No surrender, no retreat

[drwex]

Stupak/Pitts is not acceptable. If we lose this health care bill then so be it. The cost in money and lives and political capital will be tremendous.

But it is not acceptable to me to back a bill that throws womens' reproductive health rights under the bus. I've already written to MoveOn and will be sending similar messages to every progressive political organization I support. No surrender, no retreat on the fundamental right of a woman to make the most basic choice of how she plans, creates, and cares for her body and her children, and they're not getting any more of my money if they are going to push for this bill.

In every negotiation there are 'deal breakers' - things that if you don't get them then you walk away because the deal isn't worth it. I thought the deal breaker was going to be the public option (or equivalent plan to cover everyone). The public option is crippled but not dead. But reproductive rights is a deal-breaker, too. Status quo ante or no bill.

(h/t to dpolicar who pointed out that we are being awfully silent on this issue. Silence = death)

ETA: email sent to my Congressman, too. At this point the question is what shape the bill out of Senate will be. If it doesn't have this evil amendment then we might still rescue the bill in conference. I believe I'll be calling my Senators too...

Comments

[pierceheart.livejournal.com]

But it is not acceptable to me to back a bill that throws womens' reproductive health rights under the bus.

I think you're still framing it wrongly.

But it is not acceptable to me to back a bill that throws womens' reproductive health rights under the bus.

Whether it is their intent or not (in some cases, I think it is) every time they do something to restrict abortion or birth control access (specific), it is fundamentally telling women they are not equal citizens in America(general).
http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2009/11/8/134515/749/1017#c1017

Erm, sort of

[drwex]

I'm firmly pro-choice. But I'm not trying to debate what the laws on abortion should be. I'm stating that unless the health reform bill is fixed to return womens' reproductive rights to the status quo ante - which include the Hyde amendment restricting public funding of abortion - it's a deal-breaker. Stated specifically in terms of this bill, I don't expect to change the status of publicly funded abortions - that's a battle for another day.

[feste-sylvain.livejournal.com]

I really expected this to come after the next election.

But yes, this is what I said I saw coming.

[dpolicar]

You might find this useful.

Yes, very useful

[drwex]

I've now written to Rep DeGette and I'll be pushing my Congressman to sign on to her letter once I see the list of who's on board.

Yes, very useful

[drwex]

I've now written to Rep DeGette and I'll be pushing my Congressman to sign on to her letter once I see the list of who's on board.

[xthread.livejournal.com]

Mmmm... walk me slowly through this, because it doesn't seem as big a deal as all that.
Yes, it's loathsome. But you're talking as though we (and women) will be genuinely worse off in a US-with-health-reform-and-the-Stupak-amendment than they are now.
Which seems wonky.
What am I missing?

It depends on what you mean by 'worse'

[drwex]

The calculus is this: the bill does many good things for healthcare reform. It also places significant new restrictions on womens' ability to access birth control and abortion services. For example, women would not be allowed to buy private insurance to cover abortion procedures.

The question is whether you (or anyone) finds this an acceptable tradeoff. I do not. I want a bill that moves us all forward, not some of us forward and some of us backward.

Re: It depends on what you mean by 'worse'

[xthread.livejournal.com]

It also places significant new restrictions on womens' ability to access birth control and abortion services. For example, women would not be allowed to buy private insurance to cover abortion procedures.

Erm, what? Citation, please? That's not what Stupak-Pitts actually says, at least, not according to every source I could find.

The New York Times (http://documents.nytimes.com/the-stupak-amendment#p=1)
Markup from the House (http://republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/Media/file/Markups/FullCmte/071709_Health_Reform/StupakPitts.pdf)

Re: It depends on what you mean by 'worse'

[drwex]

OK, I shorthanded it. As the Times says "...an amendment that would impose tight restrictions on abortions that could be offered through a new government-run insurance plan and through private insurance that is bought using government subsidies..."

And to quote Planned Parenthood: "This amendment [...] would result in women losing health benefits they have today. Simply put, the Stupak/Pitts amendment would restrict women’s access to abortion coverage in the private health insurance market, undermining the ability of women to purchase private health plans that cover abortion, even if they pay for most of the premiums with their own money."

Excuse me if my shorthand was slightly inaccurate - the major point remains the same.

Re: It depends on what you mean by 'worse'

[drwex]

See also SF Chronicle coverage: "In addition, private companies that sell policies on the new exchanges envisioned in the bill could not offer abortion services if they accept federally subsidized policyholders."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2009/11/10/MNQ81AHHRA.DTL

Re: It depends on what you mean by 'worse'

[xthread.livejournal.com]

Well.. that's pretty interesting, because that's not what the amendment says.

Look at the markup, that's why I gave you the link.
The amendment does require that policies covering abortion services could not receive federal dollars. And, furthermore, that policies that receive federal dollars cannot cross-subsidize abortion services. So, if, in fact, existing policies are cross-subsidizing abortion services, that creates a huge problem for medical providers. But the Hyde Amendment already did that damage, decades ago - Planned Parenthood is already firewalled, as are other abortion providers that also provide Title X services.

And read the paragraph in the Chronicle article following the paragraph you quoted - policyholders would be required to purchase separate riders to cover abortion care. That is a far cry from 'private companies that sell policies on the new exchange could not offer abortion services if they accept federally subsidized policyholders.'

I'm not saying the Hyde Amendment is good; it's not. But describing Health Care with Stupak as being worse than nothing, because it will take away benefits that women already have is significantly misleading.