Obama signs executive order restating policy to bar federal funds for abortions

WASHINGTON — With little fanfare, President Barack Obama on Wednesday signed an executive order that was the basis of a deal
struck with anti-abortion House Democrats, whose votes were crucial to
passing the landmark health care overhaul.

Obama, coming off a day in which he made full use of White House pageantry to sign the health care bill, took a conspicuously low-key approach.

No press photographers or reporters were allowed into the signing ceremony in the Oval Office. Nor did the White House circulate a statement confirming the event took place. Instead, the White House released its own photo showing Obama at his desk, pen in hand.

The order restates a policy barring federal funds
from being used to pay for most abortions. During the 2008 presidential
campaign, Obama’s staff wrote in response to a questionnaire that he
opposed the abortion-funding ban, known as the Hyde Amendment.

Invited to the signing were a cluster of anti-abortion Democrats including Rep. Bart Stupak of Michigan.
Stupak had led a bloc of House Democrats who threatened to withhold
their votes for the health care package absent a guarantee that federal
money would not be used to pay for abortions.

On Sunday, the day of the House vote, the executive order proved to be the compromise that won over Stupak and the others.

Neither Republican opponents of the health care
package nor liberal elements of Obama’s base seem happy with the
executive order. And it’s not clear it was legally necessary.

If the Hyde Amendment is already in effect, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs was asked at the daily press briefing, why the need for an executive
order reaffirming the same policy? Gibbs said: “We reiterated the
status quo, and we’re comfortable reiterating that status quo.”

Abortion-rights advocates said they were disappointed with Obama’s order.

“What we need to hear our leaders say is that the Hyde Amendment is bad law,” said Terry O’Neill, president of the National Organization for Women. “It needs to ultimately be repealed. It hurts women.”

On the other side of the divide, the anti-abortion
camp said the order is deficient in part because it does not carry the
force of law. Cardinal Francis George, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops,
said in a statement: “We do not understand how an executive order, no
matter how well intentioned, can substitute for statutory provisions.”

The executive order took effect on a day when Capitol Hill is still coping with the fallout from health care’s passage.

As debate raged in the Senate over a
“fix” package for the overhaul, Republicans continued to register their
displeasure with the proceedings by holding up committee hearings for a
second consecutive day.

A Senate Armed Services Committee hearing that had required military commanders to fly in from South Korea and Hawaii to testify was scrubbed — as was a hearing for University of California, Berkeley, law professor Goodwin Liu, nominated for a seat on the federal appeals court in San Francisco.

GOP senators are unhappy because Democrats are pushing
through the package of health care modifications using a process known
as reconciliation, which requires a bare majority of 51 senators for
approval and vitiates use of the filibuster.

Late Wednesday, the Senate ended the
required 20-hour debate period for the fix package and began voting on
a wave of amendments offered by Republicans that are designed to force
Democrats to take a series of embarrassing “no” votes.

One amendment offered by Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla.,
for example, would prohibit the government from covering erectile
dysfunction drugs for convicted sex offenders. Another would force
Democrats to take a stand against establishing a government-run
insurance provider, which is favored by many liberals.

The series of votes, dubbed the “Vote-a-rama,” was expected to last deep into the night.

Republicans were also planning to launch a series of procedural attacks on the health care bill.

If any of the amendments are approved, or any of the
parliamentary objections are found valid, the House would have to again
vote on the package after the Senate passes it. A Senate vote is expected by the end of the week.

———

(c) 2010, Tribune Co.

Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.