Here's a link to the text of the Stupak-Pitts Amendment so you can see for yourself what it does and does not say.
Now here are a couple quotes by Cecile Richards about the amendment.
The intent of this amendment was to ensure that no one under health care reform could purchase a plan that included abortion coverage.
...
It's a very far-reaching amendment that would fundamentally change women's access to getting health insurance that covers all of their reproductive health care.
Anyone who has read the amendment should know that these are complete lies. The Stupak-Pitts amendment (which passed the House and is now a part of the medical care bill in the Senate) does nothing except to maintain the status quo with regard to federal funding for abortions. Federal funding for abortions under most federal programs is prohibited by the Hyde Amendment. The Stupak-Pitts Amendment only applies these same restrictions to the 1990-page monstrosity under debate right now.
Besides prohibiting federal funding for abortions, this amendment specifically says that nothing in the amendment prohibits private insurance companies from covering abortion procedures. It is nothing short of dishonesty for Cecile Richards to say that this amendment would "fundamentally change women's access to getting health insurance that covers all of their reproductive health care".
[Am I the only one who finds it a little odd that somebody would need insurance for abortions? People usually buy insurance for unexpected situations, like a car accident or brain cancer (not that I would ever equate a pregnancy with those things). I would think that most people know where babies come from and could take the appropriate measures ahead of time if they do not want to have a baby. ("I'm pregnant? How on EARTH did that happen?")]
In addition to the dishonest statements by Cecile Richards, the CNN video contains misleading graphics. As correspondent Dana Bash discusses the restrictions on federal funding for abortion under the proposed bill, the following graphic appears:
While this graphic is on the screen, Dana Bash says, "Private insurance in a new government-regulated exchange would also be prohibited from offering abortion coverage to anyone getting taxpayer money for health care." This is basically true, but the graphic suggests that it would be illegal for private insurance companies to pay for abortions at all. (At the beginning of the video, she also refers to the Stupak-Pitts Amendment as "an amendment that restricts abortion".)
During the debate on the House floor, Mike Pence (R-IN) had the following insight:
Ending an innocent human life is morally wrong, but it’s also morally wrong to take the taxpayer dollars of millions of Americans and use them to provide for a procedure that they find morally offensive.
Advocates of abortion rights are quite narrow in their support for "choice", at least as it concerns the "choice" of taxpayers in how their money is used. To Cecile Richards and other pro-abortion advocates, the only choice which is sacred is the choice of a woman to kill her child in the womb.
4 comments:
You're spot on, Some Dude. The amendment is clear that anyone can purchase abortion coverage from any private insurer. The only thing that is prohibited is federal funds going to support abortion. It is outrageous for taxpayers, a majority of whom consider themselves to be pro-life, to be forced to pay for abortion with their tax dollars. I watched the CNN video and didn't think the overall report was too biased, but that particular graphic was misleading.
It will be interesting to see how this debate plays out in the weeks and months ahead. I think this issue has the potential to sink the entire health care bill. Radical pro-abortion Democrats in the House are insisting that they will not vote for the final bill if it has this Stupak-Pitts amendment, but pro-life Democrats in the House and Senate are saying that this amendment has to be in the final bill for them to support it. Something's gotta give or this health care "reform" bill will not pass. A lot has been made lately of the supposed divide between conservatives and moderates in the Republican party, but I would say the divide in the Democratic party is more significant.
We can only hope that the abortion issue will doom the bill. I am genuinely surprised by the number of Democrats who voted for this amendment. Maybe the Democrat party as a whole is not as far left as the party leadership. Two Republicans at the most will support this bill, so the Democrats will need all of their senators to close debate.
It surprises me to hear you say that some Democrats will not vote for the bill WITH the Stupak-Pitts amendment. Who are those senators? It seems like a bill they should support. This bill may not include abortion on demand, but it includes socialized medicine. Something is better than nothing, right? (To make an analogy, I would certainly vote for a bill which bans some abortions but not all of them. That's better than the current situation.)
If the democrats were smart, they would ignore the opinions of the pro-life Republicans, since most of them will not vote for the bill anyway.
In the transcript of the House debate, for example, Republican Mike Pence says that he would not support any bill that includes funding for abortions and then goes on to admit that he would not vote for the bill even with the Stupak-Pitts Amendment.
I just read online that 41 House Democrats have signed a letter to Nancy Pelosi pledging that they will vote against the final bill if it contains the Stupak-Pitts amendment. I know it's a bit surprising, but apparently for some liberals the holy sacrament of (taxpayer-funded) abortion on demand trumps even government-run health care. Of course, will these Democrats really follow through on their promise, or will they cave if push comes to shove and they are being pressured to hand a victory to Obama and the party? I don't know. But if they are serious, then I don't see any way that a health care bill with Stupak-Pitts can pass the House. And I don't think a bill without Stupak-Pitts can pass the House either.
The bill with the Stupak-Pitts amendment already passed the House, so apparently the Democrats got enough votes. The question now is whether the bill can pass the Senate. Are there any useful idiots in the Senate who will vote against any bill which includes the Stupak-Pitts amendment?
Post a Comment