Follow-up on abortion and health care
There’s an interesting article in today’s New York Times about the fight within the Democratic Party over the issue of abortion funding in the health care reform bill. The entire article is well worth reading, but here are some snippets, followed by some random thoughts of mine:
Lawmakers pushing the abortion restrictions say they feel the momentum is on their side, especially because the restlessness of other Democratic moderates is making every vote count.
At least 31 House Democrats have signed various recent letters to the House speaker,Nancy Pelosi, urging her to allow a vote on a measure to restrict use of the subsidies to pay for abortion, including 25 who joined more than 100 Republicans on a letter delivered Monday.
Representative Bart Stupak of Michigan, a leading Democratic abortion opponent, said he had commitments from 40 Democrats to block the health care bill unless they have a chance to include the restrictions.
After months of pushing the issue, Mr. Stupak said in an interview, Mr. Obama finally called him 10 days ago. “He said: ‘Look, try to get this thing worked out among the Democrats. We want you to work it out within the party,’ ” Mr. Stupak said, adding that Mr. Obama did not say whether he supported the segregated-money provision or a more sweeping restriction. “We got his attention, which we never had before.”
After the president called, Mr. Stupak said, Ms. Pelosi agreed to meet with Mr. Stupak on Tuesday to discuss his proposals for the first time, her office confirmed. Her spokesman, Nadeam Elshami, said in a statement, “As we have throughout the process, we are meeting with our members to listen to their concerns, consulting with the administration, and making progress.”
The Senate Finance Committee is expected to vote this week on a proposed amendment from Senator Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah, to restrict the use of federal subsidies.
Advocates on both sides said that if the committee does not adopt the amendment they expect a very close contest over the issue when the bill reaches the floor. Two Democratic abortion-rights opponents, Senator Bob Casey Jr. of Pennsylvania and Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska, are pushing the issue.
Mr. Casey voted in the Senate health committee for a proposal to restrict the use of the subsidies; it was defeated by one vote. Mr. Nelson is considered a pivotal vote needed to pass the overall bill. “Senator Nelson does not believe that taxpayer dollars should be used in any way to fund abortion,” his spokesman said.
[...]
Advocates of tighter restrictions note that the health insurance program for federal employees complies with the ban on abortion financing by excluding any plans that offer abortion.
And under the Hatch amendment in the Senate or the Stupak proposals in the House, women would be free to pay extra for an insurance “rider” that would cover abortions.
The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, which has lobbied for decades to persuade the government to provide universal health insurance, says it opposes the bill unless it bans the use of subsidies for plans that cover abortion.
“We have said to the White House and various Senate offices that we could be the best friends to this bill if our concerns are met,” Richard M. Doerflinger, a spokesman for the bishops on abortion issues, said in an interview. “But the concerns are kind of intractable.”
A couple of points:
1. As the USCCB spokesman implied, the health care bill represents probably the best opportunity since the beginning of this Administration for the President to make good on his promise of seeking common ground with abortion opponents. The question is this: does President Obama recognize that “common ground,” by definition, does require his side to give up something? Judging by his previous actions on the life issues (the Mexico City policy, embryonic stem cells, etc.), he has been thus far been unwilling to break the promises that he made as a candidate to the abortion lobby. Since one of those promises was that a public health care plan would cover abortions, the President’s actions on this issue will show if he is serious about common ground, or if it is just rhetoric meant to screen his loyalty to this highly influential lobby. Here’s hoping he surprises us.
2. If the final health care plan excludes abortion, it will be due entirely to the efforts of these pro-life Democrats in the House and Senate. It will happen in spite of, not because of, the actions of the “mainstream” pro-life movement, for example ALL and its now-infamous “Bury Obamacare with Kennedy” signs. For more detailed Vox Nova discussions about how such organizations have been undermining this effort, go here and here. I wonder if, once the whole health care debate dies down, any of the movement’s leaders will recognize this and take the time for some much-needed self-reflection.
Comments are closed.
The question is this: does President Obama recognize that “common ground,” by definition, does require his side to give up something?
Finding common ground does not require either side to give up something. It requires each side to recognize things they have in common and combine forces to work toward those things.
Some of us have had the uncharitable suspicion that pro-life declarations that one cannot morally vote for a health care reform bill that advances abortion had more to do with a desire to kill health care reform than to promote pro-life.
Now that it seems possible that we could get a health care reform bill that improves on the status quo, would the pro-life movement prove us wrong by saying the health care bill MUST be supported if the Stupak or Hatch amendments are adopted? Or is is okay to put reservation against a “government take-over of health care” above abortion?
Kurt: somehow I have a feeling that those no matter what restrictions are attached to the bill, those organizations will find a reason to oppose it.
Mickey,
If they do, it permanently puts to rest the claim that the abortion issue must trump all other issues.
I think your point 2 is a tad too sweeping.
That being what is needed is Obama’s word that there will no such funding which means he needs to get off the fence.
THe danger here this will get to the reconcillation committiee where the real work is done and be added back in.
Last I checked, Obama wasn’t imperial commander. If people want to look to leadership, they need to hold Nancy Pelosi for starters accountable. She has significant power.
Kurt:
ignoratio elenchi
Kurt: I don’t know about that. However, it would, IMHO, make pro-lifers look like hypocrites, which isn’t exactly a good thing when we’re trying to convince more people to become pro-life.
My understanding is that the Speaker has agreed to allow Stupak to offer an amendment on the floor. And the Hatch amendment is already in order for the Senate floor. From what I have seen, taking shots at the President or the Speaker are Right to Life’s favorite sports. Now they have to go office by office and make a convincing and reasoned case for an “aye” vote on these amendments. Much less fun than writing for Glenn Beck.
This article makes me take a hard look at myself and my politics. Am I as uncharitable from the Catholic right as this article is from the Catholic left? I will have to keep a closer eye on myself.
The article makes the mistake of gloating over something that hasn’t happened yet, and may not happen. Secondly, it takes credit rather than sharing it. Thirdly, it (actually, the thread that follows it) assigns future bad actions to fellow Catholics.
That second point is worth looking at further. The article gives all the credit to pro-life Democrats – but do they exist in a vacuum? Haven’t Casey, Hatch, and others received support from the mainstream pro-life movement? Hasn’t the movement consistently served as a check against pro-choicers? While individual pro-lifers have been “pro-life and”, the movement has welcomed any allies it can find. If there’s a demonic side to the overall movement, I haven’t seen it.
And where were the pro-life liberals celebrating our joint victory when Kerry lost the presidency? Did pro-life Democrats declare that the confirmation of Chief Justice Roberts was 100% the pro-life conservatives’ work, and a victory accomplished in spite of the pro-life liberals?
Pinky:
1. You’ll note that I used the word “if.” I most certainly was not “gloating” over something that hasn’t happened yet.
2. Perhaps I could have been more clear, but I meant that the credit should go to the pro-life Democrats in Congress, not myself.
3. It is not uncharitable to point out that, at least in my opinion, the pro-life movement has handled the health care debate badly. I said they were wrong in the way they have handled this one issue. I did not say that they are always wrong about everything, and I certainly did not use the word “demonic.”
4. With regard to “assigning bad actions to Catholics in the future,” I’ll admit that my follow-up to Kurt’s comment was ill-advised, particularly since, in the other thread, I acknowledge that there may be prudential reasons to oppose the bill even if it does not fund abortions. I apologize.
While individual pro-lifers have been “pro-life and”, the movement has welcomed any allies it can find.
I think that issue is up for debate on a number of fronts, but I feel I need to raise the instance of PLAGAL being forcibly banned (using police personnel) from the March for Life.
Micky, I was going to make a reference to the demonizing of the pro-life movement on this site; hence, my use of the word “demonic”.
Also, I realize that you weren’t personally taking credit, but giving credit to what I assume is your “side”.
Kurt, I’ve attended pro-life events with Feminists for Life, Athiests for Life, and (if I have the group’s name correctly) Gays for Life.
Have you read some of the previous posts on the matter here at VN? They may help you understand why I (and my fellow contributors) believe very strongly that the pro-life movement’s attitude towards the health care reform debate has been counterproductive. I’m not saying they don’t deserve credit for past accomplishments, but this won’t be one of them.
And I have never “demonized” the movement of which I consider myself to be a member. It is true that I have criticized (sometimes harshly) instances of what I consider to be moral hypocrisy and strategic error, two things that have undermined and will continue to undermine the movement’s goals. You’re free to disagree with these criticisms, but I’m not going to apologize for them. And I certainly don’t think it’s fair to characterize them as acts of “demonization,” particularly given I have, in fact, defended the movement (http://vox-nova.com/2009/09/13/when-criticizing-the-pro-life-movement) against attacks that I consider to be too harsh).
Pinky,
(and we were having such agreement about an appropriate response to Iran :) )
I would like to explore if accusations of ‘demonization’ of the Pro-Life movement come from a (false, in my mind) divinization of the Pro-Life movment. Is the Pro-Life movement not simply a secular, worldly, fallible, organization, capable of mistakes and errors, even grave ones, just like any other human enterprise? Or is there is a claim that, like the Church, it enjoys a special protection by the Holy Spirit from error?
So I will re-ask my question (and it is only a question). If the health care reform bill adopts the Stupak/Hatch Amendment and represents an advance over the status quo on abortion, are we then morally obligated to support the legislation, setting aside whatever reservations we may about other provisions not related to abortion (government spending, individual mandates, etc.)?
Kurt,
I think so.
Kurt, I don’t think I’m morally obligated to support any specific piece of legislation. I think we both agree that the pro-life movement should be solely about pro-life issues. On that basis, I wouldn’t see the need for any pro-life group to take a position on the legislation either way. Individual pro-life members of Congress will be free to choose a position based on the quality of the proposals. Even if the current proposals tank, or something much smaller makes it into law, the stand taken by the pro-life members of Congress will have a huge, positive impact.