Via the Pulitzer Prize-winning website Politifact.com (not related to Politico.com, link at the end of this post) Candidate Obama told Planned Parenthood the following in a July, 2007 speech
(video)"In my mind, reproductive care is essential care. It is basic care, so it is at the center and at the heart of the plan that I propose. Essentially what we're doing is, we’re going to set up a public plan that all persons and all women can access if they don’t have health insurance. It will be a plan that will provide all essential services, including reproductive services, as well as mental health services and disease management services, because part of our interest is to make sure that we’re putting more money into preventive care."
As you see in the excerpt above, we're told that "all women" would be provided with reproductive services in the public plan and people receiving subsidies from the government. So the debate over the amendment's effect on privately covered persons is irrelevant in this particular case.
Because of this, Politifact concludes:
The amendment's prohibition on providing abortion coverage to participants in the exchange who receive subsidized coverage or use the public option would clearly break Obama's promise. And while the Stupak-Pitts provision wouldn't establish an outright ban on abortion coverage for subsidized health exchange participants who buy private plans, it would add a significant logistical hurdle by forcing them to obtain a rider to obtain such coverage. Even unsubsidized health exchange participants -- whose ability to secure abortion coverage would not be directly restricted by the law -- might find themselves facing limited coverage choices if insurers take the path of least resistance and simply ignore the market for abortion-inclusive policies on the health exchange.
Read the entire analysis here:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promis... /