In her most recent column, Boston Globe syndicated columnist Ellen Goodman writes:
It is becoming obvious that just having a female reproductive system is a pre-existing condition in the health care debate... Will women who now have coverage for abortion in their private plans end up losing it?
This issue has received almost no attention at all in the debate on health system reform, and it is of fundamental importance.
The charge to subvert health system reform by using it as a vehicle to take away the right to choose from nearly every woman in the United States -- except for the wealthy -- is NOT being lead by a right wing Republican. The leader is a Democrat who has received a rating of 0% by NARAL. And his efforts may well doom health system reform, or render its passage a huge defeat for progressives and everyone who believes that every woman has a right to choose.
Goodman again:
We were told that health care reform would be "abortion neutral," that it wouldn't change the shaky status quo.. We now have pro-life Republicans and Democrats — most notably Rep. Bart Stupak of Michigan — demanding that any health plan offering abortion be banned from the newly created health care exchange.
(Emphasis is mine.)
Many of us remember Stupak as the subcommittee chair who conducted the eye-opening hearings on medical insurance recission. But Stupak (Michigan CD-1) has some clear agendas, and at the top of his list is eliminating every woman's right to choose. Here is his record:
• Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Jan 2007)
• Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)
• Voted YES on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005)
• Voted YES on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime. (Feb 2004)
• Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mother’s life. (Oct 2003)
• Voted YES on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research. (Feb 2003)
• Voted YES on funding for health providers who don't provide abortion info. (Sep 2002)
• Voted YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. (May 2001)
• Voted YES on federal crime to harm fetus while committing other crimes. (Apr 2001)
• Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortions. (Apr 2000)
• Voted YES on barring transporting minors to get an abortion. (Jun 1999)
• Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)
• Rated 100% by the NRLC, indicating a pro-life stance. (Dec 2006)
• Prohibit transporting minors across state lines for abortion. (Jan 2008)
So what is Stupak's plan for health system reform? Goodman:
More than 80 percent of private insurance plans cover abortions. But any insurance plan that wants to be eligible for the huge wave of new clients would have to drop the abortion coverage it offers.
The ostensible agreement that health system reform is supposed to be "abortion neutral" has lead Stupak and anti-choice Republicans to redefine "neutral" as meaning "NO", as in NO availability of abortion services at all provided by any company that wishes to participate in getting new clients that will be covered by the reform plan.
It's one thing to say that federal funds may not be used to pay for abortion services. That is bad enough. It's quite another to also say that PRIVATE funds cannot be used for abortion services if a company wishes to participate in a federal program.
So, when we're writing to our senators and representatives about the public option, we need to include a strong statement that such a provision should be considered an absolute poison pill that is unacceptable in reform legislation.
And the Democrats in Michigan CD-1 should be watching this very closely. Stupak may be articulate and progressive in other areas. He seems to be supportive of the public option, and supportive of reform efforts in general. He may be a good guy in many ways. But if his fanaticism on abortion leads him to poison health reform efforts by insisting on taking away women's right to choose in private health plans, at least in my book, he is not the kind of politician I'd consider a "new and better Democrat".
Of course, we expect moral hypocrisy from Republicans. Goodman mails this nicely:
The irony is that this attempt to enforce a federal moral rule over everyone's health comes from precisely the people who are most angry at the idea of a government takeover of health care.
But is it beyond the pale to demand something better from Democrats?