Democrats & Abortion

[one...two...tree 2,762]

E. J. Dionne Jr.

For some years, Democrats have denounced parodies casting their party as utterly closed to the views of those who oppose abortion. Last weekend, Democrats proved conclusively that they are, indeed, a big tent — and many in the ranks are furious.

From the outraged comments of the abortion-rights movement, you’d think that Rep. Bart Stupak’s amendment to the House version of the health care bill would all but overturn Roe v. Wade.

No, it wouldn’t. The Michigan Democrat’s measure — passed 240-194, with 64 Democrats voting "yes" — would prohibit abortion coverage in the public health-care option and bar any federal subsidies for plans that included abortion purchased on the new insurance exchanges.

Stupak argues that the federal government has stayed out of the business of financing abortion since passage of the Hyde Amendment in 1976 and that none of the policies available on the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program cover elective abortion. The structures that reform would create, he says, should carry the same restrictions, which do not apply in cases involving rape and incest or when a mother’s life is in danger.

Abortion-rights supporters counter that, at the very least, individuals who pay part of the cost of their policies should be allowed to choose abortion coverage.

Whatever else is true, Stupak’s amendment is unlikely to have a significant effect on the availability of abortion, since most abortions are not paid for through health insurance. The Guttmacher Institute, for example, reported that only 13 percent of abortions in 2001 were directly billed by providers to insurance companies — although the institute cautioned that this figure did not include "women who obtain reimbursement from their insurance company themselves."

The odd thing is that everyone in this fight insists that the only goal is to maintain the status quo on abortion. But defining the status quo has been a legislative and negotiating nightmare.

Democratic leaders once thought they had found the middle ground with an amendment offered by Rep. Lois Capps of California. She proposed segregating the money paid in for health insurance. Abortion coverage could be purchased with the premiums paid by individuals, but not with government money.

Abortion opponents argued that this separation of funds was artificial, and that all money paid to the government plan was, by definition, public. So Rep. Brad Ellsworth, a right-to-life Democrat from Indiana, suggested an alternative that became known as "Capps on steroids." It substantially strengthened the barriers between public and private funds, particularly in the public plan.

But a key group of Democrats who supported the rest of the House bill (roughly 10 by the best count I have been able to get) was still not satisfied, partly because the Roman Catholic bishops were not satisfied. These Democrats turned out to be essential on a bill that ultimately passed by five votes.

Last Friday night, Stupak put forward a final compromise to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi that would have prohibited abortion coverage in the public plan but would have allowed an annual vote on the abortion ban for the private plans. Prochoice Democrats rejected this, and the stronger version of Stupak’s proposal then passed.

What happens now? Democratic supporters of abortion rights need to accept that their House majority depends on a large cadre of anti-abortion colleagues. They can denounce that reality, or they can learn to live with it.

There is also a challenge for abortion’s foes, above all the Catholic bishops who have a long history of supporting universal coverage but devoted most of their recent energy to the abortion battle. How much muscle will the bishops now put behind the broader effort to pass health-care reform? Their credibility as advocates for social justice hangs in the balance.

And if the Senate forces a change in the Stupak language, one obvious approach would involve a ban on abortion in the public plan — if such an option survives — and the application of Ellsworth’s rules to the private policies sold in the insurance exchange. The alternative would be Stupak’s original compromise offer to Pelosi. There are not many other options.

The truth is that even with the Stupak restrictions, health care reform would leave millions of Americans far better off than they are now — including millions of women. This skirmish over abortion cannot be allowed to destroy the opportunity to extend coverage to 35 million Americans. Killing health care reform would be bad for choice, and very bad for the right to life.

http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/article....id_article=2701

[BishopMnA 0]

E. J. Dionne Jr.

There is also a challenge for abortion’s foes, above all the Catholic bishops who have a long history of supporting universal coverage but devoted most of their recent energy to the abortion battle. How much muscle will the bishops now put behind the broader effort to pass health-care reform? Their credibility as advocates for social justice hangs in the balance.

http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/article....id_article=2701

Hey Steve,

This is a good article, thank you for the post. For the particular bit above, from a Catholic perspective (since this is from a progressive catholic perspective..not sure if that is me or not though ) I'd like to say that Catholics, traditionally Democrats (I guess that goes with the cloth...) realize that there really isn't a 'black/white' perspective on an issue as complex and all-consuming as this health care reform package. Actually, its not that difficult of a decison...from a Bishoply perspective, contrary to what the article states.

Granted, like 99.9% of all humans, no one wants abortion. For the Catholic Bishops - they'll continue to agree with the 99.9% of people and pray for the end of abortion. As for this particular legislation, they would opt to approve the reform even if it includes tax dollars going toward the cost of abortion.

Greater good...there is no sense in being a single-topic-voter...even if we may feel adamant about topic. We have to be somewhat rational and tend to the overall flock.

Peace Brother - BishopM

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I don't really care much one way or the other. If we're being honest here, the tax exemption enjoyed by employer sponsored health care coverage could be viewed as public funding of these plans. And many of them do cover elective abortion - including plans offered by the RNC, for example, until now that this became an issue. Should - for reasons of consistency - the policy of not providing any federal funding for abortion not extend to those health plans as well - i.e. end the tax exemptions for plans that cover the elective procedure? Isn't there a disconnect currently?

Abortion is one of those issues that I am not sure where to stand. Generally speaking, I believe the practice is bad unless there are very good reasons for it in any particular case (you know, the rape, health, incest type deals). On the other hand, who am I to tell any woman what decision she can and cannot make? She's gotta live with whatever she decides, not me. And so, this is where I tend to fall on the pro-choice side of the issue despite having very strong personal reservations against ending a perfectly good pregnancy.

[Susita 175]

I've been pro-choice ever since someone very close to me was brutally raped and that rape resulted in a pregnancy. I also had those views reaffirmed when I saw a premature baby in the hospital NICU where my son was, she was the result of a drug addict's bad decisions. She didn't survive, she was born 3 months premature and severely addicted to heroin.

I love babies. Hey I'm having another one. I just think that there are circumstances in which women should have the right to choose.

[Peikko 1,575]

What this argument chooses to ignore is the pregnancy was never meant to be a guarentee of live birth. Nature aborts fetus all the time, for all kinds of reasons that are not simply due to difficulties with the fetus itself. What pro life seeks to do is force women to be enslaved to their repoductive systems or eshew the sexual act. Men do not face that choice and this dispartity between the sexes actually creates many of the reproductive dilemas that abortion has a place in providing solutions to.

Despite all this, the health care bill is not the place for the abortion discussion. If the US deems it right that federal funding can't be used to fund abortions, so be it as long as women have access to funding in other ways.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Simple solution for all the politicians...

1. stay out of my wife's uterus!

2. Stay out of all her other health care.

3. Stay out of my garage

4. Stay out of my refrigerator

5. Stay out of my wallet

6. Stay out of my bedroom

7. Stay out of my retirement

Keep picking up my trash and plowing the snow off the roads, deliver the mail between noon and 12:15 every day. Fix the Champlain bridge. Fund our military to defend OUR country.

Take a vacation 300 days per year, try to keep gridlock firmly in place. Use 1 congressional session in four to ONLY repeal unneed and ineffective laws.

[DeadPoolX 9]

Simple solution for all the politicians...

1. stay out of my wife's uterus!

2. Stay out of all her other health care.

3. Stay out of my garage

4. Stay out of my refrigerator

5. Stay out of my wallet

6. Stay out of my bedroom

7. Stay out of my retirement

Keep picking up my trash and plowing the snow off the roads, deliver the mail between noon and 12:15 every day. Fix the Champlain bridge. Fund our military to defend OUR country.

Take a vacation 300 days per year, try to keep gridlock firmly in place. Use 1 congressional session in four to ONLY repeal unneed and ineffective laws.

[Ban Hammer 12,878]

I've been pro-choice ever since someone very close to me was brutally raped and that rape resulted in a pregnancy. I also had those views reaffirmed when I saw a premature baby in the hospital NICU where my son was, she was the result of a drug addict's bad decisions. She didn't survive, she was born 3 months premature and severely addicted to heroin.

I love babies. Hey I'm having another one. I just think that there are circumstances in which women should have the right to choose.

i'll agree to that as long as it's not used as a form of birth control.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

Its dishonest to say that the dem party is big tent because a lot of dems voted for the amendment that would be included in the HCR Bill. They had to do that or it never would have passed. It doesn't mean those dems were pro-life.

I've been pro-choice ever since someone very close to me was brutally raped and that rape resulted in a pregnancy.

Why not kill the rapist as opposed to the innocent baby?

[NickD 202]

Don't car to pay for other peoples abortions no more than I like paying for other peoples kids. From strictly an economical point of view, an abortion is far cheaper. Should be some kind of law that before having kids, you should be able to support them. Other peoples kids are costing us a fortune without even having the fun of making them, not fair. Kind of like getting screwed without getting screwed.

[The_Dude 1,142]

Its dishonest to say that the dem party is big tent because a lot of dems voted for the amendment that would be included in the HCR Bill. They had to do that or it never would have passed. It doesn't mean those dems were pro-life.

I've been pro-choice ever since someone very close to me was brutally raped and that rape resulted in a pregnancy.

Why not kill the rapist as opposed to the innocent baby?

Seriously? Don't pretend that you know anything about anything on this topic because that ignorant statement precludes you from making any intelligent contribution.

[Susita 175]

Why not kill the rapist as opposed to the innocent baby?

Good argument, it would be nice... but rapists don't get the death penalty. Not even in Texas

It's hard to imagine how a woman feels being impregnated by a man who brutally beat and raped her. I can't pretend to understand it. But I'm glad she had a choice, cause she couldn't choose if she wanted to be pregnant or not.

I would hope that now that the morning-after pill is readily available, there would be a drop in the number of abortions we see... especially since women that qualify can get it for free from PP.

[SMR 368]

What this argument chooses to ignore is the pregnancy was never meant to be a guarentee of live birth. Nature aborts fetus all the time, for all kinds of reasons that are not simply due to difficulties with the fetus itself. What pro life seeks to do is force women to be enslaved to their repoductive systems or eshew the sexual act. Men do not face that choice and this dispartity between the sexes actually creates many of the reproductive dilemas that abortion has a place in providing solutions to.

Despite all this, the health care bill is not the place for the abortion discussion. If the US deems it right that federal funding can't be used to fund abortions, so be it as long as women have access to funding in other ways.

The rest of this thread aside, this post is absolutely ridiculous. You're honestly suggesting that because miscarriages occur, abortion is justified? There are many arguments for and against abortion, but this argument flat out justifies murder on the basis that the person would have died anyway (ie. your logic is equivalent to saying that since people die every day, it's okay to kill them). That's preposterous.

If you want to argue that the fetus isn't alive, that's a whole other can of worms. But your argument is simply that if something occurs naturally, it's okay to induce it. Just because fires happen naturally doesn't mean it's okay to start them.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

Why not kill the rapist as opposed to the innocent baby?

Good argument, it would be nice... but rapists don't get the death penalty. Not even in Texas

It's hard to imagine how a woman feels being impregnated by a man who brutally beat and raped her. I can't pretend to understand it. But I'm glad she had a choice, cause she couldn't choose if she wanted to be pregnant or not.

I would hope that now that the morning-after pill is readily available, there would be a drop in the number of abortions we see... especially since women that qualify can get it for free from PP.

Is it or isn't it a baby? Thats the question. It has little to do with being a woman, or "how the woman feels". Many women have Post depresstion and have murderous feelings about their babies. Doesn't mean that it should be allowed because she just "felt" that way.

Again Rob cops out.

[The_Dude 1,142]

Why not kill the rapist as opposed to the innocent baby?

Good argument, it would be nice... but rapists don't get the death penalty. Not even in Texas

It's hard to imagine how a woman feels being impregnated by a man who brutally beat and raped her. I can't pretend to understand it. But I'm glad she had a choice, cause she couldn't choose if she wanted to be pregnant or not.

I would hope that now that the morning-after pill is readily available, there would be a drop in the number of abortions we see... especially since women that qualify can get it for free from PP.

Is it or isn't it a baby? Thats the question. It has little to do with being a woman, or "how the woman feels". Many women have Post depresstion and have murderous feelings about their babies. Doesn't mean that it should be allowed because she just "felt" that way.

Again Rob cops out.

The irony of you saying I copped out. Read your post again there.