Hullabaloo

Friday, March 05, 2010

 
What's He Babbling About?

by digby

In case you're wondering what Bart Stupak and the Catholic Bishops are going on about when they say that everyone's going to have to pay a dollar for abortions, Tim Noah has unpacked it all for you. Suffice to say that it's dishonest. What they are upset about is that individuals who choose to buy abortion coverage with their own money won't have to spend a lot for it and that the Hyde Amendment will continue to be renewed annually, which means that someday they might not do it.

I still maintain that the Catholic Bishops, long ago having made political common cause with the rest of the social conservatives, have simply decided that they have more clout under a Republican government and so want HCR to fail. Since they believe female reproduction trumps poverty or saving the lives of people who are dying for lack of health care, they are probably right --- there are far more forced childbirth advocates in the GOP. The fact that they are willing to deep six the rest of their social justice agenda for political reasons is their moral problem to sort out.

And according the Sarah Posner, there are plenty of Catholics out there who disagree with their stance:

Chris Korzen, Catholics United's executive director, told me this morning, "The fact that many on the pro-life side are opposing Nelson language suggests that they're not really serious about finding a workable solution." Even though Catholics United believes that the Nelson language also goes too far in restricting abortion coverage, Korzen added, "I understand that can't be addressed through [reconciliation] so it's probably not worth holding up health care reform over."

Korzen said a survey of Catholics United members showed 48% of them believed the Nelson amendment goes too far in restricting abortion. A survey conducted earlier this year by Catholics for Choice showed that majorities of Catholics in the districts of four pro-Stupak amendment Democrats actually favored covering abortion in health care reform.

That, apparently, doesn't matter.

Update: In case you haven't heard Stupak trying to explain what he wants, here's how he does it, with the help of the criminally misinformed Chris Matthews:

MATTHEWS: So according to your reading of the bill that‘s passed the Senate, which the House is going to have to vote on in the next couple weeks, insurance covers abortion services.

STUPAK: That‘s what it insures. And we will not vote for that type of legislation. The majority of the House has spoken. We will not support legislation that has public funding for abortion.

You know, Chris, the president said, OK, here‘s his four or five proposals he‘s doing today. So what we‘re voting on can‘t really be the Senate bill there. It has to be a conglomeration...

MATTHEWS: Right.

STUPAK: ... or compromise. So look, we‘re willing to work with him. Let‘s keep current law, which says no public funding for abortion. There are at least eight programs, everything from Department of Defense, children‘s health initiative, Medicare, Medicaid, you name it, it says no public funding for abortion. Let‘s keep the current law. And I‘m willing...

MATTHEWS: OK...

STUPAK: ... to work with the president and the Speaker to do that.

MATTHEWS: Here‘s what I don‘t understand, what I want to understand, because I want this reconciled, like a lot of people do. It seems to me that Hyde is pretty clear, the Hyde amendment that‘s been carried for years now in the House on every spending bill. Why can‘t you attach it to another bill, to any or all of the upcoming appropriations bills this year, or a continuing resolution, and include in the language on something that would get a majority because the Republicans would all vote for it in that case, where you‘d get 218, the required number of majority votes, on any measure later this year that said—and get Nancy Pelosi to approve that, guaranteed promise that there‘ll be—there will be a rider attached to every spending bill henceforth that says the Hyde amendment‘s in effect on all federal legislation. Could you do that?

STUPAK: As long as it (INAUDIBLE) dealt with under this act, this health care—health care proposal act. You‘re right, Hyde applies only to appropriation bills. This will be a new act that will be creating health care for Americans. It has to be in this act. This act is not necessarily an appropriation bill.

MATTHEWS: Right.

STUPAK: It‘s an enacting legislation. As long as they put the language in it...

MATTHEWS: But can you pass it—can you pass it as part of another bill, so that you could get Republicans? The problem, you know, is, Mr. Stupak—you know, Congressman, the problem here is the math. To get Hyde passed, you need a lot of Republican votes to get it, to pass it, if you had an up-or-down vote on Hyde at any moment on any appropriations bill.

STUPAK: Right.

MATTHEWS: This time, no Republicans are going to vote for it. None are going to vote for this health care bill. So how can you get Hyde to pass as a rider, as a separate vote in this case unless you jam it down the throats of the pro-choicers?

STUPAK: Right. It would have be a separate bill. It would have to be tie-barred (ph) to the final health care bill. You could do it that way, Chris. You could tie bar it to the final health care bill. You could do it that way.

MATTHEWS: Yes. What does that mean in English?

[I had never heard of this either. A cursory google search turns it up as a common occurrence in the Michigan legislature, in which one bill cannot be allowed to become law unless another is. I don't think this is in use in the US Congress, but I could be wrong --- digby]

STUPAK: I mean, you‘re right...

MATTHEWS: What does that mean?

STUPAK: One bill doesn‘t pass without the other. They go jointly together. They walk down the aisle together and have that vote...

(CROSSTALK)

STUPAK: Two separate votes, but they‘re tied together.

MATTHEWS: Have you—would Republicans vote for that, or would they say that would be helping health care pass?

STUPAK: Good question. But the principle for myself and the Republicans, I think, is greater and they would vote for it.

MATTHEWS: OK. Well, let me ask you this. Has the Speaker responded to that proposal, tie barring these?

STUPAK: No, they have not.

MATTHEWS: Have you offered it?

STUPAK: Yes. I‘ve talked to people—yes. We have had discussions and here‘s one way we could do it. Yes.

MATTHEWS: OK. Well, thank you. Let me ask you this about Eric Cantor. He is definitely trying to fish in troubled waters here. He‘s the Republican whip. He‘s the ramrod on that side of the aisle. He‘s loving the fact you‘re in dispute. And I understand this is an issue of conscience. I completely understand, let me tell you. Here he is, singling out you and a list of 12 other members, including that Republican from Louisiana, from New Orleans, who‘s voted—he‘s in Jefferson‘s district. It‘s a Democratic district. He‘s now switching the other way. Is this an accurate list of people that will vote against the Senate version if it comes up because it doesn‘t have the restriction on abortion?

STUPAK: I haven‘t seen the list, Chris, but it‘s accurate to say there are at least 12 of us who voted for health care who have indicated to the leadership and others that unless you fix this abortion language, we can‘t vote for a final version of the bill.

MATTHEWS: What do you think the Speaker meant when she made that statement, that the law of the land is there‘s no public funding of abortion in these bills? What does she mean? I mean, try and understand her. What does she mean? Does she mean the government doesn‘t buy and pay doctors for abortion, that it simply pays for insurance premiums that will then cover abortion? What jesuitical language are you accusing her of here, if that‘s what you‘re saying.

STUPAK: Well, if she‘s talking about the Senate language, again, go to the pages I cited, page—I believe it‘s 38 to 44. If you go look at it, it says every enrollee in the OPM, Office of Personnel Management—every enrollee in one of those plans must play one dollar per month for reproductive rights, which include abortion. So not only are you talking about abortion coverage in insurance policies, but now you‘re asking everyone who enrolls in these plans to pay at least $1 per month into a fund to help pay for abortion. So you‘re making the insurance companies...

MATTHEWS: OK...

STUPAK: ... provide it, plus, you‘re making people pay for it. She‘s wrong.

MATTHEWS: Do you believe the Democratic Party, the majority of the party you‘re in, is willing to go down to defeat on the major legislative issue of this presidency because of its pro-choice position?

STUPAK: No. No, because...

MATTHEWS: You don‘t think they‘re willing to go down to defeat.

STUPAK: No, because if you look at the pro-choice letter that Diana Degette and others claim to have 40-some signatures on—if you read that letter very carefully, it says, We must maintain current law. Current law.

That‘s all the Stupak amendment does, maintain current law. Just take my name off it. Call the Hyde amendment. Just maintain current law...

MATTHEWS: I know what the law says.

STUPAK: Put it in the health care act, and we‘re OK.

MATTHEWS: I don‘t understand why they don‘t—let me ask you this.

Are you willing to bring down the House on the issue of life?

STUPAK: Well, look, we‘re going to do what we have to do. We‘re not compromising on this issue. We‘ve gone as far as we can. They know that.

We‘re not—I want to see health care as much as the president and the Speaker, but this is a principle and belief that the only bill...

MATTHEWS: OK...

STUPAK: ... the only amendment ever had a vote was this one. It‘s bipartisan. We want to see it. We want it passed.

Read the Noah piece to get an idea of just how slimy he's being there. Matthews, as usual, confuses more than he clarifies.


.
digby 3/05/2010 12:30:00 PM |