Agreeing (And Disagreeing) With Congressman Eric Massa

by: robert.harding

Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 16:44:05 PM EST

The Affordable Health Care for America Act (H.R. 3962) is a good bill for a number of reasons AND a bad bill for just as many reasons. After taking a few days to look over the reasons why one might support the bill and why one might oppose it, I came to this conclusion:

Those (among progressives) who support the bill are right. Those (again, among progressives) who oppose it are right.

Congressman Eric Massa's vote has been scrutinized more than any. Even when he gives his reasons why, people aren't willing to forgive him. Such is life as a representative in D.C.

But here is the reality: Massa is right on a lot of points, at least as they pertain to the public option and expanding access to health care. We fought for months for what has been called a "strong robust public option." After Firedoglake and CREDO Mobile created their public option resolution, I joined them in passing that petition around to the Democratic committees and groups I was familiar with. To my knowledge, every committee and group I submitted the resolution to passed the resolution. And not only did they pass it, they did so unanimously.

The public option in the House bill is a weak public option. This is NOT what we fought for, worked overtime on and told our readers and fellow progressives we needed. Now, there are those among this same group of progressives saying that any public option at all is better than no public option at all. While there is truth in that statement, there is also a misguided definition of what "better" means and what "reform" means.

Let's make this about the Progressive Caucus versus the Blue Dogs for a paragraph. The Progressive Caucus was obviously for the public option. The Blue Dogs were in opposition (some of them were in favor of a watered down public option, but others share the opinion of Senator Joe Lieberman that ANY public option should not be permitted) to the public option. Then came the Stupak Amendment, which was allowed a vote by Speaker Nancy Pelosi apparently as a way to gain supporters for the overall health care reform bill. The Stupak Amendment is worse than the Hyde Amendment. The Hyde Amendment applies only to federal funds from the Department of Health and Human Services and prohibits these funds from being used on abortions. What the Stupak Amendment does is expand on those prohibitions and applies them to private health insurance. That is because part of the health care reform package are subsidies for those who can't afford to pay for their insurance. If you are a woman and you receive a subsidy to pay for your private health insurance, you cannot get an abortion because the Stupak Amendment says so and the 221 men (of the 240 votes cast in support of the amendment) said so. This amendment also applies to anyone covered by the public option inside the health insurance exchange.

The fact remains that the conservaDems got their vote on the Stupak Amendment and it passed. Progressives did not get their vote on single-payer - a bill that certainly didn't have enough votes to pass.

Blue Dogs 1 Progressive Caucus 0.

A weak public option (Massa's estimate was that the public option in this bill would only cover two percent of the uninsured) and an amendment that expands anti-choice provisions? That's not very progressive, nor can it be considered true reform.

Like any legislation we see, however, even though there are a tremendous amount of flaws there is a tremendous upside. You cannot build a house without a foundation and this foundation and that's what this bill can be considered. It is a stepping stone or starting point. It's not perfect, but it is something. I believe the individual mandates are a good thing. I do think a stronger public option would help these mandates be less punitive but the mandates will work. Allowing young people to stay on their parents insurance until they turn 27 years old is very important. Ending the exemption from anti-trust laws is no doubt huge. The Prevention and Wellness Trust Fund is important to address in a proactive manner childhood obesity and obesity as a whole in order to make us a healthier society.

The reforms included in the bill are important. And while there is a weak public option and an assault on women's rights we must address, there are many aspects of the bill that are strong and necessary.

I was disappointed by Massa's vote at the time, but his vote was acceptable. I can see how this decision was tough. There are good things about this bill (as Massa has said). But there are also flaws. My problem with the bill is that individual mandates alone aren't a solution to the problems faced by the uninsured. The uninsured need more. Mandates and a weak public option won't do it. The Stupak Amendment needs to go. The Hyde Amendment is bad enough. Having this on the books in a reform bill would be devastating.

In the end, however, we don't vote for perfection. The flaws in this bill are nothing that can't be improved upon in conference. So voting in favor of the bill would have been ideal for anyone, including Massa.

Sen. Gillibrand argues against Stupak Amendment on the Senate floor

by: Adama D. Brown

Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 15:21:39 PM EST

One of the people not at all happy about the Stupak amendment is Senator Gillibrand. She used her time on the floor earlier today to make the case against the inclusion of the Stupak amendment or anything similar into the Senate bill or the final product. From the transcript:

Passing this bill in the House of Representatives was a monumental step towards the goal of achieving meaningful reform this year and is the farthest we have come in the decades-long fight for health care reform in this country.

However, there is one aspect of the house bill about which I'd like to voice my strong disagreement. The Stupak-Pitts Amendment.

While proponents of the measure say this is a continuation of current federal law, this amendment will, in fact, bring about significant change and dramatically limit reproductive health care in this country. This is government invading the personal lives of many Americans, establishing for the first time restrictions on people who pay for their own private health insurance.

The complete speech, plus video and analysis, can be found after the fold.

On Paying For Immoral Things, Or, Is Stupak On To Something?

by: fake consultant

Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 08:17:45 AM EST

The Amendment, which is apparently intended to respond to conservative Democrats' concerns that too many women were voting for the Party in recent elections, was attached to the House's version of healthcare reform legislation that was voted out of the House this weekend.

The goal is to limit women's access to reproductive medicine services, particularly abortions; this based on the concept that citizens of good conscience shouldn't have their tax dollars used to fund activities they find morally repugnant.

At first blush, I was on the mild end of the wailing and gnashing spectrum myself...but having taken a day to mull the thing over, I'm starting to think that maybe we should take a look at the thinking behind this...and I'm also starting to think that, properly applied, Stupak's logic deserves a more important place in our own vision of how a progressive government might work.

It's Political Judo Day today, Gentle Reader, and by the time we're done here it's entirely possible that you'll see Stupak's logic in a whole new light.

Men Telling Women What Their Rights Are? The Stupak Amendent Roll Call Review

by: robert.harding

Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 00:15:41 AM EST

Remember that: A WOMAN's right to choose.

The Stupak amendment was all about a woman's right to choose or rather, taking away that right. It was a sorry amendment which, the more you read, appears to be a deal sweetener to get Blue Dogs on board with health care reform. We couldn't get a vote on single-payer but we can vote for the stripping of women's rights.

There is an interesting fact about the vote on the Stupak amendment that is worth noting. Of the 240 votes in support of the amendment put forth by Congressman Bart Stupak (a man), how many of those votes were women?

19. That's right, on a vote that will impact women AND only women, 19 women voted in the affirmative. And 17 of those women are from the Republican Party (all 176 Republicans supported the amendment).

Only two women from the Democratic side (of the women in Congress, there are 57 in the House Democratic conference) voted for this amendment: Kathleen Dahlkemper and Marcy Kaptur. Both Dahlkemper and Kaptur attached their names to the amendment and were paraded out to try and make this look legitimate, but with 62 male members of the Democratic Party voting against women, nothing about it is legitimate.

Stupak, in a statement about the passage of his amendment, said the following:

"Today all members of Congress were afforded the opportunity to vote their conscience and represent the wishes of their constituents on the issue of federal funding for abortion," Stupak said.  "Passage of the Stupak Amendment does not impose a new federal abortion policy; it simply continues what has been the law of the land since 1977 and I am pleased that with the addition of this amendment the House health care reform bill will continue that policy."

"I have long been an advocate of health care reform.  My goal has always been to ensure that the voices of the majority of Americans who oppose federal funding for abortion were heard in this important debate.  Now that those voices have been heard we must move forward and pass a bill that provides quality, affordable health care for all Americans.  I thank Speaker Pelosi for allowing this important vote to occur and I appreciate the hard work and perseverance of my pro-life colleagues in Congress who held strong and stood with me over the past several months as we worked to find a way to allow this vote against all odds."

NARAL Pro-Choice America had plenty to say about the amendment's passage, calling it a vote for "extreme anti-choice policies" and a "blow to women's freedom and privacy."

The Stupak-Pitts amendment makes it virtually impossible for private insurance companies that participate in the new system to offer abortion coverage to women. This would have the effect of denying women the right to use their own personal private funds to purchase an insurance plan with abortion coverage in the new health system - a radical departure from the status quo. Presently, more than 85 percent of private-insurance plans cover abortion services.

"This vote is a reminder to America's pro-choice majority that, despite our gains in the last two election cycles, anti-choice members of Congress still outnumber our pro-choice allies," Keenan said. "It is unconscionable that anti-choice lawmakers would use health reform to attack women's health and privacy, but that's exactly what happened on the House floor tonight. Even though the bill already included a ban on federal funding for abortion and a requirement that only women's personal  funds could pay for abortion care, Reps. Stupak and Pitts took their obsession with attacking a woman's right to choose to a whole new level. We will hold those lawmakers who sided with the extreme Stupak-Pitts amendment accountable for abandoning women and capitulating to the most extreme fringe of the anti-choice movement. In short, the fight is not over. That's why we will continue to mobilize our activists and work with our allies in Congress to remove this dangerous provision from the health-care bill and stop additional attacks as the process moves to the Senate."

NARAL also included a few facts that debunk attempts by supporters of the Stupak amendment to make the measure appear like an ordinary move that just reinforces current federal guidelines.

   * The Stupak-Pitts amendment forbids any plan offering abortion coverage in the new system from accepting even one subsidized customer.  Since more than 80 percent of the participants in the exchange will be subsidized, it seems certain that all health plans will seek and accept these individuals.  In other words, the Stupak-Pitts amendment forces plans in the exchange to make a difficult choice: either offer their product to 80 percent of consumers in the marketplace or offer abortion services in their benefits package.  It seems clear which choice they will make.
   * Stupak-Pitts supporters claim that women who require subsidies to help pay for their insurance plan will have abortion access through the option of purchasing a "rider," but this is a false promise. According to the respected National Women's Law Center,  the five states that require a separate rider for abortion coverage, there is no evidence that plans offer these riders.  In fact, in North Dakota, which has this policy, the private plan that holds the state's overwhelming share of the health-insurance market (91 percent) does not offer such a rider.  Furthermore, the state insurance department has no record of abortion riders from any of the five leading individual insurance plans from at least the past decade.  Nothing in this amendment would ensure that rider policies are available or affordable to the more than 80 percent of individuals who will receive federal subsidies in order to help purchase coverage in the new exchange.

This is a damaging amendment. As stated earlier, it is hard to ignore the possibility that this was a deal sweetener for the Blue Dogs and other anti-choice Democrats to vote for health care reform. It is never good to sacrifice women's rights in the name of "reform." That's exactly what this amendment does.