The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
PDF versionRachel Maddow excoriates Stupak amendment
by Thomas C. Fox on Mar. 11, 2010
By now most NCR readers have heard the arguments -- pro and con -- regarding the Stupak Amendment, embedded in the House passed version of the health care bill.
Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Michigan) says he represents a coalition of 12 anti-choice Democrats who will vote against health care reform unless their anti-abortion language remains in the final health care bill. The original House health care bill only passed by 5 votes, so a 12-vote bloc could be a real obstacle to final passage.
Stupak objects to the current Senate health care bill because, he says, it would fund abortions. This, however, depends on one's vantage point, especially because the Senate bill specificially states that government money can go to fund abortions.
Under proposed Senate health reform, government subsidies would only be allowed to cover a portion of monthly premiums, with consumers making up the difference out of pocket. The Senate bill would ensure that abortion coverage could only come out of out-of-pocket dollars, not from the subsidy.
Stupak and others, including the U.S. bishops, counter saying that that every dollar the government spends on "not-abortion"-insurance is one more dollar the individual has to spend on abortion coverage.
Last night, on the MSNBC's Rachel Maddow show, the show's articulate host excoriated Stupak and the Stupak logic, arguing that if you took his logic to its conclusion then almost all government spending turns out to be an abortion subsidy. Food stamps, she argued, can be viewed as subsidizing abortion because every dollar the government spends on food is another dollar to use for abortion, etc.
She then went on to ask questions regarding housing subsidies Stupack has been receiving during the past seven years, strongly implying he has violated congressional ethics rules.
Regardless of your thoughts on the Stupak amendment, the broadcast was a powerful one and one worth noting.
David Gibson has an excellent
David Gibson has an excellent discussion of the Senate bill's treatment of abortion, "The Senate Bill Funds Abortions? Nope, and It's More Pro-Life Than the House Version."
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/03/11/the-senate-bill-funds-abortions-...
Mr. Gibson's article should be publicized in the blogsphere to refute many of the distortions being spread.
Dear Mr. Fox: The fact that
Dear Mr. Fox:
The fact that she--and you--consider the comparison of abortion funding to a housing subsidy (!) to be a telling point speaks volumes.
"Rep. Bart Stupak
"Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Michigan) says he represents a coalition of 12 anti-choice Democrats"
I doubt Stupak used the terms "anti-choice", the author inserted that himself I'm sure, and let us know that he thinks the weak ought only be allowed to live at the "choice" of the strong.
As a regular viewer of Rachel
As a regular viewer of Rachel Maddow, her logic appeals to me. Further, to deny someone the right to purchase with one's own money insurance that funds abortions is frightening in the extreme. What would occur, for instance, if, God forbid, radical right-wing evangelical fundamentalists had the majority in all branches of government and decided that if one received government subsidies for anything, then one had to attend radical right-wing evangelical churches? Or deny subsidies, including food stamps, to anyone who attended the anti-Christ Catholic Mass?
We need to be very careful when we start denying people civil rights based on our beliefs, which may not be theirs. The more reasonable method of reducing the number of abortions is that taken by Kathleen Sibelius when she was Governor of Kansas. Establish and fund programs for pregnant women to the extent that abortion is then not an option.
The Maddow program omitted
The Maddow program omitted the news that only 13% of women seeking abortion and who have abortion insurance will use the insurance. They chose to pay the $300-400 out of pocket for privacy and no record of abortion. That means 87%of women now pay out of pocket so there is no record. We are talking minimal use and money for abortion in any case, so I believe that the abortion lobby's fuss is about wanting a quasi Gov. blessings for the procedure. If they get their way on a no- Stupak clause it will cause the sinking both the Administration and Congress by trying to wedge-in abortion is health care gesture. 30 million will be un-insured so that they can position abortion to seem like health care. What losers!
Roe et al. v. Wade was
Roe et al. v. Wade was decided on the ersatz Constitutional "right to privacy" that a woman, in consultation with her doctor, was free to obtain an abortion without State interference. "Privacy" was the watchword. It was a woman's business, not the Government's.
Early in the 1970s, the abortion establishment tried to make it the Government's business by forcing Medicaid to pay for abortion, and a number of lower federal courts went in that direction. Happily, the Supreme Court reversed in 1977 and affirmed that the fake "right" to abortion does not entail a "right" to pay for it.
Of course, a number of state courts (such as my home state, New Jersey) have found ersatz rights to government funding of abortion, and the abortion juggernaut goes on with local money.
If abortion is a matter of privacy, there should be no subsidy, direct or indirect. Let's be honest. The reason for the financial legerdemain of Capps, Reid, and Obama is that they WANT abortion funding but wouldn't admit it outright, but dare not cross their allies in Planned Parenthood et al. by limiting their access to the federal trough.
Bart Stupak is a statesman for going out on a limb, when few in his party would ever do that for the unborn. Please don't compare that to the talking head of MSNBC.
Post new comment