Senate Rejects Stupak But…
19 November 2009 8:00 am by Taylor Marsh
updated
“… You know, holding hands out and beer on Friday nights in the White House and bowing down to every nutty right-wing proposal about health care, and saying on occasion that public options aren’t that important is doing a disservice to the Barack Obama I first met who was an ardent single-payer enthusiast himself. I’m getting tired of saving Obama’s can in the White House,” Conyers said. “I mean, he only won by five votes in the House, and this bill wasn’t anything to write home about.” – Ben Smith, Politico
According to Sam Stein, the Senate bill has both a public option, with opt-out, but also “language on abortion that does not go as far as Bart Stupak’s amendment in the House,” according to Sen. Kent Conrad.
Here’s the full bill, with the abortion language starting on page 116. Much is left up to the Health and Human Services Secretary. Imagine this in the hands of a Republican administration, say, Sarah Palin. Would appreciate your comments on this, which you offer here “In the News.” (The preceding paragraph was added as an update to this post.)
But then we get this from Brian Beutler:
According to a number of senators, the language differs from both the Stupak amendment and the less restrictive Capps amendment. But though most details remain unclear, the public option would not be permitted to provide abortions, and insurance companies in every exchange in every state would be required to provide at least one plan that covers abortion, and one that does not. “There will be no public money spent on abortions…there will be a requirement in each state that they offer a plan, one without any abortion and one with so that you cover bases appropriately,” said Sen. John Kerry (D-MA).
The parts in bold above are worrisome, but it’s still not clear as of the writing of this post what is definitive. But as I understand it, according to a friend who knows this better, the language now in the Senate bill goes further than Capps, but isn’t Stupak. With Capps previously not mandating abortion, but that insurance companies in the exchanges “may” cover it, which the Senate bill now prohibits. Way too much is still unclear, but the National Right to Life laid into Reid for rejecting Stupak-Pitts, while Rep. Capps resisted gloating, even if the Senate bill doesn’t appear to be exactly what she offered, before Stupakism overtook Pelosi’s House.
“Rep. Lois Capps (D-Ca.), who has a 100% pro-abortion voting record, said in a press release following release of the Reid language: “It appears that their approach closely mirrors my language which was originally included in the House bill.” The Capps language referred to was opposed by NRLC…
Meanwhile, Chris Matthews and Rep. Stupak didn’t exactly help the information flow on Tuesday. Whether it’s willful or not who knows? But Matthews is certainly not helping people understand just how far Stupak-Pitts would take the Hyde amendment, with Rep. Stupak being as disingenuous as it gets. Griswold came first, then Roe, which begat Hyde. Stupak-Pitts is another level altogether, which is likely why Reid and the Senate rejected Stupak language, but unfortunately may, and I say may, have pulled their punches.
A new George Washington University Study reveals the depth of the damage Stupak-Pitts would do. A couple of snippets, but seriously, read it, because the dangers of Stupak-Pitts cannot be overstated.
Industry-wide impact that will shift the standard of coverage for medically indicated abortions for all women: In view of how the health benefit services industry operates and how insurance product design responds to broad regulatory intervention aimed at reshaping product content, we conclude that the treatment exclusions required under the Stupak/Pitts Amendment will have an industry-wide effect, eliminating coverage of medically indicated abortions over time for all women, not only those whose coverage is derived through a health insurance exchange. As a result, Stupak/Pitts can be expected to move the industry away from current norms of coverage for medically indicated abortions. In combination with the Hyde Amendment, Stupak/Pitts will impose a coverage exclusion for medically indicated abortions on such a widespread basis that the health benefit services industry can be expected to recalibrate product design downward across the board in order to accommodate the exclusion in selected markets… [...]
[...] The Stupak/Pitts Amendment can be expected to influence the industry as a whole by considerably broadening the market for products that exclude all but a limited number of abortion procedures. The Congressional Budget Office projects that within six years of the exchange being implemented, 30 million people will get their health insurance through the exchange, including three million who will not receive subsidies and nine million who will receive exchange-based coverage through their employer.18 In effect, the size of the new market is large enough so that Stupak/Pitts can be expected to alter the “default” customs and practices that guide the health benefits industry as a whole, leading it to drop coverage in all markets in order to meet the lowest common denominator in both the exchange and expanded Medicaid markets.
Furthermore, for the reasons outlined above. …
On “Hardball” on Tuesday, this back and forth stuck out to me:
MATTHEWS: Would you be open to an amendment to the bill that comes out of conference that says, even though no federal spending will go for abortion to support, to subsidize a policy which covers abortion, that insurance companies that now provide that kind of coverage to private customers must continue to offer it? Would you be open to that language?
STUPAK: As long as they pay for that policy 100 percent out of their pocket, I have no problem with that language.
Did Stupak really offer compromise language on “Hardball”? If so, will the language now in the Senate bill work for the Stupak contingent? And I don’t need to change the subject, but just primary this guy already.
I have to hear more from people who know the legislation better, because I’m still not convinced.
A threat remains from conservative Dems in the House via Stupak & Co., with Sens. Nelson, Lincoln, Landrieu, but maybe even Lieberman, making noise on the public option.
Closer, yet still so far away. It could be a very weird weekend in the Senate.
