Washington (CNN) -- The House of Representatives on Saturday night passed a sweeping health care bill by a vote of 220-215. ... Earlier, the House passed an amendment to pending health care legislation that prohibits federal funds for abortion services in the public option and in the insurance "exchange" the bill would create.
Abortion is not murder. That's not open for debate here. That's just a practical truth about present-day America that I wanted to get out of the way right from the start. Murder is a term of art in the law. That is, murder is a specific charge that one can accuse someone under criminal law. A court trial will be held in such a case, and a verdict rendered. But abortions are legal in the United States, subject to some restrictions, and abortions performed in accordance with those restrictions are not one for which murder charges prevail. So let's dispense with that line of discussion right now. I don't wish to debate the legality of abortion here.
Abortion is an issue of health care. Again, that's not my opinion. That's an easily established fact. Were it not, it would not be covered under health insurance policies right now. We all know well that health insurance companies do not exactly knock themselves out trying to insure people for things they can get out of insuring. If this were not a health care option, they would not be insuring it. But it is a part of many health insurance plans.
Abortion is, therefore, among the set of items we refer to when we speak of “legal health care options.”
And, by the way, I think it unlikely that abortions create a net increase in overall cost to health care. On this point, I don't have numbers to point to, but I'm confident this would be possible for someone to substantiate. Almost certainly, the failure to get an abortion in a situation where one is desired will lead to the same health insurance policy having to pay for numerous other doctor visits that will quickly reach the same cost as what the abortion would have cost. As such, coverage of abortion procedures would not create a net cost to health care. If anything, it would be a net savings. This isn't intended to be a moral analysis, just an observation about cost.
In particular, I think it would be a little more honest if the people who oppose abortion coverage under government health insurance would say “I don't want to save money by paying for abortions, even when they are legal. I would rather the public be burdened with the many additional expenses of carrying a pregnancy to term.” That would still be principled. There's nothing wrong with paying for principle if that's what you believe. But at least don't wrap this in the cloak of it being a cost to you if you don't believe in abortion. The cost, if there is one, is to others if you do not.
I would hope that anyone calling for such additional financial burden understands that is the equivalent of calling for extra taxes. I mention this because I perceive that the same people calling for a restriction on abortions are often the ones insisting there is never any good reason to raise taxes. So I'd like to see that clarified. Perhaps if they said they'd like to offset the lack of funding for abortions with a corresponding lack of funding for prenatal care, things would balance out. Are they willing to call for that? That would be a breath of fresh air in the honesty department.
Personally, I see the issue of excluding health care coverage for abortion pretty much in analogy to what would happen if a particular religion did not favor surgery or the use of vaccines to prevent or heal illness. They might say they didn't want to pay for other people's immorality, but the question of morality, however firmly they may hold this belief unto themselves, is not something that society may legislate. This is the significance of the “establishment clause” of the First Amendment, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” Your religion may not be my religion, so you have no right to tell me I can or cannot have surgery, vaccine, nor any other legal procedure that upsets your morality. And abortion is such a legal procedure.
The Bill of Rights, which includes the First Amendment prohibition on government intrusion into religious matters, exists in order to counterbalance the tyranny of the majority. It seems to me that any portion of this bill that excludes abortion from coverage is open to a First Amendment challenge, since I think it unlikely that the exclusion can be justified on fiscal grounds. If the issue is whether abortion is appropriate to do at all, that is better established by creating laws against abortion directly. If such laws are considered but not enacted, there is an obvious significance to that.
The exclusion in the House bill seems cynically designed to do what could not be done directly in the law by its opponents—to make abortion illegal. Rather, it seeks to starve the option to have this legal procedure. And it preys on the weakest in society, since the health care plan offered is specifically targeted at those who cannot afford private plans that may indeed offer such options.
It's not that the First Amendment conveys a right to force the government to offer health care of any particular kind. But once the goverment has decided that it will get into the business of health care, the intrusion of particular choices based on the religious preferences of one group over the personal choices of individuals who may not agree seems out of bounds, especially in situations where there is not a plainly outlined economic interest or broadly accepted moral principle. There are no such reasons for exception in play here; rather, it's plain in this case that partisan religious forces are in play in exactly the sort of manner that the First Amendment seeks to forbid.
Watch for anti-choice legislators in the future to try to drive this wedge further by pushing to remove even contraception from such coverage, and to require doctors administering the public option not to mention abortion, as they have done many times in the past in the Title X arena.
Even as Republicans gather today to mourn and decry the idea that many Americans may soon have access to basic health care they otherwise couldn't afford, they will have cause for at least minor celebration, too, in that they were one step closer to infringing the rights of those same Americans in at least some ways. But as they eat their proverbial cake and raise their champagne flutes in muffled cheer, I imagine they'll want to avoid their usual refrain of “keep government out of health care.” It might draw undue attention to the fact that their partial victory here, such as it is, is a textbook case of government intrusion into health care.
If you got value from this post, please "rate" it.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
RomanticPoetess
Sandra Stephens
old new lefty
marytkelly
oaxacangringa
CoyoteOldStyle
Salon.com
Comments
The only solution to all of this, as I see it, is to end the abortion debate altogether by not procreating at all.
Everyone, and I mean everyone, must become gay. I don't care if we use a 'gay ray' or 'gay pill' or whatever, it just has to happen. With no preganacies, we can have no abortions. Oh and of course, outlaw artifical insemination.
After about 100 years, it won't even be discussed anymore.
Rated.
Thank you as usual for such a thoughtful article.
Perhaps the most grievous aspect in any of this is the lack of actual concern by our Representatives and Senators over the issue of abortion.
It is either a red herring or a foil to pander with for so many. A woman’s right to choose, the law of the land, and Constitutional guarantees mean little to those whose primary focus is plotting how to stay in office.
These men remind me of the self proclaimed Italian revolutionary who, upon seeing throngs of citizens taking to the streets cried, “Where are my people going? I must know so I can lead them!”
Rated and appreciated as always.
Julie, I'm glad the post hit home. Sorry you can't rate this one 10 times, but perhaps you could ceremonially rate 9 of my other posts. (Heh... Just kidding. While I like ratings, I want them only where people found value. Otherwise they mean nothing. Your kind words are more than enough beyond that.)
Pelosi and the democratic party have sold the people out in so many ways with this bill, it is pathetic. Kucinich voted against it and for good reason. The bill's mandates with the attendant criminal penalties will provide an additional 70 billion per year in profits for the insurance corps.
As far as abortion goes? Every dollar the fed spends on family planning saves seven down the road. It is smart spending. If you doubt me, consider this: roughly half of the pregnancies in the US are on Medicaid. Five hundred for an abortion vs. five to eight thousand in term pregnancy costs? It is a no brainer unless you are part of a religious cult called Catholicism.
The Catholic cult needs a smack down. Interfering in Maine. Now this Stupak amendment. Not to mention the pederasts they still shield. Time for them to lose their status as a tax free entity. monkey fingered.
Dr. Susanne, I can understand why it's still being discussed, even as I think it is indeed a shame. (I had some additional remarks but I have saved them for a post another day.)
Karin, thanks for sharing those strong words.
“…the intrusion of particular choices based on the religious preferences of one group over the personal choices of individuals who may not agree seems out of bounds …”
“Seems”? SEEMS?! It simply IS. As you more accurately say, “it's plain in this case that partisan religious forces are in play in exactly the sort of manner that the First Amendment seeks to forbid.” However, the First Amendment doesn’t “seek” to forbid, it DOES forbid.
You make the solid point, “…their partial victory here, such as it is, is a textbook case of government intrusion into health care.” Unconstitutional intrusion.
It is amazing that so many people can’t draw the distinction between “providing” healthcare, and “intruding” into it. But one must wonder why this concession was necessary; only one Republican voted for this bill, and 39 Dems voted against it. What gain did the concession bring?
And here’s the ultimate failure here: this is a bad bill, anyway. It is an insurance corporation boon.
When I was a kid, our teachers were the same people as our Christian Sunday school teachers, and we had very rigorous debates that continued from church to school and back again - we wrestled with divorce, abortion, evolution - exploring all manner of issues was simply part of learning to think, and we came to different conclusions and there was never a stigma attached to one conclusion or the other.
It's as though our leaders need remedial courses on critical thinking and on how to make persuasive arguments that are sound, and how to debunk moth-eaten arguments. Whatever happened to making decisions based on MERIT - we are being shepherded backward every day. Soon they'll be bleeding us with leeches.
Sorry - I'm really tired, and this little rant is all over the place - nothing like ranting about thinking when you're not thinking clearly! Kent - great post - my point is that it's too bad our leaders aren't swayed by logic.
We don’t have to “get rid of religion” to simply face the fact of its inherent, detrimental nature in society instead of pandering to that destructiveness and validating its insanity in public policy issues.
I think you are engaging in one of those philosophical mind tricks that look good on paper but don’t translate well into reality.
You say, “Religion needs to be a voluntary matter that does not meddle in governmental policy.”
My response is, “Yup, but it isn’t.”
You say, “There are plenty of non-religious entities capable of being negative but that's the nature of freedom.”
That’s true, but do we pander to them on a societal level like we do to religion? And, how many of those non-religious entities are based on pure fantasy? The truth is that we attack those entities for their shortcomings while excusing religion almost outright, and then taking it one step further and participating in its damaging ways, actually facilitating its societal damage. The issue of this current post is a perfect example.
You say, “What's required of all is a kind of golden rule—keep to yourself except where invited in and we can all get along.”
Unfortunately, that is a concept that is alien to too many, if not most, religious adherents.
I think I’m safe with the word “inherent” simply because religion is a uniquely and inherently problematic societal ill.
You are inadvertently exposing the crux of the matter. The Supreme Court removed this issue from the legislative process with no right of appeal... except to the Supreme Court. Catch-22. Had this not occurred, then the people would be able to express their will fully on this issue rather than having to express it through alternate means. And, because the people are fickle, they would be able to change their minds by electing different legislators.
And so help me, if viagra is covered I don't know what I'll do.
I'm sure you are a salesman. You start your discussion with things that are true to get people saying yes. A salesman always gets his customer saying yes before he asks the buy question.
Yes, abortion is not murder. Yes, it's a legal medical procedure. Yes, it's cheaper than going to term with the medical costs involved there. Yes, a lot of the people against it are for religious reasons. That is where you come apart. Not all people against it are for religious reasons.
But I'm not a religious person. Where does life start? I don't know and with the debate I'm not sure anyone else does either. Who is that person going to be when they grow up? Who knows. It's just something in my gut that tells me something isn't right about it. I can even come up with cases where I would support it, but they would be rare and limited.
All that being said doesn't mean that the government has to pay for them. So where are we going to draw the line? What if I don't want to just go home and take the pain killer? What if I don't want the Red or the Blue pill. What if I want that surgery? Is everything going to be available under the public option, or what ever they call it?
Would they have paid for my Free Vascularized Fibula Graphs? Would they have forced me into having hip replacements? They would have been cheaper. I asked what percent of the people having this surgery still have their own hips at 10 years out. I was told they don't know. They haven't been doing it for that long. Is that experimental and I couldn't have gotten it done?
So draw me a line in the sand. What's going to be covered and what isn't and how do we decide. According to your post one medical procedure is the same as the next.
Now, what if they succeeded in making blood transfusions--legal, but immoral in their eyes--unattainable by all other means when they failed repeatedly on open attempts to criminalize them under US law? What exactly would be the politics of that, I wonder?
Jehovah's Witnesses can opt not to have a blood transfusion, though their tax monies will go toward funding blood transfusions for everyone else who needs one. Can they learn to live with it? Or will they launch an anti-transfusion movement to bring the rest of us in line?
Stay tuned.
rguillory, it's an interesting issue you raise. I had an extended comment in response that I'll save for another full post so it doesn't get lost. Thanks for contributing.
Children are the result of choices made by a single woman to express her-self, giving life and part of herself.
Children are the result of two people caught up in the heat of the moment of sexual gratification.
Children are the result of choices made by a man that exploits, debases, abuses and projects violence on a woman.
Children are the consequences of the choices we make. Wanting no consequences for our behavior is both self centered and are as irresponsible or responsible as the choices that led to the consequences.
Whether life begins at the moment of conception or not is irrelevant. Choices lead to pregnancy. Pregnancy leads to the creation of life. Abortion interferes with the creation of life once under way. Abortion is paramount to asking for absolution from the choices we make and will only promote more irresponsible choices. Be responsible
We all believe in free choice and the consequences resulting from choices. We do not advocate the ending of free choice; we advocate for the freedom all choices both responsible and irresponsible.
We don’t however advocate for the avoidance of consequences based on our choices, especially when the consequences bring forth life. Move the Free Choice issue into its proper place. Use “Free Choice” to use contraceptives or choose to accept the consequences. (No doubt many readers will remind me of specific situations that may not apply here such as life of the mother etc. I concede there may be exceptions.)
Another way to view this;
Cancer is the consequence of choosing to Smoke. We are free to smoke as much as we want unless it could negatively interfere with another’s life; ban on public smoking.
Liver disease is the consequence of drinking too much. We are free to drink as much we want unless it could negatively interfere with another’s life; drunk driving laws.
Some forms of abuse have been linked to excessive pornography. We are free to watch or participate in as much pornography we want unless its consequences could negatively interfere with another’s life; child sex laws, rape.
Children are the consequence of having unprotected sex. We are free to have as much unprotected sex as we want regardless of the possible consequences, because it’s ok to interfere with another’s life in this case eliminating the consequence. Wow, a very enlightened concept.
I am one those that thinks "government should stay out of health care"...so along with you I am sickened that so many Republicans are insisting on this intrusion.
But of course, I'm sure we would probably disagree about the fundamental reasons health care has become so unaffordable.
But good post!
Best,
-David Logan
David, always good to find that people are reading the issues point by point and not just drawing battle lines between opposing camps. I'd like to see universal government run health care, but I'm trying to discuss the issues in isolation as well, and not to assume that every issue implies every other. So I'm glad we could meet as if for a civilized cup of tea, if only virtually,, to discuss a point of common agreement before returning to our opposing sides to perhaps spar over other matters. :)
…I say give in to the anti-choice, hypocritical, right-wing nutcase pieces of shit.
Get the bill passed…and then work on tweaking it at some future point.
"Harris v. McRae, 448 U.S. 297 (1980),[1] was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that States that participated in Medicaid were not required to fund nontherapeutic abortions for which federal reimbursement was unavailable as a result of the Hyde Amendment, which restricted the use of federal funds for abortion. The Court also held that the funding restrictions of the Hyde Amendment did not violate either the Fifth Amendment or the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harris_v._McRae
To paraphrase the former Secretary of Defense, you have to go with the legal precedent you have, not the legal precedent you might want or wish to have.
If the Catholic and evangelical comparison of abortion to murder (which the Catholic church didn't even think until the 1880s) is accurate, then where does the taxation issue stop? Can I get the government to please not tax me on war? Or the death penalty (which I notice that the Catholic Church has not gone out on the same limb on, even though they are opposed to the death penalty)?
My problem is that I want this to be an issue of justice and logic, and there's not much of either in this debate right now. Except in your posts, which are thoughtful! Again, thanks.
I think there are various underrepresented points of view because people are not good at articulating them, and that ends up meaning the debate comes out one-sided. That doesn't automatically translate to “I'm right.” In a lot of cases, actually, my meta-point is that we can't have a discussion based on the notion of one group winning and others losing. We have to learn to co-exist with conflicting positions.
I'm re-reading Kim Stanley Robinson's Red/Green/Blue Mars trilogy. (Well, re-listening to it with my wife. I have the audiobook and it's well-presented.) There's a funny place in there where there is a discussion about putting together a Constitution for Mars and where someone remarks that people have been living together fine without a Constitution for 20 years while they wait and rather than write up a bunch of new rules they should go around and ask people how the hell they've been living together fine without a Constitution for all this time and enshrine that procedure instead. I'm not so sure that would work. (There are probably serious injustices that happen during such times waiting on real government.) Nonetheless, it's worth noting that we obviously can live together in spite of different points of view without killing one another if we try, so it's worth putting our minds to it.
Anyone with a brain could see this coming and the House thought they had this handled very early on in the debate. For Stupak to throw this in at the last minute and still claim to be Democrat is unconscionable, yet there it is. This could well be the monkey wrench that will bollocks the machinery that is barely operational as it is.
Stupak may be getting credit for the amendment, but the probable author is co-sponsor Joe Pitts, Republican from Pennsylvania. I've heard that Stupak is a nice guy and well liked, but unlikely sharp enough to come up with something so divisive on his own. Pitts, on the other hand, has been a strong anti-abortion advocate for years and likes to work from the shadows a la Cheney. The fact that they share the same C Street address that has come to be known as the address of "The Family" is not likely coincidence. The family is group of religious legislators that share the same address and work behind the scenes as a quasi like secretive government (think cult or secret society) of their own with their own agendas that are most often go against the will of the people. They are quite devious and a Google search will garner much information.
Below is a link for anyone who might be interested. Great Post Kent!
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/node/32653/print