Stupak Goes or 2010 Mid-Term Strike Inevitable
14 November 2009 12:14 am by Taylor Marsh
It won’t even have to be organized. It will happen organically.
Because this isn’t just political, it’s personal.
Let us review the past week, since the Stupak amendment sent shock waves through the progressive tribe of the Democratic Party
First, Democrats have an easy solution that’s been out there from the start. Reconciliation.
Especially given the consequences, which Brian Beutler has analyzed, along with Ezra Klein, who thinks the ramifications of having Stupak-esque language in the final bill will hit like a contagion throughout the insurance industry.
Over time, that could mean that the norm becomes an insurance market that doesn’t cover abortion as opposed to an insurance market that does. Stupak’s amendment is a limited, though bad, policy in its current form. But it could grow into something much larger. If it sets the standards for the exchanges and the exchanges eventually become the standard for the whole insurance market, then the Stupak amendment could transform coverage for not just poor women, but all women.
As an aside, the RNC has evidently covered full women’s reproductive health and abortion through its Cigna policy, going back to 1991. Something that just dawned on them this week! The hypocrisy of their argument laid bare after close to 20 years of ignoring it themselves. In another ironic twist, Focus on the Family may have the same conflict.
On our side, so to speak, Sen. Ben Nelson, aided by Mr. Lieberman, have drawn a line in the sand, which includes a demand that Stupak-esque language be included, with a public option too far to go, never mind their own constituents want it.
Add to that Rep. Stupak, who is clearly emboldened by what has happened, and the result is sobering for any progressive, especially if you’re a feminist female.
No progressive underestimates the difficulties or the importance of getting health care legislation passed. We know compromises must be made. But even though the Speaker herself voted against Stupak, she made the effort to not only deny any charges of being upset about Stupak coming to the floor for a vote, but went out of her way to take credit for making sure it happened. This was Pelosi’s response to a reporter’s question, broadcast on C-SPAN, the Speaker rubbing salt in a fresh gaping wound. If I hadn’t heard it with my own ears while driving in D.C. I wouldn’t have believed it. The New York Times grabbed the quote:
“I was part of recommending that it come to the floor,” she said. “Both sides are whipping, the pro-choice side and others who want to support the amendment. But no, that was my recommendation to allow a vote on that amendment.”
When you compare Speaker Pelosi’s remarks to the words of women leaders this past week, like Rep. Diana DeGette, after Stupak passed in Nancy’s compromise, the whole notion “leadership” becomes a mockery of its meaning.
You also have to visit why Mrs. Pelosi went out of her way to make sure the Stupak amendment succeeded.
What’s come to light since it all went down is that Pelosi had other partners in the room: United States Council of Catholic Bishops (USCCB). I had tried to get the full story on this, but no one would go on the record, with Jonathan Allen the first to talk about it Tuesday night on “Hardball.”
“She did do one incredible political thing the other night. She had the Conference of Catholic Bishops in one room, the pro-choice lawmakers in the other room. … On the Hill. She has two conference rooms. The Bishops showed up. Two conferences, she did shuttle diplomacy between them.” – Jonathan Allen, Politico (source: “Hardball”)
Incredible is one word for it.
Chris Matthews subsequently, after a commercial break, did correct what Allen had said, saying it was representatives of the USCCB that were on Capitol Hill. Did Speaker Pelosi help facilitate the Catholic Bishops signing off on the health care bill, with their stamp of approval the inspiration for her C-SPAN preening? Along with Henry Waxman’s help, something that is incredibly sad.
As I said in another post, the only reason religion has a place at the table is because no one has had the courage to pull the chair.
Rep. Lynn Woolsey stepped up to do just that after Nancy’s Compromise passed and the story started to fill out.
Rep. Laura Sanchez joined Woolsey.
Then just yesterday, Wendy Norris took the Catholic money quotient to an unmistakable conclusion:
Catholic institutions are uniquely bound by religious directives on care, effectively eliminating key reproductive health and end-of-life treatment that other institutions will provide to patients and bill to their insurance carriers.
Add those restrictions and compound it with two simple facts: 73 percent of the now uninsured are of reproductive age and the leading cause of death among people aged 15-44 is accidents.
In essence, the people most likely to benefit from the proposed public option and insurance exchange will undoubtedly be seeking the type of care Catholic hospitals refuse to provide as a matter of religious principle. And these prospective patients are young and will conceivably need care for many decades to come.
For the business arm of the Catholic church it’s a theological and economic two-fer.
Massachusetts A.G. Martha Coakley, who is running for the Liberal Lion’s (aka Ted Kennedy) Senate seat, offered a clear statement on Stupak, which she repeated in my interview with her on Thursday.
Glenn Sargent broke the story of progressive female House members sending a letter to Speaker Pelosi.
Sam Stein and Ryan Grimm reported Sen. Boxer’s statement. She said she had the votes to block Stupak, also going well beyond what Pelosi’s tepid leadership, calling it a “very radical amendment,” which it indeed is.
Listen to an interview I did with “Jane Roe,” someone who explains all you need to know about the ramifications of the Stupak amendment.
And getting beyond the legislators for a moment, take a gander at what MSNBC’s Dr. Nancy Snyderman said on her show this week.
Leadership means many things. What happened under Speaker Pelosi’s watch in the House isn’t one of them. Sen. Reid begins his chamber’s debate next week. Or maybe not.
Whenever it happens, because of all that’s come before, it should be clear to the Senate that Nancy’s compromise House bill is unacceptable and any attempt whatsoever to pass Stupak-esque language along in the final bill will be met with hotter fury. If the Democratic majority, with a Democratic president’s help, cannot hold the line on where we’ve been for decades, then it’s really not worth our time getting them elected or re-elected. We’ll simply have to wait it out for a different crop of Democrats, however long that takes.
Again, this is a civil rights issue. If a woman, rich or poor, doesn’t have 100% control over her own body she has nothing. And for those who argue about federal funding, remember that insurance companies already get all sorts of subsidies, federally or at the state level, but insurance plans today allow full reproductive health to be covered through employers. Even the RNC and FoF missed that one.
Oh, and don’t forget, Griswold came before Hyde, with Roe the law of the land. We shouldn’t have to apologize or fight for something that has been in the law for decades. No shame for rights we’ve won, the battle starting almost a century ago.
Remove Stupak.
Otherwise there will be repercussions the Democratic Party cannot afford. A 2010 election strike, with women, other progressives, independents and political agnostics sitting out the mid-terms. No organizing required.
This post has been expanded from a cross-post at Huffington Post
