Yesterday, I wrote a piece on that focused on how an amendment being offered by Senator Mikulski (D-MD) attempted to assuage those concerned about the recent new breast cancer guidelines (for more see here). I wrote that those who saw the new guidelines as an example of what life might be like under government-run health care shouldn’t be comforted by an amendment that would carve out an exception for a politically popular cause, like breast cancer prevention. Other, less politically organized diseases wouldn’t be so lucky.

I had assumed that the Mikulski amendment could easily make it through the Senate based on the overwhelming reluctance of many Senators to vote against something that could be billed as necessary for women’s health.  But I missed the Mikulski amendment could get hung up on the thorny abortion issue. Pro-life groups pointed out that there was nothing in the amendment’s language that would prevent the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) from defining abortion as “preventative care” for women; therefore, abortion could become recommended care for insurance providers. They wanted language that would specify that abortion does not qualify as preventative care. is reporting that t Mikulski amendment now won’t go to a vote, and suggests that this episode shows just how difficult it will be to get enough agreement on a bill that involves so many contentious issues.

Halleluiah to that – the public watching all of these squabbles should ask themselves why we should want government involved in all these matters and wouldn’t it be best if, instead of trying to micromanage all of these decisions, the government got out of the way and return more power to individuals?