First the good news -- the House health care reform bill passed. It is troubling that it passed with two votes to spare and but one Republican vote (Rep. Cao, who got in because his opponent is a crook). We should remember that members do play around some here, concerned about positioning and realizing that the important thing is the the bill passed. But, it still seems a bit off to have such a majority and have to eke out a win. No matter why the people voted against it.
[Here is the Roll Call. Note how Kucinich is a "nay" vote from the left.]
Also, bothersome is an amendment shoved in (which might be removed later, but don't bet your house on it) that screwed women. The thing that really is just plain annoying is that there ALREADY was a compromise in place that went further than many pro-choice members would like. [As to the makeweight nature of these lines, see here.] Like the public option over single payer, however, many realized that in reality you have to compromise. But, like the selfish babies Blue Dogs and other conservative (on whatever issue) Dems have repeatedly shown themselves to be, this was not enough. And, they b.s. about it:
Currently, the House bill contains what’s called the Capps Amendment — a compromise that maintains Hyde Amendment restrictions. The arrangement protects Hyde by specifying that subsidy dollars could only be used to abort pregnancies that threaten the life of mother or result from rape or incest (Hyde allows for this). Other kinds of abortions would have to be funded with private premiums. The provision also requires that at least one plan in each market area offer abortion services and one plan not. No abortion services—even those allowed by the Hyde Amendment — can be mandated as part of a minimum benefits package.
Stupak and his allies want to go beyond Hyde. Under their amendment, women who purchase comprehensive private insurance packages — that include abortion services — would have to pay for the entire cost of the package (even if they qualify for subsidies).
But, they need to shove their religious beliefs down our throats. Their God is more important than other people's God. Firedoglake has a lot more (just one post there) plus a lot of anger. Remember, this is health care legislation. And, the Hyde Amendment model does not have an exception for women's HEALTH. This is totally absurd.* Justice Stevens, who supported the constitutionality of banning federal funds for non-therapeutic abortions (as if early abortion is not safer than childbirth so is inherently so) drew the line at that:
These cases involve a special exclusion of women who, by definition, are confronted with a choice between two serious harms: serious health damage to themselves on the one hand and abortion on the other. The competing interests are the interest in maternal health and the interest in protecting potential human life. It is now part of our law that the pregnant woman's decision as to which of these conflicting interests shall prevail is entitled to constitutional protection.
Firedoglake is angry that this is a blow against women. It is but is is also a blow against women's health in particular. Ah well. Long fight ahead with some more poison pills to bear, I'm sure. But, a bit of sanity tonight all the same. Elections do have consequences.
---
* As Justice Brennan noted in his dissent in the same case Stevens did:
Antipathy to abortion, in short, has been permitted not only to ride roughshod over a woman's constitutional right to terminate her pregnancy in the fashion she chooses, but also to distort our Nation's health care programs.
On the health value of all abortions, see Justice Marshall's angry dissent here.