Late Friday night Nancy Pelosi and the House of Representatives were burning the midnight oil trying to figure out a way to pass a health care bill. 
One problem remained, abortion. After years of pestering the democrats it once again reared its ugly head becoming a hurdle for the historic vote to take place. Ms Pelosi, an ardent defender of abortion rights, had no choice but to give in and allow a vote on Stupak’s amendment. In the end, the pro-life lawmakers united and helped pass the bill by a vote of 220 to 215.
Without getting into all the other complexities and problems of the 1990 page bill, let’s just look at what the Stupak Amendment is, how it affects abortions rights, and its future in the Senate. As Johnny noted in Quick Hits, some of the far left are outraged by the amendment. Rachel Maddow says “With a single amendment Congress is making a legal medical procedure potentially unattainable for a huge number of American women.”
Taking it even further Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) said, “It was extremely painful for me to feel compelled to vote for a bill that contained that kind of restriction on a woman’s ability to make her own reproductive choices,”
Let’s be clear, this amendment has nothing to do with a women’s ability to make her choices. It won’t even make a legal procedure that currently cost around 350$ cost more. What it will do is:
Restrict only the new marketplace (a.k.a. the “exchange”) that the bill would create for uninsured individuals and small businesses. It should have no effects on the group insurance policies that cover many American workers now. The Stupak amendment would prohibit federal dollars (That’s what Obama wants right?) from being used to buy any policy offered through the exchange that covered abortions other than those related to rape, incest or danger to the mother’s life.
So what exactly changed that has the pro-choice crowd so upset? From what I understand, they make the argument that the poorest women will be left unable to pay for elective abortions. So what do the poorest of poor women do now to afford abortions? From the latest statistics I have found in 2001 is that only 13% of abortions were paid for by health insurance companies. Some states pay for “medically necessary” abortions through their own Medicaid program. From what I can see the poorest of the poor should still be able to receive their abortion coverage, but it may be a different story for the working class poor who have no choice but to buy insurance policies through the insurance exchange. The question of public funding for abortions has been an integral part of the battle over abortion rights for years, however, it seems to me that the majority of the public and even Obama wants to limit the federal funding.
On to the Amendments future. From early reports, it looks to be much tougher to pass similar legislation in the Senate. The Senate is much more pro-choice, and it looks as though longtime abortion rights stalwart Senator Barbara Boxer will be able to stop any vote on a bill with language resembling the Stupak amendment. Then on Monday night President Obama went on ABC news and hinted that something would need to change.
3conservativebros
MacGregor
Johnny M
Timmy K
A few things. First, the less insurance companies pay for abortions, the cheaper they will be. Second, doesnt Maddows aggravation outline the glaring difference between the left and the right? God forbid these women getting pregnant take responsibility for themselves and either use protection, or not have sex… But that simply obliterates the left wing view that we are even victims of our own choices… See Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan……
Good point about the insurance companies paying for them. Nevermind the evidence with lasic surgery or breast enhancements.
Individual responsibility, it always comes back to this. The left will scream some people don’t have a fair shot therefore you can’t enforce it. Which is valid but it is also crippling.
The fact that there are more strenuous arguments to caveats interspersed throughout the bill, is a signal to me that the bill cannot be grasped in its entirety. A popular expression is “the devil is in the details” If this holds true, the more details, the more devil, figuratively speaking anyway. I don’t have a direct response to your post MacGregor, as abortion, like gun control is an emotional hot button issue for both sides. All this “outrage” comes as no surprise. To me, the shame is only small portions of the bill will inspire debate, because 2,000 pages is to unwieldy for damn near anybody, even the blueblood halls of congress. As long as bills are this long, complex, and confusing, pundits on both sides will be able to spin lies, riddles and half truths ad nauseum. Who has the time and energy to wade through a behemoth like that.
If transparency is a true goal and worthy goal of representative government, then a bill like this would fly in the face of that goal, as would an unauditable federal reserve, a secret CIA budget, a DOD budget that is forty percent black, etc. I write the above in part to write the following. If the focus remains on the minutiae, and I’m not trying to trivialize abortion, but this bill is not good for employment, and its not good for those it was designed to help. At this time what must remain at the forefront of all discussion is immediate and future impact on jobs. Lastly, if anybody is interested in some interesting economic articles, and/or the Austrian school, check out the Ludwig Von Mises Institute: http://mises.org/
“Who has the time and energy to wade through a behemoth like that.”
Your right, not me and sadly not even the lawmakers who wrote it. But I disagree with you on the commentary, I think the pundits on both sides do a pretty good job laying out some of the problems that should be debated. Yes, they can spin it out of control, but that is your job to decipher each of the sources reliability.
Our wishes of transparency and therefore accountability are long gone. Dick Morris stresses that in his book, the beaucrats have created a language which it is to hard normal person to understand. So that these average people are inferior to run for offices or question beaucrats work.
“immediate and future impact on jobs”
I agree completly…. but the administration will tell you health care reform will have the greatest impact on the economy.
I feel similar to Gabe in the fact that I hate discussing abortion. Id say Im pro-life, but then there are exceptions where I wouldnt be, and i dont feel comfortable telling other people what to do in regards to health care options. I think it should be a state choice, not a federal one, but that was decided long ago.
What I do find interesting is how far the pro-choice lobby is pushing this, and not stating the facts of abortion. I heard the President of NOW on the radio earlier this week saying they would not support the health care bill at all if this amendment was added. Stupak (first time a Northern MI congressman has ever been recognized in Congress!) has been absolutely destroyed by Maddow/Olby and the like this week.Plus, like you wrote, we are still so early in the process…we are nowhere close to where the final bill will bill.
I wonder what this attention will do for Stupak’s re-election efforts in 2010? Knowing the region, I think it will do him well…Im sure that plays some part in writing the amendment in the first place.
Case in point, yesterdays Maddow: http://www.mediaite.com/online/rachel-maddow-explains-stupaks-draconian-amendment/
[…] will not support a health-care bill that fails to include a ban on taxpayer subsidy like the Stupak Amendment. Here is a video of Bishop Tobin standing up for his actions on the O Reilly […]
[…] will not support a health-care bill that fails to include a ban on taxpayer subsidy like the Stupak Amendment. Here is a video of Bishop Tobin standing up for his actions on the O Reilly […]