At the American Prospect and Feministing, Ann Friedman reminds us that the significance of the Stupak amendment goes way beyond the funding of abortion services for people who happen to buy coverage through the new insurance exchanges:
On some level, I don't care about the nitty-gritty details of this amendment. This isn't just about how the money is allocated or what workarounds exist. This has me so incredibly infuriated because it further segregates abortion as something different, off the menu of regular health care. It is a huge backward step in the battle to convey -- not just politically, but to women in their everyday lives -- that reproductive health care is normal and necessary, and must be there if (or, more accurately, when) you need it.
This also sets apart women's rights from the Democratic/progressive/whatever agenda. As something expendable. But fundamental rights for women are not peripheral. They are core. And not just because of so-called "progressive" values. In a political sense, too: Seeing as how the Democratic party relies on women voters to win elections, you would think they would have come around to this no-brainer by now.
It's pretty cramped underneath this bus, what with 50 percent of Americans down here.
At the Daily Beast, Dana Goldstein asks the question many abortion rights advocates are asking: Did the administration do everything it could?
Pro-choice leaders disagree about whether more support from the White House could have strengthened their hand in the health-reform battle. In addition to the failed efforts to include comprehensive abortion coverage in the public plan, efforts to require private health insurance coverage of birth control also fell flat. In 1993, Hillary Clinton explicitly told Congress that she expected pregnancy and abortion to be treated in health reform like any other medical service. This year, though, Obama sent a different message, telling Katie Couric in July, “I think we also have a tradition of, in this town, historically, of not financing abortions as part of government-funded health care. Rather than wade into that issue at this point, I think that it’s appropriate for us to figure out how to just deliver on the cost savings, and not get distracted by the abortion debate at this station.”
A different tone from the White House might have helped pro-choice groups, [Judy] Waxman [of the National Women's Law Center] said. “We would like significant support from the administration on women exercising their constitutional rights,” she said.
But [Adam] Sonfield, of Guttmacher, maintains that Congress is the culprit: “Just because there are a lot more Democrats than Republicans doesn’t mean there are a lot more pro-choice people,” he said.
.jpg)
Print
COMMENTS (6)
Maybe, but why should he have?
Under current law women have a right to an abortion. They don't have the right to make me pay for it, and trying to achieve this little bit of elitist tyranny endangers the whole, much more important, project.
Maybe, but why should he have?
Under current law women have a right to an abortion. They don't have the right to make me pay for it, and trying to achieve this little bit of elitist tyranny endangers the whole, much more important, project.
I'm sorry, but abortion is already different. It's the only medical procedure of which I'm aware to which a very substantial fraction of the electorate have serious moral objections, on the grounds of fundamental human rights. I happen to disagree with those objections, and as I have argued elsewhere, I think the anti-abortion folks' insistence that it's an affront to them if, say, $0.0001 on the dollar of their taxes goes to subsidize insurance that ultimately pays for an abortion, is wrong-headed. In fact, I think it is self-centered and trite, since it is unlikely to significantly impact the abortion rate, and thus does not futher their avowed moral goal. All it does is allow them to ... view full comment
I'm sorry, but abortion is already different. It's the only medical procedure of which I'm aware to which a very substantial fraction of the electorate have serious moral objections, on the grounds of fundamental human rights. I happen to disagree with those objections, and as I have argued elsewhere, I think the anti-abortion folks' insistence that it's an affront to them if, say, $0.0001 on the dollar of their taxes goes to subsidize insurance that ultimately pays for an abortion, is wrong-headed. In fact, I think it is self-centered and trite, since it is unlikely to significantly impact the abortion rate, and thus does not futher their avowed moral goal. All it does is allow them to say "but I didn''t help pay for it."
But treating abortion as if it were any other medical procedure - that ship left harbor a long time ago. It isn't. It is an overtly controversial medical procedure, and that's clearly reflected in the results.
I'm tripling my donation to PPA, BTW. I challenge every other pro-choice voter disappointed in the outcome of the Stupak ammendment vote to do the same.
I'm not convinced that women are being thrown under the bus. You ever notice the multitudes of women in the pews at your local Catholic Church? Lots of women are either pro-life or complacent/indifferent/ambivalent about the reproductive rights issue. I really doubt women will stand up in large numbers, and with sufficient energy, to stop this move to further restrict access to abortion. I am pro-choice but I'd gladly trade women's reproductive rights for progress on health care, climate change, tax equity, financial market regulatory reform and the rest of the progressive agenda. I think many women would too.
Neil
I'm not convinced that women are being thrown under the bus. You ever notice the multitudes of women in the pews at your local Catholic Church? Lots of women are either pro-life or complacent/indifferent/ambivalent about the reproductive rights issue. I really doubt women will stand up in large numbers, and with sufficient energy, to stop this move to further restrict access to abortion. I am pro-choice but I'd gladly trade women's reproductive rights for progress on health care, climate change, tax equity, financial market regulatory reform and the rest of the progressive agenda. I think many women would too.
Neil
yep, the first 3 posters about covered most of the issues. good lord, it barely passed as it was. And it still has to go through reconciliation after the Senate eventually (if ever) passes its own bill.
yep, the first 3 posters about covered most of the issues. good lord, it barely passed as it was. And it still has to go through reconciliation after the Senate eventually (if ever) passes its own bill.
by the way Bob and sdemuth, I read the rest of that other thread. That was a nice little thread, and is one of the reasons I like TNR.
by the way Bob and sdemuth, I read the rest of that other thread. That was a nice little thread, and is one of the reasons I like TNR.
Just to be clear, the Hyde Amendment from 1972 (or sometime around then) makes clear that federal dollars will not be used to pay for abortions. The Stupak Amendment goes far beyond that, including restricting whether or not insurance options can even offer abortion services that a woman would pay for out of her own pocket. So they are restricting more and more women from even accessing a legal procedure.
Just to be clear, the Hyde Amendment from 1972 (or sometime around then) makes clear that federal dollars will not be used to pay for abortions. The Stupak Amendment goes far beyond that, including restricting whether or not insurance options can even offer abortion services that a woman would pay for out of her own pocket. So they are restricting more and more women from even accessing a legal procedure.