Doing the Unthinkable!
From the story in today’s New York Times:
Ms. Pelosi, the first woman speaker and an ardent defender of abortion rights, had no choice but to do the unthinkable. To save the health care bill she had to give in to abortion opponents in her party and allow them to propose tight restrictions barring any insurance plan that is purchased with government subsidies from covering abortions.
The Stupak amendment passed thanks to the hard work of Representative Stupak and his supporters in Congress and the United States Bishops Conference who joined their ardent support for universal health care with their principled opposition to abortion funding.
I am personally grateful to Michael Sean Winters on the America blog for his steadfast advocacy of the Stupak amendment.
Winters writes today:
There are kudos aplenty to go around this morning, but I really can’t express sufficiently my admiration for the work of the USCCB and CHA. All uninsured Americans owe them a debt of gratitude. All future expectant mothers who discover that their health care covers the cost of pre-natal care but not abortion services owe them a debt of gratitude. And, all of us Catholics who care about human dignity and human life owe them a debt of gratitude. Now, on to the Senate and let’s win there too.
This is an important first step, but far from the end of a process that will require both ongoing support and careful vigilance.
I kept wanting the pinch myself during the last few days leading up to last night’s votes. Could pro-life democrats really have this much power? Had abortion rights really become so secondary a concern that it was obvious that they would be sacrificed for this bill? Could it possibly be the case that many, many, many insurance plans would now be forced to drop (elective) abortion coverage?
Apparently the answer is ‘yes.’ I think it points to a growing and long overdue sea change of thought in our country. One need not support abortion rights in order to support progressive policies and particularly those that benefit women. One’s anti-abortion views need not prohibit one from supporting fair access to health care. Couple this with an incredible and continued rise in the numbers of people describing themselves as ‘independents’ and it becomes clear that our late-20th-century political categories are in the process of being blown up. And good riddance.
Good for Stupak and the 64 Democrats (including him) who voted for the amendment (joined by 176 Republicans).
Having worked so had to prevent Federal funds paying for abortion (and I suspect Richard Doerflinger of the bishops’ conference managed this), will the bishops be as vigorous in their support of health-care reform. Let’s hope so.
Yes, Bart is evidence that Michigan can occasionally do something right, and this is good news.
But, while I’m not a fan of Rep. Pelosi by a long shot, but I find Fr. Imbelli’s selected piece above unnecessarily triumphal–Good guys force Pelosi’s evil pro-abortion hand. It’s this kind of language that galvanizes the pro-choice forces and convinces them that the Pope of Rome is diddling with their rights.
My mother, who is becoming more anti-Catholic with time, sees Stupak’s measure as more evidence of religious intrusion into public life on everything from Creationism to birth control. “What’s next? The Christian Scientists lobbying to prevent kids from getting swine flu vaccines?”
A good Catholic could poke holes in that analogy. (As a bad Catholic, I did my best.) But that sort of rhetoric will play with a lot of people.
Truly one of the greatest days in a long time for those of us who have supported the pro-life Democratic strategy of reducing abortion. This bill, if it passes in something like this form, will have an impact that far surpasses anything ever accomplished by supposedly pro-life Republicans. It will actually support women with pregnancies, assuring them of the right care and of continuing care, even if their job situation is difficult – it will also help young women who can now remain longer on their parents’ policies. Most importantly, it makes a strong public statement that while abortion may be something that a pluralistic society tolerates, it is not health care and it cannot be supported by the common good.
Additionally, I do not see how this language will be stripped out in conference. The final bill will never pass the House if the language is dropped or watered down, and Democrats view the passage of this bill as perhaps the greatest achievement in a generation. If they strip the language, they will lose the bill when it returns to the House. They have only three votes to spare, including one (Catholic) Republican, and the overwhelming showing on the Stupak amendment shows the lack of any margin of error. Nevertheless, vigilance is required – yet the incredible work of the bishops’ conference and Rep. Stupak in bringing this off gives me hope that it will in fact be seen through to the end.
Yes, kudos all around and pats on the back for everyone for the vote, which let’s everyone feel good about themselves, even though it means absolutely NOTHING. It will all get put back in in conference, and the pro-abortion leaders said as much.
They are all too willing to vote “yes” on life before they vote “no.” It’s a scam, and the kind of political games that we have seen way too many times. Not one baby’s life will be saved by this. Not one.
They could have passed an amendment outlawing the performance of all abortions outright. The amendment doesn’t matter. This bill doesn’t matter. The only thing that matters is the conference report. The only thing that matters is getting to conference.
And passage of this bill brings us one step closer to that conference report, which will absolutely include pro-abortion provisions. And when that happens, and it will, how many of the self-described pro-life Dems are going to vote for the pro-abortion bill anyway? Too many. They will boast, “I did the right thing, I voted against abortion before I voted for it.”
So, go ahead, kudos for everyone. You accomplished nothing. Or, rather, worse than nothing, because now you have advanced the pro-abortion cause. The pro-abortion provisions will be in the final bill. The Dem leaders have said as much.
Father Imbelli, this is Good news.
“Not one baby’s life will be saved by this. Not one.”
A health care bill expanding coverage for millions currently of uninsured people, many of them pregnant mothers and we get this example of absolutely insane commentary.
Not ONE baby’s life will be saved? Not ONE! really.
I don’t know what your interest or angenda is, but I want no part of it.
It seems to me that this is a triumph, not a defeat, for Nancy Pelosi. She attempted to broker a deal that Stupak and other pro-life Democrats found acceptable, and when it fell through, she allowed a vote on the Stupak Amendment with (I am sure) the knowledge that it would certainly pass. Consequently, she set her own views about abortion aside, and angered many pro-choice Democrats, in order to do the important thing — get the bill passed an bring insurance coverage to 37 million people who don’t have it.
I am far less certain than Bender that the Stupak language will be stripped (although I am certain that Catholics whose faith is in the Republican party want this to fail). The significant number of Democrats who voted FOR the amendment, then voted FOR the bill, are absolutely needed to pass the final bill. They fought very hard to get this bill, and most of them come from moderate (read: unsafe) northern and midwestern districts in which they will face election in 2010. Their districts are not solid for health care reform in the first place, so they know that they will face a terrible challenge in claiming to be pro-life in their districts if they support the final bill without their language. Plus, every Democratic leader knows that these reps are (and have to be) serious about this issue. The Democrats want to pass this reform in the worst way – when it becomes clear that it will not re-pass the House without this language, they will swallow hard and keep it in there (maybe hoping for a court challenge, which will inevitably come). But I can’t see the math which passes the final bill without the Stupak language.
It is unfortunate that progressive website are in a state of fury over this. They are doing exactly what they accuse the extreme Republicans of doing – overstating implications (i.e. coat hangers), taking an extreme position and pretending it is held by the majority of Americans, getting ready to “primary” pro-life Dems and purge them from the party, etc. When people say, “oh, what’s next, birth control, etc.”, this is just like Republicans claiming that this bill is a “government takeover” and Dems want government to run people’s lives and decide who lives and who dies. It’s just silly. The fact is, on their own grounds, pro-choicers have always been forced to defend the right to abortion under a supposed right to privacy. If so, then abortion is a private decision, and there can be no PUBLIC right to it under the right to decent health care. Therefore, insisting that absolutely no support for public health care can be used for abortions, or for any policy which includes it under the guise of “health care,” is the fair position. The government allows citizens to do many, many things, but is under no obligation to support those things. It is obliged to make provisions for health care. That is the historic commitment, which the Church supports, and which passed last night. And it made clear that abortion is not health care.
Did I hear Donna Brazile on This Week claim the Supak amendment would “basically outlaw abortion”? What an embarrassing exaggeration–and a doomed strategy.
Grant–
I hope you did not hear that, but if you did, it confirms Bender’s fears above.
Rosa Delauro (D.-CT) more or less said the same thing as Brazillia. As someone somewhere on this blog has said Pelosi, DeLaurio’s fellow Catholic, rose above her own views to allow the Stupak Amendment to the floor. Good for her. And probably good for the WH which may well have encouraged the move.
Here’s the Times breakout of the vote…
http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/votes/111/house/1/884
Happy to see David Obey (he who was one of Bishop Burke’s original victims on the communion question) of Wisconsin and Tom Periello of Virgina on that list.
The claim that this would “basically outlaw abortion” certainly seems hyperbolic, but I continue to be surprised by the potency of the Stupak Amendment language. It seems obvious that there was a breakdown of party discipline that would have led to a compromise rather than what ended up taking place, which was the airing of the Democrats’ dirty laundry and a full 64 members–over one quarter of the Democratic caucus–going on the record to favor strong restrictions on abortion.
Perhaps the strongest provision is that it requires any health plan that is offered on the exchange with abortion coverage to also be offered in an entirely equivalent form without abortion coverage. So any insurer who wants to sell a plan with abortion coverage can only do so provided it offers an identical, and presumably less expensive, plan without it. The presumably more expensive plan with abortion coverage could only be purchased by those paying with entirely their own funds. So it is foreseeable that individuals making less than 400% of federal poverty level or approximately $100,000 for a family of four would need to decline federal subsidies should they elect abortion coverage, an uneconomical and hence unlikely decision. And presumably not very many men will elect to pay extra solely for the option of abortion coverage! Under the circumstances, would insurers even offer plans with abortion coverage at all? Unclear. And additionally the amendment codifies the prohibition on abortion in the public option.
It is true that the exchange would only be used by those shopping for individual coverage or by those who work for small businesses, so the majority of employer-provided health insurance would at least initially be unaffected. But I think that many people view the exchange and the public option as quasi-pilot programs that could potentially be expanded should they prove effective as cost-containment vehicles. Should the Stupak Amendment be implemented it would set a strong precedent against abortion going forward and hence it is little wonder that it met strong opposition from those whose goal is the eventual normalization of abortion-as-medical-care.
Peggy,
I hope Pelosi (one “l”, one “s” –Italian names were never your forte) did rise above her own views (as you suggest) and was not just a good vote-counter. And I hope that the White House did encourage the move. Didn’t the President in his address to Congress pledge no federal funding for abortion?
How many are affected? Not entirely clear.
http://www.guttmacher.org/media/inthenews/2009/07/22/index.html
Jean Raber, I don’t think anyone can gush sufficiently about how Michael Sean Winters has absolutely, single-handedly transformed the entire pro-life/pro-choice debate in this country, aided by the brilliant bishops who we love so ardently, and maybe a congressman or two…Or and the president we so fervently opposed? Yeah, yeah, well the fact that we wouldn’t even be having this discussion if he hadn’t been elected? Never mind!
Do let me add to the rapture, however, in that I think Stupak et al saved the day, though there are many difficult days ahead. I could see the abortion language staying in or getting stripped, but I don’t see how the package passes if it does go. Kudos to the GOPers who voted for Stupak. They could have killed the bill right then and there. But the political maneuvering is fascinating. Stupak was as useful for Obama and Pelosi as for the Bishops, giving both cover with their different constituencies.
Now who will be the Stupak in the Senate? Calling Bob Casey Jr?
Did I hear Donna Brazile on This Week claim the Supak amendment would “basically outlaw abortion”
Grant,
Not quite. What she said was, “Look, this pretty much [not "basically" -- DN] outlaws abortion for even people with private insurance. It’s one thing to . . . the existing federal law, the Hyde Amendment, I thought was sufficient, but clearly many of the pro-life Democrats thought that they needed to go farther in denying women the ability to purchase this on the exchange even using their own private funds.”
It seems to me her clear meaning was not that the Stupak Amendment “pretty much outlaws” abortion itself, but pretty much outlaws abortion coverage in insurance policies. She goes on to discuss –as what has been prohibited — not the procurement of abortion by women, but the procurement of insurance coverage of abortion.
I don’t think there is much question that this is a major anti-abortion victory, as MEP argues above. I agree with Donna Brazile that this went considerably farther than the Hyde Amendment. I don’t think the pro-choice people who are ecstatic (as opposed to those who are cynical) are celebrating for nothing, so I don’t think pro-choice people like Donna Brazile who are upset should be criticized for lamenting that they have lost a major battle. They have.
Fr. Imbelli,
I do not believe that Pelosi has become “pro-life,” if that is what you mean by rising above her own views. I would suggest that what she did was make it her top priority to get the bill passed, with or without her own views on abortion being reflected in it. The talk all along was that the process should be “abortion neutral.” It appears this morning that many do not see the Stupak Amendment as “abortion neutral,” including many pro-lifers who supported it. They see it as a positive, pro-life victory, not a mere maintaining of the status quo.
Didn’t the President in his address to Congress pledge no federal funding for abortion?
Yes, he did, but many think previous compromise proposals prevented federal funds from being used for abotion, and it does seem to me that the Stupak amendment goes farther than the Hyde Amendment by restricting what people may do with their own money if they accept federal money.
Food stamps do not cover prepared hot foods you buy in the grocery store. It seems to me it would be somewhat similar to the Stupak Amendment if congress were to pass an amendment saying that if you used food stamps on a particular trip to the grocery store, it would be impermissible to buy prepared hot food, even with your own money.
It appears to me that the USCCB abandoned illegal immigrants. They did so, in my opinion, by getting specific about what provisions in the bill were acceptable and not acceptable. If they had articulated a position that the bill must not support abortion and must cover everyone in the country without exception, they would have stood for principles. However, by meeting with Pelosi over the issue of abortion and specifically supporting the Stupak Amendment, they have by their actions indicated that abortion restrictions were more important than coverage of millions of people in the country illegally.
If you articulate principles, you can stick by them no matter what. But once you get involved in the nitty-gritty of what a bill says, you start “bowing to political reality,” which I don’t think is the job of the Church.
Also, Michael Sean Winters titles his post The House Vote: A Huge Triumph for the Church. As someone who believes that separation of church and state is good for the country — and good for religion, too — that’s a disturbing headline.
If the legislation ultimately passes with this restriction, wouldn’t the net effect be that middle and upper income women would be able to access abortions, but poor women would not? That seems very unjust to me; I don’t see how it is any kind of a victory for anybody.
David Gibson. the Times piece sets up the passage of the bill essentially as a showdown between pro-life/pro-choice factions, rather than as a victory for health care reform, which I think is going to antagonize pro-choice forces and divide bill proponents. (See Brazile/DeLaurio comments.)
Stupak’s won the battle, and God bless him for it, but a lot of Catholic gloating is going to lose the larger war for the hearts and minds of Americans who aren’t ready to accept Church teaching on abortion anytime soon.
Moreover, if “Bender” is any indication of where conservative Catholics are, the Stupak amendment hasn’t won over anybody in the GOP, either.
If this adds up to a whoppin’ big victory in your head here, then celebrate by all means.
But I’m not poppin’ my champagne until a) some kind of health care reform that helps those of us without health care is signed and b) the Stupak language is still intact.
Bob Imbeli: well I hope I have never mispelled your name!
I did not get this sentence from Michael Sean Winters’ piece: “All future expectant mothers who discover that their health care covers the cost of pre-natal care but not abortion services owe them a debt of gratitude.” Obviously a pregnant woman who wanted to keep her baby would be grateful for prenatal care she would not have otherwise had save for this bill. But unless there is some miracle, there will always be some women who do not want to continue a pregnancy. Why should they be grateful for the lack of abortion coverage? From the pro-life viewpoint, whatever obstacles are put in the way of a woman wanting an abortion are desirable, but why would the woman who wants an abortion be grateful? Perhaps being grateful and “owing a debt of gratitude” are two different things in MSW’s mind, and you owe a debt of gratitude whether you are grateful or not.
I, too, think the Stupak bill is a pro-life bill, not an abortion-neutral bill.
Irene said: “If the legislation ultimately passes with this restriction, wouldn’t the net effect be that middle and upper income women would be able to access abortions, but poor women would not? That seems very unjust to me; I don’t see how it is any kind of a victory for anybody.”
It’s not really different now, except that now the same poor women have inadequate or non-existent health coverage, which they will be more likely to have after the bill. Pro-choice people should remember this. (Pro-life people too, actually.) Also, health care reform has never meant than no one will ever pay for anything out of pocket anymore. There will be lots of things that won’t be covered by the legislation, even for people who end up getting whatever the full subsidy is.
Admission – I have not read all 1900+ pages of this House bill. Some comments:
- this is not over by a long shot; significant,yes, where it goes from here; who knows?
- agree with Ms. Baldwin – per the House bill only, we have the ability to provide coverage to 40 milliion more Americans. But, the devil is in the details. Is the coverage comprehensive? Will address the needs of children and women? What does happen if a woman with coverage thru an exchange faces a decision about her fetus? It does seem to place a gap between the well to do and the economically stretched – a situation we live with now and this bill does not address?
- kudos to various persons and groups esp. Stupak but would agree with Mr. Nickol that this only reinforces the USCCB single issue stance at the expense of the seamless garment approach, social justice issues such as illegal immigration, economic divides that continue to increase not decrease creating even more injustice, health care issues, immigration issues, etc.
- imagine that next week’s USCCB meeting will have a lot of back slapping because of the Stupak Amendment. Is this political reality; are they being “wise like a fox”; or is it premature, have they sold their soul to a single issue; compromised their integrity to continue to define pro-life exclusively as anti-abortion; and limited their principles to attain a short sided goal?
- only time will tell but I am not going to congratulate them at this point. If Stupak gets watered down or changed in the Senate or final committe bill, will our principled bishops fight against comprehensive health care coverage and reform? That goal is a gospel goal – anti-abortion is just one part of a much larger picture that may have to start with a small step and not a giant leap.
It seems to me a lot of factions have had to give up a lot for the bill, realizing that the greater good is passing this bill which is, as I think many have said, really a first step on a more comprehensive change over the coming years. Passing it would be an enormous psychological hurdle, just as passing the first civil rights laws was.
Not funding abortion in any way–although it seems the previous bills were so remtoe in any connection to federal funding as to be invisible–seems a realtively small price to pay for the possibility of passing the larger bill. Abortion funding and restrictions have always been unbalanced and unjust (leaving aside the issue of abortion’s morality) and trying to change that through a health care bill seems the wrong vehicle for that debate.
I also think it is right to call health care reform a pro-life priority, in particular this bill with this language. Simply providing decent healh coverage to everyone strikes me as about as pro-life as you can get.
But again, the politics of it are fascinating. It is itneresting that we hear no more of death panels, and even before the Stupak passage the Family Research Council, a main Christian opponent to health care reform, was ditching the abortion meme in its ads and focusing on burdening future generations with deficits.
Roughly speaking, Immanuel Kant argued, not without reason, that one and the same agent could not be both a critic of politics and a political actor. The critic always speaks on behalf of principle. the political actor always tries to settle an issue in such a way that the political society continues to hang together.
Applying Kant’s position,one might well argue that, in a well ordered society, the USCCB, as critic, would enunciate Catholic principles concerning health care and that Catholic political participants would then do what they can to fashion policies that honor these principles, as well as honor their oaths of office, that respect their obligation to their political society.
In the case at hand, Rep. Stupak and his allies have acted laudably. My worry is that the UCCB, by its decision to focus on abortion and leave aside the matter of illegal immigrants, has entered the political arena, the arena of partial solutions, and left the domain of proclaiming principle.
On this Kantianesque view, it is the role of the Catholic laity to do the kind of work that Rep. Stupak and his colleagues did. It remains the role of the USCCB to kepp reminding everyone that the Stupak amendment amounts to a partial, not a full, loaf. But on this view, it remains true that political life is a life in which there are few, if any, whole loaves. That fact is no depreciation of politics, just a reflection of the temporal, finite condition of all human actions and institutions.
I do think that these comments have some relevance to the comments above, especially those of Bill DeHaas and David Nickol.
In case anyone thinks the Catholic opposition is only about abortion, read this by the “Anchoress.” A jackboot? Wow.
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/theanchoress/2009/11/08/the-shadow-of-the-jackboot/
I have some new heroes.
To draw it out, Rep. Stupak, the other pro-life Democrats, and their supporters like MSW are my new hereos.
Whether this is good or bad for Nancy Pelosi, whether she acted out of magnamity or cynical necessity is not a terribly high concern of mine. I will continue to pray for her that the day will come when she acts in the interests of the unborn from her own convicitions.
Is the “shadow of the jackboot” reference hers or someone else’s? Kind of odd, unless it is one of those mid-century editorial cartoons of a Nazi boot stomping on Europe.
Ummm…Anywhoo…This seems of a piece with a remarkable amount of apocalypse anxiety, which has been going around since Obama’s campaign. You kind of wish they’d figure out if the world is ending (OBama is elected) or we’re on the brink of a reawakening (Bush’s election in 2000). Either way, as I was writing a piece about the silliness of the new end of the world flick, “2012″ (based on the Mayan calendar, apparently) I was put in mind of these excellent words:
Let us all get down on our knees and thank Almighty God for HR 3962, the Affordable Health Care for America Act, for without it we would not have the Stupak Amendment.
“Put on then, as God’s chosen ones, holy and beloved, heartfelt compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness, and patience, bearing with one another and forgiving one another, if one has a grievance against another; as the Lord has forgiven you, so must you also do. And over all these put on love, that is, the bond of perfection.”
A time to celebrate, yes. But modestly and moderately? Perhaps exuberant Hosannas and Te Deums are in this moment bordering on the triumphalist.
David Gibson, I am not sure that Senator Casey would welcome the role you suggest for him. I have been wracking my brain. Can you think of six Democratic senators that would be likely to join him if he were to take on being the Stupak Amendment proponent in the Senate? Or, perhaps that’s asking a lot. Four? Or two?
I’ll try to work on having my Catholic Democratic Senator, Clare McCaskill, be one. I am not confident, since she has never presented herself as being less than 100% pro-choice, but with God…
David Nickol: I did not criticize Brazile for lamenting the passage of the Stupak amendment. She’s an ardent supporter of Roe. No expects her to rejoice at its passage. I said she exaggerated–and by claiming the bill “pretty much outlaws abortion even for those with private insurance,” she did. Then she called the Stupak amendment an “onerous burden on women for their reproductive health care.” If the House bill were signed into law today, abortion even for women with private insurance would not be illegal–pretty much or otherwise. There is nothing preventing Planned Parenthood or another group from setting up a fund to provide abortions to women who cannot afford to purchase supplemental insurance–or to facilitate the creation of affordable supplemental insurance for all manner of women’s reproductive health care.
It seems to me that “pretty much outlaws abortion” is at least as much of a howler as “death panels.”
If the House bill were signed into law today, abortion even for women with private insurance would not be illegal–pretty much or otherwise.
It seems to me that “pretty much outlaws abortion” is at least as much of a howler as “death panels.”
Grant and John McG,
If Brazile truly meant that the Stupak amendment “pretty much outlaws abortion,” then I agree it was a gross exaggeration. However, as I argued above, I think her clear meaning was that the Stupak amendment pretty much outlaws coverage of abortion in insurance. If you read the quote, she is talking about buying insurance on the exchange, not obtaining an abortion.
“Purchase this” clearly refers to buying insurance coverage.
Remember that you can’t buy insurance across state lines, so supplemental insurance covering abortion would need to be created fifty time to make it available to all women. According to the analysis that I have read, people don’t think it is likely for insurers to both offering policies on the exchange that cover abortion, since many or most buying insurance on the exchange will be getting subsidies and won’t be able to buy them. Also, people don’t expect insurance companies to offer separate abortion coverage.
This was a victory (at least a temporary one) for the anti-abortion cause, not a victory for those who wanted to be sure health care reform was abortion neutral.
I am very happy that the House adopted the pro-life Stupak amendment.
And it does not not in any way “outlaw abortion”. Sadly, legal abortion is available in most cities almost any day of the week.
Reforming health care so as to provide basic needs of the poor does not mean me paying for women’s abotions.
I am happy and will wait and see if this survives reconciliation between the House and Senate bills; if it makes it to the President’s desk.
I still am concerend however, that the legislation does not seem to provide Universal Coverage, the initial stated purpose of this entire effort.
We now need to make sure this provides for the indocumentados. We have lots of un-documented Mexicans in my area (mostly farm workers) who routinely flood the emergency rooms for reasons that should be handled via routine (i.e., daytime, during the week) office visits. These folks work hard but do not make enough to buy insurance and the jobs do not provide medical insurance. Regardless of one’s views on what to do about illegal immigration, these folks are here and it makes economic sense to include them in the plan.
One issues down – one to go.
Keep praying – it works!
:-)
The question of how abortions are actually paid for is hard to track down, but this from Monday’s NY Times says:
“Not many women who undergo abortions file private insurance claims, perhaps to avoid leaving a record. A 2003 study by the Alan Guttmacher Institute found that 13 percent of abortions were billed directly to insurance companies. Only about half of those who receive insurance coverage from their employers have coverage of abortion in any event, according to a study by the Kaiser Family Foundation.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/09/us/politics/09abortion.html?hp
Anyone have more complete info?
Peggy, I posted that exact Guttmacher study yesterday at 3:48 p.m.
Here it is again.
http://www.guttmacher.org/media/inthenews/2009/07/22/index.html
Something is not sitting right.
Given how much broader Stupak is than Hyde –in that it prevents people from using their own premium money to buy abortion coverage–requiring a separate rider– I bet we are going to see a constitutional challenge. Harris v. McRae, the abortion funding case, deals with funding of abortions per se. What Stupak is doing is saying that it won’t fund policies that provide abortions–even if the money comes from somewhere else. So an analogy would be could the Congress deny Medicare part A funding to hospitals that actually provide abortions? Or could Congress say, no Medicare for your hospital–any part of it if you do abortions anywhere within it.
That would look, not so much like not funding abortion, but penalizing a hospital for choosing to offer them. That might be going too far–abortion wasn’t just decriminalized, it was found to be a constitutional right–at some point, treating it like a red-headed stepchild is going to back fire.
I’m uneasy. I think there are problems ahead. I think this whole thing could pass, and the Stupak portion could be challenged constitutionally.
If today’s NY Times and WAshington Post are to be believed, the struggle about the issue of abortion in the proposed health care legislation is far from over. The political game is in full flower. Is this a game in which the USCCB ought to seek to write the legislation? Or is that the function of the legislators, Catholic or otherwise, who supported the Stupak amendment? That is, ought the bishops’ conference go beyond enunciating firm moral principles? Ought they to engage in lobbying for some provisions in a civil statute?
The ultimate bill will deal somehow with illegal immigrants as well as with abortion. It will also contain funding provisions. One committee of bishops has already raised the immigration issue. Is that an enunciation of principle or a strategic move?
From my perspective, it’s very tricky to have the bishops’ conference get involved in the writing of legislation. That is a lay function. Of course, the bishops ought to enunciate moral principles clearly and consistently. The political application of them is another matter. (By the way, this is the point behind my earler positing about Kant.)
Let me recall the brouhaha of last fall when Douglas Kmiec argued against the stand that some bishops had taken about voting for Obama. He in no way compromised the Catholic position on the morality of abortion, but argued that applying it to an election did not, as some bishops claimed, require a rejection of Obama’s candidacy.
Finally, let’s remember that, unless I am mistaken, the Stupak amendment, does not bar funds for abortions of pregnancies that endanger the mother’s life or that are the outcome of rape. Should the bishops lobby to close this loophole?
Some weeks ago I asked on this blog whether, when all negotiations, etc. were over, the bishops would oppose the final version of the health care bill if, in their judgment, the bill in any way facilitated any abortions. I fear that, if the Stupak amendment is not retained, they would do so. For my part, should they in fact do so, the implications and ramifications would be awful. If this attempt to reform a manifestly unjust health care system fails, how long would it take to muster the political will to try again?
Very interesting lines of argument here.
Thanks for proving my point.
The Stupak amendment will be taken out (perhaps by a frivolous constitutional argument), the pro-abortion provisions will be put back in, and many self-described “pro-lifers” will vote for the final bill nevertheless.
The whole process is a scam.
Prof. Kaveny,
Your comments are cryptic. If there is a constitutional challenge, why should we be worried about it? How else can Congress restrict abortion, if they are always worried about what the court might do? Are you worried that SCOTUS could decide that all insurance must always cover abortion?
Well, the Court trumps Congress with respect to interpreting the constitution.
So, imagine Congress passed health care reform with a law that was clearly unconstitutional–outlawing abortion, or saying that everyone would have to certify that they had not obtained an abortion during the past year (or were complicit in obtaining an abortion) in order to sign up for health care subsidized by the government.
The law is passed. It’s challenged in court. That part of the law is enjoined while being litigated, and the rest goes into effect. It’s tied up in litigation for years–in the meantime, health care reform and no restrictions on abortion.
I agree any pro-life amendments to the bill must pass Constitutional muster, otherwise wer would just be fooling around.
However if the Stupak amend is dropped and the bill ends up basically funding abortions, we Catholics should be willing to, and if necessary, walk away from it.
We need to be real, we need to honest, and we ned to be clear: Taxpayer funding of abortions will increase the number of abortions per year, and that is worse than going a few more years with reforming our healthcare system.
Typo – Meant to say “.. going a few more years without reforming …”
I agree with all who have said that House passage of the Stupak amendment is a first, veryencouraging step — much work remains to be done.
On the issue of a legal challenge to the amendment: The Hyde amendment itself forbids use of federal funds for entire benefits packages that include elective abortion; so does the parallel language codified in the Children’s Health Insurance Program, and the parallel rider governing Federal Employee Health Benefits (where federal funds mingle with private premiums to pay for coverage from private insurance companies). If this bill had been covered by the Hyde amendment in the first place (which was not the case because the bill authorizes and appropriates its own funds outside the bounds of the Labor/HHS appropriations bill), this would not have been an issue at all — because the only thing this amendment does, besides restating the Hyde policy, is to be more explicit about the ways people can CONTINUE to purchase private abortion coverage with their own money. If an insurer wishes to sell health plans with elective abortion to people whose premiums are not federally subsidized, it can certainly do so — but if it does so on the Exchange set up by the government to promote competition and reduce costs, it must also offer the same plan without abortion for those who are subsidized, since getting insurance to those who need subsidies to be able to afford it is the primary goal of the Exchange. So this is not at all comparable to denying funds to an entire hospital because it may also perform abortions.
Several states, including Misouri, both Dakotas, and Idaho, have long had state laws which reach much farther, forbidding ANY private insurance coverage of abortion except by supplemental rider chosen by the purchaser. These laws have never had a successful legal challenge.
This is an exercise of what the Supreme Court has called the legitimate governmental interest in encouraging childbirth over abortion, using its funding power. It allows people who have abortion coverage now (that is, who can afford it with their own money) to keep it, or purchase it in the future. It allows even those who purchase federally subsidized health plans to use their own money to purchase a separate abortion policy with their own money. And it ensures that Americans who do not want abortion coverage (68% of adults, including 69% of women, by our last poll) will not be forced by government to pay for other people’s abortions. In a country so divided on abortion, but with a clear majority of adults opposing public funding of abortion, this seems both a legally valid and eminently fair solution, and we hope Congress and the White House increasingly reelize that.
Davi The fact is, on their own grounds, pro-choicers have always been forced to defend the right to abortion under a supposed right to privacy. If so, then abortion is a private decision, and there can be no PUBLIC right to it under the right to decent health care. Therefore, insisting that absolutely no support for public health care can be used for abortions, or for any policy which includes it under the guise of “health care,”√çve
Richard Doerflinger, thanks for weighing in. If you check back in, a question of journalistic interest: Where are the poll numbers you cite from? I see polls on support/opposition to funding all over the map. Thanks.
Thank you, Prof Kaveny and Mr. Doerflinger (and, keep up the good work!).
David Cloutier-
It is indeed the height — or depths — of chutzpah to claim a right to abortion on the basis that sexual
Decisions ought to be guaranteed as private ones and then to claim a legal right to make the public pay for the consequences of private acts, the decisions to choose to have sex in the first place.
The representatives who claimed that Stupak would outlaw abortion surely knew that was false, or they are so illiterate they couldn’t read what was in the bill. Either qay the don’t belind in Congress. These are the sort of women who give femmism a bad name. What is obvious is that they want others to pay their way. Some feminists!
“I have some new heroes.”
Me too, John McG!
Hey, Jean, upon hearing about this, my immediate thought was, “They’re going to try to run Bart Stupak for the Senate”. Any talk to that effect in Michigan?
Bender,
I trust you’ll be back to issue an apology to everyone here if the Stupak amendment is not stripped out of the final legislation. If the amendment is stripped out and prolife Democrats in the House who voted for the amended House bill vote against the final legislation, then I trust you will take back what you said about them. To warm up, you might begin by apologizing for writing here that “you really cannot turn most of them [dotCommonweal's contributors] from their chosen path. As bitter as ‘the fruit’ is, they keeping on chomping away at it (yes, that fruit).” Apparently, by disagreeing with you about health-care reform or the church’s relationship to feminism, dotCommonweal’s contributors (and all of “them” at once) have yielded to Satan, and it is “an act of mercy” for you to tell us so. Your presumption is even more impressive than your cynicism.
Matthew:
Considering Stupak himself said that he would vote for a bill that included abortion coverage, well..I think Bender’s probably safe.
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2009/10/29/stupak-will-vote-reform-even-if-he-loses-abortion-fight
Mark,
Thanks for the link, which is interesting. But I don’t think it has the significance you want it to have. First, Stupak doesn’t speak for all the prolife Democrats who voted for his amendment. Second, the only thing this video makes clear is Stupak’s confusion. He backtracks, he contradicts himself, he ends up offering a judgment that, taken as a whole, is totally ambiguous. Maybe that ambiguity is a product of his real ambivalence. Maybe he momentarily buckled before an audience that clearly wanted him to say that he’d vote for reform legislation no matter what. Since then, Stupak has had more than one chance to buckle under the pressure of his party’s pro-choice leadership, and he hasn’t. Bender is sure that’s because Stupak knows none of this will matter in the end: he gets to posture for his prolife constituents knowing perfectly well that the final post-conference bill will include funding for abortion. Bender and others jump to this conclusion because they are sure, whatever the evidence, that prolife Democrats aren’t really prolife; they’re squishy and naive, if not cynical or cowardly. On this view, all the real prolifers are good Republicans and hate the health-care bill for more than one reason. (And no, Bender, your banishment from the InsideCatholic blog doesn’t establish your nonpartisan bona fides; it just shows they’re a little less patient than we are.)
President Obama opines on the amendment:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/abc-news-exclusive-obama-jobs-health-care-ft/story?id=9033559
Bender, Matthew, and Mark,
For what it’s worth, Donna Brazile ended her remarks on the Stupak Amendment that Grant made reference to by saying pro-choice Democrats were going to work to get the abortion restrictions removed from the bill. Cokie Roberts remarked that it wasn’t going to happen, and George Will said he hoped pro-choice Democrats succeeded, since it would kill the entire bill.
Seems el Presidente wants to please the Pro-abortion racketeers and still hang onto the Pro-Life vote.
A politicians riding the fence; truly there is nothing new under the sun!
Matthew Boudway, please let me ask you this question. Leaving Bender and Stupak aside, is it your view that if the final health care bill does somehow leave open a way for funds to be used for abortions, then no Catholic legislator could rightly vote for it? In my view, after fighting as hard as possible to avoid either direct or indirect assistance to abortions, a Catholic might well conclude, in good conscience, that the bill had enough merit to vote for it. This is a prudential judgment. Others in good conscience might well come to a different conclusion. But in that event their judgment too would be prudential, not straightforwardly deducible from any antecedent principles.
In my view, the USCCB ought to take great care not to mislead people into thinking that either of these votes, under these conditions, can be anything other than an exercise of prudence.
Jim, I don’t hear any “draft Bart for the Senate” talk around Michigan. Nobody south of Onaway had ever heard of him until yesterday.
Sen. Levin is a lifer, so that would leave Bart to challenge Sen. Debbie. Her tenure has hardly been stellar, but she has friends where it counts (south of the I-96 corridor). She’s more likely to be threatened by the West Side Amway Republicans than by Bart.
Highever, if Bart DID try to run, I think that would make him the first Yooper in the history of the U.S. Senate. Which would only improve the Senate, in my estimation.
FWIW, I got a whole bunch of Vernor’s in the fridge at home. You know you want one.
Looks like we’ve got an uphill battle with Sen. McCaskill… http://twitter.com/clairecmc/status/5576465243
Jean,
I had to look up Yooper, but I remember Vernor’s ginger ale from growing up in Ohio. It is unknown here in New York City, as are Big Boy restaurants (known as Frisch’s Big Boy in Cincinnati, the Frisch family being the owners of the franchise in that area). I don’t see any mention of either tartar sauce or strawberry pie — two of the things that made it so special — on the Big Boy web site. Vernor’s had such an “adult” taste that I was almost surprised we were allowed to drink it when we were kids.
I am SO hungry now!
Here is what the Democratic pro-choice congress people backlashing on Stupak amendment want in money talk.[round numbers]
US 300 million population; 10% are not insured =30 million; half are women =15 million; . They need to be shown up for the extemists they are.. QED.. no tax funds for abortion.
I keep getting a partial post above…
My point is that the uninsured abortions 120,000 at $400 each would only cost $12million-48million if all uninsured abortions were billed. .. most woman would not use insuance for privacy reasons…would the pro-choice reps. sink reform over such a measly amount. if so they are extremists. Pro-life needs only one pro life senator to enforce the Stupak amendment… it’s that close
I don’t pretend to understand the political ins-and-outs of all this and how it plays in Washington or what might result in the end.
I think it would be a terrible shame for the United States not to have a medical care insurance program for all of its people.
I don’t understand why abortion has become such a central factor to that issue, particularly as the President has said that whatever passes Congress will not change the position with respect to federal funding of abortion. So if what has passed the House doesn’t change that, why the hysteria against the Catholic bishops?
From a distance, one senses a real sea change in how ordinary people view abortion.
It’s all well and good to speak of a woman’s choice with respect to her own body – as indeed one would hope that we could agree is a right as important as any of the other major personal rights.
It’s something else to say that that right extends to doing what she chooses with regard to the life of another.
Back in the day, it was easier to avoid thinking about this too much because it was quite proper for us to focus on bringing about a greater equality between men and women than was present.
If I had to put a start date on the beginning of the change, it seems to me that it was when technology enabled us to actually see what is happening in the womb as the foetus develops.
Today, it’s much harder now to ignore the clear moral challenge that technology has confronted us with.
Just why so many leading US womens’ rights groups have allowed themselves to view feminism as always and only in terms of abortion rights was always going to be a cul-de-sac.
It’s disturbing to watch.
Richard, thanks for the comments–they’re extremely helpful. But here’s what I’m worried about: the Stupak Bill is not stand alone; it’s operation takes place in the context of the entire health bill–which is coercive (in a good way). But it is coercive.
So Medicaid is an entitlement–we’re giving people what they don’t have; we don’t have to give them everything. Employer-based health care is also up to the employer, and the US traditionally has more leeway when it functions as an employer than as a regulator. In contrast, health care reform is making people get health care or pay a tax–it’s coercive. Now even if they’re paying premiums largely with their own money, they won’t be able to buy a policy that has abortion in it. That’s unlike Medicaid and even employer-based care.
On the funding strategies, I think there are dissimilarities with Medicaid. While it’s been a long time since I’ve practiced health care law, if I remember correctly, some states do provide abortion coverage under Medicaid–and the way that’s handled is by segregating funds-accounting–rather than saying there have to be completely separate policies. But maybe that’s changed. I’ll look to that.
(Update: I guess things have changed: http://www.cms.hhs.gov/smdl/downloads/smd021298.pdf. But then here’s the NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/10/opinion/10tue1.html)
Do the states run a) a federal-state Medicaid policy; and 2) a state only abortion rider? Or is there an integrated program, with separate funding lines? Do the financial segregation rules in the Stupak amendment seem to be far stricter than those enacted following Hyde? They seem to me to be so, but I’ll have to check.
For those reasons, I don’t think we’re on all fours with a fact-based Harris v. McRae comparison. I think we’re in Caseyland. And I think that the Casaey “undue burden” test will depend on how the thing plays out–for example, if abortion riders are available in fact at a reasonable cost, for medically indicated abortions. Unagidon (whom I will now forever think of as the man with the fabulous ties, since I can’t think of him as liberal or conservative)–what’s your sense of that?
The constitutional line that has to be walked is “encouraging childbirth” (great) and not placing an “undue burden” on abortion (Casey still says no). An undue burden is a a burden that is imposed with the purpose or effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the way of a woman exercising a liberty interest in abortion.
I myself think this will come up primarily with regard to abortions a doctor deems necessary to preserve a woman’s health–which were, of course, of great concern to O’Connor. So some of this will depend on Sotomayor.
BTW, this was a pretty good summary: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/nov/09/nita-lowey/lowey-says-stupak-amendment-restricts-abortion-cov/
“In my view, the USCCB ought to take great care not to mislead people into thinking that either of these votes, under these conditions, can be anything other than an exercise of prudence.”
No Bernard; this issue is more important, more fundamental that that.
than that
NPR ran a brief but pithy analysis of the Stupak Amendment last night. The report should be archived later today on npr.org.
The Stupak Amendment would prevent federal funding for abortions in the event of a national public option EXCEPT where a doctor certifies that the mother would die without an abortion, or that the pregnancy resulted from rape or incest. (Are there limits on abortions in these instances based on fetal viability? I didn’t sound like it.)
Companies cooperating in a national exchange programs would be required to offer parallel programs, one that covers abortions and one that doesn’t. Buyers decide which they want to opt into. (Would the abortion-allowed program be cheaper? Possibly. Abortions are cheaper than pregnancies, and that may be reflected in premiums.)
The amendment does not affect state programs that allow abortion coverage.
Ken, perhaps you’re right that “this issue is more important, more fundamental than that.” But you have to give at least the sketch of an argument to support your conclusion.
Matthew, I ope that you find time for at least a brief answer to the question I directed toward you.
I am not sure if we should be congratulating ourselves on stopping women who are not rich from getting access to legal abortion. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/10/opinion/10tue1.html?ref=opinion
Here is my reasoning Bernard:
The issue at hand is fundamental in that while abortion is an elective procedure that kills babies and is contrary to natural law, giving birth is not an elective procedure, but is in fact a normal part of the natural routine of life.
For a Catholic then, public funding of abortion is not a prudential decision.
“FWIW, I got a whole bunch of Vernor’s in the fridge at home. You know you want one.”
I’m drooling right now :-). Toss in a couple of coney islands with extra onions and I’m your servant for life.
You misunderstand me, Ken. The question is” Can a Catholic legislator, someone who represents a diverse constituency, rightly reach the conclusion that he or she can vote in favor of a health care bill that contains some abortion enabling provisions, provisions that he or she has done what the can to remove from the bill but have not succeeded in doing so? Note that the bill in question has as its principal aim the improvement of medical insurance coverage and care for the citizens of the U. S., some of whom they represent. Shall they refuse to support the bill at the expense of denying or postponing improvement? That’s a prudential decision, admittedly one complicated by the abortion provision, but not, so far as I can see, definitively settled by that provision in such a way that the legislator would have a moral obligation to bote against it.
Hi, Bernard,
I think the answers to your questions would depend on the specific circumstances.
I’m pleased that the House bill passed with the Stupak amendment but dismayed by the exorbitant cost of it all. In these particular circumstances, I’d think a Catholic legislator could oppose the health care bill with a clear conscience – despite the fact that she would be opposing a health care bill.
Here is an interesting article in Bart Stupak and some of the maneuvering that led to the House vote, written by William McGurn, a friend of life.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704402404574525962492620186.html
For the politically obsessed, this from FiveThirtyEight on prochoice Dems who voted for the Stupak Amendment.
“The below chart lists the ‘yea’ votes on Stupak among those representatives who had a rating of 67 in 2007-08 according to Planned Parenthood, and a rating of 33 or lower according to the National Right to Life Committee. (Note: no freshmen representatives are listed on this chart as they have not been rated yet.)
Chart didn’t copy; it’s here: http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/11/many-previously-pro-choice-dems-voted.html
“As you can see, 17 of the 20 Democrats who fell into this category voted for final passage of the health care bill. So what gives?
“I’m sure there are idiosyncratic explanations in a number of cases, but I take this as a sign that they’re worried about the re-election environment they’ll face in 2010. 11 of the 20 pro-choice Democrats who voted for Stupak reside in districts that are rated as vulnerable according to Cook Political (note: candidates who are leaving the House to run for Senate or governor are rated based on those races instead). And, interestingly, they seem to think that a pro-choice vote would render them more vulnerable than a pro-health care vote, even though the pro-choice position is generally more popular than the health care bill on the table at the moment (although some recent polls have shown the pro-choice position losing ground).”
For a Catholic then, public funding of abortion is not a prudential decision.
Ken,
You have not dealt at all with what constitutes “public funding of abortion.” In what way is it “public funding of abortion” if a woman receiving a subsidy from the government buys a policy that covers abortion and pays for the abortion coverage with her own money? The anti-abortion response is that it’s an “accounting gimmick,” but that is not really an argument. Similar “accounting gimmicks” are routinely used in order that government funds may go to religious schools and hospitals.
I am not a lawyer, but I am aware of the Supreme Court case involving vouchers in Cleveland.
What would be profoundly different if an argument was made that government subsidies to buy insurance go directly to those who need them, and then those people choose the kind of coverage they want. The government would not be funding abortion. It would be funding people who then make a choice about what insurance they want.
David Nickol –
If I remember correctly, a kind of federal funding similar to the Ohio project was the GI education bill after WWII. The government paid the veterans who then chose the schools they attended, and many chose religious ones.