Health Care Reform Roundup
Mar 18th, 2010 | 10 responses
Fox News’ Bret Baier spent much of a rare one-on-one interview with Pres. Obama not letting him answer the questions he asked.
Salon‘s Joe Conason does the laugh test on Republican outrage over the possibility that Democrats will use the self-executing rule to pass health care reform, and scores it: They do not pass.
As probably everyone knows by now, Rep. Dennis Kucinich has dropped his opposition (at least for voting purposes) to the health care reform bill.
Several conservative House Democrats who had been No votes on health care reform because of the abortion issue have decided to support the bill after taking a closer look at what Rep. Bart Stupak has claimed is permissive language about federal funding of abortions. Rep. James Oberstar of Minnesota is one of these. He told Politico today, “”I wanted to see the language, understand it better, have conversations with Sen. Nelson. On balance, it does what we need to do.” Another is Dale Kildee, from Michigan. Kildee’s explanation for changing his position was particularly strong — and I think worth including here, in full:
For those who know me, I have always respected and cherished the sanctity of human life. I spent 6 years studying to be a priest and was willing to devote my life to God. I came to Congress two years after the Hyde Amendment became law and I have spent the last 34 years casting votes to protect the lives of the unborn. I have stood up to many in my party to defend the right to life and have made no apologies for doing so. I now find myself disagreeing with some of the people and groups I have spent a lifetime working with. I have listened carefully to both sides, sought counsel from my priest, advice from family, friends and constituents and I have read the Senate abortion language more than a dozen times.
I am convinced that the Senate language maintains the Hyde Amendment, which states that no federal money can be used for abortion. The Senate bill includes a “conscience clause” and allows states to ban plans that include abortion. I also disagree with the argument that the Senate bill would lead to abortions being performed at community health centers. Under existing law (42 C.F.R. § 50.301), community health centers are prohibited from performing abortions.
We must not lose sight of what is at stake here — the lives of 31 million American children, adults, and seniors — who don’t have health insurance. There is nothing more pro-life than protecting the lives of 31 million Americans. Voting for this bill in no way diminishes my pro-life voting record or undermines my beliefs. I am a staunch pro-life member of Congress — both for the born and the unborn.”
The Catholic Hospital Association has also, today, publicly endorsed the Senate bill. Marcy Kaptur, an anti-abortion Democrat from Ohio who continues to oppose the bill because she thinks the anti-abortion language in the bill isn’t strong enough, disparaged the CHA’s motivation for saying the bill should be supported:
“I think the hospitals have a different perspective because they’re running large institutions,” Kaptur said. “They have a lot of issues at stake. They have to balance their budgets and so forth. I think that the Bishops are probably in a different position. I don’t think that they’re really managerially responsible for these institutions.”
The implication appears to be that CHA’s business interests helped determine their position on the abortion language. …
And 59,000 nuns who represent 60 separate Catholic orders made news today by breaking with the Catholic bishops, who oppose health care reform on the grounds that the legislation’s specific ban on the use of federal funds to pay for abortions isn’t sufficient — and who, indeed, have gone so far as to meet with Bart Stupak to craft the anti-abortion language in the legislation to their personal satisfaction.
The nuns who lead 60 different Catholic orders wrote on behalf of their 59,000 members to congressional representatives, saying “despite false claims to the contrary, the Senate bill will not provide taxpayer funding for elective abortion.” They call the bill “the real pro-life stance” because it helps pregnant women access the health care they need. (For more on this argument, see T. R. Reid’s compelling piece, which argues that women who have access to high-quality health care for themselves and their children are less inclined to seek abortions.)
Finally, Ezra Klein flags a post by Greg Sargent about polling numbers put together by the Democratic leaders that indicate Medicare was a heavy lift when it was passed, as well. This is an argument that has been made many times, but hard numbers were lacking.
10 Responses to “Health Care Reform Roundup”
Good for Obama sitting down with the enemy. This was almost as good as the Cheney interview on Olbermann…
OK, Kathy, will you comment on this excerpt from the Dionne OP (emphasis mine):
Do you find it outrageous that the nuns were meeting with the Senators who drafted the abortion amendment to the Senate bill? Why or why not?
I've been hearing the chatter on the radio today and laughing derisively. They're more desperate than ever.
Obama's BS continues to go nowhere — except being lauded by the Usual Suspects.
As for the nuns, of course the lighter-weight Left is seizing on their blatant political stunt. (That doesn't mean the missile-silo trashing, deliberate-illegal-immigrant-harboring-and-law-and-Reagan-defying Religous Left is back yet.) (No need to worry about these people yet expressing liberation-theology Bolivarian solidarity with Chavez and the other lefties in Latin America.) (Had this been still the 1980s, gay and AIDS activists would be filling streets and damaging and destroying buildings right now in pursuit of health care as a human right, and so on.)
Yes, actually.
OK, fair enough, and there weren't enough details given to know which was the case. I guess I find it doubtful that the Senators would meet with them after the fact, since like Stupak they were probably interested in finding the wording that would gain the support of some Catholic groups, but I could be wrong.
DLS, the above sounds absolutely crazed. It sounds like the rabid, delirious ravings of someone who is suffering from a high fever.
I have a reason for saying this. Usually, with comments like these, which cannot possibly be responded to in a productive way, because there is nothing rational in them to attach a response to, I just say nothing. Ignore them.
The reason I am pointing this out is that you, among all the readers who comment here at TMV, are in my experience the most likely to accuse liberals (most notably, me) of being extremist, radical, etc. It really and truly floors me that you can write stuff like this and then make out that you are the moderate one.
If you would think about this for a few moments and answer in a sincere and thoughtful manner, I would appreciate it, because I really want to know what's going on here.
“the above sounds absolutely crazed. It sounds like …”
“I really want to know what's going on here.”
The desperation expressed on the radio (if you listen to radio) is self-explanatory.
Obama's campaign behavior, associated with that desperation, is self-explanatory.
The blatant political action of the nuns, now and in the past, all is self-explanatory.
What is happening is not mysterious and my observations are not extremist to anyone with good “hearing,” Kathy.
“sounds absolutely crazed. It sounds like the rabid, delirious ravings of someone who is suffering from a high fever”
You don't have the chance listen to any of the “progressive” talk radio shows, do you, Kathy?
They're ablaze this week.
http://www.mikemalloy.com/
http://www.stephaniemiller.com/
http://www.therandirhodesshow.com/main.html
http://www.bigeddieradio.com/
http://www.thomhartmann.com/
Fine, DLS. I hoped for better, but I expected nothing. I will go back to ignoring you.
surrender accepted