iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Rosa DeLauro, Key Pro-Choice Dem, Makes Case For Senate Abortion Language

First Posted: 03/18/10 06:12 AM ET Updated: 05/25/11 04:05 PM ET

Delauro

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.

"There are some questions I still have," DeLauro said. "And that's why I want to see this side-by-side with the language. It's not Stupak-Pitts [the House's language]. So, it's already [an improvement]. And it would appear to be current law. I would have to look at the questions that surround it, et cetera. But if it is current law then it would be something that was my goal at the outset: let's maintain current law and then let's pass health care."

DeLauro is one of the strongest champions for women's reproductive rights in the House; her blessing over the Senate abortion language represents a potentially major concession.

Under the Senate bill, states would be allowed to prohibit insurers operating in the soon-to-be-created health insurance exchanges from offering plans that cover abortion. Those people and businesses participating in the exchanges would have to purchase a separate plan to cover abortion. Meanwhile, those who receive federal subsidies to purchase insurance would be required to use their own money if they wished to purchase abortion coverage. The House bill goes even further, prohibiting insurers operating in the exchange from providing abortion coverage unless it's in the form of a supplemental plan that consumers can only purchase with private funds.

Both variations have been roundly criticized by women's rights groups as infringement on abortion rights. The National Organization of Women, for one, dubbed the Senate's bill "cruelly over-compromised legislation." DeLauro, likewise, acknowledged a certain misery in being forced to favorably champion existing law. "Who on the pro-choice side is excited about saying the Hyde language ought to prevail?" she asked. (The 1976 Hyde amendment bars the use of federal funds to pay for abortion.)

But legislation, especially health care reform, is defined by finding middle ground, she said. And at some point the impetus is simply about getting a bill passed. "I think the greater good will prevail," said DeLauro. "I also think that people will fight hard for what they believe in. This is not going to be a walk in the park. Hell, this is tough stuff and very complex."

In the Senate, DeLauro noted, it wasn't simply the pro-choice crowd that had conceded ground. The pro-life community wasn't pleased either.

"It's maybe a compromise where no one is that happy," she said. "It would appear that you've got the Catholic Bishops who aren't happy. But [Sen. Ben] Nelson (D-Neb.) found his way there as did Senator Bob Casey (D-Penn.) [both pro-life Democrats]. And the pro-choice side said, 'We don't like this as much as we would like to not deal with this language.' But, you know, we're not going to defeat health care."

So, the Huffington Post asked, if you could confirm that the Senate's abortion language upholds current law, you will be fine supporting it?

"That's right. That's right," Del And I would just say that with regard to the Catholic Bishops, they now have an opportunity to not hold health care hostage in the way that they did and tried to do in the Senate," DeLauro, a Catholic, said. "No one, no group, no individual should do that. 45,000 people die every year and have no health insurance. We've got to act."


Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS

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 bee...
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 bee...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 878
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (10 total)
12:56 PM on 01/04/2010
I think it is strange that people think that if the government doesn't pay for abortions there is some restrictions being placed on the rights of women. The Pro Choice movement has been taken over by the pro abortion crowd. The Pro Choice movement is no longer about what is good for women but what is going to lead to the most abortions.

Women need to be empowered if we ever want to really address the abortion issue.
06:37 PM on 12/30/2009
Never heard of him.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
SidChimaera
05:54 PM on 12/30/2009
Is that Perry Farrell ?
01:19 PM on 12/30/2009
What's funny is her mention of "current law"...Cheer up, libs! Even if "healthcare reform" passes as is, you still get to iniitiate lawsuits and make the changes you want to the law through your courts....not to mention all the money that NOW and NARAL-ProChoice America can contribute to Congress to get the amendments THEY want included in the eventual law....you've certainly shown us how good at changing laws by bringing legal challenges you are, so relax....taxpayer-funded abortion is just a few lawsuits away after this bill passes....
12:36 PM on 12/30/2009
This is not really Rosa Delauro, its Perry Farrell from Jane's Addiction! What a Dog!
pup sydney
needs of regular folks, Italy; cancer;
09:10 AM on 12/30/2009
Girls should not pay more than boys. This is clearly uncostitutional: to be possibly in need of an abortion one day is not a preexisting condition but THEy MaDE it one. Unbelievable and people here call themselves democrats?
11:27 AM on 12/30/2009
Boys pay more for car insurance than girls. Is that OK?
photo
TuoulumneFlower
Keep Calm and Don't Blink
12:13 PM on 12/30/2009
Because boys get into more accidents than girls. You could look it up.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
akrishn3
02:03 PM on 12/30/2009
it is not girls vs. boys.
it is choice vs. natural.
if you have a natuaral flat chest and want bigger boobs.. it is not natural... pay for it.
if you have naturally bald head and want hair in it...it is not natural... pay for it
if you are having a baby and want to abort it.... it is not natural ... pay for it.
02:40 PM on 03/04/2010
Yep! If you need a waistline and don't have one, but have one cut in...and pay for it.
08:35 AM on 12/30/2009
The pro Abortion people are the same types that argued blacks were property and didn't see anything reprehensible about slavery... of course this will pale in comparison when your children and their children look back on the killing legacy you leave them

50 million and counting.... makes ya proud
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
BoyInBOYCOTT
01:27 PM on 12/30/2009
No one is PRO-ABORTION...starting off with a lie doesn't bode well for the rest of your post.
Pro-Choice people know what the horrors poor and young women faced in back alleys or those so desperate that attempted to self abort.
I know, I lobbied for safe clean abortions in MN before Roe vs. Wade, and WON.
This has been a case of wealthy women ALWAYS having the option to travel outside the country, or bribing a US doctor in a nice clean clinic to do an illegal abortion. You will NEVER stop rich women from getting abortions....you never could.
01:54 PM on 12/30/2009
Uh, yes there ARE PRO-abortion people...the ones who want it to be as accessable as birth control, and who indeed want it to BE birth control; the ones who want NO restrictions on it for ANY reason; the ones who want MINORS to be able to obtain abortions WITHOUT parental knowledge or consent (and yet with parental money), and who will be willing to break state laws to help a minor obtain an abortion......
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
akrishn3
01:56 PM on 12/30/2009
***Pro-Choice people know what the horrors poor and young women faced in back alleys or those so desperate that attempted to self abort.***

Why conceive in the first place? why cannot they use contraception? if you cannot use contraception properly then stop having sex. (if you cannot stoping going banckrupt in a casino, donot go to the casino in the first place)
why cannot they have the baby? why abort? if poor give up the baby for adoption.
06:33 AM on 12/30/2009
Ain't no reform in their reform bill. Every last one of them is selling us out. Dems doing a grand show of gnashing teeth as they do. Repubs not even pretending they care about the People, period. Campaign finance reform, now!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
steamboat
10:09 AM on 12/30/2009
Here's my reform idea: Since folks like you believe so deeply for abortion, how about it all you pro-choice for- abortion folks sign a petition stating that and then----ONLY the pro-choice for-abortion people PAY for it. Only YOU FOLKS get taxed to pay for it......Fair enough?
photo
TuoulumneFlower
Keep Calm and Don't Blink
12:36 PM on 12/30/2009
Here's my reform idea: we all register once a year as either pro-choice or pro-life. If you are a registered pro-choice woman, and you become pregnant but don't want to sustain the pregnancy or have a child, you contact the Department of Pregnancy.

The DOP finds a woman registered pro-life, and sets up a procedure to transfer the embryo from the first woman to the second. The pro-life woman by law must accept the embryo and resulting pregnancy, since she believes government rather than individuals should decide when and whether people reproduce, doesn't believe women have rights to liberty or privacy, and thinks pregnancy and childbirth are at most "inconvenient." No socialized medicine, either; the bills go to the new mother, since as we all know, pro-life people are so superior morally, they won't mind putting their money where there mouths are.

I suspect within a very short time, the only people registered "pro-life" will be single men with no sisters, and never again will people be so arrogant and foolish as to think forcing people to have children against their will is a good idea.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Sylvia A
12:29 PM on 03/04/2010
OK, steamboat; but only if, at the same time, those of us who oppose certain wars on moral grounds get to opt out of paying for them with our tax dollars. (see a tiny problem here?)
photo
ShakeYourComplacency
Commonsense Progressive
06:21 AM on 12/30/2009
Well, I hope Rosa DeLauro takes a good look at it, because even now when they're trying to explain it in this article, I don't understand it. If women right now have insurance companies which cover abortion, is that going to change? If it does, then it's unacceptable. And really, that part about trying to keep existing law, I think that's awfully hard to do when you're re-designing the entire healthcare system! You're forcing people to buy insurance, you're artificially resetting the prices and conditions for that insurance, so how can anything be considered the same?

You know what this reminds me of? The slavery debate. When the nation expanded east to west, and new territories and states were added, the South said, yeah but what about slavery? We want slavery in those new states! That's existing law for us! Of course the United States government didn't really want to allow those laws to creep over into new lands, which would basically spread and legitimatize the practice. The North and South ended up with horrible compromises, state by state, because of this fight. So this is what it seems like now. We're moving forward, creating a giant new FEDERAL system, which will affect ALL the states at once, and ALL citizens, and now a small rabid (and yes, regional) anti-abortion segment of the population are ensuring that their biases get codified into the new law.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Tony12345
08:14 AM on 12/30/2009
It's funny that you should mention the slavery debate, because I think you're exactly right -- this is a fight for the value of human life and for equality. That 'small rabid' pro-life segment IS doing all it can to ensure that their views are codified into the new law -- just as a similar 'small rabid' abolitionist segment did all THEY could to put an end to slavery. You're right that many of the compromises fell short of the ideal, but that was due to the need to keep the slave-owners happy. It took a long time (nearly 100 years after the Civil War) for the country to see just how right that small rabid band of activists was. When it comes down to it, the abortion issue is about the preservation of human life -- the recognition that all people are created equal.

Also funnily enough, your argument (like that of many others posting comments here) actually PERPETUATES inequalities between women and men. By framing abortion as a 'women's issue' (rather than the human rights issue that it is), you're actually approving the age-old view that pregnancy was a 'woman's problem' when in fact it took two (normally consenting) adults to create that pregnancy. Do you really want to go back to the bad old days when pregnant women were shunned and called names I can't write here, whilst men were all-but-praised for their promiscuity? I sure wouldn't want that -- and I'm a man.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Tony12345
08:16 AM on 12/30/2009
(part ii)

Pregnancy (and abortion) should be seen as a JOINT responsibility -- not just the decision of a woman alone (who, like the man, consented the possibility of becoming pregnant by having sex).

Let me get to the crux of the debate on the Stupak or Nelson proposals: You're asking people to pay for what they believe in their hearts and souls to be an immoral act. Would you expect the abolitionists to subsidise the trade of slaves? I sure wouldn't... If we're going to accept that the innocent life of the unborn should be slaughtered at will, then in the least let those who want that slaughter pay for it from their own funds so that the consciences of those who oppose this can be kept clear.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Northernmom
08:19 AM on 12/30/2009
I don't like invading countries that didn't attack us. Should I have to pay for that?
08:39 AM on 12/30/2009
This government is a killing machine.... we do it around the world and at home... why should children be any different..

roflmao
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
FDMNews
04:19 AM on 12/30/2009
Part IiI

I don’t want to hear about moderation when one of the most divisive issues of our country is NOW suddenly part of the Health Care Reform. Do you know what it looks like from outside watching you guys inside?

I got to say, watching the Public Option, that a MAJORITY of the American people want, get sold out to the highest bidder, and now the abortion issue, I truly do not know what country I am in. Defend Democracy at home, Vote with the PUBLIC. Justify how the farm got sold out in the first place to the young women of the states where its already hard enough to get access to a doctor or clinic to obtain an abortion, explain how you gave away the support they need when faced with the hardest choice anyone has to make. Leaving this to the states, in light of the history in particular states, is essentially making it harder for women and that IS an impingement on a LEGAL right.

REMOVE the abortion issue from the bill – that’s how you don’t hold up the health care bill – and have those democratic senators and representatives who are so willing to give away WOMEN’s rights to fight instead to make abortion illegal.

This issue has sparked a fire to a timber of unfulfilled promises of health care reform.

If only I had a lobbyist, I could have warned you.
08:02 AM on 12/30/2009
Excuse me, but your post (below) said that you have lost your home and your job, that you were injured last year at a hospital, and that you are on food stamps. I assume that, with all those burdens, you do not have health insurance.

Under Health Care Reform you would be eligible for a large subsidy to acquire health insurance. Perhaps if that had been enacted years ago you would not have lost your home due to injury/medical costs.

So why do you focus on the limitation of the use of federal money for abortion..which is the current law anyway...instead of saving the lives of tens of thousands a year and the financial ruin of millions like yourself?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
FDMNews
04:13 AM on 12/30/2009
Part Ii
I have been trying to keep with the health care legislative proposals while at the same time trying to keep my family afloat after losing our home in October, a year after I was injured at a hospital, and lost my job, a part time one at that, which paid only enough to pay rent, food stamps have made it possible to eat, barely. Now I look up, and suddenly we’re talking about abortion???

If only I could afford a lobbyist to tell you how I and millions of women feel about this issue, or being charged more by private insurance companies for health care, or what its like to have your state cut preventative mammograms – it’s an assault out here and it feels like WOMEN are EXPENDABLE.

I am not comforted that some MALE democrats and the Catholic Church feel ok with the abortion provision.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
FDMNews
04:11 AM on 12/30/2009
PART I of Comment
With all due respect to the hard working people of the Senate and House, and to Rep. Rosa DeLauro, I am sorry but I am in total disagreement with the arguments for compromise presented in this article.

The fact that abortion is holding up health care is not going to be put on the shoulders of women’s rights groups who are screaming about this assault on the legal right in this country for abortion – we are not talking about whether people like it or don’t, we are talking about you making a totally different subclass of right because its abortion. I expect the same will be done for Viagra, Vioxx and any fertility treatments.

I don’t know who got the abortion provision put into the bill, but they are the people responsible and I am not going to have an elected representative tell me that defending this legal right is holding up health care. Please.
04:07 AM on 12/30/2009
Let me channel king Solomon. If I were king Solomon I would rule that every insured should declare that he or she is either pro-life or pro-choice. If prolife, a certain portion of his/her premium would be place in adoption support and if prochoice, a certain portion of premium would be placed in abortion insurance. If a person does not declare, the portion of premium will be split 50-50 between adoption support and abortion insurance.
04:46 AM on 12/30/2009
I like the idea of that.
01:27 PM on 12/30/2009
Now THAT sounds reasonable!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
lithium451
02:06 AM on 12/30/2009
kill the bill
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
03:53 AM on 12/30/2009
Co-signed.
02:04 AM on 12/30/2009
LuvsAmerica. Stop having babies and adopt some children. We had two boys and adopted two girls 30 years ago. There are millions of children worldwide waiting to be placed into good homes. Having more babies in this world only creates more hunger and misery for those children not lucky enough to be born into healthy families.
photo
ShakeYourComplacency
Commonsense Progressive
06:39 AM on 12/30/2009
But that wouldn't satisfy the ego enough, it's more importan to know that you created another person with your own dna and there is somehow another "you" walking around. An adopted child is just a child. The appeal is not as great.