Source: The New York Times
BY: ROBERT PEAR and DAVID M. HERSZENHORN

WASHINGTON — House Democratic leaders struggled Wednesday to strike a deal that would restrict the use of federal money to pay for abortions under sweeping health care legislation headed for debate on the House floor this week.

But the proposed compromise satisfied neither supporters nor opponents of abortion rights.

The haggling over abortion was part of a frenetic effort by House Democratic leaders to lock in the 218 votes needed to pass the legislation, and it highlighted the political land mines on the path to a vote tentatively set for Saturday.

Ahead of the vote, President Obama is planning to visit the Capitol on Friday to meet with the House Democratic caucus.

AARP, the influential lobby for older Americans, is expected to endorse the bill on Thursday, House Democratic aides said. Such an endorsement would help Democrats answer a barrage of Republican charges that the bill would subsidize coverage for the uninsured by cutting Medicare in ways that would hurt older Americans.

The House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, a supporter of abortion rights, has little choice but to heed the concerns of members of her caucus who oppose abortion. As many as 40 House Democrats, a potentially decisive bloc, have threatened to oppose the bill without tighter restrictions on abortion.

Over all, the House bill would provide coverage to 36 million people at a cost of $1.1 trillion over 10 years.

The bill would establish a new government insurance plan, which would compete with private insurers around the country. Under the bill as now written, the secretary of health and human services could decide whether the public insurance option covers abortions.

In an address to Congress on Sept. 9, President Obama said, “Under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions.” But House Democrats have had difficulty translating that principle into enforceable legislative language.

Some Democratic opponents of abortion, led by Representative Brad Ellsworth of Indiana, have said the bill should prohibit the use of federal money to provide abortions in the public insurance plan.

“We are going to exhaust every avenue to ensure pro-life concerns are addressed in this legislation,” Mr. Ellsworth said.

Representative Diana DeGette, Democrat of Colorado, a leader of the Congressional Pro-Choice Caucus, said a proposal devised by Mr. Ellsworth was likely to be incorporated in the House bill.

“We are not enthusiastic about his language,” Ms. DeGette said, “but we won’t object to it.”

Under the House bill, health plans are neither required nor forbidden to cover abortions. Under Mr. Ellsworth’s proposal, if the public plan decides to cover abortion, it would have to hire private contractors to handle money that might be used for that purpose.

Supporters of abortion rights, like the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said the proposed restrictions went too far.

Laurie Rubiner, vice president of Planned Parenthood, said Mr. Ellsworth’s proposal would “tip the balance away from women’s access to reproductive health care.”

“Abortion should not be treated any differently from any other medical benefit or procedure,” Ms. Rubiner said. “It is our hope and expectation that the secretary would decide to include coverage of abortion in the public option.”