November 8, 2009

House Passes Statist Health Care with Abortion ‘Restriction’ That Will Mean Nothing

Filed under: Economy,Health Care,Life-Based News,Taxes & Government — Tom @ 7:35 am

Here’s the roll call.

I didn’t live-blog the vote because my instincts told me it would work out similarly to cap and trade, where Nancy Pelosi’s biggest decision was who to allow to vote “no” in the interest of protecting her party’s electoral majority.

In terms of Ohio, she must think that Steve Driehaus, Zack Space, and Charlie Wilson are safe, as they voted “yes.” She must be worried about John Boccieri, who voted “no.” She had to figure that Dennis Kucinich would vote “no,” because it’s not strong enough. More than likely, nothing short of immediate single-payer will satisfy Kucinich.

The alleged anti-abortion “concession” embodied in Stupak/Pitts shouldn’t fool anyone who is really pro-life, but it obviously has. Many in Congress who pretend to be pro-life will use it as their fig leaf. Informed pro-life voters should not let them get away with it.

All you need to see through the subterfuge is to look at the bolded portions of my excerpt from Planned Parenthood’s statement opposing Stupak/Pitts:

“Planned Parenthood condemns the adoption of the Stupak/Pitts amendment in HR 3962 this evening. This amendment is an unacceptable addition to the health care reform bill that, if enacted, would result in women losing health benefits they have today. Simply put, the Stupak/Pitts amendment would restrict women’s access to abortion coverage in the private health insurance market, undermining the ability of women to purchase private health plans that cover abortion, even if they pay for most of the premiums with their own money. This amendment reaches much further than the Hyde Amendment, which has prohibited public funding of abortion in most instances since 1977.

“The Stupak/Pitts amendment violates the spirit of health care reform, which is meant to guarantee quality, affordable health care coverage for all. In fact, this amendment would create a two-tiered system that would punish women, particularly those with low and middle incomes, the very people this bill is intended to assist. The majority of private health insurance plans currently offer abortion coverage, and the Stupak/Pitts amendment would result in the elimination of private abortion coverage in the ‘exchange,’ the new insurance market created under health care reform, as well as in the public option, if one is created.

PP’s posted objection is as insincere as Greenpeace’s posted opposition to cap and trade just before that vote.

PP is upset only because H.B. 3962 defers their gravy train, which will still arrive at the station, just a few years later than they had hoped.

The problem pro-lifers didn’t think through is that the presence of the competitively advantaged “public option” (which will be created, despite PP’s “if” language), along with restrictions that will lead to a de facto end of the private health insurance market, along with provisions that heavily penalize employer and other plans with higher-quality coverage, will force a large plurality and perhaps a majority of individuals and families to flee into the “public option” in a few short years if legislation looking like H.B. 3962 becomes law.

Once that occurs, abortion proponents will contend that the lack of abortion coverage in the bill violates Roe v. Wade. They will argue that:

  • Health care is now a mandatory consumer purchase.
  • Reproductive health care is part of health care.
  • Abortion is part of reproductive health care.
  • Once individuals and families are covered by the “government option,” they can’t leave it.
  • The “government option,” by not paying for abortions for a large, permanently captive audience, prevents women who MUST buy insurance from equal access to a health care service that the courts have long since decided is a fundamental right of women.
  • The Hyde Amendment was only intended to prevent government funding from specific programs from going towards abortion. It was never intended to permanently close off abortion funding, and thus equal access to abortion, from millions of women now forced into buying insurance from the government because no other option is available.

I don’t see how that argument loses in the courts, such as they are. Its success depends on the existence of the “government option” and its operation as the roach motel of health “coverage” (once you check in, you can’t check out). It only fails if you convince the courts that abortion really isn’t a fundamental right of women, and that Roe v. Wade was erroneously decided. Good luck with that.

Thus, long-term, the Stupak/Pitts amendment will accomplish nothing. Pro-lifers who bought into this subterfuge, including many who really should know better, have been tragically deceived.

They allowed themselves to be deceived because they didn’t appreciate, as explained previously, that statist health care is fundamentally and irretrievably anti-life at its core.



  1. Everybody get locked & loaded…both figuratively & literally.

    Comment by Rose — November 8, 2009 @ 8:52 am

  2. You’re correct that only the easily fooled think this is not leading to government funding of abortions. Whether this Stupak/Pitts smoke screen get taken out in conference or it is overturned by the SCOTUS, it is obvious to those with a clue (which does not include Cau) that it means nothing.

    Those who voted for this are responsible for greatly increasing the number of future abortions. If we have had around 50 million abortions since 1973 with people having to pay to kill children, how many abortions will there be when it becomes “free.”

    Comment by Largebill — November 8, 2009 @ 11:24 pm

  3. [...] care” that the government would have to pay for regardless of the legislative language is unacceptably high. I would suggest that it is a near [...]

    Pingback by BizzyBlog — March 20, 2010 @ 8:35 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.