So, it turns out that the price of passing health care reform in the House is selling women down the river. There will be a vote on the Stupak Amendment after all. And, no doubt, that amendment will pass. Private insurers will have to drop abortion coverage from plans that have it (which is most of them) in order to participate in the exchanges. The Public Option will not provide abortion coverage. People will get access to affordable health care, but they’ll have to pay out of pocket for an abortion. If people want to move to a plan on the exchange, they’ll lose the coverage that they currently have.
There is no guarantee that this language will survive the Conference Committee and become law, but it won’t be easy to pass the Conference Report if it doesn’t have the language. Once people vote for something once, they tend to get irritated if you just ignore that and remove it.
I didn’t realize that the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops was a political party with elected officials in Congress. Now I know.
so, this is what the dems stand for. a piece of shit like stupak can f*8k every woman to the wall. the catholic church can F*8k every woman to the wall. yup, i will definitely support the dems-not!
how many times do we hae to bend over and beg fr another one?
lets see:
abortions, privacy, health care,…
oh screw it. i’m done.
yeah, this is about as ugly as it can get. We have no time to rally against this amendment.
But, they endorsed the bill, so yah health care!!
Would they be any different from AFSCME or the NRA or AIPAC or Act Up or the NAACP or the Chamber of Commerce?
The difference is that you have a bunch of politicians who let their religious leaders dictate the fine points of an amendment and abrogated their responsibility to vote on the own conscience. This is an unholy mixing of religion and politics. It’s one thing to let your religion inform your vote, but another thing entirely to hand you vote over to the Bishops.
Maybe I’m missing the difference between citizens who are Bishops and citizens who are Teamsters or gun nuts or Community Activists – are some citizens more equal than others?
What you are missing is that I am complaining about the politicians, not the Bishops. They have every right to lobby, like anyone else. But you have a big group of Dems who said upfront that they wouldn’t support any language that didn’t have the endorsement of the Bishops. Show me an example of that happening with AFSCME.
It probably hasn’t been stated in those terms, but there are many politicians with lifetime 100% ratings with the NRA or with the AFL-CIO or with ACLU. This isn’t a problem because their stated beliefs are in line with these organizations; likewise I don’t see a problem with someone who states explicitly that their vote is dependent upon the approval of Group X – whoever Group X may be – because it gives his/her constituents an objective standard by which to judge the politician. Donna Edwards represents a district that would want her to be in line with the AFL-CIO. John Dingle represents a district choc-full of gun nuts. John Lewis’ constituents know first-hand the absolute necessity of personal liberty. Likewise, these politicians who have declared their vote to be dependent upon the approval of the Council of Bishops will be judged in short order by their constituents – if they approve then the politicians will be returned to office; if they disapprove then they’ll be voted out.
Like I said, I have no problem with this – I’d have no problem with it if the group in question were bishops from The Church of Satan or American Atheists or PETA or National Socialists – the voters will voice their approval or disapproval of the politicians’ votes and rationales.
The difference is that one of our founding principles is separation of church and state. The bishops and other peddlers of mass-market fantasy enjoy de facto privileges because of their “holiness”. If I call the NRA a bunch of assholes I’ll get blowback from their partisans. If I call Catholics a bunch of assholes I’ll get called a bigot and worse by a whole spectrum of the believers as well as the PC.
Kennedy knew he had to promise to keep religious dogma out of his governance. That wall seems to have crumbled. So, fine: just let’s not hear any further outrage from you or anybody else when the Catholic Church is treated just like any other lobbyist and Catholicism is again a valid reason to attack a candidate.
And then sell the Vatican and feed the world.
The separation of church and state is not the divorce between religious thought and public policy – it means that the state cannot establish a national religion. It was, in Jefferson’s own words, to keep the state out of the affairs of the church.
In other words, an individual’s motivation for proposing a policy being rooted in his/her religion does not invalidate the policy itself.
Also, the Council of Bishops is no more the Catholic Church than is AIPAC Israel…
is more equal than women.
“It’s one thing to let your religion inform your vote, but another thing entirely to hand you vote over to the Bishops.”
True, and anyone who admits to doing so should be blinded by the stark, naked light of reality during the next primary.
Or to slightly expand the question, how are they different from Flat Earthers, Climate Change Deniers, or Anti-evolution fanatics?
They aren’t – and they are certainly free to advance their ideas and try to convince a majority of their fellow citizens to agree with them, and we are free to tell them where to go.
What we have here is a literal circle-jerk of sworn celibate cross-dressers dicktating gender-specific medical policy. Sorry, but we dealt with this particular form of stupid nationally in ’73. Stupak, et. al. need to drag their sorry asses by their hairy knuckles back to whatever damn cave they’ve emerged from.
um, aren’t these the same bishops who are getting their asses sued off for molesting children?
Does the bill provide abortion assistance in cases of rape, incest or to protect the life of a woman? or are we forced to carry the child of our rapist because???
I cannot wait for these Blue Dogs to start losing their seats and when they become unable to raise any money.
This is the biggest charade cluster—k I’ve ever seen in my lifetime.
I think that the exceptions for rape, incest, incest will still be there.
But imagine the effing paperwork.
I suspect the entire burden of proof would be on the woman. Rape kit and police report for a rape, naming the relative in case of incest.
I predict sooner rather than later, we won’t have hardly any abortion services in this country, despite Roe v Wade.
Sickening.
Well, of course. Attempting to get reimbursed for an abortion that didn’t involve rape, incest, or the life of the mother would constitute insurance fraud and a crime against the U.S. government.
Well, the chosen prey of the priesthood are either the wrong gender or the wrong age to get preggers, so no problemo, right?
I watched the Stupak gang last night in front of the Rules Committee, and despite the protestations of Hastings and McGovern, you knew this was going to happen. Somehow, the fact that they are under the same restrictions on abortion with their own Federal Health Care Plans is supposed to make them seem like sympathetic characters in this debate; who understand how difficult it is for poor people with regard to the difficult question of abortion. “They can buy supplemental plans just like us if the want to get an abortion”, they say. Cut me a freaking break!
Every day, as this thing gets whittled down more and more, I really do have to wonder about its overall worth. The “we have to pass something” group takes greater control of this debate every day.
I know it is not politically feasible to get some things right up front. But if the end result of all this paring and “compromise” is a tremendously marginalized bill that creates a whole new set of problems and roadblocks for the people who truly need health care, how much value, in the end, does it really have?
It is just supremely frustrating that all of the “give back” has to be from one side, the side that is trying to help real people with real needs.
It is just aggravating to watch. The people in Washington just really don’t give a shit about the most marginalized people in this debate.
I agree. It’s also a bit jarring to see the Bishops win this, while they are also fighting the Republicans efforts to deny coverage to undocumented workers. But, of course, they’ll probably lose on that one.
Amen.
When you aren’t bold enough as leaders this is what happens.
Roosevelt was right about fear, and it has been the fear of Democrats which has led us to this crappy bill.
I agree with your point, Steven. The dearth of consistent leadership on the Democratic side of the ledger for this issue is kind of staggering.
I’m afraid that the sausage factory which is now our political system and the overall petrification of empathy that has occurred amongst the majority of lawmakers during this process has shifted the debate to the mere procedural needs and political expediency rather than to creating something which works.
The Democrats have allowed the politics of this to completely overwhelm the larger purpose here. History will have to be the judge of whether, in the final equation, this is an historic opportunity lost; or is the birth pangs of something which will eventually be embraced by this country as a giant step forward for our society.
If it is an opportunity lost, we will know soon enough.
for Obama’s condemnation of this amendment.
I don’t think Obama will make an absolute statement like that. He will hedge until there is no room left to hedge. He always does, for better or worse.
So women are now supposed to carry all the burden of bearing and rearing children, while paying more for insurance and receiving less, getting lower pay, and then eating cat food in retirement because we didn’t earn enough money during our “working” years.
Oh, please, stop it. The self-righteousness and victimization syndrome of some on the left is really starting to get sickening.
Abortion in this country should always be legal, but if some people have moral difficulties with having abortion–in cases OTHER than those that threaten the life of the mother, or in instances of rape–be covered by health care reform, so be it. Stop critiquing a process that will benefit the greater good by claiming it will discriminate against a lesser number of people.
Really, the claim that women carry all the burden of bearing and rearing children is patently false. Yet even if it weren’t, if a woman doesn’t want to carry the burden of having kids, THEN SHE SHOULDN’T HAVE KIDS. Stop already with the irrationality and venomous adherence to dogma. That’s the sort of unthinking, kneejerk bullshit that used to be monopolized by the rightwing.
And for the record, I’m a liberal agnostic who has no more love for organized religion dictating our national morals than the typical commenter on this site. I just have little patience with people of all political shapes and flavors who think that the world should conform to their own personal dictates.
I always enjoy the ‘don’t get pregnant’ argument. It’s so convincing.
Castanea’s comment, if you read it closely, makes no sense. But of course that makes no difference to someone who is acting as an empty shill.
Um, isn’t bishops “who think that the world should conform to their own personal dictates” what this whole thing is about? I guess irrationality and venomous adherence to dogma is OK as long as it uses the brand of some dead guy?
Just curious: any amendments to deny coverage for viagra?
Viagra – the senator’s choice? Not a chance.
I would doubt that. It is the default position of the male bastion of our political elite that they want to do anything possible to encourage the survival of their little swimmers.
There will probably even be funding for boxer shorts, since they are purported to provide a more beneficial environment for “The Boys” to survive down there.
nice of them to send this out on Saturday. Anyoen with a brain could tell them that no one’s in the office on Saturday, and the voicemails are typically full, as they currently are. bit of a FAIL here.
the deal was made late last night.
Boo, You really didn’t know that the Catholic Church has pretensions to rule the world and acts everywhere as a shadow political organization. I’m not trying to be funny. This is so! It always has been. Mussolini reinstated the Catholic Church’s status as an independent entity in the Vatican after the Italian revolution had compoletely incorporated the Vatican into Italian territory in about 1870. After the war, the U.S. (you know, the separation-religion-and-state empire of god on earth) opted to accept Mussolini’s decision and supported the Italian post-war government’s continuation of the Vatican as autonomous. Maybe the V.S. even insisted on it. Well, guys, here we are today. This decision against abortion funding is barbaric. Medieval. It chokes me.
question: is erectile dysfunction and other men’s sexual health issues covered?
and again, I told you so. I told you since DAY 1 and all anyone said was “brendan’s a cynic.”
I wasn’t a cynic. I was a REALIST.
told me what? Does this have anything to do with my case of beer?
that we’re not getting anything good.
and that beer sailed last week, when they decided there wouldn’t be a robust, strong public option.
what? Did I EVER say that there would be a robust public option in the final bill? Maybe I did, but my thinking was always that NO public option would be in the bill unless it was done in reconciliation, and that a non-robust public option might pass under regular order, but only if it was put in in the Conference Committee.
brendan:
politico:
confirmed by NYT:
You wanted a defintiion of “day one” to include 2013. you made no such specifics for the robust public option, which I always said had to be in the final bill.
I’m really sorry. It was a bet i wanted to lose.
Re separation of church and state, let’s really apply this principle by removing all tax exemptions for property owned by any religious group. Let the bishops and all their religious kin of whatever denomination, pay taxes like the rest of us. Even on the land that their churches and rectories sit on. Why should our government help these bigots in any way whatsoever?
Well, logic would dictate that if we have real separation, religious institutions should be exempt? No? But as they have decided to be political institutions, that may no longer apply. I’m sick to death of these theocrat assholes of every stripe playing the bait and switch game — either they’re separate or they ain’t.
I don’t know actually. Frankly if eventually the ONLY thing people have to pay out of pocket for is an abortion that is probably a win.
Of course we’re far from there, but things could be worse, which is about the best you can say for it.