posted
So...the House healthcare bill passed on Saturday 220-215, but to garner the votes of about 50 pro-life Democrats an amendment was included that prohibits any insurance program (private or public) participating in the federal exchange from covering abortions except in the case of rape, incest, or health consequences resulting in the likely death of the mother.
Will Saletan has an (IMO very astute) article at Slate talking about the amendment and the reaction from NARAL, Planned Parenthood, etc. His main point is that restriction of choice is exactly the price we pay in socializing medical coverage. Up until now, the talk of restrictions has been focused on end-of-life care for the elderly (cf "Death Panels"); what just happened to women's health is exactly what seniors have been concerned might happen to coverage important to them all along. The lesson Saletan pulls is that this is one of the unavoidable costs of socializing medicine; that the majority gets to decide what will be covered and what won't. And when the government controls the exchange, it limits the viability of finding options that aren't amenable to the majority.
posted
No system is perfect, but as consumers have no choices now, I just can't get that upset about this change. I didn't choose my health insurance and I didn't choose what was and was not covered. I never have.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here's a take from the XX blog at Slate, along with a follow-up, both highly critical (I feel like a shill for Slate today, I guess).
Really, I mostly wanted to link to these not because of their take on the Stupak amendment, but because the earliest comment in the first article made me laugh out loud.
quote:This is exactly why the Republican party aligning itself with the Religious Right never made any sense to me at all. Isn't the idea behind the traditional Republican party less government? Then suddenly, they want to get involved in obscenity, school prayer, and abortion, among other things. Very hypocritical. I would be a Republican if they were more like the party of Lincoln, but I cannot stomach the way the party is on social issues.
<edit>And it just gets better from there:
quote:Republicans wave the banner of small government and states rights except that they don't extend that philosophy to social issues and it's terribly hypocritical.
Hmm...let me see if I can think of a Republican president who claimed states' rights were secondary to a moral issue regarding social values. :thinking: :and laughing: :and crying at the same time:</edit>
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The argument I don't get is the idea that taxpayer dollars would go towards funding abortions. This is a regulation first of all, of private organizations, which are funded by customers. It's not taxpayer money. Even if the public option were being discussed, it's still not taxpayer money directly, as the people who would be getting money from the program would be paying premiums for services to the government. I think the courts might have a hand in striking down this provision. It's a regulation on private business to restrict access to an abortion.
As for allowing the amendment to pass...if it's between this and having nothing meaningful passed, then pass it. It can either be fixed later, or struck down by the courts. I don't like it, but there's a bigger issue at play.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: The argument I don't get is the idea that taxpayer dollars would go towards funding abortions.This is a regulation first of all, of private organizations, which are funded by customers. It's not taxpayer money. Even if the public option were being discussed, it's still not taxpayer money directly, as the people who would be getting money from the program would be paying premiums for services to the government. I think the courts might have a hand in striking down this provision. It's a regulation on private business to restrict access to an abortion.
There will be considerable tax dollars spent on subsidies for millions and millions of low-income families. Keep in mind that abortion insurance can be purchased separately from any private insurance company at the individual's expense.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
When I think about the amendment, it seems more akin to the regulatory role of the FCC. It isn't an abridgement of freedom of speech for the gov't to enforce community standards on media broadcast across publicly owned bandwidth. Similarly, I don't see how it is an abridgement of freedom of choice to restrict services traded through the exchange, which is a publicly owned and operated medium.
Furthermore, to DK's point, the <edit>Hyde</edit> Amendment which restricts abortions funded through Medicaid and other gov't provided health subsidies has been on the books for more than 30 years and has yet to be deemed unconstitutional. I don't see a clear argument why one set of health plans subsidized using public monies (i.e. those provided through the exchange) would be constitutionally different from another (Medicaid).
posted
Sorry, more Slate analysis. Here's Johnnie...Dickerson, talking about the shifting loyalties and factions within the debate.
Evidently 40 House Dems have, after voting for the bill with Stupak, told Pelosi if it comes back after conference committee with Stupak intact they will not vote for the final package. Meanwhile, 41 Dems voted both for the amendment and for passage. So you should be able to count on some portion of them jumping ship if the amendment gets excised.
Other fascinating strategic considerations (unions and Latinos and Lieberman, oh my) listed in the article.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is why I think doing things like electronic health records in a completely separate bill is a much better way to go.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:When I think about the amendment, it seems more akin to the regulatory role of the FCC. It isn't an abridgement of freedom of speech for the gov't to enforce community standards on media broadcast across publicly owned bandwidth. Similarly, I don't see how it is an abridgement of freedom of choice to restrict services traded through the exchange, which is a publicly owned and operated medium.
I wasn't aware that abortions were already illegal through medicaid, so I guess that's a dagger to my argument, but I still think it's unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has ruled that women have a constitutional right to an abortion, and I think it was Casey that decided women are protected against "unwarranted intrusion" into the life of women.
The entire purpose of the insurance exchange is to reduce the cost of health care. The poorest are the ones least able to afford an abortion out of pocket, and the ones most in need of the exchange. So the ones most in need will be barred access to insurance coverage for an abortion. I'm also confused as to how the insurance exchange uses public money. I was under the impression that the exchange would simply be a government created marketplace that would group people together to increase their bargaining power with insurance companies to negotiate for lower rates. Where does federal money enter that picture?
Furthermore, if the health care bill includes a mandate that everyone be covered, and promises subsidies to those who simply can't afford to go along with the mandate, then it's forcing them by law into a program that bars the use of insurance money for abortion. That hardly seems fair.
quote:Keep in mind that abortion insurance can be purchased separately from any private insurance company at the individual's expense.
Yeah, because a low-income family has extra money to spend on abortion insurance. If they did, they wouldn't need the subsidy!
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's also the fact that, as medical procedures go, abortion is (in general) on the cheap end. If someone doesn't meet the restrictions for covered abortion (i.e. if they're doing it for some reason other than rape, incest, or medically assessed likelihood of death), and if they haven't opted or are unable to purchase a private abortion rider, they can still choose to have an abortion and pay for it themselves, at a cost of about $500. For those to whom that is a hardship, there are private organizations that will help defray the cost. And there's increasing availability of emergency contraception, giving women the ability to avoid a medical abortion altogether. All these, I feel, will continue to provide women with access to reproductive control without compelling taxpayers to fund something which, to many of them, is tantamount to infanticide on a massive scale.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I still don't like the amendment, though I'm split with myself. I actually agree, ideologically, with those that voted for the amendment (with its exceptions), but I've never been comfortable with forcing my belief on anyone legislatively.
I'm not convinced that the law is being worded in such a way that would automatically mean tax payer dollars are used for an abortion, and I do think that the law adds a financial burden to people who didn't necessarily have it before, but on top of that adds restrictions to what that burden actually benefits them. I don't think that's right.
Hobbes -
Yeah it's different, but I don't know if different automatically means bad. Ginsburg and Breyer are new additions since Casey, as is Sotomayor, and they were all appointed by liberal presidents.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Yeah, because a low-income family has extra money to spend on abortion insurance. If they did, they wouldn't need the subsidy!
I was only trying to point out that the amendment does not ban abortion. You could make a point that it prices it out of a low-income family's financial reach.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
