . .

Sen. Nelson Defends Abortion Coverage Compromise

Post-Partisan (Wash. Post): Sen. Ben Nelson offers a defense, by Michael Gerson:

I was up early this morning with a call from Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska, who was much kinder to me than I was to him in my column on Wednesday. . . .

He . . . insisted that the legislative language on abortion he accepted accomplishes most or all of what the Stupak amendment does in the House. Nelson has a background in the insurance industry, and he explained to me in detail how premium payments covering elective abortion would be segregated in his approach. He stands, as far as I can tell, alone among pro-life leaders in this view of the compromise, which is criticized by the National Council of Catholic Bishops, the National Right to Life Committee and Congressman Bart Stupak himself. The fact remains that the federal government, under the Reid-Nelson approach, would subsidize private health insurance plans that cover abortion – a departure from longstanding policy.

See also: Wash. Post: Both sides question health bill's abortion compromise, by Alec MacGillis:

The abortion language that was added to the Senate's health-care bill to win the vote of Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) has achieved a rare feat: It is drawing contempt from both sides.

That could be taken as a sign that senators finally found an elusive compromise on a thorny issue. But serious questions are already being raised about how the new language would work in practice and whether it would even be feasible to implement.

"This is why it's being attacked by both sides -- not because it's so moderate but because it's crazy," said Richard Doerflinger, a spokesman for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

Sara Rosenbaum, a George Washington University professor of public health and law who criticizes the language as too restrictive, echoes that conclusion: "None of how this is supposed to work is even remotely in the bill, so I don't know what people are thinking about it."

The long-standing ban on federal funding for abortion has complicated congressional Democrats' health-care legislation. Medicaid bars federal funding for abortion, but 17 states and the District allow the procedure for female Medicaid enrollees paid out of their own funds. It is harder to reach middle ground in the bill before Congress, which would provide federal subsidies to millions of people to buy private health insurance plans on a new marketplace, or "exchange." The deal reached by Nelson and other Democrats over the weekend would allow those people to purchase insurance plans with abortion coverage. But they would have to write two separate premium checks -- one to cover the bulk of their plan and the other to cover the sliver for abortion coverage, probably a dollar or so per month. . . . 

William Saletan on the Fight Over Abortion Insurance Coverage

Slate Magazine: All Abort, by William Saletan:

The fight over abortion insurance is smaller than it looks.

After trillions of dollars, decades of debate, and months of legislative haggling, the fate of health care in the United States is coming down to an old-fashioned moral issue. Pro-lifers and pro-choicers are fighting over insurance coverage of abortions. Each camp seems capable of killing the legislation pending in Congress. Abortion, we're told, is different from other issues caught up in the health care debate. It's a question of ultimate values, impervious to compromise.

Nonsense. Lawmakers on both sides have already agreed on principles for working out the abortion question. The differences among the competing proposals are almost entirely technical. Zealots may care about the details, but most Americans don't. Let's cut a deal and move on.

None of the proposals under discussion would ban abortion. None would take away your right to buy abortion coverage with your own money. None would force you to pay for somebody else's abortion. These are the conceptual parameters on which all sides have, for the time being, agreed.

When the health care debate started, the big problem was the public option. If it covered abortion, pro-lifers would feel coerced to pay for killing babies. It it didn't cover abortions, pro-choicers would feel robbed of their rights. But now the public option is kaput. So the debate has narrowed to how we treat the mixture of public subsidies with private premiums in federally supervised insurance exchanges. This is a more manageable problem. The framework for addressing it has been broadly accepted: We have to keep public money from getting mixed up in abortions. The question is how. . . . 

Health Care Compromise on Abortion Angers Both Sides

NY Times: Abortion Compromise Draws Fire From Both Sides, by Katharine Q. Seelye:

The abortion compromise in the Senate has angered advocates on both sides of the issue.

Senator Ben Nelson, the Nebraska Democrat, had been holding up the Senate health care bill until he was satisfied with new anti-abortion language, which was made public on Saturday by the majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada.

The National Right to Life Committee issued a statement saying it “strongly opposes” the abortion language.

The National Organization for Women also issued a statement strongly opposing the language. And in a second statement, more heated and personal, Terry O’Neill, president of NOW, said she was outraged that the Senate Democratic leadership “would cave in to Senator Ben Nelson.”

“Right-wing ideologues like Nelson and the Catholic Bishops may not understand this, but abortion is health care,” Ms. O’Neill said. “And health care reform is not true reform if it denies women coverage for the full range of reproductive health services.”

If this language stays in the bill as is, she said, she would call on senators “who consider themselves friends of women’s rights” to vote against “this cruelly over-compromised legislation.”. . .

See also: Wash. Post: To sway Nelson, a hard-won compromise on abortion issue, by Paul Kane:

The Democrats wouldn't even sit in the same room.

At one end of the majority leader's office, Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), the antiabortion senator whose support was crucial to health-care legislation, huddled with White House staff in a conference room. At the other end, Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Patty Murray (D-Wash.), the chamber's leading advocates of abortion rights, hunkered as far from Nelson as possible, in the office of Reid's chief of staff. . . .

But by 10:30 p.m. Friday, a handshake deal sealed a hard-won compromise over abortion. Within minutes senators were on the phone with Obama, who was flying aboard Air Force One, having just forged his compromise with world leaders on global warming, according to senators and aides who participated in the negotiations. "We did it, Mr. President," Reid told Obama.

The deal faced an immediate assault from both ends of the abortion spectrum Saturday morning. The National Organization of Women dubbed it "cruelly over-compromised legislation" and the antiabortion Family Research Council dismissed it as a "phony compromise."

Wall St. Journal: Abortion Continues to Be Dividing Issue, by Janet Adamy:

The Senate nudged its health bill toward tighter restrictions on abortion coverage, a change that left advocates on both sides of the issue unsatisfied.

Under a deal with Sen. Ben Nelson, women who receive a new tax credit to buy insurance would write a separate check with their own money for abortion coverage, and states would explicitly have the option of barring such coverage from plans sold on new insurance exchanges. However, the language is less sweeping than that adopted by the House in November, which abortion-rights groups interpreted as the most significant setback in Congress for their cause in many years.

Senator Nelson: Anti-Choice But Not Pro-Life

Salon.com: Being anti-life in defense of pro-life, by Thomas Schaller:

Nelson affirms the old saw about caring about the beginning and end of life-- but little in between

I'm sure you're familiar with the critique of  the so-called "pro-life" movement as a group of people interested in protecting life at conception and on the death bed but caring little for what happens during the long stretch of life in between. Well, this morning Matt Yglesias reminded us that Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson's resistance to the healthcare reform's abortion provisions epitomizes this hypocrisy. . . .

Health Care Talks Are Down to the Wire

Wall St. Journal: 3rd UPDATE: Senate Health-Care Talks Come Down To Wire, by Patrick Yoest:

WASHINGTON (Dow Jones)--Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) worked Friday to secure the needed votes to pass sweeping health-care overhaul legislation, as Republicans threatened to use parliamentary tactics to drag out debate of the measure.

Reid held meetings with Sen. Ben Nelson (D., Neb.), whose vote could give him enough support--a total of 60 votes--to prevent a Republican filibuster of the measure.

Nelson said late Thursday after a negotiating session in Reid's office that, so far, "there's no deal." But Nelson, who opposes abortion, indicated that the two sides are looking closely at language aimed at bridging the two sides' differences on abortion.

"They are the kind of concepts that would exclude any kind of federal funds, directly or indirectly, being used to fund elective abortion," Nelson said, without offering further details. . . .

Obama Signs Omnibus Spending Bill Including Defunding of Abstinence-Only Sex Ed Programs and Lifting Ban on DC Abortion Funding

ACLU Press Release: President Signs Omnibus Bill Including Major Civil Liberties Policy Advances For Washington, D.C.:

Bill Lifts 20-Year Ban On DC Abortion Funding, Ends Discriminatory School Voucher Program And Defunds Abstinence-Only Sex Education Programs

WASHINGTON – President Obama today signed into law the Fiscal Year 2010 Omnibus Appropriations bill, legislation that includes several positive civil liberties provisions for the District of Columbia including removal of a ban on financial aid for low-income women to receive abortions, expanded benefits for domestic partnerships and an end to D.C.’s discriminatory school voucher program. The omnibus bill includes several major appropriations bills: Labor, Health and Human Services, Financial Services and State and Foreign Operations. The American Civil Liberties Union hailed the omnibus bill as a huge step forward for civil liberties in the District of Columbia.

The passage of the Labor, Health and Human Services Appropriations bill finally ends funding for the failed Community Based Abstinence Education program and instead directs significant resources into medically accurate, evidence-based teen pregnancy prevention programs. . . .
 
“District of Columbia residents have a lot to be thankful for with the signing of this law,” said Michael Macleod-Ball, Acting Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. “These significant and welcome changes to D.C. law will help to bring the District’s education program and drug and reproductive policies in line with the majority of the country and Constitution. We are especially encouraged to see Congress and the president reject abstinence-only education which censors information, promotes gender stereotypes, marginalizes gay and lesbian youth and jeopardizes the well-being of young people. We hope that the rest of the country will follow suit.”
 
The ACLU has long sought an end to the D.C. abortion ban, arguing that the District of Columbia ought to have the right, like other states, to use its own local, non-federal revenue to provide abortion care to its low-income residents. The ACLU has also made the elimination of abstinence-only-until-marriage funding a priority and was pleased to see the provision included in the Labor, Health and Human Services Appropriations bill. Unfortunately, another provision included in the FY2010 Omnibus Appropriations bill preserves other abortion bans and fails to codify the global gag rule rescission that was offered by Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) and adopted by the Senate Appropriations Committee. . . .

Congress Approves Omnibus Spending Bill, Affecting Funding for Abortion and International Family Planning

Women's Heath Policy Report (National Partnership for Women & Families): Senate Approves FY 2010 Omnibus Spending Bill:

The Senate on Sunday approved a $446.8 billion omnibus spending bill (HR 3288) that combines six of the seven remaining fiscal year 2010 appropriations bills, CQ Today reports. . . .

Labor-HHS-Education, the largest of the FY 2010 appropriations bills, would provide a total of $730.6 billion, which is 9% more than FY 2009 levels and 0.3% above President Obama's request (Stern, CQ Today, 12/14). The bill would continue existing federal restrictions on abortion (CQ Today, 12/13). The package includes $603.7 billion for HHS, much of which is mandatory spending for programs like Medicaid and Medicare (CQ Today, 12/14).

The bill also would remove restrictions on Washington, D.C.'s use of locally derived tax revenue to fund abortion services for low-income women, as well as ease restrictions on D.C.'s use of federal funds for needle-exchange programs designed to curb the spread of HIV among injection drug users. The bill would allow federal funding for such programs except in locations "that public health or law enforcement agencies determine to be inappropriate."

In addition, the bill calls for an increase in foreign aid spending by 10% to 15%. A provision that would have permanently repealed the "global gag rule" was removed during House negotiations after antiabortion-rights lawmakers threatened to block the bill's passage. The rule bans U.S. foreign aid from going to organizations that offer abortion services and information, even if they use their own funds for such services (Women's Health Policy Report, 12/11).

Abortion Remains Sticking Point in Health Care Debate

OnPolitics (USA Today): Abortion remains issue in health care debate:

As Democrats met at the White House to discuss how to get a health care bill passed, a group of anti-abortion advocates from Pennsylvania staged a "pray-in" today in their home senator's office -- underscoring one of the last political hurdles the legislation still faces.

"We appeal to him to put his Catholic faith above his Democratic Party allegiance," said Mike McMonagle, who led several dozen people in a prayer vigil at the offices of Sen. Bob Casey, an anti-abortion Democrat. McMonagle said the group later met with Casey's staff: "We didn't agree on much," he said, "but at least they listened."

With the public option and a proposed Medicare buy-in for Americans age 55 to 64 now out of the Senate's 10-year, $848 billion health care proposal, the abortion issue remains a key sticking point to getting a bill passed by the end of the year. . . .

Latinas and Abortion Coverage in Health Care Reform

CNN Opinion: Latinas Need Voice in Abortion Debate, by Sylvia Henriquez (National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health):

When Justice Sonia Sotomayor delivered her oath last summer, many women -- and especially Latinas -- felt renewed hope as a champion of women's rights took her place on the U.S. Supreme Court.

With Democrats in the White House and both houses of Congress, we believed that we could stop playing defense and actually advance women's rights, including access to abortion.

However, the health care debate quickly convinced us that we had to mobilize. . . .

Military Abortion Ban Imposes Unconscionable Burdens on American Servicewomen

Religion Dispatches: Military Abortion Ban: Female Soldiers Not Protected by Constitution They Defend, by Kathryn Joyce:

Unable to get an abortion during a tour of duty in Iraq a soldier is left with no option but to do it herself—a humiliating but not uncommon dilemma. Women in the military are forced to obtain a leave to get the care they need; but if they’re honest about why, they put their military career in jeopardy. If they’re not, they put their career in jeopardy.

You hear these legends of coat hanger abortions,” a 26-year-old former Marine sergeant told me recently, “but there are no coat hangers in Iraq. I looked.” Amy (who prefers not to use her real name) was stationed in Fallujah as a military journalist two years ago when she discovered she was pregnant. As a female Marine, a distinct minority in the branch, Amy was fearful of going to her chain of command to explain her situation.

For military women, who lack all rights to medical privacy, facing an unplanned pregnancy is a daunting obstacle. Thanks to anti-abortion forces in Congress, military hospitals are banned from providing abortion services, except in cases of life endangerment, rape or incest (and for the latter two, only if the patient pays for the service herself). . . .

Caitlin Borgmann, a CUNY law professor and board member of the National Abortion Federation, wrote a letter to the editor of the New York Times this August when the paper ran a story on the challenges facing American servicewomen that omitted mention of the abortion ban altogether. Borgmann says that while reproductive rights groups following this issue hoped the Obama transition would address the ban, the failure of the new government to aggressively defend reproductive freedom has left the rights of military women a largely forgotten inequality. . . .

Lieberman Will Vote Against Health Care Bill

NY Times: Lieberman Rules Out Voting for Health Bill, by Robert Pear & David M. Herszenhorn:

WASHINGTON — In a surprise setback for Democratic leaders, Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, independent of Connecticut, said on Sunday that he would vote against the health care legislation in its current form.

The bill’s supporters had said earlier that they thought they had secured Mr. Lieberman’s agreement to go along with a compromise they worked out to overcome an impasse within the party.

But on Sunday, Mr. Lieberman told the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, to scrap the idea of expanding Medicare and to abandon the idea of any new government insurance plan, or lose his vote.

On a separate issue, Mr. Reid tried over the weekend to concoct a compromise on abortion that would induce Senator Ben Nelson, Democrat of Nebraska, to vote for the bill. Mr. Nelson opposes abortion. Any provision that satisfies him risks alienating supporters of abortion rights. . . .

Rep. Stupak Defends His Amendment in NY Times Op-Ed; Rep. Capps Responds

NY Times: What My Amendment Won't Do, by Bart Stupak:

Under our amendment, women who receive federal subsidies will be prohibited from using them to pay for insurance policies that cover abortion. The amendment does not prevent private plans from offering abortion services and it does not prohibit women from purchasing abortion coverage with their own money. The amendment specifically states that even those who receive federal subsidies can purchase a supplemental policy with private money to cover abortions...

The language in our amendment is completely consistent with the Hyde Amendment, which in the 33 years since its passage has done nothing to inhibit private health insurers from offering abortion coverage. There is no reason to believe that a continuation of this policy would suddenly create undue hardship for the insurance industry — or for those who wish to use their private insurance to pay for an abortion.

For responses, see:

RH Reality Check: Stupak's NYT Op-Ed: Congresswoman Capps Responds, by Rep. Lois Capps:

Stupak Claim:  Our amendment maintains current law, which says that there should be no federal financing for abortion.

Reality:   The Stupak-Pitts Amendment goes well beyond current law by contracting access to abortion services and is in no way the simple extension of the Hyde Amendment its proponents claim.  It dramatically restricts consumers’ ability to purchase comprehensive health plans that include coverage for abortion services in the health exchange.  In contrast the Capps Amendment, which was included in the original version of the House bill, continued the prohibition of federal funding of abortion services, but did so without restricting insurance coverage of this legal medical procedure when it is paid for with private funds.  Reputable third parties, like a recent study from George Washington University, have found that the Stupak-Pitts Amendment would restrict coverage of abortion services even when paid for entirely with private funds. 

Reality:  There is nothing in the Stupak-Pitts Amendment to ensure that riders are available or affordable to individuals purchasing coverage in the Exchange.  There is no evidence that insurance companies actually offer such riders in the five states that currently require women to purchase a separate rider for abortion coverage.  It is not practical to expect women to plan ahead for an unintended pregnancy, or a pregnancy that goes terribly wrong, by purchasing a supplemental rider.  Furthermore, if only women of childbearing age purchase such a rider then the premium for the rider will likely cost almost as much as the service.

Click HERE to read more.

Plus: Letters to the Editor of the NY Times responding to Stupak's op-ed can be found here.

Rep. Lois Capps Discusses Abortion and Health Care Reform on the Huffington Post

Huffington Post: Health Care Reform Is No Place for an Abortion Fight, by Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA):

When Congress began debating health reform earlier this year, I hoped our focus would remain on the central goal of improving access to affordable, quality health care rather than on divisive issues like end of life care or abortion. Let me begin by acknowledging that I am a strong supporter of a woman's right to choose and I make no apologies for my beliefs. However, I didn't believe that health reform legislation was the place to promote either a pro-choice or anti-choice agenda. The focus needs to be on getting insurance to the nearly 50 million Americans without it and ensuring stability of coverage for the rest of us...

Unfortunately, the Stupak-Pitts amendment that replaced my amendment during House Floor consideration goes well beyond the status quo and is in no way the simple extension of the Hyde amendment its proponents claim. It would result in a major step backwards for women's control over their reproductive lives.

We need to strike a balance on this issue so health reform isn't a casualty of divisive abortion politics. That's what my amendment did and that's what the Senate bill proposes. Congress would be wise to send the President a bill reflecting this common ground approach and I will work hard to see that happens.

Insurance Coverage for Abortion: What It Costs, and a Proposed Solution

This article is helpful in pointing out how little it costs insurance companies to cover abortion care.  However, it's discouraging that the author thinks it's so obvious that second-trimester abortions should not be covered. There are many reasons why women might seek an abortion in the second trimester.  Teenagers often are late to recognize the signs of pregnancy, or they are in denial.  Women with wanted pregnancies often do not learn of grave fetal anomalies until the second trimester.  Women should not be forced to pay out-of-pocket for second-trimester abortions, which can cost more than $1,000, when these procedures could be covered by their insurance plans.

Newsweek: Separate But Equal? Insurance, Abortion, and Politics, by Al Lewis:

Though the Nelson Amendment, which attempted to restrict federal insurance funds for abortion, failed in the Senate Tuesday, the issue of abortion's role in health care is far from settled. While the Senate version, if passed as now written, would allow federal funding, the House version, thanks to the Stupak amendment, does not even allow private purchase of a rider. Democrats are still divided on this issue, and without Democratic unity, health reform fails. Fortunately, the point of contention is not the thornier one of whether abortions should be legal, but rather how to accommodate both those who want to provide federal coverage and those who refuse to vote to earmark government funds to do so.

Both views can be accommodated by the simple step of establishing two insurance pools, one covering abortion and one not. Each would have the same premium, and people would sign up for the pool of their choice, depending on whether they wanted abortion coverage or not. To fully understand why this math works despite the extra cost of abortions, you must first understand abortion financing and rates in general. (What's the best way to take the passion out of the abortion fight? Turn it into an insurance equation)....

Senate Reaches Compromise on Public Option

LA Times: Senate Democrats reach healthcare deal on 'public option', by Janet Hook & Noam. N. Levey:

The government would contract with a nonprofit insurer for a nationwide plan. In another step toward a vote by Christmas, the Senate rejects tighter restrictions on public abortion funding.

Senate Democrats reached what Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) called a "broad agreement" Tuesday night that could remove a major obstacle to the massive healthcare bill.

Under the compromise developed by a group of conservative and liberal Democrats, the Senate legislation would no longer include a new government-run insurance program, or "public option," for Americans who do not get coverage through their employers.

Instead, the government would essentially contract with a nonprofit insurer to provide a nationwide plan that would serve as the public option, according to officials briefed on the discussions. Combined with a vote earlier in the day that rejected efforts to tighten restrictions on public money for abortion, the compromise kept the Senate moving toward Reid's goal of voting on the healthcare bill before Christmas. . . .

Senate Rejects Nelson Amendment

Capitol Briefing (Wash. Post): Senate rejects Nelson amendment on abortion, by Shailagh Murray:

The Senate narrowly rejected an amendment that would have restricted abortion coverage in the pending health-care bill, leaving in question whether Majority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) has the 60 votes needed to move the bill toward final passage.

The measure, which failed 54-45, addressed the scope of restrictions on coverage of abortion services for people who receive subsidies to buy insurance. The outcome was expected, but could cost the support of Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), who has threatened to filibuster the $848 billion bill unless abortion restrictions are tightened.

Reid told reporters earlier Tuesday afternoon he would consider other language to allay Nelson's concerns. "If in fact he doesn't succeed here, we'll try something else," Reid said.