The Political Interest Will Abortion Be Covered?

By Michael Kramer

Should a woman lie to obtain an abortion? Norma McCorvey thought so when she cried rape 20 years ago. The ruse failed and she was forced to have the baby, but McCorvey became "Jane Roe," the plaintiff in Roe v. Wade, the landmark Supreme Court decision guaranteeing reproductive freedom. Today, with the right to choose protected, the equal exercise of that right is in jeopardy, and important abortion proponents are urging women to follow McCorvey's example -- a strategy the Clinton Administration may eventually endorse, if only implicitly.

Despite a pro-choice President and a Democratic majority in Congress, the abortion-rights battle is set to boil again when the Congress begins considering Clinton's health-reform legislation this week. The political war reflects the public's ambivalence: a majority of Americans favor a woman's right to choose but wish she would elect to have the baby. "Most view abortion as a privacy matter," explains White House pollster Stan Greenberg. "But most abhor the act and are opposed to using tax dollars for abortions for those who can't pay for them."

At the center of the controversy, then, is a double standard. With Roe as their shield, the better-off do as they please. For the poor, though, and for those without health insurance, choice is meaningless without the means to choose. Only 13 states voluntarily fund abortions for those who can't afford them; the poor elsewhere are looking to Clinton to save them from the back alley. But Clinton's options are limited by the Hyde Amendment, the 16-year- old constraint on the use of federal funds to finance abortions authored by Illinois Representative Henry Hyde. The law, which initially allowed federally funded abortions only if the mother's life was endangered, was expanded last , summer to include cases of rape and incest. Furthermore, the revised Hyde Amendment requires only that a woman "self-certify" that an abortion is necessary. So, Representative Nita Lowey said recently, "I'd tell my constituents, 'Send a letter. Say you were raped. Say it was incest. Say you have heart disease.' " Lowey admits such advice is "lousy public policy" (and claims she was being ironic when she offered it), but other pro-choice advocates insist that a woman's got to do what a woman's got to do. Appalled that anyone would "counsel fraud by saying women should lie," Hyde says he'll fight to tighten the "loose language."

The Administration, meanwhile, appears charmed by Lowey's "advice." Fearing a dustup that could scuttle health reform, Clinton is trying to sidestep the controversy by promising to cover "medically necessary pregnancy-related services." If the President thinks he can dance around the pro-lifers with that language, he should think again. "Medically necessary" is a term of bureaucratic art. It dates from the days before Hyde's amendment and was routinely interpreted as permitting abortion on demand. Hyde is ready for war: "No way am I going to let the crucial definitions be determined by the little one," he says scornfully, referring to Health and Human Services Secretary Donna Shalala.

Where will Clinton be when the battle's joined? "We've got to get some health reform passed," says a top HHS official. "We could be gone in '96 if we don't. We'll drop 'medically necessary' if we have to, but maybe the language that would permit abortions if women fib will survive. It may be immoral to say women should lie, but too many have struggled for too long despite Roe as the law -- and that's immoral too."