Abortion Rights Groups Scramble In Stupak Amendment's Wake

digg Share this on Facebook Huffpost - Abortion Rights Groups Scramble In Stupak Amendment's Wake stumble reddit del.ico.us RSS

JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS | 11/14/09 09:37 PM | AP

What's Your Reaction?
Abortion

WASHINGTON — Abortion rights groups, outflanked and outnumbered in the health debate, are scrambling to regain lost ground after the House passed a health bill with strict abortion limits.

They're blanketing Capitol Hill with lobbyists, petitions, letters and phone calls in efforts to defeat the restrictions in the Senate, where debate could begin in a few days. They also have a larger goal: to prove that with their Democratic allies in control of the White House and both congressional chambers – but increasingly appealing to conservative voters who back abortion limits – they still have clout.

It's an uphill battle after the House approved health legislation that bars a new government-run insurance plan from covering abortions, except in cases or rape, incest or peril to the life of the mother, and prohibits any health plan that receives federal subsidies in a new insurance marketplace from offering abortion coverage.

Lawmakers who back abortion rights watched helplessly, lacking the votes to prevail, as fellow Democrats who oppose abortion joined with Republicans to put the curbs in place, prodded to action by Catholic bishops and anti-abortion rights groups. Then they voted en masse for the final health bill, in a move quickly hailed by President Barack Obama as "historic."

"Our phones were ringing off the hook," said Cecile Richards of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, who hosted a hastily called strategy meeting last week where abortion rights and women's groups scrambled to regroup. "We're not going to have health care reform off the backs of women – this isn't what we've all spent our lives for."

By the time prominent abortion rights supporters were summoned to the White House's West Wing on Wednesday to meet with top aides, they were livid – although the president's team was quick to point out that their ire shouldn't be directed toward Obama.

We're your friends and the president is pro-choice, chief of staff Rahm Emanuel reminded the group of 15 or so women. There's no need for anger here, senior adviser and Obama confidante Valerie Jarrett offered, according to people knowledgeable about the session, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the discussion was confidential.

Still, the episode exposed a rift the health debate has opened between a president and Democratic congressional leaders and a key interest group struggling to maintain its influence.

Story continues below
advertisement

Like other such special interests, abortion rights groups rely on pitched policy battles on high-profile issues to raise money and energize supporters, and the health debate offers an opportunity to do just that.

It wasn't supposed to be this way. Early on, the organizations had opted to stay quiet on the abortion funding issue for fear of making a politically tricky negotiation over a health care overhaul even harder.

"We were trying to diffuse the situation, knowing that the time to fight on the notion of federal funding for abortion was not this political moment – the health care reform bill is hard enough. Now I'm thinking we might have recognized that we were going to have this fight, and we should have stood firm a year ago and we might not have found ourselves here," said Laura MacCleery, director of government affairs at the Center for Reproductive Rights.

The organizations gave tacit but grudging approval earlier this year to a proposal by Rep. Lois Capps, D-Calif., that would have allowed the new government-run insurance plan or private plans offered in the new exchange to cover abortion but without using federal funds, only private dollars. It was an attempt to apply an existing law known as the Hyde amendment – it bars federal funding for abortion in Medicaid, the health program for the poor – to the new health care regime.

The House-passed measure goes much further, effectively requiring women buying health insurance with their own money to purchase abortion coverage through a separate supplemental plan, as a so-called rider on the policy.

Obama has said he wants to find a middle ground that preserves the status quo of denying federal funding for abortions but doesn't restrict women's insurance choices.

In the meantime, though, some abortion rights champions are threatening to take down the president's top priority over the issue.

"These are our friends – I don't think that anybody wants us to be on opposing sides," said Terry O'Neill of the National Organization for Women, who attended this week's White House session but declined to comment on the exchange. But her group's position, she said, is that "we would rather have no health care (overhaul) than a vicious abortion law."

Nancy Keenan of NARAL Pro-Choice America, who also went to Wednesday's session but would not comment on it, said Obama's team is well aware that her group is deeply disappointed with the House-passed limits and is counting on the Senate to roll them back.

"We fully expect them to stand with us as this battle continues," Keenan said. "They know the message loud and clear."

NARAL says it has begun a major grass-roots mobilization, including collecting more than 40,000 signatures on a petition addressed to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., demanding that he omit the abortion curbs from health legislation he's drafting.

The group is sending out automated calls in 17 states to connect abortion rights supporters at the touch of a button to senators who are seen as potential swing votes on the issue, asking them to oppose the "abortion ban." Phone banks by nine NARAL state affiliates are pitching in, targeting their calls to states including Nevada, home to Reid, who opposes abortion rights and is facing a potentially tough 2010 re-election fight.

"All politics are local. They've got to hear from their constituency at home," Keenan said. "Those are the folks that elect them and re-elect them."

WASHINGTON — Abortion rights groups, outflanked and outnumbered in the health debate, are scrambling to regain lost ground after the House passed a health bill with strict abortion limits. They...
WASHINGTON — Abortion rights groups, outflanked and outnumbered in the health debate, are scrambling to regain lost ground after the House passed a health bill with strict abortion limits. They...
Report Corrections
 
Comments
431
Pending Comments
0
iPhone App Promo
Post Comment

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:
Page: 1 2 3 4 Next › Last » (4 pages total)
photo

Stupak's Taliban-amendment has to go. Otherwise the anti-choice terrorists win. Pack up those Blue-Dogs and send them back to the Joe Wilson Hog-Love Farm. Rev. Bookburn - Radio Volta

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:24 PM on 11/16/2009
- NikkiT I'm a Fan of NikkiT 15 fans permalink
photo

Here is information on what, exactly, will change with the stupak-pitts amendment:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/11/9/802519/-What-the-Stupak-Pitts-Coathanger-Amendment-Does.

Also Jeffrey Toobin wrote an excellent article that just came out in The New Yorker, here:

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2009/11/23/091123taco_talk_toobin

Basically - whether you have private or public insurance. If you are a woman of child bearing years, you will not be able to get an abortion unless you pay for it out of pocket on your own. Private Insurance co's will only be able to offer it (if this passes) as a "rider", this is unlikely because you don't plan for an abortion. The unfortunate part, as Toobin points out, they no longer consider abortion a medical procedure which it is.

I, for one, will leave the Democratic party and I will work against Obama in 2012 if this passes and he signs it. There is no way as a progressive, pro-choice woman who has supported this party for decades I would ever continue with this kind of stab in the back. If we can't trust the democrats to stand by the platform they promised (pro-choice), then why would I ever vote for them again?

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:12 PM on 11/16/2009
- DinkSinger I'm a Fan of DinkSinger 10 fans permalink

"Private Insurance co's will only be able to offer it (if this passes) as a 'rider'. "

This is not true. First, Stupak applies only to insurance plans offered on the insurance exchange. The vast majority of people will still be covered by employer sponsored (and subsidized) private insurance. The Stupak amendment has no impact on this type of insurance even if it purchased through the exchange. Another very large group will be covered by Medicaid and CHIP which are again not impacted by Stupak. Finally, private insurers can offer plans that cover all abortions to individuals through the exchange provided they offer identical plans that do not cover most abortions. The Stupak language even specifies that the plans with abortion coverage cannot charge different premiums than the equivalent plan without abortion. Individuals who receive government subsidies cannot purchase plans with full abortion coverage. They are the ones who will have the option to purchase such coverage through supplemental insurance.

Please read my earlier comment. The Stupak amendment is distracting pro-choice progressives from the fact that under the House bill without Stupak, 223 million Americans will not have the option to decide for themselves if their health plan will cover all abortion services.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:15 AM on 11/17/2009
- NikkiT I'm a Fan of NikkiT 15 fans permalink
photo

the bottom line is stupak-pitts put unnecessary obstacles in place on women's healthcare with regards to getting a safe, legal abortion and this is SEXIST. If they truly cared about abortion and unborn fetuses - they would have also proposed to have insurance co's stop paying for viagra and erectile dysfunction meds; offered free contraception; and sex education. That is not in the plan. Instead Stupak takes away more rights of women. This is unacceptable and does not follow the Democratic Party platform to ensure that a woman's right to choose is protected.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:31 AM on 11/17/2009
- deezus I'm a Fan of deezus 3 fans permalink
photo

What is the big hubbub? Nothing in the Stupak amendment makes abortion illegal or even prevents people from getting one. Everybody knows that Planned Parenthood will find some way to set up payment plans for people who are seeking the procedure. Much ado about nothing...

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:46 PM on 11/16/2009
photo

I couldn't agree more. It appears that those upset really were not seeking abortion neutral health reform but were looking at using public funds for abortion. Stupak just clarifies what was already the case. Public funds cannot be used for abortion despite some trying to slip that through in the health care reform. Stupak does not stop Planned Parenthood from funding abortions. Abortions will still continue in America.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:36 PM on 11/23/2009
- DinkSinger I'm a Fan of DinkSinger 10 fans permalink

What is being overlooked is that Stupak makes relatively little difference compared to the huge impact of the Hyde amendment which was already incorporated in all of the bills being considered.

The CBO estimates that of Americans under 65 years of age 2019, with or without Stupak, 50 million of them will be covered by Medicaid and CHIP, denied abortion coverage unless they live in one of the 17 states that provide it as a state funded enhancement. 168 million will be covered by employer plans and only able to select a plan the covers abortion if their employer offers it. 18 million will have no health care coverage and therefore no abortion coverage. 5 million will be covered by Medicare with no abortion coverage. 19 million will be covered by individual private insurance and have a choice. 3 million will be insured through the insurance exchange without receiving affordability credit and have a choice. The only people affected by Stupak will be the 18 million who are insured through the exchange and receive affordability credits and, unlike the 223 million that don't get to decide for themselves if they want abortion coverage, they will have an opportunity to purchase supplemental coverage for abortion. Despite what has been reported, Stupak does not prohibit the sale of supplemental coverage through the exchange.

We should have a goal to repeal the Hyde amendment which impacts many, many more people as well as Stupak but not until after Health Care Reform is law.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:07 PM on 11/16/2009

we're all over here arguing choice issues, while the GOP plans a massive campaign of delay, and plans on replacing the public option with the trigger. They're hoping to delay til after the election where we'll lose a seat or two. I guess their strategy is working. we need to calm down. Eyes on the prize Dems!

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:52 AM on 11/16/2009
- DUSAA-1775 I'm a Fan of DUSAA-1775 5 fans permalink

Abortion is legal, public funding for it is not,
Those facts have been restated on every post about the health care amendment.
But the facts do not seem to stop people from yelling on every post that the 'rights' to abortions are being taken away.
May I suggest for all those yelling for the 'right' of poor people to have abortions, set up a post--log in your names and addresses, and when some one can not afford an abortion, they could contact the posters and they could provide the funds.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:22 AM on 11/16/2009
- sunnybunny I'm a Fan of sunnybunny 16 fans permalink
photo

I know, wouldn't that be way more effective?

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:17 PM on 11/16/2009
photo

Even better, we should request that anyone using public funding for any health related service petition "the people" to decide if the treatement should be funded. Then we will have an up or down vote on everyone's medical procedure. Today cancer treatment is "in", tomorrow maybe not so much. Who knows??!

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:53 PM on 11/16/2009
photo

We should totally do this with Vi@gra too.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:14 PM on 11/16/2009
- Merg I'm a Fan of Merg 5 fans permalink

The DU in your log in handle must stand for Dufas.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:23 AM on 11/17/2009
- escribacat I'm a Fan of escribacat 296 fans permalink
photo

"We're not going to have health care reform off the backs of women – this isn't what we've all spent our lives for."

This is why they added the amendment to the bill -- to p o i s o n the bill.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:05 AM on 11/16/2009
photo

We need to begin to separate government from the Christian religion.
Bush scrambled them together creating a theology that only if you are christian you are good.
And only his kind of Christian will do.
What happened to tolerance, and not throwing the first stone.
For every abortion there is a man's sperm involved, actually, millions.
It is not an illegal procedure.
And it really is none of anyone's business except those involved.
We need to end this discussion about women's rights.
If YOU do not believe in abortion, fine, don't have one.
No one is forcing you or anyone else to,
this is what liberals call "freedom".

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:43 PM on 11/15/2009

Hmmm...

I think that many,many Christians make this country work.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:27 PM on 11/15/2009
- ez duz it I'm a Fan of ez duz it 10 fans permalink

Hi, SonOfLiberty:

Just 3 questions for you:

Do you feel there are ever circumstances in which abortion is permissible (such as rape or incest)? Why?

When do you say that life begins?

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:27 PM on 11/15/2009
- o4tuna I'm a Fan of o4tuna 12 fans permalink

Are they the only one that make this country work?

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:22 AM on 11/16/2009
- o4tuna I'm a Fan of o4tuna 12 fans permalink

I would agree with you on separating religion from government. Religion has little by little has made its affect on our system.
But,

What happened to tolerance, and not throwing the first stone.
I depends on how many stones you have

For every abortion there is a man's sperm involved, actually, millions.
I agree, men have no voice over the abortion of their child.

It is not an illegal procedure.
If it's not illegal, then it must be ok. then your happy with what Fox News does.

And it really is none of anyone's business except those involved.
The child is involved. But it can't speak or force it's will, so it doesn't count. Might makes right

We need to end this discussion about women's rights.
What is a "right" really?

If YOU do not believe in abortion, fine, don't have one.
If I believe in war, tell me why I shouldn't kill you. At least I can let you plead for your life before I pull the trigger.

No one is forcing you or anyone else to,
I didn't for these women to have sex, If I did, I would be in prison.

this is what liberals call "freedom".

If you have the freedom to do whatever you want, Why shouldn't I? If a woman has the "right" to end a life for no other reason then she didn't want it, then why should "honor" killings be illegal?

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:52 AM on 11/16/2009

Some women can die if they don't have abortions. In some cases, the baby dies in the womb and has to be removed because it will never be born. If not removed the baby's carcass will rot inside the mother leading to infection.

In my personal case, I have a Rare Genetic Disorder that would make carrying to term almost impossible and potentially fatal for me and the baby. It is much better if I adopt instead of ever try to have a kid of my blood. Especially since the poor thing would inherit my disability.

Not all religions and cultures believe that a child has a soul or exists until it is several days old or even several YEARS old. This is due to the high chance of death and miscarriage that still exists today even in America.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:16 AM on 11/16/2009
photo

The Insurance Industry is loving this.
They want women to purchase supplement insurance policies.
More $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$, yum,yum say the CEO's .
Stupack, and cohorts, get out of our uterus.
Talk about personal freedom!????!!?!?
This is a Insurance reform bill, not a reform on abortion.
Dems, please, come together.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:08 PM on 11/15/2009
- escribacat I'm a Fan of escribacat 296 fans permalink
photo

They threw this in to try to put a stop to the bill.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:02 AM on 11/16/2009
- Lorianne I'm a Fan of Lorianne 60 fans permalink
photo

Lower income people do not have the same choices in ANYTHING compared with people of more economic means.

For example with healthcare: Lower income elderly do not have the same choices in healthcare as more wealthy elderly. They cannot afford to buy supplemental coverage for things Medicare/Medicaid doesn't cover ... and they cannot afford to pay out of pocket for procedures and drugs that no insurance will cover, nor can they afford to travel abroad to have procedures done that Medicare/Medicaid will not cover.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:02 PM on 11/15/2009
- Norm I'm a Fan of Norm 6 fans permalink

Yet so many think Medicare for all is the best remedy. It isn't, for the reasons you cite.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:14 PM on 11/15/2009
- HPdevotee I'm a Fan of HPdevotee 34 fans permalink
photo

Not to get too far off topic, I'll just say this...

Under a single-payer Medicare E system, most, if not all, those concerns would evaporate.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:24 PM on 11/15/2009
- brady61995 I'm a Fan of brady61995 62 fans permalink
photo

but congress and their familes have the right to an abortion. stupak will never make it through

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:34 PM on 11/15/2009
photo

Ultimately, none of this debate will matter. Harry Reid can only get a bill through the Senate via reconciliation, which in turn will require the Stupak amendment (along with many other elements) to be removed.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:24 PM on 11/15/2009
- calfacon I'm a Fan of calfacon 12 fans permalink

Can we lose the term "abortion rights?" We're talking about "Healthcare Rights", Healthcare rights for women.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:24 PM on 11/15/2009
- Norm I'm a Fan of Norm 6 fans permalink

Yes, the issue needs to be framed appropriately.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:56 PM on 11/15/2009
photo

Yes, let's sweep the point of debate under the rug in the hopes that it will go away.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:16 PM on 11/15/2009
- Norm I'm a Fan of Norm 6 fans permalink

Since the epiphany seems to be that this is more about moral judgment and punishment for sexually active women, this issue is not likely to go away.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:36 PM on 11/15/2009
- Norm I'm a Fan of Norm 6 fans permalink

How very odd the rape/incest clauses are in Stupak. Murder is immoral, except when it follows rape or incest. The Madonna-prostitute perception of women again seems to be rearing it's ugly head. The logic seems to be that the madonna woman is pure, so would not abort or think of aborting. The woman who aborts is immoral or of loose morals: The prostitute. Unless she is violated, in which case she is a victim. All these years after sexual liberation, value judgments are still being placed on women who are active sexually; the model for the good woman is the still the Virgin Mary. Very disturbing, but it explains a lot.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:14 PM on 11/15/2009

Yes, apparently for many men in Congress, it is still binary - women are either the victim or the
!ramp.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:28 PM on 11/15/2009
- valkyrie607 I'm a Fan of valkyrie607 106 fans permalink
photo

Exactly.

"Oh, well, if she didn't want to have a baby she shouldn't have had sex."

That's what it's all about. Women who have sex, even when they don't want babies, are wrong. If they slip up, if their birth control fails, then they should get what's coming to them.

Only women who don't choose to have sex deserve a choice about whether to become a mother, apparently.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:46 PM on 11/15/2009
- o4tuna I'm a Fan of o4tuna 12 fans permalink

Then why won't pro-choice women accept the unfairness of life with regard to being the gender that has to bear the burden of child birth? Please, just admit it. Abortion is a choice of ending a life because it is simply unwanted otherwise. Ending a marriage should be so easy. Killing daughters out of honor should be so easy.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:30 PM on 11/15/2009
- valkyrie607 I'm a Fan of valkyrie607 106 fans permalink
photo

Oh, so you think it's easy, do you? Have you ever been pregnant? Had a miscarriage? An abortion? Given birth? It's not exactly a walk in the park. To characterize this choice as "easy" reveals your ignorance as well as your contempt for the reality of what it's like to live as a woman in this society--if not for your contempt, you probably wouldn't be so ignorant.

You say abortion ends a life. I say it stops it before it begins. It's a subjective judgment.

Someone (on HuffPo) pointed out that all ideologies are equally excellent in theory, which is why we must judge them by their results. The ideology of the forced-birthers says they're about life, but the result is that poor, pregnant woman no longer have control over their own lives. The result of the pro-choice ideology, which supports education, birth control, and full support for mothers with children, is fewer unwanted pregnancies and fewer abortions. "By their fruits shall ye judge them," and all that.

Once again, I pose the question: if abortion is really the same as murder, what POSSIBLE justification can there be for making an exception in the case of rape?

Answer: such a justification does not exist; the distinction lies entirely in the moral judgment of the woman's sexual behavior.

If you have a better answer, by all means, let us hear it.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:44 PM on 11/15/2009

Spot on!

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:15 PM on 11/15/2009
- kobrock1 I'm a Fan of kobrock1 12 fans permalink

I suppose we just reconvene when technology pushes the point of viability back to conception.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:47 PM on 11/15/2009
- Norm I'm a Fan of Norm 6 fans permalink

Wow! You posed the critical questionn and the critical answer and I wonder how I could have missed it. But then I'm reminded that "back in the day" when male friends said they could do something b/c they were "white, male and free" I never got I wasn't one of them. Yup, it's the moral judgment and/or superiority, just as it was in 1960, 1950, 1940, fill in the date. It never was about life at all, just control - at least for many. Ow,

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:43 PM on 11/15/2009
- naschkatze I'm a Fan of naschkatze 85 fans permalink

Wow! That was excellent. Fanned.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:26 AM on 11/16/2009
- HPdevotee I'm a Fan of HPdevotee 34 fans permalink
photo

We've advanced beyond the stone-age. Biology is not destiny.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:02 PM on 11/15/2009

When you say "we've advanced beyond the stone-age" you don't mean the tea baggers, the NRA, and the people that watch FOX. These guys always manage to elect a man that could not care less about pregnancies (he will never get pregnant) and is ready to punish women for having sex.

This discussion used to be about the divorce, then about the pill, and now it is about abortion. Republicans are largely a bunch of puritans that hate women independence and sexuality. They could not care less about the children, or the fetuses, or the sperms and the eggs.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:23 PM on 11/15/2009
Page: 1 2 3 4 Next › Last » (4 pages total)

 You must be logged in to comment. Log in  or connect with 

Connect