Without meaning to add fuel to the abortion debate, the inclusion and adoption of the Stupak amendment is a fascinating one from an internal logic standpoint. The whole argument against health care reform coming from the Republican side was that the plan proposed amounted to a "government take-over of health care", and that it was important - nay, essential - to keep government out of the patient-doctor relationship. Of course, Obama's health care plan had nothing to with government dictating health care decisions, but facts aren't important to The Party of Neigh. The only thing that matters is that the government has no right whatsoever to interfere with the intensely personal patient-doctor relationship.
So when Bart Stupak decided to sabotage the House health care bill with his amendment that would insurers from covering abortions to those receiving government subsidies, it seemed like a slam dunk to fail. How is this amendment, which places the government squarely between a woman's reproductive health and her doctor, going to get through such a staunchly libertarian institution?
Here is just a sampling of the anti-government-intrusion fundamentalists who would have none of it:
Gregg Harper (R - MS): "The last thing that we need is to have some government bureaucrat standing between you and your doctor while making these important decisions."
Michelle Bachmann (R -MN): "...bureaucrats will make the decision on who gets health care, and how much."
Joe Barton (R - TX): "I'm opposed to government intervention and government mandates".
John Boehner (R- OH): "This isn’t reform; it’s a recipe for disaster that will lead to higher health care costs, lower quality, rationed care, and bureaucrats making medical decisions instead of doctors and patients."
Eric Cantor (R - VA): Our plans focus on... a commitment to all Americans who like what they have -- timely care, choice of doctor, and access to the treatments and cures prescribed by their physician... Sadly, this is not the direction we appear to be headed... Millions of Americans who own health savings accounts will be at the mercy of a government bureaucrat given the power to determine whether an HSA qualifies as "acceptable coverage."
Steve King (R - IA): Health care decisions should be made by the individual, his or her family, and his or her doctor.
Rob Bishop (R - UT): "Creative solutions can happen when the federal government gets off the backs of individuals with their mandates and regulations."
The Republican Party, unified in their belief that government has no business in health care decisions. Such decisions are to be made between you and your doctor. End of story. And when it came time to vote on Stupak's provision that puts legislators into women's reproductive health care decisions, they followed up their strong rhetoric with... a 'Yes' vote???? Are you kidding me? Not a single Republican voted 'Nay'.
If you can find any clearer evidence that Republicans are craven political hacks who have no principles, I'd like to see it.
Thankfully, we can count on the Democrats to do the people's work and vote with their principles, and not by political calculation. Even those who were against the bill did so for their own reasons, illustrated in their letter to Pelosi back in July (posted at US News):
Dear Honorable Pelosi:
As the debate on health care reform continues and legislation is produced, it is imperative that the issue of abortion not be overlooked. Plans to mandate coverage for abortions, either directly or indirectly is unacceptable.
We believe in a culture that supports and respects the right to life and is dedicated to the protection and preservation of families. Therefore, we cannot support any health care reform proposal unless it explicitly excludes abortion from the scope of any government-defined or subsidized health insurance plan. We believe that a government-defined or subsidized health insurance plan, should not be used to fund abortion.
Furthermore, we want to ensure that the Health Benefits Advisory Committee cannot recommend abortion services be included under covered benefits or as part of a benefits package. Without an explicit exclusion, abortion could be included in a government subsidized health care plan under general health care. The health care reform package produced by Congress will be landmark, and with legislation as important as this, abortion must be addressed clearly in the bill text.
Furthermore, funding restrictions save lives by reducing the number of abortions. The Guttmacher Policy Review, a leading pro-choice research organization noted "that about one third of women who would have had an abortion if support were available carried their pregnancies to term when the abortion fund was unavailable."
Thank you for taking the time to consider our request. By ensuring that abortions are not funded through any health care reform package, we will take this controversial issue off the table so that Congress can focus on crafting a broadly-supported health care reform bill.
Respectfully yours,
Reps. Dan Boren (D-OK); Bart Stupak (D-MI); Colin Peterson (D-MN); Tim Holden (D-PA); Travis Childers (D-MS); Lincoln Davis (D-TN); Heath Shuler (D-NC) Solomon Ortiz (D-TX); Mike McIntyre (D-NC); Jerry Costello (D-IL); Gene Taylor (D-MS); James Oberstar (D-MN); Bobby Bright (D-AL); Steve Driehaus (D-OH); Marcy Kaptur (D-OH); Charlie Melancon (D-LA); John Murtha (D-PA); Paul Kanjorski (D-PA); and Kathleen Dahlkemper (D-PA).
I strongly disagree with their stance, but I'll take it at face value. As long as the bill contains strong anti-abortion language, they'll hop aboard, right? And if the language is insufficient to suit their needs, they'll at least have the decency to vote no on the Stupak amendment, right? RIGHT?
Pathetic.