The title of a recently released ABC News article is another of those "hot button issues": "ABORTION RIGHTS ACTIVISTS Say Stupak-Pitts Amendment Would Hurt Women's Rights". So "Abortion Rights Activists" obviously oppose this amendment.

The sub-title is "Supporters of the Amendment Say Federal Funds Shouldn't Be Used For Abortions". The title and sub-title present exactly the opposite point of view.

The question, again, is: which argument (or side) is more reasonable? "An amendment included in the House health care bill passed this weekend promising to restrict federal funding for abortions has reignited a fiery debate on one of the most controversial issues in the country". The emotive phrase is obviously "reignited a fiery debate".

Once again, since this is such a touchy issue, we can only look at what people are saying and evaluate if their tone is reasonable. To start off, "The Stupak-Pitts Amendment (authored by Michigan Rep. Bart Stupak and Pennsylvania Rep. Joe Pitts) passed by a 240-194 vote Saturday (a rather comfortable margin of 56 votes), WITH THE NOTABLE SUPPORT OF 64 DEMOCRATS (this is critical considering that intra-party politics has been a big issue ever since the start of the Obama administration almost 9 months ago now), adds language to the health care bill that would, IF passed by the Senate, heavily restrict federal funding for abortion procedures", but again, this is one of those "if and only if" scenarios.

"Rep. Bart Stupak, one of the amendment's co-authors AND AN ABORTION RIGHTS OPPONENT, has argued that he does not believe (that) the provision will "curb a woman's right to choose".

However, abortion rights activists hit back immediately. According to Laurie Rubiner, vice president of public policy of Planned Parenthood, obviously an abortion rights advocacy group, "We think that this new amendment is an UNACCEPTABLE ADDITION to the healthcare bill and IF enacted, it will result in women losing the benefits (that) they have today". So we have another appearance by that dreaded word "if".

"MOST PEOPLE in the exchange WILL BE subsidized". "Most people" implies >50%? "That's where all the coverage will be SO INSURANCE COMPANIES AREN'T GOING TO OFFER THE COVERAGE". This is getting testy and heated.

"You are talking about people who are paying their own money or are (only) minimally subsidized by the federal government and (that) THEY WILL BE PREVENTED FROM purchasing insurance that supports abortion".

According to Colorado Rep. Diana DeGette, chairwoman of the Congressional Pro-Choice Caucus, in a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a pro-abortion Democrat, "the restrictions that the amendment would place on a woman's right to choose "SETS A TERRIBLE PRECEDENT AND MARKS A SIGNIFICANT STEP BACKWARDS". This is a clear indication that 'I disagree'.

More specifically, DeGette wrote in her letter: "The Stupak-Pitts Amendment to H.R. 3962 (and) The Affordable Health Care for America represent an UNPRECEDENTED and UNACCEPTABLE restriction on women's ability to access the full range of reproductive health services to which they are lawfully entitled". "unprecedented and unacceptable" are again strongly negative. "WE WILL NOT VOTE FOR a conference report that contains language that restricts women's right to choose any more than current law". OK, losing the support of maybe Sen. Snowe, Sen. Nelson or any other individual certainly wouldn't be as devastating as losing the support of an entire caucus. That would be CRUSHING because this would be another loss because of intra-party politics. DeGette goes on to say that "There's GOING TO BE a firestorm here". Well, "a firestorm" has been brewing on Capitol Hill ever since the health care reform proposal/idea was introduced. This just adds more to this already-raging fire.

According to liberal blogger Jane Hamsher, writing on ABCNews.com's "Top Line", "Getting it stripped out of conference, I think, is going to be INCREDIBLY DIFFICULT. You don't start your battle after the bill is passed". This is exactly what POLITICIANS do. Once the enemy has been defeated, they start fighting amongst themselves.

"Bart Stupek started on July 1; he was successful. EVERYBODY ELSE WAS SORT OF ASLEEP AT THE WHEEL", not a good sign when a critical proposal is on the table/being considered. "I mean, bottom line, DEMOCRATS REALLY DON'T WANT TO TAKE ON THE CHOICE ISSUE". Now, this is getting REALLY controversial. "THEY DO NOT WANT TO SPEND THE POLITICAL CAPITAL". Isn't this a Republican thing? After all, the GOP is ALWAYS grumbling about costs. "THEY WANT TO KEEP THEIR POLITICAL TENT QUITE LARGE". Right, this is a Democratic characteristic (large government, more so than the GOP at least).

According to Charmaine Yoest, president of Americans United For Life Action (obviously a pro-life and anti-abortion group), "What we say in the final vote is that there is a BI-PARTISAN PRO-LIFE majority in the House and that does reflect what Americans are feeling RIGHT NOW". OK, perhaps this is what Americans United for Life Action wants us to believe. There is clearly contradictory evidence.

"(SOME Democrats) believe abortion IS health care, BUT AMERICA DOES NOT". "THERE MAY BE A DIVISION in the country over abortion in general, but there is a definite agreement that ABORTION IS NOT HEALTH CARE and that federal policy SHOULD NOT be changed to subsidize abortion". Yet another biased/controversial opinion.

According to ABC political contributor Donna Brazile, speaking on ABC's "This Week with George Stephanopoulos", "This pretty much outlaws abortion FOR EVEN PEOPLE WITH PRIVATE INSURANCE. THIS IS AN ONEROUS BURDEN ON WOMEN for their reproductive health care. AND I HOPE THAT THEY CAN GET IT REMOVED IN THE SENATE AND IN CONFERENCE AS WELL". "This is an onerous burden on women" clearly suggests that Brazile is against this amendment.

Finally, according to political pundit Rachel Maddow, speaking on NBC's "Meet the Press", we should expect "Democratic women to sit on their hands IF NOT REVOLT" if this amendment/proposal isn't removed. She added that this amendment is a "poison pill" "that would be difficult for progressives and liberals to swallow".

So it looks like most of the arguments in this article are pro-choice, with the exception of Charmaine Yoest. Again, since this is such a controversial issue, perhaps it would be wise to withhold further comment until we get a clearer picture of how all this will play out.