Health care reform - not wanting a debate, just info if anyone knows?

Bart Stupak over the "abortion issue" in healthcare reform have reportedly finally ground to a predictable and in some ways deserved halt. I say predictable because it has seemed clear for some time that there was no available compromise on the issue: Abortion rules would not be eligible for consideration under reconciliation rules, and there aren't 60 votes in the Senate for more restrictive abortion rules (as it was, pro-choice senators held their collective noses to vote for restrictive language already in the bill). And I say deserved because while I understand the need for the negotiations--passing the health reform bill is the greater good here--the fact is that they were meaningless because the health reform bill on offer simply wouldn't use taxpayer dollars to fund abortions.

The "issue" here is of the angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin nature, unrelated to what the bill actually does but focusing on what theoretical ripple effects it might have. Or, as the St. Petersburg Times put it today, it's "more about philosophy than funding."Of course whether the health bill passes or not will likely turn on this issue more than any other. The bill explicitly bars federal funds from being used to pay for abortions.

The Stupak position rests on the assertion that, as Roll Call put it, "the Senate package is inadequate because it allows women who receive federal subsidies to buy insurance policies covering abortions." In other words if a woman receives federal subsidies to pay for her health insurance, it's conceivable that she might have cash left over--that buying health insurance would not leave her destitute--and that she might use some of that money to pay for an abortion. (As a quick aside, shouldn't such concerns also rule out things like tax breaks, tax rebates, and tax credits?

The extra money someone takes home could, after all, go to an abortion.