LOGO: Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines. A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman. Winner 2013 Webby Awards for Best Political Website
May 25, 2013

 Choose a size
Text Size

Trending:     chris hedges     economy     elizabeth warren     politics     robert scheer
Most Read

Three Questions Left Unanswered by Obama’s Counterterrorism Speech

How to Make a Million Dollars an Hour

Marching in Chicago: Resisting Rahm Emanuel’s Neoliberal Savagery

Colbert Slams PBS for Appeasing Koch Brothers

Corporate Tax Cheats by the Numbers

Most Comments
Most Emailed

Reports
 * NEW! * A Cooler Century? Wait and See
New York City’s Summers May Heat Up

Ear to the Ground

A/V Booth

Arts & Culture
A Call to Action
Act of Congress

Digs

Truthdig Bazaar
Hollywood

Hollywood

By Gore Vidal
$16.95

more items

 
Reports

Don’t Let Abortion Destroy Health Care Reform

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Nov 11, 2009

By E.J. Dionne, Jr.

For some years, Democrats have denounced parodies casting their party as utterly closed to the views of those who oppose abortion. Last weekend, Democrats proved conclusively that they are, indeed, a big tent—and many in the ranks are furious.

From the outraged comments of the abortion rights movement, you’d think that Rep. Bart Stupak’s amendment to the House version of the health care bill would all but overturn Roe v. Wade.

No, it wouldn’t. The Michigan Democrat’s measure—passed 240-194, with 64 Democrats voting “yes”—would prohibit abortion coverage in the public health care option and bar any federal subsidies for plans that included abortion purchased on the new insurance exchanges. 

Stupak argues that the federal government has stayed out of the business of financing abortion since passage of the Hyde Amendment in 1976 and that none of the policies available on the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program cover elective abortion. The structures that reform would create, he says, should carry the same restrictions, which do not apply in cases involving rape and incest or when a mother’s life is in danger.

Abortion rights supporters counter that, at the very least, individuals who pay part of the cost of their policies should be allowed to choose abortion coverage.

Advertisement

Whatever else is true, Stupak’s amendment is unlikely to have a significant effect on the availability of abortion, since most abortions are not paid for through health insurance. The Guttmacher Institute, for example, reported that only 13 percent of abortions in 2001 were directly billed by providers to insurance companies—although the institute cautioned that this figure did not include “women who obtain reimbursement from their insurance company themselves.”

The odd thing is that everyone in this fight insists that the only goal is to maintain the status quo on abortion. But defining the status quo has been a legislative and negotiating nightmare.

Democratic leaders once thought they had found the middle ground with an amendment offered by Rep. Lois Capps of California. She proposed segregating the money paid in for health insurance. Abortion coverage could be purchased with the premiums paid by individuals, but not with government money.

Abortion opponents argued that this separation of funds was artificial, and that all money paid to the government plan was, by definition, public. So Rep. Brad Ellsworth, a right-to-life Democrat from Indiana, suggested an alternative that became known as “Capps on steroids.” It substantially strengthened the barriers between public and private funds, particularly in the public plan.

But a key group of Democrats who supported the rest of the House bill (roughly 10 by the best count I have been able to get) was still not satisfied, partly because the Roman Catholic bishops were not satisfied. These Democrats turned out to be essential on a bill that ultimately passed by five votes.

Last Friday night, Stupak put forward a final compromise to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi that would have prohibited abortion coverage in the public plan but would have allowed an annual vote on the abortion ban for the private plans. Pro-choice Democrats rejected this, and the stronger version of Stupak’s proposal then passed.

What happens now? Democratic supporters of abortion rights need to accept that their House majority depends on a large cadre of anti-abortion colleagues. They can denounce that reality, or they can learn to live with it.

There is also a challenge for abortion’s foes, above all the Catholic bishops who have a long history of supporting universal coverage but devoted most of their recent energy to the abortion battle. How much muscle will the bishops now put behind the broader effort to pass health care reform? Their credibility as advocates for social justice hangs in the balance.

And if the Senate forces a change in the Stupak language, one obvious approach would involve a ban on abortion in the public plan—if such an option survives—and the application of Ellsworth’s rules to the private policies sold in the insurance exchange. The alternative would be Stupak’s original compromise offer to Pelosi. There are not many other options.

The truth is that even with the Stupak restrictions, health care reform would leave millions of Americans far better off than they are now—including millions of women. This skirmish over abortion cannot be allowed to destroy the opportunity to extend coverage to 35 million Americans. Killing health care reform would be bad for choice, and very bad for the right to life.

E.J. Dionne’s e-mail address is ejdionne(at)washpost.com.
   
© 2009, Washington Post Writers Group


New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By nancy, March 19, 2010 at 10:27 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

HEALTHCARE BILL SHOULD NOT PASS, WITH/WITH OUT ABORTION.

I BELIEVE HEALTHCARE COULD BE BETTER BUT NOT THIS WAY, NOT FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT.

NEED MONEY FOR HEALTHCARE,  LETS DRILL OIL HERE, LETS BURN COAL,
WE DO SOME GREEN JOBS, INCREASE FARMING, LET’S START BUILDING UP
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.


GOD BLESS AMERICA

Report this

By WykydRed, November 18, 2009 at 1:45 am Link to this comment

How hard is it to make your voice heard? Why, 20 seconds is all…

Don’t let Rep. Stupak win twice! Call on your senators to reject anti-choice attacks on health-care reform.

Report this

By handsomemaggie, November 15, 2009 at 4:34 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

This bill has been so compromised from the beginning because Medicare for all was taken off the table that its only instructive value has been to show that we now have a series of legislators from the great state of big pharma, or the great state of private health insurers, etc.  Even before the Stupak amendment, I would have advised to just defeat it.  (Presumably, we will see the next cast of legislators from the great state of Wall Street.)

But…inclusion of Stupak’s amendment, one of John Ensign’s former fellow lodgers at the fundamentalist C Street holy residence, clinches the deal for me.  How about this - keep the Stupak amendment but observe the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment and deny men any coverage under any similar circumstance for their reproductive health issues.  No Viagra or its ilk, no coverage for prostate issues, testicular cancer?  Too bad.  Pay for it yourself.  Seems fair to me.  But then that would push half the burden of reproduction onto men.  Nope, can’t have that.

I find myself in the odd position - very odd - of agreeing with Holy Joe Lieberman:  let’s filibuster this misshapen creature to death.  Start over with some spine next year.  Oh, wait.  Can’t do that.  That’s the year these clowns get to spend the money the lobbyists have been shoving in their direction to get reelected.

Report this

By Dirty Ernie, November 15, 2009 at 12:42 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I’ll write another comment about the stupidity of the philosophy that it’s O.K. for “THE LITTLE WOMAN SHOULD SACRIFICE HERSELF AGAIN FOR THE GOOD OF MANKIND”.  In 2008 the country elected a pro-choice Congress and a pro-choice president. The president has repeatedly told the country that health care reform WOULD NOT TAKE AWAY BENEFITS FROM THOSE WHO CURRENTLY HAVE INSURANCE. Now it’s up to the President and the Congress to make certain that WOMEN DO NOT LOSE THEIR BENEFITS OR RIGHTS AS THE RESULT OF HEALTH CARE REFORM. There’s no point in passing a health care reform bill that makes women less healthy, less safe and less able to exercise their CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.
Leaving aside the issue of separation of Church and State, why are Catholic Bishops, who cannot marry and therefore should not father any children, be allowed to dictate to congress how women will be treated?  The National Right to Life Committee and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops lobbied lawmakers in both parties on the abortion measure. In the news it was reported that the congressmen were waiting for the CATHOLIC BISHOPS to APPROVE the wording regarding abortion in the healthcare bill.  Men do not bear the children of an unwanted pregnancy, nor do many stay around to support them. Why then, do they get to make the rules? Why is it that the same people who argue against “DEATH PANELS” and other intervention in private health decisions by the government feel so strongly that the government does have the right to interject an opinion about abortions?
For those women who are pro-life, the argument is that as a taxpayer they should not have to pay for someone else’s abortion. By that logic, women who are pro-choice should not, as taxpayers, have to pay for medical care throughout a pregnancy and for a lifetime of medical care for any children a woman may have.
I don’t have children in school, yet my tax dollars pay for schools. Should all the people who don’t have children DEMAND Congress allow no money to go to any school system because having children is a CHOICE?  I don’t have a car, yet my tax dollars pay for the maintenance of roads.  Should I DEMAND Congress NOT ALLOW any tax dollars to go to road maintenance because people who CHOOSE to drive should pay for all construction and maintenance themselves? I don’t agree with imprisoning non-violent drug offenders, but my tax dollars pay for the prosecution and imprisonment of addicts. Am I to lobby Congress and tell them that if communities wish to imprison non-violent drug offenders, they have to take up a collection to pay for that incarceration? I don’t believe in war, but my tax dollars pay for two wars and subsidies for defense contractors.  It is MY RELIGION that war is a SIN and CRIME.  Do my religious beliefs out weigh my country’s right to go to war and therefore can receive NO MONEY FROM MY TAXES?  I pay for a lot of things that I don’t agree with. 
Reproductive health care is NOT JUST ABOUT ABORTION. It’s about easy access to pap smears, birth control, and so on. I’m assuming from that the majority who voted for the Stupak/Pitts Amendment are male, so what gives them the right to interfere with a woman’s health care? Do women interfere with the males’ health care? Do women claim that every sperm is a potential life so that when a male masturbates and ejaculates it is killing a potential human? No, but men insist on trying to take control of a woman’s body and claim that every single egg is a human.  LAWMAKERS must be clueless because the Hyde Amendment of 1976 already states there is NO REASON for the government to say privately bought health insurance, even if it wasn’t bought through the exchange and is through an employer, cannot cover an abortion.  There is a very concerted effort to take away ALL RIGHTS WOMEN HAVE TO FREEDOM OF CHOICE.  We are dealing with something very diabolical, a “taliban” religious philosophy toward women within our own country.

Report this

By Druthers, November 15, 2009 at 9:47 am Link to this comment

The wheelers an dealers have wheeled and dealed for months now to hold their begging bowls as low and as close as they can get to that thing that has no odor…Money

Now it is the fault of women, these mean vicious creatures, who would deprive 35 million Americans of healthcare. Just let me dip a finger into that purple ink and then hold it up to see which way the wind is blowing. We learned these servile “public servants” don’t even write their own speeches, or perhaps they are included in the package deal for selling out the voters.
The bottom line…pay the insurance companies or pay the fine and blame women.

Report this
Purple Girl's avatar

By Purple Girl, November 15, 2009 at 8:31 am Link to this comment

Pro Choicers could cope with this if there were at least the slightest attempt by Pro birthers to help us curb unwanted pregnancies!!!!!
As a Pro Choice supporter, My main goal is still to aid women in avoiding the sitiuation to begin with. Making Abortion a rare occurance. No Pro choice advocate wants to see women have to make such a heartbreaking decision.
And we also don’t want there to be starving children dying in the streets around the world and in our backyard from homelessness,disease and famine. Not to mention those who die as a result of abuse of neglect at the hands of those who didn’t want them to begin with, so think little of their well being, or existence, for that matter.
Help the Pro choicers provide family planning counseling, birth control and for gods sakes let us distribute condoms to reduce AIDS and other STDS.
Beyond that it is time for men to pick up their side of the issue. These woman are not getting pregnant through emmaculant conception. If My Uterus is subjected to not only public opinion, but also control, Then so should be mens testicles. This ‘johnny appleseed’ mentality is BS. You don’t pay for the kids you already have- snip snip. 3 strikes & you’re out. Same number of abortions I could concede that it was time to say ‘Scrambler her eggs’ as well.
Pro Choicers don’t trust the so called “Pro Life” movement because they have proven they don’t give a rats ass about anyones ‘life’ after birth. I see more money being paid out for protest posters, lobbyist and propaganda then seems to be going for the starving children of Africa. The ones created since they derailed the condoms programs- through defunding,sabatoge and lies.
Unitl the Real Pro Life Movements demands the posers also advocate for those humans, and citizens, who are already breathing as well, Pro Choicers are wasting their time trying to talk to these idiots.Not to mention being an advocate for the environment that sustains all our lives.
To take a ‘Pro Lifer’ seriously, their focus can’t just be confine to their advocacy for embryos and fetuses. Calling yourself a “Pro Lifer” and being against healthcare reform is not oxymoronic, but revealing about who’s lives you think are not worth saving.

Report this

By mandrake, November 15, 2009 at 8:03 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The bill is a turd.

Report this

By jrundin, November 14, 2009 at 4:53 pm Link to this comment

If the demented worshippers of sky gods or burning bushes or fairies or whatever want to make abortion illegal, let them pass a constitutional amendment.

They are acting immorally when they try to blackmail people with the withholding of health care. It’s like someone threatening to turn off your life support when you’re in critical care to get you to convert to their religion.

The Stupak Amendment demonstrates the moral bankruptcy of many of those who claim to be religious.

Report this

By Linda K, November 14, 2009 at 4:50 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

There’s one important (and dangerous) new precedent in all of the health care bills: using a mandate to bypass our progressive income tax system. It’s a stealth tax increase on the middle class. Health insurance could be provided via the income tax system by giving every citizen a voucher equal to a basic plan, and raising taxes as required to fund it. That’s the progressive alternative to the mandate.

Report this

By kfreed, November 14, 2009 at 3:28 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“Poor women are the people who are going to be damaged by this amendment, as they always have been.”

Really Clare? Let’s cut the melodrama. Poor women can manage to locate the nearest Planned Parenthood clinic just as I was able to as a poor young working woman. Give me a break. I friggin’ ate tuna on crackers for two weeks straight just to be able to pay the rent, but managed to find my way to Planned Parenthood when I needed to without assistance, financial or otherwise.

You’d rather deny a poor woman health care? Brilliant!

Report this

By kfreed, November 14, 2009 at 3:19 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Dionne… thanks for the courage to call liberals out on their obtuse rantings. Judging by the comments here, the sheep are lining up with the wolves to bring down any progress whatsoever in the direction of health care reform.

You nailed the facts, but these bozos would rather derail health care for the sake of a non-argument.

Its a good thing for the corporate power brokers that Americans are this gullible. Otherwise, they’d just never get ANYTHING done.

Report this

By NABNYC, November 13, 2009 at 1:38 pm Link to this comment

It’s so odd that men of all political and class positions can unite in their opposition to women’s rights. 

This is an issue of women’s rights.  Women have the right to have an abortion, to terminate a pregnancy, according to the Supreme Court.  The Constitution protects this right beyond the reasoning of Roe vs. Wade.  All rights which are not specifically given to the federal government are reserved to the states or to the people.  The right to control one’s own body, whether that means the decision to go to the bathroom, drink water, have sex or not, have an abortion or not, are such personal decisions, such personal rights, granted to us at birth by God or whichever power creates human life, that no government has the authority to try to take away or control such individual rights.

I would love to see a law passed making it illegal for men to masturbate because, when they do, they are destroying a (potential) human life.  Or maybe deny healthcare to any man who masturbates.  It’s all so sexist, so founded in a hatred of women, a belief that women are property and should have no rights, a belief that men have the absolute right to control women’s reproduction, that it shows how little respect most men have for women.

No, this is not a small issue.  It’s just a give-away, a joining of forces by the sexist men who can unite around this one principle:  women should have no rights.

Honestly, the Democrats have done nothing for the citizens.  Why didn’t they start with single-payer?  Because Obama had secret meetings (like Cheney’s secret meetings with the oil companies) with the health insurance industry, the doctors’ lobbies, the hospital owners groups, the drug dealers, and negotiated an agreement which went like this:  the Democrats will not do anything to reduce the profits of these corporate industries, or to reduce the unconscionable charges to the American public for health care, in exchange for ... what?  Money?  Money given to the Democrats? 

Secret meetings.  Why were the meetings secret?  We were all sold out, but the men are so stupid that they will overlook that because the proposal allows them to, once again, trash and demean women, deny women their rights.  Which makes these loser men feel “powerful.”  I wonder how powerful they’ll feel when they’ve got no treatment for cancer because the Democrats sold them out too.

It’s such an old trick.  Everytime, for example, white and black working people have tried to work together for their own mutual improvement, the ruling classes go to the white people and revive racism, tell them to sell out the blacks, and the white people do it.  This is the same thing.  The men are selling out the women.  As if that will really get them anything except a moment of excitement as they feel powerful in once again denying rights to the “weaker” sex. 

http://NABNYC.blogspot.com

Report this

By Ellie Michon, November 13, 2009 at 1:02 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Why should men be allowed to have any voice whatsoever in the abortion debate?  We don’t hear of women discussing the best options for prostate cancer.

Report this

By dihey, November 13, 2009 at 6:39 am Link to this comment

What happened is a textbook example of the long-known fact that “pragmatism” always leads to the abandonment of good principles. One should not be surprised by Dionne’s writing. He has been a shill for the Obamna administration from day one.

Report this

By Brian, November 13, 2009 at 5:16 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I think that the Wobblies put it best when they said, “An injury to one is an injury to all.” A woman has the right to choose, which means she ought to have access to a safe and affordable abortion if she feels she needs one. If federal health benefits presently don’t cover abortions, then the deficiency should be rectified by current health care legislation and not used as an excuse to cut more services from the already meager offerings that the current bill provides.

What the legislature seems to be really asking here is how far are people willing to take the fight for health care. If we want quality, affordable coverage for everyone, then we’re going to have to fight like hell until we get it.

Report this
LostHills's avatar

By LostHills, November 12, 2009 at 10:25 pm Link to this comment

I’m a liberal and I believe in universal health care, and I say that America will be better off if this bill is defeated. It’s not what we want and it’s not what we need. Kill it now for the good of all.

Report this

By meierjr, November 12, 2009 at 9:40 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

don’t let morons destroy health care reform!

Report this

By WykydRed, November 12, 2009 at 9:00 pm Link to this comment

This is why I said a National Health Care would never work in this country: religion. It is NOT allowed in our government, but our government is now ruled by it. Our Founding Fathers hated religion, and above all, Christianity. “Religion is the doom of all Democracy”, they warned. Religion gives people the feeling to the “right” of deciding other people’s lifestyles, freedom and decisions to a tightly-locked, minuscule, hate-filled, demanding set of “my rules and my rules only” kind of thing. 

You want to make heath care for all? Get rid of everyone who ISN’T an atheist or agnostic and let THEM make the rules. It really is that simple. And all you religious whiners, tough. YOU don’t get to make the rules. Our Constitution says so! Grow into a godless person and all of a sudden (I guess) it makes sense that each individual person has a right to live their lives how they want without your help, thank you very much for babysitting me. But politicians and the religious fear one thing: They will each have to take actual responsibility for their own actions and can’t blow the blame off on their fellow cohorts or some make-believe entity THEY have to demean, kill and drive to suicide because their make-believe entity never shows itself one iota in anything.

Seems to me if there is a god out there, it ain’t sticking one damn finger into any human being’s life, even though the “holy” will sure as hell blame the poor thing for doing so! You would think people saying they’re doing “god’s work” would leave people alone. But they don’t and can’t. Not to “save your soul” but because people NEED to rule others and feel more superior than their neighbor. Always have, always will.

So vote Ron Paul and if you have to, write in someone out of the phone book (GREAT idea!) in all other positions in every, single aspect of government, no matter how low-level. Or just vote for the Atheist on the list. Or the Agnostic. It’s the only way to get Health Care passed properly in this country, because I don’t care if my money is going to an abortion, a lung transplant, a peaceful end with dignity to some poor soul, an amputation, a head trauma case caused by skydiving or a blood transfusion needed because some idiot kid flipped his skateboard wrong. It’s HEALTH CARE for all and no one gets denied treatment for ANY reason and no treatment is not “talked about” because of someone’s ideals or philosophy or anything else they care to throw up as a roadblock!

P.S. When I was forced to use military “health care” I chose the I.U.D. after my daughter’s birth because I was not ALLOWED to get my tubes tied, because I was a girl, didn’t have at least 2 children and, as I was told, “didn’t have the sense to know what I was doing” (still used to this day by everyone denying any female the right to tie her tubes if she doesn’t want kids), by both male and female doctors. I tried over and over and over to make an appointment to get my I.U.D. replaced because they’re only good for a year. I was repeatedly told “We don’t have any appointments in OBGYN for a year.” A YEAR! I had my same I.U.D. for 3 years. When I finally DID get an appointment, my military-owned doctor was aghast and demanded to know if I realized that every month for the last 2 years, I was “aborting” any potential fetuses and therefore “killing my children”. I said no, but that I didn’t care as a) I was denied medical treatment to get on the pill, and b) didn’t really give a rat’s ass about a lump of cells. Women are not ALL “caregivers” or “mothers” by birth. But religion does not allow for that kind of thinking, does it?

Report this

By amy, November 12, 2009 at 8:40 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Dump this bill. It is worse than nothing.  But please make your calls to put the Kucinich amendment back in. (Allow state-wide single payer systems!)

Report this

By Stephanie Hunter, November 12, 2009 at 7:40 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Abortion could very well derail the progress that’s been made. We need to focus on success stories like this, http://cli.gs/23yYaM/ instead of trying to shift the focus to other things.

Report this

By MIFU, November 12, 2009 at 5:12 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The Christian Right should not be allowed to use their religious beliefs to write laws applying to the secular public. We have to fight them on biblical terms, as they refuse to listen to reason. So here goes a sample: “Dear Religious “Pro-Life” Anti-Choice People: What does your God The Father know about being a mother, there are no female gods in your pantheon, only males! The Father, Jesus The Son, the Holy Spirit, all Males. And, God didn’t make Adam give birth, God took the rib out FIRST, then he made it Eve. God waited to put Eve’s soul in until AFTER she was “born”, so the fairly recent argument created by churchmen that God puts souls in at conception is their invention, not God’s normal Modus Operandi! Women will be better off if the churches just go back to the older belief that the soul doesn’t get locked in until there’s something there grown enough to live and breathe on its own, besides, how can the Spirit give Breath in the womb? And personhood? Until they cut the Umbilical Cord, it’s not a separate person yet, it’s dependent upon the Mother - she should decide if she wants to give birth at all or terminate early or have an abortion as a safe, legal and last resort. Women need to be free to make their own choices about their own bodies, not be forced to follow some patriarchal religion’s doctrine they don’t believe in. Why should every act of sex be limited only to the potential to reproduce the species, why punish people outside your religion if they want to have sex without babies? Too often an unwanted child becomes a burden on the entire society for decades, at whose cost? Are you and your churches going to pay the bills for this child which didn’t need to be born this time around - is your God so powerless that he can’t save a soul for another shot when this time isn’t right, to allow that soul to be born into a safe loving environment later on? Finally, I am in favor of testing all males for DNA samples in any areas where there are recorded births where the father is marked “unknown” on the birth certificate. Oh, but what about the Right of Privacy you say? Oh well, invasion of privacy is OK if practiced on females but not OK on males? Ha, see how you like the shoe on the other foot. And, Render to Caesar etc, render to God etc, and RENDER TO MOTHER NATURE THE THINGS THAT ARE MOTHER NATURE’S, remember Mother Earth and go easy on the Planet, the less human overpopulation using up finite resources, the better. finis” .... So, yes the Stupak Amendment is unconstitutional, it discriminates against women, but let’s call the whole thing off this year, and come back next year with REAL REFORM.  It won’t be easy, it will take millions of us, like it took millions of Eastern Europeans taking to the street to outnumber the soviet rulers’ flunkies & goons. Here, our rabid right rule the media and they don’t play fair, and Saner Voices have a tendency to want to play fair, so we’d better activate ourselves to compensate for that tactical deficiency so we can drown the rabid right out next year (this year they are too well organized and subsidized, it’s too late).  P.S. feel free to copy any of this and circulate.

Report this

By dr wu, November 12, 2009 at 3:49 pm Link to this comment

Drop the health care bill! It’s a mess—no single payer, abortion restrictions, it sucks—So, 37 million people wont be covered with the crappy coverage the bill offers. So what? Have they been screaming for coverage? No. What is this all about?—it beats me—more important is a jobs program and getting out of Af/Pak. Of course the pro-empire/pro-wall street dems don’t want any of this—but these struggles are a lot more important that the health care debacle.

Obama is leading us to false highways. Slicksters in both parties are constantly screwing progressives. Time to get off that bus.

Report this

By Xntrk, November 12, 2009 at 3:22 pm Link to this comment

Work to defeat this ridiculous bill. Increasing the profits of the Insurance Industry by forcing the Poor and the Working Class to pay them for lousy care is asinine. No Bill is better than this Abortion - And, the Taxpayers will be forced to pay for this one, like it or not.

I did my venting in reply to Ellen Goodman’s article. I do have a question tho: Shouldn’t Dionne have a disclaimer mentioning his own religious views? I would guess he is a Catholic, and that guess is not based on this article alone…

Report this

By mparker, November 12, 2009 at 2:40 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

A bad bill is worse then no bill at all and this bill is completely rotten if Stupak
remains in it. Two steps forward on health care plus two steps back on abortion
with an additional gift to the Insurance companies is no winning strategy. This bill
should die with the political careers of every Blue dog. Next time do it right with
medicare for all and put an end to this corporate run bullshit.

Report this

By Flummox, November 12, 2009 at 2:08 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Looks like the Democrats and EJ Dione both need to learn the hard way that the Democratic House majority depends more on legions of pro-choice voters than on their anti-abortionist colleagues.

And yes, too bad the Democrats don’t have the foresight to see that there actually are a handful of issues that their primary voters consider out of bounds for compromise. Those 35 million Americans truly do need that healthcare.

Report this
godistwaddle's avatar

By godistwaddle, November 12, 2009 at 12:43 pm Link to this comment

All loving women abort their fetuse so as not to birth them into this vile country.

All thinking fetuses cry out to be aborted rather than born into this vile country.

Report this

By gerard, November 12, 2009 at 12:21 pm Link to this comment

What a sleazy bargaining tactic it is to force women (and sympathetic men) into choosing to give up health care for voluntary abortions in exchange for passing a bill that could provide minimum basic health care for children! Venal politics at its worst?  No, save that for sending young people into some third world desert to kill old men, women and kids.

Report this
Samson's avatar

By Samson, November 12, 2009 at 11:15 am Link to this comment

The Democrats haven’t had principles in a long, long time. 

Power is the principle the Democrats believe in. The Democrats believe that they should have power.  That’s it.  There is nothing else that the Democrats won’t sell out to get power.

Or more accurately, the Democrats will lie to the voters about any issue to gain power.

This bill pumps billions into the health insurance industry.  The Democrats will certainly benefit from this as a portion of that money will be recycled back into bribes for insurance-company-friendly politicians.  And the Democrats expect to get a large chunk of this in exchange for making the insurance companies even richer. 

The real message of this piece is that the Democrats want the power that comes showing that they can reward their masters in corporate America.  No dang women with their concerns about being able to control their own bodies will be allowed to stand in the way of this power play.

Report this
Samson's avatar

By Samson, November 12, 2009 at 11:11 am Link to this comment

Ignoring anything said by anyone who’s a paid employee of the Washington Post is a really good idea.
—————
Isn’t it fascinating how the progressives are constantly told that they must submit to what the conservatives want.  But the conservatives are never told that they must agree to what the progressives want.

Of course, this is the message from the pro-war, pro-corporate writers at the Washington Post.

Report this

By NYCartist, November 12, 2009 at 9:52 am Link to this comment

When a man grows a uterus, I’ll consider his opinion on what I should think about mine.  Feh, to the author.

Report this

By Louis Proyect, November 12, 2009 at 8:11 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I don’t get it. This “leftist” website publishes inside-the-beltway garbage like this, but the Washington Post does not publish Chris Hedges. Is Robert Scheer being bribed?

Report this

By SaveTheTenth, November 12, 2009 at 7:19 am Link to this comment

Apparently there is more attention and whining about the fact that abortion might not get funded by the taxpayers than there is about the fact that the Federal Government has no Constitutional foundation to mandate Citizens to purchase a “product” from a for profit company.

I’m coming to the conclusion that most of the Suckers, er, I mean Citizens actually deserve to lose their heritage.

Because usually you don’t know what you have until it’s gone.

Of course when the next Republican President decides to mandate the purchase of something it will be too late.

Dionne: “The truth is that even with the Stupak restrictions, health care reform would leave millions of Americans far better off than they are now—including millions of women.”

You’re wrong, EJ. The “Health Insurance Reform” as written will make future generations answer to multiple bureaucracies, not the least of which will be the IRS. Just for living, not driving a car, or stealing insurance premiums.

Do you even remember when Obama campaigned against Clinton on Mandates, and the arguments he used? Your selective memory is…lacking and infuriating. Us lowly Citizens are expected to tell the truth to the Feds anytime we’re asked a question, under penalty of law. Obama campaigned against a mandate and lied. Oh, he “changed his mind” once he got elected, did he. Well I’m going to “change my mind” every time I deal with the Feds. That’s Presidential, isn’t it.

Dionne: “cannot be allowed to destroy the opportunity to extend coverage to 35 million Americans.”

WHY DO YOU AND YOUR FELLOW “JOURNALISTS” REPEATEDLY FAIL TO MENTION MANDATE?  A Mandate is NOT OPPORTUNITY. For Chrissake what are they drinking in DC, Absinthe?

Dionne: “Killing health care reform would be bad for choice, and very bad for the right to life.”

No. Killing THIS VERSION of “health insurance reform” would be the best thing for Consumers, and DC. Because the arrogant “leaders” might be reminded that they work for US not some GD insurance company.

What if…What if in the next election every single incumbent was thrown to the curb and new blood was elected, knowing their fate was truly dependent on their performance-not for some unknown lobbyist, but for the PEOPLE . A random lottery from phone books would produce better legislation than the bunch of crooks that the Suckers, er i mean Citizens keep electing over and over and over again.

What if… I can dream…still. And it’s not taxed yet.

Report this

By jackpine savage, November 12, 2009 at 6:18 am Link to this comment

Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit.

Exactly what does the Democratic Party stand for? I ask because the Stupak amendment aside, this bill is the most craptacular piece of legislation that’s been proffered in a long time.

The Dems are simply attempting to say “we did it”; the compromise to have accomplished the bill is more important than the bill itself. And the bill itself amounts to nothing more than a preemptive bailout of the health insurance industry…or the young subsidizing the old.

Who needs Republicans in office when Democrats will do everything that the Republicans hope to do better?

Or look at it this way: roughly half of the US population was sold out for the sake of two handfuls of elected representatives voting on a shit bill that will (maybe) reduce costs by about 1.5%...except that US health care costs are already 102% higher than they are in the next highest developed nation.

No bill is better than this bill, and the faster the health insurance companies find themselves bankrupted the better, because then we can start talking about actually reforming the system.

Report this

By Big B, November 12, 2009 at 6:11 am Link to this comment

Dionne needs to wake the fuck up, like the rest of the non-conservatives, and realize that you cannot do the wrong or inadequete thing in leu of doing nothing at all.

copitulation is worse than nothing.

All of us liberals out here have seen moments like this coming for years. As the repugs moved to the radical right, the gutless dimmos moved to the center, and yes, even to the right on many social and economic issues. Many modern dimmos are more conservative than Nixon. No wonder the rest of the world has no respect for us anymore. We have freely elected the worst kind of brown shirted scum.

It’s a shame that we the people once again need reminded what the real right wing agenda is. The criminalization of abortion is only the first step in the wacko rights’ ultimate plan, and that is the re-subserviance of women in the US. Any dimmocrat that supports any measure restricting abortion is a sell-out and should be treated as such.

Oh, by the way, this healthcare bill is a steaming pile of shit. Any bill that does not begin a massive single payer option is not worth the paper it’s written on. And any dimmo that supports the current bill is a traitorous dog. A traitor to the american people.

Report this

By idarad, November 12, 2009 at 6:00 am Link to this comment

Those who cry loudest about how terrible it is to have the government making one’s medical decisions (as if that had any validity) are the first to defend the government’s right to make one’s choices. When will the anti-choice mob begin to recognize themselves for what they are - authoritarian religious zealots.

To describe the proposed health care bill as “reform” is akin to calling the French resistance an insurgency.  The only reform are mechanisms to protect the monopoly of big pharmaceuticals and health deniers (aka insurance).  We can only hope that no bill is passed if this is the best it gets.

Report this

By Jaded Prole, November 12, 2009 at 5:08 am Link to this comment

Bullshit. The problem is Democrats have not principles. Maybe the bill should also ban inter-racial transfusions and organ transplants to please the racist right . . .? Better to push a real single payer bill through as a moral and national security issue (like the Repugs would)Than to wind up with a watered down, useless, waste of paper that leaves many of us without access to healthcare, omits vital women’s services and any care for non-citizens while handing billions to the insurance industry.
At this point it would be better to admit defeat and do nothing than to pass a hoax and declare a phyrric victory.

Report this

By Clare, November 12, 2009 at 3:37 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

What Filler said. Poor women are the people who are going to be damaged by this amendment, as they always have been.

And who said that maintaining the status quo is what ‘everyone’ wants? The status quo - the Hyde Amendment, late term restrictions, doctors *actually being murdered in church* - sucks.

I suggest you spend some time in the archives of rhrealitycheck.org to educate yourself on why this amendment really does throw a hell of a lot of people under the bus, and consider that this really is a fight worth having.

Report this

By Filler Crowley, November 12, 2009 at 12:26 am Link to this comment

Yeah, you stupid liberal abortionists, abortion being de facto illegal for poor women technically isn’t the same as making abortion illegal! So stop trying to kill this already severely compromised Insurer and Pharma giveaway that may or may not actually make things better and could possibly make things much worse!

Report this

By Miko, November 12, 2009 at 12:22 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Seeing as the entire bill is nothing but an enormous giveaway to the insurance industry anyway, perhaps we should start by asking if it might not be better if the bill were destroyed.

Report this
Newsletter

sign up to get updates


 
 
 
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.
© 2013 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.