Salon provides a useful summary:
During the celebration over the passage of healthcare this week, a noticeable number of pro-choicers could be found staring into their drinks and dejectedly contemplating what it all means. Have Democrats sold out pro-choice women? Were we thrown under the bus? Do Dems owe us now? What does the president's executive order on abortion mean in real terms? How is it different from the existing Hyde Amendment?
It is unclear how this legislation will harm abortion rights, but since money is rather important for them, it is clear it will in some fashion. As Katha Pollitt says, pro-choicers are deserve something in return for taking a bullet here. I agree that:
The way I see it, the Democratic Party and the Obama administration owe supporters of women's rights a huge payback for cooperating on its signature issue.
The Salon piece links to a good blog post by a Bronx abortion provider. For instance, there is an exception for rape? But, what exactly does that mean? Power dynamics in real life result in various pregnancies that really cannot be said to be totally "consensual" in various ways, even if it is not legally rape. Also, birth control fails even if used perfectly (and who uses things perfectly?). Finally, fetal abnormalities -- though covered here even in some conservative states -- is not an exception to Hyde. Will even this be covered?
The lines that are drawn by those against abortion turn out to be very arbitrary. The law tends not to be as messy -- it draws stricter lines in this area (though in practice, though not consistently, there might be more give) than some ideal accepted by various people who think there should be various limits. Repeatedly, in comment streams on this issue, e.g., people support abortion rights but say they shouldn't have to pay for them. As if health care is much of a "right" when you cannot afford to pay. And, suddenly $350-1000 (or more for some) is some trivial cost. Why do we get coverage for loads of procedures that cost less?
Some of the inane comparisons to "elective" procedures (like tummy tucks) are also downright offensive. The problems with Stupak partially arose from the fact that the current law (and this includes the health bill) is already rather selectively draconian. I am not completely sure, partially since it will take actual use to determine, how much worse things are now. Hopefully, not too much. And, unfortunately, even if you think it was horrible, I don't think the pro-choice side had the power here to stop Nelson-like language.
The fight for true equal health care is far from over.