Nov 8th, 2009 at 5:15 pm
Watch the Conferees
Ann Friedman offers some suggested actions for people infuriated by the Stupak Amendment. But she leaves off what I think is the most objectively important consideration, which is to bring pressure to bear on both the composition of the inevitable conference committee and also the shape of its deliberations. If a bill emerges from conference all Stupak’d up, then it’s going to go like it did last night where a group of legislators who overwhelmingly oppose the Stupak language vote yes on a bill that includes it. If a Stupak-free bill emerges, then I think there’s every reason to believe it can be passed. This debate is far from over and it’s important to try to turn it around.
59 Responses to “Watch the Conferees”
Register
RSSLogin
Advertisement
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Books By Matthew Yglesias
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Abortion
Afghanistan
Basketball
Blanche Lincoln
Budget
Cars
China
climate
Congress
DC
Defense Budget
Demographics
Economics
Economy
Energy
EU
Finance
Football
Gender
Health Care
History
Inequality
Infrastructure
International Relations
Israel
Media
Monetary Policy
National Security
NBA
Pakistan
Palestine
Political Reform
Poverty
Public Health
Public Opinion
Race
Regulation
Sarah Palin
Science
Sports
Stimulus
taxes
Technology
Trade
transportation
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Contact Matthew Yglesias
Use this form to contact blog author Matthew Yglesias.
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
November 8th, 2009 at 5:23 pm
Who knows what will happen in the Senate or later in conference? Some bill will emerge, and Democrats will have something (probably not much) to brag about. Who knows?
But one thing I know for sure: Stupak will remain. Hell, it might even be made worse. But it will not go away. Too damn few Democrats have the courage to stand up for women.
Part of my future decisionmaking on political contributions will be based on whether or not an alleged Democrat voted against women. And, I fear, that test, combined with my refusal to contribute to anyone who hasn’t voted in favor of equality for gay Americans, means that I won’t be able to find a lot of objects of financial and other support.
Sigh …
November 8th, 2009 at 5:36 pm
bring pressure to bear on both the composition of the inevitable conference committee
How does one go about doing that? I’d love to know.
November 8th, 2009 at 5:48 pm
“Charmingly I expect that in the next few days all your liberal dude friends will be trying to explain to you that this is really no big deal, look, they had to get the Republicans/”Democrats” onboard SOMEHOW, this is just a battle but we won the war, etc etc.”
Oh yeah. Most of them are over at the huffpo right now, trying to beat down any woman who voices any objection in just that manner. Though some of them do get quite nasty.
November 8th, 2009 at 5:49 pm
240 voted for the Stupak amendment, 220 for the bill.
Those who voted for the amendment and against the bill get to brag on their “moderate/conservative” credentials, while keeping their for-profit health care sponsors.
November 8th, 2009 at 6:00 pm
I second Neil’s question. Are there examples of some sort of grassroots pressure affecting conference committee actions?
Also, it seems to me that before that point, pressure must be applied in the Senate to make sure that no similar amendment is added there, because if it is it’s guaranteed that the bill emerging from the conference committee will have it.
November 8th, 2009 at 6:08 pm
We don’t have a bill from the Senate yet. My guess is that they will need Snowe.
I will also guess that Stupak language will be added in the Senate, and from conference will come a bill that retains Stupak and drops the public option(or unpullable triggers). House progressives will be told just before the Xmas break to save their President. Obama will declare the result the greatest progressive achievement since women got the vote, and Democrats will outright lose the House in 2010.
November 8th, 2009 at 6:09 pm
How hard do you think antichoice Harry Reid is going to fight such amendments?
I too would like to “bring pressure to bear on both the composition of the inevitable conference committee and also the shape of its deliberations”, Matt, but how the heck do you do that? It sounds so obscure, even by political junkie standards.
November 8th, 2009 at 6:14 pm
I’m very happy about the Stupak amendment, though I almost certainly would have supported the bill without it. I am also pleased with the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ endorsement of the House bill as modified by the amendment:
For the Catholic Church, health care is a basic human right and providing health care is an essential ministry. We pick up the pieces of this failing system in our emergency rooms, clinics, parishes and communities. This is why we strongly support Congressional action on health care reform which protects human life and dignity and serves the poor and vulnerable as a moral imperative and an urgent national priority.
Progressives, myself included, are quick to complain when Church heirarchy says something with which we disagree or that seems out of touch or objectionable, so I thought it made sense to point out a situation when they are advancing a progressive cause.
November 8th, 2009 at 6:18 pm
Hugo, you are aware, aren’t you, that the church was going to ditch those sentiments about that “basic human right” and “essential ministry” and fight health care reform like mad if they didn’t get their way on the Stupak amendment? They played a game of extortion, and it looks like they’ve won.
November 8th, 2009 at 6:23 pm
Maybe we get Olympia Snowe back on board by offering her the head of Bart Stupak.
I guess I have too much Nancy-faith to think she really let that amendment through with any chance it’d be in the final bill. And the Senate isn’t likely to stick anything like that in. So I’m optimistic.
November 8th, 2009 at 6:23 pm
bob mcmanus: Snowe’s pro-choice. A Stupak amendment would do fairly little to win her over. (Concievably, she might support it out of token bipartisanship, but even then, it seems weird.) The pro-life votes that Democrats can get are Democratic pro-lifers, such as Ben Nelson. But there are many other ways to get Ben Nelson’s vote.
Plus, the thing about the Senate is that you’re allowed to fillibuster amendments too. They’d need to get a lot of Democratic Senators to vote for such a measure.
November 8th, 2009 at 6:30 pm
Yeah, if you’re trying to get Snowe, you offer to kill the Stupak stuff.
November 8th, 2009 at 6:48 pm
Usergoogol: Plenty of people who are pro-choice also don’t like the idea of the government paying for abortions, so the idea that every pro-choice person is against the Stupak amendment is wrong. Your assertion that only pro-lifers will be influenced positively by the Stupak amendment is incorrect.
I believe that the majority of Americans oppose federal funding of abortion.
November 8th, 2009 at 6:56 pm
Hugo, you are aware, aren’t you, that the church was going to ditch those sentiments about that “basic human right” and “essential ministry” and fight health care reform like mad if they didn’t get their way on the Stupak amendment? They played a game of extortion, and it looks like they’ve won.
No, I wasn’t aware of that, and would like to see where they said that. Since I support the amendment (though also likely would support the bill without the amendment), all I saw was them trying to improve a piece of legislation in which the Church has an obvious vested interest. You oppose the amendment and so saw an entity operating in bad faith. Fair enough.
That said, if what you suggest had come to pass, the bill had gone to the House floor without the amendment, passed, and the USCCB had cynically opposed it in the manner you suggest, I would have been displeased with their action, would have considered their position, and almost certainly would have supported the bill regardless. I’m Catholic but I don’t consider myself bound to support or oppose legislation based on their position. But I’m pleased when they take a position I consider to be in line with progressive values. It’s not always easy to be an American progressive and an American Catholic, so when the two things do line up I tend to take notice.
November 8th, 2009 at 7:07 pm
Glaivester: The Stupak amendment is not about the government paying for abortions; it already doesn’t do that. The Stupak amendment is about preventing health insurance plans from covering abortions.
November 8th, 2009 at 7:20 pm
Hugo, here’s an address of just one article, from Reuters, where the church states its opposition to reform without their preferred abortion policy.
http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS207636+30-Oct-2009+PRN20091030
“If these serious concerns are not addressed, the final bill should be opposed.”
It’s also true that many American Catholics support abortion rights. And as you show, not every anti-abortion Catholic wants to lobby against a Stupak-less bill like the church hierarchy.
November 8th, 2009 at 7:22 pm
P.S. to everyone — Does anyone else think it’s strange that an all-male group like the US Conf. of Catholic Bishops gets any special say on women’s reproductive rights?!
November 8th, 2009 at 7:27 pm
This is another example of, “Conservatives run on the idea that government is inefficient, then they get elected and prove it.”
“Conservatives run on the idea that government will ration health care and get in the way of the doctor-patient relationship, then they get elected and prove it.”
November 8th, 2009 at 7:29 pm
“Strange” would be quite an improvement over what it is—it’s normal. Status quo. Par for the course. Etc.
November 8th, 2009 at 7:44 pm
It’s also true that many American Catholics support abortion rights. And as you show, not every anti-abortion Catholic wants to lobby against a Stupak-less bill like the church hierarchy.
I very much agree. Nor do all pro-choice folks necessarily support public funding for abortions or for health-care plans that cover them. Thanks for the link, by the way.
P.S. to everyone — Does anyone else think it’s strange that an all-male group like the US Conf. of Catholic Bishops gets any special say on women’s reproductive rights?!
I don’t know whether or not that would be strange, but I’m not aware that they do have any “say.” I certainly would not want them to have any say insofar as that means any authority over the matter, but I think they have the right to voice their opinion. As you point out, their ability to drive American (or Catholic, for that matter) opinion is pretty limited.
November 8th, 2009 at 7:49 pm
Am I surprised no. Am I happy about it, no. But, I know enough conservatives to know that wild claims that the dems are using health care to fund abortion carry much weight with them. I guess I consider abortion to be a secondary issue. Healthcare, Climate/energy, and avoiding a future takeover of my country by rightwing goons, those are my first order issues. I’m willing (not happy) to sacrifice second order issues in order to obtain the first order ones. Thats the nature of politics. You can’t get what you want. With a lot of hard work and effort, you just might get what you need.
November 8th, 2009 at 8:25 pm
The Stupak amendment is not about the government paying for abortions; it already doesn’t do that. The Stupak amendment is about preventing health insurance plans from covering abortions.
Well, I would say it arguably preserves the status quo, in that in neither furthers nor hinders the pro choice cause WRT government money. I mean, if women could have abortions covered by taxpayer-subsidized health insurance, that would be a modest move toward government money paying for abortion. Money is fungible, after all, so taxpayer money that goes to an insurance compnay in the form of a subsidy can’t really be segregated from the insurance company money that ultimately goes to pay the clinic that performs the procedure.
In other words, it preserves the status quo:
A) Women will continue to receive a tax code subsidy for group plan policies that cover abortion as per the status quo;
b) Women will still be free to pay for abortions out of pocket;
C) There will simply continue to be a barrier (as per the status quo) of taxpayer cash going directly to pay for abortions.
Now, obviously a lot of people feel it would be a change for the better if government money were allowed to directly pay for abortions. But what you can’t argue is that this isn’t a change (toward the abortion rights side of the equation) from the status quo. Because it is.
Because of the sheer size and scope of the legislation, it’s tempting to use this as an occasion to further this or that worthy cause that’s not central to the issue. But doing so is a risky strategy, and in this case very nearly caused a major problem.
November 8th, 2009 at 8:33 pm
I think that letting Stupak in did damage even if it does get removed in conference. It’s highlighted the fact that the program will subsidize abortions, which I had not been hearing about before. I know that conservatives definitely would have gotten around to accusing Dems of funding abortions in the 2010 primaries even if Stupak had never been voted on (they’ll do that if it’s even remotely close to true), but now the issue will be more salient. Now there’s going to be a big fuss about it, and if it’s removed, the fact that it originally passed is going to give conservatives the impression that it was a viable amendment and Borderline Democrat X could have kept it in if he’d really cared to.
I feel like if Stupak hadn’t passed, and especially if it hadn’t been voted on, conservatives would still whine about abortion subsidies, but it would be the same old whine they’ve made before and wouldn’t be as powerful. Others would be able to argue that it’s just a side-effect of the reform, that slight subsidies won’t really make any difference, that it wasn’t under discussion and Borderline Democrat X never had a say on it.
November 8th, 2009 at 8:38 pm
I think that letting Stupak in did damage even if it does get removed in conference. It’s highlighted the fact that the program will subsidize abortions, which I had not been hearing about before.
But “the program” won’t subsidize abortions if the Stupack amendment sticks. That’s the point. My guess is this helps passage in the other chamber, pre or post conference. Maybe I’m getting the dynamics of the two chambers completely wrong, but I had thought it was pretty clear that the Senate is the less progressive of the two houses, and a bill that makes it out of conference is therefore likely to be more conservative than what the House just passed. That’s why it was important to make the House bill as important as possible.
November 8th, 2009 at 8:53 pm
In response to Jasper, I think Stupak does move us a bit to the right of the status quo on abortion. Right now people with enough money buy individual coverage privately and unsubsidized. The plan may or may not cover abortion–that’s decided by the customer and the insurer, the balance of power between those two depending on circumstances.
With the House bill passed, private, unsubsidized plans covering abortion will still exist. However, anyone getting subsidized plans–which includes a few people who have unsubsidized plans now–will not have that. It will also encourage providers not to cover abortion by default, and fuel a popular conception that health insurance normally does not cover abortion.
Most importantly, the public option, which is supposed to provide a better alternative to private plans, and which we hope many people will sign up for without subsidies, will not cover abortion. So if people move from private plans to the public plan, many of them will be giving up abortion coverage.
Also, what impact does this have on abortions necessary to save a mother’s life? It seems like those couldn’t be covered. And does Medicaid seriously not cover those now? I actually thought Medicaid had some abortion coverage currently–I believe that’s a big sticking point which prevents many state assemblymen in California from supporting the budget every year.
November 8th, 2009 at 8:59 pm
It seems to me that the biggest effect it will have is that if a woman wants coverage for abortion, she’ll have to buy it separately, which creates a document with her expressed view on abortion. Guess Oklahoma can start posting data online about women who purchase abortion coverage.
November 8th, 2009 at 9:01 pm
And does Medicaid seriously not cover those now? I actually thought Medicaid had some abortion coverage currently–I believe that’s a big sticking point which prevents many state assemblymen in California from supporting the budget every year.
No idea. I had thought the Hyde amendment was pretty strict on this. Medicaid is a state-federal partnership, though, so perhaps that’s how the issue is finessed. Come to think of it, that would be a way to finesse Stupack in a post-healthcare reform world: progressive states could vote to allocate funds to pay for the abortions of poor women.
November 8th, 2009 at 9:09 pm
Sorry for a third post. . . .
I agree that the Senate is typically more conservative and anti-abortion, but that doesn’t definitely mean that they’ll adopt any conservative measure the House does. It’ll come down to politicking, and there are a couple possibilities:
1. 41 Dems could filibuster a Stupak amendment
2. Snowe could oppose it since she’s Queen.
I wouldn’t count on those, but the argument I think Matt and others are really making is that it could get killed in conference, even if the larger Senate does support it. Remember, Nancy Pelosi is pro-choice and doesn’t actually want Stupak included in the final bill (right?). Most Dems will be the same way. And the conference committee has the power to rewrite the whole bill if it wants to even if both houses pass Stupak (right?). So there’s a line of thinking that Pelosi may have let Stupak through now for convenience with the intention to just kill it later–she can probably still whip up enough votes with it removed, but it’s a pain. I think Stupak could very well make it through (even if the Senate rejects it!) but it will come down to the composition of the conference committee.
November 8th, 2009 at 9:23 pm
I have a hard time getting worked up about this. Abortions are pretty cheap, about $500 usually. It costs me $500 to get a doctor to renew a prescription for a skin cream. In fact, I can’t really do anything involving a doctor that costs less than $500. $500 is basically free for me. If we have to give this up so a patient might be able to get a million dollars worth of cancer treatment, so be it. The cost of an abortion really isn’t going to bankrupt anyone. Cancer will and does.
November 8th, 2009 at 9:30 pm
11,12
1) Won’t get Lieberman
2) Get Nelson etc with Stupak
3) Get Snowe with triggers
Result = Stupak & Triggers
November 8th, 2009 at 9:38 pm
It’s insane to listen to conservative congresspeople talk about how bad it would be for bureaucrats to come between you and your doctor, and then immediately vote for an amendment that comes between you and your doctor. And then celebrate themselves for it.
November 8th, 2009 at 9:48 pm
The “fungible” argument is a crock.
Lawyers, accountants, bankers, and government officials segregate funds into different accounts every single day, and, truth be told, many a white-collar criminal has gone to jail for mingling funds that should have been legally separate. Our modern economy revolves around controlling the “fungibility” of money.
And if it’s some kind of moral, not legal, kind of fungibility that is at issue, why draw the line here? The government subsidizes an interstate highway system that enables the inexpensive transport of medical equipment and supplies. By the standard being used in Stupak, “money is fungible, after all,” so taxpayer money that goes to enabling the transport of medical supplies “can’t really be segregated from the” money that ultimately goes to pay for supplies to equip the clinic that performs the procedure. Ooop! Better cut that funding now. Government funds are also going to keep the clinics safe from foreign invasions. “Money is fungible”, so we can’t really separate any portion of money going to fund the Pentagon from that small fraction going to pay for protecting abortion clinics, so we’ll have to stop funding the Department of Defense, too.
November 8th, 2009 at 10:48 pm
Abortions are pretty cheap, about $500 usually.
Which is fine if you have a middle-class job, but there’s plenty of people out there living paycheck to paycheck. Especially single mothers who really don’t need another mouth to feed.
November 8th, 2009 at 11:11 pm
It seems like feminist groups hate this amendment more out of principal than its actual consequences.
November 8th, 2009 at 11:52 pm
“Which is fine if you have a middle-class job, but there’s plenty of people out there living paycheck to paycheck.”
I’m with you there. Hell, I’ve been there myself. But that’s why I donate to clinics that provide health care to the poor. Health care I can’t always get myself. But I do think we’d be better off just donating to those clinics than bitching about this provision. It’s stupid provision, but if a poor person can get cancer treatment if we add in this restriction, then it’s worth it. If you think that poor mother is going to have trouble coming up with the money for an abortion, think about how much trouble she’s going to have when it’s breast cancer. She’s going to need $500 dollars in blood tests alone every week. This bill does screw her on the abortions, but it also helps her on cancer. Nasty trade-off, but I’ll take it.
November 8th, 2009 at 11:53 pm
thehova Wrote:
Right. And if they’re still feeling raw about it when the midterm elections roll around, they can run a strong feminist primary challenger against Bart Stupak. And they’ll lose.
November 9th, 2009 at 1:36 am
Yeah, of course Democrats should still vote for the bill as a whole.
Funding poor people’s health care of any kind through charitable donations is a noble thing for individuals to do, but it’s only a stopgap until public funding can be brought to bear.
November 9th, 2009 at 1:38 am
No, dudes, the feminist groups are exactly right and the bill has huge consequences. You’re going to see private providers drop abortion coverage en masse so that they can get in on the exchanges. See the first item here:
http://lefarkins.blogspot.com/2009/11/responding-to-stupak-pitts.html
November 9th, 2009 at 2:10 am
The only way Nance got to 220 was with Stupak. What’s going to change post-conference? If she has half a brain – she does – she won’t mess with success.
November 9th, 2009 at 3:01 am
For anyone interested, I’ll answer my own question. The federal government is already prohibited from funding abortions and has been since ‘67. But until now that didn’t really touch health insurance because the feds weren’t the sole funders of Medicare/Medicaid (I guess it might apply to the VA/federal employees though).
Medi-Cal (CA’s Medicaid) covers abortions using state money. The legislature actually tried to stop that, but the CA Supreme Court decided that the CA constitution requires Medi-Cal to cover abortions! So if you’re on Medicaid in CA your free plan is required to cover abortions, and if you make slightly more your subsidized plan will be prohibited from covering abortions. Awesome.
November 9th, 2009 at 4:46 am
I don’t understand why everyone is acting surprised about this. Obama explicitly promised in his speech that whatever health reform passed wouldn’t pay for abortions. Now, obviously that’s bad policy, but it seems like even worse politics to go back on that.
November 9th, 2009 at 6:38 am
Re: Obama explicitly promised in his speech that whatever health reform passed wouldn’t pay for abortions. Now, obviously that’s bad policy
First, let’s diffrentiate between elective abortion and those that are mnedically nece4ssary. Does the Stupak amendment affect the latter class? If so, then yes, it’s bad policy. But if it simply forbids the government to pay for the former sort of abortion, then why is that even a problem? No one would be wringing their hands over an insurance reform that did not make liposuction and breast augmentation a mandated benefit. Health insurance generally doesn’t pay for procuedures that are not medically indicated. Elective abortion is in this same category.
November 9th, 2009 at 6:56 am
I am 35 year old graduate. I am only one son of my parents. My father was a business man, he lost big money in his business and Bankrupt in 1986, that time I was in high school. Bank officials harrased him very cruely , they took legal steps to my father and post aution sale for our house and he suffered mental agony and died of heart attack on 1990. After my father death my mother faced many obstacles, now she is an arthritis patient, she cant walk with out anyones help. The last 19 years I have been fighting legally with bank, I lost all my hard earned money, now I am big zero and struggling for my daily needs. Now they are going to sale my house by auction for US$ 60,000.00. I don’t know where I can go with my mother? I am asking only one dollar per person, that the cost of your bed coffee or cigar (you can donate as much as you can). My paypal id is forrysakki@rediffmail.com or use the below link
By Sakki
November 9th, 2009 at 7:02 am
I think it is just awesome how the only tax payers who count are pro-lifers, if you’re pro-choice then you’re a 2nd rate tax-payer. Awesome!
November 9th, 2009 at 8:04 am
Come to think of it there is lots more room under the Obama bus.
Though personally I hope the Dems do force middle class Americans to pay for abortions on demand and medical insurance for illegals and that the final bill is way over 900 billion$$$.
2010 is just around the corner!
November 9th, 2009 at 8:59 am
I hate to say, “I told you so,” but, well, I told you so — enacting universal health care will inevitably lead to abortion being wiped out through fiscal/economic regulatory means that will almost certainly be upheld by the Supreme Court.
November 9th, 2009 at 9:02 am
When talking with men who may not consider abortion rights to be that important, I’m going to try to start a trend of referring to policies that are anti-choice as being “compulsory paternity” policies. The Stupak amendment isn’t just an anti-abortion measure that just hurts women; it’s a compulsory paternity measure that forces men into fatherhood.
November 9th, 2009 at 9:19 am
This whole bill needs to die a nasty, septic death. Even without Stupak it would be a substantive and political disaster, with the insurance bloodsuckers merrily jacking up premiums at the same time as people are being forced to buy their overprices fraudulent policies. I have no idea WTF the “progressives” who voted for this turd were thinking. Many of them, in doing so, directly violated their promise to oppose any bill without a robust public option, a promise that netted many of them significant campaign contributions. Fool me once…
November 9th, 2009 at 9:41 am
Hugo,
I look forward to the vigorous and highly public debate amongst Church officials about whether someone can vote for an opponent of health care reform and still be considered a Catholic, and whether Sam Brownback should be excommunicated or not.
November 9th, 2009 at 9:47 am
The way Medicaid and abortion works is as follows:
Medicaid is funded 90% federally and 10% by state.
The federal funding can’t pay for abortions.
In 9 or 10 states, the constitutional language mandates that Medicaid recipients get the same protections as everybody else.
Thus, abortions are fully covered, under the 10% state contribution.
The Capps compromise was based precisely on this precedent. Abortion coverage would be offered, and “premiums” would be swapped for “the states”.
Stupak, on the other hand, prohibits private insurers from receiving subsidies if they cover abortion. That’s the Hyde equivalent of forcing those 9 or 10 states to drop abortion coverage, not the Hyde equivalent of maintaining the status quo.
Stupak is the biggest federal assault on women’s rights since the Hyde Amendment. Thanks, Dems.
Furthermore, it’s asinine policy. It’s going to:
1. Force all women to buy an abortion rider, thus paying more for the same benefits they have now. Great way to make white women vote Republican.
2. Force poor pregnant women to decide between an abortion and rent. That’s an economic drag on private spending. Or…
3. The poor woman will have the baby. Now they’re on welfare for 18 years! Way to go, “fiscal conservatives”.
There’s no reason at all to be handling private abortion coverage in this debate. The Capps compromise IS the status quo, and a group of zealots want their pound of flesh in exchange for their support. Pelosi should have told them to kick rocks and introduce the ban as a separate bill.
Instead, she told Progressives to kick rocks. She could’ve picked up the necessary votes by allowing a floor vote on single payer and/or Medicare +5.
Instead, she bowed whole-heartedly to conservatives and threw libs under the bus. Didn’t we vow not to get thrown under the bus on this one?
November 9th, 2009 at 10:14 am
Well, more precisely, most of the 57 “progressive” Representatives who vowed to execute a real Progressive Block, and who received monetary contributions from us on the basis of that promise, threw us under the bus. Yet again.
I’m not listening any more to people who yammer about how progressives “have” to work within the Democratic Party. Somebody needs to start a serious progressive third party. I’ll volunteer for its local organization if that happens. But Democrats? Fuck ‘em.
November 9th, 2009 at 10:57 am
Hugo,
I look forward to the vigorous and highly public debate amongst Church officials about whether someone can vote for an opponent of health care reform and still be considered a Catholic, and whether Sam Brownback should be excommunicated or not.
Though not with those exact parameters, I am at least as disappointed as you (probably much moreso) that such a debate will not occur. That said, watch what other right-to-life groups do with the bill now…
November 9th, 2009 at 11:01 am
Stupak, on the other hand, prohibits private insurers from receiving subsidies if they cover abortion.
Is this accurate? In other words, does Stupack merely prevent private health insurance carriers from covering abortion in the plans they sell via the exchange (which means taxpayer subsidies)? Or do they also have to refrain from covering abortion even in their non-subsidized plans (ie., plans they sell in the employer-provided group market). If it’s the latter, this is a bigger deal than I thought, because it pretty much shuts down abortion coverage in (I’m guessing) about 90% of the private health insurance market (because most health insurance firms will presumably want a shot at the new, subsidized market created by the madate).
If it’s the latter, it’s hyperventilating about a failure to kill Hyde via stealth (in other words it’s a failure to overturn the status quo). There’s a big difference between the two. I’ll have to read the language as soon as I have time.
November 9th, 2009 at 2:48 pm
One of the first major intrusions by the government that conservatives so decry is to support a social conservative principle. Not only the left gets to push people around when the government shows up…
Don’t you just love irony!
November 9th, 2009 at 3:34 pm
Employers will be allowed to buy any coverage they want. However, employers will be allowed to buy from the exchange over time, because the goal is to have everybody in the exchange and in the same risk pool.
So, eventually there’ll be no more abortion coverage period OR current reform will have failed, insofar as the exchanges will not have worked.
In the meantime, businesses are going to try to buy from the exchange once it becomes more cost-effective to do so–that’s the point of the whole enterprise. That’ll put women in a very awkward position, in which they’ll have to petition their bosses to maintain the costlier old insurance for the sake of keeping abortion benefits, or be forced to pay a rider.
Then some Catholic douchebags will hear about it, and we’ll all be forced to put velvet paintings of the Virgin fucking Mary in every office building.
I know that’s going to offend Hector, who is precisely the kind of Catholic douchebag that I want to keep thousands of miles away from my wife’s vagina.
November 9th, 2009 at 3:55 pm
No one’s going to buy a supplementary plan just for abortions. They’ll pay out of pocket.
November 9th, 2009 at 8:04 pm
Miles,
I’m Anglican, you fool. Look up Anglo-Catholicism and the Oxford Movement on wikipedia if you want a better understanding of just what I believe. Though I hold some views which are heterodox by any standard.
Re: The Stupak amendment isn’t just an anti-abortion measure that just hurts women; it’s a compulsory paternity measure that forces men into fatherhood.
Good. If you’re absolutely not ready to be a father under any circumstances, then keep it in your f*cking pants. And if you would like to minimize the risks as much as possible, while still being ready to accept the consequences if you’re unlucky (i.e. marriage and fatherhood) then use birth control and/or NFP, assiduously.
What you call forcing men into paternity, I call forcing men into responsibility.
Hugo, I’m also thrilled by this amendment, though I would have supported the bill without it. Thank God!
November 10th, 2009 at 4:03 am
Jasper @ 53: You’re asking the right question — I don’t know the answer for sure myself. But by the very $-is-fungible argument being used to justify the amendment, shouldn’t we have a strong presumption about the answer?
November 11th, 2009 at 2:17 pm
Hector,
This is off the main page now, but I certainly think that men should share the responsibility for any children they father. My point was mainly a polemical one, a way to get men who might be notionally pro-choice to care more about the issue.
Since we irreconcilably disagree on this, I won’t try to convince you, but another polemical point I’ll throw out here is to suggest that abortion rights be called “heterosexual rights”. After all, people of the same sex can fuck to their hearts’ content and not have to worry about having an unwanted pregnancy — why shouldn’t people of different sexes be able to as well?