EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
What Stupak Wrought
In a last-ditch, get-out-the-vote effort to convince the anti-abortion Democrats in the House to vote for a healthcare bill that contains anti-abortion language beloved by anti-abortion Democrats in the Senate, President Obama issued an executive order on Sunday promising to never, ever allow a single federal or unsegregated private dollar to pay for a single abortion in the United States (except in the cases or rape, incest or the life and health of the mother). He did this to provide Democratic congressman Bart Stupak the political cover he needed to vote for healthcare reform. Apparently, some people have said this executive order makes Stupak the hero of healthcare reform. It's a sad statement on American politics that working to defeat a piece of legislation that has the potential to bring health insurance (and thus better care) to millions of Americans - its other, many flaws aside - can ultimately lead to someone being labelled a hero.
Until the law goes into effect in 2014 with the other provisions involving the healthcare exchange, two classes of women are covered by the Hyde Amendment and its lesser known cousin: women who are reliant on Medicaid, and women employed by (or covered by a spouse or domestic partner who is employed by) the federal government. Neither woman can have an abortion covered by their insurance company unless they wish to tell their insurer that the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest (which currently can and often is classified as a pre-existing condition, leaving one at risk of losing one's healthcare) or unless the government agrees that the abortion is necessary to save the woman's life or health. As the Washington Post showed last year, government actuaries are no more thoughtful than those at private insurers: a federal employee with a risky pregnancy who discovered that the child she carried had no brain was denied coverage for her medically-necessary abortion because the government decided her life wasn't in enough danger to warrant it. Soldiers serving abroad - who too often are sexually assaulted - had virtually no access to emergency contraception until this month because of arcane Pentagon rules, but also have little or no access to abortion services (let alone insurance coverage of it) even if they were willing and able to report a rape from which they got pregnant.
This is the new world of government oversight that Bart Stupak, Democratic senator Ben Nelson and other anti-abortion Democrats demanded, and to which President Obama and house speaker Nancy Pelosi acquiesced. When women unlucky enough not to have insurance coverage through an employer (though, as women who work for the Republican National Committee and the state of South Carolina discovered, having employer-sponsored coverage doesn't necessary mean one has abortion coverage) purchase health insurance through an exchange, they'll have to pay what one assumes is a nominal extra abortion fee (with a separate cheque!) to their insurance company for the privilege. Even if covering abortions means an insurance company saves money, as pregnancy is rather expensive, people will have to pay a nominal fee just for the sake of paying something. Worse yet, the men and women who opt into plans with abortion coverage will have that fact reflected in their financial records and their literal chequebooks - if you pay $500 to an insurance company and $2 to the same company on the same day, everyone will know what you're doing if they happen to access your records or notice you mailing two separate envelopes.
And if you choose to opt out of coverage, out of embarrassment, for financial reasons or because of your politics, woe betide you if you - or one of your dependents - is the victim or rape or incest, or has a risky pregnancy deemed medically necessary. Didn't want to have to tell someone you were raped? Cough up the money for your abortion. Actuary decides, based on established government precedent, that your life-threatening pregnancy isn't risky enough? Cough up the money for your abortion. Women (and their doctors) will no longer have the luxury of making the decisions that are best for the women involved based on her beliefs and medical history because a small group of people who consider themselves religious (and who often consider themselves in favour of small government) decided that their religious beliefs about life's origins and pregnancy should trump everything else.
Republicans often like to pretend that their ideology, above all, means that the government should be limited in its power to control and direct people's lives. And yet the provisions pushed by anti-abortion, conservative Democrats - which are, ironically, less controlling than the outright ban on abortion that many Republicans prefer - do little more than put into place many complex layers of bureaucracy and paperwork for women who will now be required to purchase healthcare in order to enforce more control over the choices they may have to make. The Republican rallying cry on healthcare last summer was that the government wanted to put bureaucrats between Americans and their doctors. With these abortion provisions, the government did exactly that - and most Republicans think it didn't go far enough.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...



12 Comments so far
Show AllWe can criticize Stupak all we want, but he got what he wanted. Just think if the original 77 Democrats who signed on to a public option(even as weak as it was) pledge did what Stupak did. Actually, as it turns out, if only 4 of those 77 stood their ground, at least there would have been a start for a public option.
Mookie: What you say is true; Stupak and the others could not have "wrought" their further weakenings of a poor bill had those who pledged to vote against a bill without a public option was offered them, but vote for it they did. But even more germane to this article, at least 3 women members of Congress (that I know and I'm sure there were several others), pledged not to vote for the bill if it contained anti-abortion language---then turned around and voted for it. Stupak and the other Blue Dogs derive their power to influence legislation from their willingness to vote against legislation if it has provisions not to their likings. "Progressives" seem constitutionally unable to do that. Pelosi told an AP reporter that progressives would not "bring down" the bill because of some consideration of "ideological purity." The right ALWAYS is willing to do that for their ideology, progressives seldom are; which means tbat the Progressive Caucus, twice the size of the Blue Dog one, actually exerts less power than the Dogs, which is what makes the actions of Congress usually conservative because there's an effective Republican/Blue Dog coalition.
" The right ALWAYS is willing to do that for their ideology, progressives seldom are"
Exactly. Progressives are always playing defense and cave.
Progressives have no political muscle--or party.
This "executive order" means less than nothing here. Are all these people that stupid?
But, hey, THANK GOD the Democrats control both houses of Congress and the Whitehouse!! Imagine how much worse things would be if McCain had won the election.
WE NEED TO BUILD A THIRD PARTY IN THIS COUNTRY.
I am all for medical insurance reform that will allow millions of heretofore uninsured Americans get some medical coverage. I am for most of the provisions in the current bill.
What I am NOT for, is the means by which the bill was passed; throwing all women of childbearing age "under the bus" with regard to their legimate reproductive choices and getting needed funding. Shame on all democrats for this betrayal; so many of you are nothing more than repugs in dems clothing and that includes our illustrous President!
I doubt seriously if I will be voting for BHO in the next Presidential election. Maybe a 3rd party is what is needed as the current two are not good for women.
Only in America could you convince the public that there is such a thing as an unborn child or fetal homicide. It takes a nation of ignorants to buy such crap and people like stupak are using the cover of religion to hide their contempt for women.
In the USA, Intelligent Life begins when they grow up and go abroad.
These people don't want you to have abortion services when you or your family need them but they avail themselves of such services when they or members of their own families require them.
As a physician, I have seen this. When daughters or wives become inconveniently pregnant, they wish abortion services. Remember Bob Barr's dilemma.
I have no quarrel with their decisions. It is just so hypocritical when such persons deny it to others.
Yes, I remember Bob Barr's dilemma -- he paid for an abortion for his first wife (or, maybe they weren't yet married at the time -- I forget), and not only did he pay for the abortion, he didn't object to the abortion, either.
I'm reminded of the 2004 film, Vera Drake, directed by Mike Leigh. This film, more than any other, showed the stark differences between the resources that were available to poor women when faced with an unwanted pregnancy, and how different, and even plush, the circumstances were for well-to-do women when facing the same situation.
"I have no quarrel with their decisions. It is just so hypocritical when such persons deny it to others." -- mcurie
I agree!
Ms. Carpentier does an excellent job of describing the status quo around abortion in this country, a situation which is wholly unacceptable. However, I’m inclined to think that focusing on Rep. Bart Stupak is off the mark.
Rachel Maddow pursued this train of thought on her March 22nd show when she interviewed Congresswoman Jan Shakowsky, a member of the Congressional Pro-Choice Caucus who was kept in the loop by the White House during the negotiations with Rep. Stupak and the other conservative Democrats.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZlX2T9CPM8
According to her, the deal struck by the White House changed virtually nothing—as it goes no further than the language already in the bill or than what was already called for by the Hyde Amendment.
Meanwhile, almost no one is talking about what Rep. Stupak said when he stepped up to block the “Motion to Commit” with which Republicans tried to derail the bill at the last minute. Say what you will about him, he called out the Republicans in language and in a manner that more Democrats would do well to emulate. Asserting who exactly it is who is truly “pro llife” he said, in part:
[It is the democrats] “that ensure the sanctity of life is protected. Because ALL life is precious and ALL life should be honored. Democrats guarantee [that] all life, from the unborn to the last breath of a senior citizen, is honored and respected. For the unborn child, his or her mother, will finally have pre- and post-natal care under our bill. If the child is born with medical problems, we provide medical care without bankrupting the family."
Of course, what everyone is talking about instead, like bloodhounds going after a red herring dragged across their path, is the Congressman who called out “baby killer.” And that may very well have been the exact strategic purpose of shouting it—to distract people afterwards from whatever Rep. Stupak would say. (Whether strategic or not, it was successful in that regard.)
Much work needs to be done to bring about sane and compassionate policy that respects and supports women and their families. I’m afraid, however, that focusing on Rep. Stupak winds up being a distraction that doesn’t move us forward.
Maybe somebody should start up an abortion funding org. Instead of writing a check to the DCCC or DSCC we could send it to AFTIN-Abortions For Those In Need-or probably a much catchier acronym.