The Independent News Source
Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
The Solution for Abortion & Health Care
by Michael Sean Winters on Nov. 11, 2009
Printer-friendly version
Send to friend
PDF version
Printer-friendly versionSend to friendPDF versionSuddenly, everyone in Washington is talking about abortion and the media has pronounced the dilemma facing Democratic congressional leaders will nigh insoluble. “’No easy way out’ for Democrats on abortion” is the caption of the leader at Politico.com.
Folks: Here is the easy way out. First, the background. The Stupak Amendment passed by such an overwhelming margin in large part because all summer long, some pro-choice people were saying that the Capps Amendment prevented federal funding of abortion coverage and pro-life people said it was an accounting trick. And, everyone, repeat everyone, knew that on Capps, the pro-lifers were right. Factcheck.org said that Capps did not prevent federal funding. So, last Saturday, the House leadership realized that Capps was too clever by half and was not going to fly and they allowed a vote on the Stupak Amendment. But, the Stupak Amendment went further than the language of the Hyde Amendment. In addition to banning any plans that cover abortion from the public option and from the reception of a federal subsidy, Stupak bans plans that cover abortion from the “exchanges” being set up where individuals can go to shop for insurance, even if the person doing the shopping is not receiving a federal subsidy.
Here is the solution. Roll back that last provision. If a woman, with her own money, wants to buy a plan that covers abortion services, she should be free to do so. Period. But, if someone is getting a federal subsidy for their private plan, or participating in the public option, then they cannot buy a plan that covers abortion, although they can buy an insurance policy rider with their own money if they wish to do so. So, we do not go back to the game-playing subterfuge of the Capps Amendment, and we remove the section of the Stupak language that goes beyond the Hyde Amendment’s ban on the use of federal funds. That is the way out.
Ok, Michael, so you are
Ok, Michael, so you are alright with women who have economic means to be able to access life-saving services. What of women who need the public option or federal subsidies because of their financial situation? They should be denied these services? Your solution has a big hole in it: economic justice and equality for all.
The Stupak Amendment will
The Stupak Amendment will prove to be only temporary. Nancy Pelosi will have that provision deleted when her bill is signed into law, and she won't give us an opportunity to do anything about it.
The exchanges are a new,
The exchanges are a new, federally run program. Federal programs are forbidden from paying for abortions (except ...) already. It is the logical extension of what is already policy that any new federal structures would fall under the same strictures as the present structures of similar kinds (ie health care provisions).
Plus, exchanges wont affect people who already have insurance unless they drop it and choose to use the exchange. But then, federal money is involved in having the exchange and the prohibition kicks in. And, people will always free to buy abortion supplement plans (until we come to our collective senses).
Plus there is the issue that the poor will be the ones who mainly benefit from the exchanges. The poor are already the ones who are being targeted and victimized by the abortion industry. Removing Stupack from the exchanges would simply perpetuate the unjust structure and would make the bill non-neutral toward abortion since it would now have federal money involved.
Congress can't see the forest
Congress can't see the forest for the trees though or we'd already have health insurance available to everyone. And what is with the republicans voting for this amendment but saying they won't vote for the bill. Then they did nothing at all really except keep the pro-lifers believing the republicans in congress are pro-life but if they really were they would have declared all unborn babies human beings with the same rights as all other human beings while they had both houses of congress, the white house and the supreme court.
Abortion insurance is
Abortion insurance is nonsense. Insurance is for those things that are unpredictable and expensive. While pregnancy is unpredictable to a certain extent, abortion is not expensive relative to the income of most people, but it really isn't expensive compared to the cost of raising a child. Could it be that insurers see that it also isn't expensive compared to the cost of maternity care and the routine medical care given to newborns? Why has no one faulted the insurance industry for the attitude underlying this insurance product?
Post new comment