The debate over health care reform has reached a critical stage, as the Senate version of the bill nears its approval. The key moment in the past week was when a “compromise” was reached over the question of abortion funding.

The Senate bill, if it were to become law, would be an unprecedented expansion of abortion in the United States. The equivalent of a tax would be imposed on every single American, and then used to subsidize health insurance plans that pay for abortion on demand. A transparent bookkeeping stunt will be used to camouflage the fact that the government will be subsidizing abortions that are done for any reason, or for no reason. And, for the first time, killing unborn children would be recognized as an ordinary part of health care.

Much of the debate over the health care bill has been dominated by fiscal concerns — over the amounts of money being spent, and on the number of uninsured persons who will be covered. But it might be useful to take a look at the human side of abortion as it is actually occurring, and can be seen in some simple statistics.

According to the New York State Department of Health, in 2007 (the last year for whcih official statistics are currently available) there were 120,554 abortions in New York. Think about that number for a moment. That is just about the same number of people who would sell out three games in the new Yankee Stadium. When you add in the mothers and fathers who were affected by these abortions and you have about as many people as attended all the playoff games in Yankee Stadium this year. Does that give you an idea of the scope of human misery involved here?

How about this. In New York City in 2007, there were 83,310 abortions. Among African-Americans in New York City, there were more abortions than live births that year. In the borough of the Bronx, among whites in the borough, there were more abortions than live births. Think about that for a moment — more babies destroyed in the womb than were born alive.

And this. In that year, 2,244 abortions took place after 20 weeks of gestation — after five months of pregnancy. 3,900 women who had an abortion in New York that year had at least five previous abortions. 647 girls under the age of 15 had an abortion that year — in a state that does not require their parents to be even notified.

This is what we’ll be paying for, and more, if the Senate bill becomes law. In 2007, Medicaid paid for 46,653 abortions — in other words, our tax dollars paid for them. Another 30,000 abortions were paid for by private insurance, and a further 34,701 were paid by the women themselves — but if the Senate bill passes we will be paying for them too. But those numbers are going to rise if the current health care bills pass — if one thing is certain from the social science research, it’s that the abortion rate goes up when the public pays for it.

If those numbers aren’t enough to horrify you, then you should turn your eyes to the South Bronx, to the Clinton Place Medical Center. There, you’ll find the abortionist, Dr. Pierre Renelique, whose license to practice medicine in Florida was revoked over his participation in a late-term abortion that resulted in a live birth, and because he lied in medical records to hide the fact that the baby was intentionally killed. Dr. Renelique’s license to kill in New York is still valid, so he continues his dirty work unabated, just like his colleagues in abortion clinics around the nation.

This is the kind of man that our tax dollars currently go to, to pay for abortions under Medicaid. This is the kind of man that our tax dollars will go to, to pay for any kind of abortion, if the Senate health care bill becomes law.

Doesn’t that put into perspective the real facts, and the real stakes, involved in this health care reform debate? Why won’t Congress see this?

As cynical as I am about politics, I still cling to the belief that ideas matter, that cogent policy arguments can sway people, and that content is more important than process. But then you see what’s going on in the United States Senate.

The current spectacle over health care “reform” in the “world’s greatest deliberative body” is a case study on how not to make legislation, especially on an issue that can cost people their lives.

The Senate leadership is acting as if the chamber is an open-air bazaar, and is nakedly buying votes and selling favors to get Senators to jettison their objections to the bill. The President is pressuring Congress to act, as if he believes all that nonsense about the Mayan calendar and the end of the world, saying that this is the last chance ever to reform health care. Reasoned debate has long since gone beyond the board, and naked political calculation seems to be all that matters. Passing the bill — any bill — has become an end in itself, regardless of its contents. The hesitancy of the American people, as reflected in the opinion polls, doesn’t count, as Congress rushes headlong to change a fundamental aspect of American life.

Here’s how bad it is. Over the weekend, Congress passed an enormous appropriations bill. In that bill were three key provisions of interest to Catholics: the Hyde Amendment (which strictly limits federal funding for abortions), the prohibition of abortion funding in federal employee benefit plans, and the Weldon Amendment (which protects the conscience rights of health care institutions and providers). Virtually every Democratic Senator voted for the appropriations bill, and thus for these provisions.

Yet these are the same Senators who have been claiming that the same language as is found in the Hyde Amendment and the federal benefits provision, when offered as an amendment to the health care bill (the Stupak Amendment), was too “extreme”. These are also the same Senators who have done nothing to add adequate conscience protection language to the health care bill.

How does this make any sense? Do they even try to be consistent in what they say and do?

This is a very frustrating time to be a public policy advocate. It is in this poisonous atmosphere that the Catholic bishops are trying to make a principled argument about the deficiencies of the pending Senate bill. The bishops have been highlighting the inadequate protections for human life, and have been respectfully requesting that the bill be fixed. They have consistently supported common-sense amendments to the bill, and have expressed their desire for authentic health care reform that protects life, provides justice for immigrants, and ensures that the bill results in affordable access to health care for all. They have written letter after letter, made public statement after public statement. Is anybody listening?

And it’s not as if the stakes are small. If adequate conscience protection is not ensured, medical professionals and institutions will be forced out of business. But even worse, lives are at stake here. It is clear that when there is increased public funding for elective abortion, the number of abortions increase. ln other words, if the Senate bill passes in its current form, more children will be killed in the womb, and we will be forced to pay the doctors who commit such atrocities.

The credibility, and even the fundamental legitimacy, of the democratic process is on trial in Washington. The picture right now isn’t pretty.

The Senate leadership has now introduced a health care reform bill that would pay for elective abortions, mandate abortion coverage in private health insurance plans, impose a monthly fee on all those in the public plan to pay for abortion, and provide subsidies to private insurance plans that cover elective abortions. The debate about abortion in health care reform has entered its next chapter.

So, let’s do something radical today. Let’s actually read the Stupak Amendment, which is part of the House health care bill (H.R. 3962) and see what it actually says. This is not as hard as it sounds, because the Amendment is less than 400 words long and can actually fit on one side of a piece of paper.

But it may be a bit scary for some legislators who seem to prefer not to read what is in the bills they vote on. It may also be scary for pro-abortion activists, who prefer to spread misinformation about what was in the original H.R. 3962, and what the Stupak Amendment actually does.

For example, a pro-abortion Representative recently wrote to a constituent, “In fact, the original language of H.R. 3962 already prevented any federal dollars from directly funding abortion services.”

That is just not accurate. H.R. 3962, as it was presented to the House for a vote, authorized federal subsidies to private insurance plans that covered elective abortion, and would have collected “premiums” from private parties which would then have been used for direct reimbursement for abortions. It also authorized the Secretary of HHS to pay for elective abortions under the proposed “public option.”

In the same email, the legislator wrote: “Unfortunately, the Stupak Amendment goes far beyond current law restricting federal funding of abortions and would in fact ban abortion coverage from any plan offered in the so-called exchange that serves any woman who receives subsidies.” This echoes the party line among the pro-abortion forces is that the Stupak Amendment would prevent women from obtaining private health insurance that covers elective abortions.

That is just not accurate. Let’s look at what the Stupak Amendment actually states. Admittedly, it is written in a bit of legalese, but it still can be understood fairly easily:

“Nothing in this section shall be construed as prohibiting any nonfederal entity (including an individual or a State or local government) from purchasing separate supplemental coverage for abortions for which funding is prohibited under this section, or a plan that includes such abortions” (Section 265(b)), provided that they do not use federal subsidies to do so.

The Amendment goes on to say:

“nothing in this section shall restrict any nonfederal QHBP offering entity [i.e., health insurance company] from offering separate supplemental coverage for abortions for which funding is prohibited under this section, or a plan that includes such abortions,” (Section 265(c)), provided that no federal funds are used to purchase abortion coverage, and the plan can participate in the Exchange if the company offers an otherwise identical plan that does not cover abortion.

As a result, the Stupak Amendment retains the legal status quo under which no federal funds are used to pay for elective abortions, and no federal funds go to insurance plans that cover elective abortions. If women wish to purchase private insurance to pay for an elective abortion, they may do so, but they must use their own money. It was actually the bill as presented to the House that would substantially change this status quo by paying for elective abortions, and giving federal funds to insurance plans that cover elective abortion. And the new Senate bill has the same fatal flaws.

The health care reform debate is very complicated, and involves many, many issues. But a couple of things should be clear — we should read the actual bills to see what they say, and in any event no bill should pay for abortions.

As things stand right now, it is also clear that the Senate bill must be amended to reflect the same terms as the Stupak Amendment, or it should be defeated.

There has been a great deal of furor over the Stupak Amendment, which excluded funding for elective abortion from the House health care bill that was passed last week. Most of the ruckus has come from the pro-abortion side.

But some of the criticism has come from pro-lifers, who are upset that the Amendment would still permit federal funding for some abortions — when they are performed in the cases of rape, incest, and to save the life of the mother. Some of these critics have gone so far as to criticize the Bishops for supporting the Amendment, alleging that they have strayed from the position of holding all human lives sacred.

I respect the opinions of these critics. I share their goal of the complete protection of all human life from the moment of conception. I wish it were possible to enact such laws today. But in my opinion it is not possible, and I strongly disagree with the idea that supporting the Stupak Amendment is a sell-out of pro-life values.

There is no doubt that there are many flaws that remain in the House bill, which need to be addressed before Catholics can support it in good conscience. There is also no doubt that the Stupak Amendment falls short of the kind of complete defense of human life that we desire to be enshrined in our law. If it were a stand-alone piece of legislation, we would certainly oppose it. But it was not. It was an effort to mitigate the horrible damage that would have been done by the House health care bill to human life and to our society.

Without the Amendment, every single abortion in the United States — over one million of them — would have been subsidized or paid for in full by federal money. The bill would have enshrined elective abortion as a basic component of health care in the United States. The Stupak Amendment lessens that danger. It doesn’t eliminate it, but it limits it.

To me, any setback to evil, however small it may seem, is a victory. And I’m not alone in this view. One way to tell that the Stupak Amendment is a major step forward for pro-life is to listen to the wailing and gnashing of teeth by the pro-abortion forces, who recognize this as a major defeat for their cause.

The question of whether to support imperfect legislation is is an old argument, and not just in our cause. Back in the days of the abolition movement, William Lloyd Garrison was a tireless advocate for complete and immediate emancipation of all slaves, and he was bitterly critical of those who favored incremental steps towards that goal. During the civil rights struggle, there were many who were denounced as sell-outs or as “Uncle Toms” for their support of limited legislative solutions. These kinds of arguments may make their proponents feel better about themselves, but they distract the movement from the shared goals, damage personal relations, and being discord into what should be God’s good work.

What I particularly find sad is the intemperate tone of some of the attacks on the good faith of the Bishops and others who worked for the passage of the Stupak Amendment. Even in our public advocacy, we have to act as Christians, and treat both our allies and our adversaries accordingly. The angry, nasty tone of talk radio and internet comboxes has no place in discussions among Christians, even those who disagree strongly about means or ends.

This is a time for unity and realism. We must recognize that some kind of heath care reform bill will be passed by both the House and the Senate, and signed into law by the President. We must act together to ensure that whatever bill emerges from the process respects human life to the maximum extent possible under the circumstances. And we have to keep working, for as long as it takes, to transform the hearts and minds of our nation, so that all human life is eventually protected under our law, and abortion becomes inconceivable.