E.J. Dionne: Democrats should ‘learn to live’ with leaving women behind on health care.
E.J. Dionne: Democrats should ‘learn to live’ with leaving women behind on health care.
In his Washington Post column today, E.J. Dionne claimed that pro-choice lawmakers and advocates are overstating how detrimental the Stupak amendment would be to women’s access to abortion:
The Michigan Democrat’s measure — passed 240 to 194, with 64 Democrats voting yes — would prohibit abortion coverage in the public option and bar any federal subsidies for plans that included abortion purchased on the new insurance exchanges. [...]
Whatever else is true, Stupak’s amendment is unlikely to have a significant effect on the availability of abortion. And most abortions are not paid for through health insurance. The Guttmacher Institute, for example, reported that only 13 percent of abortions in 2001 were directly billed by providers to insurance companies — although the institute has cautioned that the proportion of women whose abortions were covered by insurance could be higher because the figure did not include those “who obtain reimbursement from their insurance company themselves.”
But as Igor Volsky explains, the actual language of Stupak’s amendment goes well beyond just abortion plans purchased on the exchange. Since federal dollars will also be going to small and large businesses to cover their employees’ health care, a “strict interpretation of the amendment could also restrict abortion coverage in the employer market.” The Guttmacher Institute also published a statement yesterday making clear why saying that only 13 percent of abortions in 2001 were “directly billed by providers to insurance companies” is misleading.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
E.J. Dionne, I’m ashamed of you. You wouldn’t be saying that if you were a woman.
November 12th, 2009 at 2:13 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
E.J. Dionne is none too curious, if he didn’t bother to read the amendment in depth.
Also, Stupak et.al. must be major fans of coat hangers!
If healthcare reform passes with this abomination, back-alley abortions will skyrocket. And women will die because of it.
November 12th, 2009 at 2:17 pmWhy does E.J. Dionne hate women?
November 12th, 2009 at 2:21 pmDefine “baby”
November 12th, 2009 at 2:22 pmSusie Madrak at Crooks and Liars had a great post the other day about how dems always compromise at the expense of women, gays and minorities. St true.
And no one is killing babies. They are killing cells. I know you anti science freaks can’t or won’t accept that it’s not a f()cking baby, it’s a clump of cells, because you’ve been brainwashed by your religion, but saying it’s a baby doesn’t make it so.
No Viagra should be covered in the healthcare bill. And if it has to be covered, only for married men who get their spouses approval. Call your congresscritter today!
November 12th, 2009 at 2:22 pm.
Dear E.J. Dionne,
Just because Bush and the G(no)P left children behind…
… Does not mean Obama and the Democrats should leave women behind.
XXOO
America
.
November 12th, 2009 at 2:23 pmHow many abortions happen because the woman does not have health insurance coverage? Universal health insurance would, I predict, result in a decrease in abortions.
November 12th, 2009 at 2:24 pmE.J. Dionne along with Stupek and shameful Pitts have a need to control women.
November 12th, 2009 at 2:28 pm.
Ladies,
If you have an unwanted pregnancy…
… You’re on your own.
Gentlemen,
Viagra is here to save the day…
… Impregnate away!
Anyone else see an inherent problem here?
.
November 12th, 2009 at 2:28 pmStupak is from Michigan, where unemployment is among the highest in the Nation.
The vast majority of bankruptcies are related to medical costs.
In other words, just when his electorate needs him most, he flips them the finger and seeks the ‘party spotlight’.
Nice, Stupak.
November 12th, 2009 at 2:29 pmWhat do you do for your next act, set a pregnant teenager on fire?
Leave us behind on health care, E.J.? How will the Dems fare without the female vote?
Feeding women to the sharks is not an option we will “live with.”
November 12th, 2009 at 2:29 pmBut the Death Penalty is still ok.
And my tax dollars still fund Wars.
How about being “Pro-Life” in those areas? Huh?
November 12th, 2009 at 2:35 pmAt the risk of being hammered: IF this amendment stays in and health care is shot down this hurts Dems more than repugs. I still think this gets taken out.
November 12th, 2009 at 2:36 pmWe need an amendment added (let’s call it the Darwin Amendment) that states any monies from the public plans will not cover erectile dysfunction and its medications, and you’re not allowed to get it covered under a private plan if you get any benefits from the public sector.
Those poor old men will just have to “learn to live”.
November 12th, 2009 at 2:37 pmWhen Pro-Life stops meaning Pro-Right Wing Talking Points, then maybe I’ll listen
November 12th, 2009 at 2:39 pmThose poor old men will just have to “learn to live”.
Would that include diabetic males, also any males with injuries requiring medications to fight ED? Attacking men is no better than attacking women. The fight is against blue dog repugs and repugs, not men v.s. women.
November 12th, 2009 at 2:41 pmTotally bummed. No one has the half-sense or decent ability to defend why abortion is wrong or right. To most, they just rather avoid the issues of ethics and claim thier constitutional right. Shame on those who thik this way.
November 12th, 2009 at 2:45 pmBnF @#13 — that’s exactly what I say whenever I hear an anti-choicer start ranting about how “pro-life” they are; I simply ask them if they’re in favor of the death penalty (the answer invariably is yes), and if they think we should be fighting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (the answer is almost always yes). Then I point out that neither of those views is particularly pro-life, and both of those view are contrary to the teachings of most Christian denominations, including their own — and therefore, the person who’s saying they’re a “pro-lifer” really isn’t one and is actually just an “anti-choicer”.
Shuts ‘em up every time…
November 12th, 2009 at 2:47 pmThe Dems should add an amendment to defund the Faith Based
Initiative Program.
It’s only fair.
November 12th, 2009 at 2:47 pmDogfather – I am against abortion. I am against the death penalty. I am hopeful that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will be ended soon. My wife is pregnant, 14 weeks. We heard the heartbeat at 7 weeks. Contrary to what many of you argue, this is about more than just a bunch of cells. There is no scientific way to draw a line as to when an unborn child is human enough not to be aborted. The Supreme Court’s efforts have all failed. But all of this is pretty much irrelevant to the Stupack amendment.
November 12th, 2009 at 3:37 pmThe amendment takes nothing away. It infringes on legal abortion not in the least. If a woman didn’t have health care before and gets health care because of federal subsidy, under the Stupack provision, she’d now be covered for everything except elective abortions. It has long been the case that federal money does not fund abortions. This keeps that in place. Just because people might buy insurance in an exchange with their own money does not change the fact that that policy is subsidized with federal funds. The same goes for the employer plans.
Plus, Rab is absolutely right. If this becomes the battleground and health care doesn’t pass, where are we? No health care reform, Dems getting voted out by the dozens, and Republicans in office. If it passes, millions of people get covered with health insurance who didn’t have it before, who might have to go out of pocket for an elective abortion.
Health care reform is far more important than this semantic argument over a provision that does not change the law from what we have now, but only changes what would be the new law to reflect the current status. Reform must pass with or without the Stupack provision, and if it does not, and it fails because of this fight, Dems are doomed.
Contrary to what many of you argue, this is about more than just a bunch of cells. There is no scientific way to draw a line as to when an unborn child is human enough not to be aborted.
The legal line, drawn by the Supreme Court, is at viability.
You are anti-abortion. Are you also anti-choice? Or do you recognize that we are a pluralistic society, thus the majority cannot deprive the minority of rights? The pro-choice side of the equation recognizes that the already-born impregnated woman has rights, too.
Anti-Choice people don’t want their tax dollars funding abortion.
I am anti-death penalty. I would argue that my tax dollars should not fund state-sponsored murder. (And, yes, when DNA tests have proven 1/3 of the people on death row are factually innocent, it is state-sponsored murder to put them to death, Justice Scalia’s views notwithstanding)
I am also anti-war. I would argue that my tax dollars should not fund the murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent people who happen to live in Iraq or Afghanistan. Those wars were unjust, and a violation of international law. That makes those deaths murder, in my opinion.
But nearly all pro-life people are pro death, be it the death penalty, or war.
The only logical conclusion is, it is not about “pro-life” it is about power and control over women, and political power over the populace.
November 12th, 2009 at 3:52 pmHeh. Normally, I tend to agree with what E.J. Dionne has to say – but on this occasion, E.J.: KISS MY LIBERAL FEMALE A$$.
November 12th, 2009 at 4:00 pmI would be supercool with an amendment preventing the public option from covering viagra. Medicare doesn’t cover it anyway and it would still be a net win for the ED uninsured.
November 12th, 2009 at 4:00 pmscamon: when YOU can get pregnant, YOU can make your own choice.
Until then, the law says that abortion is legal, and that I have the right to make MY own choice. Not you. ME.
You don’t get to decide for me (or any other woman), pal.
November 12th, 2009 at 4:04 pmI disagree with the Stupak amendment, but it’s an acceptable “compromise” if some republicans intended on actually voting for the bill (Cao excluded).
Insurance excluding abortion coverage is better than no insurance. I’ll write a personal check to Planned Parenthood if this is included in the final bill, but go away happy enough so long as we get some solid reform with a strong public option.
November 12th, 2009 at 4:04 pm@17:
You are right. It is about true blues vs. blue dogs/reds, not men vs. women. It’s easy to lose sight of that when you feel like your getting stepped on, but that doesn’t mean it’s right to put it out there like that. My bad.
November 12th, 2009 at 4:33 pmSorry, but it IS gender based. Far too many men are willing to compromise on abortion, because it is an abstract for them. It is not abstract for women – even post menopausal, uterus-free women like me can’t shrug it away. Control over one’s body is the most fundamental right.
And for those of you who don’t think it’s about controlling women, answer this: If abortion is wrong (a sin, evil – choose your term) then why isn’t it wrong in every case? No exceptions for rape or incest, or the life of the mother (this, incidentally is the position of the Catholic Church).
Anything less than this is not pro-life, it is pro-giving the state the right to judge how a woman got pregnant and in the case of a woman’s life deciding who has priority, the woman or the fetus, rather than a woman deciding her own fate.
November 12th, 2009 at 4:48 pmI’m a fan of EJ’s but he blew it in this one.
November 12th, 2009 at 5:27 pmThe last time an issue of human rights that had a similar degree of offensiveness as our casual attitude towards abortion was dealt with was the American civil war. That is to say it was an issue of whose rights were more important – the property owner’s or the slaves? In this case it is a matter of whose rights are more important – the woman’s or the helpless child? If the American people, and our government do not make a noble decision to lawfully, honorably, and morally judicious decide how best to confront the issue, it is my firm belief that we may be inviting providently the appropriate settlement of the issue from God’s hand, such as he dealt with the oppression of the salves during the civil war. Both outcomes may become considerably similar. Just my two-cents.
November 12th, 2009 at 5:40 pmI finally agree with E.J. for the first time.
November 12th, 2009 at 5:56 pmIf Congress is trying to pass an amendment to restrict abortion, then how about an amendment to mandate vasectomies?
November 12th, 2009 at 6:12 pmAllYouNeedIs says:
——————————————————————————–
@17:
You are right. It is about true blues vs. blue dogs/reds, not men vs. women. It’s easy to lose sight of that when you feel like your getting stepped on, but that doesn’t mean it’s right to put it out there like that. My bad
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
I understand your point, the problem I have with this bill is how it’s been whittled away. My only hope is this gets a foot in the door and we get to universal-single payer. How we get there is going to be an ugly fight, but a fight worth waging as long as Dems stand up. I don’t see alot of them working hard towards it and that includes the President. This amendment is offensive for so many reasons….
November 12th, 2009 at 6:24 pm@22 – Viability is a nonsense term. Within the last three years premature babies have been born viable and healthy with modern technology as early as 20 weeks. Abortion is still legal past that. I’m not sure what you’re asking with your choice question. Since I believe an unborn child at the fetal stage is a human being, and I don’t believe in killing human beings except in self defense, then no, I don’t believe it should be a choice that is legal to make. Same as any other homicide – killing of a human. If you’re asking whether I ignore the rule of law because of my beliefs, no. But we don’t live in a straight, majority rules society in the US. Our court system in particular is designed to be countermajoritarian to protect the rights of minorities from the tyranny of the masses. A perfect example is gay marriage. Minority rights should never be put to a majority vote. The courts need to override the political process there on constitutional grounds and protect the rights of the fewer.
Leftside Annie – That’s not a tenable argument. Gender is an involuntary, immutable physical condition that happens by sheer accident of genetics. You can gestate. I cannot. That has absolutely no bearing over the morality of abortion and whether I get to voice a position. If I father a child, I have just as much right to be a father as the mother has to decide she does not want to be a mother. Nothing but a genetic flip of the coin makes the difference in who inseminates and who carries. I am all for enforcing paternal duties beyond what they are now, but there’s no escaping that biological fact. Now, before you’re pregnant, you’re right – complete autonomy. But once a baby is dependent on you, through no fault of his/her own, then you have a duty to care for the child (as does the father). My wife shares my views, by the way, as do many women I know. And plenty of men disagree with me. Gender is irrelevant.
November 12th, 2009 at 6:46 pmBut I reiterate – if this is what comes of the amendment, this kind of bickering over an issue that has festered for decades and is not anywhere close to being solved, then we are playing into the hands of the GOP, and health care reform is dead.
*sigh*
Another W-T-F moment.
And boy oh boy…are there a lot of them these days.
November 12th, 2009 at 7:18 pmYeah, “gender is irrelevant” when it’s not your gender getting shit on.
scarnon01, I wish you and your wife many blessings with the arrival of your child, but your opinions about viability and when something is human do not — and should not — have an effect on my ability to choose what goes on in my body.
November 12th, 2009 at 9:55 pmKenneth
You are a liar and a brainwashed punkass troll. STFU
November 13th, 2009 at 12:23 amZooey – I appreciate your kind thoughts. You absolutely have the right to decide what to do with your body, isofar as it does not infringe on the rights of others. You do not have the right to choose to use your body to rob or harm or kill another person. If the child inside your body is a human being, and is there because you chose to have sex and take the risk of pregnancy, then that changes things. And further, I say that gender is irrelevant also because it is not the woman being harmed, but the child. And the child is harmed regardless of gender.
Again, I understand I am not going to convince you, nor you me. Which is why this is not the conversation we should be having right now about the health care reform bills. This can only divide us and kill reform.
November 13th, 2009 at 12:01 pm☒
November 14th, 2009 at 4:40 pm♰
November 14th, 2009 at 4:41 pm✞
♰
November 14th, 2009 at 4:43 pm♥
♡
November 14th, 2009 at 4:47 pm☺
November 14th, 2009 at 4:48 pm☺
☻
November 14th, 2009 at 4:50 pm