November 10, 2009
-
stupak amendment
Here is the text of the first part of the Stupak Amendment to the Universal Health Care Bill that just passed the House.
Mark these words well. For history may one day show that these were the words that finally killed Health Care Reform.
“SEC. 264. LIMITATION ON ABORTION FUNDING.
(a) IN GENERAL. — No funds authorized under this
Act (or an amendment made by this Act) may be used
to pay for any abortion or to cover any part of the costs
of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion, ex-
cept in the case where a woman suffers from a physical
disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as
certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of
death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-
endangering physical condition caused by or arising from
the pregnancy itself, or unless the pregnancy is the result
of an act of rape or incest.”
(b) CONSTRUCTION ON OPTION TO PURCHASE SEPA-
RATE SUPPLEMENTAL COVERAGE OR PLAN.– Nothing in
this section shall be construed as prohibiting any non-
federal entity (including an individual or a state or local
government) from purchasing separate supplemental cov-
erage for abortions for which funding is prohibited under
this section, or a plan that includes such abortions, so long
as—
(1) such coverage or plan is paid for entirely
using only funds not authorized or appropriated by
this Act; and
(2) such coverage or plan is not purchased
using matching funds required for a federally sub-
sidized program, including a State’s or locality’s con-
tribution of Medicaid matching funds.(c) CONSTRUCTION ON OPTION TO OFFER SEPARATE
SUPPLEMENTAL COVERAGE OR PLAN.– Notwithstanding
section 303(b), nothing in this section shall restrict any
QHBP offering entity from offering separate supple-
mental coverage for abortions for which funding is prohib-
ited under this section, or a plan that includes such abor-
tions so long as–
(1) premiums for such separate supplemental
coverage or plan are paid for entirely with funds not
authorized or appropriated by this Act;
(2) administrative costs and all services offered
through such supplemental coverage or plan are paid
for using only premiums collected for such coverage
or plan; and
(3) any nonfederal QHBP offering entity that
offers a plan that includes coverage for abortion for
which funding is prohibited under this section also
offers a plan that is identical in every respect except
that it does not cover abortions for which funding is
prohibited under this section.”Most of this is just language describing the Abortion Riders, called “supplemental plans or insurance”. As I described in my post a few days back, Abortion Riders are nothing but a load of crap. If you can find a way to ensure such riders actually exist and are cheap enough for people to be able to afford, then maybe it might be worth talking about.
Two important things need to be said that I did not mention in either of my previous entries.
1. The exclusion provision states “except in the case where a woman suffers from a physical
disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself, or unless the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest.”The exclusion is interesting in that it does not protect the health and well being of the woman but only their life. Psychological harm is not even a consideration. Nor is physical harm that does NOT risk death. Logically then bearing a fetus to term could cause all kinds of physical harm to the mother and that is entirely irrelevant to whether the abortion will be paid for. Even if that harm is lasting or permanent.
There’s no further condition on that either. The condition does not care about the life or health of the child. Not all abortions result in the termination of a fully healthy viable fetus. Plenty of them involve removing a fetus that is already dead. Lots of others involve terminating a fetus that has slim to no chance of ever being able to live outside the womb. In such situations the woman would not be able to have their abortions covered by health care. They would be forced to carry a dead child to term.
2. As described here. The bill does not allow abortions coverage to be in plans that receive ANY funding from this bill. That may very well include numerous employer based plans as well as individual and group market insurance. Currently 87% of employer based plans offer abortion coverage.
Now I hope I’ve impressed upon you how ridiculously horrible this amendment is as worded. People are describing it as eviscerating women’s rights and making them into second class citizens. And while that’s a little bit of hyperbole it’s not far off. Ezra Klein put it best: “Abortion coverage will not be outlawed in this country. It will simply be tiered, reserved for those rich enough to afford insurance themselves or lucky enough to receive from their employers.”
While I”m not entirely convinced that the writers of this amendment were aware of how far reaching its wording would turn out to be. I doubt they really intended to touch employer insurance for example. I think that only because if wealthy women in their districts start losing abortion coverage there will be hell to pay, especially for the Democrats who voted for this. And nobody wants to offend big employers.
On the other hand, I doubt hte pro-life people are particularly upset about it. The wider the better. They thing abortion is Wrong with a capital W. So if they can slip by more restrictions on abortion they’re more than happy to do that. Certainly the Catholic Church which pushed strongly for this amendment at the last minute will not be shedding any tears.
President Obama has weighed in, in a pretty luke warm way suggesting that the House/Senate probably should “revise” the language so that it does what is intended (or at least what pro-life parties SAY they intend) that is to enforce rules against federal funds going toward abortions.
I think, it’s rather ridiculous to even be trying to do that. But anything is certainly better than the amendment as it stands. But will they be able to?
Over 40 Liberal Democrats have sworn in pretty wriggle-proof language in writing to vote against any final bill that has Stupak-like language in it. On the other hand there’s a good chunk of Conservative Democrats who refused to vote for the bill WITHOUT Stupak which was the reason why the amendment was added in the first place.
So what happens when these two forces clash? Presumably they will stare each other in the eyes and see which ones blinks first. Democrats as a group cannot afford to have Health Care reform fail. It will be bad for ALL of them. (Not to mention horrible for the country)
But I think people on both sides consider this important enough to screw their party for the sake of their principles.
Compromise will then be the word of the day. Can Stupak be rewritten to appease the Pro-Life Democrats while not offending the Pro-Choice Democrats? President Obama clearly thinks it can be.
I think he’s a bit too optimistic.
If the internet community is any indication, women are really REALLY pissed off by this. They feel used and taken for granted. And it most certainly did NOT help with the Republicans were yelling “I object” like a bunch of two year olds at them when they were trying to express their ideas during the Health Care debate.
I believe Pro-Choice women in the House will want more than just a lukewarm Stupak Amendment. They will, and in my opinion totally SHOULD demand some price for their support of anything, remotely like the Stupak Amendment. And by a price I mean something real and meaningful that goes as far toward protecting and enhancing women’s rights as Stupak does in repealing it.
In a compromise, typically the ones who are nicest, the ones who are most willing to go along for the greater good, tend to get screwed the hardest. And they get stepped on again and again up until they hit their breaking point. The point at which they can yield no longer and take a stand. I wonder if the progressive Pro-Choicce women in the House may well have hit that point. If so, they won’t stand for simply being taken for granted again and again. They’ll make their stand and Health Care Reform be damned.
And that’s Good. Because if they don’t then in the end people will keep telling them “oh it’ll just get revised” and “don’t worry about it” only they’ll turn around and one day find themselves forced to choose between voting for something that sells out their constituents on Pro-Choice or something that sells out their constituents on Health Care. NO ONE should be manipulated like that. But the only way the amendment can possibly be forced to change is if the progressive Democrats speak out Now vociferously against it and make it clear that this is the one line they will never cross
Of course the Pro-Life Democrats have less interest in reform passing in any case. They can always jump on the Republican bandwagon and claim the whole thing was stupid from the get go, blame the pro-choice Democrats, distance themselves form Obama and beg for conservative votes. That might even work for some of them. In any case many of them are driven by the fires of faith in a firm and absolute belief that they have to do something to fight to save the lives of the unborn. Reasoning with them to reach a compromise may be impossible too.
If this turns out to be the case, and God I hope it doesn’t, we may find that Health Care died because Americans have not yet resolved our feelings on Abortion. That will be a sad day for everyone.
Comments (4)
i do believe that abortion is not the solution to an unwanted pregnancy. and i maintain my opposition to this escapist practice, at the expense of the life of the child. i maintain that abortion is murder.
perhaps this is the reason why i find this amendment to be reasonable. i find it horrible as well that health insurance companies would cover abortion, its basically promoting abortion and making it acceptable.
i believe this clause will not kill health care reform. if there’s an effect on the lives of americans, and the people of the world who look up to america as its model, it would be the start of the return of morality.
@tribong_upos - The problem is many people who have a vote very strongly and vehemently disagree with your position and they will not vote for a bill with this provision. But there are people who share your view who have a vote who will not vote for a bill without it. Therefore this clause may very well make it impossible for Health Care Reform to actually happen. It won’t be able to get enough votes.
The only other possibility is if Republicans switch over and support Health Care Reform because they consider this clause important enough to support all the rest of the bill that they’ve vehemently and repeatedly said they despise. I find that highly unlikely. Many of them have staked their careers on the idea that Health Care Reform as conceived by the Democrats will destroy the country as we know it.
oic… now i understand why you said this clause will kill health care reform… so it would then be right to presume that most lawmakers in the US are pro-abortion…
@tribong_upos - Not at all. It does not require most to be pro-choice (pro-abortion) or most to be pro-life (anti-choice) to block the bill. There’s basically a group of democrats who will vote for HCR no matter what and a group of republicans (all but one it seems) who will vote against HCR no matter what. But the margins of whose votes aren’t determined are the ones that determine whether or not the bill passes. It only takes some thirty something votes to switch sides to block the bill from passing. So if 30 Pro-Life democrats are “No Go without Stupak” and 30 Pro-Choice Democarts are “No Go WITH Stupak” then the bill will not get passed unless there is some compromise reached. That’s what I meant by it depends on who blinks first.
However, it should be noted that the Stupak Amendment passed 240-194 so it would appear there are more Pro-Life lawmakers in the House. However in the Senate the rumor is there are more Pro-Choice lawmakers than Pro-Life so the stupak amendment has little or no chance to pass the Senate. That will put more pressure on Pro-Life Democrats to compromise.
On the other hand people have suggested that the Pro-Choice groups like NARAL and Planned Parenthood have not been very effective on lobbying this issue because they see the overall health care bill as more important for women’s rights than this amendment. They’ll speak out against the amendment, but people aren’t sure if they will really pressure lawmakers into voting against the bill if it doesn’t have it, nor punish them by removing endorsements if they vote for a bill with Stupak. If that’s the case then the Pro-Choice law makers might fold first and be willing to compromise.
It also depends on where Obama weighs in. His political clout can decide numerous local elections. If he demands the Pro-Choice democrats or the Pro-Life democrats get on board or risk losing his endorsement and his campaiging well then that might determine the outcome too. So far he’s been ambivalent. He said he wants Stupak’s wording to change but that he wants to uphold the spirit of previous legislation barring federal funds going toward abortion. He’s on the record for being pro-Choice but he seems to think HCR overall is more important. Certainly it is more important politically for him. If HCR fails it will be seen as a referendum on his leadership abilities which Republicans would surely exploit come the next election cycle.
I don’t know how it will turn out, but I am definitely Pro-Choice enough that I hope the Pro-Choice Democrats don’t back down unless they get something meaningful in return. I’m guessing you’re Pro-Life enough to feel the same about Pro-Life Democrats. We can certainly debate our relative beliefs until we are both blue in the face but in the end the politics of this is going to boil down to which sides are organized enough to produce a credible enough threat to push the other side into backing down. And if BOTH sides are oganized and prove completely immovable then no Health Care Reform passes.
The good news for your side is that political commentators seem to think it’s much more likely we will see Stupak in a final bill than the bill not get passed. The reasoning being if Pro-Choice Democrats were really and truly serious about fighting it they would have stopped it long before it got this far in the House instead of being supposedly blindsided by it.