Choosing Between Health Care and Abortion Is a "False Choice"

It is no wonder our elected officials find it hard to embrace standing up against the Stupak-Pitts Amendment in the health care reform bill when the argument is presented as an either or scenario, with dire consequences on either side. As in, "either" you vote to effectively ban abortion, "or" you block health care reform and potentially harm millions of Americans while ruining the political capital of the Democratic Party. If we don't push back against the meme that this is an "either-or" situation we force pro-choice legislators to make a Hobson's choice. The problem is, the pro-choice movement's political capital is an unknown quantity. We know that the Catholic Bishops can go to the brink, threaten, and get their way. But I don't know that in a country where the very word abortion is almost impossible to say, it's possible to ask pro-choice leaders to do the same and expect them to win.

That's why we must stress that choosing between health care reform and the right to choose is, in the words of Massachusetts Senate Candidate Martha Coakley, a "false choice." The media is not helping us think another way. Take this morning's story in the New York Times, in which Katherine Seelye writes,

The abortion issue has put members of Congress who support abortion rights in a quandary over the health care legislation...Do they stick to their longstanding principles and fiercely resist the legislative effort to limit access to insurance for abortions?...Or should they compromise on the issue and vote for legislation that in other ways could greatly improve health care for women?"

And "more than 40 members had attached their names to a letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi, warning that they would not vote for a final bill if it "restricts women's right to choose any further than current law." However, the names of these 40 members haven't been released and apparently, their commitments are only "verbal."

We know the Bishops could get away with more than anonymous, verbal commitments.

Martha Coakley, the Attorney General of Massachusetts who is running in the special election to fill Ted Kennedy's seat has been stressing, "It's a false choice." We need to echo her. Coakley, "says "I can't believe that we are now reduced to saying the only way we can get good health care is by taking steps backward on women's rights. It's a false choice.''

Raise your hand if you think health care reform has nothing to do with re-legislating Roe vs. Wade. I do not. And yet, here we are.

Coakley's stance is brave. Ellen Goodman noted, Mike Capuano, Coakley's closest challenger, has "flip-flopped" on the issue and now says he would vote against Stupak-Pitts in the Senate. Too late. Alan Khazei and Steven Pagliuca, the other two Dems running, say they support passing health care even with Stupak Pitts and would vote for the bill if it is still included in Senate healthcare.

It is important for progressive women all over the country to recognize Coakley. Starting now, pro-choice Americans must figure out a way to increase our bargaining power so that soon, we can go head to head with the likes of the Bishops. But for this urgent debate we can try to shift the the discussion so our leaders do not have to go to the brink, and risk failing.

 

Follow Morra Aarons-Mele on Twitter: www.twitter.com/morra_am

Comments

[Kassandra]

The Stup!d-Putz amendment has got to go. I guess they think they can shame wimmin into giving up what we fought so hard for (and not just abortion rights) by claiming that we must "sacrifice for the good of the country" How mean and small to demand our rights like any other American.
I note there's still federal funding to get a stiffie.
NOW is orgainizing:
NOW to Rally in Pitts' Pennsylvania District to Denounce Stupak-Pitts Amendment
http://www.now.org/press/11-09/11-17.html

[Carl Caroli]

The republicans are very adept at manipulating every issue and bill to be a lose-lose situation for moderates and democrats. They are intent only on regaining power and could care less about woman, abortions, health care or anything that helps anyone but their party. They are the party of CEOs and are only concerned with maintaining the status quo. They will use the church, the ignorant and anyone else they can to further their agenda will stop at nothing.

[MThomasNC]

I agree. We can not let this HCR fail based on this one issue. We, women, are clever and smart. It's time to frame the debate in other ways that resonate more w the public. For instance: try debating that it's a freedom issue, taking away a woman's right to freedom, that the pro lifers only care about the freedom of the fetus, but once the baby is born they vote against everything to give that child the freedom to live a productive life. The pro-lifers always vote against children's health care (SCHIP), against education funds, against child care - all of the issues that may a child's life worthwhile. They want women to go back to the days of back alley abortions, or if you are rich then you flew off to Mexico for an abortion, or you have a relative who is a MD and you go to hospital for dnc labeled as female problems.
I suggest that we regroup, come out stronger with new pro-choice arguments and have better, more informed spokeswomen to make the case for us. We have to remember more women are pro-choice than not. It's the men whose Viagra pills are covered by insurance that is the problem.

[cydRN]

I'm an avidly and actively pro-choice nurse working in OB/GYN for twenty+ years. I come from the old school of, "respect the choice, reduce the need".

I don't thnk insurance should pay for elective procedures. I consider abortion elective except in cases where the l ife of the mother is in danger or the viability of the fetus is an issue, or in the case of rape/incest.

I'd like to see more emphasis on practical birth control, better sex ed in schools, and more acceptance of young women choosing to relinquish infants for adoption.

[Kassandra]

OK, imagine this: you are raped by whichever man and you have to PROVE IT? Display that you were raped or incested or whatever, to the whole world in a court of men's laws?
And you don't think that's restrictive?

Imagine you're 15 and it was your father? Think carefully before you throw away other wimmin's rights to their bodies in this witch-hunt Christain climate

[susancrawford]

It is not just this one issue, it is the entirerity of our political discourse, which has been defined and ususrped wholly through the use of false dichotomies to acheive desired outcomes. It really takes an articulate and persisitent politician to explain this to the public so that they can see the issues for what they are, and to outline the choices which exist outside the framed dichotomy. Obama has these qualities, which is why I think he won. Bill Clinton also had these qualities.

[deezus]

Saying the amendment would "ban abortion" is a flat out lie.

[Kassandra]

Sure it will. There will be legal challenges all the way up to the Supreme Court, which slavered to take away this right ever since wimmin won the battle to be treat3ed in pregnancy.­.. for whatever. This amendment won't even allow coverage of miscarriag­es....and complications of pregnancy.­. forget it.
Remember, it's the John Roberts Supreme Court

[dwmulenex]

it's ironic, as always, that a bunch of old white haired men are the leaders in the anti-choice movement, which is after all, a dandy way of saying everyone should accept THEIR choice. I view the decision to abort as one that is either based on crime, incest, or medical necessity, or one based on failure, either to think clearly before conception or responsibly afterwards. But failure is part of the human condition shared by men and women, and I don't belive it should criminal to fail. Nor do I believe myself qualified to sit in judgment and define for anyone else the consequences of failures that extends beyond my legal interest in not paying for the failure. The Stupak-Pitts amendment attempts to put into the realm of law what belongs in the realm of theology, and to achieve by legal prohibitions what persuasions of conscience has not. Since there's no health reform in the House bill anyway, the choice to keep the Federal government out of the lives of women is a easy and conservative one: strike Stupak or let the bill fail.

[jmpurser]

Agreed. This corporate welfare bill shambling towards passage has been capped off by a betrayal of women's health care. It's not either/or it's neither and never was.

Kill this bill, pass single payer.

[deezus]

Since they are having this much trouble with this bill, single payer doesn't have a chance in hell.

[jmpurser]

So? Possibly true but we'll never know unless someone tries. And I'd rather they fought for something worthwhile and lost than succeed in doing more harm than good.

[la2010verdad]

The whole health care debate has been framed as a false choice. We always hear "the cost of doing nothing is XXX", but almost no one is in favor of doing nothing. The problem is that the House bill fails miserably in bending the cost curve downward, and so we're going to consume the benefits of health reform while just punting the costs to future generations.

Maybe abortion is a way to lessen the pain on future generations by not allowing them to be born.

[dsws]

If we don't have the votes to pass the health care bill without the Stupid Amendment, pass it with the amendment.

[meko]

I was ready to let the bill go when the individual mandates were no longer balanced by any sort of competitive pressure on insurers. This bill was compromised before Stupak was added.

We've all been sold out for a giant giveaway to big Pharma and insurers. Obama will sign ANYTHING that has Health Care reform in it's name, even if it makes us captive consumers, who face runaway prices. Selling out choice is only one more sellout.

[dsws]

It's actually not the content of this bill I'm most concerned about. It's the political ramifications. I think if they don't pass something, health care will become the new third rail. But if they do, I think it will become something that Congress just has to pass a bill about every session so they can say they're doing something about it, and each one of those bills will provide an opportunity to improve things.

[wonketteRAWKS]

How Nancy Pelosi even allowed this out of the House is disgusting! Yes, that would be the same Nancy Pelosi who is not supporting Coakley, but instead is endorsing flip-flopper Capuano.

A democratic controlled government and yet this happens...­who woulda thunk it?

[DRaymond]

The main reason that it is a false choice is that the Stupak ammendment won't "effectively ban abortion". It won't come anywhere near that, and to say that it will is just grandstanding.

Insurance companies regard abortion coverage, even late-term abortion coverage, as a cost saver. That is why so many employer offered plans include it, because it is offered essentially for free. And the Stupak Ammendment does nothing about employer-provided plans.

But if insurers consider abortion coverage a cost savings they certainly will want women buying insurance through the exchanges to take the abortion rider too. They will make the riders easy to sign up for and dirt cheap if not free not because they are nice people but because they are greedy and it makes them more money. Probably it will take no more than an extra check box and signature ont he enrollment paperwork.

Currently tens of millions of poor women have no or insufficient coverage, not just for abortions but for everything. These poor women will as part of the health care reform bill be able to afford general health care insurance, and with it the ability to get the minimal cost abortion rider. Their ability to have an abortion will be greatly improved over their current status, where they would be stuck with 100 percent of the cost of it (or any other medical treatment, particularly since emergency rooms do not do elective abortions).

[SonofLiberty1]

And I will keep saying the same thing...

Women, you have Roe so go fish

You have NO RIGHT to put your hands into my wallet to pay for your abortions!

Especially since I'm innocent period.

[mydwyf]

OK so let's say that 1% of women needing abortions are
'innocent' according to however you choose to define that term.
Surely you can acknowledge that 1% 'innocence', (even though
your post indicates that you think women are 'guilty').

So what's wrong with figuring that the (very) small percentage of YOUR
taxes which would be budgeted for abortions is going to help those 'innocents' ?

Isn't Christianity all about being charitable ?
And taking on the sins of others when necessary ?
Methinks you protest your own innocence WAY too much.

[Sharon Corcoran]

Abortions are not covered by federal dollarsnow­..The issue is that the amendment wouldn't allow insurance companies in the exchange to offer abortion coverage to women even if they pay for the insurance without federal dollars- This shouldn't surprise anyone-This isn't the first time abortion has been used as a wedge. Maybe the lesson is we need to join hands with everyone-All organizations could of showed up before the abortion debate- If we want to be heard it will take an army . If the battle was for single payer or a robust public option 70% of the public would of been behind the us. I have posted this many times what if a million of us showed up how much of a voice would we have had ?.The opposition has been bought and paid for. Maybe they wouldn't have had the guts to add this amendment.­.The Democrats have depended on campaign funds for years- Voter turnout has been low for a long time. We need to share in some of the blame- We allowed this to go on for a long time. To change this and to get what we want done we have to fight harder- The oppositiion to healhcare is going to continue to work on dividng us. If anyone thinks one vote would take care of all of these issues your fooling yourself. We have to remember people - women . men and children are dying as this battle continues.

[jhamm1]

"The problem is, the pro-choice movement's political capital is an unknown quantity. We know that the Catholic Bishops can go to the brink, threaten, and get their way. "

In other words, because Catholic Bishops carry more political power than the pro-choice movement, that's a justification for doing the wrong thing?

Sorry, but "by any means necessary" does not app[y in this case, and, if the Stupak-Pitts amendment cannot be defeated and therefore removed from the healthcare bill, than the only sensible thing for Democrats to do is to vote against the measure altogether.

And contrary to the assertion that the current terms of the bill do nothing more than "restrict a woman's right to choose any further than current law", the Stupak-Pitts amendment imposes additional restrictions which are completely unacceptable.

[meko]

It's a bad bill anyway. There is no competitive pressure on insurance companies to balance the individual mandate. That's the reason insurance stocks went through the roof the day after the bill went through. Insurers will get richer, and consumers will be more stuck than ever.

[thrdr]

Agreed again. People shouldn't be distracted and suckered by complaints from the private health insurance industry side--no matter what, at worst this is a win-win game for them.

[ParacelsusTheophrastus]

Covering something doesn't mean that people are encouraged to use it--at least if the government plan is anything like my private plan. I am really sick of the GOP posturing on this and other health issues.