The President's Speech: What Took So Long?
by Amanda Marcotte, RH Reality Check
September 14, 2009 - 7:00am (Print)
It’s a peculiar symptom of everything wrong with our political system that Wilson’s lie managed to grow legs, despite being based strictly on right wing paranoia that has no relationship whatsoever to the actual bills being kicked around in Congress. Conservative Democrats were sadly inspired by Wilson’s outburst to find ways to make it even harder for illegal immigrants to purchase health insurance than it already is, but the good news is that as most illegal immigrants are Mexican citizens, there's a strong chance that they'll be able to access coverage through Mexico's public insurance. Not that there was much of a reason to think that illegal immigrants are lining up to buy into an American system. Your average undocumented worker errs on the side of avoiding authorities and officials, because they’re not exactly eager to take the chance of being turned in and deported.
But there was more to the speech than denials of inclusion of illegal immigrants and denials of those denials. The speech was the sort of thing supporters of health care reform wish we’d heard months ago from the President. He’s finally come around to admitting that conservative opposition has no intention of having a conversation about how to best address the health care needs of all Americans, but instead are doing everything they can do just to shut down any attempt at reform. He acknowledged that the only argument against the public option is that which holds corporate profits for insurance companies over human lives. He acknowledged that the United States is the only country in the world as advanced as ours without universal health care. Sure, he had to take a swipe at progressives for our unfortunate habit of being right all along, but at this point, we have come to accept the mindless denunciations that come at you for being know-it-alls. On the whole, the speech was great. We just needed it sooner.
Of course, the President was forced to confront the right wing lie that health care reform will somehow render the Hyde Amendment moot and return us to the era when the federal government paid for abortion. Denials like his cause pain for those of us opposed to anti-woman discrimination in health care, because while it’s true that the right wing accusations are lies, it’s also true that the Hyde Amendment is discriminatory to the point of punishing certain people for the "crime" of being poor while female. At the time of the speech, I was happy to note that the President felt no need to talk about the larger issue of reproductive health care. Is it possible that anti-choicers have completely given up any hope of blocking coverage for contraception under health care reform, I thought hopefully to myself.
Not quite, it turns out. Some people will never give up being appalled at what they see as the federal promotion of sexual activity in women through government programs to make fertility control affordable. As Sarah Posner documented, the Christian right is trying to rally the base against health care reform by floating generic scare stories about Planned Parenthood opening auxiliary clinics in all public schools. Of course, they dodge the accusation that they’re anti-contraception by flinging the word “abortion” around a lot, trying to create high emotions that they can use to distract people from the fact that contraception prevents abortion. For instance, Jordan Sekulow tossed the word “abortion” around a lot to raise phony concerns about Planned Parenthood coming into schools. Even though the claim is preposterous, it’s also interesting to note that Sekulow is either literally trying to get you to believe that health care reform means they’ll be squeezing vacuum aspiration abortions in between classes at high schools, or more likely, he’s using the fallback right wing position of using “abortion” as a catch-all phrase to describe all reproductive health care and education. It’s true that some high schools try to work with students to improve contraception education and access, and some use Planned Parenthood to help them with this, but only in right wing la-la land is that the same thing as abortion.
The conflation of abortion and contraception in right wing hysteria-talk makes Liberty Counsel’s claim that school-based health clinics have a personal vendetta against your potential grandchildren that they’re out to “abort” even funnier. Most parents generally aren’t eager to have their high school age children start providing them grandchildren, but once you wade into the panic over health care reform, I guess visions of pregnant 15-year-old daughters move from being parental nightmares to what every parent is supposed to want. The right wing enthusiasm for using the word “abortion” to shut down all rational thought might be an overreach in this case. I just can’t imagine that most parents are really going to lose their minds to find out that the schools want to find ways to keep their daughters from getting pregnant in the first place.
Let’s hope the President’s speech helps further expose how the right wing protests against health care reform have become completely unmoored from reality. Or maybe I’ve got too much confidence in my fellow Americans, since I believe most people have to react to visions of between-class abortions with respectable levels of eye rolling.
Follow Amanda Marcotte on Twitter, @amandamarcotte
The biggest abortion-related concerns of the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) with H.R. 3200 pertain to (1) a proposed insurance program that would be run entirely by the federal government (the "public option"); and (2) a proposed new premium-subsidy program ("affordability credits") to help tens of millions of people buy health insurance.
For many weeks, the White House -- including the President himself -- has made statements indicating either that the traditional Hyde Amendment would prevent the new programs from funding abortion, or that language adopted in a House committee (the Capps-Waxman Amendment), over the objections of pro-life members, would ensure that only "private" funds are used to pay for abortions. Each claim collapses under scrutiny. In fact, the bills approved by the House and Senate committees would put the federal government into the business of funding abortions directly, and also in the business of subsidizing the purchase of private health policies that cover elective abortions -- and all with federal funds, which are the only kind of funds that the federal government can spend.
It appears that Amanda Marcotte still labors under the erroneous impression that the Hyde Amendment would somehow apply to the two proposed new programs. But, the Hyde Amendment would not apply, as NRLC has pointed out for months, a conclusion supported by two memoranda issued in late August by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service. The short version: None of the funds that would establish and sustain the "public plan," and none of the funds that would establish and sustain the premium subsidy program, would flow through the annual Health and Human Services appropriations bill, which are the only funds covered by the Hyde Amendment. The documentation is set forth in this memorandum (which links to the CRS memoranda and other independent documents): http://www.nrlc.org/AHC/NRLCmemoHydeAmendmentWillNotApply.html
Although neither proposed program would be funded through the HHS appropriations bill, both programs would spend federal funds and nothing but federal funds, as the term is legally defined and as it used throughout the government. Under H.R. 3200, the public plan would be a program with the federal Executive Branch, the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). All of the funds available to the "public fund" would be "federal funds," by law and as the term is used throughout the government. No advocate enhances her credibility by stubbornly clinging to the completely untenable claim that a federal agency can expend "private funds." We demonstrate that all of the funds spent by the public option would be federal funds in this memorandum: http://www.nrlc.org/AHC/NRLCmemoFederalFundsnotPrivateFunds.html
This second memorandum also demonstrates that all of the funds that would support the premium subsidy program created by the bill would be federal funds, obtained mostly from general federal revenues, along with some special taxes created by the bill.
As to President Obama's credibility on this issue, we had something to say about that after his September 9 speech, here:
http://www.nrlc.org/press_releases_new/Release090909.html
Douglas Johnson
Legislative Director
National Right to Life Committee
Washington, D.C.
There's almost always a logical fallacy in right wing arguments (the rest of the time, they're just making stuff up, a strategy so low that logicians didn't even bother to deal with it), and this is yours: argument ad nauseam.
It's the belief that if you repeat an argument---in your case, a lie---loudly and longly enough, it becomes the truth.
Again, there will be no taxpayer money for abortion. Abortion still will be legal, and it will be legal for an insurance company to decide to cover it. It will be legal for a public insurance company to pay for it out of premiums contributed by users. Â
But there will be no taxpayer-covered abortions. Â
You think very little of your people, that you continue to lie to them to get them worked up.
I will leave it to the discerning reader to determine which side here is relying on sheer repetition ("lie," "again, "there will be no taxpayer funding," etc.) -- and which side has provided substantive material. I have provided links to memoranda that rely on (and provide links to) actual legislative language, and to materials from independent sources such as the Congressional Research Service, GAO, CBO, FactCheck.org, etc. As in our exchanges some days ago, Amanda Marcotte provides a reply that is utterly devoid of any substantive rebuttal to the analysis provided in those documents. She cites no documents, no independent authorities. Since she is unable to provide any substantive defense of her past untenable statements that the Hyde Amendment will prevent the proposed new programs from subsidizing abortions with federal funds, she can think of nothing to do except chant the same little formulas over and over, and then try to change the subject.
Douglas Johnson
Legislative Director
National Right to Life Committee
Washington, D.C.
I directly responded to your tactics. I thought my explanation of your logical fallacy was incredibly insightful, and helps advance the conversation. Sure, it doesn't advance your argument, but that's not my job. I'm more interested in intelligent discussions based in reality.
Please tell, though, how do you feel on the subject of Planned Parenthood setting up abortion clinics in schools? Do you also believe in that lie, or do you not believe it here while believing it while speaking to your gullible followers?
Regarding your interest in "Planned Parenthood setting up abortion clinics in schools," a scenario that you here suggest I have transmitted to "gullible followers," please post in this thread any quotation or link to any source in which I, or anyone at all associated with National Right to Life, has made such an assertion. If you fail to cite such a statement by me or some other NRLC spokesperson, we'll know it just another one of your casual fabrications. Â
Regarding the substance of that concern, I express no opinion here, because I have not researched it -- but I realize that in your scattershot posts you are not constrained by such considerations.Â
While we are waiting, can somebody tell me how to email the webmaster here? For some reason it appears that my browser is not displaying all the comments in this thread. Ms. Marcotte solemnly informed us, above, that she has posted an "incredibly insightful" comment pertinent to our discussion of the Hyde Amendment, and that would mean that she must have finally come up with something beyond repetition and invective --perhaps, even, an actual recantation of her thoroughly discredited claims that the Hyde Amendment would apply to the programs created by the pending health care legislation. But alas, the comment she describes is not displaying here.
Douglas Johnson
Legislative Director
National Right to Life Committee
Washington, D.C.
Douglas,
Thanks for participating in the discussion. Â I'm sure you're feeling a hunger for respectful dialogue between people who care passionately about the abortion issue. Â It would be good if you kept coming around. Â
It would also be good if you added a 'comments' section at the end of articles published on the NRLC website. Â I like to visit Pro-Life websites and to keep informed about issues of concern to those of us who wish to see an end to abortion, but I get frustrated by the fact that virtually all the 'sites I visit refuse to take comments (Jill Stanek's 'site is an exception, but her 'moderators' don't always accept my posts).
Wouldn't it be great if a Pro-Life 'site hosted the kind of lively and informative discussions that are regularly seen on the RHReality Check threads?
But that's just an aside.
I want you to tell me whether NRLC is sincere about supporting Health Care Reform or whether your objections to the abortion language in the bill are just an excuse to skuttle a plan that you wouldn't want no matter how carefully money was excluded from abortion procedures.  When I consider the position of the Catholic bishops I find myself trusting that the institutional Church really does want Universal Health Care.  If their concerns about abortion would be addressed they would be enthusiastic supporters of the bill.  I'm not so sure about NRLC.  Is there ANY abortion language that would entice you to support progressive health care measures that will surely save the lives of many unborn people?
Uninsured women get abortions at a higher rate than insured women do. Â No wonder. Â Without pre-natal and pediatric health care insurance, child rearing becomes an ever more daunting prospect. Â We need to help families provide good care to their children. Â Reforming the health system in the US is a needed step in the right direction.Â
Paul Bradford
Pro-Life Catholics for Choice
The links to the rumors are in the post. I'm sure you've heard them. I never said for sure that you are spreading those rumors in an official capacity, but I wouldn't put it past you is all. At this point, any bit of misinformation to rile up the base against health care reform is game. I'm well aware of how there's one message for the base, and then a toned-down one in other forums, so as not to appear completely unmoored from reality.
But your immediate flailing and unwillingness to react to the actual links confirms my suspicions that you don't actually read anything I write, but just copy/paste the same dishonest screeds to rile up people about non-existent legislation to pay for abortion.
We should pay for it, though! Or, if we don't, I should get a refund for my part of the Iraq War, now that we don't have to pay for anything we personally don't like.
The discerning reader will note that Ms. Marcotte first suggested that I am spreading a certain allegation regarding a certain policy-related issue "while speaking to your gullible followers," and then, when challenged to produce backup -- any source, whether attributed to me personally or to the organization that I represent -- she came up empty handed, falling back on her usual hodge-podge of bluster, ground-shifting, and unsupported allegation.
As I already said, regarding the substance of that concern, I express no opinion here, nor have I expressed an opinion elsewhere, because I have not researched it -- which is a constraint that Ms. Marcotte obviously does not labor under. And as to screeds -- while, I am not in her class.
Douglas Johnson
Legislative Director
National Right to Life Committee
Washington, D.C.
