While the health care plan that passed in the House on Saturday elicited mass celebration amongst advocates of health care reform, for a largely voiceless group of Americans — namely, low-income women — this historic bill hardly signifies a “courageous vote,” as President Obama suggests.

The House health care bill was ultimately passed with the inclusion of a strict abortion provision. Led by Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI), the amendment prohibits abortion coverage under the proposed public-option health insurance and furthermore, prohibits anyone receiving federal subsidies from purchasing private insurance plans that may happen to cover abortion. Before the vote on Saturday, Stupak proclaimed, “Let us stand together on principle — no public funding for abortions, no public funding for insurance policies that pay for abortions.”

In effect, the abortion provision threatens the right of choice for millions of women who are eligible for federal assistance under the House health care bill. What must be noted here is that the provision will likely have little effect on middle and upper-class women’s ability to make choices about their reproductive health, but a profound discriminatory effect on low-income women — arguably some of the most vulnerable people in this country and the ones in greatest need of health care. Given the low-rung status of poor women, it is not surprising that Stupak capitalized on their invisibility in order to get this bill passed.

While some would say Stupak is justified in his actions, as health care reform would not have passed in the House without an abortion provision, I am struggling to come to terms with this trade off. On the one hand, if passed by the Senate, this bill has the potential to extend coverage to 36-million uninsured Americans. Yet, on the other hand, it significantly inhibits women’s health and their power to make independent decisions over their lives and bodies — amounting to one of the biggest setbacks to women’s reproductive rights in decades. Furthermore, the profound socioeconomic implications of Stupak’s amendment are cause for concern.

The right to choose should not be defined by class. You can’t be pro-choice for a particular socioeconomic bracket and pro-life for another. In effect, though, Stupak’s amendment implicitly makes this distinction.

Abortion has wrongly become one of the most divisive issues in American politics. Liberals and conservatives alike are guilty of using abortion as a shield, hiding behind this moral front to avoid talking about other important issues where there might be common ground. Unsurprisingly, the health care debate has followed in the footsteps of partisan politics, enabling abortion to become the deal-breaker for one of the most pressing issues of our times. The unfortunate part of this overemphasis on abortion in the health care debate is that, in effect, it’s a non-issue.

While even I — a pro-choice advocate — can understand the pro-life contingent’s opposition to tax-payer dollars to fund abortion, the fact of the matter is that that was never going to happen in the first place. The House bill is subject to the Hyde amendment, which has prohibited allocating annual Health and Human Services appropriations to federally fund abortions since it was first past in 1976. Yet Stupak’s amendment — influenced largely by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops — goes beyond reinstating the Hyde amendment and makes it nearly impossible for a woman receiving federal subsidies to even pay for an abortion out of pocket. Furthermore, it prohibits federal funding for any insurance plan that may happen to include coverage for abortion, which could result in many women losing their coverage. In effect, Stupak’s amendment significantly impedes on the right to choose an appropriate insurance plan, undermining women’s health at large.

While it seems that the abortion provision was nothing more than a ploy to gain conservative support, the question remains: Is such a compromise justified? I personally am struggling to reconcile this moral dilemma. As a staunch advocate of health care reform, I champion the passing of this unprecedented legislation. Yet, I also empathize with those whose right to choice will be substantially restrained by the passing of such a bill. For months, I — like many health care advocates — have simply emphasized getting a bill passed. I thought flaws were inevitable the first time around; Congress should focus on getting the legislation passed, and can pick up the missing pieces later. Now, I am not so sure.

Conservative Democrats like Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) have already said that they will not support a health care bill without Stupak’s amendment. Yet, at the same time, 41 House Democrats have signed a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi refusing to support any bill that inhibits abortion rights. Thus, it seems that in some sense, while the Stupak amendment was used to obtain needed bipartisan support, it has now further polarized the issue on Capitol Hill, threatening health care reform altogether.

As the House bill approaches the Senate floor, I can only hope that conservative and liberals alike take a step back and objectively examine what’s at stake. As a nation, we cannot afford not to reform our health care system. Yet we also cannot morally impede on women’s health and reproductive rights. The recent emphasis on health care as a human right — not a partisan issue — has facilitated the efforts towards a health care overhaul thus far. It is time we start viewing women’s reproductive health in the same light — a woman’s body is not a political pawn, but a matter of privacy and human rights.

Carolyn Witte is a sophomore in the College of Arts and Sciences. She may be reached at cwitte@cornellsun.com. Wit’s End appears alternate Wednesdays this semester.