The Democratic House managed to pass a healthcare reform bill with more stringent restrictions on the ability of private insurance companies to cover abortion than ever before. One Republican supported it. The Democratic Senate managed to pass a healthcare reform bill with more stringent restrictions on the ability of private insurance companies to cover abortion than ever before. No Republicans supported it. And yet the Republicans supported Medicare Advantage a few years ago, where the pro-life protections were laughably weak, and where the government subsidizes abortion today.
And now, as the House and Senate try to iron out differences on abortion, Republicans have stated they will oppose any language to tighten abortion restrictions (forget for a second that the differences on abortion are second order, and that there are pros and cons of both approaches). As ABC’s The Note reports:
“All 41 Republican Senators vowed in a letter today to do everything in their power to kill Democrats’ health care legislation and vote en bloc against procedural motions Democrats want to use to fix the health reform bill passed Christmas Eve by the Senate.
This would include a scenario where the Republican Senators oppose language championed by anti-abortion rights Democrats in the House and side instead with abortion rights defenders…
‘So you’d be voting with Barbara Boxer on an abortion measure?’ a reporter asked Sen. Tom Coburn, “Yes I would. I certainly would,’ Coburn said…
When is it going to dawn on people that they are trying to kill healthcare reform only because they object to it on ideologically liberal grounds? They care about the individual mandate and the idea of solidarity in healthcare, not abortion. The enthusiasm over Scott Brown showed it clearly, this only verifies it.
When is it going to dawn on people that they are trying to kill healthcare reform …
Gee, MM, I’m not a ninny. It dawned on me a long time ago!!!
Martha Coakley vowed to do the same.
This is exactly the kind of dishonesty I’d expect from the Party of Nihilism.
Martha Coakley vowed to do the same.
I didn’t see the pro-life movement salivating over Martha Coakley.
You are missing the big picture. This healthcare debate is not about abortion. It is about killing a terrible bill before it becomes law.
The American people have spoken and they do not want this. It is about time lawmakers stand up to it.
If they do and the Dems & Reps ally to defeat the measure, it would be a great example of the difficulty pro-lifers face. Republicans are indifferent to abortion and Democrats too wedded to it. Which evil is greater?
I find this argument a non-starter. Medicare Advantage is covered under Hyde regarding abortion restrictions. Saying that children shouldn’t be murdered with federal funds does not mean that if such a condition is dropped, it’s a “compromise.” Abortion shouldn’t be anywhere near this bill.
The equivalent offer from a Rebpulican Congress would be “we won’t nuke Iran if you agree to our tax cuts.” The liberal would go tell the Congress to pound sand, and rightly so. Not having to support intrinsic evil is not a “compromise.”
Remove the intrinsic evil and THEN we can start talking, not before.
Wrong, Colin, read the previous post. The appropriations language says that a plan cannot be banned simply because it refuses to offer abortion, but it most certainly doesn’t stop it from doing so. And Medicare Advantage is today covering abortion.
MM,
You missed the point of my post, although I meant to say that to my knowledge abortion funding is constricted vis a vis Hyde. What you posted didn’t seem to contradict my claim (your second link is about immigration?)
Your argument is that because Republicans oppose the bill they aren’t pro-life. While you and I can spend time agreeing that the Republicans are simply using abortion as a wedge and they have done next to nothing to advance the rights of the unborn, that’s not my point either.
My point is that your argument is flawed because you say that because they won’t support this bill despite tighter restrictions on abortion, they are not pro-life. This is incorrect.
Removing intrinsic evil is a STARTING point. My above analogy shows the shoe on the other foot. I personally don’t have loyalty to the Republicans. My loyalty is to the Faith, and to speak out for the unborn, who the Democrats are trying to use more of my money to kill.
When did the GOP get 41 Senators? What am I missing. I thought there were just 40
If I were a member of Congress, I would vote in favor of any realistic, authentic pro-life measure. However, I am not familiar enough with the current language and its likely implementation and implications to know if it is fully and completely pro-life, or merely the best compromise deal that can be hoped for. If it is merely the best compromise, then it would seem an open ended prudential judgement on supporting or opposing the language.
To make clearer what I mean, if some language is introduced that is supposedly pro-life, but I do not think it really is as much as it is said to be, and I think it will be used to give compromised pro-life cover to bad policy, then I might in fact vote against the language to maintain the integrity of the pro-life position.
Now is that what the Republicans are doing? Probably not.
What they are probably doing, is seeing the health care insurance reconbobulation plan as being an electoral loser (with the general public, and particularly with their base, and with their local constituencies), a betrayal of their political principals, a betrayal of their understanding of the American system (with regards to the Constitution, the economy, etc.), a fiscal disaster, and not particularly effective or efficient as policy. Quite frankly the average Republican would probably regard a vote for the bills as a clear and direct betrayal of the oath of office on its face, and thus unacceptable no matter what it does regarding abortion.
So if there’s no way to get pro-life health care, the only option is to kill the bill. And that’s what Massachusetts voted to do.
It is not just Medicare Advantage in which the Pro-Life Movement used a different and more lax standard as to what is an indirect abortion subsidy. Under the Economic Recovery bill, there was a 65% federal subsidy of COBRA benefits for laid-off workers. Neither NRTLC nor USCCB objected to this even though a majority of COBRA plans include abortion.
I still support the strongest possible anti-abortion language in the health care bill, but there is simply no longer any doubt that judging what is an indirect subsidy is like judging art.
@Cathy: “The American people have spoken and they do not want this. It is about time lawmakers stand up to it.”
Funny how that same logic was ignored at the beginning of the debate when “the American people” DID want reform and the GOP still fought against it. How is it that the polls are only relevant when they go the GOP’s way?
“Funny how that same logic was ignored at the beginning of the debate when “the American people” DID want reform and the GOP still fought against it.”
Actually Cathy is right. The people want reform. Not this reform. Everyone (to my knowledge) agrees that the system needs reform. The question is does this bill do that. I and more and more of the country say it doesn’t.
So typical of a “liberal” Catholic blog, to bring politics into the discussion, Kennedy American Catholics I should say, who practice a completely different religion than from what I know. What ever happened to the universality of Catholicism? You all have an overtly communist bent and we all saw how well that went for Catholics in communist countries.
And the so called compassionate party is soon to vote on a bill that will provide free abortions to all on your and my dime. Why? Well, according to representative Stupak, the reason given him by his fellow democrats is: “If you pass the Stupak amendment, more children will be born, and therefore it will cost us millions more. That’s one of the arguments I’ve been hearing,”
Congratulations democratic voters. Sleep well.
[...] tactic worked and most Catholics in America have swallowed this poisonous bait and thus have become moral relativists unable to distinguish between intrinsically evil acts and those which are not. The fact checking [...]
Steve, that comment is utterly ridiculous. Please back it up with references to the legislation. Please also read my previous post on this.
So, Minion, either Stupak or the democrats talking to him are lying.
It would be true to form, and in this case I certainly hope it’s so.
@Colin: “Actually Cathy is right. The people want reform. Not this reform. Everyone (to my knowledge) agrees that the system needs reform. The question is does this bill do that. I and more and more of the country say it doesn’t.”
That doesn’t touch my point. The GOP was opposed to doing anything from the outset, despite the public support for a change. This business of “everyone agrees that the system needs reform” is simply bunk: it’s the dems’ putting this forward that even put the issue concretely on the table and forced the GOP to offer alternative solutions. If it were up to the GOP, there clearly would be no changes (as witnessed by their total ignoring of the issue when they had control of the situation). Therefore, my initial point about the GOP seeing the polls as relevant only for their own purposes still stands: they ignored them until they went their way.
@Ellie: “So typical of a ‘liberal’ Catholic blog, to bring politics into the discussion”
Good to know that Catholicism is politically irrelevant to you. Thank God there are some of us ‘liberals’ who think otherwise.
@Steve: “bill that will provide free abortions to all on your and my dime”
Please explain how. My understanding is that Hyde still holds, even if this bill passes.
So, Minion, either Stupak or the democrats talking to him are lying.
Congressman Stupak, a very honorable man, stated that some people have said that to him. He neither said some Members nor did he say some Democrats. I’m sure someone made such a comment.
The issue of what is indirect funding is open to various opinions. Now that we are at the 11th hour, many leading pro-lifers are taking a hard look and sincerely concluding the Senate language is pro-life, including Sister Keehan of the Catholic Health Association. Others, are finding their analysis on this bill cannot be reconciled to their analysis of other bills.
Each person concerned about abortion is going to have to use his or her own individual discernment as to what is an indirect subsidy of abortion. Even if they limit themselves to the definitions used by the NRTLC on various bills over time, they have quite a wide menu selection.
Please explain how. My understanding is that Hyde still holds, even if this bill passes.
Why are you asking me? It’s the democrats in the house that have said that there will be more abortions without a Stupak amendment, and that it is preferable to them that more abortions occur. If this isn’t the case then is Stupak lying or are his fellow democrats? Or, are democrats just too stupid to understand Hyde? Which is it?
@Steve: “Why are you asking me?…”
So your defense is that you’re offering fourth-hand information and therefore you don’t have to defend it? Okay. We’ll just leave it at that, then.
Congressman Stupak, a very honorable man, stated that some people have said that to him. He neither said some Members nor did he say some Democrats. I’m sure someone made such a comment.
This really is getting to the point of silliness. Stupak was *clearly and unmistakably* speaking in the context of fellow democratic congressmen. To deny it is attributable to numerous biased sentiments, chiefly among them is extreme naivete.
If Stupak is an honorable man, then it is absolutely clear that many of his fellow democrats want more abortion. As an honorable man, why else would he even mention it as a reason that democrats oppose the Stupak amendment?
As I said, sleep well democratic voters. Congratulations.
Steve,
You might do better at being taken seriously if you could get the name of Rep. Stupak’s party correct.
Steve (etc.), you can focus on Stupak, or you can focus on the bill. It:
· Prohibits the Secretary of HHS from requiring the coverage of any abortion services as part of the essential health benefits for any qualified health plan offered in a state insurance Exchange (pg. 2070);
· Allows the insurance company to decide whether or not to include coverage of abortion services, including the Hyde abortion exceptions, in a qualified health insurance plan offered in a state insurance Exchange (pg. 2070);
· Prohibits insurance companies from using federal funds, including federal tax credits and cost-sharing assistance, to pay for abortion services except for those services allowable under the Hyde amendment (pg. 2071);
· Requires an insurance company that chooses to offer a plan in a State Exchange with abortion coverage, beyond the Hyde abortion exceptions, to collect a separate second premium payment from each enrollee for the cost of the abortion coverage (pgs. 2071-2072 & 2074-2075);
· Requires the insurance company to deposit all separate payments into a separate account that consists solely of abortion premium payments and that it is used exclusively to pay for such services (pgs. 2072-2074);
· Requires the state health insurance commissioners to ensure that insurance companies comply with these requirements in accordance with guidance and accounting standards set by the Office of Management and Budget and the Government Accountability Office (pg. 2075);
· Requires insurance companies that offer general abortion coverage as part of a qualified health plan to provide a notice of coverage in the summary of benefits and coverage explanation (pg. 2076);
· Allows states to pass a law prohibiting the inclusion of abortion coverage in plans offered in a state health insurance Exchange (pg. 2069);
· Requires the director of the Office of Public Management to ensure that there is at least one private, multi-state qualified health plan offered in each state insurance Exchange that does not provide coverage of abortion services beyond the Hyde exceptions (pgs. 2087-2088);
· Prohibits insurance companies offering qualified health plans from discriminating against any individual health care provider or health care facility because of its unwillingness to provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions (pg. 2076);
· Prohibits the preemption of state laws regarding abortion (pg. 2077);
· Maintains current Federal laws relative to conscience protection; willingness or refusal to provide abortion; and discrimination on the basis of the willingness or refusal to provide, pay for, cover, or refer for abortion or to provide or participate in training to provide abortion (pg. 2077);
· Establishes and provides $250 million for programs to support vulnerable pregnant women (pgs. 2170-2173); and
· Increases the adoption tax credit and makes it refundable so that lower income families can access the tax credit (pgs 2400-2407).
(From Pro-Life Group Urges Congress to Pass Senate Health Care Bill; http://ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/pro-life-group-urges-congress-pass-senate-health-care-bill)
Well Kurt, I’m not sure what you’re talking about as Stupak is a democrat. (Did I call him a republican or something? I’ll admit it’s easy to confuse the two these days…) But it does seem apparent that democratic voters won’t take much seriously, especially that democratic congressmen want more abortion and they think they will get it with this legislation. Pathetic.
Steve, your argument is really on same the level as, and somewhat the flip side of, the claim that the Iraq war was really just a result of white rich republicans wanting another excuse to go kill Arabs. If you really think the vast majority of people on the opposite side of the issue from you simply want to kill babies or don’t care about their deaths, so be it, but I think that says a lot more about the lens through which you see your fellow human beings than it does about about those fellow human beings themselves.
Now I remember why I don’t come here very often.
Steve,
There is none so blind as he who will not see.
Jerms, again, for the last time… according to Stupak, democratic congressmen *told him* that the reason why they opposed the Stupak amendment was because there would be fewer abortions if it passed and would cost the government $millions.
Kurt, presicely.
Steve: That doesn’t deal with what I’ve said.
(1) You’re saying here that (2) someone reported that (3) Stupak said that (4) democrats told him that. So your defense (above) for why you needn’t show me where that is in the bill is that this fourth-hand information should be sufficient for me.
Sorry, it isn’t. I’m all for a division of labor because we can’t all do everything, and so (especially since I’m working on a Ph.D.) I have to rely on others to tell me what’s in bills, etc. and what is or is not a ramification of those contents, but really this is ridiculous, especially after I’ve posted reference to specific portions of the bill that contradict the contents of what some democrats said to Stupak which was then reported on and then relayed to us by you.
Your simple repetition of your own previous statement hasn’t kept up with the conversation and hasn’t dealt with the points that a) you’ve offered only a fourth-hand account, b) you haven’t substantiated it from the bill itself, c) I have made reference to the bill itself, and d) your position says more about you than it does about the ones you’re accusing of not caring about the issue unborn children being killed. You’re spinning your wheels, and failing to prove your point.
Jerms,
My “argument” really isn’t an argument at all. It’s a simple statement. I’m not trying to get into a debate about this, or about particular points of the legislation, because, frankly, if it is as you say then even the democrats in the legislature don’t seem to know it. They said what they said to Stupak, nobody’s denied it, and therefore I see no reason to deny it. If you do, feel free. I also don’t think that Stupak is such a dolt. If he thinks that his amendment is necessary, regardless of spin on blogs, I tend to believe him over the shills. I think that he, being in the thick of the debate with skin in the game, knows better than I (or, respectfully, you.)
If you want to read for yourself what Stupak said, google something like “stupak more babies born cost millions” or something to that effect. You’ll find a bunch of references, but you won’t find Stupak denying that he said it.
Steve,
You made an assertion (“And the so called compassionate party is soon to vote on a bill that will provide free abortions to all on your and my dime”). You then used Stupak’s statement as support for your assertion.
I did look it up, because this is a blog and who knows what is behind people’s claims on any blog. But frankly I don’t and never did deny that people likely said that to him. I think there are people in the dem party who think abortion is good, just like I think there are repubs who think that war is a good; that sort of list can go on and on because when it comes down to it, neither party is the Church (to put it one of many possible ways). But while I’ve not denied that people said such things to Stupak, I have disagreed with your use of it to offer a blanket characterization of the bill and to impugn all of us who understand the bill differently than you, Stupak, and those who may or may not have said that to him. He is in the thick of the debate and therefore has more access to the information than you or I – no disagreement there. But he is one of many, many people with that level of information, not all of whom agree with him, so I’m not sure how much it matters how informed he is – that doesn’t really set him apart from people with alternate judgments about the matter.
Moreover, let me be clear that at least for me, being wrong isn’t about being a dolt, or stupid, or anything like that. These things are complicated and the claim (by me or anyone else) that someone is wrong on their reading of it isn’t the same as the claim that they are dolts, or stupid, or anything of the sort. One needn’t be stupid to be mistaken, after all; one just needs to be finite.
It looks to me like your intention (or at least your de facto actions) was (were) to offer up your opinion of the bill supported by only one representative’s comments, impugn those who disagree with you as morally reprehensible characters, and then retreat behind Stupak when asked to offer support that would actually substantiate your claim about the bill’s effects.
If your point was really just Stupak’s comments themselves, then that’s fine and, frankly, nevermind. But the opening sentence of your original comment suggested otherwise, and that’s what I ran with.