Slog
News & ArtsThursday, March 4, 2010
Politics The Stupak Agenda
Posted by Eli Sanders on Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 11:43 AM
It's actually quite hard to figure out. Federal law already prohibits using federal money for abortions, but Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich) is now threatening to blow up the whole health care reform effort—again, still—because he can't figure out a way to pass his anti-abortion amendment through the process Democrats are planning to use to push the health care bill through.
The question is whether he has enough votes (he claims he has 12 including himself) to gum up the works in the House. We won't know the answer for a while, it seems, but I think it's highly unlikely that Pelosi and Obama would be moving forward with trying to pass the bill now if they thought it was really vulnerable to Stupak sabotage.
3
This is my understanding of the structure of the Hyde amendment: it is a yearly re-authorized portion of the budget for the Department of Health and Human Services limiting abortion spending.
In other words, it has no impact on overall federal spending, just DHHS. Whether it would apply to the health care bill depends on how the various aspects of the bill are organized (i.e. what portions fall under DHHS?).
In other words, it has no impact on overall federal spending, just DHHS. Whether it would apply to the health care bill depends on how the various aspects of the bill are organized (i.e. what portions fall under DHHS?).
4
I just want to see the thing done, at this point. But, normally I would be all for someone throwing a hissy fit about federal funding for Viagra, and trying to get an amendment going that says that men who want Viagra need to buy a rider.
5
I'm originally from the 1st District of Michigan & Bart Stupak was my Congressman for as long as I can remember. Just a few years back I was at an "exclusive" fundraiser for him on his birthday, because my mother is the president of a school employee union so she had an in. He ended up coming over to our table, sat down for a while and I even shook the hand of this seemingly intelligent man.
I am unclean.
I am unclean.
6
You know, abortion has been covered in virtually all Western democracies health care plans for nigh onto 50 years now.
Stupak needs to move back to Russia.
Stupak needs to move back to Russia.
8
Him and that fucking Ben Nelson should be fucking Republicans. Democrats should not be denying women any legal procedures. That's for right wing enemies of freedom to do.
9
Eli, you say it's hard to figure out. Can we get more details? Since abortion funding is already prohibited, what exactly does he think his language does that isn't already covered? In other words, what's the daylight that he sees between his language and the Senate language? What would the actual implications be either way?
10
Stupak's aiding and abetting the failure of the health care bill because of his anti-abortion stance - continuing the cascading miserableness of our health care system - will lend credence to the concept that if we only knew in advance who should be aborted....trailing off into a helpless fragment
11
@9 - Good questions. I read the Stupak amendment, and then read pages 2069 to 2078 of the senate bill (as Stupak suggested), and they seem to say the same exact thing: no federal funds for abortions, but you can set up a segregated, unsubsidized policy covering abortion.
Also, this $1 per enrollee amount he alludes to that "funds abortion" doesn't seem to that at all; instead, that section seems to regulate a method for determining the actuarial value of such services, for determining how much insurance companies can charge for the segregated insurance.
Does Slate still do those "Explainers?" Because that would be really helpful about now.
Also, this $1 per enrollee amount he alludes to that "funds abortion" doesn't seem to that at all; instead, that section seems to regulate a method for determining the actuarial value of such services, for determining how much insurance companies can charge for the segregated insurance.
Does Slate still do those "Explainers?" Because that would be really helpful about now.
13
Stupak's amendment will likely make getting insurance coverage for medically necessary abortions very difficult, if not impossible. I suspect this is his real goal, since the Hyde amendment doesn't address medically necessary abortions as far as I know. Stupak is a shit stain.
14
@13 - no, Stupak's amendment says that medically necessary abortions are indeed covered by federally subsidized insurance:
"No funds authorized or appropriated by this Act... may be used to pay for any abortion... except in the case where the 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."
It also allows for rape/incest abortions. It's practically the same wording as the Hyde amendment.
The difference is that the Stupak amendment would affix this restriction directly to the health care bill, where as the health care bill as written ties any restrictions to current law, meaning the Hyde amendment, which is annually attached to an appropriations bill.
So if one day, they decide not to attach the Hyde amendment to appropriations, then, without the Stupak amendment, HHS could cover abortions.
"No funds authorized or appropriated by this Act... may be used to pay for any abortion... except in the case where the 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."
It also allows for rape/incest abortions. It's practically the same wording as the Hyde amendment.
The difference is that the Stupak amendment would affix this restriction directly to the health care bill, where as the health care bill as written ties any restrictions to current law, meaning the Hyde amendment, which is annually attached to an appropriations bill.
So if one day, they decide not to attach the Hyde amendment to appropriations, then, without the Stupak amendment, HHS could cover abortions.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
This Reminds Me of the Great Calculator Scare of the Late '70s/Early '80s by David Schmader
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
Why Mayor McGinn's Wife Canceled Her Family's Seattle Times Subscription by Eli Sanders
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
-
The Saturday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
NYC Man Ticketed for Not Riding in the Bike Lane by Jonathan Golob
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (15) RSS