Senate Democrats clinched the final vote for cloture -- breaking the Republican's filibuster -- of their health care bill early this morning by securing the vote of Ben Nelson (D-NE) with a restrictive abortion amendment that infuriated both pro-choice and anti-choice activists.
The amendment, now part of the bill that the Senate will vote on later this week, would require women purchasing coverage from the insurance exchange with federal subsidies to write two checks: one for their premium, and one for the portion of the premium that would cover a (hypothetical) abortion. In addition, states could opt out of allowing insurers who cover abortion to participate in exchanges in their states -- placing a further impediment on accessing an abortion for some women.
But the hardcore anti-choice movement, including the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), opposes the amendment, asserting it would oppose the bill unless it barred insurance companies that cover abortion services from participating in the exchange at all.
Reproductive rights advocates are condemning the provision as well, with Catholics for Choice president Jon O'Brien calling the scheme to have women write two premium checks "idiotic." Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood of America, said the "rider" required by the amendment was motivated by politics, not policy. "There is no sound policy reason to require women to pay separately for their abortion coverage other than to try to shame them and draw attention to the abortion coverage," she said in a statement.
Who was satisfied with the amendment, which Sen. Bob Casey (D-PA) portrayed as a compromise between language that mirrored the failed Capps amendment and the successful Stupak amendment in the House version of the bill?
The so-called "center" -- the very constituency which claims to seek "common ground" in the culture wars -- gave its stamp of approval Friday, although it's not clear how much sway the 40 Christian leaders and scholars had over Nelson's agreement to the measure, as he eventually resisted pressure from the USCCB and others to hold out for the Stupak language. Perhaps Nelson liked the special goodies Harry Reid offered Nebraska with regard to Medicaid funding.
Casey is now the target of the hard-right anti-abortion movement for even proposing the compromise, with protests outside his office and television ads running against him in his home town. Nelson is in its crosshairs as well, with former presidential candidate Mike Huckabee traveling to Nebraska with the tea partiers to compare him to Judas.
Clearly looking for religious cover, Casey issued a press release Friday touting the support of leaders like Sojourners' Jim Wallis, Evangelicals for Social Action's Ron Sider, and the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference's Samuel Rodriguez.
Is that what we need, though -- making a religious stamp of approval essential political cover? The House Democratic leadership took heat from church-state separation and reproductive health advocates for caving at the eleventh hour to the USCCB. Requiring another religious stamp of approval for a compromise abortion amendment -- even if it angered the Bishops -- doesn't fix the problem that one medical procedure is singled out as requiring a divine imprimatur. (It doesn't appear, notably, that any member of the Senate felt the need to seek the approval of the many pro-choice religious groups who oppose restrictions.)
We know that Wallis, at least, likes to portray himself as the reasonable one, lambasting alleged left and right ideologues for attempting to hijack health care reform. Yet while he talked all summer and fall about "abortion neutrality," he never defined what that was (and perhaps now we know what he thinks is required to achieve it).
Earlier last week, before he signed off on Casey's amendment, Rodriguez was cavorting with the religious right, and comparing supporters of health care (without abortion restrictions) to Herod. Rodriguez told me earlier this month, "I worked with Jim Wallis and that coalition to push the House side in favor of amendment that would protect the innocent or would restrict the funding of abortion procedures."
Some of the other Casey amendment endorsers -- including Sider and Christianity Today's editor David Neff, both recently endorsed the Manhattan Declaration, which asserts that reproductive rights are inimical to religious liberty. That "liberty" obviously requires, for them, legislation that restricts other people's rights to supposedly preserve theirs.
At the unveiling of the Manhattan Declaration last month, Sider told me, "I think that the evangelical center agrees with what’s being said here." And, he added, he worked with a group of religious leaders who "pushed hard privately for a truly abortion neutral kind of position in the health care bill." Although Sider refused to be specific about whether the group lobbied for Stupak in particular, he did strongly hint that he did not consider the Capps amendment (an analog of which was in the Senate bill before the inclusion of the Casey amendment) to be "abortion neutral."
While Sider was willing to agree to an amendment less restrictive than Stupak, his and others' comments highlight how keen the "center" is to restrict abortion, even as it touts finding "common ground" with reproductive health advocates.
Tags: abortion, ben nelson, common ground, health care reform, jim wallis, national hispanic christian leadership conference, stupak
The amendment faces a much harder time getting passed in the Senate, since it requires 60 votes to survive. But even if it's defeated, it could cause further problems for the bill, one of President Barack Obama's signature efforts. Several organizations -- including the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, the National Council of Jewish Women, the American Jewish Congress and the Chicago-based Joint Action Committee -- have spoken out or are lobbying to make sure the amendment does not end up either in the Senate version of health care legislation or the final bill that emerges from a conference committee. I can’t imagine people could actually do this if indeed they seek for financial freedom yet still do this unjust and immoral act.
There seems to be a crazy notion that Democracy means that I get to vote and if I win I get to have things my way. The operative word there is "my" or "me".
For democracy to work it has to be about "us".
Politics is the method by which people of any particular group resolve differences. Being at social war with each other is not good way to resolve differences.
I am struck by the fact taht this article in Religion Dispatches is distinctly void of Religion. It is riddled with the effects of religion, but it is a secular piece.
As a Christian, I am reminded of Jesus statement that it is better to be for or against Him that to be lukewarm (neutral).
On the face of it that is a divisive statement, but it is not. Jesus was not asking us to take a position of the world, but a position for Him. He did not ask us to take a position for the political but to take a position for Love.
Abortion is a Schizophrenic issue. Two distinct issues living in one body and at war with each other.
One issue is whether abortion is an acceptable resolution for terminating an unwanted life. You may not like that definition, but is accurate because regardless of viability or development stage, a fetus is a living thing that would, if not stopped, would be come a viable human being.
The second issue is who makes decisions about how a person treats an unwanted pregnancy. Who has the rights? Is it the mother who is a living breathing citizen of our Democracy or the fetus whose rights are not well defined and is unable to defend itself.
We need to separate these two issues and attempt to resolve them independently. The first is a moral position the latter is a political decision. Both affect a wide range of ancillary issues that have lead to a stalemate in our political system.
To me the answer is clear, but that is the problem, it is not about me, it about us.
When I was growing up in the 50's I was offered a neat description of Democracy. My rights end where another person's nose begins. We need to take a long look at that.
Our individual moral perspectives may inform out political actions, but can not be justification for laws. In the United States Democracy, Government is there to make sure all citizens have a right to individual morality where that individual morality does not impede others ability to exercise their individual morality.
The Law needs to be neutral to competing ideas and moralities, but we can not be neutral in our support of that legal neutrality.
Jesus calls us to make a decision to be either for or against Him, but in that decision He never asks us to impose our fidelity to Him on other people.
So that leads us to another issue where we must make a decision. Are we going to be a Theocracy or a Democracy.
The bottom line is that issue, abortion is just one of many issues that await a clear, non-neutral decision upon that issue.
I am struck by the fact that this article in Religion Dispatches is distinctly void of Religion. It is riddled with the effects of religion, but it is a secular piece.
That's our Sarah. She comes up with these reports and it is up to us to supply the religion. I think it is always good to start with a review of American history on this subject. We responded to the problem of teenage pregnancy and cross border illegal abortion by making abortion legal. Christianity responded to that by becoming political, and the Republican party took the opportunity to offer them promises for votes. After the fact, some are starting to see the problem with Christendom selling their soul to the party of the rich, but most are still in denial and that is the source of the current chaos. It seems even those who do have some understanding don't truly understand what has happened.
Historical perspective is always good but it does not change the fact that there are two issues involved not one. Neither is that easy of a problem to resolve, but it will be easier when separated.
I agree that a crucial element is stopping the unwanted pregnancies, but that is only part of the total problem.
One major factor missing in the historical perspective is the absolute refusal of many in the Christian community to acknowledge that humans do have sex organs and are prone to use them (no pun intended).
I remember my parents struggling to talk to me about sex, a problem I do not have. Teen pregnancy is partially a problem of ignorance. The trend from vaginal sex to oral sex is equally dangerous in regards to STDs
The Abstinence programs could be effective except for the myopia of those who run them in refusing to deal honestly with sex, and offer viable alternatives.
God wants us to respect our bodies and use them as they were intended to be used, but society places strictures upon people that forces natural desires to leak outside of the social structure into dark and hidden practice.
This is not good and not God's will. There is a difference between discipline and denial of ones needs.
I don't know what the right answers are, and there may be no right answers. This gets to the heart of what it means to be a species. In the long run the most important thing is who will leave the descendents. This is the struggle for survival, and religion would be well advised to stay away from that issue because if they get involved it will just be another way for religion to fight against religion, and further proof that they are in this game for themselves and not for God.
I am sure that none of us know the right answer, but I think I can come close.
The questions are is abortion right or wrong. My take is it is always wrong to take a life. One does however have to take into account that sometimes it is not just taking a life, it is choosing which life will be taken. In those situations I would always try to choose the most viable life. Not an easy task.
The next question is who should make decisions about having an abortion. This one I am pretty clear about, it the woman's choice not the Government, unless we pass an amendment stating when life begins. That is not hard to do. Life begins at conception.
Culpability for that life starts when one becomes aware of the life. To have an abortion I must know that there is something to abort.
If life begins a conception then that life must have some limited rights, just as juveniles have limited rights.
To find solutions to problems one needs to narrow the areas of question rather than going global.
It is a caution that a government that has established the authority to prohibit abortions can also use that authority to require them. Not a comforting thought.
I disagree with what you said.
Life began a very long time ago. A new life begins at fertilization (not conception, conception is generally agreed upon by the medical community as implantation). Pregnancy starts at conception (implantation). Because you cannot find out you are pregnant until after conception (can't find out you're pregnant before you are), by the time you find out you're pregnant there is a new life involved.
We agree with that much, or so it seems.
The woman should always be the one to make the abortion decision (well, the abortionist should have the right to refuse to perform an abortion on anyone just as doctors have the right to refuse to treat someone).
There are actually three questions that must be answered:
1. Who should make the abortion decision?
2. Is abortion right or wrong and who gets to decide whether abortion is right or wrong in any given situation?
3. Does a fetus (or, more generally, anyone) have a right to be inside a woman without her permission? Like, does the fetus have a right to the woman's body?
If the fetus doesn't have the right to be inside of the woman without her consent, when it loses the consent to be inside of her body, it can be removed. The rights of the fetus end where the rights of the woman begin. I'm pretty certain only the woman has rights to her body.
Comments closed
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.