Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Even with the White House firmly behind it and the House already passing it, health care reform still could be scuttled entirely because of the abortion issue. As everyone knows by now, a group of pro-life Democrats led by Bart Stupak of Michigan twisted the arm of Nancy Pelosi to get a vote on an amendment to prohibit all insurance plans under the reform bill from funding abortion, pledging to vote against the bill if they didn't get that vote.
So they got the vote and the amendment passed fairly easily by a 240-194 margin, with all Republicans voting for it and 64 Democrats as well. The final healthcare bill then passed the House by a slim five-vote majority. That has triggered a lot of questions. Will the Senate include such a ban in their bill? Will the ban survive the conference committee process? Will the final bill pass both houses with that ban in place? Will it pass both houses without that ban in place?
A group of Democrats in Congress are now trying to unify and tell the leadership that they won't vote for the final bill if it includes such a ban. The pro-life Democrats have already told the leadership that they won't vote for the final bill if it doesn't include the ban. So what's Nancy Pelosi to do? And will the bill pass the House in either case once it comes out of the conference committee?
I have no idea. But Nate Silver has an interesting bit of information that might affect the outcome: Many of the people who voted for the Stupak amendment were actually pro-choice, whether Democrat or Republican.
Rather, I was surprised at the number of Democrats who have solid pro-choice voting records but who nevertheless voted for Stupak Amendment. And the vast majority of these Democrats voted for, not against, passage of the underlying health care bill.The below chart lists the 'yea' votes on Stupak among those representatives who had a rating of 67 in 2007-08 according to Planned Parenthood, and a rating of 33 or lower according to the National Right to Life Committee...
As you can see, 17 of the 20 Democrats who fell into this category voted for final passage of the health care bill. So what gives?
I'm sure there are idiosyncratic explanations in a number of cases, but I take this as a sign that they're worried about the re-election environment they'll face in 2010. 11 of the 20 pro-choice Democrats who voted for Stupak reside in districts that are rated as vulnerable according to Cook Political...
Very interesting. So what would those 17 pro-choice Democrats do if the final bill that comes out of the conference committee does not include an abortion funding prohibition? I have no answer, of course, but I would presume they would vote for the bill anyway since they don't have to take a revote on the abortion issue. So how do the numbers break down?
I think we can safely assume that there will only be one Republican vote for the final bill regardless of the abortion question - Anh Cao, the one Republican who voted for it on Saturday. That means 176 no votes right off the bat. There are 258 Democrats in the House and 64 of them voted for the abortion prohibition. But let's subtract those 17 pro-choice Democrats who voted for the abortion ban but for the final bill.
Assuming that 47 of the Democrats who voted for the Stupak amendment would vote against the final bill without that amendment (64 minus the 17 who are pro-choice traditionally), that would leave 211 votes for the bill. 218 is required to pass. Now, it's likely untrue that all of the Democrats who voted for the Stupak amendment would refuse to support the final bill without it; Stupak himself has made several conflicting statements on that question.
But it would be close. Damn close. Just like the final passage of the bill was close in the first place. The question Pelosi and the other House leaders have to decide is which option -- with or without the ban -- is most likely to pass. Since it already passed with the ban on abortion funding place, that might be the safest option. But some Democrats say they would refuse to vote for the bill with such a ban in place and that might change the result.
So the answer to the question in the title is: Yes, possibly.
Politics
Comments
Can the President line-item-veto that?
Posted by: Katharine | November 11, 2009 9:38 AM
Ed, Please don't call the anti-abortion people "pro life." They aren't "pro life." It is a misnomer which gives them respectability they don't deserve.
Posted by: bybelknap, FCD | November 11, 2009 9:45 AM
Katharine,
No, the President only has pure yes/no veto power, all or nothing. Now he could, like President Bush did, put some sort of signature statement in that might minimize the damage to reproductive choice, but judging by the way the amendment was written, that would be pretty difficult to accomplish.
Posted by: dogmeatib | November 11, 2009 10:00 AM
@bybelknap:
George Carlin always preferred the term "anti-woman." It's apt.
Posted by: Paul Lundgren | November 11, 2009 10:10 AM
I think some of them could be fairly described as pro-life. I've debated many, and some of those do seem to be motivated out of a real concern for the rights of the fetus, which they consider sufficiently human to grant such recognition.
But there are at least as many, and I suspect a great deal more, who have rather less noble motivations - the anti-sex people from the religious right, who see abortion as a licence to commit sinful sex outside of marriage. The culture war warriors, who believe that the national birth rate needs to be pumped up in order to out-breed the muslim horde. The counter-sexual-revolutionists, who believe that a woman's place remains in the kitchen and that access to abortion will allow them to exceed their social station by opening up the possibility of a career. And of course the political types, who just see that those evil anti-american liberals are supporting abortion rights and consider this alone sufficient reason to oppose them.
Posted by: Suricou Raven | November 11, 2009 10:10 AM
I have another take on this. I think that lots of House Democrats didn't see this as so bad because it's the exact same deal that they, their staffs, and every other person covered under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan has to live with. It's our reality, which by the way doesn't seem to have the pro-choice community all that outraged. And lots of the rhetoric has talked about giving people the same coverage the Members of Congress and their staffs have. Well our coverage is forbidden by law from covering abortion.
I'm pro-choice, but I'm having a hard time getting worked up about this because no one seems to care that this is the exact same deal everyone who gets health care as a civilian or military federal employee has to live and I'm not seeing the outrage.
Posted by: katydid13 | November 11, 2009 10:12 AM
Perhaps at least some pro-choicers who voted for the bill recognize that the restrictions only apply to elective abortions; i.e., abortions that are medically indicated would be covered.
Posted by: bob koepp | November 11, 2009 10:25 AM
But do they also have a real concern for embryos? The vast majority of abortions involve embryos and not fetuses. In fact, the only times a pregnancy is aborted with a fetus involved are when the health or life of the woman is at risk, or the fetus has health problems. If these people care about fetuses so much that they want the woman to risk her life or health for it, then I'm still not convinced that they care about life.
Posted by: catgirl | November 11, 2009 10:36 AM
This made for nice political theater in the House, but won't have any effect on final passage. With or without (but likely with) the ban, the final vote will be almost identical in the House.
If politeness matters, the proper labels are "pro-choice" and "pro-life," seeing as that is what the two sides have been calling themselves for 30+ years.
Posted by: kehrsam | November 11, 2009 10:41 AM
Hopefully, the anti-woman crowd will have inadvertently finally done something useful and will doom this bill. The bill isn't real health care reform, it's a nightmare that's main action is protecting the profits of greedy insurance companies.
If it passes, it will derail real health care reform for years.
Posted by: Comixchik | November 11, 2009 10:48 AM
I'm sorry, are we talking about the movement where even the members who don't quite have the guts to shoot doctors or bomb clinics have no problem harassing and intimidating women going into those clinics or stalking clinic workers at their own homes? The movement that (if taken at face value) believes the rights of a fetus or even an embryo outweight those of an adult woman?
Politeness stopped mattering long ago. "Anti-choice" is the nicest thing I'm willing to call the bastards.
Posted by: Seraph | November 11, 2009 11:09 AM
Catgirl, "fetus" and "embryo" are basically arbitrary divisions in a continuous process, so what's your point? Anyhow, for human beings the "embryo" is usually called a "fetus" after about 8 weeks from conception (10 weeks from mommy's last menstrual period), and there are *plenty* of elective abortions that occur at or after that time.
On another matter, why is it surprising that a legislator (or anyone else) could be pro-choice - believing that abortion should not be criminalized - and yet simultaneously favor completely isolating public programs from any connection to the practice of abortion? Those two positions are perfectly consistent.
Posted by: Embry O'Fetus | November 11, 2009 11:12 AM
I think we should use the most accurate descriptions possible given both groups' names contradict their positions to some extent. I argue for "anti-abortion rights" and "pro-abortion rights" advocates. Wordier, but also accurately descriptive.
The "anti-women" descriptor is even more inaccurate than 'pro-choice' given it frames the issue too narrowly since there is a father and an unborn entity involved and impacted in this issue. It immediately starts off from a lie, which would restrict rather than enhance productive debate, just like pro-abortion rights advocates justifiably hate the false descriptor "pro-life".
Posted by: Michael Heath | November 11, 2009 11:19 AM
My point is that words matter, and connotation matters. The anti-abortion rights crowd wants tries to mislead by using the term "fetus". They try to re-frame the issue to make people think that small babies are being killed.
Why should they completely isolate public programs from any connection to a legal procedure? We don't deny coverage for blood transfusions and mental health care because the Jehovah's Witnesses and Scientologists might get upset.
Posted by: catgirl | November 11, 2009 11:35 AM
I'm surprised there's no mention of Catholic bishops twisting politicians' arms over this. I figured you'd pick up on that point.
Posted by: Paul | November 11, 2009 11:49 AM
Catgirl - You ask, "Why should they completely isolate public programs from any connection to a legal procedure? We don't deny coverage for blood transfusions and mental health care because the Jehovah's Witnesses and Scientologists might get upset."
Presumably, the blood transfusions and mental health care in question would be medically indicated, right? Blood transfusions are sometimes used not to ameliorate any medical condition, but to enhance performance. Some people engage in analysis or other psychological "treatments" as part of a quest for self-knowledge, even if they are clinically normal. In such cases, we don't expect health insurance to cover the procedures. Why should elective abortions be treated differently?
Posted by: bob koepp | November 11, 2009 11:51 AM
I am pro-choice, but I do believe that this controversy will kill health care reform. The art of politics requires that you know when to compromise.
Posted by: carey | November 11, 2009 11:57 AM
"Pro-abortion rights" and "anti-abortion rights" are not bad descriptors. But as shorthand terminology goes, I think there's an argument to be made for "pro-choice" and "pro-life", and here's why. The conflict between the two positions basically comes down to which right is given pre-eminence: the right to life or the right to "choose". Pro-abortion rights folks aren't opposed to the right to life generally, and anti-abortion rights folks aren't opposed to the right to bodily autonomy (making choices affecting one's body) generally. It comes down to which right they think trumps the other in the particular context of abortion.
So in a sense, "pro-life" and "pro-choice", properly understood, are arguably better descriptors of the fundamental debate than they are given credit for.
Posted by: Embry O'Fetus | November 11, 2009 11:59 AM
Make it "anti-reproductive-rights" and "pro-reproductive-rights", and you may have something. Remember, Pro-reproductive-rights folks are also in favor of comprehensive sex education and contraceptive access, while the overwhelming majority of Anti-Reproductive-Rights folks lobby for Abstinence-Only Sex "Education" and restriction of access to contraception (through such things as "conscience clauses" to allow pharmacists to refuse to dispense hormonal birth control, or cutting birth control from college insurance plans because it "encourages promiscuity").
I believe you mean 'pro-life'. Now to your point:
1) It is, by definition, anti-woman to think "the father" or an unborn entity should have any say in a woman's control of her own body and medical decisions. If she isn't consulting them voluntarily, there's probably a good reason.
2) Even if that weren't the case, many of their policies and much of their rhetoric is dedicated to punishing sexual women rather than reducing abortion in a pragmatic way. See above in re. sex education and contraceptive access, and how long do most discussions about abortion go on before you start hearing something along the lines of "should have kept her legs shut" or "face the consequences of her actions"?
Posted by: Seraph | November 11, 2009 12:05 PM
Michael Heath | November 11, 2009 11:19 AM:
The father's life and health are not at direct risk from the pregnancy. The father can much more conveniently abandon any child that might result from the pregnancy.
Posted by: llewelly | November 11, 2009 12:06 PM
Actually, they are. See above in re. sex education and contraceptive access.
Posted by: Seraph | November 11, 2009 12:07 PM
Yes, I've heard the argument that abortions shouldn't be covered because they're elective. However, childbirth is also elective, and it's still covered. You could claim that prenatal care is covered for the good of the future child, but even complications from birth that only affect the mother are generally covered.
You could also argue that even elective abortions are medically indicated. If you had a condition that gave you nausea for a few months, temporary back pain, and constipation, a treatment to stop those symptoms should be covered. When women want children, they put up with the symptoms because it's worth it. When a woman doesn't want a child, an abortion will stop her medical symptoms. It's elective in the same way that treating strep throat is elective, because you could just wait for it to run its course.
Posted by: catgirl | November 11, 2009 12:10 PM
Catgirl, do you really think that the government is obligated to associate itself and its programs wholeheartedly with anything that is not against the law? Boob jobs are legal. So are pornography, liquor, cigarettes, gambling (in one form or another in many places), and adultery. That doesn't mean that it's irrational for the government to decide that it's in the public interest to ring-fence a particular public program from these things.
Posted by: Embry O'Fetus | November 11, 2009 12:21 PM
Although I am pro-choice, IMO, all abortion funding attached to the Senate bill should be stripped out.
It's a poison pill that will kill the entire legislation, plus give the right's base one more reason to self-righteously wail against it.
Posted by: CHV | November 11, 2009 12:22 PM
Embry O'Fetus,
I might be more willing to accept that these people are "pro-life" if they actually wanted to reform health care so that American citizens don't die for the sin of being too poor.
I rarely see "pro-life" people doing things that help actual human lives. They often favor cutting social welfare programs in an attempt to save money. They often favor the death penalty, and support wars and invasions more readily than others do. In extreme cases, they don't even want abortions to be available to save the life of the pregnant woman, even if it means losing both the woman and the embryo, rather than just losing the embryo. None of them support mandatory organ donation for anything besides pregnancy, even though there are always critical shortages of blood and people die because they need kidneys. Of course those things shouldn't be mandatory, but they are being logically inconsistent by saying that some other type of forced organ donation should be mandatory. If you press them on this issue, they usually end up admitting that women deserve pregnancy for the sin of having sex.
It often seems that pro-life people stop caring about life as soon as people are born.
I'm sure there are a few pro-life people out their who genuinely care about life and also care about the precious potential humans. They are the minority.
Posted by: catgirl | November 11, 2009 12:23 PM
What abortion funding? Anything abortion-related in this bill has been added to assure that there really is no way that any government funding can even touch abortion. Unless you mean that you also want them to deny funding for therapeutic abortion?
They'd wail against it no matter what. You could have a bill that says puppies and rainbows are good, and they'd complain that you hate kittens and you're trying to push through the Homosexual Agenda(TM). We should stop trying to please these toddlers. Giving in to their tantrums only means that we all end up with nothing.
Posted by: catgirl | November 11, 2009 12:31 PM
Embry O'Fetus, did you really just compare abortion and a woman's right to make medical decisions about her own body to elective plastic surgery (that, unless it has to do with a reduction due to back pain or other medical reasons, or is related to breast cancer, has no real medical use), and MATERIAL ITEMS (porn, liquor, cigarettes, etc) that are not even close to being related to abortion?
Really?
Posted by: marilove | November 11, 2009 12:34 PM
Which part of the public gets to benefit from these programs? I pay taxes just as much as anti-abortion rights people, so why should the government bend over backwards to not step on their toes?
Posted by: catgirl | November 11, 2009 12:34 PM
Catgirl - FWIW, the qualifier 'elective' applies to medical procedures/interventions, not to biological processes such as childbirth. I hope you understand that I support the right of women to choose to have elective abortions. I'm just trying to get the "debate" about healthcare insurance to reflect distinctions that are recognized within the medical profession.
Posted by: bob koepp | November 11, 2009 12:36 PM
Has anyone seen an article that provides some detail of the Capps Amendment vs. the Stupak Amendment regarding exactly when abortion insurance coverage is prohibited or allowed?
For example, do both Amendments allow insurance coverage in the Exchange's basic plan that covers abortion for the health or life of the mother when its in jeopardy? How about coverage for mid- to late-term abortions when the unborn has no chance for life? Early-term on-demand abortion procedures are relatively inexpensive and there are other ways to finance those without using federal funds. However the procedures I'm asking about can run into the thousands of dollars and it would be both immoral, and in my opinion unconstitutional to prohibit coverage those procedures.
Another question is whether the Stupak Amendment would also prohibit abortions in employer-funded plans or just the exchanges? Employer-funded plans normally cover abortion. If the Stupak plan prohibits the Exchange (which it does for at least on-demand) but not the employer-funded plan that also appears unconstitutional to me.
Posted by: Michael Heath | November 11, 2009 12:40 PM
Whose public interest? Why do they need to "ring-fence" abortion to protect the public's interest? Is it because women need to be hand-held? Or is it because we need to cater to the anti-women crowd? Because neither is what our government should be doing.
It's also pretty telling to me that a man thinks abortions are "elective".
If I were to get pregnant today, there would be nothing "elective" about the abortion I would surely seek out. There is no way that I can mentally, emotionally, or financially care for a child, and for it to be considered "elective" is insulting. It's a medical decision I should be able to make. Since, you know, it's LEGAL.
Posted by: marilove | November 11, 2009 12:45 PM
Inexpensive to whom? Not to me, and I'm not particularly poor.
Posted by: marilove | November 11, 2009 12:47 PM
Hi, Ed.
Thanks for the insightful commentary; in all seriousness it's much appreciated.
I quibble with your use of the term "pro-life," to describe these democrats in your opening sentence, however.
Abortion is a right, inherent by virtue of one's personhood and merely recognized by the Constitution and the Supreme Court. Anyone who has the temerity to believe they get a say in an individual can do with their own body is not "pro-life," they are anti-choice.
Period.
Calling them anything else is a disservice to the tens of thousands of women who have bled to death in back allies because of this sort and their ilk.
Posted by: Jeff | November 11, 2009 12:47 PM
When the Senate votes on the conference bill, can that be filibustered? IOW, do they still need a 60 vote supermajority?
Posted by: BaldApe | November 11, 2009 12:50 PM
I can't really take credit for any such comparison, since if there is one, it flows solely from Catgirl's focus on the *legality* of abortion in querying why the government might want to isolate public programs from it. I think that focus is misplaced, and I hope it's now clear why.
Posted by: Embry O'Fetus | November 11, 2009 12:51 PM
Treatment for any non-life-threatening condition could be considered "elective" because you have the option of just tolerating the condition. But not only do you have the right to seek treatment, a public plan should even cover it.
Posted by: catgirl | November 11, 2009 12:52 PM
The government treats abortion worse than pornography, cigarettes, alcohol, and gambling. Politicians aren't bending over backwards to make sure that public funding never touches these things. Hell, governments even run gambling programs, in the form of lotteries. Tobacco groups lobby Congress. Why aren't we so eager to draw a tidy line around these things too?
Posted by: catgirl | November 11, 2009 12:59 PM
marilove -
Let's assume you get pregnant today. Is there some medical reason why you should not become pregnant (i.e., pregnancy is contraindicated)? If so, then a physician would be seriously negligent if they didn't steer you toward a timely termination. If there's not such a medical reason, then termination would be elective, in the medical sense of the term. This has nothing whatever to do with my being male.
Posted by: bob koepp | November 11, 2009 1:00 PM
I know the Stupek amendment will still cover abortions to save the life and health of the mother. However, I don't think it will cover abortion if there's something wrong with the embryo or fetus.
Posted by: catgirl | November 11, 2009 1:02 PM
Yes, you could argue that, but it would come across as pretty foolish and at odds with the traditional understanding of what the practice of medicine is in the first place. If you had a disease or disorder that was causing those symptoms, a procedure intended to diagnose or treat it could be medically indicated. But pregnancy per se is not a disease or disorder, has never been regarded as one, and it's fairly clear that anyone who characterizes it as such is starting from the position that abortion should be a covered procedure and working backwards to the necessary premise in order to justify it.
Posted by: Embry O'Fetus | November 11, 2009 1:09 PM
When I read Ed's piece about Stupak and the Holy Roller's land deal I thought, "asshole". Now that I see the result of his handiwork in the healthcare legilation I think, "fucking anti-choice asshole.".
Posted by: democommie | November 11, 2009 1:16 PM
Embry O'Fetus:
Thanks for sharing. You want babies? then go get a uterus transplant and have at it.
Posted by: democommie | November 11, 2009 1:18 PM
Catgirl -
You say, "Treatment for any non-life-threatening condition could be considered "elective" because you have the option of just tolerating the condition."
You _could_ use the term 'elective' in this way, but that's _not_ how it's used in the medical world, and that's the world to which health insurance is supposed to provide access.
Posted by: bob koepp | November 11, 2009 1:18 PM
That's funny. I thought that the practice of medicine was traditionally to make people healthier.
Pregnancy is a hell of a lot worse than many common infectious diseases, and yet we still treat strep throat and stomach ulcers anyway. It's not a disease for people who actually want to have a baby, but it's pretty bad for people who don't have that goal. If you had the same symptoms as pregnancy caused by anything else, you'd treat it. It doesn't matter what's "traditional". If you care about tradition, then you should stop washing your hands or using disinfectant. And since pregnancy isn't a traditional disease, then why should we cover it even for wanted pregnancies? Pregnancy might not be a disease, but it is certainly a life-threatening condition.
Posted by: catgirl | November 11, 2009 1:21 PM
Do you really think that certain people want to ban public funding of abortion because the medical field defines it as elective?
Posted by: catgirl | November 11, 2009 1:25 PM
What does that have to do with anything I said? Good first post if your plan is to consign your participation in the thread to irrelevance. Thanks for sharing.
Posted by: Embry O'Fetus | November 11, 2009 1:46 PM
Embry O'Fetus:
Your comments (and your blognomen) indicate that you think the "life" of a mass of cells is more important than the life of the person (always a woman) who is being told that she must support that mass of cells for, not just 9 months, but for about another 18-? years.
So you love the babeez? Go have some.
Trust me, if being relevant to the discussion (in your eyes) was important to me, I'd call the VA and ask for a psych consult.
Posted by: democommie | November 11, 2009 1:57 PM
Well, "certain people" could want anything for any reason. However, the fact that many abortions are elective does seem to be a very relevant consideration for many people who want to ban public funding of abortion (which appears to be the majority of the public), since many of them DON'T want to ban funding for the most clearly non-elective kind of abortion (risk to the mother's life).
Posted by: Embry O'Fetus | November 11, 2009 1:58 PM
So you love the elective aborshunz? Go buy some.
At the end of 18 years, it's still a mass of cells. If the real problem for you is the injustice of the support obligation (of course, many mothers do not end up supporting their kids for 18 years), I think you'd have to acknowledge that there is almost as much unfairness involved in not being able to terminate the mass of cells 12 months after it's conceived as there would be in not being able to terminate it 3 months after it's conceived. Anyway, the topic is not really whether it would be defensible to ban abortion but whether the Stupak-Pitts Amendment is defensible.
Posted by: Embry O'Fetus | November 11, 2009 2:18 PM
Are you really that dense? Are you really trying to say people believe killing a 3-month old child (12 months after conception) to an abortion, or did you just slip that in as an attempted insult?
what a maroon.
Posted by: dean | November 11, 2009 2:33 PM
I think the proposed health care reform is pretty ridiculous (you guys need to reform your system, but the current proposals seem to accomplish nothing but entrench the parts of your system that make it work so badly) but its vastly more ridiculous for this proposal to fail due to abortion? Tell me, can your politicians talk about anything without bringing abortion into it?
Posted by: James K | November 11, 2009 2:34 PM
Probably only issues of war James, since that's when the so-called "pro-life" party is usually on the side of more death ;). Speaking of those useless labels, it would be great if we could simply call the two sides the pro legalized abortion and anti legalized abortion sides, but honesty is not usually highly valued in politics.
The problem here for the democrats is that without this amendment they are effectively subsidizing abortion - which I'm for by the way - and yet they don't want to come out and say that and fight for it. And sadly democrats are alot worse at lying compared to republicans.
Posted by: Coriolis | November 11, 2009 2:47 PM
No, I think that breathing, eating, and pooping are pretty distinctive, so it's not unfair to protect actual people.
Posted by: catgirl | November 11, 2009 2:47 PM
No, that modest proposal was a form of argumentum ad absurdum. Obviously (I hope) no one, including democommie, believes such a thing. However, if, as he/she implied, the central injustice to the mother would be that in the absence of a termination right she'll incur a support obligation lasting years, then the extra 9 months (i.e. between 3 months post-conception and 12 month post-conception) don't hugely vary that injustice from the mother's perspective (at the very least, it would only be a difference of degree rather than kind). Thus I'm inclined to believe that the support-obligation-based argument alluded to by democommie is not a particularly good one, since the line of reasoning lends itself to absurd results.
Posted by: Embry O'Fetus | November 11, 2009 2:51 PM
I'm going to do something I don't usually do, and quote a long comment I made on the topic from another blog. (Won't blockquote it, I'm feeling too sick to do all that work.) This was originally posted on COGITAMUS and I could just link to it, but I could have written it de novo for here. (Except for the 'euphmism comment')
We are talking about a woman's right to have an abortion if she feels it necessary or desireable, nothing more, and every time we use this sort of euphemism, all we do is confirm the little old church ladies (of either sex and any age) in their belief that 'all we are doing is seeking to save "bad girls" from facing the consequences of their sexuality, carelessness and irresponsibility.
We have to start reminding people that there is nothing wrong -- and quite possibly something praiseworthy -- in women making the following statements:
"I already have three children, and it isn't fair to them to add another member of the family."
"I have just raised two children and sent them off to college. I'm glad I did, but I'm not going to spend the next twenty years doing the same thing unless I choose to do so, not because of a mistake, accident or miscalculation."
"I know I am not mature enough, chronologically or emotionally, to raise a child yet, and it isn't fair, to the child or to me, to force me to do so."
"I don't have the resources to raise this child on my own, but his father might have been fun to date, but he'd be an awful husband and father, and I'm not going to saddle myself of my child with him for the foreseeable future."
"My child will be extremely handicapped. I may admire those parents who can devote the time, money, resources, and strength to raise such a child, but that's not me. I just don't have it in me."
"I had an awful set of parents, and I'm still working my way through what they did to me. But that's the only parenting style I've experienced, and until I'm through dealing with it in myelf, I'm not going to take the chance of doing to a child what they did to me."
"Ive spent the last ten years -- and most of my money --working towards entering this profession, one in which I can do good for people. I've got my chance, and I don't have the resources left to raise a child while I am taking it."
"Danny and I decided to have a child so he'd have a new son or daughter waiting for him when he came back from Iraq, but I just found out he's not coming back, just his body is"
Or just "I'm young, healthy, and have had a hard life so far. I'll choose when I want to become part of a family, but right now, I want to take advantage of my youth and chance to enjoy myself."
These are the sort of arguments we should be making. And -- though this is a hard one to put across to people who assume any mother's love for her child -- once she has one -- is automatic, complete and unconditional -- it is true that many women, after a forced pregnancy have at least an unconscious resentment towards the child that comes out in the way she treats him -- or towards the man she feels a need to marry just so the child will have two parents.
I remember, around the time of Roe that ther were a lot of women testifying, in public, at hearings, in magazine articles, that they had had abortions (even when they were illegal), why they'd done it, and why they were glad they had.
We don't see much of that these days, and I don't think it's because everyone who had one regrets it. It's just that people have become so browbeaten by the religious forced pregnancy crowd that they have retreated behind euphemisms and no longer are willing to deal with what it is they are actually talking about.
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | November 11, 2009 3:00 PM
@8: "But do they also have a real concern for embryos? The vast majority of abortions involve embryos and not fetuses. In fact, the only times a pregnancy is aborted with a fetus involved are when the health or life of the woman is at risk, or the fetus has health problems. If these people care about fetuses so much that they want the woman to risk her life or health for it, then I'm still not convinced that they care about life."
catgirl, can you point me to some reliable sources for this information?
Posted by: Rich | November 11, 2009 3:04 PM
@James K,
No, not really. Nor can they address real problems without totally missing the point and "solving" things that weren't problems in the first place. Which explains the correctness of the first part of your comment.
Posted by: BaldApe | November 11, 2009 3:04 PM
Prup, send that one off to crazy-anti-choicer heddle. Hopefully he'll read that and realize that he's totally batshit.
Posted by: Katharine | November 11, 2009 3:05 PM
You don't think that having something inside you and having to support a person in other ways is a huge variance? We don't legally demand that mothers donate their organs if their kids need them (although most mothers would voluntarily do so). If you think that being pregnant is just some kind of trivial inconvenience, then you are quite naive.
On top of that, mothers don't actually have a legal obligation to provide for their children for 18 years, because they have the choice of allowing someone else to take care of the child. There are plenty of options available that simply aren't available during pregnancy. Your analogy of a 3 month old embryo and a 3 month old child is not a very good one.
Posted by: catgirl | November 11, 2009 3:07 PM
kehrsam @ # 9: If politeness matters, the proper labels are "pro-choice" and "pro-life,"...
Why should politeness matter when we're seeing a continual creeping coup by parafascist theocrats in both "our" parties?
Go to covenantnews.com for a handy collection-in-one-place of what they call pro-choicers.
If you want to be technically precise, the wire services have settled on "anti-abortion" and "anti-abortion rights" as a more accurate descriptor for those I prefer to call misogynistic hyperchristians.
As for politeness: pissing on 'em when their hair is on fire would be far more courtesy than is justified.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | November 11, 2009 3:15 PM
Rich: Abstinence-only education
Anti-abortion stances
Anti-contraception stances (which are becoming more and more popular)
"Crisis pregnancy" centers
Those are just from the top of my head.
Posted by: marilove | November 11, 2009 3:19 PM
Really. It comes down to breathing, eating and pooping? What's distinctive about those, except that they're associated with the part of the human life cycle outside the womb (the same life functions of respiration, nutrition, and waste removal being handled differently inside the womb)?
Why is it that the "distinctive" criteria offered for this sort of thing generally seem to be selected chiefly as a function of the born meeting them and the unborn not meeting them, rather than on any ontological significance?
Posted by: Embry O'Fetus | November 11, 2009 3:22 PM
Rich: Abstinence-only education
Anti-abortion stances
Anti-contraception stances (which are becoming more and more popular)
"Crisis pregnancy" centers
Those are just from the top of my head.
These are sources that substantiate "the only times a pregnancy is aborted with a fetus involved are when the health or life of the woman is at risk, or the fetus has health problems."?
Posted by: Rich | November 11, 2009 3:24 PM
My health insurance covers abortion, but allows you to refuse coverage. You get a refund- $0.40 per year.
1) I wish they'd set up federal coverage like this and get the damn thing passed
2) It should be a dramatic illustration of how trivial the money we're talking about is (particularly since my health insurance company specializes in providing to students; I don't know about the rates of elective abortions, but I know that as pharmaceutical prescription coverage, birth control is an incredibly high percentage of what they cover)
3) For those that are vehemently pro-life. I'm willing to bet a HELL of a lot more than fourty cents per year goes to killing people in the state's name in other forms (e.g. death penalty; Iraq + Afganistan, ect.). To attack only women who are making the best choices they can for their bodies and their families (2/3s of women who choose abortion already have children) as an important source of death paid for by the state is both indescribably offensive and unfathomably stupid.
@ bob koepp-
What makes you think a clinically normal pregnancy is easier to deal with than clinically abnormal suicidal major depressive disorder? I've dealt with both, and I wouldn't put it that way.
"But pregnancy per se is not a disease or disorder, has never been regarded as one, and it's fairly clear that anyone who characterizes it as such is starting from the position that abortion should be a covered procedure and working backwards to the necessary premise in order to justify it."
That's a load of hot horseshit. I've just been through a pregnancy, in not-insignificant part because I didn't feel entirely happy about the morality of going through with a termination.
I saw more doctors in those 8 months than I ever had in the rest of my life combined. I was more physically ill than I ever have been. I was more severely depressed and closer to suicide than I ever had been. And this was for a "clinically normal" "healthy" pregnancy.
Before I was pregnant, I could understand why people wouldn't want to pay for abortions and wasn't particularly riled up that they aren't always covered under health insurance. Now that I've been through it, I would never. EVER. EVER. Force anyone else to.
To view pregnancy as an inherently natural everything-is-unicorns-and-rainbows-miracle is bullshit. In fairness, to view it as inherently evil and diseased parasitism process is also bullshit. For different women, at different times, it can be anywhere on the continuum. No one. NO ONE. Should EVER tell a woman how it IS and that her feelings/experiences aren't the critical reality for her decisions.
It doesn't matter if you think an abortion is vain and frivolous (like a boob job?), or the only sensible reaction to a dangerous disease resulting in a lifelong responsibility, unless it is your body.
Posted by: becca | November 11, 2009 3:34 PM
Embry O'Fetus:
Thanks for proving my point. You have no dog in the fight, you just want to control other peoples' bodies. Never mind getting a uterus, try getting a functioning brain and a fucking heart.
Posted by: democommie | November 11, 2009 3:36 PM
Becca, to bring this back to the topic of conversation, do you think this dictates a certain view on Stupak-Pitts?
Posted by: Embry O'Fetus | November 11, 2009 3:41 PM
Rich, I was replying to the wrong person, or I misread. I think someone asked for sources that the anti-abortion (
pro-life) crowd cares more for a fetus than the living mother, and living children.Posted by: marilove | November 11, 2009 3:50 PM
Why don't you try not doing them for awhile and get back to me? Your point that a fetus is no different than an embryo is not a valid one.
Anyway, you missed the most important distinction in that an infant is not physically inside someone's body.
Posted by: catgirl | November 11, 2009 3:57 PM
Embry O'Fetus | November 11, 2009 12:21 PM:
Pregnancy puts a woman's life and health at substantial risk. An abortion nearly eliminates that risk. A "boob job" on the other hand, is much riskier than not getting a "boob job". Likewise, several of the other legal things you have compared abortions to, such as liquor, cigarettes, and gambling, increase risk rather than decrease it.
More importantly - completing a pregnancy commits a woman to care for the child for up to 20 years. Deciding not to get a "boob job", or not to involve oneself in any of the other things you mention, does not commit one to anything.
Your comparisons display ignorance.
Posted by: llewelly | November 11, 2009 3:57 PM
Virtually every comment above addressed the theoretical and not the reality of abortion. Let me try to redress that omission.
Abortion has been with humanity for millennia. Women have always aborted pregnancies for all kinds of reasons, mostly for reasons of survival. And they will continue to abort pregnancies, until contraception is widely available, understood, and cheap. And when abortion was illegal—before legalization in selected states and Roe v. Wade—abortion rates were much the same as when it was legal. Banning abortion locally or nationally or denying federal funding of it directly or indirectly will have no appreciable effect on it. But, if something like the Stupak amendment made it into law, the US would see a sharp increase in back alley abortions on women who lack the funds or the insurance to obtain safe, medically administered ones. Is that what people really want? Some anti-abortion advocates do, but most don't. The latter just live in a fantasy world, akin to that described in the old hobo song "The Big Rock Candy Mountain" with its lemonade springs.
I've volunteered for close to a decade shielding young, and some not so young, women seeking legal, ethical medical care at a Planned Parenthood (PP) clinic. They are subjected to mean spirited, ugly harassment by protesters who line the sidewalk outside and scream, yell and insult patients, staff and volunteers alike. In dealing with these protesters over the years—and many are acquaintances, not friends, of six or more years—I've come to understand their basic views. To them any woman who seeks medical care of any kind at PP is a social pariah, a cheap and easy woman, one who uses abortion as a convenient means of birth control, a slut, an immoral hussy. At root the lot, even the women among them, are misogynists, many of whom think that a full pregnancy is the proper punishment for a loose life. For a pregnant woman to stop a pregnancy is akin to a clearly guilty miscreant being acquited. They even think that a pregnancy resulting from incest or rape must be carried to term. In their eyes, any woman who has been raped by a stranger or kin must bear at least partial responsibility for the result and carry any resulting pregnancy to term. But what I find surreal is their apparently sincerely held belief that by drying up funding for, by banning, and/or making abortions illegal, abortions will disappear. At best they're hopelessly naïve. At worst they're mean spirited prigs. And many in Congress, in particular Rep. Joe Pitts (Stupak's co-sponsor who voted against the final bill), but probably also Stupak, are among the latter.
Ironically, to reduce abortions significantly, we only have to adopt universal, age-appropriate comprehensive sex-education and make sure that contraception is widely available and inexpensive. But America's political prigs are against that, so the US, as with our health care outcomes, will continue to obtain results that place us in the Third World.
Posted by: Keanus | November 11, 2009 4:04 PM
Keanus,
Thank you for bringing up the issue of dangerous back-alley abortions. It's just one more reason that I think it's disingenuous to use the term "pro-life".
Posted by: catgirl | November 11, 2009 4:13 PM
If, and only if, the anti-abortionists:
*Come out in support of all forms of contraception, which would drastically decrease the number of abortions sought;
*Recognize that fetal life is not more valuable than the life of a grown woman, thereby not wishing to pass laws that would jeopardize the lives of pregnant women;
*Recognize that support for wars and capital punishment are not consistent with a "pro-life" mentality;
*Recognize that human life is not more valuable than any other form of life, thereby giving up all meat products and by-products, not to mention furs, leather, etc.
*Come out in full support of universal healthcare, which would save or lengthen countless lives;
*Support environmental protection laws, which would benefit humans and other species;
Then, and only then, will these people be worthy of the title "pro-life."
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | November 11, 2009 4:21 PM
Sadie Morrison,
I'll go even farther and insist that they need to voluntarily donate blood several times a year to earn the title of "pro-life". Donating that spare kidney would help too.
Posted by: catgirl | November 11, 2009 4:39 PM
Embry O'Fetus | November 11, 2009 12:51 PM:
You made the comparison, but now, called on it, you "can't really take credit for any such comparison"? Instead, you misrepresent Catgirl's argument, and then cry "mommy, she made me do it!"
Another forced birther, engaging in juvenile and dishonest tactics.
Posted by: llewelly | November 11, 2009 4:43 PM
Do you have some sources for those propositions? I'd think we'd want to take into account all risks provoked by abortion, including relative risks of mortality and other health problems post-pregnancy as between aborting mothers and delivering mothers.
No one said the contrary. The point, which seem to have misunderstood, was to question catgirl's apparent assumption that we should naturally expect any lawful activity to fare as well as any other lawful activity when it comes to government programs and policies.
As several others have already pointed out, that's not exactly true, nor would it be clearly dispositive of the matter if it were true. But it also seems to involve a bit of question-begging, since legalized abortion is the very reason that the obligation of care is triggered upon the *completion* of the pregnancy rather than, say, at the *commencement* of the pregnancy.
Posted by: Embry O'Fetus | November 11, 2009 4:56 PM
A woman has a constitutional right to have an abortion (see numerous rulings by SCOTUS). Just like the right to live freely as any citizen in good standing. Restrictions on our rights (including woman's rights) have to have overwhelming obvious justifications otherwise the Constitution and the many lives given for our freedoms mean nothing. Your RELIGIOUS fantasy that a fetus has a soul and is a full person is NOT justification to strip away a woman's right to choose.
But here is the kicker... if facts and justice matter: a small % of abortions are funded by insurance now. Most abortions are performed early (within 1st trimester) and are cheap. Insurance not employed or necessary. Those done later on (those that require hospital care, etc. and can be expensive and insurance used if available) are overwhelmingly done for medical imperatives - to humanely avoid unnecessary misery, suffering, and expense. These facts are easy to check and if you have any interest in the real world of woman's health care you'd know the truth.
A woman has a RIGHT (based on SCOTUS judgements of our Constitutions) to protect her person - her being - her dignity. Her access to abortion - her right to have options and be able to choose - is fundamental to that.
What these restrictive amendments do is leave poorer people with less practical rights than richer people. They will force this coverage granted now in must plans out of existence except for the more lucky (read more moneyed) in our "all [persons] created equal" society.
Posted by: ConcernedJoe | November 11, 2009 5:10 PM
Embry O'Fetus, a substantial amount of pregnancies involve a good deal of risk; that's why there are obstetricians and gynecologists and high-risk wards. Eclampsia? Ectopic pregnancy? Placenta previa? Heard of that shit? Well, now you have, and those conditions put pregnant women's lives in danger every year. Any risk from abortion is peanuts to these things.
Posted by: Katharine | November 11, 2009 5:14 PM
I'm disappointed this thread went so far off-topic relative to the precise topic of the post. The anti-abortion rights commenters in this thread don't even post here regularly. I contributed to getting off-tangent as well arguing pedantics about how to label each group so please accept my apologies for this goat fuck of a thread.
We'd be far better off analzying the financial effects, along with the access effects, of the Capps Amendment vs. the Stupak Amendment relative to women's access now. Reading all of the anecdotal stories Andrew Sullivan posted after the George Tiller murder I was horrified regarding the lack of access women have to mid- and late-term abortion procedures when they run into complications. I had no idea this sort of urgent medical care was being denied, even in states like New York. I was hoping, prior to Stupak's raising a ruckus, that universal coverage would increase the supply of practioners offering those services and patients who had coverage for the same. Yet instead we seem to be arguing about insurance for early-term elective procedures when in fact access to those is and should continue to be very easy given how inexpensive that procedure is, the supply of providers remains high in most geographical areas even without universal coverage, and there are charities that will help-out those that are indigent.
What exactly is at stake in Congress? Is it mere denial of insurance coverage just for elective coverage? If so, what percentage of those not covered by employer plans has this procedure covered with insurance now? I'm guessing very few given Medicaid won't cover elective abortions either, most independent young women with insurance have employer-funded insurance, and those young women still dependent on their who are covered either don't inform their parents and pay with cash, or their parents could most likely still pay if not covered. I read recently that an elective abortion in the early stages costs about $500 so we are not talking about large bucks here.
I'm not trying to make an argument that elective abortions shouldn't be covered in the Exchanges, I am trying to understand how each of these amendments will incrementally change the current status quo given I don't think elective abortion policy should be debated one way or the other if it risks not passing this bill. That was the attempt of the Capps Amendment as I understood it and therefore I supported that amendment, as did most Democratic pro-abortion rights Representatives.
I thought the Capps Amendment was OK because it's intent was to defend the status quo. I think most non-social conservative voters would agree that a change in funding of abortion should be a debate separate from health insurance reform given how divisive that whole debate is. We're seeing it in this thread and in my opinion this debate in Congress and the public square helps anti-abortion rights advocates and anti-insurance reformers so we should change our framing in order to win the day.
If I were to assume that nearly all early-term elective abortions are not covered now with health insurance, than from a practical perspective, how much worse is the Stupak Amendment than the Capps Amendment in terms of insuring women have access to abortions, and most importantly insurance coverage for non-elective procedures? Is this a tempest in a teapot? I think not, but right now I don't know since the entire media seems to be having the same old shallow, polarized debate we're seeing in this thread rather than a substantial analysis of the differences between now, post-Capps passage, or post-Stupak passage.
If you are a pro-abortion rights and pro-health insurance reform advocate, than focusing on the details of those three alternatives is our friend, yet we've reverted back to the same old arguments that risk possibly losing more coverage for non-elective procedures and getting tens of millions more women insured.
Posted by: Michael Heath | November 11, 2009 5:17 PM
You really are as stupid and dishonest as your posts indicate, aren't you? You make an asinine, insulting, comparison, then don't have the guts to defend it. The true you is coming out.
Posted by: dean | November 11, 2009 5:17 PM
Realistically, human beings are fucking parasites until they hit, oh, 7 months post-conception at earliest. After that point is a little murkier (though I still support abortions after that point); before that point, I think they're totally free for the killin' if they're going to impinge on one's life and health.
Life, autonomy, and personhood are way murkier than most think. I wonder if Embry O'Fetus knows much about developmental biology.
Posted by: Katharine | November 11, 2009 5:18 PM
Ludicrous. What did I say earlier that misrepresented her? I think it's a very fair reading of her question that it disputed whether the government could have a basis for isolating a public program from an activity as long as it was lawful to engage in the activity in the first place. I simply pointed out a number of potential counterexamples. That they may be dissimilar from abortion, or from each other, in OTHER respects than their shared legality, is not in question. It just reinforces my point at the time, which was that (pace Catgirl) simple legality was not the most relevant consideration.
Posted by: Embry O'Fetus | November 11, 2009 5:21 PM
Moreover, dean, Fetus-Hugger's comparison factors in neither the reality of the fact that a non-trivial amount of pregnancies have major risks and that, quite frankly, asshole probably has no uterus so he doesn't have to worry about his life potentially being derailed by screaming, shitting spawn.
Fun fact: humans have the most hazardous pregnancies of ANY animal. It's even more hazardous than the pregnancy of hyenas. I mean, they may have the whole clitoris-tearing pain and anoxia of most pups coming out, but... fuck, we're bipedal!
Posted by: Katharine | November 11, 2009 5:22 PM
I mean, really, I don't care about the fact that people who don't run the risk of being directly affected by it have the right to hold an opinion about abortion; your opinion means even less to me if you inherently will never understand the risks and the abject terror that arises within many women at the thought of ever becoming pregnant when they don't want to and potentially having their life fucked up.
Posted by: Katharine | November 11, 2009 5:24 PM
Embry - Some stats for the US (most up to date data I could find):
Fatality rate for women:
2002 abortions: 1 in 100,000 (CDC)
2005 maternal, live births: 11 in 100,000 (WHO)
Seem's like a live birth is about 11x the fatility risk vs. abortion - though this doesn't take into account post procedure events.
Posted by: Robert | November 11, 2009 5:34 PM
"Becca, to bring this back to the topic of conversation, do you think this dictates a certain view on Stupak-Pitts?"
I hope that the practical quick-and-dirty lets-get-healthcare-reform-passed-already solution is for Stupak-Pitts to go away, perhaps in favor of a mechanism for insurances to handle it the way mine does (individual opt out), which strikes me as a tolerable compromise.
In the best of all possible worlds, my view does dictate that abortion coverage be as widely available as possible. Including not only that Stupak-Pitts go away, but also that the government ensure that all possible family planning services are available, and subsidized so being able to find or pay for such services do not constitute a barrier.
@Keanus-
Thank you.
@72- I hold all of those positions (to the best of my ability on the vegetarian and ecological impact ones), and I still believe women have a right to choose. My morals are not other people's morals.
"I'd think we'd want to take into account all risks provoked by abortion, including relative risks of mortality and other health problems post-pregnancy as between aborting mothers and delivering mothers."
Good point. Ever get a left labia laceration? (again, I'd just like to point out that a "clinically normal" standard vaginal birth (no interventions) is a miserable experience).
"I think most non-social conservative voters would agree that a change in funding of abortion should be a debate separate from health insurance reform given how divisive that whole debate is."
For practical purposes, I agree. However, as a young woman who has (fortunately) been blessed with good health, the vast majority of healthcare I have needed has been due to reproductive health. For someone like me, healthcare reform is meaningless if it doesn't help get those things covered. And if we are talking from a purely "how to wisely spend insurance dollars" perspective, abortions are an incredibly cost-effective reproductive health medical procedure. While I do not think the immediate repercussions of this bill would be to prevent abortions because people can't afford $500 (although it *is* incredibly blind to see how that isn't a cost-barrier for some people), abortion access is already very limited for many women. Having a higher percentage of covered people not being able to pay for it via insurance might result in fewer doctors offering it, since it'll require more financial finagling. There are good reasons to fight this fight here.
Posted by: becca | November 11, 2009 6:08 PM
Here's a NYTs article that notes that the Stupak Amendment would not allow coverage for abortions when the mother's health is at risk or when the unborn has complications though it would for rape, incest, or if her life was risk (who defines that? loosely interpreted or broadly? is a judge involved?). I would think this level of restriction would be unacceptable if cost-effective riders covering the missing reasons were not available. Some pro-abortion rights people claim such riders would not be offered but that might be a scare tactic - I could find no credible journalist validating this claim.
I do not know how the Capps Amendment dealt with this. I've spent the last half-hour searching the net and have found zero substantive analyses of status-quo vs. the Capps Amendment vs. the Stupak Amendment. Instead we're swamped with stories regarding the drama of the vote or the same old tired abortion arguments where everyone talks past one another.
Posted by: Michael Heath | November 11, 2009 6:20 PM
Michael,
Factcheck.org did some analysis on status quo vs. Capps, with some mention of Stupak.
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/abortion-which-side-is-fabricating/
Posted by: Embry O'Fetus | November 11, 2009 7:13 PM
I don't know anything about this Factcheck site, I have it bookmarked but have rarely used it. Right out of the gate they lie when they claim that President Obama was being deceptive.
Mr. Obama is correct that the Capps Amendment does not extend affordability credits for abortion in a way that is substantially different than current employer-funded plans. If a person is indigent, and that term is being expanded to provide more access, they'll get access to Mediciad, with the same restrictions on abortion that exist now. Those in the exchanges will be paying the bulk of the premium for health insurance, just like I do now for my individual plan (though I obviously get no federal help, nor would I post-reform). The exchanges will increase the number of people having insurance that don't have access to employer-funded plan by providing subsidies or easier access to Medicaid.
Most people in these exchanges will be getting subsidized with what are called "affordability credits" which will cover the amount of the premium that the government indexes can not be afforded by the customer. The customer in these cases will be paying the bulk of the premium, in addition with the Capps Amendment, customers will have at least one insurer who doesn't cover abortion (absolutely none or just some is not clear to me) if they want to insure none of their personal funds are going to towards abortion coverage.
Having the choice to not get abortion coverage is currently is not available now for most beneficiaries of a employer-funded plan. All economists agree that employer-funded plans are really wages, therefore anti-abortion rights advocates who enjoy employer-funded plans are already paying for abortion services in the form of less wages. In addition, given that the value of the employer-funded plans are not taxed against either the employer or the employee argues that the government is already has been indirectly subsidizing abortion coverage for the past 33+ years.
Factcheck is disingenuous when attempting to mix the pool of the money subsidizing a basic plan which contains abortion funds with the amount paid by a citizen given that the portion of the premium covering elective abortions would be miniscule given how cheap this procedure is priced. Especially in light of how employer-funded insurance works regarding taxes and wages as described previously.
Consider religious hospitals, we don't not provide federal funds for their work merely because they also provide religious practices. People, and Accountants, are able to distinguish between the two where the Accountants must to keep the Catholic hospitals within the law. If elective abortion coverage were a major portion of the monthly premium price than Factcheck would have a point, but the fact is, it won't.
Here's another example of Factcheck's dishonesty. They state:
They insinuate that most of the premium for at least some people will be covered with federal subsidies. That is not true, not even close. Of course the public plan should cover abortion services, the same as employer-paid plans do now given it is the citizen paying for the plan (with some affordability credits for most). The public plan is not subsidized anymore than private insurers in the Exchanges, instead its price is covered by citizens who choose it who may or may not get affordability credits based on their income. But again, those credits will not be anywhere near enough to cover the trivial part of the premium covering elective abortion procedures. If the citizen's income were so low they couldn't afford the public option or the private plans in the Exchanges, they'd wind up in the Medicaid plan.
I won't be trusting Factcheck for my fact checking. Is this a right wing outfit?
Posted by: Michael Heath | November 11, 2009 7:47 PM
Right-wingers often accuse Factcheck.org of leaning left. I've occasionally seen left-wingers accuse it of leaning right, but much less often. Most people on both sides tend to regard it as objective, in my experience. It's supposed to be non-partisan. It's a project of the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania. It is probably the best-known and most-cited of the journalistic/political fact-checking websites.
Posted by: Embry O'Fetus | November 11, 2009 7:58 PM
Embry - I read factcheck.org's Wikipedia record, nothing much there except the NRA disputing their claims. I'm pro-gun rights though far from a nut (the rest of my family own safes to keep all their guns). On that matter they took down the NRA's lies about President Obama pretty good. On the link you sent me however, that was a major fail on their part. Maybe they're only as good as each individual researcher and the mood of their editor(s), if any, monitoring the piece.
Posted by: Michael Heath | November 11, 2009 8:05 PM
Michael - No opinion on whether you're right or Factcheck.org is, or something in between. However, just to add more information to the mix - Politifact.com, another nonpartisan factchecker, also has some relevant pieces if you browse their site.
Posted by: Embry O'Fetus | November 11, 2009 8:20 PM
Embry - first off, thanks for all the suggested look-ups.
The Politfact info was far superior. Here are the two links I read: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2009/nov/09/health-care-reform-abortion-amendment/
and
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/nov/09/nita-lowey/lowey-says-stupak-amendment-restricts-abortion-cov/
I found nothing inaccurate in their articles. The one thing I learned was that the Stupak amendment covered only the exchanges, not employer-funded bills, that brings up my point earlier point questioning its constitutionality, especially since it prohibits coverage for most complications except those when the mother's life is at risk as part of a basic plan like women enjoy in employer-funded plans. That seems like unequal protection of rights to me if the riders in the exchange are not a viable option.
Unfortunately, Politifact only noted that the dispute between what the Stupak amendment states and what some pro-abortion rights legislators fear will be the result of a Stupak-like amendment passing. The fear is that women purchasing insurance in their exchange will not get practical access to abortion coverage through a rider if providers don't offer it. Mainstream media is already covering this dispute since it's drama; what they fail to do, along with Politifact, is determine who is right in terms of how this will play out in the marketplace or legislate rules that require such to be afforded. That's what I care about.
In addition, covering the services to treat the complications of pregnancy coverage to me is important. I've read enough horror stories after the Tiller murder to realize that the anti-abortion rights people have effectively restricted abortion to the point that women and families are suffering immensely through a lack of geographical access to abortion in a difficult pregnancy where very few people would argue the government should either prohibit or determine an abortion is allowed or should even be involved. Horrible tragedies compounded by having to leave one's state to get an abortion, e.g., horribly disfigured fetuses dying in the womb with no chance for life once born is one of several examples. No government, law, or judge has any moral right to intervene in such a case.
I'm not sure how the Capps Amendment covers this aspect either (the health of the mother or the viablity of the pregnancy). So while I appreciate the effort, they really didn't move the ball forward anymore than the newspapers I read have (the Wall Street Journal and New York Times). I'm suspicious women are getting sacrificed on this bill.
Posted by: Michael Heath | November 11, 2009 8:58 PM
Robert @ # 84: ... a live birth is about 11x the fatility risk vs. abortion - though this doesn't take into account post procedure events.
It also doesn't factor in that many of the higher-risk cases have moved to the abortion column.
The anti-choicers make as big a deal as they can every time they hear of an abortion patient's death. We'd (especially those of us who monitor them regularly) be hearing a lot more about such cases if they were frequent - but we don't.
And imagine the screaming if pro-choicers publicized the stories of women who died during delivery...
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | November 11, 2009 9:05 PM
If one cannot see that this provision will eventually lower to the point of practical exclusion the coverage of abortion in most affordable plans is naive. The dynamics of how that will unfold will run along these lines succinctly:
Executive: "yippy another thing I do not have to cover without any reduction in premiums or, if I do offer it I can charge through the nose!!! And it's codified all nice so I have a cover - wow somebody up there likes me!" (apologies to Rocky G).
My points are what I said in #78. This is an affront to woman's rights as affirmed by SCOTUS and precedent, doctor patient relationships in general, and the poor who should be most helped by any reform. And this whole embryo-fetus = baby thing is a religious soul thing 99% of the the time. And religious fantasies I say stay the fuck out of my legislation.
Mostly you can call about any operation or treatment elective - abortion is no more medically elective (though more heart-wrenching for sure) than "do I take a statin or not?" or "do I get a blood transfusion or not?"! but only because the JW or CS delusion bubbles only tangentially overlap the RC and Fundy kind we hold as real American Christianity.
But abortions speak to woman's rights and heck we all know 1920 was our mistake and hey, 2008 Bhutan's! And people that know squat about real developmental biology and/or who often profess an irrational bent toward Creationism and/or misogyny and/or an irrational fear and hatred of our sexual natures know best when it comes to a person's most personal reproductive decisions. NOT!
Posted by: ConcernedJoe | November 11, 2009 9:23 PM
Michael Heath,
I agree with your earlier comment at #13. Well put!
Posted by: King of Ireland | November 11, 2009 9:40 PM
Prup wrote:
Agreed.
Although I have this strange memory of seeing you argue in favor of laws requiring spousal (as opposed to paternal) consent for abortion for married women. Am I remembering wrong?
Posted by: Leni | November 12, 2009 1:20 AM
Keanus wrote:
Also agreed. Well put. You are clearly a more patient person than I.
They also take what they claim are "pretend" photos of your license plates. And yes, it is done specifically to frighten patients and they aren't shy about admitting that.
They claim they don't have film in their cameras. The police can only check so many times and even when they do there is no guarantee that the camera they show the police is the one they used 30 minutes earlier to "pretend" to take photos of your license plates. I was afraid to park next to my house for a few weeks afterward. And I took a taxi on the second day (since my state has that wonderful and oh-so-useful 24 hour wait period.) How the hell is that "pro-life"? Pro-fetus, maybe. Pro-life? Not so much.
If these assholes want the respect of being called "pro-life" they can earn it by not acting like thugs. These are people who think they can, and surely do, intimidate women from seeking legal, medical attention. They aren't there to advocate for human rights, they are there to shame, to intimidate and to harass people who are attempting to seek the same sort of private medical care that the rest of us take for granted.
And for the rest of their "pro-life" hangers on: I don't have much better to say about them. Worse in fact, because it is these people who show up to vote against my ability to see a doctor. These are the hypocrites who sit around calling abortion murder or genocide, and then have the gall to wonder why it is that some people treat it like it really is murder or genocide. I wonder what the discussion would look like if those whining, outraged hypocrites had to put up with this kind of shit to see their doctors. I doubt we'd be having nuanced discussions about what to call them, that's for sure.
Posted by: Leni | November 12, 2009 1:57 AM
On a purely financial level, I have to wonder if mandated coverage for abortion might have the adverse effect of making them more expensive along with reducing the availability of the procedure.
Where I live, the largest and most well-known clinic provides abortions from $375 (3 to 6 weeks) - $675 (16 weeks). They also don't take any kind of insurance from what I can learn from their website. They offer application for financial aid of up to 40% of the cost (does not sound like a loan) and a $50 discount for medicaid and active duty military.
If they had to hire additional staff to jump through insurance hoops, I can imagine these costs rising and the total number of people treated dropping.
And... please don't try to convince me that government insurance forms, approvals, and payments will be "hoop-free".
Posted by: Donna B. | November 12, 2009 2:30 AM
"...quite frankly, asshole probably has no uterus so he doesn't have to worry about his life potentially being derailed by screaming, shitting spawn."
And to think we've all come so far.
Posted by: Chester | November 12, 2009 3:19 AM
Donna B.:
Hoop free? You want to see some hoops to jump through, try using virtually any non-government provided healthcare systems.
I am enrolled in VA healthcare. I see a physisician's assistant or nurse practitioner every three months for routine wellness exams. If I have a problem with something that can't be handled at the local clinic I go the VA hospital, a bit of a drive, but not farther than I would have to go for most medical visits otherwise. No forms to fill out, ever, unless they're about medical history--which history, btw, is online, throughout the system. Perfect? no; worse than my former pretty good insurance provided care? no.
Posted by: democommie | November 12, 2009 3:59 AM
Yes, because god forbid anyone speak of the baby in any terms other than glowing worship.
Posted by: Leni | November 12, 2009 4:38 AM
democommie - you're barking up the wrong tree here. I have Tricare (and had it when it was Champus) and hoops I know. I've also had private employer provided insurance and the hoops are not nearly so numerous.
Since my father gets VA care also, why is it he prefers to go almost anywhere else except for meds?
Posted by: Donna B. | November 12, 2009 5:31 AM
Back up at #55, Prup mentioned the lack of women coming forward to tell the stories of their abortions. Well, here I am to remedy that.
I was twenty-one. My bipolar disorder was severe, I was barely functional even with the combination of meds I was on -- meds that were, like most prescriptions for bipolar, severely teratogenic -- and suicidal without them. I didn't even know I was pregnant until six weeks into the pregnancy, more than enough time for them to have caused serious spina bifida. No doctor would have permitted me to remain on my medications if I had wanted to continue the pregnancy, and the morning sickness and pregnancy hormones had my moods swinging wildly. The only hope I held onto, the only reason I didn't commit suicide at the time, was the idea that it would stop if I could just end the pregnancy.
It was not, technically, a medically necessary abortion. It was "elective" by the terms some of the posters here have insisted upon. But I promise you, I had no other viable choice. I could abort, or I could kill myself. There was nothing else. I just barely scraped together the two hundred and fifty dollars it cost in 1999, and could only manage that because I was extremely fortunate. Many women in my situation could not have gotten the money together. No one here should fool themselves into thinking that five hundred dollars isn't big money to an awful lot of women in need of abortions -- precisely the women who will most need public health care. And no one should think that just because it's an "elective" procedure means that there's automatically other good options.
If coverage for abortion is denied now, it may never be added, and it is desperately needed. Passing crippled bills does not accomplish our aims, and we should not try. The Democrats have the votes to pass a much better version of this bill, and they should do it.
Posted by: MadGastronomer | November 12, 2009 5:35 AM
MadGastronomer @ 103:
Do they? Isn't the fact they do not have the votes the very reason this blog post exists in the first place? You appear to be arguing for federal subsidies for all abortions, that wasn't even able to make it out of the House Committee and is the reason for the Capps Amendment, which failed on the floor on the House last week and led to the Stupak Amendment.
I'm too am frustrated that the Dems didn't at least start from the position of a strong bill and then give ground grudgingly in the Senate reconciliation process. What we've learned however is that there are dozens of Democratic Representatives that are center-right and they appear to believe their vote on not funding abortions with federal monies, or even the appearance of funding such, is more important health care.
Thanks for sharing your story and providing anecdotal evidence arguing against my position that not all can afford early-term abortions. I would point out that your advocacy here is more about getting coverage in Medicaid, not the proposed new Exchanges which is where this debate currently rages. People in the exchanges could afford an early-term abortion given its costs; however people that currently have access to Medicaid are prohibited from coverage given the 1976 Hyde Bill.
Posted by: Michael Heath | November 12, 2009 7:20 AM
Donna B.:
You're on Tri-Care and your dad is eligible for VA benefits and prefers not to use the VA. Obviously, if he's retired and you're old enough to be on Tri-Care then he must also be on Medicare. VA advises its patients to avail themselves of any and all insurance and or Medicare programs--if they so desire--to augment their VA care.
Possibly your father had bad expereinces with the VA in the period between the Korean War and The first Gulf War. The VA had some hellacious budgetary shortfalls in some of those years and taking care of veterans was not a priority of a lot of administrations.
I can tell you that every vet that I know who has used the system was grateful it was there for them.
Posted by: democommie | November 12, 2009 8:24 AM
democommie -- we were talking about jumping through hoops to get care. You suggest the VA, as a government program is, for you, near hoop-free. I offer an example of another government medical program - Tricare - that is not hoop-free.
Anyway, to get back to my original question (hoops to jump through was a sidetrack): Is is possible that keeping abortion coverage out of the reform package will result in abortion being staying as easy and inexpensive to obtain as it is now? Or will it make it more difficult and expensive?
Posted by: Donna B. | November 12, 2009 3:20 PM
Donna B.:
Sorry to hear that Tri-Care is a pain in the neck. My VA care is not as cadillacy bell & whistley as my top dollar BCBS or MVP (through Verizon) were, but I fill out no paperwork.
Posted by: democommie | November 12, 2009 3:43 PM
Donna B.:
Sorry, I meant to add that abortion will not become easier if this bill passes--according to what resident commenter Mr. Michael Heath indicates from his reading of it. I take his word on the facts of things, although we disagree on how they will work out, from time to time.
Posted by: democommie | November 12, 2009 3:46 PM