About.com US Liberal Politics

Pro-Choice Activists May Need to Compromise on Senate Health Care Bill

Sun, 22 Nov 2009 19:09:06 +0000

The Senate Health Care Refom bill (the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act," H.R. 3590), which begins debate on November 30, 2009, thankfully stripped away the pro-life abortion language found in the House's controversial Stupak Amendment.

Instead, the Senate health care bill, which was unanimously supported by Senate Democrats for discussion and debate, replaced onerous Stupak Amendment prohibitions with mandates consistent with the Hyde Amendment, which has promulgated simply since 1976 about the use of federal funds:

"None of the funds... shall be expended for any abortion except when it is made known to the federal entity or official to which funds are appropriated under this Act that such procedure is necessary to save the life of the mother or that the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest."

The House's Stupak Amendment rightfully riled up pro-choice activists by expanding the pool of funds that may not be expended on abortions, to, in the future, cover all plans, both private and public, included on the insurance exchange established by both the House and Senate health care bills. Explains Jill of Feministe:

"What the Stupak amendment does is block funds not only from federally-funded health care programs, but from private programs as well. While it doesn't outlaw private insurance companies from covering abortion, it does block them from offering abortion coverage to people participating in the health care exchange; those numbers are expected to be fairly large, creating an incentive for companies to cut abortion coverage over time."

My colleague, Tom Head, About.com Guide to Civil Liberties, crows that "... this was a pro-choice victory bolstered by one of the largest grassroots lobbying efforts in the history of the movement. We flooded our senators with calls, emails, and letters--and so far, it appears to be working."

Tom then urges, "Now let's continue to push our senators to make sure that the Senate language, rather than the House language, appears in the final bill."

I agree with Tom, of course: Hyde Amendment language is far preferable to the more restrictive Stupak Amendment wording if federal funds will, indeed, continue to be barred from payments for abortions.

But abortion rights extremists need to remember that this is health care legislation, not abortion legislation. Debate of the Senate health care refom bill will be a long, hard, often bitter slog, and will necessarily require difficult compromises by all participants. And some of those compromises might be about the use of federal funds and federally-offered plans to perform abortion procedures.

To deprive 31 million uninsured Americans of all health care services because a vocal minority refused to compromise on one issue that would affect a tiny fraction of Americans would be both cruel and immoral in my common sense view.

And while my colleague, whom I greatly admire, doesn't like it when I label such actions as a "self-absorbed overreaction" riddled with "selfish dramatics," that's precisely what it would be.

For the full text of what my colleague takes issue with, read Pro-Choice Advocates Are Wrong to Block House Health Care Bill .

Essential Reading

Key Provisions of the Senate Health Care Reform Bill
Full Text of Stupak Amendment to Prohibit Government-Funded Abortions

(Photo taken on November 19, 2009: Mark Wilson/Getty Images)

Pro-Choice Activists May Need to Compromise on Senate Health Care Bill originally appeared on About.com US Liberal Politics on Sunday, November 22nd, 2009 at 19:09:06.

Permalink | Comment | Email this

Senate Health Care Reform Bill Basics, Key Provisions

Fri, 20 Nov 2009 16:08:17 +0000

As much as one can analyze a 1,274-page health care bill in a few days, I've taken a first in-depth glance at the Senate Health Care Reform Bill, and find it to be a good enough start.

(Read my summary at Key Provisions of the Senate Health Care Reform Bill.)

The problem, of course, is that this legislation will only get less, not more, liberal as the Senate endlessly debates and nitpicks the bill. But I digress, as that dilemma is down the road, and hardly today's challenge.

Briefly, the primary difference between the House Health Care Bill, which was passed by the House on November 7, 2009, and this Senate companion bill, the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act," H.R. 3590, is NOT in coverage and benefits for U.S. citizens and legal residents: those appear to be remarkably similar, including a watered-down Medicare-like public plan option.

Instead, the primary difference between the House and Senate health care reform bills lies in planned sources of funding for the public plan option: while the House bill relies mainly on levying employers who fail to provide coverage for their employees, the Senate version relies more on new taxes and levies on the health care and pharmaceutical industries, and on high-income individuals, especially those with employer-provided "cadillac plan" health care coverage.

An interesting new wrinkle introduced by the Senate Health Care Reform Plan is a 5% tax on elective cosmatic surgery. (Pardon the "wrinkle" pun... I couldn't resist.)

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has set Saturday evening, November 21st, for a Senate cloture vote to begin debate of the proposed legislation. Three moderate Democratic senators from notoriously conservative states... Landrieu of Louisiana, Nelson of Nebraska, and Lincoln of Arkansas... are said to be dragging their feet in support of this vote, which requires 60 senators to vote YES.

My guess is that these three senators will do the right thing (especially after being lured by pricey legislative goodies), and vote to let Senate debate formally commence on this overdue, urgently needed measure.

Of course, to garner the requisite 60 votes, Democrats will also need the support of former Democrat, Independent Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, since presumably, no Republicans will vote to advance debate of the bill.

God only knows how attention-seeking, liberal turncoat Lieberman will vote tomorrow. And I shudder to even imagine what Democrats might have to concede to get this political narcissist's support on this bill.

But undoubtedly, Senate Majority leader Harry Reid will do what he must to move health care reform forward. And post-Thanksgiving, the fireworks of the Senate health care reform bill debate WILL begin!

Senate Health Care Reform Bill Basics, Key Provisions originally appeared on About.com US Liberal Politics on Friday, November 20th, 2009 at 16:08:17.

Permalink | Comment | Email this

2010 Immigration Reform Agenda Set by Obama Administration

Tue, 17 Nov 2009 17:59:05 +0000

Without doubt, immigration reform will be to 2010 what health care reform has been to 2009: the headline-grabbing dominant issue, hotly debated, replete with plenty of ugly Republican rhetoric, and will ultimately culminate in some Congressionally-negotiated form of landmark legislation.

Under the media radar On November 14, 2009, the Obama administration, via DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano delivered an historic speech in which she succinctly outlined:

strong economic, national security, and humanitarian cases for comprehensive U.S. immigration reform in 2010;
Recounted vast improvements in immigration law enforcement and border security since 2007, when Congress last debated comprehensive immigration reform; and
Described the administration's "Three-legged Stool" approach to immigration reform, which includes effective enforcement, improved legal/approval processes for workers and employers, and a "firm but fair way to deal with those who are already here."

Like I also said early in 2009 about the House healthcare reform bill, there's just nothing I don't like about President Obama's 2010 Immigration Reform Agenda.

The time is right for the Obama Administration's next big domestic dilemma, immigration reform, to be tackled with vigor. Orated Secretary Napolitano, "Like the Administration's other priorities, when it comes to immigration, we are addressing a status quo that is simply unacceptable. Everybody recognizes that our current system isn't working and that our immigration laws need to change:

America's businesses, workers, and faith-based organizations are calling for reform.
Law enforcement and government at every level are asking for reform.
And at the Department of Homeland Security, we need reform to do our job of enforcing the law and keeping our country secure."

Oh, and Democrats just might have a secondary reason for moving immigration reform to the top of the 2010 issues list: it gives Republicans oodles of time to make crassly offensive, racially-based remarks about Latino illegal immigrants during the run-up to the 2010 Congressional mid-term elections... just as they did during the 2007 Immigration Reform debate, which led several normally-red western states to vote Democratic in 2008.

Take the time to read President Obama's 2010 Immigration Reform Agenda.

Essential Reading

Readers Respond: Should Illegal Immigrants Have a Path to U.S. Citizenship?
DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano on Improvement in Border Security, National Security
Pros & Cons of the Immigration Reform Act of 2007

2010 Immigration Reform Agenda Set by Obama Administration originally appeared on About.com US Liberal Politics on Tuesday, November 17th, 2009 at 17:59:05.

Permalink | Comment | Email this

Stupak Amendment Takes Toll on Massachusetts Senate Race

Fri, 13 Nov 2009 20:30:03 +0000

The controversial Stupak amendment is wreaking unexpected havoc on the U.S. Senate race in Massachusetts to replace the late Sen. Ted Kennedy.

With less than a month before the December 8th primaries, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi took the unusual (quid pro quo?) step of endorsing one Democratic candidate over three others: longshot Rep. Michael Capuano, who Pelosi called "courageous" for his crucial vote last weekend to support the House health care reform bill. Pelosi observed:

"Any one of us could have found one reason or another not to vote for the bill. But that was not an excuse for preventing this historic moment from taking place...

"He's not ideological; He's operational. He's there to get the job done for the American people."

Per the Suffolk poll taken from Nov 4-8, 2009, the leading Democratic contender remains Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley with a whopping 44% of likely Democratic voters. Six-term Rep. Capuano draws third place in the poll with 16% of likely voters, just behind Boston Celtics co-owner Stephen G. Pagliuca with a 17% estimated share. Support for Coakley has faded slightly, though, from her earlier large lead of close to 50% over other Democratic contenders.

In contrast to Rep. Capuano, A.G. Coakley unequivocally stated that as a U.S. senator, she would not vote for health care reform legislation that contained Stupak amendment-like restrictions on abortion rights. Commented Coakley to Boston radio station WTKK-FM, "To pretend that now the House has passed this bill is real progress - it's at the expense of women's access to reproductive rights."

While all four Democratic candidates in the Bay State profess to be pro-choice, Martha Coakley, who was a diehard Clinton supporter in the 2008 presidential race, WAS the only one who declared intentions to vote against health care reform if the Stupak amendment is not stripped from the legislation.

Was... until Rep. Capuano backtracked, commenting, "If the bill comes back the same way as it left the House, I would vote against it. I am a pro-choice person, and I do believe this is [necessary] to provide health care for everyone."

To which A.G. Coakley dryly replied, "We are heartened to see that Congressman Capuano has reversed his position to follow Martha Coakley's lead, and no longer will vote for health care legislation that further restricts a woman's right to choose."

Intra-party fireworks in Massachusetts are guaranteed in the weeks ahead between now and the December 8th primary. Check back here for the latest on this and all 2010 Senate races.

And mark my words: this is only the first of many 2010 Congressional races to be impacted by the Stupak amendment, which you can read in full here: Full Text of Stupak Amendment to Prohibit Government-Funded Abortions

Essential Reading

(Photo taken in 2005 of Congressman Capuano with Army soldiers and Marines stationed at Camp Al Asad, located in Al Anbar Province, Iraq. Photo Courtesy of the Office of Congressman Capuano.)

Stupak Amendment Takes Toll on Massachusetts Senate Race originally appeared on About.com US Liberal Politics on Friday, November 13th, 2009 at 20:30:03.

Permalink | Comment | Email this

Pro-Choice Advocates Are Wrong to Block House Health Care Bill

Wed, 11 Nov 2009 19:21:59 +0000

Despite the self-absorbed overreaction by some pro-choice Democrats, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was absolutely correct to allow the Stupak-Pitts pro-life amendment to be introduced for a full House vote.

The hard fact is that without the Stupak amendment, the House health care reform bill would have gone down to defeat last weekend.

Without the Stupak amendment, presumably most of the 64 Democrats (representing 25% of all House Democrats) who supported the measure would not have been able, out of principled conscience, to support the Affordable Health Care for America Act, H.R. 3962.

And health care reform, which Democrats have fervently urged for more than 70 years, would have been dead under the Obama administration and possibly for many decades to come.

This is an inevitable consequence of the "big tent" philosophy that allowed Democrats to take back the White House and control both houses of Congress in the 2008 elections.

Briefly, the Stupak amendment mandates:

"No funds authorized or appropriated by the Act... may be used to pay for any abortion or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion...

"Nothing in this section shall be construed as prohibiting any nonfederal entity... from purchasing separate or supplemental coverage for abortions for which funding is prohibited under this section... "

(For more, see Full Text of Stupak Amendment to Prohibit Government-Funded Abortions.)

Certainly the intentionally clever wording of the Stupak amendment would make it considerably more difficult for uninsured women who purchase the public plan option or receive low-income subsidies for their coverage to make the unnecessarily difficult arrangements to pay for abortion services.

Given that abortion is a legal right extended in 1973 to all Americans under the Roe v. Wade decision, it's wrong for Congress to attempt to block American women, including lower income women, from exercising their legal rights.

But there's plenty else wrong with the imperfect House health care reform bill. And the Stupak amendment is hardly the most undemocratic or unfair element of this legislation.

Pro-Choice Advocates Are Wrong to Block House Health Care Bill originally appeared on About.com US Liberal Politics on Wednesday, November 11th, 2009 at 19:21:59.

Permalink | Comment | Email this

White Males Were 36 of 39 Democratic House Health Care NO Votes

Mon, 09 Nov 2009 13:03:28 +0000

The 39 Democrats who voted against passage of the House health care reform bill will be as indelibly remembered politically as the 29 Senate Democrats who foolishly voted in 2002 to support the Iraq War.

Both were were political choices, not choices made in the best interest of the American people. And both votes were about viewpoints foundational to the Democratic party, and to the essence of being a Democrat.

(See the list of 39 DINOs at Who Voted NO on the House Health Care Bill?)

Hillary Clinton lost the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination because she fatefully cast her 2002 vote to support George Bush's and Dick Cheney's oil-based attack and occupation of Iraq. John Kerry had no credibility on the Iraq War during the 2004 presidential race since he also voted YES on the Iraq War.

Yet, the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, who was among the 23 senators who wisely voted NO on the Iraq War, prophetically called it "the best vote I have cast in the United States Senate since I was elected in 1962."

Likewise, the 39 House Democrats who voted NO on the sole issue that has united all Democratic presidents for more than 75 years, health care reform, will be remembered for their lack of good judgment, and especially for their lack of compassion and support for everyday Americans.

I've carefully reviewed and researched the 39 Democratic naysayers, and found two common attributes: the group is almost entirely white and male:

White Males Were 36 of 39 Democratic House Health Care NO Votes originally appeared on About.com US Liberal Politics on Monday, November 9th, 2009 at 13:03:28.

Permalink | Comment | Email this

House Health Care Bill Basics and Key Provisions

Fri, 06 Nov 2009 17:33:05 +0000

After reviewing details of the revised House health care reform bill, I agree with Dr. Howard Dean's sentiment that "The House bill is actually very good."

(See Key Provisions of the House Health Care Bill for a one-page summary of the House health care reform bill.)

Commented Dean, former Democratic party chair and a longtime physician, last week on MSNBC:

"The fact is, this is real reform. That's all I really care about, is real reform. ... It's not the kind of reform that I would have loved, but this is pretty good stuff, and it really is going to make a difference."

AARP, representing senior citizens, and the AMA, representing physicians, both endorse the House's revised, post-negotiations "America's Affordable Health Choices Act," H.R.3200.

And the Congressional Budget Office states that the revised House bill would "slightly reduce federal budget deficits." President Obama hailed the House bill as " 'a historic step forward' and said it met two important criteria: 'It is fully paid for and will reduce the deficit in the long term,'" per the New York Times.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer have wisely committed to a quick vote over this weekend, before the week-long Congressional break for Veterans Day. President Obama plans a rare trip to Capitol Hill tomorrow, to push moderate, pro-business Blue Dog Democrats to vote for the bill.

Democrats need at least 218 House votes to pass legislation. After the November 3, 2009 elections in which Democrats won two seats, the House currently counts 258 Democrats and 177 Republicans. No Republicans are expected to vote for health care reform under the Obama administration.

Get informed at my one-page Key Provisions of the House Health Care Bill. Then email or call your Congressman or Congresswoman TODAY to tell them to vote for "America's Affordable Health Choices Act," H.R.3200.

House Health Care Bill Basics and Key Provisions originally appeared on About.com US Liberal Politics on Friday, November 6th, 2009 at 17:33:05.

Permalink | Comment | Email this

President Obama Watched Basketball While Democrats Got Drubbed

Wed, 04 Nov 2009 12:52:30 +0000

Democrats took a drubbing yesterday in two key governor's races in states which President Obama won just one year ago... and yet Press Secretary Gibbs said the President was "not watching the returns."

Instead, top advisor Axelrod haughtily sniffed to CNN that "Obama is more likely to watch Tuesday night's Chicago Bulls game."

(Question: Is Obama watching basketball rather than devastating election returns akin to Nero fiddling while Rome burned?)

A perfect symbolism of the whole problem for Democrats these days: the President isn't listening to the American people. Or apparently watching, either.

Instead, on fiscal matters, Obama holes up with sycophant economists Tim Geithner, Larry Summers, and Christina Romer, an oddball clutch of ivory-tower elites who seem to possess little heartfelt grasp of this economy's devastating effect on most Americans.

Meanwhile, this trio's Wall Street friends, who caused the near-cataclysmic collapse of the U.S. economy, get richer and richer while the rest of America endures crippling economic hardship.

President Obama Watched Basketball While Democrats Got Drubbed originally appeared on About.com US Liberal Politics on Wednesday, November 4th, 2009 at 12:52:30.

Permalink | Comment | Email this

Democrats Delighted as Republicans Eat Their Own in New York Race

Mon, 02 Nov 2009 13:04:48 +0000

One of the best things Democrats may have going for their 2010 electoral chances is Republicans.

Take New York's 23rd Congressional district special election set for tomorrow: a month ago, the race in this historicallly Republican rural district included:

A Democrat given scant chance to win
A seasoned Republican state legislator endorsed by the local Republican party, RNC chair Michael Steele, House Republican leader John Boehner, and Republican opinion leader Newt Gingrich
A third party candidate supported by the radically ultra-conservative crowd, including self-righteous wingnuts Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachman.

The third party candidate, Doug Hoffman, chose Fox News' Glenn Beck Show last week on which to gush:

"HOFFMAN: I'm not cool with ACORN or the working families' party, or people that vote like democrats and run on Republican lines.
BECK: How do you -- I mean you have Sarah Palin that endorsed you. Was that a surprise to you?
HOFFMAN: Yes, it was. It was also a big honor."

Like pre-schoolers gleeful at the prospect of getting their way at any cost, the conservative smashmouth gang absurdly nitpicked and exaggerated the record of Republican Dierdre Scozzafava, who Frank Rich noted in his New York Times column has a "voting record slightly to the right of her fellow Republicans in the (state) Assembly." She departs from partisan conservative orthodoxy on only a few social issues, including pro-choice and gay rights stances.

Democrats Delighted as Republicans Eat Their Own in New York Race originally appeared on About.com US Liberal Politics on Monday, November 2nd, 2009 at 13:04:48.

Permalink | Comment | Email this

Death Penalty Support Falling in U.S.

Fri, 30 Oct 2009 16:11:50 +0000

As U.S. support for the death penalty slowly fades, states are taking a renewed look at capital punishment in 2009, which is an extraordinarily expensive proposition in this era of catastrophic state revenues.

ABC News reported on October 22, 2009:

"In the latest ABCNEWS.com poll, just more than six in 10 Americans favor the death penalty for people convicted of murder, unchanged from January. Still, support for the death penalty is at its lowest level in 20 years, down from a high of 77 percent in 1996.

"An ABCNEWS poll in January found that support for the death penalty slips further, to just under half of the public, when life in prison without parole is offered as an alternative."

Personally, I abhor that the United States is the only western industrialized country, with or without democracy, to still believe that it's morally acceptable to engage in the pre-meditated taking of a human life, ironically usually in punishment for the taking of a human life.

To illustrate how heinously out-of-step with our allies the U.S. is on the death penalty, take a gander at the list of 2008 executions worldwide, by country:

Executions in 2008, by Country

China - 1,718
Iran - 346
Saudi Arabia - 102
United States - 37
Pakistan - 36
Iraq - 34
Vietnam - 19
Afghanistan - 17
North Korea - 15
All others - 66

Two-thirds of all countries worldwide, have abolished the death penalty on moral grounds, while the U.S. continues, instead, to fall on the side of countries we hypocritically revile as having no respect for freedom or human life.

But if states choose to repeal the death penalty for understandable economic reasons, so be it. At least they're doing the right thing, even if not for the morally best motives.

In fact, two states recently repealed death penalty laws: New Jersey in late 2008 and New Mexico in March 2009. As of October 2009, 26 states have no statutes permitting capital punishment.

However, 34 states officially sanction the death penalty, as does the federal government. And each has widely, and unfairly, differing laws regarding its methods, age limits and crimes which qualify.

The death penalty is extremely controversial, especially among the eye-for-an-eye crowd. For a quick-reading summary, read my Pros & Cons of the Death Penalty.

As for the eye-for-an-eye crowd, I fervently wish they would meditate on Gandhi's wise words: "An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind."

Essential Reading

Stanley "Tookie" Williams & the Death Penalty - What Is the Purpose of the Death Penalty?
Readers Respond: Why Should, or Shouldn't, the U.S. Abolish the Death Penalty?
Readers Respond: Should Stanley "Tookie" Williams have been executed by the state of California?

(Photo taken on June 29, 2009 in front of the U.S. Supreme Court building: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

Death Penalty Support Falling in U.S. originally appeared on About.com US Liberal Politics on Friday, October 30th, 2009 at 16:11:50.

Permalink | Comment | Email this