By Rev. Susan Newman

One of the best lessons my mother taught me as a child is “It is better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it.” This is how I feel about the looming threat of abortion restrictions being reintroduced in the Health Care Reform bill when debate begins on the Senate floor.

Saturday night, November 21, the United States Senate voted, by a margin of 60 yeas to 39 nays (and one not voting), to limit debate (cloture) and thus eliminate the possibility of a filibuster on H.R. 3950, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Under Senate rules, 60 Senators must vote for cloture, or the bill would have been filibustered.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) hopes to bring the bill to final vote before Christmas, but there are many hurdles to overcome before it gets to a final vote. Yes, the Health Care Reform bill is moving forward, but there are legitimate concerns that language similar to the Stupak-Pitts Amendment which was included in the House bill (HR3962), may creep into the Senate version when the Senate returns for floor debate after Thanksgiving.

This amendment violates the underlying principle of health care reform, as articulated by President Obama, that no one will lose the benefits they currently have. The truth is that under the Stupak-Pitts amendment, millions of women would lose benefits that they currently have and millions more would be prohibited from getting the kind of private sector health care coverage that most women have today. Basically, millions of women would lose private coverage for abortion services, and millions more would be prohibited from buying it even with their own money.

Basically, women’s access to private coverage for abortion would be restricted by health care reform if Stupak type language is in the bill. The new health insurance exchange is intended to provide a new source of affordable, quality coverage for many of the 46 million uninsured Americans, and the millions more whose current coverage is unaffordable or inadequate.

Where did this threat to women’s reproductive health care come from? The threat came from 22 celibate men. When the US House of Representatives passed the Health Care Reform bill it was under pressure at the 11th hour from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the main supporters of this amendment. The Catholic Bishops insisted on using health care reform as a means to pursue its goal of making abortion illegal.

This is unacceptable for the opinion of 22 men to significantly influence the future of women’s reproductive health in America, and take us back to the horror of illegal, back-alley abortions because we have no choice. The Catholic Bishops have a right to express their opinions, but not at the risk of women’s lives.

Reverend Dr. Carlton W. Veazey, President and CEO of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (RCRC), a faith-based, pro-choice advocacy organization, emphasizes that, “It is now up to the Senate to keep health care reform free of religious doctrine and restrictions that will prevent women from making their own reproductive health care choices. We speak as people of faith who support religious freedom and reproductive options. Women must not lose access to abortion services they may need because of a small but vocal group of anti-choice activists.”  RCRC is organizing a National Day of Action today from 9:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C.

Jon O’Brien, president of Catholics for Choice, issued the following statement about the US bishops’ recent letter to Congress about healthcare reform. “The bishops’ principles may lead them to oppose funding for abortion. However, the bishops’ principles in no way reflect the principles of Catholics. According to a new poll of Catholic voters carried out by Belden Russonello and Stewart for Catholics for Choice, Catholics support a healthcare reform plan that would include funding for abortion.

“Large majorities of Catholic voters support health insurance coverage for abortions–either in a private- or a government-run scheme:

• when a pregnancy poses a threat to the life of a woman (84 percent)
• when a pregnancy is due to rape or incest (76 percent)
• when a pregnancy poses long-term health risks for the woman (73 percent)
• when test results show a fetus has a severe abnormal condition (66 percent)

Opinion is split on whether insurance plans should cover abortion whenever a woman and her doctor decide it is appropriate (50 percent support and 50 percent oppose).”

There are 65 million Catholics and only 22 bishops. The bishops do not speak for the entire Catholic Church, nor do they speak for the millions of people who are of other faith traditions and political opinions regarding reproductive rights.

I cannot help but wonder what the conversation would be like if the issue were men’s reproductive health and access to Viagra? When it comes to reproductive rights, it is far better to have them and not need them, than to need them and not have them.

The Stupak Amendment would end the 30-year-old law related to abortion services, which states that, “No federal funds can be used to provide abortion services, except in cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mothers.” The ban would prohibit millions of women from purchasing—with their own money—private health insurance which provides comprehensive reproductive health care benefits, including abortion services—a legal medical procedure, and a woman’s legal right.

Rev. Dr. Susan Newman is Adjunct Minister at Peoples Congregational United Church of Christ, Washington, DC and Interfaith Outreach Associate for the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice. She is the author of several books including Oh God! A Black Woman’s Guide to Sex and Spirituality.