The Stupak Injustice

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.

Introduction

It’s a Thursday morning and, just as many other mornings before it, I repeated various and sundry morning tasks the exact same way I do every day. It’s pleasant, it’s familiar, and it works like that favorite blanket you keep over the back of a chair for a particularly cold or a tough day: it keeps me feeling safe. However, lately, it’s become a bit of a rut.

We’ve all been there (especially us college students). Suddenly one day you feel the urge to do something different just because it’s different. So, in that spirit, I checked the Iowa State Daily website.

Bad idea.

As I scrolled through the editorials hoping to see my recent piece on the Stupak amendment’s fundamental violation of civil liberties, I was horrified at what I saw in its place: an editorial by the Iowa State Daily Editorial Board praising the amendment’s proactive stance. As if that weren’t bad enough, it was followed by an editorial by Derek Shipull praising Fox News’s defiant stand against the tyranny of Barack Obama’s attack on the right leaning media circus, declaring that “Instead of avoiding Fox, Obama should take them head on and explain his plans factually and honestly.” The editorial is posted here.

The obvious absurdity of the Fox editorial aside, I’ll address the Stupak piece. The language within the Stupak amendment extends that of the Hyde amendment passed in 1976, which prevents federal dollars from being spent to fund elective abortions. But while the language of the Stupak amendment 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.”

what the Daily Editorial Board fails to connect with is that this extension of regulation of abortion funding reaches all the way to the federal insurance exchange being proposed by the current health bill. The idea is that a woman, using her own private dollars, would not be able to purchase a plan covering elective abortions if it is provided under the federally funded insurance exchange.

Not only does this grossly overstep the boundaries of the Hyde amendment, since private dollars are funding the abortions, it severely compromises freedom of choice in health care. Furthermore, the voices that pushed the Stupak amendment to pass were not those of the health care experts or even doctors, they were those of the Catholic church! The insurance exchange promises to lower premiums and costs and because of the open competition between providers on said market, the plans provided therein would likely be some of the cheapest in the country. This forces women who want to exercise that right to choose to purchase much more expensive plans, unfairly compromising their right to choose what they do with their own private money.

How is this not a government takeover of healthcare?

But does any of this enter into the conversation at the Daily? No. Does it enter into the conversation on Fox News? No. This is because, in this day and age, educated conversation is less important than proving that your side is right, always, forever and ever, amen. When backwoods farmers with no education and fervent religious backgrounds meet crazy, blue state hating mormons (I’m looking at you Glenn Beck), the result is a shouting match in which fact and reason play no part.

Get to the point Barker.

So here It is. If you and I can’t get our voices heard in the ever-important political compass that is the ISU Daily or on the airwaves of such 21st century Churchills as Rush Limbaugh, we can do it here. The title of my blog, The Polis refers to the Greek word for city. But what it suggested was far more than a collection of buildings: it meant a place where the important public conversation could take place. For centuries the concept has been repeated with the idea being that under a set of rules to maintain order, and in a public place where all can participate, the political discussion of the people could yield the best results through educated conversation. This blog is a chance for all of you whom I’ve invited to bring our ideas to the table in a place where they can be discussed, analyzed, and heard without the smarmy filth of factless, one-sided dogma.

So take this opportunity to make this place your polis. If you have a story you want published, an editorial you’d like to share, or any other piece of material that you think is pertinent, impactful, poignant, or hilarious, please email me and I’ll post it (giving proper credit of course). I’ll be posting opinions of my own daily (perks of being the administrator) and I encourage conversation in the comments section. I rarely get the chance to talk politics with all of you but when we do, it is always loud, proud, and on top of a soapbox. Let’s capture those late-night, alcohol fueled, preaching sessions and put them here where, perhaps, someone else can benefit from our discourse.

Feel free to invite others as you see fit. Thank you for your time and I hope to see all of your comments and submissions in the coming weeks.