Blogs and Stories
Is Obamacare Pro-Life?
)
Evan Vucci / AP Photo
Antiabortion activists have bashed the Democrats’ health-care plan. But as Michelle Goldberg reports, the pro-choice crowd may actually have the most to lose.
There were plenty of outrageous signs at the conservative rally in Washington on September 12, but most were DIY affairs, reflecting nothing but an individual’s poor taste. Not so the placards that read, “Bury Obamacare With Kennedy.” They were produced by the American Life League—evidence of the antiabortion movement’s deep, zealous opposition to the Democrats’ plans for health-care reform.
On the National Right to Life Web site, beneath the flashing headline “condition red,” is the warning, “President Obama and top Democratic congressional leaders are pushing hard for health-care bills that would result in federal government funding of abortion on demand!” Wednesday night, Rep. Michele Bachmann took to the House floor to warn that, should health-care reform pass, teenagers might be able to procure secret abortions at school-based “sex clinics.” To listen to conservatives, one would think health-care reform represents the greatest expansion of abortion rights since Roe v. Wade.
“I’d rather be counting ways we’re improving women’s access to legal abortion. Instead we’re counting votes to make sure women don’t lose what they already have,” says Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL.
If only. In fact, right now, the pro-choice movement has more to lose than its opponents. Early on, pro-choice activists hoped that a reformed health-care system would cover abortion—the most common surgical procedure in the United States—just like any other medical service. But when conservative Democrats balked, the party pressured the pro-choice movement not to let health reform get stymied by abortion politics. So pro-choice leaders agreed to a compromise, in the form of an amendment by Congresswoman Lois Capps (D-CA), which basically maintains the status quo on government abortion funding.
That status quo is fairly restrictive. Right now, abortion is covered in more than 80 percent of private health plans, but not in any of the health plans available to federal government employees. Federal funds also can’t be used to provide abortions under Medicaid, except in cases of rape, incest, or medical emergency.
• Benjamin Sarlin: The Democrats’ Joe Wilson?The Capps amendment essentially says that, when it comes to government-subsidized private insurance, there will be neither an abortion ban nor an abortion mandate. The insurance exchanges envisioned by reformers will have to include at least one plan that includes abortion coverage and one that does not. The plans that do provide abortion coverage have to do so with separate funds that will be kept sequestered from government money. Going beyond current law, the Capps amendment says that no private plan participating in the exchanges can discriminate against health-care workers who refuse to provide abortion services.
From the pro-choice point of view, none of this is a particularly great deal. “I’d rather be counting ways we’re improving women’s access to legal abortion. Instead we’re counting votes to make sure women don’t lose what they already have,” says Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL. “It’s workable,” adds Vicky Saporta, president of the National Abortion Federation. “It’s not ideally what we would have liked to see. We certainly can’t amend it any further.”
Of course, that’s just what the antiabortion movement wants to do. It’s trying to ban subsidies from being used to purchase plans that include abortion coverage at all. That would create a big incentive for insurance companies to drop such coverage, leaving women nationwide worse off than they are now. So far, these attempts have been defeated, but there are still opportunities for Republicans to try again. Antiabortion forces won a small victory this week, when the Senate Finance Committee reinstated $50 million in funding for abstinence-only sex education that Obama had removed from the budget. Democrats Blanche Lincoln and Kent Conrad joined Republicans on the measure, proving that a Democratic majority is not always a reliably pro-choice one.
John Talks Joe
Lloyd Grove is editor at large for The Daily Beast. He is also a frequent contributor to New York magazine and was a contributing editor for Condé Nast Portfolio. He wrote a gossip column for the New York Daily News from 2003 to 2006. Prior to that, he wrote the Reliable Source column for the Washington Post, where he spent 23 years covering politics, the media, and other subjects.
Palin's Ego Trip
Michelle Goldberg is the author of The Means of Reproduction: Sex, Power and the Future of the World and Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism. She is a senior correspondent for The American Prospect, and her work has appeared in The New Republic, The Nation, the Los Angeles Times, Glamour, and many other publications.
Women of Influence: Malalai Joya
Michelle Goldberg is the author of The Means of Reproduction: Sex, Power and the Future of the World and Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism. She is a senior correspondent for The American Prospect, and her work has appeared in The New Republic, The Nation, the Los Angeles Times, Glamour, and many other publications.
Hannity's Gay Target
Michelle Goldberg is the author of The Means of Reproduction: Sex, Power and the Future of the World and Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism. She is a senior correspondent for The American Prospect, and her work has appeared in The New Republic, The Nation, the Los Angeles Times, Glamour, and many other publications.
Pro-Life should mean working to make affordable insurance available to everyone, not protecting the huge profits of the industry. If the slogan *pro-life* is only for the unborn, it is a sham, one that the Republicans do nothing about when they control both the executive and legislative branches.
Debates would be easier if you got to define what the other side's terms are supposed to mean.
Pro-life refers to the innocent unborn because they are the one group of human beings who are allowed to be deliberately killed legally.
To take the term and apply it to something as broad an attenuated in its relation as the current health insurance debate is perverse and shows a lack of seriousness about the value of an unborn baby's life. When a term means everything, it will soon mean nothing. Thank heaven, the term pro-life still has a specific and precious meaning. Let's not distort it.
A better term that more accurately describes "working to make affordable insurance available to everyone" would be socialism. You can look it up.
gandolf: A better term that more accurately describes "working to make affordable insurance available to everyone" would be socialism. You can look it up.
So by your statement, YOU get to determine the meaning of the word "socialism Maybe YOU should look it up. Socialism applies to ownership of the mechanisms of PRODUCING and DISTRIBUTING GOODS, not trying to make a particular item affordable. You could say that Social Security, Medicare, FDIC insurance and the national parks system are all socialist programs, but I don't think many people would say they are inherently bad ideas. And why does no one whine about federally available (socialist?) flood insurance, the biggest consumers of which are those stalwarts of capitalism, TEXANS! Don't get hung up on labels, lets just do what works.
And there's one other example of humans who are deliberately killed legally. It's called capital punishment, and it's always overlooked by anti-choice, myopic patriots like yourself.
People who are "pro-life" should also take an issue with the ever-increasing amount of individuals who HAVE been born who are unable to treat their chronic, debilitating, and at times fatal medical conditions because they have been priced out (or forced out) of a backward health insurance industry, which maintains legal rights to remove "undesirable" patients from their rosters, INCLUDING pregnant women. Is it our belief that once a person exits the womb, his or her right to life essentially ends? That seems to be the message that is being portrayed.
Also, if you read the article, you'll realize that a little bit of that "socialism" could actually help your anti-abortion cause.
The 45,000 who die every year specifically because they have no life insurance are *precious* too. You seem to think they were only *precious* before they were born.
So one is *pro-life* if they support life before birth, but they are a *socialist* if they support life after birth. What hypocrisy.
Before you refer people to the dictionary, you should make sure YOU understand the term. There is no talk of government controlling the means of production.
Also, unborn = not yet a human being with human rights. Where've you been all these years? Can't make an assertion fact, just by saying it a lot.
gandolf wants to protect the unborn but isn't willing to do anything once the "innocents" are born. We've had this debate before:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-05-16/obamas-catholi c-conversion/
To refresh gandolf's memory
Would I like every pregnancy to be wanted? Yes.
Does that always happen? No.
Did I want women to be punished for having sex? No.
Does the Catholic Church's/Congress's policies on Birth Control and Abortion strive to punish having sex? Yes.
Has it worked? No.
Are there more important issues facing humanity to focus our attention?
YES!!!!!"
While I too oppose abortion, I very much take seriously the tens of thousands of people who die needlessly due to lack of access to healthcare. I don't disagree that there are many problems with the current health care/health insurance debate. But to pretend that there is not a moral obligation to change the way our nation treats the poor and sick is such a distortion of any culture of life that it threatens to destroy any moral high ground gained in other areas. If pro-lifers want to be taken seriously, we have to take life seriously, all the way through to natural death. That means: caring for the sick and poor among us. That means: opposing the death penalty. That means: opposing unjust war. Lets not define ourselves into our little comfort zone here and pretend that the other issues don't require our attention.
And I'm sorry, but the red-scare tactics don't work so well anymore. We've always socialized national defense and many other things we take for granted. We can choose to socialize medicine, too, if we feel it is important enough that our brothers and sisters not die for lack of funds.
I don't understand why only the unborn are referenced with pro-lifers. Most (not all) are so concerned about the rights of the unborn, but what about those who are executed by the state? They have no "right to life"? As scientific techniques improve, we are finding out about more and more people sentenced to prison, and now in Texas, one who was executed who was most probably innocent. Where is the outrage for that life?
Affordable available to everyone is not equivalent with socialism. It is equivalent with a successful democracy based on the rights of all of its constituents. The Constitution says that we established the country "...to establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty...". Why do you choose to interpret those words so narrowly? I am more likely to die from a premature heart attack than a terrorist attack, so why isn't my health care part of the national defense? My general Welfare includes getting yearly physicals. The Blessings of Liberty are surely only enjoyed if I can take care of my health without going bankrupt.
I propose that it is UN-Constitutional to NOT have health care for all.
Huh!? Connie 47 is right instead of pro-life centered around a single narrow minded issue (abortion) it should apply from cradle to the grave then maybe your issue can start attracting more hearts and minds, instead of making abortion a legal issue which it is not, it is a moral issue and a personal issue.
Death Panels: We're talking about the Comparative Effectiveness Research (CER) Commission. The government will achieve cost reduction by "eliminating" high cost, low value treatments. The government will pick what treatments are cost effective for which patient. Without Tort Reform, what doctor would dare go against a CER "recommendation". It is anticipated that the Commission will adopt a Quality-Adjusted Life-Year (QALY) standard. Death to the old, the infirm, and the very young. And finally, the end-of-life advisors will help us to go quietly.
I've always wondered how many uninsured women each year get an abortion because they can't afford the hospital costs of having a baby. I've never heard this discussed but as the author points out, having an abortion is much cheaper than paying to have the baby.
There must be some number of women that make decisions to get an abortion this way.
No money for abortion but a whole lot of money to help a men get his weenie movie?
http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-336344
"and we are not saved..."
This isn't about abortion it never has been with these people! It's about religion and religion shoving there sick distorted beliefs down American's throats. Abortion is a religious issue not a political one. Sex is a wicked sinful act in these folks eyes outside of marriage and the punishment for ones sins is having an illegitimate child . These folks can not stomach the idea of people who do not follow their religious teachings down to the letter. They don't care that they are destroying the planet with their myopic policies. The sad part about it is all the misery, suffering, poverty, starvation and disease their views deliberately bring into this world. That they are never held responsible for. I personally think it's time to start holding them responsible for the misery they preach and teach.
You've been spending too much time on those far left hate sites there buddy. You don't have a clue about "these people". Grow up and think for yourself. Start by getting out and engaging people in the real world instead of having someone tell you what to think about them and how to cram them into little cubby holes that you can focus your hate on. i.e. start being something other than exactly what you're complaining about.
You both need to think for yourselves!
I hate when good ideas are ruined by unbalanced rhetoric. I am more convinced than ever that we need a single-payer system. If folks like Olbermann, Beck, Schultz, and Hannity have taught us anything, it's that many people are clearly NOT getting the medications they sorely need.
Tumble... I am for a women's choice... It becomes a political issue when tax dollars pay for it.
aackc1 Did you even read this great article tax dollers do not go for abortion and they never have.
Idicula... I was responding to the comments, not the article. Did you the comments I replied to or just my comments?
I hate to tell the evangelicals this, but these cultural issues are the least of our worries at this point, given the collapse of our economy and our decline as a world power.
Personally, I favor abortion on demand for any woman that wants one, but people who want to keep fighting the culture wars of the 1980s and 1990s need to wake up and smell the coffee for once, and see just how bad our condition really is today.
Agreed. And last time I checked, abortion is legal in this country, so why shouldn't health plans be allowed to cover the procedure? Nations that have made abortion illegal (or severely restricted it) have not actually seen a drop in the total number of abortions - they have only seen an increase in the proportion of abortions that end in complications, because women are forced to go to "back-alley" providers.
It reminds me of the gay marriage debate: "If we make sure same-sex marriage is illegal, then the gay people will give up and go straight!" Riiiighhhtttt......
You are spot-on, mcmchugh99 - time to focus on the real problems.
I agree. A woman should have a right to kill her baby.
What are you going to do pricklypear,-- you know murder is a punishable crime, so go ahead send women to jail, or better yet, make it a capital offense for killing "the babies". Turn them all in pricklypear.
you have to be born to be a baby, until then you are a fetus.
You din't have to be so graphic, but yes the should. Abortion might be a bad morally speaking, But that is a moral problem not a legal one. When people get their head out of the bible then maybe they could think more rationally. Don't get me wrong people have a right to their beliefs, but they do not have the right to hold other people accountable by their beleifs.
Why aren't the pro-life people lining up to adopt or to support women who CHOSE to keep their babies? Seems that the other side of those pro-life signs also read: No New Taxes for Welfare / Free Clinics / Birth Control Education / Education / etc. Many of those babies grow up to need education, medical care, etc., but they are not getting it. Yeah, yeah...conservatives are all about saving the babies until they are born and cost money. Then it's about don't bother me w/ your problems. Funny how the people who are pro-choice are most likely to be pro-family 'net' systems. Ironic.
I believe in the women's right to choose. Its their body... I can also see the other side of the equation...
Why do I have to pay taxes for healthcare that supports something I am totally against, either personally, religiously or otherwise?
Abortion is legal and a woman has a right to chose one? But is an abortion a right or a want? That is where the slippery slope may start? Should government healthcare support plastic surgery? What should tax dollars pay for?
OK, here's my simpleton view of two simingly complex issues:
Most of us agree that life is precious both in the womb and out. Whether it's legal or not we should do our best to discourage abortion and encourage bringing an unborn child to term(for example a robust adoption program). In the same breadth we should also strive to have all of our citizens covered by health insurance. It doesn't make much sense to believe in one but not the other. Both are moral issues that we have an obligation to work towards. Seems like there's a lot more common ground to work with than one might think.
Let me go put my helmet on before anyone responds.
You are a brave man Mr. Aces!!! Spark the match!
and it would help if I could spell 'seemingly". It's been a long day.
As an adopted child, I always support adoption. As a male, I always support a woman's right to CHOOSE for herself.
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.
Please log in to leave comments.