State Rep. John LaBruzzo’s proposal to randomly drug test welfare recipients passed the House Wednesday evening by a 61-27 margin. It now faces scrutiny in the Senate.

LaBruzzo, R-Metairie, stripped his proposal to “prioritize” the testing of pregnant women, which, though problematic for its own reasons, at least allowed LaBruzzo the room to claim his interest was in improving the health of women and infants. As suspected, this proposal is in line with LaBruzzo’s controversial legislative history around welfare.

In fact, Rep. Walker Hines, D-New Orleans, explained in an e-mail to The Lens that support for LaBruzzo’s effort grew after the new fiscal note attached to the bill indicated that the random drug testing effort would cost less than previously thought – mostly because it would lead to people losing their food-stamp benefits. Hines, who voted against the bill along with most of the New Orleans delegation, explained that the new fiscal note “reduced by almost 70%” the costs outlined by the note shown in committee.

“It also shows that 47% of those tested under Labruzzo’s [sic] new requirements will refuse treatment thus eliminating their FITAP (food stamps) benefits, saving the state money,” Hines wrote.

In other words, working people struggling with substance abuse issues – or guilty of the heinous crime of smoking pot now and again – will neither get treatment nor food assistance for their families.

“It’s a very complicated issue,” Hines said. “The constitutionality of the bill is still very much in question and will not be resolved.”

Louisiana government to get between you and your doctor

Yesterday, the Senate health and welfare committee passed a bill requiring doctors to perform ultrasounds on women seeking abortions. The new law was proposed by a Democrat, Sen. Sharon Weston Broome of Baton Rouge, but does not go as far she had hoped. To get the bill through committee, it was stripped of a provision that would have forced women to look at the ultrasound screen during the procedure. New language was added to give women the choice to refuse to see the results of the ultrasound.

Broome’s proposal also was not as extreme as those recently passed in Oklahoma. One is almost identical to Broome’s proposal except it does not give women the right to refuse ultrasound results. The second permits doctors to withhold information about potential birth defects and disabilities discovered while the child is in the womb from parents. You read that right.

Broome also voted last year to ban the adoption of foster children by gay couples.

No word on when Broome might propose allowing condom distribution programs for Louisiana public high schools. My guess is never.

Just today, for instance, leaders of religious orders representing some 59,000 Catholic nuns sent out a letter in support of healthcare reform, asserting that “despite false claims to the contrary, the Senate bill will not provide taxpayer funding for elective abortions.”

Many Catholic Democrats in the House of Representatives have been similarly reluctant to support the Senate bill because its language is not as explicit as that in an earlier version of the bill.

That is, until now.

Over the past 24 hours, two anti-abortion Catholic Democrats in the House have concluded that the bill, which could be voted on as early as Saturday, includes sufficiently restrictive language.

Rep. Tom Perriello, D-Virginia, released a statement yesterday that detailed his research into the abortion provisions contained in the healthcare reform bill and his finding that the bill indeed “prevents federal taxpayer dollars from funding abortions.”

Like Cao, Rep. James Oberstar, D-Minn., was part of a group of about a dozen Congress members holding out on voting for the bill behind the leadership of Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich. Since talks between Stupak and the White House broke down last week, the Stupak coalition is beginning to independently evaluate the bill’s provisions.  Yesterday, Oberstar told reporters from Roll Call, who called him “one of the staunchest anti-abortion-rights Democrats in the House,” that he believed that the language of the bill to be consistent with the Hyde amendment, which has prohibited federal funding of abortion through appropriations bills since 1976.

Today, the Catholic magazine Commonweal published a lengthy and persuasive editorial urging the passage of the President’s healthcare reform bill from an anti-abortion perspective. (h/t: Andrew Sullivan, himself an independent small-c conservative Catholic)

One needs a good reason to oppose a bill that would cover 30 million uninsured Americans and greatly improve insurance for those who already have it. If the Senate bill did clearly authorize the federal government to pay for elective abortions, prolife Americans might have such a reason. To conclude the bill does this, however, requires one to believe that every ambiguity—every possible complication the bill doesn’t explicitly address—is a ploy by prochoice politicians to sneak abortion funding into the system. President Barack Obama and his party’s leadership have promised the bill won’t be used in this way. Their critics instruct us to presume that they’re lying.

—

[C]ritics point out that the bill departs from the Hyde Amendment’s ban on federal support for any health plan that covers elective abortion. They insist this is the only conceivable way for the government to subsidize insurance without paying for abortion. This is false, as the Senate bill itself clearly demonstrates. Under the bill, anyone who buys a plan that covers elective abortion would have to pay a separate, unsubsidized premium for that coverage. Such premiums would be segregated from premiums for all other services in a special account, which would have to cover the full cost of elective abortions and couldn’t receive a penny from the government. In other words, the bill would preserve the Hyde Amendment’s principle without applying its method.

—

If one wants to claim that no politician who’s really opposed to abortion can support the Senate bill, it’s not enough to show that the bill’s provisions are inferior to the House’s Stupak Amendment; one must also argue that the Senate bill is inferior to the status quo. The government is already subsidizing group plans that cover elective abortion by means of tax breaks for businesses that offer them. Millions of Americans must now choose between accepting such a plan and going without good health insurance; the only other option, a decent individual plan, is now just too expensive for them. The Senate bill would give such people the wherewithal to buy insurance that doesn’t cover elective abortion, which means that, in addition to its many other benefits, it would save millions of Americans from having to choose between their conscience and their health.

LATE UPDATE:

Now, Rep. Dale Kildee, D-Mich., a huge opponent of abortion and a loyal ally of Stupak, has come out with a statement on the abortion issue.

For those who know me, I have always respected and cherished the sanctity of human life. I spent six years studying to be a priest and was willing to devote my life to God. I came to Congress two years after the Hyde amendment became law. And I have spent the last 34 years casting votes to protect the lives of the unborn. I have stood up to many in my party to defend the right to life and have made no apologies for doing so. I now find myself disagreeing with some of the people and groups I have spent a lifetime working with. I have listened carefully to both sides, sought counsel from my priest, advice from family, friends and constituents, and I have read the Senate abortion language more than a dozen times.

—

I am convinced that the Senate language maintains the Hyde amendment, which states that no federal money can be used for abortion.

—

There is nothing more pro-life than protecting the lives of 31 million Americans. Voting for this bill in no way diminishes my pro-life voting record or undermines my beliefs. I am a staunch pro-life member of Congress — both for the born and the unborn.

If it remains true that Cao is leaning against the healthcare reform bill, it would appear as though he is becoming increasingly isolated from like-minded Catholics, who are now, in significant numbers, breaking in support of healthcare reform.

The House now is preparing to vote on a final package, a composite of the Senate version with some modifications sought by the House of Representatives and the White House. The Stupak bloc again is threatening to vote no because of their belief that the abortion restriction it too weak.

Negotiations between the Democratic leadership and Stupak broke down late last week, forcing members of his small but important coalition to act on their own.

Congressman Cao, as of today, is instructing staff to say that he will not vote for healthcare reform, unless the abortion language is stronger.

Cao’s office did not return calls for comment.

Last week, staffers indicated that Cao is following the interpretation U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, who Monday reiterated their opposition to the bill.

“The bishops were left disappointed and puzzled to learn that the basis for any vote on health care will be the Senate bill passed on Christmas Eve… It expands federal funding and the role of the federal government in the provision of abortion procedures. In so doing, it forces all of us to become involved in an act that profoundly violates the conscience of many, the deliberate destruction of unwanted members of the human family still waiting to be born.”

But other Catholic groups dispute that reading of the bill.

For instance, the National Catholic Reporter published a letter this weekend sent to Congress from 25 evangelical and Catholic leaders, an anti-abortion group called Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good. In it, they detail a series of safeguards against the federal funding in the bill.

After citing the specific provisions in the bill, they conclude:

We are now at a critical moment in the history of our country. More than 30 million Americans may finally gain access to a health care system that is affordable — providing families, children and seniors with fundamental care that is essential to human dignity. We respectfully ask that you make an informed decision about this legislation based on careful deliberation guided by facts.

Similarly, the Catholic Health Association split with the bishops to urge passage of the  healthcare legislation.

Many Democrats have insisted that the Hyde amendment, which has barred the federal funding of abortion since it was passed in 1976, would apply to the healthcare bill. Still, Congressional leaders have worked to add language, including the Stupak amendment, to apply restrictions more explicitly.

Both the House bill, now by the wayside, and the Senate bill under consideration  seek to maintain the ban on federally funded abortions.

The difference, then, is one of semantics. According to Washington and Lee law professor Timothy S. Jost, the House and Senate bills are “essentially equivalent,” but he points to four areas where the two versions seem to be at odds.

The first is that in the House bill, people who accept tax subsidies to help purchase insurance would have to buy a supplemental policy without any public assistance to add abortion coverage. Under the Senate version, individuals would only have to pay a separate premium to add abortion coverage to the policy they purchase using subsidies. In the other three areas, Jost argues that the Senate version of the healthcare bill is more restrictive on abortion than the House bill. The Senate bill lets states bar any policies that cover abortions from being sold in insurance exchanges, regardless of whether or not federal subsidies are used. The Senate bill also prohibits plans from advertising abortion coverage, which  the House bill does not, and provides $250 million in teen pregnancy counseling, which the House bill does not.

Many other anti-abortion Democrats have found the language in the Senate bill to be adequate. Today, Virginia Democrat Tom Perriello, who is still on the fence on the final bill, released a statement with his conclusion that there can be no federally funded abortions under the legislation being considered

“I have plenty of serious problems with the Senate bill and, until I see the final language, I cannot take a position on final passage. But the existing language on abortion in the current Senate bill meets the pledge I made to ensure no federal funding for abortion in this health care bill.”

Cao’s deference to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops for their interpretation is troubling. It both undermines his claim of independent-mindedness and raises questions over whether Cao would split with the Catholic church on any issue, including hard-line views against the rights of homosexuals and the use of contraception.

To his credit, Cao has been consistent in his rhetoric as he’s considered the merits of healthcare legislation – he’s always pointed to the abortion issue as foremost on his mind – but now, because of his deference to the U.S. Conference of Bishops, he has painted himself into a corner. If he votes for the healthcare bill after having not received any additional concessions on his pet issue, the ultimatum he has put forth over the last several weeks will have been a lie. If he votes against healthcare reform, he’ll have flip-flopped on the coverage expansion he supported just a few months ago – and his defiance the majority of his district will have sealed the coffin on his political career.

While many political observers can compellingly argue that there is no path to re-election for Cao, his opposition to the Obama administration’s signature issue definitively slams the door on much of the liberal crossover support that secured Cao’s unlikely election in the first place.

Politics aside, it seems indefensible to this non-Catholic to base such an important vote on what seems to me to be a very minor discrepancy between two bills that both seek to prevent the funding of abortion. Given a recent estimate that a lack of insurance contributes to 45,000 American deaths annually, voting for a healthcare reform bill that will expand coverage to tens of millions of Americans is the only pro-life position to take.