There is a little bit of debate as to whether the Stupak-Pitts Amendment will be strong enough to prevent the government from forcing taxpayers to pay for ending human lives.
Here's is a opinion piece by a feminist who wants taxpayers to pay for abortion. She writes about how the Stupak-Pitts amendment will ban "abortion coverage across the entire exchange, for women with both subsidized and unsubsidized coverage."
I couldn't help but click on some of the other links on the "reality check" site.
Apparently, being a champion for life means that one is taking part in a "molester-enabling, coathanger-selling, health-shattering, woman-hating, forced-pregnancy campaign."
The good news is that when activists who don't support human rights for pre-born believe legislation is bad, that's a good thing!
Moreover, it seems that prohibiting Obama's health care plan from covering abortions helped it pass in the House, and might keep it from passing in the Senate.