Southern States Move to Ban Abortion Funded by Federal Dollars

In my last post, I write about a topic I am deeply passionate about: a woman's choice to have an abortion. Our new health care reform allows this choice to be restricted and states have begun to take such limiting actions.

Obama signed an executive order when the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. health care reform) passed that stated: “it is necessary to establish an adequate enforcement mechanism to ensure that Federal funds are not used for abortion services (except in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the woman would be endangered), consistent with a longstanding Federal statutory restriction that is commonly known as the Hyde Amendment . . . The purpose of this order is to establish a comprehensive, government-wide set of policies and procedures to achieve this goal and to make certain that all relevant actors . . . are aware of their responsibilities, new and old.” (I added the bold for effect) This signing statement allows for states to ban plans in their future health insurance exchange that allow elective abortion in their insurance exchange. This statement also implies elective abortions are immoral.

In my first blog post, I addressed the issue of abortion in the House and Senate versions of the health care bill. In a later post, published on the day Obama signed the bill into law, I noted how health care reform does not sufficiently protect a woman's reproductive rights.
Now, the actions various pro-choice and feminist organizations feared are occurring in various Southern states' governments. Missouri, Tennessee, Oklahoma, Mississippi, and Louisiana are the states in question.

Missouri's Senate passed a bill that bans the state's future insurance exchange from covering elective abortions. The bill has now moved to the House for debate.

Tennessee's Senate and House passed a bill that does the same thing. According to the Feminist Majority Foundation, "If Governor Philip Bredesen (D) approves the bill, Tennessee will become the first state to legislate against the inclusion of abortion coverage in the state insurance changes created by the new health care package, reported CBS."

Oklahoma's House and Senate have passed five new bills concerning abortion. One of these bills bans any state health insurance provider from including plans with abortion coverage. This bill awaits Governor Brad Henry's signature. He vetoed two of the five bills.

Mississippi's legislature is attempting to pass legislation that would ban abortion coverage in its insurance exchange. It passed in the House.

Louisiana's legislature is doing the same; its proposed bill passed in the House and would ban abortion coverage in its insurance exchange and would ban elective abortions under private insurance plans. "The bill does not include exceptions for rape or incest, but does include an exception if a woman's life is endangered," according to the Associated Press and Feminist Majority Foundation. This is worrisome because Obama's signing statement DOES allow for federally funded abortion in the case of rape, incest, or danger to the mother's life.

Some of these bills include other abortion-limiting provisions, such as a mandatory live ultrasound that must be performed before an abortion and the pregnant woman must be able to hear the fetus' heat beat.

Abortion is a hotly contested issue; Americans disagree if elective abortion should even be legal at all. Fake clinics still abound across the country, giving women misinformation in an attempt to dissuade them from having an abortion. Health care reform, in my opinion, should not have allowed the option of severely limited abortion with a mere signing statement. If Louisiana's legislation becomes law, then women will have to travel out of state for an elective abortion and pay for it themselves. Can a state legislature really decide what is best for ALL women?

Health care reform's implementation seems to have a lot of hurdles ahead; this is only one of them. In the coming years we will see what states limit or attempt to limit a woman's right to choose to have an abortion. These states are the first battlegrounds.

Sources:
Missouri State Senate Passes Expanded Abortion Bill
Tennessee Legislators Approve Ban on State-Backed Insurance Abortion Coverage
Bill to prohibit tax dollars for abortion services
Oklahoma Senate Passes Five New Anti-Choice Bills
Oklahoma lawmakers approve several abortion bills
Senate Approves Abortion Bills
Mississippi, Louisiana, Moving to Ban State-Backed Insurance Abortion Coverage
Bill would ban insurance on all elective abortions

Reproductive Rights, further information:
10 Worst Abortion Myths--and How to Refute Them
Students Fight CPC on Public Campus
What the Health Care Bill Means for Women
Anti-Abortion Extremists go to "Hell"
Criminalized Abortion: Coming to a State Near You

Blog by a pro-lifer: Jill Stanek, with her fingers on the pro-life pulse
(check out her 9/18/09 post about late-term a.k.a. "partial birth abortions")

Photos courtesy of: NY Daily News and Black Christian News

Implications and Effects of Secondary Political Issues on the Healthcare Debate

As our healthcare blog winds down, I wanted to take the opportunity to discuss some of the secondary political issues that affect the landscape of the healthcare debate (and apologize for my absentminded three-week hiatus earlier this month- sorry guys).

Sometimes it seems like the healthcare debate involves.... well, just healthcare. But in reality, many other political and social factors manipulate the healthcare issue. I plan to overview some of these issues and hopefully shed some light on a few of these secondary components.

1. Abortion- the Stupak Amendment controversy highlighted the fact that, like almost every other facet of the political sphere, healthcare is deeply affected by the pro-life, pro-choice divide. Organizations on both sides of the aisle threatened to pull their backing of the healthcare bill earlier this year if they didn't get their way on the abortion wording. In the end, the Stupak amendment was not part of the deal, but President Obama promised to sign an executive order to the same effect. According to an article on The Washington Times website, President Obama insisted on signing the order without any media present- a sign of the controversial nature of the order.

2. Small Government/ Large Government- The issue of government size, subsidies, regulation, and intervention all came up repeatedly during the healthcare debates in Congress and in the media. Democrats pushed for a public, government run option, while Republicans raised the specter of big government socialism and government overspending (which, after the Bush years, made even this right-leaning moderate laugh out loud).

3. Race- like pretty much everything else involving our country's first black president, race was a factor in the debates. Older, generally well-to-do tea partiers carried racially provocative signs about President Obama. The idea that the proposed changes might benefit underprivileged minorities enraged some white Americans with more reactionary tendencies. Also, it seems that many ultra-conservatives were especially upset at the fact that a black man was "running the show" and imposing what they saw as excessive governmental regulation.

4. Party Politics- Democrats in Congress were expected by their party to vote for the bill, and Republicans were expected to vote against it. The Democrats wanted Obama to accomplish some sort of healthcare reform before next election, and the Republicans wanted to prevent him from doing that at any cost. These agendas clearly represented what was best for their respective parties in the upcoming elections.

In conclusion, while healthcare in and of itself is a big issue, it has been dramatically inflated by many secondary issues that influence peoples' thoughts and statements on the issue.

I want this album:

Yes, this is a spoken word LP by Ronald Reagan to denounce socialized medicine in 1961. According to the ever-handy Wikipedia, it was part of an American Medical Association campaign to prevent the expansion of social security. The health care fear tactics didn't start with the Tea Party.

Do you think this album would make a good summer beach party soundtrack? Without a doubt. All the cool kids are listening to it.

Update on Attorney General Lawsuit

Rob McKenna, Attorney General, R-WA

It has now been a month since a number of attorney generals came together to file a lawsuit against the constitutionality of the health care bill. I was reading an exchange between a writer of the Seattle alternative paper The Stranger and the communications director of Rob McKenna, the AG of Washington, and it gave a little insight into what the official intent of the lawsuit is.

According to Janelle Guthrie (communications director), the intent of the bill is to not overturn the health care bill. Instead, she says that the suit only wants to overturn two pieces:

As this state’s independently elected attorney general, McKenna takes his duty to defend Washington's constitutional rights very seriously. Health care reform is much too important to build on an unconstitutional foundation.

The two main provisions of the lawsuit he joined deal with:

1) The unprecedented and unconstitutional requirement that individuals lacking health insurance must purchase private insurance or face a fine; and

2) The massive expansion of the Medicaid program which will unconstitutionally require states to eventually spend billions more on this program at a time when state budgets are already in crisis.

She says that these two pieces can be taken out without compromising the nature of reform, and that this action is to support the bill.

Really? I'm having a hard time believing that. The Republican attorney generals all reacted immediately after the bill was signed to try and undermine it. These are two of the major components of the bill, and to say that you want to remove them just to make sure the bill succeeds is ludicrous. They can paint this however they want, but the fact of the matter is that this is an attempt to unofficially overturn legislation by undermining its strength.

$$ and Governmental Power in Health Care: Dispelling some misconceptions

This clip from The Daily Show helps answer common questions about how health reform will work and if it will work:
Health Care Dollars and Cents and Backlash, too: The Daily Show: Representative John Dingell

Health care reform opinions to make you think:
Governmental Power and Health Care: The Colbert Report: George Will

Will Obama's Approval Ratings Rebound?

Today, the Rasmussen Reports published in their Daily Presidential Tracking Poll that President Obama's approval ratings have dipped down to 49%, with only 29% of Americans polled expressing strong approval. Over the past week, media coverage of the President has been 52% positive, down from 60% immediately after healthcare reform passed, but up from 47% the week before last.

Now the big question is- will President Obama's approval ratings rise again? I believe that they will, for several reasons. First of all, media coverage of President Obama is coming back up from a low a couple weeks ago. While this may be a short term trend, I think that as the controversy surrounding the passage of health-care reform becomes old news, people will return to a less polarized view of Obama. This has held true in the past- important events affect approval ratings for a while, but things end up stabilizing as other issues come into play and the old issues fade into the past.

After Clinton attempted to pass his version of health care reform (which was much more controversial and extensive) back in the 90's, his approval ratings suffered, but eventually came back up. Now Clinton is generally remembered in a positive light.

Also, I believe that people will start to see positive changes take place in the system. As I've said before, I personally do not favor socialized medicine or a government option, but the version of healthcare reform that passed seems like common sense to me. I think that as time goes on, more and more Americans will realize that Obama's healthcare reform has nothing to do with socialism, and everything to do with an honest attempt at improving healthcare in America.

Health Care Dollars and Cents

Currently, it seems like health care reform backlash is at a lull. So, in this post I am going to focus on questions and confusion surrounding health care costs. Now that health care reform has passed, for a liberal like me it is easy to believe that Obama will implement the reform and life will go on, with BETTER health care. However, we have yet to see how effective reform will be. Also, will this reform cut costs and satisfy the American public?

Some important concerns:
--Poverty and purchasing health care: how does an individual's earnings impact their decision to purchase coverage?
--Will premiums be determined by assets or income?
--Will premiums be lower due to the new law? Will insurance exchanges help you save money?
--If you have health care, will reform increase your premiums? How does reform affect your insurance?
--When do you have to buy insurance?
--How does reform help the uninsured, healthy, and young? Can young adults return to their caretakers' insurance plan? What about college students?
--What costs do domestic partners vs. married couples have to pay?

I hope readers find these links helpful. I think it's interesting to note what websites have information about health care reform post-bill signing, like The New York Times.

Other Dollars and Cents Health Care Resources:
Prescriptions: Making Sense of the Health Care Law
Benefit for Uninsured May Still Pose Hurdle
Could Health Care Overhaul Incentives Hurt Some?
The Squeeze on the Middle Class
Doctors Hear Many Questions About Health Law
The Effects of Health Reform on the Federal Budget
Families USA: Health Reform Central
The White House: Putting Americans in Control of their Health Care

Image #1 Courtesy of: Soda Head (look here for cartoon and image backlash against health care and Obama)

Politcal Cartoons and Health Care Reform Backlash

Just to piggyback off of Becca's post (since I can't see the images on my computer here they are for others having that issue):
The following political cartoon found on a blog: Pot to Kettle, Kettle to Pot

"Obama Health Care Plan in a Nutshell"

Daily Beast's 11 Heroes of Health Care

The Daily Beast, a leaning liberal political website has released a list of who they consider to be the eleven heroes of Health Care. (Notice this deliberate bias, I don't think the Republican party would deem these individuals "heroes").

#1 You guessed it, Mr. Obama himself. Apparently his bipartisan health summit and series of persuasive speeches were enough to land him a spot on the list.

#2 Nancy Pelosi, a San Francisco native, played a huge role in the passage of the Health Care Reform Package. According to the Daily Beast, she is recognized by some as the "Greatest House Speaker in United States' History."

#3 Harry Reid, Senate Majority Leader. Despite Scott Brown's victory, he was able to gain the House Democrat's trust that the Senate wouldn't abandon the issue.

#4 Evan Bayh, a democratic Senator of Indiana. His reputation as one of the most conservative democrats gave him credibility during his resignation speech where he explained the importance of this bill.

#5 Organized Labor (Andy Stern from SEIU, Richard Trumka from AFL CIO). Said to have done much of the heavy lifting in convincing the public and corporations of its importance.

#6 MoveOn.org/DailyKos. Again the power of the interenet shines through. This site polled the public and raised money for the campaign, while getting out the message that this was truly Obama's final push.

#7 Lt. Governor of Arkansas, Bill Halter. He raised over one million dollars from progressive groups within days, and reminded wavering Democrats that not passing the bill could have grave consequences.

#8 Kent Conrad and Robert Byrd. They both offered crucial endorsements that offered legitimacy to the process of reconciliation. Without their help the bill would not have been passed.

#9 Jim Bunning and Richard Shelby. Confused? So was I. Why would these Republican senators make this list? The Daily Beast argues that, "a far better illustrator of the Democrats’ complaints over obstruction was Sen. Jim Bunning (R-KY) who single-handedly blocked employment benefits for out-of-work Americans for days before giving up on his filibuster. Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) offered perhaps an even clearer picture of Senate rules run amok—he placed a blanket hold on all the president's nominees for federal positions over a defense earmark that he wanted to go to his state, paralyzing the government all by himself.

#10 The CBO. I know that the CBO's estimates played a big role in our in-class health care debate. The CBO helped out tremendously when it anounced that the Health Care reform plan would reduce the deficit by $138 billion in its first 10 years.

#11 Last but not least? Anthem Blue Cross. When Blue Cross announced in February their premium spikes, the rising costs of insurance became a key talking point for Obama and Democratic leaders as they argued that reform could not wait any longer.

So, there you have it. What do you think? Do these people/organizations deserve the acclaim Daily Beast is so proudly giving them? Let's see how this "acclaim" affects their careers in future elections!

Political Cartoons Bash Obama

With any big policy decision political cartoons are to be expected. It's no surprise that Obama's recent passing of Health Care Reform has elicited a slew of interesting cartoons that suggest the public isn't too happy with his Presidency thus far. The following three cartoons not only poke fun at Obama, but suggest his Health Care reform plan will prove to be a mistake. With the discussion of backlash and domestic

terrorism in previous blog posts, its interesting to see how political cartoonists are jumping on the bandwagon and bashing Obama's presidential decisions as well.

The following cartoon was found on a blog that explained why Obama's Health Care plan was an awful idea. To give you a taste of it, the author made sure to state in bold, "Yes, Yes…

thats what we need, a less than perfect bill to go along side all the other less than perfect bills." The cartoon itself depicts

Obama as dumb and unaware of his actions. This cartoon was one of many to portray him as naive and childish, while simultaneously dressed as a doctor.

The following Cartoon is called "The Obama Health Care Plan In A Nutshell" by Mike Ramirez. It was accompanied by this statement, "Obama and company are trying to roll us over with fancy words, false promises and outright deceptions on the government health care bill." The artist of this cartoon was extremely clever in naming it, especially with this new ear of internet technology. If someone were to do a google search to learn about Obama's Health Care Plan, and said something along the lines of "Obama's Health Care Plan in a Nutshell," they'd come up with 15 hits for this very cartoon. This is a perfect example of how the internet is an incredibly effective way to express yourself, and persuade others at the same time.

Health Care Reform Backlash: funny but good summary by the Daily Show

Continuing with our discussion about the response to health care reform, this video clip from Jon Stewart's Daily Show summarizes the various responses to health care reform well.

Health Care Slime Machine

Domestic Terror

Two men have been arrested and federally charged in separate incidents for threatening Senator Patty Murray and a Representative Nancy Pelosi.

In Washington, 63 year old Charles Alan Wilson left threatening voicemails to Murray's office that included charming statements such as:

"I hope somebody puts a (expletive) bullet between your (expletive) eyes," and "I do believe that every one of you (expletive) socialist democratic progressive (expletive) need to be taken out." and "I do pack, and I will not blink when I'm confronted. ... It's not a threat, it's a guarantee."

Wilson, who lives in Selah, Washington (if I lived in Selah I'd probably be that angry too. It consists of apple trees, wheat fields, and...nothing), was the first to be charged in this recent string of threats against Democrats.

Selah, Washington. I don't know if I would be pushed to the brink of
making death threats to elected officials, but I would possibly harbor some resentment.

In California, Gregory Lee Giusti will soon be charged for making numerous threats against Nancy Pelosi. He made calls to her house and her office, apparently informing Pelosi that if she ever wanted to see her house again, she shouldn't vote yes for health care. He has a history of making criminal threats.

"Hello, Newman..." "Hello, Jerry..." Seinfeld anyone?

I would hope that this wave of violence would calm down sooner or later, as tensions should be fading a bit. Yet the poll numbers that Nona posted yesterday show that this bill still is not very popular at all. It has only been two weeks or so but I can't see this anger going away. There hasn't been a huge backlash against the violence in the media, and about half our country believes that Democrats brought the threats and violence onto themselves. That's like saying a girl was asking for rape. It just doesn't make sense.

If we could only treat domestic terrorism as fearfully as we do foreign terrorism. Just think for a moment if these two men were Muslim. I could only imagine the outcry. Yet because their names are Giusti and Wilson, it seems to not be a huge deal (it is to the FBI, of course, but I'm sure many Tea Party protesters aren't particularly upset).

Post Health Care Reform Passage: Has it helped Obama and the Democrats? What does "the" public think?

Health care reform has passed; now what? It now needs to become a reality and, currently, I think it's a little too soon to tell whether health care reform succeeded or not.

However, normal people (by that I mean "the public") still have an opinion that may affect their perception of the success of this program.

Poll results:
*CBS News:
-health care reform has "driven negative perceptions of Washington"
-55% of the public disapprove of Obama's management of the health care issue
-44% of the public approve of how Obama has handled his job as President
-majority of re-interviewed participants in a poll say that they do not understand how health care will affect them
-46% disapprove of health care reform, 42% approve after the bill passed

*Quinnipiac University:
-49% disapprove, 40% approve after the bill passed

*Gallup:
-50% Obama approval rating
- (with USA Today) Public has more negative impression of Democratic Congressional leaders

For More Polling Results and Information:
Poll Watch-Polls and Related Articles from the New York Times
Poll: Most Say Health Care Fight About Politics, not Policy
Polls Show Public Still Skeptical of Health Care Law
New Health Care Law Does Not Help Democrats in Poll
PollingReport.com: Health Policy

Image Courtesy of: CBS

The US and the WHO

Today I wrapped up a presentation for Diplomacy and World Affairs on the World Health Organization and how it has moved to address the factors (and lack of rights) that cause ill health.

The WHO's constitution states that “"the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health is one of the fundamental rights of every human being." This tiny sentence should encourage developed nations to provide the best possible health care for its citizens, as health is truly a human right. Don't get me wrong: the United States is more healthy than almost every developing nation, and the WHO mostly focuses on poor countries. Yet that same statement applies regardless of where a state stands on the development spectrum. If a nation can provide better health care to its citizens, it should. It's a thought I had often during the debate on the bill.

It's interesting to see how far we have come in the realm of health care as compared to poorer nations. It's also interesting to note how far we have to go before America is truly healthy. Health and poverty are tied across the world. In the developing world, Malaria, TB and HIV are linked to a recurring cycle of poverty for a variety of reasons (they are exacerbated by poverty and lead to a lack of investors, lost income, deaths in the family, etc). In the United States it is often the poor who are most affected by disease (especially chronic ones such as heart disease) and a lack of proper health care. The majority of "the poor" in America do not live in abject poverty, but instead are part of the lower-middle class who have lost their jobs, or are underemployed, and struggle to pay for rent, food and utilities. We should take a lesson from what the United Nations is doing abroad by addressing the root problems of ill health.

Reform of the health care industry is a huge step in the right direction, as insurance and good primary care are essential for a healthy nation. This is one of the reasons I see this bill as being so important. It isn't perfect by any means but it begins to address the structural problems that prevent people from getting care in the United States. If we really want to live up to our rhetoric of promoting health for all we do need to dig a little deeper.

Health Care Related Attacks on Democrats

After the passage of healthcare reform, many people who voted for the new healthcare bill are currently under attack by those who oppose the way they chose to vote on the healthcare issue. Former Alaskan Governor and Presidential candidate Sarah Palin decided to post personal information of many pro-Obamacare senators on her personal website, www.palinforamerica.com. One of the big questions being asked in the fallout of the passage of this landmark bill is whether former Governor Palin was correct in her posting of such information. While many conservatives laud Palin's choice as a path of personal accountability, concerned progressives worry about the safety of politicians who supported the new healthcare bill (a legitimate concern, given recent partisan political activity).

Socialist advocates at the World Socialist Web Site (www.wsws.org) are criticizing the new healthcare bill as being too far-right, and top-down, showing that anger over the new system emanates from both sides of the political spectrum.

As law-abiding Americans, we can all hope that both sides will respect each other's past opinions and votes. Personal threats and terrorist activity (proposed, threatened, or real) is something that all decent citizens can, and should ardently oppose.

Obama Signs Final Piece of Health Care Reform: What's the Diagnosis?

This morning at Northern Virginia Community College Obama signed a final piece of the health care reform bill that dealt with student loans and banks, according to the New York Times. CNN says that "It fixed an old 'sweetheart deal' by cutting out 'unnecessary middlemen' in the administration of college loans, he [Obama] asserted. 'We stood with America's students.'"

Republicans are criticizing the student loan addition as something that needs a completely separate debate (of course, we all know that Republicans have done similar things to bills in the past but being a critical hypocrite is at partisan politics' core). Conservative opposition continues building to health care reform. The Tea Party is definitely against the legislation. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is toting a new phrase "repeal and replace" regarding reform and the midterm elections.

Obama, in my opinion, even seems to be catering to his base when he said today: "The health insurance reform bill I signed won’t fix every problem in our health-care system in one fell swoop . . . But it does represent some of the toughest insurance reforms in history. It represents a major step forward toward giving Americans with insurance and those without a sense of security when it comes to their health care. It enshrines the principle that when you get sick you’ve got a society there, a community that is going to help you get back on your feet. It represents meaningful progress for the American people."

I sincerely hope that health care reform will work and improve our failing health care system. In my home state New Mexico, my senators, Tom Udall and Jeff Bingaman seem hopeful that this reform will help the over 400,000 New Mexicans living without health insurance. However, partisan politics threatens this new legislation and I don't know what we can do to minimize it's effect on this newborn bill.

About March 30ths signing ceremony and what these final provisions entail:
The New York Times
CNN
The Associated Press
The Daily Beast
The New York Times: The Caucus (The Politics and Government Blog)

More Information about health care reform:
Making Sense of the Health Care Debate
Learning More About the New Law
What the Health Care Bill Means for Women
Obama Signs Historic Health Care Bill; Key Provisions Go into Effect in 2010

Image Courtesy of the New York Times

From the House to the Courts

It was recently announced that thirteen attorney generals, led by the AG from Florida, will file suit to attempt to overthrow the recently signed health care bill.

At least in my home state of Washington it has been interesting to see a heated debate emerge between our conservative attorney general Rob McKenna, and our liberal governor Christine Gregoire, who has threatened him with legal action if he continues to participate in this suit.

According to the suit, the bill violates:

-Article I of the Constitution (powers given to Congress) and the 10th amendment by mandating coverage, and by creating what they see as a direct tax, which are not allowed.
-10th amendment by making Medicare mandatory and excluding state say in the matter

Will this suit be successful? The general consensus among experts is "no". For one, the Supreme Court has previously upheld the Commerce Clause of the Constitution numerous times before in recent, which allows Congress to regulate interstate business and commerce. According to the Dean of the UC Irvine Law School, Dr. Ewin Chemerinsky,““there is no case law, post 1937, that would support an individual’s right not to buy health care if the government wants to mandate it...and if the court stays true to its Commerce Clause jurisprudence of the last 15 years, I think [the health care bill] will be upheld.”

The suit also claims that the mandate involves a direct tax. The direct tax rules are fairly complicated, but from what I understand there are many more regulations to direct taxes that would somewhat invalidate the bill. The mandate is actually an excise tax, which is a tax on events so to speak. Congress can raise taxes as long as it is proves it is for general welfare, and it is generally seen that this would be proven.

Yet according to Randy Barnett of the Washington Post, the bill more or less requires that citizens enter into a contract with the private government just by being alive, which is unprecedented.

It seems very unlikely that the Supreme Court would overturn the biggest Democratic legislative victory in 30+ years, and it's not common (has it even ever happened?) that they would strike down such an important and partisan bill. But as Randy Barnett recalls, Bush v. Gore, a high profile and highly partisan case (probably the highest profile possible) was decided by five justices. The conservative majority in the Supreme Court still stands. Even though they're supposed to be nonpartisan, I can't help but feel that a general conservative vs. liberal outlook on life could affect their decision.

Further info:

http://healthcarereform.nejm.org/?p=2764&query=home
http://blogs.findlaw.com/courtside/2010/03/healthcare-lawsuit-by-state-ags-attacks-health-insurance-law.html?DCMP=ESPcons_breakingdocs
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/03/now-political-fodder-for-the-courts/37862/

Health Care Reform does not Sufficiently Protect Women's Reproductive Rights

I said that I would focus on health care reform and women; now that health care reform has reached the Senate for reconciliation, I have some feminist objections.

But first, good things in health care reform that help women's reproductive rights:
--contraceptives are covered under a package with required basic benefits that include maternity care and preventative care, such as mammograms
--more women have access to family planning
--limits on gender and age rating

OBJECTIONS:
--no public option
--the Nelson Compromise severely restricts women's right to choose: federal money will only go to abortions in the case of rape, incest, or fatal danger to the mother's health. Those who want an abortion option in their health care plan have to pay two different payments. Also, states can choose to not have abortion covered if they pass a law restricting their Insurance Exchange from including plans that offer abortion coverage.

What Women's Rights Organizations are Saying:
"[W]omen were forced to pay a price. Abortion was the only medical procedure singled out with punitive restrictions. We must repeal the Hyde Amendment"--Eleanor Smeal, President of the Feminist Majority Foundation

"The legislation includes an onerous provision that requires Americans to write two separate checks if the insurance plan they choose includes abortion coverage. This unacceptable bureaucratic stigmatization could cause insurance carriers to drop abortion coverage, even though more than 85 percent of private plans currently cover this care for women."--Nancy Keenan, NARAL Pro-choice America

Articles and Blogs about Health Care Reform and Women:
Feminist Wire
Ms. Magazine Blog
Bitch Magazine
Frances Kissling

Women's Rights Organizations and Activists Statements:
Nancey Keenan on the Executive Order
Nancey Keenan on Health Reform
Planned Parenthood
Eleanor Smeal

Image Courtesy of the National Women's Law Center's Being a Woman is not a Pre-existing Condition Campaign

Stupak

Representative Bart Stupak of Michigan has until very recently been the leader of a group of anti-abortion Democrats opposing the health care bill. They worried the bill would allow federal funding for abortions beyond the current limits of cases of rape, incest or if the mother's life is in danger. However Obama attempted to calm Stupak and anti-abortion Dems by promising to issue an executive order that will solidify federal funding towards abortion. It worked; Stupak flipped sides and to the dismay (and anger) of House Republicans he not only voted for the passing of the bill but spoke against a Rebublican motion after to send the bill back to committee to amend its abortion language. The speech earned him a shout of "baby killer!" from an unidentified GOP house member(see video). This unruliness was perhaps justified; Stupak and the other half dozen like-minded Dems extremely late change in support were crucial in passing the bill, evident with the very tight victory. Many Republicans believe he "let them down." Either way with the outburst it is clear the abortion debate has wormed its way securely into the bill, even after its passage. It will be interesting to see if Obama follows through on his promises of an executive order!

Baby Killer Video

219 to 212

With shouts of "Yes, we can!", The House approved the health care bill at 10:44 EST this evening.

Only the Senate's passage of the reconciliation bill and the President's signature now stand in the way of this bill becoming a law.

More commentary is to come in the coming days.

On the verge of a vote...

James Fallow from The Atlantic gives some great commentary about why this bill really matters:

For now, the significance of the vote is moving the United States FROM a system in which people can assume they will have health coverage IF they are old enough (Medicare), poor enough (Medicaid), fortunate enough (working for an employer that offers coverage, or able themselves to bear expenses), or in some other way specially positioned (veterans; elected officials)... TOWARD a system in which people can assume they will have health-care coverage. Period.

That is how the entire rest of the developed world operates, as noted yesterday. It is the way the United States operates in most realms other than health coverage. Of course all older people are eligible for Medicare. Of course all drivers must have auto insurance. Of course all children must have a public school they can attend. Etc. Such "of course" rules offer protection for individuals but even more important, they reduce the overall costs to society, compared with one in which extreme risks are uncontained. The simplest proof is, again, Medicare: Does anyone think American life would be better now, on an individual or a collective level, if we were in an environment in which older people might have to beg for treatment as charity cases when they ran out of cash? And in which everyone had to spend the preceding years worried about that fate?

The vote for a preceding procedural measure was 224 to 206 in the House, which is a positive indication that the Dems will get the numbers they need. Barring some ridiculous circumstance or a last minute change of heart this bill should pass.It should only be a matter of minutes now.

Uninsured in California

According to a new report from the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research, the number of uninsured residents in California increased by more than 2 million (or 28%) in just the two years between 2007 and 2009. This means that one quarter of all adults in California don't even have basic health coverage.

These numbers are staggering. The number of people who lost insurance in California in two years is about equivalent to the population of the entire state of New Mexico or West Virginia losing their insurance. And with the economy still relatively stagnant, the situation isn't looking great for those who rely on their employers for health coverage (most people).

Also on the subject of statistics, I love this image by Jake Lewis (and not just because I'm a sucker for good design):



These staggering numbers just make me consider how urgent this really is. Conservative strategist Ralph Reed, when he visited campus this week, advised that the best strategy for Obama would be to scrap this bill and start over, moving through each separate part on its own. Maybe in a perfect world, but I don't think we have that kind of time.

UPDATE 3/18:

Barack Obama just posted this video, which expands on my thoughts.

A Look Back: President Clinton's Healthcare Plan

Today in class we talked about the Republican takeover of Congress back in 1994. So I thought it would be a good idea to take a look back at the events surrounding President Clinton's healthcare proposal, and the similarities and differences between the situation back then and the events going on in Washington today.

After taking office in 1993, President Clinton set up a Task Force on National Healthcare Reform, chaired by his wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton. The task force and the Clinton administration came up with a plan to require all Americans to be covered by a health insurance plan. Under the proposed plan, employers would have been required to provide health insurance to their employees, and people under a certain income level would have been automatically covered.

The backlash against the proposed plan was strong. Conservatives and the healthcare industry strongly opposed the plan, while many Democrats came up with competing proposals, muddying the waters. In the end, the contentious battle facilitated massive Republican victories in the 1994 election, leading to Republican majorities in both the House and the Senate.

So what's the parallel today? Although the current proposed healthcare plan isn't nearly as extensive as the Clinton plan was, it has sparked a lot of controversy among conservatives (and between liberals) in Washington. Many conservatives predict that the election of Republican Senator Scott Brown in Massachusetts is the "writing on the wall" for Republican victories in the 2010 election, while liberals generally believe that passing reform will garner further support for the Democrats.

In the end, we'll have to wait until November to see whose right.

"Do-or-Die" Week

With our in-class discussion of the "Framing" technique used commonly in current politics, its no surprise that headlines everywhere regard this week as "Do-or-Die," "Make or Break" and the "Fight to the Finish" for Obama's healthcare reform plan. It's looking like the health care reform initiative is going to be passed via a Reconciliation bill that will make the changes demanded by the house. With a reconciliation bill, only 51 senate votes are required for it to pass. David Axelrod, Obama's top adviser, stated on NBC that with this strategy he is "absolutely confident [Obama's plan] is going to be successful."

President Obama has taken it upon himself in this final stretch to call democratic hold-outs who oppose the bill with the argument that should the bill fail to pass it will be detrimental to his re-election in November. Obama must be feeling the heat of this "Do-or-Die" week because he has postponed his trip to Asia from March 18th to March 21st because of the healthcare vote. He intends to spend his extra time here humanizing the debate, and presenting the public with stories that indicate the urgency of healthcare reform. Today in Strongsville, Ohio President Obama explained that he was there promoting healthcare reform "because of the countless others who have been forced to face the hardest and most terrifying challenges in their lives with the added burden of medical bills they cannot pay."

This week will show an Obama who's fired up about Health Care reform and will speak out as the final push approaches. The true question is, what will come of his efforts? And is this truly the final push? Is it really make or break? Only time will tell.

Obama endorses reconciliation and talks to people in lab coats

White House photo, Pete Souza

President Obama addressed the nation today on the issue of health care reform today. He endorsed using the congressional process of reconciliation to pass the bill through, while calling on Democrats to stand strong in the coming weeks. Reconciliation is a tactic used to pass bills with a simple majority. Instead of needing 60 votes (with 59 Democrats in the Senate), the Democrats would only need 51 votes.

I know what you're thinking..."We only needed 50 votes this whole time?! This is awesome!" (or the opposite, of course). Wouldn't it be nice if it were that simple? After the House Bill is passed, both bills enter reconciliation. They then can only include fiscal budget measures, and amendments deemed relevant to the bill. Debate is limited to 20 hours. Both houses vote on the second bill and must approve it by a simple majority.

This seems like a logical option, but the Democrats have a lot riding on it. The fall midterm elections are only eight months away. According to Mitch McConnell (R-KY), “They’re making a vigorous effort to try to jam this down the throats of the American people, who don’t want it”. If they pass the bill through reconciliation, there could be a large Republican backlash. If they don't pass the bill, there will be a large liberal backlash.

I guess someone's stuck between a rock and a hard place.

P.S: does anyone else think it's creepy that everyone in the audience was wearing lab coats? I know they were doctors. But still...

More info on reconciliation:

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/03/03/89797/heres-how-reconciliation-works.html