Michelman and Kissling on Stupak in the New York Times

"A grim reality sits behind the joyful press statements from Washington Democrats," write Kate Michelman and Frances Kissling on the editorial page of today's New York Times.

To secure passage of health care legislation in the House, the party chose a course that risks the well-being of millions of women for generations to come.

They are of course writing about the "deal" struck in the eleventh-hour on the Stupak-Pitts amendment which, in effect and among other things, would ban women who participate in the health insurance exchange called for in the House bill from obtaining insurance policies including coverage for abortion care, even if they pay 100 percent of the premiums. It is what many have called a "middle class abortion ban," just added on top of the indignities visited upon low-income women by the Hyde amendment.

By voting for this amendment, Michelman and Kissling state:

[T]he House Democrats reinforced the principle that a minority view on the morality of abortion can determine reproductive health policy for American women.

Many House members "say the tradeoff was necessary to advance the right to guaranteed health care. They say they will fight another day for a woman’s right to choose."

But they can’t ignore the underlying shift that has taken place in recent years. The Democratic majority has abandoned its platform and subordinated women’s health to short-term political success. In doing so, these so-called friends of women’s rights have arguably done more to undermine reproductive rights than some of abortion’s staunchest foes. That Senate Democrats are poised to allow similar anti-abortion language in their bill simply underscores the degree of the damage that has been done.

Michelman and Kissling argue that this situation was a foregone conclusion given the party's desperation to capture "faith-based" voters, which, in translation largely means conservative Catholic and Evangelical voters, because those among us who are faith-based progressives no longer seem to count for much.

They write:

Many women — ourselves included — warned the Democratic Party in 2004 that it was a mistake to build a Congressional majority by recruiting and electing candidates opposed to the party’s commitment to legal abortion and to public financing for the procedure. Instead, the lust for power yielded to misguided, self-serving poll analysis by operatives with no experience in the fight for these principles. They mistakenly believed that giving leadership roles to a small minority of anti-abortion Democrats would solve the party’s image problems with “values voters” and answer critics who claimed Democrats were hostile to religion.

And

Democrats were told to stop talking about abortion as a moral and legal right and to focus instead on comforting language about reducing the number of abortions. In this regard, President Obama was right on message when he declared in his health care speech to Congress in September that “under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions” — as if this happened to be a good and moral thing. (The tone of his statement made the point even more sharply than his words.)

Democrats have taken to calling those who oppose a woman’s right to choose “pro-life” instead of the more correct term "anti-choice,' and have invited groups like Democrats for Life to hold a press conference in Democratic Party offices. The party has also promoted, they note, the ascendance of "“pro-life progressives” like Sojourners, Catholics United and Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, organizations whose leaders have stated that abortions should be made “more difficult to get.”"

This, then, is where we stand as party leaders celebrate passage of the House bill. When it comes to abortion, they seem to think all positions are of equal value so long as the party maintains a majority. But the party will eventually reap what it has sown. If Democrats do not commit themselves to defeating the amendment, then they will face an uncompromising effort by Democratic women to defeat them, regardless of the cost to the party’s precious majority.

In the meantime, they conclude, "the victims of their folly will be the millions of women who once could count on the Democratic Party to protect them from those who would sacrifice their rights for political gains."

Keenan on Talk of the Nation

In an appearance on Talk of the Nation, Nancy Keenan of NARAL Pro-Choice America underscored the same issues.

Asked about the Stupak amendment, Keenan said:

[I]t is an abortion ban. That means that women in this country cannot buy health care insurance that would cover abortion care with their own money - with their own money.

The interviewer, repeating a common misconception about the amendment says: "Well, wait a minute. The idea was an extension of the Hyde amendment, which prevents the spending of federal money on abortion."

And Keenan responded:

[L]et's keep in mind that the Hyde amendment is the status quo, that the bill originally had language in it that prohibited federal monies to be spent on abortion in this country. That was in the bill. So the Stupak amendment goes far, far beyond the status quo and, actually, is denying women, denying women to access insurance coverage that covers abortion care with their own money in the exchange. Right now, in America, about 80, 85 percent of private insurance companies cover abortion care. So they would lose that if this Stupak amendment eventually prevails.

November 12, 2009

Barbara Anderson: How Pelosi pulled a fast one on pro-life lobby The Salem News

Ellen Goodman: Lawmakers left with a false choice on health care The State Journal-Register

Health Care Victory Bittersweet for Capps Santa Barbara Independent

Clinton spreads pro-choice message in Catholic Philippines Catholic Culture

Christian and pro-choice Observer Online

To mark National Adoption Week, we will be looking at the whole process BBC News

Abortion curbs have Democrats in dilemma Minneapolis Star Tribune

Lawyers want new location for Kan. abortion trial Belleville News Democrat

Political insider: Group raises cash to challenge Stupak on abortion The Detroit News

November 11, 2009

Obama To Meet With Pro-Choice Leader Today TPM LiveWire

Climate change is not a feminist issue Guardian UK

Ashley Judd: Please, Population Control is Not the Answer for Congo Huffington Post

The whole story on contraceptives Daily Cardinal

Reproductive Justice: Conservative Catholic College Rejects Birth  Control Huffington Post

'Choice' Abortion's Accomplice, Unmasked in New Pro-Life Website Christian News Wire

Pro-Life Movement Must Unify After Strategy Difference on Stupak Abortion Amdt LifeNews.com

Northern Ireland Abortion Numbers Questioned By Pro-Life Groups Lifesite

A poor way to show how “pro-life” you are Examiner.com

British Pro-Life Group Upset Government Promoting Pro-Abortion Sex-Ed Strategy LifeNews.com

Do Catholic Bishops Run the United States Government? Huffington Post

Restructured health care should not include immoral procedures Catholic Sentinel

The Seeker: Frozen embryos: Join the fertile debate Chicago Tribune

Uganda to host family planning conference The Observer

Pro-choice group reacts to Obama claims on health care and abortion Washington Examiner

Matthew Yglesias » What Was Gained With the Stupak Amendment ThinkProgress

Payne: Capuano Has To Explain His Health Care, Abortion Position WBUR

Dems: Dial Back the Rhetoric! America Magazine

Clinton gives senators health care pep talk San Francisco Chronicle

Both sides reject Roeder's defense The Wichita Eagle

Nelson drawing lines in the sand on abortion Politico

Senate Will Vote on Obama Pro-Abortion Judicial Pick David Hamilton Next Week LifeNews.com

The Real Status Quo on Abortion and Federal Insurance Heritage.org

Think The Stupak Amendment Is Bad Now? It Could Have Been Worse TPMDC

Abortion rights backers request talks with Obama The Associated Press

Rahm, Liberal Women's Groups, Have 'Frank Exchange' on Anti-Abortion Amendment ABC News

Rep. Kennedy and Bishop in Bitter Rift on Abortion New York Times

Abortion: Making or Breaking Health Care? John Birch Society