I had just recovered from writing about voters in Maine reversing a same-sex marriage law in last Tuesday’s election when a second hot, volatile social issue erupted onto the American political scene: Abortion.

Congress and the Obama administration have worked hard to give birth to health care reform legislation. Much of the legislation is politically difficult and has been teetering on the edge of defeat.

Then, suddenly, Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Michigan, the leader of roughly 40 Democrats in the House opposed to public funding of abortions, wrote a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi expressing concerns about the abortion issue. This group, as well as almost all of the 177 Republicans in the House of Representatives, wants no public funding for abortion in the health care bill. Only private insurance companies that get no federal money could sell a health policy that covers abortion. People would have to pay for abortion coverage out of their own pockets.

On Saturday, the House passed the bill by 220 for and 215 against. Only one Republican voted for it, while 176 voted against. In contrast, 219 Democrats voted for it and 39 against. Still, this was a very close “yes” vote, even with public funding for abortions removed.

The new health care legislation, if passed — the Senate still must vote — will create a huge new system of government-subsidized health insurance for millions of Americans. It would be almost impossible to separate out insurance companies and plans not subject to the ban on federally funded abortions in this new system. This means that the legislation will be one of the biggest anti-abortion laws in U.S. history, even more restrictive than current law.

Here is what the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops had to say on this issue in a letter to members of Congress:

“The Stupak-Ellsworth-Pitts-Kaptur-Dahlkemper-Lipinski-Smith Amendment will keep in place current federal law on abortion funding and conscience protections in the Affordable Health Care for America Act (H.R. 3962),” it said. “Passing this amendment allows the House to meet our criteria of preserving the existing protections against abortion funding in the new legislation. Most importantly, it will ensure that no government funds will be used for abortion or health plans which include abortion.”

The Pro–Choice Congressional Caucus was furious at the compromise to include this anti-choice amendment and it vowed to resist. Liberal gay commentator Rachel Maddow of MSNBC was furious on “Meet the Press” on Nov. 8, vowing that pro-choice voters would walk away from the Democrats in the 2010 elections for this betrayal on abortion rights.

Many Democrats in Congress come from districts that are pro-life. These Blue Dog Democrats cannot support publicly funded abortions either by conscience or from fear of being voted out of office in 2010.

In reality, Speaker Pelosi and House Democrats who wanted to pass health reform legislation were caught between a rock and a hard place. They could not afford to lose 40 Democratic votes, because this important legislation got virtually no Republican support. The choice was to put in the Stupak Amendment and get the legislation passed, or leave the amendment out and stand up for choice, but probably have health reform go down in flames.

Although the Senate could still eliminate the amendment, it would greatly complicate final passage. Publicly funded abortion does not have support in many conservative districts and states and is opposed by 67 percent of Americans. That makes it a tough sell politically.

For supporters of choice, this is a sad and difficult week. For pro-life and conservative Americans, this was a good week.

Steffen Schmidt is Professor of Political Science at Iowa State University and a Chief Political Correspondent for http://insideriowa.com/.