Kudos to Representative Bart Stupak, the pro-life Democrat from Michigan who has insisted throughout the health care debate that he wanted to see a bill pass provided it did not include government funding of abortion. While deals were being made on virtually every other issue, he dug in his heels, drew a line in the sand, and said, "This far and no further." Indeed, the entire country has had to stop and think about abortion in a way it has not done so for a very long time because of Stupak’s happy intransigence. I met Stupak last autumn at a social event and asked a mutual friend to introduce us. I told him that he was a hero to those of us who are progressive but also pro-life. He still is.
Last night, I watched the increasingly tiresome Rachel Maddow try and besmirch Stupak because of his association with "C Street" the shadowy home of conservative, and religiously conservative, members of Congress and other politicians. The house has endured a ton of bad publicity as one sanctimonious conservative after another got caught with their pants down – literally. Sen. John Ensign, who cheated on his wife with the wife of a good friend, lives there and Gov. Mark Sanford, whose walk in the Appalachians took him to Argentina and who had the gall to ask his wife if it was okay to continue seeing his mistress, kept a room there when in town. Maddow was concerned that Stupak did not pay enough in rent. And, maybe there is something to that. But, I suspect the timing of the story had more to do with her opposition to Stupak’s position on abortion, as did the fact that she only highlighted Stupak’s rent payments and not anyone else’s.
On the narrow issue, members of Congress should not receive reduced, below-market housing from anyone except a blood relative or a wealthy fellow member. The appropriate market to analyze, however, is not that charged at a real estate office but by organizations like the University Club or the Society of the Cincinnati. This latter group also maintains a home in Washington at which members can stay. The rooms are sumptuous. The members, of course, must have an ancestor who served as an officer in the army of General George Washington. I go there whenever a Frenchman whose ancestor was Lafayette’s aide-de-camp is in town. I do not know if C Street required dues of its members but such arrangements may not, as Maddow implied, necessarily break any ethical rules. I would be more concerned about the free late night entertainment at C Street!
On the larger issue, the last thing progressives should be doing is demonizing those Democrats who are pro-life. For starters, it should be clear to everyone by now, that Stupak’s position is a principled one, and that always warrants respect. Second, it is bad politics – if Stupak were to lose, his seat would doubtlessly be taken by a pro-life Republican, and I do not see how that would advance Maddow’s agenda. Her attack last night put me in mind of the conservative attacks on moderate Republican Dede Scozzafava, an attack that resulted in the Democrats winning the seat for the first time since the Civil War.
If I had five minutes with Stupak, I would first congratulate him for his courage, for his support for life, and for his support for health care reform. Never forget, those pro-life champions on the other side of the aisle are not doing anything to pass this bill and so they have side-lined themselves entirely. I would also tell him why I actually prefer the Senate language, that the segregation of funds his own bill foresees is actually mandated in the Senate bill and that the lack of an individual opt-out which seems to be at the heart of the opposition of the USCCB misunderstands the fact that in an exchange, the mandate only applies to those who chose a plan with abortion. There is an easy way to avoid the mandate which is to choose a plan that doesn’t cover abortion, and a mandate that is easy to avoid is no mandate at all. Furthermore, Stupak is silent on the issue of people buying insurance through the exchanges with their own money while the Senate language insists that they, too, pay separately for any abortion insurance coverage. I would not sniff at the cultural, didactic value of making millions of Americans write separate checks every month. If Stupak believes, however, that the language in his amendment remains the only way forward, I do not question his motives and I still admire his constancy.
It is not clear to me how the abortion language could be changed in the current bill, but surely there is a way. It is becoming increasingly clear that Speaker Pelosi will need the 12 votes of the pro-life Democrats who insist on the Stupak language. It is amazing to me, and amazingly hopeful, that at the end of the day, the discussion about health care reform is coming down to a discussion of how to restrict abortion! Remember the demonizing of the President last spring, those who said he would be the most pro-abortion president ever. Yet, here we are discussing which is better, the language from Congressman Stupak or from pro-life Senator Ben Nelson. However that discussion turns out, it is a win for the pro-life movement. But, only if the health care reform bill passes. Otherwise, we will continue with the current system in which we subsidize abortion coverage through the tax code for the indefinite future. And, what is more, the other pro-life provisions of the health care reform bill will not be enacted.
So, kudos to Stupak. Kudos to Sen. Nelson. Kudos to all those who support pro-health care reform and pro-life candidates at election time.
Michael Sean Winters
"My way or the highway"? That sounds like Obama, Pelosi, Reid to me! If they cared about health care then why not go along with the Republicans?
Thats the thing about liberals. They just cannot understand that there might be other ways of doing things.
Garnett also summarizes a recent Wall Street Journal piece by Charmaine Yoest to support his case. Garnett agrees with Joe Kash. "Why is he (the President) so insistent on abortion funding when, if he were willing to just go along with Stupak and the Bishops, he could-his party enjoys a huge majority, after all-(have)sweeping health-insurance reform? Is it so imporatnt to deny those pesky pro-lifers a 'victory'?"
Fellow pro-lifers, it seems that our tax dollars will go to fund Planned Parenthood (as much as $11 billion over 5 years) Moreover, there is, according to Yoest, no Hyde Amendment, and no conscience clause for health care providers who refuse to participate in abortions.
I am very confused. Yesterday, Stupak threatened to kill health care reform because he claimed everyone who obtains insurance through the health care exchange must pay a fee to subsidize abortion. Various sources (including Slate and ABC News) have pointed out that Stupak is mistaken. As you yourself explain, under the Senate language, only those who choose a plan through the exchange that covers abortion pay such a fee, and it is paid with their own money, not taxpayers' dollars. If they choose a plan that does not cover abortion, they pay no fee toward abortion. Many people (including you, apparently) actually prefer the Senate approach to the Stupak Amendment.
So while Stupak is to be commended for his pro-life efforts up until recently, he expressed intransigence yesterday based on a mistaken notion of what the Senate language does. He appears to be rallying pro-life forces to oppose passage of health care reform by misrepresenting (intentionally or unintentionally) what the Senate bill does. For those who believe that the Senate language is actually preferable to the House language, Stupak is threatening to kill health care reform if his own, weaker approach to abortion does not prevail. He is acting against health care reform, it seems to me.
When one so openly supports the so called ''progressive'' agenda, one has to look at all the results from such policy decisions. I see no positive ones at all, only hopeful pie in the sky utopias that have never had any indication they could be fulfilled even in part. I also see large amounts of destruction and death due to progressive policies. You would think that would be the object of some discussions here by the Jesuits and opinion writers. The concern with abortion obscures that discussion and Mr. Winters and others just assumes that progressive policies are good when so many people see the extremely negative outcomes these policies entail.
This whole protestation that Republicans are against healthcare is a farce. The Republicans are not against health care only the way the Democrats are implementing it. The health care program now being pushed through Congress has nothing to do with providing better health care and an honest person would admit it.
Finally, Mr. Winters brings up a couple sordid instances of Republican behavior and like him, I would say good riddance. And I believe most Republicans also wish them good riddance and abhor what they did. But unfortunately we have ourselves in a corner where votes trump morality.
But Winters doesn't want to seem like he opposes Stupak, So he writes glowingly of him. Yet in the end he wants to defeat Stupak's opposition to Obama's bill. "I love you sir, you are my hero, now fall into the abyss."
Winters wants to BE anti-Stupak while being THOUGHT pro-Stupak. His actions and is words contradict. There's a name for that,,,
I may be mistaken, but it looks to me as if Bart Stupak wants health care reform ("Obamacare") to pass, albeit with what he considers to be appropriate prohibitions on abortion funding. The majority of those who support restrictions on abortion, however, do not want "Obamacare" to pass at all. So most who are "pro-Stupak" actually want him to fail. They (you?) are not hoping Stupak wins out and gets his language adopted as law. They are hoping his language is not adopted and he manages to keep health care reform from passing. Being "pro-Stupak" in this sense is really being against health care reform more than it is in favor of Bart Stupak achieving what he wants to achieve.
An article in Politico today addresses what the USCCB may be willing to do for a compromise that would not necessarily be the Stupak amendment. See this link:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/33962.html
Someone directly involved in Congress who writes on another blog thinks the Senate language may be preferable to the Stupak Amendment. He points out that in the Senate language, for those who choose a policy from the exchange that includes abortion coverage, there is the $1 charge that they must pay themselves and must be kept segregated. With the Stupak Amendment, a person may not buy a policy that covers abortion, but they may buy a separate rider covering abortion. The government does not regulate this rider, and he raises the question of whether insurance companies might offer "abortion plus" services to make the rider attractive even to people who don't want abortion coverage.
It does not seem to me there is any way to predict what the impact of either the House or the Senate language would be on abortion. Stupak may strike some as "purer," but the law of unintended consequences might very well result in the purer approach increasing abortion coverage or the total number of abortions. For those who really want health care reform to pass and who do not have a crystal ball that will show the future, I wonder how wise it is to argue over whether the House or Senate language is preferable. The only way to really know would be to try each approach in 25 states for a few years and see what the impact on abortions was under each approach.
I am presuming, of course, that the goal is to discourage, or at least not encourage, abortions. If the goal is merely to place the maximum distance between tax dollars and abortions, with the possibility that the actual number of abortions may increase as a consequence, I don't see that as pro-life. A solution that totally isolates taxpayers from even the most remote and indirect funding of abortion but causes abortions to increase would not seem to me to be a pro-life victory. I have, however, had discussions with "pro-lifers" who feel that legal restrictions are the most important thing, with the actual consequences of those restrictions being secondary at best.
1) "Rider separation": You and MSW defend the Senate language because it makes the rider separate from the main plan. But Stupak does this and more. Stupak mandates that no plan receiving federal funding can cover abortion, and if there is a rider (there need not be), it has to be completely 100% separate. Obama FUNDS PLANS THAT COVER ABORTION, and uses fund segregation to claim the abortion part is separate from the plan, but that fund segregation is no less a fraud than the Capps fund segregation, which at one time MSW admitted was a fraud. It's silly to say that the Senate language is good on rider separation, when Stupak mandates total complete separation so much so that no federal funding can go to a plan covering abortion, while the Senate language funds plans covering abortion and then claims to separate the funding.
2) "Check separation": MSW claims that the Senate language is better because it requires a separate check from the consumer to the plan for abortion. But Stupak, by virtue of requiring complete separation, also requires that the consumer consciously and explicitly buy abortion insurance separately and the money necessarily must be separate. The Senate language also has been reported as probibiting anyone from TELLING the consumer what his separate check is for, thus eviscerating any educational value that MSW claims.
3) "Group payment": MSW defends the Senate language's mandate that plan members pay for abortions on the grounds that those members could choose a non-abortion plan, and many private plans make people pay for abortion anyway. But the question is whether Stupak is better, and it clearly is. Under Stupak, no plan member must pay for other people's abortions, because no federally funded plan covers abortions, so if they are in a plan that covers abortions, it's literally because they chose it or they aren't getting federal funding.
It's just absurd to defend the Senate language over Stupak on the basis of these reasons.
It seems to me that this is somewhat akin to the debate between liberals and conservatives over the minimum wage. Although both sides can cite statistics and studies and make rational arguments, neither side can convince the other, and in fact both sides feel their position is all but self-evident. A person has a position first, and then comes up with the arguments to support it later. (But sincerely so. I am not accusing anyone of dishonesty.)
It seems to me there are good pro-life arguments in favor of Stupak and good pro-life arguments in favor of Nelson. Neither permits federal funding of abortion. It seems to me if you want the utter purity that you are after, it would have to be the case that no insurance *company* that provides abortion coverage could be allowed to participate in the exchange. Why should things be looked at on a policy by policy level? A company the provides abortion coverage in policies it sells to private employers and offers only policies that do not cover abortion on the exchange is still getting government money. This means the huge companies like Cygna and United HealthCare (and heaven only knows how many smaller companies) would be excluded.
I think Matt Miller in the Washington Post makes a good point. He says, ''[T]his entire debate is ridiculous, because the feds already subsidize abortions massively, via the giant tax subsidy for employer-provided care. Today the feds devote at least $250 billion a year to subsidizing employer-based coverage, a subsidy that skews incentives horribly (but which big business and big labor wouldn’t let the politicians touch this year). A Guttmacher Institute study says that 87 percent of typical employer plans cover abortion, and a Kaiser study found that 46 percent of covered workers had abortion coverage.''
How many of those who call themselves pro-life balk at receiving insurance coverage from their employers that covers abortion? How many people who get private insurance without abortion coverage balk at buying insurance from a company that provides abortion coverage in other policies? If either the House or the Senate language passes, the person who buys an insurance policy through the exchange will be much farther removed from contributing toward other people's abortions than the large majority of people who receive insurance through their employers. And if you count tax breaks, every taxpayer will be contributing less to abortion through the exchange than they do through the system of employer-provided insurance.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2010/03/sorry_bart_stupak_-_the_feds.html
Hmm, except for that $11 billion for community centers which is unrestricted, and except for the fact that it federally funds insurance plans that cover abortion. But why sweat the details.
Abortion is abortion is abortion, no matter who pays for it. I'm willing to bet that the selection of health care insurance plans from which Stupak can choose includes some which offer abortion services. Where is his outrage about that?
If health care reform fails because of the instransigence of insisting on someone's definition of the perfect trumping the good, I personally will donate as much as I can afford to services that include abortion counseling.
Thats your SCOTUS-given right. Just don't spend my money on abortion.
What if it were determined that the Senate bill with its current language would result in the same number (or fewer) abortions because it extended health care to 30 million and (1) reduced the number of unwanted pregnancies by family planning services and (2) made formerly uninsured women more willing and able to go through with an unplanned pregnancy now that they had health care coverage?
In other words, what is more important, your tax dollars or the overall number of abortions in the United States?
This is a Catholic blog. As Mother Teresa said, "I do not pray for success, I ask for faithfulness."
If you are afraid of his motives then force him to vote. Give him his abortion languange and see if he backs out. If Obama, Pelosi, and Reid care so much about health care then why don't they give in to Stupak? Don't they care about the uninsured? Is abortion more important to them than covering the millions of uninsured? Me thinks that abortion will carry the day.
If you really cared about health care you would just go along with Stupak. If Obama, Pelosi and Reid really cared about health care then they would go along with Stupak. If Maddow cared about health car then she would go along with Stupak. If MSW really cared about health care then he would go along with Stupak. Save abortion coverage for another day!
It seems that they care more about abortion coverage than health care for all!
Also, take a look at "The World According to Stupak."
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20100315/arons