Pro-Choice Caucus Weighs in on Stupack-Pitts
The letter from Rep. Diana DeGette and Rep. Louise Slaughter, the chairs of the Congressional Pro-Choice Caucus:
Dear Madam Speaker:
As Members of Congress we believe that women should have access to a full range of reproductive health care. Health care reform must not be misused as an opportunity to restrict women’s access to reproductive health services.
The Stupak-Pitts amendment to H.R. 3962, The Affordable Healthcare for America Act, represents an unprecedented and unacceptable restriction on women’s ability to access the full range of reproductive health services to which they are lawfully entitled. We will not vote for a conference report that contains language that restricts women’s right to choose any further than current law.
They have over 40 signatures so far and are still circulating the letter before sending it to Nancy Pelosi.
40+ people won’t vote for the bill with this amendment. How many members won’t vote for this bill without the amendment?
In the meantime, a debate about health care morphs into a debate about abortion.
I was just watching DeGette talking about this. She was making out like it was a surprise, but it’s been obvious for months that abortion was going to be a huge sticking point and that it’d be worse the closer the bill got to a vote.
It looks like it creates a situation where a bill cannot pass. However, I imagine both sides will move. It’ll be interesting to see what the Conference of Catholic Bishops — whose approval of Stupak was apparently very important in getting the Bill passed — will do, how far they’ll go.
It seems to me that public option, if there is one anyhow, won’t cover abortion and most people are OK with that. The exchanges issue is interesting; could it mean the end of the exchanges altogether? Will what gets passed in the end be a mandate for all to purchase health insurance, some subsidies to help the poor do it, the removal of most pre-existing conditions constraints and an employer mandate? Public option maybe not in it and the question of how to fund it will be up for debate (tax increases of some sort, obviously).
Comment by Adam — 11/10/2009 @ 10:47 am
Funny; in the other thread, the argument presented was that abortion IS health care, and that the extension of the latter necessitates the extension of the former.
Comment by Rojas — 11/10/2009 @ 12:09 pm
Of course abortion is heathcare, but the procedure is an infinitesimal aspect of caring for one’s health.
But now we’re looking at the focus of the debate shifting from financial concerns or the public option or what constitues an open market when it comes to health insurance to the abortion debate which, yes, is a procedure done by doctors, hence the coverage issue, but is also a deeply divisive moral argument that never ends due to the convictions of the opposing sides.
If the argument was going to be framed as – look the government is already deciding what’s appropriate for your health by messing with health care, therefore re-think this bill in general! – that’s one thing.
Instead pro-life and pro-choice will rally to their corners and hunker down and maybe not move on passing or not passing a bill that pertains to healthcare in its entirity.
I think the stat is 2% of women have had an abortion. The morality of those women’s decisions should not be up for debate.
Comment by Liz — 11/10/2009 @ 2:53 pm
The morality of all decisions is surely amenable to debate? If you mean to say that it shouldn’t be in a debate about the healthcare bill, I don’t see how it wouldn’t end up in there, given that there are people that feel strongly about it as a moral issue. Much of the motivation for healthcare reform in itself gets framed in terms of moral obligations (and this is true of other issues Congress consider, for that matter).
Myself, I’d like to see a lot less moralising from either side, but in doing it they probably reflect the preferences of the average voter.
Comment by Adam — 11/10/2009 @ 3:06 pm
Wow. Is that how you’re taking the discussion in the other thread? If so, then I’ve been giving you a lot more respect than you’re giving consideration.
The point, at base, is pretty fucking simple: abortion is a medical procedure, and ought to be treated as such.
I am still decidedly unclear as to your counter-argument.
Comment by Brad — 11/10/2009 @ 6:57 pm
Medical procedures are specifically legislated about in insurance regulation all the time. Normally it’s in terms of minimum coverage, but I don’t in principle see why it wouldn’t be forbidding coverage of certain procedures when the government’s jumped in. Tampering is part of the price of government involvement. Those of us that want less government involvement in most things would offer things like this as part of the reason why.
Not sure what you win by implying that Rojas deserves less credit than you afford him. There’s no votes to be won here, after all.
Comment by Adam — 11/10/2009 @ 7:19 pm
My point on Rojas is he’s being either deliberately petulant or very unfair in his characterization of my argument, which I’ve certainly gone to great lengths to articulate. If it’s clarification he needs, fine, ask for it, I’m certainly active in these comments. If instead he wants to snipe at me as an advocate of a federalized authority attempting to decide for it citizens the abortion question (when in fact I think it’s pretty clear that that’s precisely what I’m RAILING against), then I’m about done bending over backwards to try and explain myself.
Anyway, the heart of the matter.
AND YET, the moment the government DOES get involved, you and other conservatives are on the front-lines as apologists or advocates of the government engaging in precisely what you say you wish the government wouldn’t engage in, as a general rule.
The HARM of government overreach is that it begins to take away freedoms in the name of far-removed political considerations, the quintessential “bureaucrat in Washington deciding for a person what’s good for them”. Here is an example of PRECISELY that, and we’re to throw away the entire framework of the argument because you happen to AGREE with what’s good for a person in this case? So the only harm, really, is the government deciding for people what they should do with their lives in a way you DON’T agree with? If you do agree with it, it’s all square? That’s the hypocrisy I’m trying to drill down to. You might be right about the abortion question, for all I know. But whether or not you are right is besides the point. If you value the idea of people making their own decisions, you value it even in cases where you vehemently disagree with those decisions. If that’s not the case, it’s just posturing.
And yes, you can say “well, only in the cases where there is no victim (or whatever), but in this case there is a victim.” Fine, if that is your position, criminalize abortion. Problem solved, all the way down the line. If you are unwilling to support that endeavor (putting aside considerations of whether or not that’s possible, ask yourselves, if it WERE possible, would you favor it?), I have no sympathy for then trying to make people’s health insurance plans the point of entry for this question.
Let’s dispense with the “this was inevitable!” thing. As you, me, and Rojas ALL agree, this is precisely the danger of government involvement. Let us also dispense with the canard that I am somehow arguing that people have a right to have their abortions covered with their government health plans. I am not.
I am making the argument that, while it is no ones right, it is a bad idea to start making medical decisions for the populace on moral and political. Yes yes a thousand times yes, the government DOES engage in that fairly regularly. It is still a bad idea.
I repeat myself:
I am separating the two questions. The question of whether the government should take over a segment of health care, and then, SEPARATELY, the question of, if they DO take over a segment of medical care, if they should run it as a political or a medical endeavor. YES YES YES, in all likelihood they WILL run it as a political endeavor. Separate question. The question here is SHOULD THEY?
Is there anybody besides Rojas and Adam reading this that gets me, or am I just totally off my nut here?
Comment by Brad — 11/10/2009 @ 7:37 pm
“Should they” is a tricky issue. Should science funding have political aspects to it? Scientists would say not, but they aren’t the ones answerable to the taxpayers who are providing the money.
I think that, in the end, political involvement isn’t bad or good but that it can be bad or good. I am not entirely sure that the Stupak amendment is outside the bounds of acceptable, given that the big change here is an increase in government involvement, particularly for a bill that’s going to come back from conference unrecognisable. The question of what finally goes in the bill is a different one and we’ll have to wait and see how that shapes up and how the Stupak supporters and opponents deal with each other in the run-up to a final vote.
Comment by Adam — 11/10/2009 @ 8:08 pm
I can agree with all that. I’ll wind down now. :)
One point though:
Precisely. Because moral and political decisions are in the eye of the beholder. Which is why, in conservative systems, there is a tendency to try to minimize the extent to which other people are making those decisions for you.
Obviously, the MOST conservative decision, in this regard, is to just vote against the bill itself. I’ve no beef with that. My beef is with those, either A. who supported the bill with the amendment but would not have without (“I don’t believe we should be imposing the government on our health care decisions—ooooh, shiny abortion amendment!”), or B. conservatives who otherwise rail about exactly this kind of imposition, but have no problem supporting it in cases where they happen to agree with the imposition in question. Presumably, liberals agree with their impositions too. If the difference is not the fact of imposition, but your personal feelings about each individual imposition, then fine, say so, but don’t start cawing about “social engineering” or “big government fascism,” because you’re not against either in principle, just in the particulars of execution.
Comment by Brad — 11/10/2009 @ 8:54 pm
Or is this no longer what you’re arguing?
Comment by Rojas — 11/10/2009 @ 8:55 pm
It is exactly what I’m arguing. Not for making advocacy for abortion compulsory, but against making opposition to abortion compulsory, at least in terms of the context of insurance.
Want the litmus test?
Is there more personal choice in the matter with, or without, the Stupak amendment?
Comment by Brad — 11/10/2009 @ 9:10 pm
“Is there anybody besides Rojas and Adam reading this that gets me, or am I just totally off my nut here?”
Dude, I get you. You’re just articulating it better (and more quickly) then I am.
Comment by Liz — 11/10/2009 @ 9:23 pm
Yeah but you’re a woman, you have no say in the matter. :)
Comment by Brad — 11/10/2009 @ 9:29 pm
Very true. Carry on.:)
Comment by Liz — 11/10/2009 @ 10:46 pm
You can’t consider the personal choice arising from the bill (whatever it turns out to be) without considering the collateral cost, in personal freedoms, of government involvement in just about anything. That’s always an argument that the opponents of government involvement have, although it’s unsexy and wonkish (or else horribly overblown a la Hannity). Stuff must be funded. Government grows and spreads its fingers into more pies and we know, in the end, how that can turn out. It’s unsexy because predicting exactly how it’ll turn out is hard. We can’t even predict exactly how this damn healthcare reform bill will turn out. Government has to make the case for everything it does (or rather, we have to see if government’s making the case; government actually only has to vote for something constitutional and get the President to sign it). Once they’re into that, everything in every bill is up for discussion and something that effectively would increase accessibility of and access to abortions is bound to be included and, I think, should be.
Comment by Adam — 11/11/2009 @ 12:56 am
On the subject of personal choice, a reduction of healthcare costs would be best of all, surely? Alas, that’s not on the agenda (and perhaps it can’t be. I guess we’ll never know).
Comment by Adam — 11/11/2009 @ 1:01 am
Well, it’s strategy, surely? At least some of the Democrats that voted for Stupak-Pitts did it to get a bill that was OK by them. The others and the GOP did it to ensure that if the bill does go through, it’s at least less bad (by their lights) than it would otherwise have been and maybe it’ll throw spanners in the works and impede any bill at all.
I don’t think that people should expect Representatives to abandon strategic considerations. Even without two party dominance, strategic planning would still happen, but with it, it’s essential for effectiveness. Effectiveness is arguably more important to voters, in at least some cases, than ideology.
There was also a fair amount of tactics going on. The desirability of that would be something to consider on a case-by-case basis, I would suggest.
Comment by Adam — 11/11/2009 @ 1:49 am
Sure it’s strategy, that’s what I was saying in the first place (which I thought you had disagreed with, that it was passed just to get the damn bill off their desks). Then let’s call it that. It’s a poison pill amendment forwarded by Democrats who were spooked by the prospect of socon wars in their districts and now loved by Republicans who see it as a golden opportunity to mire the process down while bloviating about the sanctity of life (their two favorite things to do). The effect it has on lower class women—meh, a secondary consideration either way.
Sure, but you’re reeeally trying hard to make this into an argument about the health care bill generally, which, frankly, it isn’t, at least not in the way that you want it to be.
I am asking whether the Stupak amendment in and of itself will lead to more freedom, or less; more choice, or less; hell you threw it out there yourself—more cost, or less.
As i said, you can certainly be against the health care bill and against the amendment. In fact, my argument is that that would be the consistent position, if “big government fascism” and “social engineering” and “government taking away choices that are between doctors and their patients” are your watchwords.
To repeat myself again:
Comment by Brad — 11/11/2009 @ 10:18 am
Relatedly, House Whip James Clyburn:
Comment by Brad — 11/11/2009 @ 11:07 am
You can’t divorce the Stupak amendment from the context in which its embedded, which is the bill itself. If there weren’t moves afoot that would change the accessibility and availability of abortion then absolutely it wouldn’t have come up. That doesn’t make it at all illegitimate, however (indeed, lawmaking without context would be much more vulnerable to that accusation). Lawmakers should obviously consider the effects of the laws; that’s one of the best reasons for tabling amendments to bills.
Arguments that one can’t be for the amendment and against the healthcare bill don’t survive the laugh test, it seems to me; adherence to an ideology doesn’t mean the abandonment of strategy because “adherence” isn’t an absolute and it doesn’t require the abandonment of contextual thinking, including planning ahead. Indeed, if ideology-motivated political activity did require that, the minority in the House would be almost entirely powerless (and they’re weak enough as it is).
Comment by Adam — 11/11/2009 @ 12:29 pm