Abortion amendment on health care bill frustrates activists

By Joe Byrne
Saturday, November 7th, 2009 -- 6:14 pm
Share on Facebook Stumble This!

stupak Abortion amendment on health care bill frustrates activistsThe health care bill being debated at the Capitol building today has changed in important ways since its emergence. Pro-choice activists are sounding the alarm over the Stupak amendment, named after Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI). The last-minute compromise will prohibit insurance coverage of elective abortions for anyone receiving federal aid.

Abortion-rights supporters in the House were frustrated by the concession to 40 anti-abortion democrats who indicated they wouldn't vote for H.R. 3962 unless the current provisions were changed. Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) told Politico "pro-choice members are not happy this morning."

Bart Stupak, on the other hand, is pleased with the amendment's success, claiming that he has 225 votes, including almost every single Republican.

Though the vast majority of House democrats are supporters of abortion rights, Nancy Pelosi told reporters she believes that her pro-choice peers will support the bill with the amended language on abortion.

The leader of the Progressive Caucus Policy Foundation, Darcy Burner, released a video speaking out against the Stupak amendment. "Women who find they have cancer while they are pregnant won't get the choice of how to proceed, but those choices will instead be made by politicians in Washington, DC," Burner said. "The idea that we would throw women under the bus in the process of doing health care reform is completely unacceptable."

Story continues below...

With the language of the bill as it is now, anyone would be able to buy private policies covering abortions. Critics like Ezra Klein at the Washington Post believe that this system will effectively outlaw abortion for those who simply can't afford it.

McClatchy News reports that representatives of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops were involved in the talks.

Darcy Burner's video can be found here.

Share this article:
  • Print this article!
  • E-mail this story to a friend!
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • Facebook

Story comments are below...
  • dennycrane
    Well then, the dirty ol' men on Medicare should not be allowed to get their viagra free and women should be able to get birth control pills without paying for them. We would not even be discussing this if it were the "men" that got pregnant instead of the women.
  • dave
    "Types of drugs Medicare does not cover"
    Drugs for sexual dysfunction (i.e., Viagra, Cialis, Levitra, Muse, Caverject)

    http://www.priorityhealth.com/medicare09/drugli...

    What you are referring to was a proposed measure for the prescription drug bill back in 2005. The provision was not included.

    I'm not sure why people make a point about men not getting pregnan and thus not caring. Most guys I know support abortion rights so they don't have to fork up the money for child support and other things related to an unwanted kid.

    Your argument is based on a strawman deadbeat dad which is not represented of most men out there in society. Plus we have laws to punish those who do not provide for their children.

    The point is, men, while not bearing the obviously hard experience of pregnancy, or childbirth, still have to face up to certain responsibilities.
  • lincolnparadox
    The sheer size of this bill is the reason that House Dems have to "play ball" at all. If they simply broke up the bill into separate bills that covered: insurance reform, tort reform, malpractice reform, medic-are/aid and VA reform, and the public option; then each bill could be discussed, modified and passed on its own merits. With this giant bill, there is no chance for the addition of good ideas or the removal of bad ones. It's just take it or leave it.
  • davidrvelasquez
    Much as I'm pro choice... if there is a bill actually worth passing then we'll have to choose our battles and let this one go... for now.
  • disappointedvoter
    Bull Shit!
  • Though the Stupak amendment can be seen seen by pro-choice advocates as a setback, in this case, the removal of abortion funding from the bill in order to get the required support for the bill is probably the option that serves more of the public. I am sure that those who fought for abortion rights are significantly disappointed by these events, but there is nothing to say that the bill, once passed, can't be revisited with court challenges and further amendments in order to ensure that abortion coverage receive some reasonable level of funding. It's important to recognize that the right to abortion hasn't been lost...
  • lorn
    Spoken like a professional Democratic party operative tasked with doing damage control.
    Very well crafted, brief, effective and typical of the slick comments showing up on progressive blogs everywhere right now.

    Do you just C&P like a trained monkey, or do you write your own stuff?

    This is another sellout by Democrats. Seriously I don't think Charlie Brown trying to kick off the football with Lucy was half as stupid and gullible as Democratic loyalists are as they cheer on the right wing Bush like moves of Obama.
  • Iorn, I understand the frustration you feel, but the words are not damage control or by any means an attempt at "being slick" by anyone even affiliated with the Democrats or the Republicans for that matter. I do not think that the Democrats really have much choice if they want to get the bill passed. The party is too fractured to achieve that goal so accepting the amendments of conservatives in the party is a necessary evil for the greater good of health reform.

    Like I said, the issue can be revisited later to get funding...
  • lorn
    Ah yes the "we are too fractured' talking point.
    Those darn rogue blue dogs going their own way, those darn centrist Dems putting their own reelections ahead of what is good for American, those mavericks who just refuse to vote party lines...........................BS, BS, BS!

    When Obama wanted his stimulus corporate bailout bill he cracked the whip, he kicked ass, he sicked Rahm on em, he rule with an iron fist! He got his votes.
    When Obama wanted his billion dollar war funding bill? Same damn thing, he beat bullied bribed and pounded lowly Democratic reps into voting his way.
    The Obama budget with 0, ZERO, zero Republican votes? Noooooooooo problem once again.

    Obama worked the vote for war, for corporate America.
    Now it is time to take care of the people..........and those pesky free thinking Democrats just can't be controlled. Sorry folks, no health care for you.........your Messiah tried hard, so very hard, can't you hear the press screaming it to you?

    Are we going to revisit this issue much later, just like we did with the Patriot act, impeachment of Bush, FISA sellouts, accountability for bankers in the stimulus bill.

    Sure Wells, we believe you and we trust you to revisit this issue 'later to get funding', sure. And this is the year Lucy lets Charlie Brown finally kick the ball. Hooray!
  • When Obama was cracking the whip at that point, he was the star president still riding on much of his election success. The bailout was going to save union jobs, manufacturing jobs and get the economy going. Everyone was trusting him to solve the problems of the economy. Everyone was going to rise on the same tide.

    At the time of these health reform activities, the bailout has been seen as a corporate bailout, the economy is still in shambles and Obama has not accomplished much despite his efforts. Do you honestly think Obama currently has the same backing he did when he was driving those other initiatives?

    Despite your insistence that I am an operative of the Democrats , I am merely trying to point out that with health reform supposedly spending money the country does not have, people fearing what they will lose with their insurance with the changes and the economy still a concern for many, the Democrats were best served by getting some level of health reform in place despite compromises.

    As I am just an advocate of universal coverage, people not going bankrupt because of illness and a person in favor of the cost containment of the health care system, you have me pegged wrong.

    You really should direct your outrage directly at your leaders. Mail and sign a printed letter of your concerns to your representatives letting them know how you feel instead of lambasting those who try to see the positive in what is not an ideal outcome. The Democrats could have done much better, but to know how far they can go, they need to know that their constituents support them.
  • lorn
    You sound like you are sincere in trying to find a reason to believe in your Dems. That ship sailed for me about four years ago.

    Hitched my wagon to Cynthia and the Green party. Win or loose I am no longer part of a party that does a pretty good job of appearing to be liberal, while it really serves corporatism and our military industrial complex with the same vigor and devotion as the vile Republicans do.

    You will never convince me that Democrats are anything but fascists who say the right things. But I believe you are a sincere Democratic party member and not some sort of op as I said earlier. Sorry for that. Hope to see you in the Green party soon.
  • disappointedvoter
    Nonsense. That bill sucks anyway. Get rid of it, get rid of the phony Democrats in the next election, and pass Medicare For All in 2011.
  • While the bill is certainly not ideal, what do you think could have been done as a bill that would actually garner real support? If the Democrats are divided amongst themselves, have members who are serving their own purposes to avoid being beaten in the next election and also have some members that are happy to serve the corporations, what do you honestly think you could replace them with? The Republicans are certainly not going to support Medicare For All. Its a nice idea for sure, but there are way too many self serving minds to allow anything like that to be put in place.
  • nader paul kucinich gravel
    Single Payer > Robust Public Option > Garbage
  • davidrvelasquez
    "Anti abortion dems"??? ....wtf!
    What progressive would ever adopt such medievalist attitudes?
  • lorn
    What person actually still believes 'Democrat' and 'progressive' are two words that have anything in common?
  • davidrvelasquez
    Yeah, okay for a moment I was thinking of them as the alternative to the GOP. Kinda like, if we can't count on them for being the counterbalance to the religious rightwingnuts in the GOP than what the hell have we?

    But your question, or statement isn't all that logical either ..considering that there still exists progressive factions within the democratic party.
    Obviously at various times the conservadems seem to make themselves the most heard.
    But either the progressives need to reclame the party's agenda from the pro corporate and religious pandering Blue Dogs... or the less likely but most preferable option.... promoting alternative parties with clear unalterable agenda's.
  • dennis
    The amendment stabs progressives in the back making them vote anti-choice. It also stabs conservatives in the back - making them vote for government control of health issues.
  • wyrdless
    This was an obvious political compromise. In case you guys haven't noticed HALF the country thinks abortion is murder. I do not think that but I understand the argument.

    This doesn't ban abortion it just stops the government from forcing other people to pay for it.
    Abortons aren't expensive anyway, so this isn't a big deal

    Next thing you know someone will say they have the 'right' to force other people to pay for their abortions. That is a twisted view of rights in my oppinion.
  • jimthebeam
    and nearly half believe the earth is only 6,000 years old...so what?

    How many people are against the war? They are being forced to pay for it.

    People are against spying on citizens. They have to pay for it.

    And over half wanted a real public option...so what?
blog comments powered by Disqus