Family Planning Aid is Gone For Good From the Stimulus
House Democrats have removed a provision from their stimulus bill that would exempt states from the need to get waivers for covering family planning under Medicaid. The family-planning aid has been the subject of repeated Republican attacks over the past few days, and health care advocates were dismayed by the Democrats' decision to give in on its removal.
"We are disappointed that the Medicaid Family Planning State Option, a common-sense provision to expand basic health care to millions of women, including many who have lost their jobs in the current economic downturn, was a victim of misleading attacks and partisan politics, and dropped from the economic stimulus bill," Planned Parenthood for America President Cecile Richards said in a statement today.
But the House's move didn't necessarily mean that the family-planning aid is dead. After all, the Senate still has to act and could include the provision in its stimulus bill -- right?
Maybe not.
On their way into the Senate Democratic lunch meeting today, Russ Feingold (WI) and Debbie Stabenow (MI) both said they were in discussions about the ultimate fate of the Medicaid provision. By mid-afternoon, however, Stabenow told me she would focus on how to attached the family-planning aid to another Senate bill coming down the pike.
"At this point, it's a decision being made at the leadership level by the Speaker [of the House] and the leader [of the Senate]," Stabenow said. "This is very important ... one way or the other, I want to get this done."
I'm certainly receptive to the argument, relayed by Matt Yglesias and others, that the family-planning provision wasn't genuinely stimulative, making its removal from the bill a minor decision. And I'm not accusing the Obama team of getting rolled by the Republicans on flaps like this one.
But other aid provisions in the recovery bill, not directly targeted to women's reproductive freedom, do not create jobs or boost GDP -- yet are meeting with less agitation from Republicans and remaining intact.
And it would be nice to see the new administration stand up for a genuinely progressive provision that's under consideration in the bill. The Nadler/DeFazio amendment, #70 on this list, would be a good start.
Late Update: White House spokesman Robert Gibbs addressed the removal of the Medicaid provision, which occurred at Obama's request, during today's press briefing:
The president called Chairman [Henry] Waxman [D-CA] yesterday and said that, while he believed the policy of increased funding for family planning was the right one, that he didn't believe this bill was the vehicle to make that happen.
As TPM alum Greg Sargent points out, this isn't the only provision for which the stimulus is being deemed the wrong vehicle.
| TOPICS: Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Robert Gibbs, Senate, Stimulus
Josh
Matt
Eric
How about removing all the non-stimulatory stuff on this bill? I think that is the way it should be approached. Keep it a clean job/economy stimulus bill.
January 27, 2009 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
All sausage has to have a certain amount of fat in it.
January 27, 2009 4:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
True but in today's health conscious society it is imperative to keep the fat to an absolute minimum. Everyone is on a diet nowadays, why not get government on board with that as well.
I say cut out the fat and start a new day in government where the government works for the good of the people as opposed to special interests. The stimulus bill should be limited to its intended purpose, stimulate the economy.
January 27, 2009 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why not go with the theories of Dr. Laffer, whereby you can eat as much fat as you want so long as you remove all the carbohydrates from your diet entirely?
January 27, 2009 4:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think that's why his name is dr. laffer. You need carbs for a host of reasons. I tried the no carb thing and as opposed to fat going, it effected my muscles. Cut out the fat is the way to go.
January 27, 2009 4:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Carbs are non essential. Fats and proteins are essential to survival.
January 27, 2009 5:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have heard that before, but I have also heard that you need some carbs in your diet. I just know what my experience was when I tried to cut out carbs, it was hurting my muscles, so I stopped. It didn't do squat to reduce my weight by the way. Basically, you need everything in moderation in my opinion, for what it's worth.
January 27, 2009 5:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why remove the funding for Pell Grants and Head Start?
January 27, 2009 5:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe with the decreases in some pork spending they could up the mass transit funding.
I don't have a problem with the fixing up the National Mall downtown though. The mall is in a state of disgrace. It's been a big ol' dirt pit for years. Hardly any grass exists on it. Large sections have been off limits to allow grass to grow back on its own. The entire thing needs a massive sod implant to get it going again. Like I said, this is the center of our nations capital and millions of people from all over the world see it. We could at least have it in good condition I would think.
January 27, 2009 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's the problem, millions of the world see it. It's going to take a lot more than sod to fix the Mall. New sod will just get trampled by thousands of feet and become bare earth again. They actually need to rethink what it is for to make it work. Keeping a green lawn there would be like caring for a football field: constant care and chemicals, unless changes are made.
But seriously, how does fixing up the mall fix our economy? Fixing up the Mall doesn't belong here and is another glob of fat in this bill.
January 27, 2009 5:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Question: If you're angry that the family planning measure is being stripped out of this bill,
(a) how hard did you lobby did get it included in the first place?
(b) Did you even know it would be included?
That's what I thought. You don't give a hoot that it was taken out; you're just pissed because you don't want the Dems to give an inch to the Republicans.
Having that in the bill was a *bad idea.* I say this as an active Planned Parenthood volunteer. There are much easier ways to get this through without making it a punch line in Republican talking points that will erode support for the stimulus.
Obama doesn't need to spend one ounce of political capital over this when he can write it into another bill next month.
January 27, 2009 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have to agree. This should go in another bill, and probably will.
At the same time, it galls me to think that the Democrats are still caving in to pressure from Republicans who aren't going to vote for this bill, no matter what.
January 27, 2009 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
But I thought this was the only bill the Democrats would ever have a chance to get passed in the 111th Congress. At least, that's what I gathered from the vehement insistance that every priority of every constituency in the party must be included in this one.
January 27, 2009 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
"...Republicans who aren't going to vote for this bill, no matter what."
Wanna bet? Maybe less than a majority of R's will vote for it, but they don't need a majority. They don't "need" any, but they would like a respectable number, and I believe he'll get them. Voters back home want this bill, and a lot of Republicans need to be on the right side of this. Obama campaigned on bipartisanship and he's doing exactly what he said he'd do. However, anyone who thinks he's getting rolled is misunderestimating him. He's nobody's fool.
And in the end, the more you lure the reasonable R's away, the more you marginalize the remaining kooks. That's a good thing.
January 27, 2009 4:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
And, you draw in republican voters to expand the majority in 2010 and win a landslide in 2012.
January 27, 2009 4:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tomorrow, this bill won't get a single republican vote in the House. Not a one.
But when it comes back from the Senate/House conference, 30-50 Repugs will vote for it.
January 27, 2009 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll bet that they get 90 or 95 votes in the house from republicans when they get rid of the talking point garbage. I say 50% of the house and senate republicans will be on board and that was obama's goal.
January 27, 2009 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wanna bet? Not by any stretch of the imagination will 50% of Republicans vote for this in the end.
In the house, it gets 50 Repug votes Max. In the Senate, 15 max.
The house repugs are in their ruby red districts and won't shed their ridiculous ideology.
January 27, 2009 5:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are on. I'll bet you a lunch.
There are only 41 republicans in the senate, so I only have to pick up 5 more senators. Also, the ruby red districts are suffering just as much as the royal blue districts in this economic meltdown. If you don't give them some bs to hang their hat on, their constituants will be furious with them if they don't go along with the plan.
Game on?
January 27, 2009 5:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
You should check out the Diageo/Hotline poll on the TPM front page. 50% of Republicans favor this bill. That means that for every ruby red district opposed to it there is a purplish one in favor. After the last two elections, Representatives in those purplish districts are running scared.
January 27, 2009 5:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
By the way, I love how the goal posts are moving. The purple districts today were ruby red two years ago. There is a major tide sweeping the country and obama is surfing it like a native hawaiian. Look out in 2010, if he keeps this up the dems will pick up even more seats on the way to a huge landslide in 2012. Then in 2013, the republican party will cease to exist and a new party will be created that will be a 21st century party as opposed to a 19th century party. We are witnessing history in the making.
January 27, 2009 5:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hope you're right, but I think 50% might be a bit optimistic. We'll see. I'd be happy with one-third.
However, the point is not really how many Republican votes he gets. The point is to craft a bill that is seen by the American people as a genuine effort at being bipartisan. If not a single Republican votes for it but the American people see it as a genuine effort, that will be a success and the Republicans will pay the price. If it gets popular support, the votes will come, or those that oppose it do so at their own peril.
January 27, 2009 5:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep, that is the bottom line point. I still think that he gets 50%. By doing what he is doing, he is picking up steam as opposed to expending political capital. Brilliant move on his part big time.
Want to bet a lunch on the 50%?
January 27, 2009 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama says he wants 50% and I won't bet against him. If we've learned anything over the last two years it's not to underestimate him.
January 27, 2009 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Call me naively optomistic, but I finally have a good feeling about the next four years, big time. The guy really is brilliant. I am keeping my fingers crossed. First time, in a long time that I have had this feeling. I sure didn't have it with the clintons or the b-movie actor. I did with bush 1, but he blew it for me. I hope that obama doesn't blow it and he doesn't appear to be blowing it at all at this point.
January 27, 2009 6:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
"And I'm not accusing the Obama team of getting rolled by the Republicans on flaps like this one."
Umm, so "getting rolled" is different from "caving?" Are they caving without getting rolled?
January 27, 2009 4:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Totally. Elena's alarmist, hyper-critical tone would fit in great on DailyKos. Boring.
January 27, 2009 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting that you found it necessary to clarify your own opinion on this Elana. You had been dong such a good job earlier being subtle about it too...
January 27, 2009 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
.....and now you've established a new litmus test for Obama's progressive credentials, item #70.
Sigh.
January 27, 2009 4:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I knew an architecht who always intentionally left a few flaws and missing things in the first draft she'd show to a client. Clients ALWAYS wanted to make a change, so the best thing to do was to draft a plan where the change would be obvious. Satisfied, the customer would move on and the architecht could now do their job.
Similarly, Republicans will ALWAYS find something to object to. This may just be, intentionally or not, an easy target that the Republican's naturally gravitated towards. And now that they've got the big change they've been clamoring for, Democrats can now claim the bipartisainship mantle.
If the the R's continue to complain, then the D's call it 'moving the goalpost' and say it's time to stop debating about the shape of the floaty and toss it to the drowning economy before it goes under.
January 27, 2009 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
this is so typical for the Dems, it makes me sick.
January 27, 2009 4:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
As long as we can put the family planning and NEA stuff into another bill, I don't really see a problem here. Although the Obama administration seems unduly focused on it as a goal, there are sane reasons for trying to make the stimulus package one that both the Republicans and the Democrats vote for, I.E., a package that both parties "own". There will be plenty of time later for bills that the Republican caucus is opposed to overwhelmingly; put family planning in there.
I just hope that the administration has some idea of how they're going to extract anything from the Republicans in return for all of these concessions... it seems like the more the Democrats give the more the Republicans demand.
January 27, 2009 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I personally don't think that it should be in the bill.
I think most of the stimulus bill should be about creating jobs.
January 27, 2009 4:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does making it more likely someone will have to stay home, due to morning sickness and then parenthood, improving the unemployment figures?
Hell yes!
More pregnant women means less competition in the workplace now, and more daycare workers later. And think of all the Medicaid $$ we can spend on all the new preemies and other infants instead.
It's a good, sound bizness solution.
January 27, 2009 6:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I thought a reporter was supposed to provide the facts and then leave the readers to draw their own conclusion. I'm not just referring to Elana but anyone involved in reporting the news.
January 27, 2009 5:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let us continue to enjoy our majority by running everything by the Republicans so we can get their approval. That's why America voted overwhelmingly for the Democrats, so we could compromise and move to the right.
January 27, 2009 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Would it stimulate the economy to remove the fat from Mitch McConnell's double chin?
January 27, 2009 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
This defines symbolic politics... possibly even more than the Warren invocation, if that's possible. The excised provision would make the contraception Medicaid waiver automatic. BUT the Obama administration can and will simply approve each waiver application as a matter of course. This will have NO impact on the actual Medicaid funding. If you care about this, you only care about it as a symbolic issue.
January 27, 2009 6:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's called obama politics at it's best. Hello. Brilliant.
January 27, 2009 6:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
"BUT the Obama administration can and will simply approve each waiver application as a matter of course."
Riiiiight and how long will that take? Not automatic I can guarantee that. Perhaps the mother will be in her third trimester?
January 27, 2009 7:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
And he'll never close Guantanamo! And if he doesn't hit back at McCain, he'll never get elected!
January 27, 2009 7:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can you answer the question or would YOU like to go on being alarmist?
January 27, 2009 7:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can you respond to anyone who disagrees with you withOUT being a total dick? To say nothing of the fact you rarely, if ever, address their arguments.
January 27, 2009 7:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Stroczek et al. serve a useful function by exposing here on TPM the utter intellectual and moral rottenness of party-line centrist Democrats, and the deep fear of real change which inspires their intolerance of dissent.
January 28, 2009 6:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, less f*** over the low income folks and put in exemptions for the AMT instead. Down with the low income, yes for the financially stable and rich.
That's what I call bone-headed. The only people who are going to spend a red cent in this economy are low income. ANYTHING you do to help them save money is money in their pocket aka money they WILL SPEND.
But, please go one, eat up the Republican talking points, internalize them, then regurgitate them and say it's not stimulus. Congrats, you now agree with Re-pugs like Boehner and Limbaugh. Good job!
To say nothing of the fact you are now de facto agreeing that contraception/family planning is a wasteful expense. Don't even get me started how anti-woman those Republican arguments are...
January 27, 2009 7:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I bet Boehner and Limbaugh also believe that the sun helps grass grow!
OMG! YOU AGREE WITH THEM ON SOMETHING! TIME FOR A SHOWER!
These shrill, alarmist arguments are pretty sad...
January 27, 2009 7:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Spoken like someone who is not low income and never has been.
January 27, 2009 7:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's let obama work his magic and see where it takes us. That's all we have at this point and he was low income and raised by a single mother and his grandparents. I think he feels your pain and all our pain, unlike the presidents in the past. I say let's let him do it. He really is brilliant and I truly believe that he knows what he is doing.
January 27, 2009 8:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Look, I understand Obama has my back, more so than any Prez in quite sometime. Overall I think "making work pay" is a great program- lots of low income stuff, which is good. I do believe their needs to be MORE to be effective. I also believe low income and the working poor are our solution to this financial crisis. They will spend money. No one else will in this climate- they will save it.
Do I think the family planning provision should have been kept? Absolutely. Is it a deal breaker? No.
My problem here is One- Democrats here and else where accepting Republican talking points (anti-poor and anti-woman ones in this instance) without even looking into this or realizing what they are doing. Family planning would help these people get more money in their pocket. Two- Stosczek for being a total dick who jumps to conclusions and thinks I hate Obama or something because I disagree with him. I used to really like coming to TPM but ever since Stro and FreeRider have been around its either Kumbaya or get out- which is just ridiculous in a free society.
Oh, and regarding Republicans I agree with John McCain that a payroll tax cut is a good idea (of course I think it should go to low income and the working poor. McCain I'm sure would like it for everybody including the wealthy). Obama is, I believe, going to include the working poor on this- which is great news!!
You'll have to excuse me if I think getting low income and poor people money is the way to revive the economy. You'll also have to forgive me when we strip out provisions for them but include worthless tax cuts (not all tax cuts) instead. I'm not wavering on either one of these points.
Now I'll leave it to Stroczek to read my comment as a pissy rant (which it is not) and think that I'm through with Obama (which I'm not).
January 27, 2009 8:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, I have been at both ends of the spectrum. Right now, I am in deep shit, but beyond that I do believe that obama has all our backs, 100% of the population. He needs to articulate it, and he will. He truly is a president of the entire country and he is proving it by his actions. I really have a great feeling about our future for the first time in a long time. I hope and pray that I am right. Who knows? But at least we have hope, which we did not have for a very, very long time. I like the idea of hope. At least it gives us something, which is a good thing.
January 27, 2009 9:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here the Republicans have shot themselves in the foot once again. Without family planning, poor Hispanics will eventually overwhelm redneck voters and the south will be solidly Democratic again.
January 28, 2009 1:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Who says free contraception is not "stimulative"?
January 28, 2009 10:31 AM | Reply | Permalink