This Bill Is About Health Care, Not Colonoscopies
Mar 19th, 2010 | 33 responses
Nancy Pelosi tells Bart Stupak that there will be no more deals on abortion language before the health care vote on Sunday:
“If you don’t want federal funding for abortion… and you want to have a health care bill,” she said. “This is it.”
She said members may be talking about various things and dismissively mentioned Stupak’s name, adding, “But right now we are just getting votes to pass a bill.”
“This bill is about health care and not about abortion,” Pelosi said. “There will be no further changes in the bill.”
Here is the American Heritage Medical Dictionary’s (2007) definition of “health care”:
The prevention, treatment, and management of illness and the preservation of mental and physical well-being through the services offered by the medical and allied health professions.
Check it out, everyone: Abortion IS health care.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
33 Responses to “This Bill Is About Health Care, Not Colonoscopies”
Sounds like she has the vote…she needs to tone down her attitude. Her tone, while doesn't seem that bad, could turn a yes to a no.
The president has been very clear on this for a long time: it's not about health care, it's a health insurance bill.
I write as a supporter of a woman's right to abortion in most cases, to say that a pro-life response to your post is super-easy to compose: They believe that the fetus, as much as a pregnant woman, is entitled to the “preservation of physical well-being.” One can disagree with that premise, but it is simply absurd to argue that there is something illogical in the Stupak position.
To the supporters of the pro life movement and the killing of innocent life. how do you feel about thousands upon thousands of INNOCENT people killed by our military in Iraq ?After all,I would assume that many of you supported that war that we were lied into.Tell me about it!!!
When this is all over Stupak will disappear back into the woodwork he came from.
All sign point towards passing…should be interesting
ProfElwood, please don't be ridiculous. First of all, the president has made no such distinction, and second of all, your statement is ridiculous.
But if you insist, you can suggest an amendment to the bill stipulating that the health insurance purchased on the exchanges is intended to be used for the procurement of health care and can only be used for that purpose, and that anyone trying to use health insurance under this law to purchase a recreational vehicle, a second home, or a family vacation will be punished severely.
I see nothing absurd in the premise that it is logically impossible to claim that both a fetus and the woman in whose body the fetus resides are equally entitled to the preservation of physical well-being. What is “simply absurd” is to claim that, in a situation where a woman decides to have an abortion, her physical well-being is NOT being sacrificed or at the least, compromised, by preventing her from having one, or making it very difficult for her to have one. Pregnancy always carries implications for a woman's physical well-being. Therefore, there are no circumstances under which a woman's physical well-being is being equally considered if she is not allowed to have an abortion, should she choose to have one.
You are certainly entitled to believe that a fetus's physical well-being is more important than a woman's in some number of instances. But you cannot logically (or factually, for that matter) claim that a woman's entitlement to her physical well-being is being considered if she is being prevented from having an abortion by law or policy. My opinion is that a woman's physical well-being always takes priority over a fetus's, IF that woman, in consultation with her doctor, chooses not to risk that physical well-being. For me, that's the end of the story.
Yes, but he may have succeeded in doing grievous harm to American women before that happens.
I hope not Kathy, I'm sick to death of seeing that sort of ignorant, self-serving behavior be rewarded.
You simply cannot seem to understand the difference between being prohibited from obtaining an abortion and being guaranteed the right to have someone else pay for an abortion. I believe that's because you don't understand the concept of “rights” in general. That doesn't make you bad person, it just makes you a bad policy analyst.
The more tasks you assign to the government, the more often you will find that people are being forced to pay for things that violate their most strongly held views. The fact that those things don't violate YOUR beliefs is of absolutely no relevance to the people who disagree with you. Collective funding of private choices is an excellent recipe for polarization. Live and let live is, by contrast, the key to a harmonious yet diverse society.
The Democrats have been quite open in saying that anything they are saying now is meaningless because they will make whatever changes they want in the future. The current health bill is a totally unknown quantitity and will not resemble the final government take over of healthcare.
The Democrats lied when they said that illegal aliens will not get subsidized care. The
Democrats are lying when they claim that the program will save money. The Democrats are lying when they say that a deal will be made about abortion.
People have to remember that whatever a politicians says today means nothing tomorrow.
I wonder if this could be said about both political sides…
None of the above is relevant to the point of this post, which is that abortion is health care, which makes a statement like “This bill is about health care, not abortions” an absurdity.
Nothing you have written above changes that reality or counters my point.
Collective funding of private choices is an excellent recipe for polarization.
This statement is especially puzzling, given how much polarization Bart Stupak and other anti-choice Democrats have created with their extreme anti-abortion stand. If Stupak had never insisted on going beyond the language of the existing Hyde Amendment, we would not be discussing this subject right now.
And that's not even to mention the Orwellian “collective funding of private choices” to characterize actions that are intended to, and do, eliminate women's private choices.
The reason that sandy's comment is relevant to the discussion though Kathy is that you keep arguing both sides of the Hyde amendment issue (and you seem to lack awareness that you can't stake out a position on both sides of it.)
Either the HCR bill is going to avoid the political divisions over abortion funding by keeping to the current interpretation of the Hyde amendment, or it's not. In previous comments you've repeatedly said that you think it should, and does.
But now once again you're making a strongly worded comment to the effect that taxpayer funds SHOULD be permitted to fund abortion under any circumstances that the women involved choose to have an abortion, which means you're arguing to overturn Hyde. Since that is your opinion, just stick to it, but also realize that this means you're willing to take on a 'culture war' issue even if it endangers the passage of HCR.
This statement is especially puzzling, given how much polarization Bart Stupak and other anti-choice Democrats have created with their extreme anti-abortion stand
Yes, they should just be reasonable and see it your way. {rolls eyes}
If Stupak had never insisted on going beyond the language of the existing Hyde Amendment, we would not be discussing this subject right now.
Of course this is strictly your interpretation, even though I've pointed out before that it's Stupak's version that matches up with the way the Hyde Amendment is currently interpreted. Federal workers currently DO NOT have an insurance option in the federal exchange which covers abortions, because that's been interpreted as a use of federal tax money to fund non-Hyde type abortions. That's exactly what Stupak proposed to do in the new program. The Senate version, meanwhile, seeks to create a new way of doing it with a 'firewall' between the public and private funds that are paid into insurance premiums- and some people object to that on the basis of whether or not the sytem will function the way they say it will (since it will depend on proper oversight.) The Senate version also changes the calculus between federal and state so that states have to make a decision to opt out of provision of abortion funding above and beyond Hyde, whereas the current system with Medicaid has the default setting as states not providing this and then some states can decide to 'opt in'. There's really no credible way to argue that the Senate version seeks to change the way Hyde is interpreted while Stupak's version preserves the current way that it is implemented. The only argument really is over whether or not the new Senate way of doing it is still in keeping with the spirit of Hyde, and some people say yes while others are skeptical. To me the biggest reason to be skeptical is that there was no need to create a whole new way of doing this unless their goal was to start incrementally changing the federal funding prohibitions (plus the Senate way is going to increase administrative costs if it does provide for the oversight necessary to make sure the funds aren't comingled.)
He's made the distinction several times, most notably during the summit, when Republicans were asking for the bill to be restarted so that it would cover health care instead of just health insurance. I'll be happy to include quotes if you insist. I've heard it too many times.
“One can disagree with that premise, but it is simply absurd to argue that there is something illogical in the Stupak position.”
Kathy is not the only lefty who has been illogical from the start about this. More honest would be “I want.”
Meanwhile, in the real world:
Pelosi either has to convince Stupak to hold his nose and compromise to aid the effort to pass the legislation, or Pelosi must work around him. It shouldn't be so hard to do this (Dummies: if you can't go over or through the mountain, you go around the mountain; you fly around the thunderstorm if you cannot or should not fly through it!), but that's presuming the legislation is good enough it's not a trouble to get anyone's vote ordinarily. Unfortunately, the Dems have put themselves in a desperate situation.
As far as the prospects, they're good at this time, with the special interests starting to herd themselves and even stampede behind the Dems largely piling up behind the effor to pass this legislation. (Do they fear worse if this measure fails, or have the Dems been at work bribing this and that special interest again?)
Not much opposition really matters right now. Charlie Rose had Clyburn for the Dems on his show and also Paul Ryan for the opposition, for what failing opposition still is worth currently.
http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/10920
http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/10919
“how much polarization Bart Stupak and other anti-choice Democrats”
Kathy, don't invert or deliberately reverse reality. Far-left activists have been the polarizers on this issue, as was easily predicted once it was going to become an issue. Reality has proven the prediction correct.
By all means, please do, ProfElwood, because your statement makes absolutely not one shred of sense whatsoever. What would health insurance cover if not health care?
Go ahead, show me your quotes.
Christine. You have got my position thoroughly wrong. And I can't figure out if it's because you can't grasp the concept behind my position, or what it is. I don't know what the alternative to not grasping the concept would be, but I've explained this before, and you're simply not getting it.
I will try again.
There are TWO separate issues here. ONE of these issues is Bart Stupak wanting to replace the Hyde Amendment language that is currently in the House bill with his more restrictive than Hyde language.
Pro-choice Democrats in the House oppose that, because the Hyde language is already in the House bill, and they (the pro-choice Democrats) agreed to having the Hyde language in the House bill.
Now, here is the significance of what I just explained. The pro-choice Democrats do not like the Hyde Amendment. They have never liked the Hyde Amendment. But they are willing to keep it in the health care reform bill, where it is now, because what they are doing is compromising between their position (abortion should get funded like any other health care) and the anti-abortion people's position (abortion is not healthcare, it's murder, and should not be funded by tax dollars). The reason the pro-choice Democrats have taken the position that they do not want to replace the Hyde language with the Stupak language is because the Stupak language is more restrictive than the Hyde language, and they (the pro-choice Democrats) feel they have already compromised by agreeing to the Hyde language in the health care reform bill.
I support the pro-choice Democrats' position, as I have described it above.
Okay, now here's where it gets a bit tricky. Yes, I do want the Hyde Amendment repealed. But that is a separate battle from the battle to get this bill passed. And that is why I support passing health care reform with the Hyde ban on federal funding for abortions, even though I oppose the Hyde Amendment and think it's been law about 30 years too long.
So again: Do I want abortions to be federally funded just as any other health care service would be federally funded in the exchanges under this legislation? YES. But not in this legislation. And that distinction seems to be very confusing to several people here.
So, to reiterate one more time: Here are the three separate positions that I hold:
1. I oppose putting the Stuapk Amendment in the House bill.
2. I support keeping the Hyde Amendment language in the House bill.
3. I support abolishing the Hyde Amendment.
The above three statements are all statements with which I agree, and they do not clash or contradict each other. They are three entirely separate ideas that I keep in my brain simultaneously. Therefore, I am NOT “staking out a position on both sides” (as that relates to the healthcare reform bill), or taking on a “culture war” issue that could endanger the passage of HCR,
I hope this is clear now, because, honestly, if it's not, I don't know how I can come up with an easier-to-understand explanation.
And btw, if I had a normal computer, this comment would have been posted six hours ago.
Yes, they should just be reasonable and see it your way (rolls eyes).
Given that “my way” can be summed up as “Democrats already compromised on Hyde; they are not going to agree to an amendment that bans any insurance plan that receives any federal money from covering abortions, even if federal money does not pay for the abortions,” I'd say you are defining “reasonable” as “cave in completely and give us everything we want or we'll block your whole bill” — which is, of course, the Republican definition of “compromise” anyway.
This is strictly your interpretation, even though I've pointed out before that it's Stupak's version that matches up with the way the Hyde Amendment is currently interpreted. Federal workers currently DO NOT have an insurance option in the federal exchange which covers abortions, because that's been interpreted as a use of federal tax money to fund non-Hyde type abortions.
Christine, federal workers are being denied abortion coverage for pregnancies that are clearly life-threatening — that article you linked to gave several examples. Is that what you mean by your reference to how the Hyde Amendment is being interpreted now? Is that what you want?
I hope not, but regardless of how you think the Hyde Amendment is being or should be interpreted now, the House bill does not allow federal funding of abortions. It just doesn't. There is no federal funding of abortions in this bill. The argument that federal dollars could somehow get mixed in, or that it's not possible to keep federal monies and non-federal monies separate, has no credibility. The federal government does this every day, with dozens of programs where federal and non-federal funds are not allowed to commingle. Nobody “created a whole new way of doing this”; nobody is “incrementally changing the federal funding prohibitions.” Like I said, the “oversight” to prevent commingling of funds is already there. The government does that kind of oversight every day.
It's the Stupak language that is trying to “incrementally” change current law to make it harder for women to get abortions. If the government can now tell private insurance companies that they cannot offer abortion coverage on any of their plans offered on the exchange, why would they even keep offering abortion coverage at all?
I remind you that abortion is still legal. Roe v. Wade has not been overturned. It's one thing (and bad enough) to ban an entire medical procedure from tax funding in a piece of legislation that has subsidizing health insurance for low-income people as its entire point. It's another (and absolutely unacceptable) for a government health insurance program to deny low-income women ANY options for abortion coverage AT ALL. I mean, outrageous doesn't even begin to describe it.
Yes, they should just be reasonable and see it your way (rolls eyes).
Given that “my way” can be summed up as “Democrats already compromised on Hyde; they are not going to agree to an amendment that bans any insurance plan that receives any federal money from covering abortions, even if federal money does not pay for the abortions,” I'd say you are defining “reasonable” as “cave in completely and give us everything we want or we'll block your whole bill” — which is, of course, the Republican definition of “compromise” anyway.
This is strictly your interpretation, even though I've pointed out before that it's Stupak's version that matches up with the way the Hyde Amendment is currently interpreted. Federal workers currently DO NOT have an insurance option in the federal exchange which covers abortions, because that's been interpreted as a use of federal tax money to fund non-Hyde type abortions.
Christine, federal workers are being denied abortion coverage for pregnancies that are clearly life-threatening — that article you linked to gave several examples. Is that what you mean by your reference to how the Hyde Amendment is being interpreted now? Is that what you want?
I hope not, but regardless of how you think the Hyde Amendment is being or should be interpreted now, the House bill does not allow federal funding of abortions. It just doesn't. There is no federal funding of abortions in this bill. The argument that federal dollars could somehow get mixed in, or that it's not possible to keep federal monies and non-federal monies separate, has no credibility. The federal government does this every day, with dozens of programs where federal and non-federal funds are not allowed to commingle. Nobody “created a whole new way of doing this”; nobody is “incrementally changing the federal funding prohibitions.” Like I said, the “oversight” to prevent commingling of funds is already there. The government does that kind of oversight every day.
It's the Stupak language that is trying to “incrementally” change current law to make it harder for women to get abortions. If the government can now tell private insurance companies that they cannot offer abortion coverage on any of their plans offered on the exchange, why would they even keep offering abortion coverage at all?
I remind you that abortion is still legal. Roe v. Wade has not been overturned. It's one thing (and bad enough) to ban an entire medical procedure from tax funding in a piece of legislation that has subsidizing health insurance for low-income people as its entire point. It's another (and absolutely unacceptable) for a government health insurance program to deny low-income women ANY options for abortion coverage AT ALL. I mean, outrageous doesn't even begin to describe it.
DLS, you wouldn't recognize reality if it was wrapped up in a big box with a bow on top and delivered to your door by Federal Express. You are living in an Alice-in-Wonderland world where everything looks the opposite to you of how it really is. Anyone who believes it's pro-choice Democrats or “far left activists” who are responsible for this impasse on abortion is not even the slightest bit reality-based.
Sorry for the duplicate comment. I can't even begin to articulate the many, various, and diverse weirdnesses my computer was showing off for me this afternoon. I'm surprised more inexplicable things didn't happen.
ProfElwood, I got an email notification of a reply from you in our little discussion about whether Pres. Obama thinks this bill is about health insurance or health care. The link embedded in the email goes to this post, but as far as I can tell, your reply is not here. I did a search on your name and it's not here. So I have no clue what's going on.
COMMENTERS: Please do not attack other commenters. READ the commenter's rules if you are in doubt about TMV's rules. This goes for ALL commenters. Argue your facts if you have them. You neednt tell a commenter they havent the brains of a gnat. Just stick to your facts and opinions about the CONTENT of the article.
Thanks
dr.e
Kathy, I'm just as frustrated with your inability to understand what I've been saying on this. I see that it boils down to this part of your comment here:
ONE of these issues is Bart Stupak wanting to replace the Hyde Amendment language that is currently in the House bill with his more restrictive than Hyde language.
You've never one explained how you believe that the Stupak amendment is more restrictive than Hyde. And I've repeatedly explained that it's not, because it puts the language in which clarifies that Hyde will be interpreted the same way that it is currently done in cases where women of childbearing age receive federal funding for their healthcare. The two instances that we currently have where that happens are Medicaid and the FEHB plan (federal employees health insurance exchanges.) In neither of these cases is there an option for health insurance coverage of elective abortion in the federally funded programs.
If you really understand how things are currently set up (the current interpretation of Hyde) there's really no way you can argue that Stupak is more restrictive than that. There's also no way you can argue that the Senate version is closer to the current interpretation than Stupak is- that's just not true, at all. If you want to argue, as some do, that the Senate version is an equally valid interpretation, well, that's fine. The problem though is that for prolifers, a new way of implementing the rule carries the risk that this new implementation will allow for loopholes, particularly since the 'firewall' between the funds that they're putting in place will require a lot of oversight to see if it's actually being carried out.
And my point about what you are now arguing, that you oppose Hyde altogether, is that you weaken the argument about the Senate language being sufficient because you give ample reason for prolifers to distrust the intentions of that bill's language. When prochoicers are adamant that Stupak isn't acceptable to them (even though it matches the status quo of how Hyde is now interpreted) and demand this alternative method of supposedly separating the funds, while also admitting that they really, really don't want the funds to be separated…well, why would you then be surprised that prolifers are suspicious about the real intent of the Senate bill on this issue?
Maybe to see where we differ you could try explaining to me how or why you think the Stupak bill is more restrictive than what we currently have in place? That's obviously where we diverge in our opinions, and I have never seen you or anyone else explain your thoughts on it (it's just repeated over and over again that this is a problem for you- but why??)
Christine, federal workers are being denied abortion coverage for pregnancies that are clearly life-threatening — that article you linked to gave several examples. Is that what you mean by your reference to how the Hyde Amendment is being interpreted now? Is that what you want?
If I remember correctly, the article gave an example of a federal worker whose abortion was not covered, but it wasn't a life threatening situation…I believe it was a case of fetal anomaly. Hyde allows abortion funding for cases where the mother's life is at stake as well as cases of rape or incest, but not fetal anomalies. I happen to agree with that but I also wouldn't object to expanding Hyde to cover cases of clearly severe anomalies (the main reservation I would still have is over the fact that doctors are sometimes wrong- similar to the argument that capital punishment opponents have over innocent people being executed), not to mention that personally I don't support abortion in those cases anyway. But as a legal issue, I can understand and accept living in a society where most people probably do believe that it's morally acceptable to abort a fetus that is impaired to the point of being practically nonviable (I would only be able to accept this on the condition that the law used very clear language about what types of impairments were included, to avoid the slippery slope of eugenics.)
But regardless of whether or not this issue should provoke a rethinking of Hyde…it still comes back to the fact that I wasa demonstrating with the link. Right now, federal employees cannot purchase an insurance policy with their federal benefit package which would include coverage for elective abortions. They can't. Yet you are arguing that the Stupak amendment is more restrictive than that, which it clearly isn't.
If you think that should be changed, then you are no longer arguing that the problem with Stupak is that it is more restrictive than the status quo- you have instead started arguing that Hyde itself is too restrictive and should be changed, or that we need to open up a new interpretation of Hyde (which is what the Senate amendment does.) But you have to face the fact that this means that prolifers are going to be concerned about whether or not the new interpretation really follows the law, both in the way it's written and the way it will actually play out when it it implemented. Someone will have to be checking to see if the insurance companies will be separating the funds correctly. You mentioned in a previous comment that prolifers will surely be watching closely to see if this is the case- but the problem there is that privacy concerns will be cited as a reason that people outside the situation won't be able to get to the information to see if that's the case. So basically prolifers will have to trust that it's being done as the law says it needs to be done, and when the people who made the law are of the same opinion as yourself (that Hyde itself is wrong), why would that trust be there?
If I remember correctly, the article gave an example of a federal worker whose abortion was not covered, but it wasn't a life threatening situation…I believe it was a case of fetal anomaly.
If I'm not mistaken, the article gave more than one example of a federal worker being denied coverage for abortions that were life-threatening, and the one you mention (which I recall, as well) was life-threatening. I don't remember what this particular woman's health issues were, but pregnancy is, as I and others here have said, a threat to health and/or life by definition, and to force a woman to carry to term a pregnancy that is nonviable because the fetus has a severe anomaly that is incompatible with life violates any exception for a threat to life that makes sense in my view. In point of fact, the woman in question did have an abortion, but she had to pay the entire cost herself.
Right now, federal employees cannot purchase an insurance policy with their federal benefit package which would include coverage for elective abortions.
Right now, if a federal employee wanted to purchase an insurance policy from a private insurer on the open market — i.e., not on the exchange — that included abortion coverage, she can do so. Under Stupak, arguably, she would not be able to do so. I say “arguably” because this conclusion has been contested by opponents of abortion rights, but there is significant expert analysis that concludes this is a real possibility. The Stupak language is broad enough that it could be interpreted to deny women the right to buy such an insurance policy if the insurer received any federal funding at all — even if the woman buying the policy was not using federal subsidies. This does go beyond current law, and could actually lead to the end of abortion coverage completely, because it would not be worth it for insurers to offer it anymore.
Someone will have to be checking to see if the insurance companies will be separating the funds correctly. You mentioned in a previous comment that prolifers will surely be watching closely to see if this is the case- but the problem there is that privacy concerns will be cited as a reason that people outside the situation won't be able to get to the information to see if that's the case.
No, I didn't say that. I said that the federal government administers programs that do not allow commingling of public and private dollars every day, and no one ever questions that it's being done properly.
And my point about what you are now arguing, that you oppose Hyde altogether, is that you weaken the argument about the Senate language being sufficient because you give ample reason for prolifers to distrust the intentions of that bill's language. When prochoicers are adamant that Stupak isn't acceptable to them (even though it matches the status quo of how Hyde is now interpreted) and demand this alternative method of supposedly separating the funds, while also admitting that they really, really don't want the funds to be separated…well, why would you then be surprised that prolifers are suspicious about the real intent of the Senate bill on this issue?
Christine, every single day, people — in government and in private life — accept compromises they don't like for the sake of achieving some larger purpose. Agreeing to keep Hyde language in the House bill (which I think is what we're arguing, since Bart Stupak is not in the Senate) while opposing Stupak's amendment and continuing to oppose Hyde in principle is the kind of compromise people make every day. It's not a contradiction, and it's not inconsistent. I mean, you might as well tell me, then, that even if pro-choice Democrats agreed to the Stupak language it would be suspect, because they still oppose the Hyde amendment. It makes no sense.
“you wouldn't recognize reality”
Kathy, thanks for some more of the more revealing irony possible, coming from you once more on this Web site.
I think the fact that this makes no sense to you is the crux of our difference here. I think most people would see that it does make sense, that if you on the one hand say you've accepted a compromise position, you have to accept it in good faith and demonstrate with your subsequent words and actions that you intend to UPHOLD the compromise. Instead, what I see now from the ProChoice Dems in Congress as well as activists for this cause, is that you take offense when prolifers disbelieve that you are resigned to accept the compromise position that is the Hyde Amendment, but your actions and words undermine that trust because you're currently promoting the overturning of Hyde.
There's a difference between accepting the compromise but standing by your views, and saying that you accept the compromise while you're actually working to undermine it in order to advance your views (the latter is what I see you doing with this article- instead of saying, 'OK, even though I don't agree with it, it's important right now to leave the Hyde restrictions in place', you've decided that now is the time to take umbrage at the fact that many (most, actually) people don't believe that elective abortions are considered health care.
And BTW- the criticism that you make of the Stupak amendment is the exact mirror image of the prolife side's argument against the Senate language. As written, if implemented in the narrow sense of the language, both amendments can be claimed to comply exactly with Hyde (going no farther, nor taking anything away.) But each side sees reason to distrust that this is the way the language will actually be interpreted. That's what you have described about your opinion on Stupak, and that's what I've explained about the opposing view of the Senate amendment.
I think the fact that this makes no sense to you is the crux of our difference here. I think most people would see that it does make sense
I don't know what most people would think.
that if you on the one hand say you've accepted a compromise position, you have to accept it in good faith and demonstrate with your subsequent words and actions that you intend to UPHOLD the compromise. Instead, what I see now from the ProChoice Dems in Congress as well as activists for this cause, is that you take offense when prolifers disbelieve that you are resigned to accept the compromise position that is the Hyde Amendment, but your actions and words undermine that trust because you're currently promoting the overturning of Hyde.
I truly do not understand what you're getting on about here. First of all, I'm not in Congress. The opinions I express about the Hyde Amendment do not at all imply that pro-choice members of Congress are planning and plotting to overturn the Hyde Amendment. I truly am not sure why you believe that the only trustworthy position for pro-choice Democrats to publicly own up to is that they love the Hyde Amendment, think it's fine law, and promise to staunchly defend it for the rest of their lives. It's possible to disagree with a specific aspect of a bill and support the overall bill at the same time.
Second, pro-choice Democrats in both the House and the Senate have clearly stated that they accept the Hyde Amendment language being in this legislation, despite the fact that they don't agree with the concept behind the Hyde Amendment (denying low- and middle-income women the right to procure a legal medical procedure). Progressive Democrats as a whole have clearly stated that they support this entire health care reform legislation package despite the fact that it's not perfect, that in many ways it's inadequate. Does that mean they intend to work with Republicans to try to repeal it the moment they get the chance?
'OK, even though I don't agree with it, it's important right now to leave the Hyde restrictions in place', you've decided that now is the time to take umbrage at the fact that many (most, actually) people don't believe that elective abortions are considered health care.
That IS what I'm saying (“Okay, even though I don't agree with it…”) I don't know why you are so affronted by the fact that *I* was affronted by Nancy Pelosi's repetition of the oft-stated mantra that “This bill is about health care, not abortion.” Pres. Obama has said the same thing many times. That was the basis for my post about abortion being health care — the fact that once again I read those words coming from pro-choice sources and felt angered by them. That doesn't mean I am not firmly convinced that Nancy Pelosi is a goddess and a hero. I do. I just simply don't like that distinction being made — a distinction that in my view is false and pernicious — that abortion is not health care.
Third, “working to undermine Hyde”? What is that about? How am I working to undermine Hyde? How are pro-choice Democrats?
And BTW- the criticism that you make of the Stupak amendment is the exact mirror image of the prolife side's argument against the Senate language.
Yes, I know that. That's why Bart Stupak went from being a pro-life hero to being a baby-killer in the space of a few minutes. I don't subscribe to that kind of extremism, that if you agree to a compromise you've gone over to the other side.
As written, if implemented in the narrow sense of the language, both amendments can be claimed to comply exactly with Hyde (going no farther, nor taking anything away.) But each side sees reason to distrust that this is the way the language will actually be interpreted.
Yes, but one of those sides is agreeing to the Hyde language as a compromise despite those reservations, and the other one of those sides is saying the Hyde language makes the bill “pro-abortion.” Again, I don't subscribe to that kind of all-or-nothing extremism.