Cross-posted with The Hill.
I am a pro-choice liberal Democrat. I believe the Hyde Amendment, passed in 1977, which forbids the expenditure of federal tax dollars to fund abortions, directly or indirectly, is unfair and wrong. It discriminates against poor women. But it is passed every year, since it needs to be re-authorized each year as part of the appropriations process. I haven't noticed the vocal opponents of Stupak-Hyde leading opposition each year to re-authorization of the Hyde Amendment.
In fact, there are many, many people who believe abortion is immoral, that life begins at conception. These sincere people understandably do not want their tax dollars, directly or indirectly, paying for a procedure they consider to be the taking of an innocent life. Many who share this belief are liberal Democrats on major economic and social issues, including many of the 64 Democrats (more than 25% of all House Democrats) who voted last Saturday for the Stupak-Pitts Amendment, sponsored by Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) and Rep. Joseph R. Pitts (R-Pa). The Amendment passed, with Republican support, by a 240-194 vote.
Stupak-Pitts is essentially based on the Hyde Amendment principle. It prohibits (1) any federal funds to be used under the House Health Care bill to pay for abortions; and (2) any individuals who receive federal subsidies for health care under the bill -- those families of four with income of $88,000/year or less -- from buying an insurance plan on the state public exchanges that covers abortion.
Under the new health insurance system if it is enacted, all those who do not receive health insurance from employers must purchase insurance on state insurance exchanges. But since state insurance exchanges will receive federal funds to cover administrative costs, some abortion-rights advocates argue that under Stupak-Pitts, women who do not receive federal subsidies still may not purchase an insurance policy listed on the exchange, even entirely using their own private funds, if the policy includes abortion coverage as part of the regular policy coverage.
Supporters of the amendment, such as the National Right to Life Committee, dispute that claim, however, and it appears they may be right. According to PolitiFact.com, an independent analyst, insurers may offer comprehensive plans that include abortion coverage or supplemental plans for abortion specifically. But insurers must keep these plans separate from those purchased by people who accept federal credits. Insurance companies would not be allowed to pay for abortions with money they earn from selling tax-subsidized policies.
So the key question is: Should those who oppose Stupak-Pitts vote down the entire health care bill for this reason alone? Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) claims to have 40 or more Democrats committed to voting against any final health care bill reported by the Senate-House conference committee if it contains Stupak-Pitts. If she is correct, then that is the end of any hope of passing a national health insurance bill. I hope Rep. DeGette and others change their minds.
As President Obama told ABC News, "You know, I laid out a very simple principle, which is this is a health care bill, not an abortion bill. And we're not working to change what is the principle that has been in place for a very long time, which is federal dollars are not used to subsidize abortions."
President Obama is right. When and if the final conference bill reaches the House floor, I am hoping Rep. DeGette and others will look at the big picture and ask themselves: Would I vote against this bill if I or a member of my family had no health insurance and my family faced bankruptcy in case of serious illness or were forced to depend on public hospital emergency rooms for basic health care?
If the answer is, no - then that should be their final, if unhappy, reason to support the bill and, at long last, enact national health insurance and mandatory coverage for virtually all Americans.
#####
"This piece appeared today, November 12, 2009, in Mr. Davis's regular weekly column in The Hill newspaper, "Politics and Counsel."
Davis, a Washington lawyer and former special counsel to President Clinton from 1996-98, served as a member of President George W. Bush's Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board in 2005-06. He is the author of Scandal: How 'Gotcha' Politics is Destroying America.
Nancy L. Cohen: 10 Reasons Why the Stupak-Pitts Amendment Has to Go
Even if some Democrats who voted for the amendment did so because of deep convictions, the main thrust of the measure is to condemn women for being sexually active.
Abortion is a seperate issue. The language in the Stupak amendment does not prevent women from exercising their right, it just re-emphasizes a law already on the books that prevents federal funding of abortion. Thus, a publically-funded health care plan would not pay for an abortion. Who, I ask, is incapable of locating a Planned Parenthood clinic in their area?
When liberals get to be just as gullible as the teabag crowd, be afraid.
And as a reminder, the whole "Obama doesn't support the public option" 'leakage' nearly worked out for the opposition. Yet another trap liberals were yearning to fall into..
It's like herding cats, though not nearly as amusing.
Maybe, just maybe, from its ashes a new bill may arise, one of fairness for the people, fairness for women and children, and pain for the insurance companies and big pharma...
A girl can dream....
You know the term "abortion" should not even be in the health care reform bill. It is adequately covered by the Hyde Amendment, renewed annually by a spineless Congress majority, and consequently, the matter is solved. Leave the volatile abortion issue out, althogether, and be done with it. Don't let the religious fanatics high jack this bill.
If you gave a crap about the poor in general, and poor women in particular, you'd get the fact that they could use affordable health care more then your grandstanding on federal funding of abortion right now.
1) You already have coverage that provides abortion - in which case there is no difference.
2) You don't have any coverage to begin with so you already didn't have abortion coverage - in which case you lose nothing but gain coverage for everything else.
3) You pay cash when needed (which is no different than now) or you buy a rider.
So why the outrage at not getting something that you already didn't have to start with? Disappointment, understandable. Is it a case of outrage at getting cake, that you wouldn't otherwise have, because it doesn't also have frosting? Maybe they would prefer to not have the cake either?
It is made so much worse by the fact that well woman visits (the ones that prevent pelvic cancer and breast cancer) are also not covered under this bill. That is just shocking. Here is a quote from the Nation "None of the bills emerging from the House and Senate require insurers to cover all the elements of a standard gynecological "well visit," leaving essential care such as pelvic exams, domestic violence screening, counseling about sexually transmitted diseases, and, perhaps most startlingly, the provision of birth control off the list of basic benefits all insurers must cover."
It does make me feel outraged to have my rights so easily offered up for compromise. I hope this helps you to at least understand a bit more, even if we disagree.
And in terms of wanting the cake. Yes, I damn well want the cake. I am an American :) If I need a medically necessary abortion especially I want my insurance to cover it. Period.
Get all up in arms over a non-argument. No change to a woman's right to chose has developed anew with the Stupak amendment. Yet, you're all ready to kill health care reform.
No, it's not single-payer. On the other hand, you people appear to have the long-term vision of tse tse flies.
The right has you and all the other outraged tools right where they want you... turning on health care reform. And as they predicted with this abortion charade, which has nothing to do with abortiion and everything to do with tanking progress on health care reform, you're all acting like the tools they expected you to be. Hurray, sheep!
Get all up in arms over a non-argument. No change to a woman's right to choose has developed anew with the Stupak amendment. Yet, you're all ready to kill health care reform.
No, it's not single-payer. On the other hand, you people appear to have the long-term vision of tse tse flies.
And I am a pro choice woman of child bearing age.
We need to stop all the knee jerk outrage and think a bit.
People have to realize that we are 3-4 votes short of cloture in the Senate, if we don't get that, we lose this bill. If we lose this fight, we could easily lose control of the congress. If we lose the congress, good luck getting anything passed, and you won't see a Healthcare bill for 25 years.
All that for symbolism? I don't see it.
This is real life, not Ayn Rand.
Given the Hyde Ammendment, which already codifies the denial of abortion services, this anti-abortion language is unnecessary. If they're telling us that the Stupak ammdmt. won't change anything, you'd better look for the real reason this language was inserted. Personally, I think it is a sneaky attack to prevent passage of any healthcare reform by the bought and paid for Blue Dogs. I mean, look at it from this angle- no Republicans are going to vote for this bill, regardless of what's in it. So the fight is not between R's and D's, it's between pro choice Dems and anti choice Dems, and that's enough to kill this entire bill. And Typically, Davis is blaming the wrong people for the problem. The problem was created by the anti choicers who put this in the bill, NOT those who object!
What is so outrageous and hypocritical, is that federal employees, including congressmen and women, can purchase health insurance with abortion provisions, if they chose, 75% funded with public money.
It's OK for them but it is not OK for the rest of the country. Makes you want to strangle these hypocrites.
I will also point out the immorality of pushing for birth, then dropping the baby. I know a woman whose fellow staff members at a Catholic schools coerced one teacher in having a baby she did not want. This woman then proceeded to detail some of the awful things she said and did about the baby she did not want. Did any staff member help her? Of course not! But they saved the baby, right?
No point in having a Democratic majority if we lose our right to privacy anyway!
1) no federal money is available for people that cannot afford them
2) very few (if any) policies cover abortion
This amendment does nothing but add verbiage to the bill. Lose this bill and sacrifice the next congress so that we can "make a statement" ?
Now watch as we divide and conquer ourselves. Now THATS getting even.