Question to the Left: More Abortions or More Health Care?

I'm not the policy wonk type who gets into the finer points of how the inner workings of government are structured, but it seems to me that only thing holding up universal health care is the progressive's desire to have federally funded abortions. The major paths seem to be:

Reconciliation. This lets the Senate get around the filibuster. The reconciliation process cannot be filibustered. The problem is that both the House and Senate need to sign off on any changes. And the House does not have a filibuster. It only passed its version of ObamaCare with a slim majority because of the Stupak ammednment which prohibited federal funding of abortions. So if the reconciliation process removes the abortion language it will surely pass the Senate - but not the House.

House passes the Senate version. There is no filibuster in the House so the bills could be reconciled simply by having the House pass the Senate version of the bill. But the Senate version allows federal funding of abortions, so it will not pass.

I think this exposes some hypocrisy on the part of the left. All the talk about "let's worry about babies before and after they have been born" is revealed to be empty rhetoric. Given the choice the between more abortions and better care for babies that have been born, they'll chose more abortions. (On the record, I favor some form of universal health care, but one which leverages the free market. Perhaps universal health care vouchers which would replace Medicare, Medicaid, and S-Chip).

Ezra Klein champions a fairly typical progressive argument that Stupak Ammendment actually reveals hypocrisy on the right:

the Stupak amendment is as much about class as it is about choice. Imagine if Stupak attempted to expand his campaign to the coverage employed women receive. It would, after all, be the same principle: Federal policy should not subsidize insurance that offers abortion coverage. But it wouldn't have a chance. That group is too large and too affluent and too politically powerful for Congress to dare to touch its access to reproductive services. But the poorer women who will be using subsidies on the exchange are a much easier target.

That doesn't make sense. Individuals have an intellectual duty to hold consistent beliefs, but politics is about a mixture of compromise and pushing battle lines. In the realm of politics you never get to be a Founding Father who implements his perfect political philosophy. Even the actual Founding Fathers had to compromise. So the question is: are social conservatives being hypocritical in pushing the battle lines this way? Are they revealing that their professed worldview of protecting the innocent is actually a patriarchal method of oppressing women?

If so the Stupak Ammendment does not provide any ammunition for honest critics. The professed beliefs of people who are pro-life is that (1) killing (fetuses) is worse than (poor women) being denied health care, and (2) intentionally killing is worse than unintentionally letting die. If the pro-life position is based on false consciousness then progressives have a lot more work to do.