Rep. Bart Stupak's (D-MI) abortion amendment, which passed Saturday night just before the House approved its comprehensive health care reform legislation, has set off a firestorm of criticism from pro-choice lawmakers and interest groups, and it's being viewed as a coup for pro-lifers in Congress.
In an interview today, Stupak said his amendment does nothing more than apply current abortion law (the annually renewed Hyde amendment) to health care reform, that pro-choicers are "distorting the hell" out of it, that he's confident his language will be included in the Senate bill, and that pro-choice Democrats have only themselves to blame for its passage on the House floor Saturday night.
The amendment itself (which you can read here) prohibits federal subsidies from being used to purchase insurance plans that cover elective abortions, on any of the regional exchanges set up under the House bill for low-income individuals, and other Americans who don't have access to coverage to shop for health insurance. It specifies that subsidized individuals can purchase supplemental coverage, out of pocket, that covers abortions. It does not restrict coverage of abortions in the case of rape, incest, or saving a woman's life.
What follows is a lightly edited transcript of an interview with Rep. Stupak today.
Why did you think it was necessary to include this language,
stronger language than what Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA) [whose own abortion
provision would have ensured plans on the exchanges that both do and do
not cover elective abortions] had come up with?
Because Capps, in three ways, for the first time ever, legitimizes
abortion as a federal policy. Number one, in each exchange you must
have plans that offered abortion. Number two, for the first time ever,
federal money is going to pay for abortions. Number three, on pages of
the bill they actually had one dollar per month per enrolllee in the
public option going to reproductive rights including abortions, so
there are three drastic changes from current law. Current law, which is
my amendment--it's the Hyde language--says no public funding for
abortion, no public funding for health insurance policies that provide
for abortion coverage.
This has been an emotional issue for some of your Democratic
colleagues. Were you surprised at all at how strong the reaction was
from some of the members against your amendment?
No. They've been fighting me since July on this. My reaction is that
they are saying that no insurance policies will be able to sell
abortion coverage, and that is not true. All the members have to do is
look at their update that they got from the majority leader, Steny
Hoyer [D-MD], that he sent to us about three minutes before 10 [o'clock
Saturday night], before we voted on the amendments. Basically, he said,
'Look, the Stupak amendment is the Hyde amendment. You can't use
federal funds to pay for abortions. However, you can get supplemental
coverage, and it does not prevent private insurance companies from
selling elective abortion coverage.' I think the only surprise I have
is how much they've mischaracterized the amendment, even after their
own majority leader report that we all get before we vote clearly
states the purpose of the amendment and shows it's not greater than
current law, so all this about taking away women's rights, restricting
it--it's no different from the restrictions right now.
The statistic that opponents of your amendments point to when they
make that argument is an estimate that 80 percent of people who are in
the exchange will be receiving subsidies, and so it would effectively
lead private insurers to not offer elective abortion coverage.
Not true.
Not true?
Read the amendment. Even people who receive federal subsidies after
they buy a policy, if they want to buy a supplemental insurance, like
current law is right now, they still can. They're not restricted
because they receive federal funding, they just can't use our federal
funds to buy that coverage. If you want to reach into your pocket after
that and buy the further coverage, you're allowed to. Federal law right
now, federal employees, the Department of Defense, Medicare, Medicaid,
SCHIP, Indian Health Service--none of them can use their federal funds
to pay for an abortion. That's always been the law, and we go no
further.
If you're extending the federal law and federal subsidies into other
areas of health care, then the current law on abortion should apply.
There is no greater restriction placed on anyone. If you have a policy
and you receive federal subsidy, and if you want to buy abortion
coverage, you can. It says very clearly: supplemental policies, you're
free to do it, you've just gotta use your own money. States do it right
now. They put up their matching share on Medicaid. They can't use their
state funds when they use the matching share, they can't take money out
of there, but they can dip into another state pot, and 11 states do
that and provide abortion coverage. That doesn't change. None of that
changes.
NPR has a site that says nothing changes, PolitiFact has a site that
says the Stupak language doesn't change anything, it's current law.
I understand it was a fight to get the vote on this amendment. What
was it like dealing with leadership on this? Did things ever get
contentious between you and the pro-life members of the Democratic
caucus and the Democratic leaders?
Well that's how we got our amendment, because Speaker Pelosi went to
present what she agreed to with us, that it would be part of a
manager's amendment. There should have never been an amendment. There
never should have been a vote on this. We had agreed to put it in a
manager's amendment, which would have been less than what I actually
got--Hyde-lite as I call it, Hyde language lite--and it was the
pro-choice people that rejected it.
They're the ones--and I've been saying all along, all I want to do is
vote on my conscience, let the will of the House work its way--they're
the ones who insisted, 'No, Stupak doesn't get to go in the manager's
amendment, we want it on the floor.' They're the ones who insisted on
bringing it to a vote. They're the ones who wanted to vote against me,
they were the ones who said they would win this vote. Now they lose,
and now they're distorting the hell out of the amendment. That's the
part that bothers most of us. They're the ones who wanted the
amendment. We had an agreement with the Speaker. They rejected it, and
then they took it to the floor and they lost, and now suddenly I'm the
bad person.
So if they hadn't fought you at that stage...
If they hadn't rejected the Speaker on Friday night, to use their
words, there would have been a less restrictive amendment that would
have been part of the manager's amendment. They rejected that. They
could not live with it. Even the less restrictive language. And
therefore the Speaker came back and said, 'Bart, I'm sorry, but our
deal's off. So I have no choice, because we made an agreement, I'm
gonna have to give you an amendment,' and I said, 'Well, with all due
respect, Madame Speaker, I'm not gonna send the amendment we agreed to,
because if the deal's off, then I don't have to hold to that agreement,
Hyde-lite, and I'm putting up the original Hyde language that I offered
in committee, that Joe Pitts and I offered.' That's why it's called the
Stupak-Pitts amendment: that's the same amendment we offered July 30th
in committee. So, in a way, the pro-choice people, by rejecting the
Speaker's proposal, brought this on themselves, and then somehow now
they're blaming me. I find that rather ironic.
Would you be open to considering that 'Hyde-lite' language as part of the final package?
No. Why would I compromise now? I won the issue.
Are you confident that your language is going to be in the Senate version?
Yes. I've heard both Harry Reid say we're going to stay with current
law, and the president in his ABC News interview, in sort of a
roundabout way, basically said we'll keep current law: I don't want
money being sent in for abortions, and I don't want any restrictions of
women's rights. That's the Stupak language. That's the Hyde language
we've had for 37 years, so I feel I'm in good shape. And no, they
rejected the offer and we beat them fair and square on the floor. So
why would I now want to negotiate it away?
A lot of the opponents of this amendment say that it will create a
class divide in the ability to obtain abortions. I understand that for
someone who's pro-life, fewer abortions is good no matter what, but do
you see any validity to that reasoning for opposing what you've put in
the bill?
No, we're going with current law. If current law is a class divide,
then they must conclude that current law is too. No, all I'm doing is
keeping current law--I'm not trying to divide classes or anything like
that. All I'm doing is keeping current law that's been current law
since 1976.
I see this amendment as Stupak imposing his religious beliefs on the poor. What a weasel.
KennyBoy: Disagree. You want taxpayers, including me, to subsidize elective abortions. Thank goodness, Rep. Stupak's amendment prevents that.
You've got a very selective view of PelosiCare whose 2000 pages are chock full of perverse economic incentives, mandates, penalties, taxes, and jail time for the unwashed masses too benighted to immediately bow down before the Almighty Federal Government.
Disagree we shall, I don't want my taxes to pay for war but I don't get to make that choice. So where does it say, what law or constitutionl amendment says the pittance you pay in taxes can't be used to contribute to what the majority considers to be the common good?
The interviewer was on the right track by citing the class divide, but he apparently didn't know precisely how the Stupak language created a class divide.
Current group health plans that are provided by your employer can cover abortion services. They plans are subsidized, and always have been, by the federal government because they are not taxed to you as income, and your employer pays no tax on them either.
Under the Stupak amendment, people who need the government subsidy to purchase an individual health plan on the exchanges -- whether it be the government-run plan or the multitude of private, commercial plans that will be offered alongside the public option -- cannot purchase a plan that covers abortion services.
Those who do not need a subsidy, but still choose to purchase an individual health plan on the exchanges, could purchase a plan that covers abortion services.
The Stupak amendment is the Hyde amendment only insomuch as the language doesn't change.
But the reform bill creates a whole new class of purchasers who are eligible to purchase abortion services coverage today and will not be able to tomorrow. By the very nature of their receipt of subsidy, they are poorer by definition.
I actually think this amendment would not stand up to a court challenge if it makes it into the final bill and anyone wanted to take it on.
Stupak does have a point, though, that supplemental coverage could be offered for abortion services, and a subsidized individual could spend their own money for the coverage, as a way to get around his amendment's prohibition. Choice is retained. The question the interviewer doesn't ask, however, is whether such coverage actually is available now, will remain so in the future, and is its cost within reach for a person poor enough to be receiving a subsidy.
In the early 2000’s it was determined that 13 percent of all abortions are paid for through insurance. Yes, the number likely skews on the low side due to the fact that it does not include women who sought reimbursement for an abortion, did not know the details of their coverage, or simply chose to pay out of pocket out of privacy concerns. Of course, I’m not sure whether that number accounts for the number of women who pay all or part of the total bill in the form of a deductible, either. Let’s assume though, that the 13 percent is low. Let’s assume that of the total number of abortions that are performed every year in this country, 25 percent would be covered by the woman’s health insurance plan. The actual number of these procedures that would necessarily have to be paid out of pocket due to the patients deductible would likely bring that number down a few points, but let’s stick with 25. That leaves 75 percent of abortions that would not be covered either because the woman’s policy doesn’t cover it or, more likely given the demographics, she is not insured in the first place. For either of these groups, the Stupak Amendment cannot have a negative impact. It simply can’t. They’re already paying for the procedure out of pocket.
So then we’re left with the reality, which is, if the Amendment is impacting anybody negatively, it must be the women who exist within that initial 25 percent minority who presently have a policy that covers the procedure (about half of whom may or may not be paying out of pocket anyway). So the concern is that Health Reform is going to negatively impact current policy holders. I hate to say it, but welcome to the reality of health care reform. The president has been claiming since the campaign that people who are already insured will not have their policies affected. They can keep their policies and their doctors. Speaking as somebody who voted for the president and believes in the need for public plan: this is, and has always been, a lie. You don’t get to cover 30 million uninsured Americans, taking away the right to deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions, end rescission, and lower costs without accepting some significant sacrifices with regard to the quality of coverage along the way.
And, in reality, this isn’t even a real sacrifice. It’s a hypothetical one. It’s a dream that could come true whether or not the Stupak Amendment is signed into law with health care reform. Meanwhile, it will certainly become a reality that more and more women will have to pay out of pocket if no Health Reform is passed. Deductibles are rising nearly as fast as premiums. And we’re squabbling over whether or not fear of the hypothetical scenario that people who can afford insurance today may have to pay for their elective abortions in the future should derail the whole process? Meh. They should probably have to pay for them already.
gas28man: It's simply not fair to ask interviewers to try and push interviewees to ask and fully answer hard questions. We should feel privileged and infinitely grateful that our media even got to speak with our holy Representatives at all in the first place. They have no obligation to speak with us, the rabble, or answer our silly questions in detail.
The idea that we might have to put them on the spot is simply disgusting. These men and women are our elected leaders. Be grateful that they descended from heaven in the first place to grace us with their brief talking points before ascending back into the clouds of their heavenly host of campaign consultants and wealthy donors.
What you failed to accurately state is the Stupak Amendment is nearly identical to the Hyde Amendment that has been used since 1976. Without the Stupak amendment, federal funding would have been used to fund abortions for the first time in over 30 years.
The Hyde Amendment prohibits the use of federal funds directly for abortion -- or, in a provision that gets less attention but is highly relevant now, "for health benefits coverage that includes coverage of abortion."
The Hyde Amendment's language is reproduced almost precisely in the Stupak amendment.
Why is the press not reporting this fact? (except the Wall Street Journal)
A previous comment stated that this amendment will have the effect of forcing Stupak's religious beliefs on the poor. I don't know that much about Rep. Stupak so I looked him up on Wikipedia. A prominent Democrat who is also a pro-lifer; his residence in D.C. is a room he rents at a building run by "The Family," a Christian organization that operates under tax-exempt status and operates the facility as a residence for some congressmen and senators. Ah, so this is why we aren't going after religious organizations that have crossed the line our forefathers' drew with the separation of church and state. These organizations are very well connected in Washington, literally and figuratively. I would offer to you that we already have a powerful third political party in this country, and that it meets every Sunday.
I believe that there is nothing worse in these modern times than bringing an unwanted child into the world. And "unwanted" can mean being financially unable to care for the needs of the child and to give the child the tools to function as a productive member of society. In our history, in more primitive times, when we were all living in the bush, an unwanted pregnancy was something different than it is now. I believe in a woman's right to make that choice. I'm a man who has been a part of such a choice in my life and it absolutely was the right choice. It was the right thing to do for the woman, for our relationship, for the children in our family, for society and for the egg that would have probably grown into a being. It sounds biological because it is biological. It was an egg. How can we say that it's okay for a woman above a certain income level to have that choice but it's not okay for a woman below a certain income level to have that choice?
Subsidizing individuals buying something is not the same as the government buying something. Otherwise we would have to ban women receiving food stamps from getting abortions, because, hey, maybe they're using the money they save to pay for supplemental abortion riders. Hey, are you using federal roads to drive to your abortion? Well that's gotta stop.
Stupak's duplicating Hyde language out of context is a huge change in law, and sets a horrifying new precedent. It's a poison pill. If there's no way for health reform to pass without this, then hopefully health reform will die.
The Hyde amemdment has long been a blot on the American political landscape, IMHO. I am angry that my tax dollars are NOT used to fund abortions. It is time to correct this. Please call your representatives and senators, and ask them to support the following idea:
Add a donation option to the Federal tax code that allows the taxpayer to assign a portion of the refund they are to get to providing funding for abortions. I would say make it possible for those who AREN'T getting a refund to add a donation, and pay more in taxes, as well. Whatever is collected will be used to fund abortions, no other tax dollars will be used. That will give us pro-choice taxpayers a way to help provide Federal funds for abortions for poor women.