Sunday November 22, 2009
The Senate Health Care Refom bill (the
"Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act," H.R. 3590), which begins debate on November 30, 2009, thankfully stripped away the pro-life abortion language found in the
House's controversial Stupak Amendment.
Instead, the Senate health care bill, which was unanimously supported by Senate Democrats for discussion and debate, replaced onerous Stupak Amendment prohibitions with mandates consistent with the Hyde Amendment, which has promulgated simply since 1976 about the use of federal funds:
"None of the funds... shall be expended for any abortion except when it is made known to the federal entity or official to which funds are appropriated under this Act that such procedure is necessary to save the life of the mother or that the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest."
The House's Stupak Amendment rightfully riled up pro-choice activists by expanding the pool of funds that may not be expended on abortions, to, in the future, cover all plans, both private and public, included on the insurance exchange established by both the House and Senate health care bills. Explains Jill of Feministe:
"What the Stupak amendment does is block funds not only from federally-funded health care programs, but from private programs as well. While it doesn't outlaw private insurance companies from covering abortion, it does block them from offering abortion coverage to people participating in the health care exchange; those numbers are expected to be fairly large, creating an incentive for companies to cut abortion coverage over time."
My colleague, Tom Head, About.com Guide to Civil Liberties, crows that "... this was a pro-choice victory bolstered by one of the largest grassroots lobbying efforts in the history of the movement. We flooded our senators with calls, emails, and letters--and so far, it appears to be working."
Tom then urges, "Now let's continue to push our senators to make sure that the Senate language, rather than the House language, appears in the final bill."
I agree with Tom, of course: Hyde Amendment language is far preferable to the more restrictive Stupak Amendment wording if federal funds will, indeed, continue to be barred from payments for abortions.
But abortion rights extremists need to remember that this is health care legislation, not abortion legislation. Debate of the Senate health care refom bill will be a long, hard, often bitter slog, and will necessarily require difficult compromises by all participants. And some of those compromises might be about the use of federal funds and federally-offered plans to perform abortion procedures.
To deprive 31 million uninsured Americans of all health care services because a vocal minority refused to compromise on one issue that would affect a tiny fraction of Americans would be both cruel and immoral in my common sense view.
And while my colleague, whom I greatly admire, doesn't like it when I label such actions as a "self-absorbed overreaction" riddled with "selfish dramatics," that's precisely what it would be.
For the full text of what my colleague takes issue with, read Pro-Choice Advocates Are Wrong to Block House Health Care Bill .
(Photo taken on November 19, 2009: Mark Wilson/Getty Images)
Friday November 20, 2009
As much as one can analyze a 1,274-page health care bill in a few days, I've taken a first in-depth glance at the
Senate Health Care Reform Bill, and find it to be a good enough start.
(Read my summary at Key Provisions of the Senate Health Care Reform Bill.)
The problem, of course, is that this legislation will only get less, not more, liberal as the Senate endlessly debates and nitpicks the bill. But I digress, as that dilemma is down the road, and hardly today's challenge.
Briefly, the primary difference between the House Health Care Bill, which was passed by the House on November 7, 2009, and this Senate companion bill, the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act," H.R. 3590, is NOT in coverage and benefits for U.S. citizens and legal residents: those appear to be remarkably similar, including a watered-down Medicare-like public plan option.
Instead, the primary difference between the House and Senate health care reform bills lies in planned sources of funding for the public plan option: while the House bill relies mainly on levying employers who fail to provide coverage for their employees, the Senate version relies more on new taxes and levies on the health care and pharmaceutical industries, and on high-income individuals, especially those with employer-provided "cadillac plan" health care coverage.
An interesting new wrinkle introduced by the Senate Health Care Reform Plan is a 5% tax on elective cosmatic surgery. (Pardon the "wrinkle" pun... I couldn't resist.)
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has set Saturday evening, November 21st, for a Senate cloture vote to begin debate of the proposed legislation. Three moderate Democratic senators from notoriously conservative states... Landrieu of Louisiana, Nelson of Nebraska, and Lincoln of Arkansas... are said to be dragging their feet in support of this vote, which requires 60 senators to vote YES.
My guess is that these three senators will do the right thing (especially after being lured by pricey legislative goodies), and vote to let Senate debate formally commence on this overdue, urgently needed measure.
Of course, to garner the requisite 60 votes, Democrats will also need the support of former Democrat, Independent Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, since presumably, no Republicans will vote to advance debate of the bill.
God only knows how attention-seeking, liberal turncoat Lieberman will vote tomorrow. And I shudder to even imagine what Democrats might have to concede to get this political narcissist's support on this bill.
But undoubtedly, Senate Majority leader Harry Reid will do what he must to move health care reform forward. And post-Thanksgiving, the fireworks of the Senate health care reform bill debate WILL begin!
Tuesday November 17, 2009
Without doubt, immigration reform will be to 2010 what health care reform has been to 2009: the headline-grabbing dominant issue, hotly debated, replete with plenty of ugly Republican rhetoric, and will ultimately culminate in some Congressionally-negotiated form of landmark legislation.
Under the media radar On November 14, 2009, the Obama administration, via DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano delivered an historic speech in which she succinctly outlined:
- strong economic, national security, and humanitarian cases for comprehensive U.S. immigration reform in 2010;
- Recounted vast improvements in immigration law enforcement and border security since 2007, when Congress last debated comprehensive immigration reform; and
- Described the administration's "Three-legged Stool" approach to immigration reform, which includes effective enforcement, improved legal/approval processes for workers and employers, and a "firm but fair way to deal with those who are already here."
Like I also said early in 2009 about the House healthcare reform bill, there's just nothing I don't like about President Obama's 2010 Immigration Reform Agenda.
The time is right for the Obama Administration's next big domestic dilemma, immigration reform, to be tackled with vigor. Orated Secretary Napolitano, "Like the Administration's other priorities, when it comes to immigration, we are addressing a status quo that is simply unacceptable. Everybody recognizes that our current system isn't working and that our immigration laws need to change:
- America's businesses, workers, and faith-based organizations are calling for reform.
- Law enforcement and government at every level are asking for reform.
- And at the Department of Homeland Security, we need reform to do our job of enforcing the law and keeping our country secure."
Oh, and Democrats just might have a secondary reason for moving immigration reform to the top of the 2010 issues list: it gives Republicans oodles of time to make crassly offensive, racially-based remarks about Latino illegal immigrants during the run-up to the 2010 Congressional mid-term elections... just as they did during the 2007 Immigration Reform debate, which led several normally-red western states to vote Democratic in 2008.
Take the time to read President Obama's 2010 Immigration Reform Agenda.
Friday November 13, 2009
The controversial
Stupak amendment is wreaking unexpected havoc on the
U.S. Senate race in Massachusetts to replace the late Sen. Ted Kennedy.
With less than a month before the December 8th primaries, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi took the unusual (quid pro quo?) step of endorsing one Democratic candidate over three others: longshot Rep. Michael Capuano, who Pelosi called "courageous" for his crucial vote last weekend to support the House health care reform bill. Pelosi observed:
"Any one of us could have found one reason or another not to vote for the bill. But that was not an excuse for preventing this historic moment from taking place...
"He's not ideological; He's operational. He's there to get the job done for the American people."
Per the Suffolk poll taken from Nov 4-8, 2009, the leading Democratic contender remains Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley with a whopping 44% of likely Democratic voters. Six-term Rep. Capuano draws third place in the poll with 16% of likely voters, just behind Boston Celtics co-owner Stephen G. Pagliuca with a 17% estimated share. Support for Coakley has faded slightly, though, from her earlier large lead of close to 50% over other Democratic contenders.
In contrast to Rep. Capuano, A.G. Coakley unequivocally stated that as a U.S. senator, she would not vote for health care reform legislation that contained Stupak amendment-like restrictions on abortion rights. Commented Coakley to Boston radio station WTKK-FM, "To pretend that now the House has passed this bill is real progress - it's at the expense of women's access to reproductive rights."
While all four Democratic candidates in the Bay State profess to be pro-choice, Martha Coakley, who was a diehard Clinton supporter in the 2008 presidential race, WAS the only one who declared intentions to vote against health care reform if the Stupak amendment is not stripped from the legislation.
Was... until Rep. Capuano backtracked, commenting, "If the bill comes back the same way as it left the House, I would vote against it. I am a pro-choice person, and I do believe this is [necessary] to provide health care for everyone."
To which A.G. Coakley dryly replied, "We are heartened to see that Congressman Capuano has reversed his position to follow Martha Coakley's lead, and no longer will vote for health care legislation that further restricts a woman's right to choose."
Intra-party fireworks in Massachusetts are guaranteed in the weeks ahead between now and the December 8th primary. Check back here for the latest on this and all 2010 Senate races.
And mark my words: this is only the first of many 2010 Congressional races to be impacted by the Stupak amendment, which you can read in full here: Full Text of Stupak Amendment to Prohibit Government-Funded Abortions
(Photo taken in 2005 of Congressman Capuano with Army soldiers and Marines stationed at Camp Al Asad, located in Al Anbar Province, Iraq. Photo Courtesy of the Office of Congressman Capuano.)
