Roundup: Michelman and Kissling in the New York Times; Keenan Discusses Stupak on “Talk of the Nation”

Prochoice leaders Michelman, Kissling, and Keenan take the Stupak debate to the New York Times and National Public Radio

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