TPMDC
Pro-Life Group Unhappy With New Health Reform Proposal
Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) and Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE)
Share
Send to a friend!
The new White House health care bill doesn't change the more lenient Senate-passed abortion provisions, and now the pro-life group known as Susan B. Anthony's List is saying that it will pressure pro-life lawmakers to oppose the compromise.
More than 30 pro-life organizations have called for the final plan to include language written by Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI), and signed a letter to President Obama and Republican Congressional leadership asking that "protection of life" be the top priority at the health care summit.
The Stupak plan would prevent people getting federal assistance to purchase plans on the newly created insurance exchanges if they cover abortions. The Nelson plan allows people to buy whatever policies they want, but if a policy covers abortions, the person purchasing it would need to write a separate check for the portion of the plan that provides for abortion.
Obama has said more than once the health care legislation is not an abortion bill, and Democrats insist it does not include direct federal funding for abortions.
The proposal revealed today does not change the provision which passed the Senate, a less stringent plan demanded by Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE).
The issue underscores the lingering difficulty of keeping the different factions of the Democratic party together, as it's unclear if pro-life Democrats in the House will back this new compromise plan.
SBA List President Marjorie Dannenfelser in a statement accused President Obama of being "deaf to the voices of American taxpayers."
"On behalf of the majority of Americans who opposed funding abortion with our tax dollars, I urge participants at Thursday's health care summit - GOP members especially - to defend the American conscience," she said.
"National consensus will only be reflected in clear language to ensure taxpayer dollars will not fund abortion or any health care plans that cover abortion. This is the federal status-quo, and it's what an increasingly pro-life America demands."
Additional reporting by Brian Beutler.
Ed. note: This post has been edited from the original.
Comments (24) | Join the Conversation!
Leave a comment
Follow us!
Most Popular
TPM Stories Now Surging on Digg.com
TPM Top News
© 2010 TPM Media LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Michael A
February 22, 2010 1:32 PM
Anti-abortion for pete's sake. Pro-life? That's bullsh*t. If they were "pro-life" they would be for healthcare reform without any preconditions. I hate that label.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
sandi
February 22, 2010 2:06 PM in reply to Michael A
Ditto that!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
February 22, 2010 1:45 PM
I'm with you. I refuse to call those kooks "pro life". They are anti-choice.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kindness
February 22, 2010 2:15 PM
If they were pro-life they'd want to help the kids after birth, which they don't.
These nuts are anti-sex.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
February 22, 2010 6:20 PM in reply to kindness
And take a look at the Pope objecting to attempting to save adult lives by the use of airport scanners -- he says that's an affront to human dignity. This is about S*E*X* -- not about saving human lives.
Shorter Pope: I'm entitled to make you risk your life rather than expose any one to nudity.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
werddrew
February 22, 2010 2:16 PM
For the love of god, don't credit the great state of Minnesota with voting for this anti-choice fool.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Mintcon
February 22, 2010 2:16 PM
You don't understand the Stupak Amendment - It goes much farther than you state. Under the House Bill, no plan on the exchange can offer abortion care to anyone, including those who have no federal subsidies.
Here's a simple analogy. Let's suppose vegetarians wanted to impose their values on the country the same way pro-lifers do now. The status quo (Hyde Amendments) would prevent the federal government from buying meat directly, so no meat for the military. It would also prohibit those using food stamps from buying meat with those food stamps (but they could still use their own money).
The Stupak language would prohibit any grocery store that accepts food stamps from selling meat to anyone, regardless if they used food stamps. That's preposterous.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Steve LaBonne
February 22, 2010 2:21 PM in reply to Mintcon
Yes, that was a shockingly poor piece of journalism. Bellantoni needs to acknowledge your correction.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Mintcon
February 22, 2010 2:30 PM in reply to Steve LaBonne
It's shocking to think that a refugee from the Washington Times would struggle with basic facts. Also, who cares what a single pro-life group says? Pro-choice groups are outraged at the Nelson language as well. Errors like this aren't accidentally - it's all about shifting the Overton window. By repeating this story, TPM adds to the confusion that this is a pro-choice bill, when it substantially shifts the status quo on abortion to the pro-life side.
Once you give up rights you never get them back. Stop enabling the right and don't let this author ever write on the issue again.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
February 22, 2010 2:48 PM in reply to Mintcon
hear, hear
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mcc
February 22, 2010 3:25 PM in reply to Mintcon
Under the House Bill, no plan on the exchange can offer abortion care to anyone, including those who have no federal subsidies.
No, that is false. The Stupak amendment in the House bill would forbid people getting federal health insurance assistance to purchase plans which cover abortions.
The exchanges would still be allowed to carry plans that covered abortion. (However, because most of the people on the exchange would be receiving at least some insurance assistance, it is in practice unlikely any such plans would be available on the exchange.)
You can read the text of the Stupak Amendment here. It is very short.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Mintcon
February 22, 2010 3:34 PM in reply to mcc
Nope, wrong again. Read the very first line. "No funds authorized by any part this act may be used to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion."
So if you take a single dollar in affordability credits you cannot offer abortion coverage to anyone else. It's plain as day.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mcc
February 22, 2010 3:44 PM in reply to Mintcon
So if you take a single dollar in affordability credits you cannot offer abortion coverage to anyone else
Yes, that's what I just said. People getting federal health insurance assistance would be forbidden to purchase plans that cover abortion.
However the exchanges are still allowed to carry plans that cover abortion. The exchanges do not cover the costs of any plan themselves and only some (though, a majority) of the persons buying insurance through the exchange would receive any affordability credits.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Mintcon
February 22, 2010 3:48 PM in reply to mcc
Yes, that's what I just said.
No it's not what you said. You're ignoring the affect on people who do not take federal assistance. If a plan accepts a customer with affordability credits, it cannot offer abortion coverage to others, even if they do not use any federal support.
If you're listed on the exchange, you must accept people with affordability credits. That's part of guaranteed issue. So if you're on the exchange, you cannot offer abortion coverage.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mcc
February 22, 2010 4:10 PM in reply to Mintcon
Okay, so that is one legal theory floating around. But it's not what the bill itself says and it's not clear to me it follows or not. (Wouldn't a more straightforward interpretation just be that people just lose their affordability credits if they pick a plan with abortion coverage?)
It would of course have been a good thing had TPM initially noted that there is reason to believe, or noted that there are abortion rights groups arguing, that the Stupak amendment would have the effective result of removing abortion coverage from the exchange. But I don't think it's a good thing to just breeze past these distinctions.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Mintcon
February 22, 2010 4:17 PM in reply to mcc
It's not one legal theory floating around. It's the very first sentence of the Stupak Amendment. Read it again. If a plan accepts a single affordability credit, it cannot offer anyone else abortion coverage, even if they do not use any federal support. It is plain as day.
You're wrong. If you can't admit it, fine, but don't pull some Fox News bs and pretend that there are two sides to everything and that you're just being fair and balanced.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Steve LaBonne
February 22, 2010 3:54 PM in reply to mcc
mcc, Mintcon is correct. You're the one who doesn't understand. Abortion would become unavailable under a lot of private plans (all those which accept any subsidy dollars at all) even if you are buying one of those plans with 100% your own money. That's a huge step beyond the Hyde Amendment. This was widely discussed in the aftermath of the Stupak debacle, so there's no excuse for commenting about it without knowing what you're talking about.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Mintcon
February 22, 2010 4:04 PM in reply to Steve LaBonne
I don't get why ostensible progressives fight this. There's a reason why every single pro-choice group is outraged (even the most moderate of them all, NARAL, has taken a stand. This is the same group that is fine leaving Hyde in place and won't oppose pro-life dems). Does MCC think women's groups are hysterical and irrational? Bart Stupak has openly said he wants to outlaw all abortions in this country. He's working closely with the USCCB on this. Over 75% of the people who voted for his amendment voted against the final bill. Why would anyone who supports women's rights or healthcare reform defend his amendment?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mcc
February 22, 2010 4:13 PM in reply to Steve LaBonne
Abortion would become unavailable under a lot of private plans
Pretty sure I said that in my first post in the thread, yes. Plans in the exchange can, but in practice will I expect be very unlikely to, offer abortion coverage.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Mintcon
February 22, 2010 4:27 PM in reply to mcc
You're just wrong here. If you are a plan listed on the exchange, you must accept patients with affordability credits. Under the Stupak amendment, given the very first sentence, if you accept any customers with affordability credits, you cannot offer abortion coverage to anyone else no matter what. Therefore, no plans on the exchange will offer abortion coverage.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ed lehner
February 22, 2010 3:00 PM
I wish the dopes in congress would give me a choice on whether pay my taxes to the Washington Military - Industrial complex or to some place where it might do some good like Planned Parenthood.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ed lehner
February 22, 2010 3:01 PM
I wish the dopes in congress would give me a choice on whether pay my taxes to the Washington Military - Industrial complex or to some place where it might do some good like Planned Parenthood.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cy Guy
February 22, 2010 11:02 PM
FYI, Susan B. Anthony advocated AGAINST outlawing abortion. Certainly she found it repugnant, but her position was that outlawing the procedure was the wrong approach and that what was needed was to end the circumstances that led to unwanted pregnancy (what would, IMHO, be considered a mainstream pro-choice position today):
Susan B. Anthony, Revolution editorial, 1869Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
psyclone
February 23, 2010 1:06 AM
Can I vote to deny the use of my taxpayer dollars (and everyone else's, while we're at it) to protect the life and health of Dick Cheney and GW Bush via the Secret Service? See, that offends me too, and I love this trend where apparently we get to pick and choose every single thing the government spends money on and make sure nothing ever hurts our feelings.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?