Not passing the bill now kisses HCR goodbye for another ten or twenty years.  Since any chance is better than no chance at all, we've got what we've got.

The question I've got, I reiterate, is this: has the pro-choice side (that includes me) really lost the public debate to the extent that sixty-four anti-choice Dems are needed to have a congressional majority of 258 seats?  Is that really where we're at?  The polls say no, but elections seem to say yes.  I'd really like to see about 64 primaries to start finding out.

No health insurance contracts, plans, or policies delivered or issued for delivery in the state shall provide coverage for elective abortions except by an optional rider for which there must be paid an additional premium. For purposes of this section, an "elective abortion" means an abortion for any reason other than a spontaneous abortion or to prevent the death of the female upon whom the abortion is performed.

The statute was challenged in court in 1992, and struck down.  The court of appeals reversed, holding that there had been no evidence that the statute actually created an "undue burden" - as in, the plaintiff had failed to show that insurance covering abortions was unavailable or prohibitively expensive as a factual matter.  I'm not sure what became of the legal challenge after that, but the law is still on the books.

By contrast, in 1984 a similar "abortion rider" statute in Rhode Island was struck down as unconstitutional.  National Education Association of Rhode Island v. Garrahy, 598 F. Supp. 1374 (D.R.I. 1984).  I didn't read the whole decision but this part caught my eye:

The burden imposed by the health insurers' prohibition is particularly egregious in light of the plans proposed by Blue Cross and RIGHA to implement the statute. While the supplementary premium required is relatively small, more important is the veto feature of the plan. Any employer could veto the rider for all employees covered by the employer's policy. Any single member of a non-employer group could likewise veto the rider for an entire group plan. Women seeking to retain coverage in these circumstances would be compelled to leave their group plans -- at a cost of up to $2000 annually -- and self-finance an entire health insurance package.

"restrict women's right to choose any further than current law"? (Steve M)

The existing 1973 Hyde Amendment prohibited the use of federal public funds to cover abortions under Medicaid. As other have noted, the Stupak amendment expands prohibitions on abortion funding into the private health insurance sector. Of course, this increases a woman's financial burden and thereby further infringes on her ability to access abortion.

Legislation of this kind, which infringes on the "fundamental right" of abortion, is supposed to be subject to strict scrutiny which:

Arises...when a "fundamental" constitutional right is infringed, particularly those listed in the Bill of Rights and those the court has deemed a fundamental right protected by the liberty provision of the 14th Amendment...

I don't see how the original Hyde Amendment is constitutional; let alone the Stupak Amendment; let alone the matter of the five states that, some time ago, barred private insurers from covering abortions services.

The role of the Catholic Church is being examined. However, the health lobby basically wrote the entire health insurance 'reform' plan, so I find it odd that their role is not being scrutinized in this particular matter.

The mandate says we have to buy insurance or pay a fine.  The amendment says if we accept federal subsidies we cannot spend any money on insurance that provides this service.

They are mandating people buy insurance that will not cover their needs.