Smith called a model of public service

educate me (0.00 / 0)

Going into this debate, I was under the impression that Medicaid does not provide coverage for abortions except when a woman's health or life is at risk.

I assumed that the same would be true for a public option.  Is there a difference between the Stupak language and similar language in Medicaid legislation?

If there is something particularly onerous about the Stupak language that would justify a No vote going forward, I would appreciate knowing about it so that I can be armed with that info going foward.  Thanks.

---

by: Bertin Lefkovic @ Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 01:44:00 AM UTC

states can use their own funds (0.00 / 0)

The Hyde Amendment, passed bans state use of federal Medicaid dollars to pay for abortions unless the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest, or the abortion is "necessary to save the life of the woman." States can use their own funds to cover other medically necessary abortions.

"The New Jersey constitution protects reproductive choice as a fundamental right to a greater extent than the federal constitution. In 1982, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that a law limiting Medicaid funding for abortion only in cases of life endangerment was unconstitutional under the state constitution. (Right to Choose v. Byrne, 450 A.2d 925 [NJ 1982])."

Planned Parenthood NJ  

---

by: zora01 @ Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 04:22:21 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

How is the Stupak language different? (0.00 / 0)

Something my wife and I were just talking about is the fiscal insanity of both the Hyde and Stupak Amendments.  Where are the f'n Blue Dogs and Republican deficit hawks when you need them?

If the logic behind these amendments is that someone on Medicaid or the public option who gets pregnant would not get an abortion if they had to pay for it themselves, then a fiscally prudent person should say that it would be better from a fiscal perspective for the government to pay $1,000 for an abortion if that is what the woman wants than $10,000 to $100,000 or more to pay for a woman to carry a child to term.

This does not even take into consideration how much the government would have to pay over a lifetime in the form of services for an unwanted child that either becomes a ward of the state or is cared for poorly by a parent who would not have chosen to have the child if she could have had an abortion.

Obviously, there is much more to the issue of abortion than dollars and cents, but it seems impossible for someone to be pro-life and a deficit hawk and Democrats have to call both their colleagues and their adversaries out on this.

---

by: Bertin Lefkovic @ Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 15:38:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It is my understanding (0.00 / 0)

that the Stupak Amendment will apply to individual women using the the so called "exchange."  Many will be receiving Federal subsidies and will thus be prohibited from selecting a policy that covers abortion - even if they are using their own money.

Wingnuts say all money is fungible, so if private money goes into the same policy as a subsidy - too bad for choice.

There is also something floating around called the Capps Amendment which would separate subsidies from private funds in these cases.

In addition, women who work for small companies might well be ineligible if the company used the exchange (assuming there are subsidies involved)

In addition, wingnuts are pointing to a flawed Guttmacher report that says private insurance pays for only 13% of abortions, and that most people pay cash.  On it's face that seems ludicrous.

One commenter pointed out that, even if the report were accurate, it does not account for the percentage of women who have later term abortions or complications and must be hospitalized -at very great cost.

As for the finances or the situation, you can't believe the coathanger people are rational.  The trope is that pro-lifers are only pro-life for the unborn.  When a child leaves the uterus, "Yer on yer own kid."  And mom, too.

---

by: SmartyJones @ Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 15:40:06 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

need to pit Blue Dogs against coathangers (0.00 / 0)

Since we cannot expect the coat hangers to be rational, I do not understand why orgs like NARAL and NOW are not working with the Blue Dogs and the insurance lobby to fight this since it is undoubtedly going to cost the participating insurance companies and/or the private option more over time to cover unwanted pregnancies that are carried to term than abortions.

When the bill that passed the House is scored by the CBO, they should make a point to score the cost of the bill both with and without the Stupak amendment so that people who are fiscally conservative, but socially moderate can see the cost of this amendment.

---

by: Bertin Lefkovic @ Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 16:50:23 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I don't think its that simple (0.00 / 0)

Some Blue Dogs are anti-choice and others are pro-choice but are worried about elections.

The point seems to be that congressional and maybe even public sentiment is that no public money should pay for abortions, whether through a public option or private insurance offered through an exchange.   The only way so far that might move the issue is the Capps amendment I mentioned, above.

Pro-choice women are willing to negotiate Capps, but Stupak says no.

Pro-choice women are being denounced by the likes of Kos, et. al., who chastise them for being single issue constituents would rather bring down HCR than have something like Stupak in it.  Ya know - don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

So, to get the bill passed, old white men decided to throw out women's reproductive rights. They had a lot of help (i.e., pressure) from the Catholic Conference of Bishops.  If they are not registered lobbyists, they should have their tax exemption taken away.)

CredoAction will send a coathanger to the 20 Dems who voted for Stupak if you sign a petition.

http://act.credoaction.com/cam...

Fivethirtyeight has the list of Dems and some comments;

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com...

TPM has an interview with Diana DeGette (D CO) on how the Stupak Amendment came about:

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo...

---

by: SmartyJones @ Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 18:09:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

who's right? (0.00 / 0)

I guess the question that needs to be asked is whether or not Stupak will actually prevent women from getting abortions.

Does NARAL/NOW have good data on how the Medicaid restriction has resulted in less abortions and more unwanted pregnancies being carried to term, costing the Medicaid system much more than it would have paid if Medicaid had covered abortions.

Does Stupak have exceptions for rape, incest, and when the health/life of the mother is at stake?  If so, and if there is not solid data on how much of an obstacle the Medicaid restriction has been, it is hard to see how this can be a make-or-break issue, especially considering how hard of a fight healthcare reform has been.

Abortions are a relatively inexpensive procedure and when you consider everything that needy women (and men) will have covered under HCR, if passed, it doesn't seem likely that Stupak will prevent women who choose to get an abortion from getting one.

That said, I still think that anybody who is opposed to Stupak should demand that the CBO score the bill both with Stupak and without so that we can see how much this nonsense amendment is going to cost taxpayers over the long haul.

---

by: Bertin Lefkovic @ Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 22:03:21 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

WOW (4.00 / 1)

I am certainly glad you don't represent me.

You calculate my helathcare options based upon figures for unwanted pregnancies, costs for simple abortions in a faltering economy, and comparing costs of Stupak or no Stupak.

Yes, it is about money.  I've read blogs that suggest Catholic hospitals as well as insurance companies stand to gain from Stupak.  I'll try to provide links later.

And no, I'm not a one issue person.  HCR, no matter how flawed it is, should be passed.

I am outraged that womens' rights, in this case, healthcare, can be dismissed as a bargaining tool by a bunch of old white men - in congress and in the church.  I, and many others, will do our level best to see that these men are not elected again and to figure out how to limit the church's lobbying.

Anyway, HCR will have a long hard slog going through the Senate.  Where are those 60 votes?  Assuming something gets passed, there's still reconciliation.  A lot of items, good and bad, might be changed.

BTW, this is a bit off topic, but the Cathic Church has announced that it will no longer be providing social services in DC if the colony passes marriage equality.  Should we tick off the costs of losing the church's participation in aiding the poor versus the costs of losing ME?

---

by: SmartyJones @ Sun Nov 15, 2009 at 15:05:25 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

you are misreading what I am writing (0.00 / 0)

I do not support Stupak, but at the same time, I need to know if it truly represents a serious obstacle to a woman's right to choose (equal to let's say parental or spousal notification) that is worth getting torqued off about or is it just Republicans and conservative Democrats being jerks for the sake of being jerks like when they tried to pass an amendment to the U.S. Constitution, banning same-sex marriage.

As far as having Stupak scored by the CBO goes, I believe that if people know the true cost of it, they would be more inclined to get rid of it at some point later in the process.

For the same reason that the Right's mantra has been than no federal dollars should pay for an abortion, the Left's mantra should be that no federal dollars should pay for an unwanted pregnancy.

I would go so far as to argue that there should be a checkoff on our taxes like the Presidential Election Fund where taxpayers would have a choice of having their taxes fund abortions or unwanted pregnancies or both.

If the Church doesn't want to help the poor in DC, they don't have to, but I wouldn't consider that to be a reason to not support marriage equality.

---

by: Bertin Lefkovic @ Sun Nov 15, 2009 at 16:37:33 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I thought (0.00 / 0)

this was a decent explanation by Planned Parenthood:

http://www.plannedparenthoodac...

Of course, you can google the subject to get both sides of the argument.

As for taxes, I don't want my taxes to pay for wars in Iraq or Afghanistan, for the TARP bailout, or for Cialis or Levitra, but I don't have a say in the matter.  Why do people who oppose abortion (and for that matter, contrception) have a say in how Federal funds are spent?

---

by: SmartyJones @ Sun Nov 15, 2009 at 17:48:26 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

the PP argument makes perfect sense (0.00 / 0)

What it doesn't do is tell us how many women would carry an unwanted pregnancy to term because of Stupak.  The out of pocket cost for an abortion is less than $1,000.

Will most women in this excluded group choose to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term, because it is covered under HCR, rather than pay out of pocket for an abortion?  If so, I think that a very strong argument could be made for the fiscal irresponsibility of Stupak.

In addition to the cost ($10K-$100K) of covering an unwanted pregancy, estimates should be made of how much an unwanted pregnancy will cost in terms of social services over a lifetime.  What percentage of unwanted pregnancies are good candidates for immediate adoption?  What percentage are likely to spend a significant amount of time in foster care, orphanages, and other institutions, like prison?

There are millions of taxpayers in this country who are neither passionately pro-choice nor passionately pro-life who unwittingly connect to the Right's mantra of no federal taxpayer dollars for abortion without realizing that there is a far greater cost to the taxpayer when a woman feels as if she has no choice but to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term.  A CBO score of Stupak could help Democrats educate these voters.

People who oppose abortion do not have a say in how federal funds are spent per se, as much as anti-abortion groups have been effective enough at getting their mantra of no federal taxpayer dollars for abortions to become the status quo, while pro-choice groups have been unable or unwilling to offer a converse mantra of no federal taxpayer dollars for unwanted pregnancies.

Right now, when we file our tax returns, we can choose to have $3 of our taxes contributed to the Presidential Elections Fund.  Choosing yes does not increase our taxes at all.  I believe that taxpayers should be able to check a box on their tax return if they want to pay an additional $5 in federal income taxes to pay for abortions and/or check a box if they want to pay an additional $500 in federal income taxes to pay for unwanted pregnancies.

If given such choices, I think that there are more than enough pro-choice taxpayers who would gladly pay an additional $5 to ensure that needy women can choose to have an abortion if they want and not nearly as many taxpayers, pro-life or otherwise, who would pay an additional $500 to cover unwanted pregnancies.

Once again, I apologize for talking about a very serious womens' rights issue in purely fiscal terms, but I believe that framing this issue in fiscal terms is the best way to win.

---

by: Bertin Lefkovic @ Sun Nov 15, 2009 at 18:40:40 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You ARE Supporting Stupak!!! (0.00 / 0)

By opposing those who oppose it.

At least have the intellectual honesty to admit what you're standing for.

Sorry, you can't have it both ways.

 

---

by: Nick Lento @ Sun Nov 15, 2009 at 21:38:05 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I don't oppose the people who oppose Stupak (0.00 / 0)

I oppose Stupak, but not enough to see HCR collapse over it.

One of two things have to be true.  Either...

...Stupak will prevent a significant number of women who want to have abortions from having them AND cost the private insurance companies and the public option millions, if not, billions of dollars through their coverage of unwanted pregnancies, not to mention millions, if not, billions more in a lifetime of social services expenses for unwanted children...

...or...

...it won't and its passage was just a pointless exercise.

The point that I am trying to make here is that instead of threatening to collapse HCR, opponents of Stupak should be asking that it be scored by the CBO so that the millions of voters who are neither passionately pro-choice or pro-life can see what the cost of both this ridiculous piece of legislation as well as the Hyde amendment actually has been and will be.

---

by: Bertin Lefkovic @ Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 03:09:34 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Why does an extremist like Chris Smith (0.00 / 0)

get returned to Congress again, and again, and again, in a state like NJ where the anti-abortion attitude is generally unpopular.  I just don't get it?

---

by: FormerBureaucrat @ Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 20:49:42 PM UTC

He has a great constituent relations operation. (0.00 / 0)

People in his district like him (or his staff?) because they get things done quickly and efficiently.  

---

by: Matthew Jordan @ Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 21:18:30 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Stupak Sucks And IS A Deal Breaker (0.00 / 0)

It's not complicated.

People who wish to restsrict a woman's right to choose are holding health insurance "reform" hostage so that they can reverse the laws allowing women the option of having an abortion.

Under Stupak the ONLY abortions that insurance would cover would be under special
policies that only existed to cover the possibility of unplanned pregnancy.   Such policies don't exist and who the FUCK would buy them and Stupak would also allow abortion coverage by insurance policies that had not one penny of any kind of relationship of any kind to any kind of insurance pool that was associated with the new national regime that would mandate that every American be covered.

This means that many millions of American women would LOSE the possibility that their insurance coverage would include thr freedom to choose an abortion.

I'm a Catholic, I understand why the church opposes abortion.  And I also believe that some kinds of abortion can indeed be sinful; but if we're going to make everything that can be sinful/immoral illegal; then 99% of all politicians and those who give them big money should probably be in jail!!!

Any Democrat who votes for a final bill that throws pro choice women under the bus needs to be primaried out of their job!!!!

 

---

by: Nick Lento @ Sun Nov 15, 2009 at 18:41:00 PM UTC

yes... by all means... challenge Marcy Kaptur in a primary (0.00 / 0)

The woman who is at the forefront at fighting for needy people to be able to remain in their homes deserves to be primaried from the left because she made the tough call that providing needy women (and men) with access to low-cost health insurance coverage that excludes one relatively inexpensive procedure is better than allowing the entire healthcare reform debate to collapse.

Yes, I understand that this relatively inexpensive procedure is politically charged, but unless pro-choice groups can prove that Stupak will force many, if not most, women to choose an unwanted pregnancy that is covered by HCR instead of an abortion that is not covered, we are going to lose this fight.

Undoubtedly, there are Democrats who voted for Stupak who deserve to be primaried, but I am willing to bet that in addition to Marcy Kaptur, there are some Dems who voted for it, because they calculated that it was the only way to get HCR passed in the House.

What truly sucks is that the vote for HCR was close enough that such a calculation had to be made, and it is possible that the vote was as close as it was because of pro-choice groups like EMILY's List.

Shortly after the 2008 election, the argument was made that Linda Stender lost to Leonard Lance because far too much of her message was focused on Lance being anti-abortion and not enough on how Stender would be good on economic issues.  This flawed strategy was attributed to the role that EMILY's List played in and pressure that it placed on Stender's campaign.

If this criticism is true and other tight races were lost in 2008 for similar reasons, then it would be fair to say that the pro-choice community must take some responsibility for Stupak's inclusion in HCR.

As much as a woman's right to choose is far too serious to be discussed in solely fiscal terms, HCR is primarily a fiscal issue, and as such, elements of it, like Stupak, should be addressed on its fiscal impact, in addition to the degree to which it restricts a woman's right to choose.

---

by: Bertin Lefkovic @ Sun Nov 15, 2009 at 19:15:55 PM UTC

The Principle Of Choice Remains (0.00 / 0)

You pick an otherwise admirable individual as an example......but, yes, if this comes down to a final vote that includes the Stupak obscenity and Kaptur, or Steve Rothman or Frank Pallone were to support Stupak; then they would all have sold out on a basic Democratic principle and would deserve to be defeated in a primary.

What's your problem with women having the right to choose being a fundamental right???

The insurance "reform" bill is already an ugly watered down collection of compromises that throw MOST of the American people whop AT LEAST want a robust oublic option under the bus.

The opposition to Single Payer and/or a ROBUST public option is corrupt.   No two ways about it.  The status quo is driven by concerns for the "health" insurance industry's continued profitability and existence.

Are we running this nation for the benefit of an industry or for the health and welfare of the PEOPLE?

People who are so obligated to their Catholic (or whatever) religion that they are willing to subvert human rights to their religious fundamentalism are not people who I want making health care policy for every woman in America!  We are not a theocracy!

Progressives will never win by constantly giving in and compromising......it takes the steam out of the impetus for reform.    

If I was a health insurance industry operative, and I read your "take" here it would give me great aid and comfort.

---

by: Nick Lento @ Sun Nov 15, 2009 at 21:34:53 PM UTC

HCR has already been compromised, but... (0.00 / 0)

...allowing opposition to Stupak to collapse it isn't going to make it better.

Would you prefer it if instead of allowing Stupak to pass, the Democrats in Washington would have abandoned the public option altogether?  How many people would have had their healthcare needs abandoned under that trade-off?

Ever since Hyde, the determining factor for a woman's right to choose has been whether or not abortion was legal, not whether or not a woman could afford it.

Yes, it is possible that some women who currently have health insurance that covers abortions could find that after HCR passes, that is no longer the case, which would undoubtedly suck.

However, the law of the land would still be that abortion is legal and after HCR millions of people who currently have no health insurance will have some.

Is this ideal?  No, but it will be better than it was before, which is all that we can hope for at the moment.

Do I hope that Stupak is jettisoned at some point in the process going forward?  Of course, but not at the expense of HCR as a whole.

And as much as I agree with you in preferring single payer or a more robust public option to what we currently have, I think that it is safe to assume that if single payer had been passed, there is a very good chance that abortions would not be covered in the same way that they are currently not covered by Medicaid.

If you could have single payer without abortion coverage or the current watered-down bill sans Stupak, which would you choose?  I would choose single payer.  I'd like to think that most progressives would.

If every other medical procedure imaginable is covered by single payer, the cost of an abortion is unlikely to prevent a woman who wants one from getting one.

---

by: Bertin Lefkovic @ Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 03:34:25 AM UTC

I Wish It Was That Simple.... (0.00 / 0)

.....if the price of single payer was that we had to go back to 1965 vis a vis civil rights I would say no.........at some point we Democrats have to be willing to actually stand for something.

The chief reason the minority, the Republicans, have been driving the agenda is that they are more INTENSE in their advocacy for what they believe.....(and because the monied interests are indeed funding that intensity with many millions of dollars worth of PR).

The only way I know of to get the many millions of progressives "fired up and ready to go" is for our leaders to actually be willing to go to the mats for what they all claim to believe in.  Sure we may not win on the first attempt....but that's how you build a movement!

We are actually in the MAJORITY.....we shouldn't be letting truly deluded shits like Glenn Beck and Michele Bachmann drive any effin part of the public agenda!  

Here's more from FDL on Stupak and why it's so toxic.   http://fdlaction.firedoglake.c...

---

by: Nick Lento @ Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 05:27:29 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

It's not my call to make... (0.00 / 0)

...whether we get a good HCR bill or one with anti-choice riders in it, but if the Stupak language remains, I have the following suggestion: At the 2012 Democratic National Convention, pro-choice Democrats should join with the Bob Caseys of the party and demand that the following language be removed from the party platform:

The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman's right to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay, and we oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.

---

by: Bill W @ Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 13:23:59 PM UTC

[ Parent ]