« What I Learned at the Tea Parties
California’s Prop 14: Power to the People — or to the Party Bosses? »
Bart Stupak Factually Wrong on HCR Bill and Abortion
This is not news in and of itself. Stupak claims the Senate bill directly subsidizes abortions. It does not. What is worth noting now is that MSNBC’s First Read blog has done a thorough fact-check and debunked Stupak’s claims:
Last November, the House of Representatives narrowly passed its health-care bill, 220-215, only after it included an amendment by Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) barring any federal funding in the legislation from being used for abortion coverage (except in cases of rape, incest, or if the mother’s life is in danger). A month later, Senate Democrats secured their 60th — and decisive — vote after agreeing to Sen. Ben Nelson’s (D-NE) similar (though less restrictive) changes on abortion.
And now, with the House poised to vote later this month on the already-passed Senate health-care bill, Stupak is claiming that he and 11 other House Democrats who voted for the legislation in November will vote against the Senate bill, unless it adopts the House’s abortion language.
[...]
Stupak’s rationale: The Senate bill — despite Nelson’s changes — directly subsidizes abortion.“In the Senate bill,” Stupak told MSNBC’s Chris Matthews last week, “it says you must offer insurance policies that will be paid for by the federal government that covers abortion. You must do so.”
The Michigan congressman later said this to ABC’s George Stephanopoulos: “The bill that they’re using as the vehicle is the Senate bill, and if you go to page 2,069 through page 2,078, you will find in there the federal government would directly subsidize abortions, plus every enrollee in the Office of Personnel Management enrolled plan, every enrollee has to pay a minimum of $1 per month towards reproductive rights, which includes abortion.”
Except when you go to page 2,069 through page 2,078, it says nothing of the kind. (Or, as Rachel Maddow put it on her show earlier this week (paraphrasing), when you go to the section of the bill that Stupak cites as proof that the Senate bill directly subsidizes abortion, you find the proof…. that Stupak is lying.)
For starters, let’s look at the pages that Stupak cited to Stephanopoulos. From pages 2,071-2,072: “If a qualified health plan provides coverage of services described in paragraph (1)(B)(i)” — i.e., abortion — “the issuer of the plan shall not use any amount attributable to [health reform's government-funding mechanisms] for purposes of paying for such services.
As Slate’s Timothy Noah, who fact-checked Stupak last week, writes, “That seems pretty straightforward. No government funding for abortions.”
What’s more, the Senate bill explicitly ensures that Americans who receive federal subsidies under the reform plan must pay separately for abortion coverage. Here’s pages 2,074-2,075: “In the case of a plan to which sub paragraph (A) applies, the issuer of the plan shall collect from each enrollee in the plan (without regard to the enrollee’s age, sex, or family status) a separate payment” that “may not estimate such a cost at less than $1 per enrollee, per month.”
Furthermore, Ben Nelson (D-NE) even added language allowing individual states to opt out of providing abortion coverage at all — and those states that do must have separate plans that don’t include abortion coverage.
58 Responses to “Bart Stupak Factually Wrong on HCR Bill and Abortion”
I guess the question is…what kind of kickback does Stupack want?
Well, I could see your partisan claims of factual error (and raise you one or two) by presenting the arguments that come from the opposite side.
I've struggled to understand all the back and forth on this, and pretty much found that it comes down to this: the creation of new federal exchanges for health insurance necessitates a new interpretation of the Hyde restrictions (or alternatively, some may argue that Hyde itself should be overturned…but those who feel this way can't simultaneously claim that they want the HCR to focus on healthcare and not the divisive issue of abortion.)
Currently, except for the federal employee's health insurance exchange, the only federally funded health insurance which includes women of childbearing age is Medicaid (well, there's also Tricare I guess and maybe the tribal health coverage…I honestly don't know how they handle abortion funding). But the best model we have is Medicaid, which is able to leave the decisions largely to the states. The federal funding for Medicaid can only cover abortions in cases of endangerment to life and health of mother or cases of rape or incest. States then decide if they want to use their own funds to cover more.
Creating a new federal funding stream brings on problems of how to reconcile the language with Hyde. You really can't 'keep the status quo' becuase currently this dilemma doesn't really exist. The House and Senate bills used two different ways to address the new problem and proponents of each can reasonably argue that their method keeps to the spirit of Hyde while opponents can reasonably argue that neither does, or that one does but the other doesn't.
If I'm not mistaken, the Stupak amendment language most closely follows the current status quo that exists in the FEHB program.
some may argue that Hyde itself should be overturned…but those who feel this way can't simultaneously claim that they want the HCR to focus on healthcare and not the divisive issue of abortion.
Yes, and no one is making this argument. Just the opposite in fact. Pro-choice Democrats have agreed that the Hyde Amendment should apply to health care reform. What they are not willing to do is use health care reform to effectively ban all abortions for all women who cannot afford to pay for the procedure out of pocket. I think that's pretty reasonable.
Creating a new federal funding stream brings on problems of how to reconcile the language with Hyde. You really can't 'keep the status quo' becuase currently this dilemma doesn't really exist.
You've said this before and it still doesn't make sense to me. I have no idea why health care reform has to be “reconciled” with the Hyde Amendment (as opposed to just writing the Hyde language into the bill) or why it's such a problem to figure out how to do it. At any rate, the Senate bill does clearly prohibit federal funds from being used to pay for abortions, which is, in other words, the Hyde Amendment.
If I'm not mistaken, the Stupak amendment language most closely follows the current status quo that exists in the FEHB program.
No. It's the Nelson language, which is in the Senate bill, that most closely follows the current status quo.The language Stupak now wants goes well beyond the Hyde Amendment.
Enfin, at the very least I assume you would agree that Stupak's claim that the Senate bill as it is now “directly subsidizes abortion” and “requires” abortion to be covered with federal money is not true.
That's not correct because I just checked, and I was right that the FEHB plans don't allow for any coverage of abortion beyond risk of life of mother or rape or incest.
So that is the status quo of how the Hyde amendment applies to situations where federal funding is paying for health insurance for women of childbearing age. Now, I'm fairly sure you don't think that should be the status quo, and a lot of people would probably agree with you…but if the goal of the current legislation is strictly HCR, it makes little sense to wrap an ideological battle over abortion coverage into it.
I can't say for sure because I haven't read the language in the Senate bill. Based on what I've read, I'd say it's incorrect (at least an overstatement) to say that it would allow direct subsidies to abortion (what it would do would indirectly subsidize because of the fungibility of the payments) and I don't know if they wrote it to 'require' coverage or not. I know there was a lot of back and forth over that- whether it would at least be permissible for some of the plans in the exchange to exclude abortion coverage (that is, abortions not defined by Hyde's narrow interpretation of those that are permissible for federal funding.)
Okay … if there is no problems with the Senate language, why did the Senate have a problem adopting the Stupak language to begin with, and have to come up with something different? Do all the fancy analysis you want … Seems to me that there is a problem with the Senate language.
Actually, Christine, my understanding from the article at First Read as well as previous news coverage is that the federal exchanges from which Congress members choose their insurance coverage DOES cover abortions. When that came out, it was very embarrassing for the Repubs. They have sworn to change it, but as of now, it's still that way.
But I don't know whether that is the same as the FEHB you mention.
Also, I'm not clear on how the FEHB language connects to the point you seem to be correcting me on — whether it's the Stupak or the Nelson language that most closely approximates the Hyde Amendment. Maybe I'm missing something, or just being dense.
So that is the status quo of how the Hyde amendment applies to situations where federal funding is paying for health insurance for women of childbearing age. Now, I'm fairly sure you don't think that should be the status quo, and a lot of people would probably agree with you…but if the goal of the current legislation is strictly HCR, it makes little sense to wrap an ideological battle over abortion coverage into it.
LOL, Christine! I totally agree. But it's not the Democrats who are trying to wrap an ideological battle over abortion coverage into the health care reform bill.
(what it would do I think would more correctly be called an indirect subsidy because of the fungibility of the payments)
That's a bogus argument. If the federal subsidies that a woman gets to purchase insurance on the exchanges “indirectly subsidizes” an abortion that woman may choose to have using her own money because, somehow, the federal money she's getting for coverage that is totally unrelated to abortion somehow frees up other sources of money in her life to pay for an abortion, then no one could get federal subsidies for anything without indirectly subsidizing other things. If I get a federal grant to do some research on fruit flies, and I then buy a car, that means the federal grant money is “indirectly subsidizing” my car. If I get money from a federal program to pay my utilities bill, that federal money is “indirectly subsidizing” the class I take at the local community college, or the set of tools I buy, or the airplane ticket I buy to visit my friend in Florida.
Credit where it's due: Rachel Maddow did a segment last night on the total absurdity of the “money is fungible” argument for Stupak's crusade to make the anti-abortion language in the Senate bill even more restrictive than it already is.
Maybe I'm missing something, or just being dense.
You are missing something. The FEHB that I referenced is the exchange through which all federal employees choose their health insurance coverage, and if you folllow the NPR link I posted you'll see that it does not allow any of the participating plans to cover abortions. I think you are confusing this issue with the one that came up with the RNC…that was the 'embarrassment' that you mention, that the RNC's plans did allow for abortion coverage but that has to do with donor money, not taxpayer money (so although you're right that it was an embarrasment, it had nothing to do with the Hyde amendment since that applies to federally funded healthcare coverage.)
LOL, Christine! I totally agree. But it's not the Democrats who are trying to wrap an ideological battle over abortion coverage into the health care reform bill.
Except that once you get your facts correct, you'll see that it's the other way around. The current situation for federally funded healthcare coverage for women of childbearing age is structured so that the women cannot get coverage for elective abortions under the plans offered to federal employees. If the Dems want to avoid changing the status quo, they would write the language of the newly created exchanges the same way- which is what Stupak says.
That's a bogus argument.
Everybody thinks fungibility arguments regarding federal funding are bogus when they involve issues that they side with, and vice versa if it pertains to something they oppose.
Case in point…I've heard lots of liberals argue that separation of Church and state means that churches shouldn't be able to operate tax free, even for their charitable operating units, because the money they save in taxes would then be freed up for their use for religious purposes. And conservatives who don't agree with that argument suddenly think along similar lines when it comes to funding for Planned Parenthood, because even though their abortion operations aren't directly funded they are indirectly subsidized by the money that goes to the organization's other activities.
I'm not arguing the point one way or the other (I have mixed feelings myself.) I'm just explaining, for those who might not know, what the objections are about indirect funding, and also pointing out that the main current federal health insurance program for childbearing women is set up in a way that corresponds to the fungibility concern being legit. So, preserving the status quo would mean agreeing with that argument (or if not agreeing, at least agreeing to table that debate until a later time.)
I've heard lots of liberals argue that separation of Church and state means that churches shouldn't be able to operate tax free, even for their charitable operating units, because the money they save in taxes would then be freed up for their use for religious purposes.
I'll have to take your word for that, because I have never heard that argument made by any liberal I've ever known. There are obviously a lot of liberals I don't know, of course.
I do know of the position that if churches do political lobbying they should not be allowed to keep their tax-exempt status (I'm talking actual formal legislative lobbying for official Church positions — like the Catholic bishops who helped Bart Stupak write his amendment and who are working directly with him now to make the language exactly what they want. I am NOT talking about individual Christians or other religions petitioning their elected officials as individuals holding particular religious beliefs.)
I have no idea how a church using money for “religious purposes” would even relate to political advocacy at all. Maybe I'm missing something.
If the federal subsidies that a woman gets to purchase insurance on the exchanges “indirectly subsidizes” an abortion that woman may choose to have using her own money because, somehow, the federal money she's getting for coverage that is totally unrelated to abortion somehow frees up other sources of money in her life to pay for an abortion
This isn't actually what the fungibility argument is saying anyway (if it was, then the opponents would be saying that no woman of childbearing age could get any subsidy whatsoever.) The fungibility part comes about within the insurance company getting premiums which are subsidized…because even having the private and public funds put in with separate checks doesn't stop the funds from mingling and covering all services. There are various measures apparently written into the Senate bill which are supposed to prevent that (in effect, the abortion coverage parts of these plans would have to be calculated with a separate actuarial table, and private funds would have to be set aside to cover the acturial estimates of abortion payments.) That may or may not work (to me, I think it probably does but I still say that increasing the complexity and setting this up in a whole different way is an attempt to create a new way of doing this, and leaves the question at least open as to whether it will be done correctly to comply with Hyde even if the proponents of this language say that it does.) Meanwhile, we already have a current system which definitely does comply with Hyde but since abortion rights advocates aren't happy with it they won't agree to the Stupak language which would duplicate it.
I think we've been through this on another thread you wrote about the Catholic bishops, but what they did was specify what the language would need to be in order for them to be able to operate their hospitals (through which they provide a large portion of public healthcare in this country at no profit), in good conscience. If you think it would have been better for them to keep silent, allow passage of a bill that would force them to shut their doors instead of providing needed healthcare, I don't get the logic to that.
Also important to note what lobbying is prohibited for nonprofits. Almost all nonprofits 'lobby' on issues and are permitted to do so (it wouldn't make sense otherwise..shouldn't a mental health advocacy group be able to weigh in on political issues regarding the issues that they exist to address?) What they are not permitted to do is to campaign for or against specific candidates.
I have no idea how a church using money for “religious purposes” would even relate to political advocacy at all. Maybe I'm missing something.
It doesn't. The fungibility argument there relates to whether or not tax exemption allows for govt funds being used for religious purposes which would violate the separation of Church and state.
The current situation for federally funded healthcare coverage for women of childbearing age is structured so that the women cannot get coverage for elective abortions under the plans offered to federal employees. If the Dems want to avoid changing the status quo, they would write the language of the newly created exchanges the same way- which is what Stupak says.
Christine, I really don't understand where you're coming from here. The FEHP anti-abortion language discussed in that NPR article goes beyond the status quo. It prohibits private insurance companies from selling policies that cover abortion on the exchanges if the woman buying it is receiving any federal subsidies at all, even if she pays for the abortion coverage out of her own pocket. Women who want abortion coverage cannot buy insurance on the exchanges AT ALL unless they pay the premiums themselves, with no federal subsidies AT ALL.
That is indeed what Stupak wants, and as I've said, it is absolutely more restrictive than the status quo.
Meanwhile, we already have a current system which definitely does comply with Hyde but since abortion rights advocates aren't happy with it they won't agree to the Stupak language which would duplicate it.
Christine, this is a complete and utter misstatement of the truth. The Senate bill clearly bars the use of federal dollars to pay for abortions, and *that* is the Hyde language. The status quo is NOT the Stupak language. If it were, why would Stupak be trying to change it?
Beside which, it isn't even possible to change the language in the Senate bill because the House has to adopt it AS IS. And it cannot go through in the reconciliation sidecar because it's not budget-related. So it's all a moot point, anyway. Bart Stupak is fighting for something that isn't even physically possible.
I think we've been through this on another thread you wrote about the Catholic bishops, but what they did was specify what the language would need to be in order for them to be able to operate their hospitals (through which they provide a large portion of public healthcare in this country at no profit), in good conscience. If you think it would have been better for them to keep silent, allow passage of a bill that would force them to shut their doors instead of providing needed healthcare, I don't get the logic to that.
Cry me a river, Christine. You can't justify a blatant violation of the constitutionally mandated separation of church and state by telling me the Catholic bishops need to rewrite legislative language to conform to the Catholic Church's doctrinal specifications when that legislation is going to affect the lives of ALL American women, not just Catholics. The argument “If you don't let the bishops write the law, the Catholic hospitals will have to close” is the language of blackmail. It's ridiculous. It's absurd. It's outrageous.
Doesn't the Senate bill have language about the “Exchange” that requires at least one plan to cover abortion and at least one plan not to cover abortion?
That's what I've read in texts of the bill and that's what Dorgan's office has been saying:
“Enrollees are Guaranteed Access to Varied Coverage in the Exchanges. The Secretary must ensure that in each Exchange, there is at least one plan available that covers abortions beyond those allowed by Hyde and at least one plan that does not cover abortions beyond those permitted by Hyde.”
That's going to spark rejections by Stupak and other reluctant Democrats in the House.
The FEHP anti-abortion language discussed in that NPR article goes beyond the status quo.
That makes no sense. The FEHB is the status quo. It is the current way that the Hyde amendment is being interpreted in the case of federally funded health insurance.
Beside which, it isn't even possible to change the language in the Senate bill because the House has to adopt it AS IS. And it cannot go through in the reconciliation sidecar because it's not budget-related. So it's all a moot point, anyway. Bart Stupak is fighting for something that isn't even physically possible.
Yes, I realize that, but he and others who agree with him still may not be willing to vote for the Senate version because obviously as you pointed out, the reconciliation bill will not address this and he would have no reason to believe that the abortion language would be ironed out in a future bill as some have tried to promise him.
You can't justify a blatant violation of the constitutionally mandated separation of church and state by telling me the Catholic bishops need to rewrite legislative language to conform to the Catholic Church's doctrinal specifications when that legislation is going to affect the lives of ALL American women, not just Catholics. The argument “If you don't let the bishops write the law, the Catholic hospitals will have to close” is the language of blackmail. It's ridiculous. It's absurd. It's outrageous.
The Catholic Church run hospitals have voluntarily provided a service in contract with the federal govt for many years. It isn't blackmail to tell another party with whom you have a contractual agreement what your intentions are if the other party decides to change the conditions under which the contractual agreement exists. There is no issue of Constitutionality involved here.
The Catholic Church run hospitals have voluntarily provided a service in contract with the federal govt for many years. It isn't blackmail to tell another party with whom you have a contractual agreement what your intentions are if the other party decides to change the conditions under which the contractual agreement exists. There is no issue of Constitutionality involved here.
Christine, Catholic Bishops sitting in a room with Bart Stupak writing anti-abortion language to fit Catholic doctrine is a clear establishment of religion. If the Catholic Church does not like the language in a bill, they do not have to abide by it. No one is compelling the bishops they have to accept changed conditions, and the bishops are not telling Congress what their intentions are if the conditions are changed, they are demanding to write the actual public policy, and Bart Stupak is allowing them to. That is unconstitutional. It's appalling that it's happening with no interference.
As long as the Catholic Church is getting federal dollars to run its hospitals (and that in itself, in my opinion, is a violation of the wall of separation), then it has to abide by the same rules every other private entity that accepts federal dollars has to abide by. They are absolutely welcome and free to turn down those federal dollars. Then they can do as they please. If they take the dollars, they take the conditions.
the bishops are not telling Congress what their intentions are if the conditions are changed, they are demanding to write the actual public policy, and Bart Stupak is allowing them to
There's really not much point in my arguing with you about this as long as you are bound and determined to see it from a faulty perspective. The Catholic healthcare system doesn't accept subsidies from the govt, it provides services as a nonprofit (and the running of the hospitals is actually subsidized by donations and other sources of Church funding, so it's actually donating to help the govt provide services, not accepting federal funds in the way you are characterizing it.)
Stupak and others recognized that the federal govt would not be able to fill the void left if the Catholic Church felt that conscience clauses were going to be nullified by the pending legislation, so he consulted with the bishops. It isn't the Constitutional crisis you're making it out to be, not in the slightest (and if anything, there would be a First Amendment violation if the govt tried to force the Church to accept a secular view of abortion rights.)
The bishops specified the language they were comfortable with; the govt can then decide whether or not to include that language in legislation, with the knowledge of what would happen to the services provided by one of the largest healthcare providers in the country.
I can understand some level of discomfort on your part, but that is what comes of the govt relying on the Church for generations. If secular organizations had stepped up to cover the needed healthcare delivery in all of the communities currently served by Catholic hospitals, then this wouldn't be an issue.
CS
“The fungibility part comes about within the insurance company getting premiums which are subsidized…because even having the private and public funds put in with separate checks doesn't stop the funds from mingling and covering all services.”
The fungibility argument appears specious. You could make the same argument about a Doctor who receives Medicare payments but also provides abortions to private patients. Money into his practice is every bit as indistinguishable. So is the fungible position also saying such a doctor that does “pro bono” work at the local clinic similarly restricted?
It's odd how you stand against waterboarding terrorists, yet dance and sing when a baby is murdered.
Good job.
(B) ABORTION SERVICES.—
(i) ABORTIONS FOR WHICH PUBLIC FUNDING IS PROHIBITED.—The services described in this clause are abortions for which the expenditure of Federal funds appropriated for the Department of Health and Human Services is not permitted, based on the law as in effect as of the date that is 6 months before the beginning of the plan year involved.
(ii) ABORTIONS FOR WHICH PUBLIC FUNDING IS ALLOWED.—The services described in this clause are abortions for which the expenditure of Federal funds appropriated for the Department of Health and Human Services is permitted, based on the law as in effect as of the date that is 6 months before the beginning of the plan year involved.
…
(D) ASSURED AVAILABILITY OF VARIED COVERAGE THROUGH EXCHANGES.—
(i) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall assure that with respect to qualified health plans offered in any Exchange established pursuant to this title—
(I) there is at least one such plan that provides coverage of services described in clauses (i) and (ii) of subparagraph (B); and
(II) there is at least one such plan that does not provide coverage of services described in subparagraph (B)(i).
(ii) SPECIAL RULES.—For purposes of clause (i)—
(I) a plan shall be treated as described in clause (i)(II) if the plan does not provide coverage of services described in either subparagraph (B)(i) or (B)(ii); and
(II) if a State has one Exchange covering more than 1 insurance market, the Secretary shall meet the requirements of clause (i) separately with respect to each such market.
Stupak and others recognized that the federal govt would not be able to fill the void left if the Catholic Church felt that conscience clauses were going to be nullified by the pending legislation, so he consulted with the bishops.
I don't know about “others,” but Stupak recognized nothing of the sort. Stupak is grandstanding on an issue he knows is completely academic at this point. He's not interested in stopping federal funds from subsidizing abortions; he's in this particular game for himself. He's found his 15 minutes of fame and he's enjoying it. The good news is, the Democrats aren't paying any attention to him anymore, so he is completely superfluous.
There's really not much point in my arguing with you about this as long as you are bound and determined to see it from a faulty perspective.
I'm not seeing it from a faulty perspective, Christine. I'm seeing it from the perspective of a pro-choice politically progressive Jewish woman who does not share the Catholic Church's belief that a fertilized egg is a human person deserving of more consideration than a girl who is pregnant as the result of rape or incest. And don't even think about challenging me on this, Christine: There have been numerous reports for years now about the fact that when a girl comes into a Catholic hospital emergency room having been raped, the “medical” staff will not give her emergency contraception or tell her where she can get it. That's just one situation. Abortion is a woman's choice in any situation that she decides she needs to choose it; this is just one particularly heinous example of how well Catholic hospital are filling Americans' health care needs.
But I digress. As I said, I am a pro-choice, politically progressive, Jewish woman who does not share the Catholic Church's anti-abortion ideology, and do not wish for my daughter or any of her friends or any young woman who needs an abortion to be tied down and bound by the Catholic Church's religious dogma about abortion.
The Catholic healthcare system doesn't accept subsidies from the govt, it provides services as a nonprofit (and the running of the hospitals is actually subsidized by donations and other sources of Church funding, so it's actually donating to help the govt provide services, not accepting federal funds in the way you are characterizing it.)
Okay, I will trust your accuracy on that point, and I stand corrected — on that point. However, it changes nothing about the underlying principle that Bart Stupak has no business allowing Catholic bishops to tell him what anti-abortion language they feel comfortable with. It doesn't matter if they've contracted with the government. The government shouldn't be doing that, but since they are, it still does not make it right, or constitutional, for Catholic clergy to write legislation. I'm sorry. You don't consider it a crisis because you are an anti-abortion Catholic who agrees with the Stupak amendment philosophically and substantively. I, on the other hand, have this weird notion that a group of Catholic bishops should not be able to control what all American women can do or not do.
I'm willing to bet that if a bunch of Jehovah's Witnesses wanted to tweak the health care legislation to ban blood transfusions, you would have a problem or two with that.
If secular organizations had stepped up to cover the needed healthcare delivery in all of the communities currently served by Catholic hospitals, then this wouldn't be an issue.
I think that is probably a gross oversimplification of the events and circumstances that have led to Catholic hospitals providing so much of the nation's health care — a circumstance that I find very disturbing. But in any case, your argument here tries (again) to justify violations of church-state separation by blaming others who “didn't step up,” but if something is inappropriate (in whatever context), you don't excuse it by saying, well, no one took care of the problem, so inappropriate choices are okay. That's not an ethically valid argument.
“if something is inappropriate (in whatever context), you don't excuse it by saying, well, no one took care of the problem, so inappropriate choices are okay”
Like misusing reconciliation to pass health care (non-budget) legislation, legislation which itself is bad…
Setting aside your foolish “dance and sing” rhetoric, I have absolutely no problem agreeing that I abhor the disregard for human life and for human dignity that defines torture, and that I do not condone calling someone a terrorist because the government says so, with no need for evidence or charges or trials or due process. I also have absolutely no problem agreeing that the intentional infliction of extreme physical or mental pain or suffering, and the intentional breaking of a human being's mind and spirit, is not just a crime in law, but a crime against God. Additionally, I have absolutely no problem agreeing that the choice of a pregnant woman to abort a fetus for reasons no one can know or judge except herself and her closest friends and family does not even come close to being comparable to torturing human beings because we have decided they are terrorists, with no evidence or proof, and that therefore they are disposable objects, like a used up roll of toilet paper.
Obviously, not at all analogous, DLS. Reconciliation is being used exactly the way reconciliation is supposed to be used, and the way Republicans have used it for decades: to pass bills that have budgetary impact.
That's number one. Number two, this has been explained to you and others, here, I don't know how many times, and still you continue to repeat this claim that is simply, unarguably, *incorrect.* Reconciliation is NOT being used to pass health care reform, or non-budget legislation. Health care reform has already passed both houses of Congress. What is being put through reconciliation is a much smaller package of changes to the main bill, all of which will be budget-related.
And the bit about “legislation which itself is bad” is, of course, just your opinion, not fact.
Kathy –
“the way Republicans have used it for decades: to pass bills that have budgetary impact”
Non-germane items should not be handled through reconciliation.
What you can say is that many health items have been handled through reconcilation before.
Of course, it's all wrong. You still have to face that. (I have faced it. They'll do what it takes to move forward.)
* * *
” What is being put through reconciliation is a much smaller package of changes to the main bill, all of which will be budget-related.”
Such as regarding the subject of this thread — real “budget” stuff, all right…[chuckle]
“legislation which itself is bad”
Your butt is mine, gonna tell you right…
The Dems are bad, too. [sneer]
________________________________
It's very simple, Kathy. You stand for the elimination of innocent life and stand against the elimination (or torture) of the guilty.
I, too, am against torture, since the accused has not had due process (military tribunal or civil). I also find it beneficial to society to execute those found guilty of cold blooded murder (the guilty). However, I it turns my stomach to see those of you fighting so hard to eliminate a life that has just begun – violating an “inalienable right” given to all – LIFE.
It's hypocritical at best.
I guess what you are getting at, Hemm, is whether people who use the fungibility argument would similarly look at the choices that they freely make for their own healthcare needs (are they being consistent, if they don't want their funds going toward abortions, in choosing their private healthcare providers in such a way that their medical dollars aren't funding other women's abortions.) I obviously don't know the answer to that, and dissecting the concept is what leads me personally to be a bit ambivalent about the fungibility arguments. There are some cases of funding that are more direct and would make me uncomfortable, but you can't apply six degrees of separation and still function in our society because every dollar that you spend anywhere could be said to be indirectly funding things that you don't approve of (as Kathy noted in some of her examples earlier in the thread.) A lot of people go through a similar dilemma when deciding whether or not to give money to the homeless guy on the street- is he going to use it to feed himself or bus fare to the shelter, or is he going to score some drugs to get high? At some point you have to say, I'm making a choice to give the money for X, and if the person who accepts the money uses it for Y I can't take responsibility for that.
But what you may be missing in the questions your asking is the difference between worrying about fungibility of privately spent money (where we have a choice) and public funds. I guess some people might see an issue in what you described (doctors who are partly paid by Medicare) but since Medicare reimbursements are less than the doctor's fixed costs, that's actually a drain on their other income, not a subsidy for them.
Now, if what you are really trying to point out is that some people are being specious with the argument in this case because they aren't recognizing and protesting against similar instances where their tax dollars may be even more directly funding abortions…I'd say that is correct. I think the best example of that is that most people (including those who are against the Senate abortion language) probably don't realize that they may live in a state where their tax dollars do allow for direct subsidization of Medicaid abortions.
I think that is probably a gross oversimplification of the events and circumstances that have led to Catholic hospitals providing so much of the nation's health care — a circumstance that I find very disturbing.
It's as simple as this, Kathy: the Catholic Church is a very large institution that made the decision to invest lots of its own money into the medical infrastructure of this country. My view is that it did so as part of its charitable mission, and though you may disagree with what the motivations were you can't deny that the first part of that is the reality. Also reality is that other secular organizations did NOT make similar investments, although they were free to have done so and continue to have the freedom to do so if they want to dilute out the effects of the hospitals that are acting in accordance with religious principles that they disagree with. Since the situation causes you so much distress, for instance, you might consider organizing some pressure on Planned Parenthood to expand its mission beyond just reproductive services, become a nonprofit so that they can channel their profits into an expansion to build full service hospitals in the communities that are currently served mainly by Catholic hospitals. That would ensure the choices that you feel are necessary to all women.
However, what isn't Constitutional is to say that the govt should be able to force the Catholic hospitals to perform procedures that violate their conscience. The First Amendment has not only an Establishment Clause, but also a Free Exercise Clause.
You don't consider it a crisis because you are an anti-abortion Catholic who agrees with the Stupak amendment philosophically and substantively. I, on the other hand, have this weird notion that a group of Catholic bishops should not be able to control what all American women can do or not do.
What is weird is your interpretion that this is what is happening. The Stupak amendment does nothing of the sort, as women will still have the same freedom to choose abortion that they currently do if this amendment were to become part of the new legislation. The women simply will not have the right to have publicly funded health insurance paying for the abortions (as may arguably also be the case with the Senate bill, but there's a bit more room for doubt in that case.)
Health care reform has already passed both houses of Congress. What is being put through reconciliation is a much smaller package of changes to the main bill, all of which will be budget-related.
The salient point though is that an intervening election has now created a situation where the Senate bill would NOT pass again if the vote were held today. If the Dems do succeed with using reconciliation, they will have ignored that and pretended that the MA election didn't mean what most people know that it meant- that people do not want this HCR to pass.
JD, I'm 100% prolife but I don't think it's right to denigrate people who have a different belief about it. I have the same emotional reaction to abortion that you do, but I recognize that some people truly don't believe that the natural right to life (or legal personhood) begins before birth, or some don't believe that it begins as early as conception.
I also think it's very unkind, even cruel, to say that someone who has herself had to face the gut wrenching reality of abortion is guilty of celebrating murder. The first reason is as I already mentioned- not everyone agrees with you that it is murder, and the second reason is that I honestly don't believe that Kathy considers her strong support for abortion rights to be a 'celebration' of the death of human beings- she's focused (wrongly IMO, but still…) on the impact on the lives of the girls and women whom she feels are making this decision to preserve their own lives.
I think we understand each other in this. My comment was driven by the fact that the fungibility argument is political, but does not stand up to intellectual scrutiny. I understand that the iswue of abortion, although legal, is contentious enough that moves to limit public funding is an attempt to keep both sides happy.
The problem, of course, is that the bill appears to clearly state that no funding is to be used for that purpose. period. Any nit-picking used to block the bill over that clear statement is absurd. The purpose of this argument is to defeat health care reform, and any half baked argument is thrown against the wall to see if it sticks.
I guess the question I would have for Stupak, a Roman Catholic, is “Why do you support pedophiles by contributing to the church? A totally unfair question, but the logic is exactly parallel,
Hey Jeff
Being a 2nd Amendment guy, I guess you celebrate the senseless murder of children and innocent adults via gun violence. I suggest you descend from your pulpit and drop the rocks. You don't always know where the next rock will come from.
The problem, of course, is that the bill appears to clearly state that no funding is to be used for that purpose. period.
I don't see how you can use a qualifier like “appears” and then end with “period” as though that settles it.
And that's the point- the House language via Stupack really is unequivocable, while the Senate version is muddier and relies on a good faith reading to presume that the separation of funds really will be handled properly. I think as written it seems to set up a legit mechanism but in practice it's anyone's bet as to whether or not it will work out that way.
And as another commenter mentioned, why did they even need to mess with this in the Senate, if not for the bad faith interpretation that the prochoice Dems really are trying to get a toe hold on eroding the provisions of Hyde? If that's not their intent, then why weren't they willing to accept Stupack's version which mimics the way that current federal employees' health insurance is set up?
I guess the question I would have for Stupak, a Roman Catholic, is “Why do you support pedophiles by contributing to the church? A totally unfair question, but the logic is exactly parallel
Uh, exactly parallel if you want to say that pedophilia and abortion are equally deplorable and should be unacceptable to anyone with a moral compass, I guess.
CS
““If a qualified health plan provides coverage of services described in paragraph (1)(B)(i)” — i.e., abortion — “the issuer of the plan shall not use any amount attributable to [health reform's government-funding mechanisms] for purposes of paying for such services.”
Straightforward and specific. May I ask how one can read this as equivocal? I believe the prolifers are seeing problems because its convenient to see problems. If Stupak's ammendment would be accepted, are you saying you'd be supporting this bill?
I didn't think so.
Parallel in terms of fungibility, of course. I knew this would be a bad simile to draw with you, but offense produced by such comparisons is part and parcel to this kind of argument.
The problem with decisions based upon moral compasses is that one's certainty acts like a magnet. Did I mention that pedophilia is illegal and abortion is legal? They may equally not be to your taste, but they are not morally equal regardless of your certainty.
If Stupak's ammendment would be accepted, are you saying you'd be supporting this bill?
Of course not… but it's not my support, nor any GOP Congressman's that Pelosi needs- it's Stupak's and some of his D colleagues. Are you suggesting they are disingenuous about the abortion language and that they would have withheld their votes from the Senate bill anyway if the language there had mirrored the Stupak amendment?
As for the wording…it really doesn't help to keep quoting the part you cited because all they are saying there is that they intend to comply with existing law. The question is, how do they plan to structure the program so that it actually does so?
As I already mentioned, I'm pretty satisfied from what I've seen that on paper they've set up the means to do so, but that still leaves some distrust on my part as to whether or not the implementation and oversight will be correctly applied. The Stupak method of doing this (which is just as the federal employees plan exchange is currently set up) is more transparent because the federal funds can't even go toward the purchase of a policy that pays for elective abortions, so there's no way there could be accounting sleight of hand with the funds.
CS
“Are you suggesting they are disingenuous about the abortion language and that they would have withheld their votes from the Senate bill anyway if the language there had mirrored the Stupak amendment?
As for the wording…it really doesn't help to keep quoting the part you cited because all they are saying there is that they intend to comply with existing law. The question is, how do they plan to structure the program so that it actually does so?”
Point one – i'm not suggesting, i'm saying it outright. Stupak got chunks of money from the health industry like most if not all blue dogs. if that doesn't seem to make you question his motives, i guess you can, but i certainly can't assume your certainty. The health care issue is about money. it's not about morals, socialism, death panels, or any of the other stuff tossed out there to scare people. These simplkistic arguments are presented by both sides, its money that is making the arguments, not political philosophy
Point 2: If abortion was made illegal tomorrow, how could you be sure the law was enforced? Or any other law, for that matter. if the current wording passes, are you saying that prolifers wouldn't search diligently to make sure funds wouldn't be used illegally?
I didn't think so.
The health care issue is about money. it's not about morals, socialism, death panels, or any of the other stuff tossed out there to scare people.
And I thought I was the cynic. Certainly a lot of this has been tainted with money, but I find it ridiculous to presume to know that not a single Congressman could possibly be motivated by a moral issue on which his constituents have elected him (note that he doesn't even have to be motivated by his own personal devotion to the moral principle, but by the pressures from the interest groups that have helped him get in office- after all, Stupak has been consistently prolife and has talked about how this has been an uphill battle for him within the Dem party and this article talks about how that has NOT served him well in terms of donations.
Point 2: If abortion was made illegal tomorrow, how could you be sure the law was enforced? Or any other law, for that matter. if the current wording passes, are you saying that prolifers wouldn't search diligently to make sure funds wouldn't be used illegally?
Obviously they'd endeavor to do so, which is also why it's obvious that it would be better to have a more transparent process in place which would allow for better scrutiny.
Hi there, and thanks CStanley for holding the fort by yourself and with good will. I just wanted to mention that teaching at a Catholic hospital and being an oblate with Sisters of Charity, Leavenworth who run many hospitals nationwide; the characterization of the bishops and their meetings with whomever in government are far closer to CStanley's insights that to what is put forth as bishops against whatever/ church against whomever and whyever.
If the Catholic, Lutheran, Presbeterian, Jewish, etc. hospitals were to fail in the US, the entire hospital health care system would fail. Speaking just as a Catholic who knows full well there are some few bishops who are inflated politicos and there are some bishops who are true holy men filled with intelligence and compassion, the Catholic Health network holding true health care together for the poor, the indigent, as well as for the uninsured working class, AND the wealthy, cannot do several things in health care and go on existing; they cannot perform abortions, tubal ligations, vasectomies.
Doctors who want hospital priviledges at Catholic hospitals cannot do these procedures there.
I hate to say that I am aware that for some, anything Catholic is demonized without praising at all or ever what profound social safety nets Catholics have always provided and for centuries. Tthose of you who know me, know I grew up just miles from the base of the kkk— and Catholics and immigrants, and spreading falsehoods about them, and attempting to harm them, was part and parcel of our being seen as 'mud people.' I refuse to 'get used to' this in modern discourse. I just find it impossible to debate about when the facts about Catholics, or other groups, are cherry-picked, when the 2 percent is held out to be the 100% fact only.
This is not to say that bishops, churches, people, ought be not criticized. Believe me, as CStanley puts it, many within the larger 'family group' of any political, religious, educational, corporate group have 'mixed feelings' about various issues that affect others' lives and their own. But, mixed feelings doesnt mean 'know-nothing'…nor does it mean 'inability to think.' Nor does it mean “undecided.”
It means, most often, the issues are deep, the considerations great, and points of view sometimes have to have time to deepen; that ongoing looking, learning, study is one of our traditions, as it is of our root religion in midrash.
Are some bishops wanting to play politics. It is possible. But more likely that some of the priest-careerists want to gain El Pope's attention because they want to be Cardinals real bad. Frankly most Popes dont select bishops for Cardinals who are controversial and fawning to the Pope, but that hasnt filtered down to a handful of bishops.
Most bishops want the hospitals, cliniques, health care centers under their dioceses to be able to function fully and without having to spend more time and money than they already do (our money from Catholic tithing and grants, estates, and weekly donation and fund-raising money) trying to tiptoe around the latest tulips in health care/ insurance/ etc dreampt up by people who do NOT spend their days caring for the ill and their families, and all for no profit.
If you had a huge mission of care for others, and a hospital system that covers as much as 75% of all care in various cities and in many places is the ONLY health care system in backwaters and smaller towns and rural aras, you too I think would be talking to the often seeming 'out of touch' senators and congresspeople too. For whatever legislation they make has, as we have seen already with other magnificent legislation plowed through, such as suspension of certain rights, huge 'unintended consequences.'
I'll say it again. If the Catholic/ religious hospitals fall, the entire hospital system of the US will fall.
It is true that abortion/ vasectomy, tubal ligations are issues. But far greater is who will rebuild the hospital system if more than half of it were to suddenly fall? And where on earth would they find literally tens of thousands of nuns to take salaries that could barely support a dog for a year, those nuns who clean and comfort and care for the sick and the dying. There is no work force like that. None. Not for the money. And not for the underlying aim, to act in the name of the One they follow.
Thanks
dr.e
CS
“Stupak has been consistently prolife and has talked about how this has been an uphill battle for him within the Dem party and this article talks about how that has NOT served him well in terms of donations.”
I guess its a good thing, then he's received so much cash from the private medical lobby.
Health Professionals $24,550
Hospitals/Nursing Homes $11,150
Insurance $9,700
Pharmaceuticals/Health Products $7,500
Health Services/HMOs $7,000
Of course, this isn't as much as Obama has gotten from the health industry, but it's enough of a motivator. FYI, you may well have missed many of my comments from past posts. I don't really support this health care bill either. my problem is the “voting for dollars” that our government has become, and this bill is just another example.
will this bill actually provide health care to poor uninsured people? maybe
will you and i pay for it? yes
do you and i currently pay for the uninsured? yes
will private health care still make ridiculous profits at the cost of people's health? absolutely.
will premiums continue to outstrip the rise in health cost? naturally.
will insurers still enjoy a legalized monopoly? of course.
is there any real attempt at cost savings? only to the detriment of the insured.
this list may seem cynical, but it's also totally accurate. why don't we let drug dealers write drug laws? That would be crazy. There's a parallel that makes my real point.
Well, acknowledging that people on both sides have the financial support of the industry but then claming that as proof that one side is casting its votes because of that money while the other isn't, seems like faulty logic to me. And why would Stupak have voted yes for the House bill if his real motivation was to stop the passage of HCR?
CS
The bill in question was written by and for the insurance industry. If it doesn't pass, they win. if it does pass, they win.
the question of health reform was still born from the moment that single payer was left out of the discussion. that's how it works, a bad bill or no bill, just keep the money rolling.
btw
i'm taking my mom back to St Louis, so this will have to be it. sorry
thanks again for sharing that brain of yours…
OK, godspeed.
thanks again for sharing that brain of yours…
It would be selfish of me to keep it all to myself. j/k!
The salient point though is that an intervening election has now created a situation where the Senate bill would NOT pass again if the vote were held today.
Well, setting aside the fact that you're stating as fact what can only be an opinion that Scott Brown would not have been a 60th vote for the Senate bill, your entire premise here is quite ridiculous (in my view, of course).
First of all, nobody “knows” what the MA election results mean. People can speculate, people can make informed and educated guesses, but no one can know. That's just fact, Christine. Second, even if we agree that the election results were a referendum on health care reform in a general sense, there is no certainty over what that means in a more specific sense. Does it mean MA voters don't want health care reform at all? Don't want this particular bill? DO want reform and are not opposed to this particular bill, but are sick and tired unto the gills of how long it has taken to get it passed? And to the extent that MA voters *were* expressing opposition to the bill itself, then one has to ask whether that reflects an accurate understanding of what is in the bill, or whether it reflects the months and months and months and months of distortions, misinformation, half-truths, and blatant outright lies promulgated and repeated by the GOP over and over even after being debunked. In which case voters in MA were being swayed by lies that they believed were true.
In addition, there is the fact that the MA election was only one state's election, that the Democrats still have a huge majority in the House and a large one in the Senate, and that 59 instead of 60 does not mean that Democrats have suddenly lost the popular mandate they were given in November, 2008.
Christine, you have expressed yourself kindly and respectfully on my behalf on a number of occasions, but this, I think, touches and moves me more than any other. Your kindness and empathy in saying what you said about my beliefs on abortion, despite your very strong disagreement on the issue, is admirable.
I will strive to attain, and maintain, the same level of respect for you, because I know I can get heated on this topic.
Thank you. I really am grateful.