House Republicans took quite an interest in repealing health care. Replacing it, not so much. They passed an instruction to committees to come up with something new on the legislative front yesterday, but there’s no timetable or sense of urgency around it. While in their narrative, businesses had to suffer under uncertainty with Obama policies for two years, everyone waiting around for an indeterminate period to figure out what the health care system will look like doesn’t create that same uncertainty.
However, there’s one area on which House Republicans can agree, and it’s the centerpiece of their health care strategy, the signature bill, maybe the only bill on this issue they’ll pass this year. It’s a bill banning federal funding of abortion.
H.R. 3, the “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act” would codify the Hyde Amendment, the annual appropriations rider that restricts Medicaid funding for abortions, and extend its restrictions throughout the health care system. Under current law, only specific programs have abortion funding restrictions, and those must be reauthorized every year. H.R. 3 would impose a blanket restriction on all abortion funding, even when the cost of abortion coverage is paid for entirely with private funds.
The bill prohibits both direct and indirect funding streams that might potentially touch on the provision of abortion care and would make abortion as difficult to obtain as possible without actually criminalizing it. And it does this by arguing that money is fungible — that is, if an individual received a tax credit, she will have more private dollars to pay for abortion coverage.
Since every health insurer gets some manner of government money, as well as every employer for providing insurance, the practical effect of HR 3 is to end all insurance participation, public or private, in funding abortions, period. As a result, all abortions will have to be paid for out of pocket, the only legal medical procedure in America that would be barred from coverage.
The health care bill already basically bars public funding for abortions, by forcing a separate premium payment for abortion coverage to insurance purchased on the exchanges. This bill would not only eliminate that aspect, it would eliminate private insurance for reproductive health as well. In the end, this simply expands government, and increases government control over women’s bodies.
This bill will get support from pro-life Democrats; in fact, Dan Lipinski (D-IL) is a cosponsor. There are probably enough Democrats to filibuster this under current rules, but not by a whole lot. This is the true agenda of the (mostly) male incoming Republican class – to show their dominance over women.



56 Comments


Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
I think that health care reform is a great idea. I have type 1 diabetes and for me to get insurance, it was a nightmare until I found “Wise Health Insurance” search for them online and you can get affordable health insurance instantly.
I’m so glad I’m post-menopausal…
One down.
Birth control next.
Ooops. Forgot about organ transplants. That would be two down.
Much of Congress is pre-mentalpausal.
Not just against women, against minorities as well.
unless Dick Cheney needs a heart
It’s the only issue they have left. Obama has co opted all the others. Wanna bet he folds on t his also?
Not until Dick get his new ticker.
Edit: lynnb, I owe you one.
Organ transplants only for the wealthy. Ditto abortions.
I am sure that the democrats will keep up their fight to make sure that abortions are kept safe for the wealthy.
Otherwise, screw you.
Cheney’s heart will be no doubt be harvested from a poor, sick child. Just for effect. ‘Cause that’s how Cheney rolls.
You mean “political” dominance. Because it sure ain’t in the bedroom.
Rs gotta compensate somehow.
These people were “elected ” on Diebold machines.
Tell me why Pa. which has a clear democratic majority in registration and suffers under a republican Governor and the legislature.
The ends justifies the means with these clowns and since they are right stealing election is just a means, nothing immoral or anything. Unless you have no morals.
heh… well, that’s why they have dominate women outside the bedroom…
Morals for us progressives, which, as you note, are not in power.
And you all know that Obama is going to sign it, Stupaked again by the Democrats.
David just doesn’t understand the “new” macroeconomics. Waiting around to see what Obamacare will look like increases the uncertainty about the uncertainty of Obamacare in the first place.
It’s uncertainty SQUARED. Wake up, David.
So Republicans are preparing to waste time and taxpayer dollars in banning something that is already banned under existing federal law? There’s your “fiscal conservatism” at work!
http://www.sunstateactivist.org/ssablog/
But but but John Boehner had an extra women’s bathroom installed on Capitol Hill! Bow down to the great Orange Daddy!
Why are you attacking David?
The reason for high unemployment is threefold:
–uncertainty
–structural problems
–over regulation
For those of you who don’t understand please read this.
/S
Nah, they pay for that and they always dom from the bottom, so they’re always in control.
He’s needed one for a long time. Maybe the Wizard can give him one.
All of the leaders of the Veal Pen groups like NARAL, MoveOn, et cetera that said the Stupak-Nelson sellouts really weren’t sellouts are kindly invited to wear “I’m a Anti-Choice Stooge” signs.
Brad Delong is certainly in competition for the stupidest person on earth.
Using the tax code to punish one section of society.
So insurance reproductive health care is not tax deductible…lovely
Cool, So lets pass a similar law that says no taxes direct or indirect can be used for political campaigning. This would dramatically cut back on who can use money for political campaigns, seeing how popular the foreign tax credit is. We would either gain over 100 billion in taxes or keep most of the large corporations and their executives out of political campaigns.
Rayne has a fresh cross-post ready: 80 Raids in One Day: Petraeus’ Questionable COIN in Afghanistan
He already folded when he used the Executive Order to get his votes on the Healthcare Bill in the first place. That is why many were railing against that EO back then to the cries of only a few. He opened the door to this: It worked for the Pro-Life Dem Caucus the first time. Why the hell would they not try it again? He but empowered them by catering to them.
Wouldn’t this also cover most out of pocket abortions? IF you received an Earned income tax credit, for example, like many of the working class, wouldn’t this bar you from using your own money to get an abortion?
For a party so caught up on fighting religious extremism, they sure like to impose their religious views on others. This is the Republican version of Sharia law.
Another symptom of Fascism: sexual repression.
“12. Since both permanent war and heroism are difficult games to play, the Ur-Fascist transfers his will to power to sexual matters.
This is the origin of machismo (which implies both disdain for women and intolerance and condemnation of nonstandard sexual habits, from chastity to homosexuality). Since even sex is a difficult game to play, the Ur-Fascist hero tends to play with weapons — doing so becomes an ersatz phallic exercise.” http://www.themodernword.com/eco/eco_blackshirt.html
Well, after all, he IS an economist.
Great picture, great post. It’s well worth mentioning that the co-sponsor of Smith-Lipinski is a Democrat.
There should be NO “pro-life” Democrats – the Democratic platform is clearly pro-choice and pro-ERA. If NARAL and NOW and Planned Parenthood were doing their jobs, the Democrats would be too afraid of THEM and tens of millions of pissed-off women marching on Washington, to do anything but protect our basic civil rights to control our own bodies.
Now, we basically have two Parties that are anti-choice. This is what happens when the pro-choice organizations punt on this issue for 30 years while letting the Christian Taliban take control of the dialogue.
For those who think this couldn’t pass the Senate and/or that Obama would veto it if it did, I have three words for you: Executive Order 13535.
The Democrats are too afraid they’ll be termed “baby killers” to fight this. Nevermind that the maternal death rate will increase as a result of this because pregnancy is fraught with risk. I’m so darn sick of the Democratic Party and their uselessness. Pro- life? Uh idiotic Republicans and anti choicers- get it right- it’s supposed to be PRO- LIVES- as in there are 2 lives at stake during a pregnancy. Furthermore, that life doesn’t end once it gets here. If you force a woman unready to support a child be prepared for higher taxes to pay for the social programs that will go along with said child. Children need food, housing, education and if you force women to give birth it no longer becomes juswt their responsibility to provide those things for the child. Those are arguments the Democrats ought to be hitting the Republicans with. They won’t though. Nor will they bring in anyone to speak up on behalf of the women whose lives were saved by the medical procedure. So women will get to play Russian Roulette here just like the other third world countries-nice.
Even worse the Catholic Taliban has it’s claws in birth control and the majority of the country’s women are woefully unaware that any pharmacist can tell them that they don’t feel comfortable providing birth control pills to them.
Exactly.
Yup, like I wrote above, that EO opened the door to this. That is has come up again during the timing of the nasty old GOP’s repeal of the healthcare bill is no mistake. It got their foot, or actually kept their foot, in the door regarding a medical procedure that is none of their business. Well, now that this proposal clearly effects both men and women and the “post-menupausal” (as I hope was snarked above) by proposing a tax penalty on “all consumers” of private insurance plans that include abortion coverage, maybe people will wake up.
I’m so glad I’m post-menopausal… Oh, Marion in Savannah, it’s not just about “you” but about all women.
Maybe it’s a residue of my Irish Catholic upbringing, with its insistence on the natural, god-given superiority of males in the world order, but whenever I hear these smug, pompous white men railing on about the “sanctity of life”, I swear I want to scream, stamp my feet and punch pillows.
This is MY body you’re talking about, you wind-bag! You have no right to tell me who I can f***, how I can f***, the “precautions” I can take or not take, and what I must endure if, despite all the precautions, a sperm happens to fertilize an egg. This little parasite cannot exist without me; it’s part of my body, and if I chose to get rid of it because I am not ready to devote 20 years of my life and a great deal of money to raising a child in the appropriate manner, then that is MY decision. It is not up to some bloviating male who will never have to experience 3 months of nausea, insane desires to fall asleep in the middle of the day, swollen ankles, inability to defecate without intense pain, sleepless nights and swollen breasts leaking milk during sales meetings, to make rules on what I do with my body.
The economy has lost 10+ million jobs in the past 3 years. We have homeless kids in our schools and long term unemployed people on our street corners. The students in the rest of the developed (and not so-developed) world are leaving our kids in the dust. 5% of the Nation’s wealthiest own 80% of the Nation’s wealth. And you’re blathering on about the “sanctity” of life. Jesus wept! And this pathetic bunch of gormless losers is supposed to be leading our nation into the 21st century!
The Chinese leaders are probably chortling happily into their jasmine tea!
Kermit B. Gosnell shouldn’t get public funding.
A f-ing men. Let me know when the first male suffers gestational diabetes, seizures, has his kidneys blocked off, or dies in childbirth and THEN I might be willing to listen to them on the issue of my reproduction. Until then I don’t think they have the right to lecture women on what risks they ought to be REQUIRED to incur to bring a new life into the world.
Why not use it as a way to defund the war? I mean “sanctity of life” shouldn’t be confined to the confines of the uterus. It ought to include actual people who are actually already breathing and on the actual planet.
I never have been able to understand why taxpayers who don’t want their money spent on legal abortions get consideration, but taxpayers who don’t want their money spent on blowing up brown people get told “too bad.”
Ironicus
Word, Eclair!
I said the same thing to my husband last night. I guess it’s because there’s no “abortion-industrial complex.” ;-)
has anyone ever given an example of any abortion ( except to save the life of the mother) that was paid for under any federally funded program?
Cases of rape and incest have also been covered. I believe this new legislation is proposing to cut that off also at the age of 18. So as Sharon Angle says, women who have been raped by foe or family member, just need to make “lemonade out of lemons.”
Since when has “proof” actually been something the other side ever respected? we’re talking about people who scoff at reams of scientific evidence that CO2 has an effect on warming. Even when you connect the dots these people deny, deny, deny the dots exist.
Oh, sure. Medicaid ring a bell? State-funded abortion clinics? Military abortions? Note that the bill says “no taxpayer-funded abortions,” not “no federally-funded abortions.” Ain’t they clever?
These people are absolutely right that taxpayer money funds abortions. What they fail to answer is, “Why shouldn’t it?” Abortion is a legal, private medical procedure that is none of their business.
Why don’t we put the onus on them to prove their point of view for once? “The Bible says so” is a big no-no when it comes to the government. The Constitution they just took pains to read aloud says exactly that. What else do they have to fall back on?
Exactly, madamab!
I just got another e-mail from NARAL, asking for more money. I think they have to reevaluate their strategy, because it is not working. Instead of asking for dollars, they need to start asking women to commit their bodies. This move by the Right to gain control over women is not going to stop just because we ask them nicely.
Come on, NARAL, I challenge you. Put out a call for a horde of angry women who want to keep control over their own bodies, to descend on Congress – and State Legislatures – and I’ll be there.
Indeed. This is the question to ask Reps: What services are you prepared to fund to help mothers take care of unwanted children that your policies forced them to have?
What is painfully obvious from most of the “pro-life” policy-makers is that they don’t actually give a damn about the lives of these children or their parents.
Carlin on the subject:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvF1Q3UidWM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPxi5wzmPRA
The former allows power to accrue to politicians and governments, the latter does not.
I don’t like the idea of abortion being used as a convenient method of birth control. For one thing, that can have seriously nasty health repercussions. But it does needs to be available, legal and funded by public or private insurance, whichever covers the woman in question. If abortion becomes illegal, or unfunded, will birth control measures such as pills and condoms follow? Will the sex act become illegal unless performed by two fertile people with the intent of procreation? Just how far down the rabbit-hole is our society willing to go?
those statistics are quite skewed and only report abortions from places like planned parenthood which are more likely to serve minorities…white women go to their regular ob/gyns for their abortions…and there are no requirements for doctors to report what they do in their offices…furthermore, there are certainly ways to cover up an elective abortion by just calling it a “d & c”…