In lieu of responding to Alex K's extensive response to the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (We discussed most of it in my kitchen anyway) I've decided to address an issue that's got me really going. Hang on to your hats kids.
Recently I submitted a letter to the editor of the ISU Daily descrying the Stupak amendment's invasion in a woman's right to choose. For those of you who haven't read the amendment, it can be found here. I'll be posting my editorial here in the coming day but here I'll summarize the argument for space sake.
A little history: The Hyde amendment, passed in 1976, banned the practice of abortions funded by federal dollars. Basically, as long as the government wasn't paying for them, women could use their own money to purchase an elective abortion under a private health care insurance provider.
In the past few days however, namely over the weekend as the health bill was passing through the House, Bart Stupak (D-MI) added the Stupak amendment to the already lengthy bill. The Stupak amendment extends the restrictions under the Hyde bill to a level they've never been before. The Daily recently posted an editorial here, claiming that the "most essential clause" of the bill is that on page 2, which reads:
“No funds authorized or approved by this Act [or an amendment made by this Act] may be used to pay for any abortion to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion, except in the case where a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself, or unless the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest.”
They go on to voice their support of the amendment, claiming that it "...does a good job of balancing a hot-button issue with the role of government."
In the mean time, my editorial on the issue has been shot down for print for the second straight day and the fact is, I wouldn't be so upset about it if they weren't leaving out the section on page 3.
If they had bothered to turn the page, they would have read this:
(b) Option to Purchase Separate Supplemental Coverage or Plan - Nothing in this section shall be construed as prohibiting any nonfederal entity (including an individual or a State or local government) from purchasing separate supplemental coverage for abortions for which funding is prohibited under this section or a plan that includes such abortions, so long as -
(1) such coverage or plan is paid for entirely using only funds not authorized or appropriated by this act; and
(2) such coverage or plan is not purchased using -
(A) individual premium payments required for a Exchange-participating health benefits plan towards which an affordability credit is applied; or
(B) other nonfederal funds required to receive a federal payment, including a State's or locality's contribution of Medicaid matching funds.
I've italicized the important section. The bill does provide the same restrictions passed under the Hyde amendment but it then goes further to extend those restrictions to health insurance plans purchased on the national insurance exchange. This means that women, for financial reasons, would be forced into choosing more expensive plans outside the Exchange.
Okay, begin rant: it's on the next page Daily Editorial Board!
End rant. My editorial argues about the implications of such an act, calling it a gross invasion of civil liberties, perpetrated by the same people who brought you "the Public Option is a government takeover of health care."
The fact is that if a woman is going to have a right to choose, the Stupak amendment is not going to get her there. The amendment has gone in one ear and out the other of right-wingers and with great joy. Further and further they tighten the vice on civil liberties so that a religious institution and some nut jobs can have there way.
Starting to feel like your rights are less important than their beliefs? Feel free to leave comments at the front desk.
2 comments:
I agree it is a terrible thing; it boils down to politicians putting their political well-being before the well-being of the nation and the people they serve. Unfortunately, they have every reason to be afraid of providing federal dollars for abortion. 51% of Americans oppose abortion today, which compared to 33% ten years ago, is a startling rise. On this particular issue, our generation is more conservative than the generation above us. Therefore, our representatives and senators fear political reprisal unless they make it clear that the bill will not fund abortion.
This is a sad diminishment of the rights of women, as most private health insurance plans currently provide coverage for a women’s right to choose. However, in the interest of the bill passing and the interest of future legislation, I am willing to let this amendment stand. Democrats will most certainly lose seats in the mid-term election; history has usually born this out. The question is how many seats the democrats will lose. While we may not always agree with blue dog democrats, in earnest you often decry their existence. I think we can both agree that blue dogs are preferable to republicans.
This bill is tragic, but it is not where I want the democrats to make a stand. I want their numbers to survive enough to overhaul climate change. If we lose the blue dogs now because liberals force the amendment to fail we will certainly lose the power to solve climate change and the myriad of other issues that our country faces.
In the end politics is about one thing, “It’s not about finding the good decision, there isn’t one. It’s about finding the least bad of a series of bad decisions”.
Well I certainly think that Blue Dogs have their place in terms of centralizing the political discussion. God knows its either one side or the other these days. I do, however, wish that they would choose which way to vote in the HCR debate since it's largely their waffling that has put reconciliation at such an impasse.
I share your opinion to a point that the Stupak amendment had to be in place to corral some conservative support, yet I am still grieved by the fact that its inclusion was necessary.
Post a Comment