President Obama, a supporter of reproductive rights, forcefully reiterated in his speech to Congress this week that his healthcare plan would not lead to government funding of abortion.
The trouble is, abortion foes don't believe him. They are working hard to persuade Americans that Obama is wrong -- and have even created ads that evoke "Harry and Louise," the fictional couple that helped tank the Clinton-era attempt at healthcare reform:
"They won't pay for my surgery," says an elderly man sitting at a kitchen table. "What are we going to do?"
"But honey, you can't live this way," says his wife, patting his arm.
"And to think that Planned Parenthood is included in the government-run health plan, and spending tax dollars on abortions," he replies. "They won't pay for my surgery, but we're forced to pay for abortions."
The ad, created by the Family Research Council, a conservative Christian group, ran for two weeks in August in five states (California not among them). The ad has been criticized by people on both sides of the healthcare debate as a simplistic and inflammatory depiction of the reform measures Congress is considering.
But the criticism may be beside the point.
What the ad does is neatly summarize what foes of abortion contend: No matter what the president has said, if he gets the bill he wants, taxpayer dollars will end up paying for abortions.
The next few weeks, abortion foes believe, will be crucial.
"It was easy in past election cycles for [antiabortion] people to sit back and think that everything would be taken care of," said Marjorie Dannenfelser of the Susan B. Anthony List, which supports antiabortion female candidates. "There was a [Republican] president in the White House who could veto, and there was never a threat of an override. Now we are looking at a complete undoing."
Her group is airing a television ad in Nevada, home state of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, attacking the Democrat for "pushing a massive government-run healthcare system requiring taxpayer funding for abortions." The ad is part of a $2-million campaign, Votes Have Consequences, targeting a dozen vulnerable senators and representatives.
The logic goes like this: Most of the proposals for expanding coverage include a provision for people who can't afford private health insurance. They could receive federal subsidies to help them buy insurance. Abortion foes say that if a private plan offers abortion coverage and a federal subsidy is used to purchase it, this would mean taxpayers are subsidizing abortion.
