Your email address is safe with us. View our Privacy policy.
Author Bio:
Kathleen Parker is one of America's most popular opinion columnists, addressing the country's mental health through her views on current national ...
Read more about Kathleen Parker.
Kathleen Parker is one of America's most popular opinion columnists, addressing the country's mental health through her views on current national ...
Read more about Kathleen Parker.
A Choice He May Regret
Kathleen Parker
WASHINGTON -- As President Barack Obama prepares to address Congress
on health care reform, America's pro-life movement is gassing up.
If Obama hasn't liked the tenor of town-hall meetings, wait until he meets pro-lifers at full throttle. They're planning a major drive (to exhaust the metaphor) next week to try to stop federal funding of abortion as allowed under proposed health care legislation.
Obama has partly invited this havoc by not being completely forthright about how health care reform, as currently proposed, would provide taxpayer funding for abortion.
The president may have decided that a thorough explanation was too complicated -- and the subject is not simple. Or perhaps, as some have suggested, he simply doesn't understand it himself. But Obama figured wrong if he thought he could deflect concerns about one of the nation's most divisive issues with a casual dismissal of those crazy myths.
For the past couple of weeks, Obama has been dogged by fact checkers, including Factcheck.org at the Annenberg Public Policy Center, following a comment he made Aug. 19 that charges of government-funded abortions in the health care bill were "fabrications."
Not really. Somewhere between hysterical claims that Americans will be forced to pay for abortions and assertions that no federal funds will go toward abortion is a more-nuanced, if less interesting, truth.
Although the bills before Congress don't require federal funding of abortion, they do allow for funding in indirect -- possibly disingenuous -- ways.
This, at a time when more Americans consider themselves pro-life (51 percent) than pro-choice (42 percent), according to a Gallup Values and Beliefs survey in May. Meanwhile, 20 House Democrats have signed a letter expressing concern about the abortion funding. Pro-life Democratic Rep. Bart Stupak, who co-sponsored a failed amendment to exclude abortion from the bills, has said that as many as 39 Democrats may join him in trying to block any bill without the exclusion.
Essentially, there are two areas of concern.
One lies in the proposed public option in the House leadership's bill (H.R. 3200), which allows federal funding of abortion only in cases of rape or incest, or to save the life of the mother, thanks to an amendment by California Democratic Rep. Lois Capps. The Capps Amendment is similar to the Hyde Amendment to Medicaid -- before which federal dollars paid for as many as 300,000 abortions annually -- with one crucial difference: It leaves open the possibility for funding elective abortion at the discretion of the secretary of health and human services. Given the pro-choice record of Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, whose mock-motto among Republicans on the Hill is "everyone should be aborted at birth," there's little question how she would rule.
Abortion funding, moreover, would be in sync with Obama's stated position that reproductive health constitutes "essential care." It also would be consistent with the spirit of his campaign promise to sign the Freedom of Choice Act, which would remove all obstacles to abortion. While the act has assumed a lower priority on Obama's to-do list, the House bill is a significant step toward accomplishing the same thing.
The other area of concern is with private insurance coverage that would compete with the public option. Although some insurance carriers would specifically not offer abortion coverage, others will. And because some Americans would be provided federal subsidies to buy coverage -- and could pick policies that cover the procedure -- the purity of Obama's statement that abortions are not funded under the plan gets diluted.
Segregating funding so that taxpayers' dollars don't get tainted by abortions is problematic, to say the least. And to people not overly concerned about how others handle their reproductive choices, the fuss may seem like so much hair-splitting. But this is hardly a new problem, and the decision to reverse a tradition of keeping the federal government out of abortion is unnecessarily divisive. Obama's incomplete response to concerns, meanwhile, falls somewhat shy of his commitment to transparency.
What seems increasingly obvious is that Obama tried to do too much while his political capital was strong. In the process, he has lost momentum and trust. A recent Rasmussen poll tracked Obama's performance approval at just 45 percent -- his lowest so far.
Obama still has a chance with his speech on Wednesday to wrest control of this monster, but he'll have to return to his original mission of lowering costs and making insurance portable and fair (no pre-existing condition disqualification). Republicans wouldn't stop him if he followed that course, but the funding of abortions could terminate reform in gestation.
========
Kathleen Parker's e-mail address is kathleenparker(at)washpost.com
Copyright 2009 Washington Post Writers Group
This news arrived on: 09/06/2009
Printer Friendly Version | Send this page to a friend | Post Comment
Rate This Story:
Great - 5 - 4 - 3 - 2 - 1 - Bad
Posted Comments:
09-08-2009 20:21
wrote:
the right dont like no rights but their own everything else is all wrong
09-08-2009 02:05
JCE wrote:
casey42
I don't know. Gay rights sure gets the right riled up. Isn't it ironic that the states with legal gay marriage have lower divorce rates? So much for it hurting marriage. The sales of bootleg alcohol, prostitution, pornography, and sex toys usually are highest in the Bible belt, and in Utah. Maybe it is the preachers telling them how bad it is that makes them all want to try it. At least, one would think from all the preachers using drugs, going to prostitutes, cheating on their wives, and practicing gay sex. Ironic, that the best advertisement for liberal hedonism is the conservative spiritual and political leaders.
09-07-2009 23:16
JK wrote:
dick from chaska
You are a damm yankee.
09-07-2009 20:01
casey42 wrote:
There is no more devisive issue in America today than abortion, preachers jump on it as a way to keep their sheep voting republican, it is a way to keep them in line and to accuse the opposition of murder. Of course denying abortions legally preformed will no more prevent abortions than prohibition prevented drinking, or outlawing dope stopped people from using it. Check your medicen cabinets right wingers, you are probably among the most doped up in the world. Out lawing abortions will mean a big increase in young women being killed by illegal abortions preformed under unsanitary conditions, kind of like burning them at the stake.
09-07-2009 17:26
JCE wrote:
Dick from Chaska
Slavery was on its way out, and would have been so in a few more decades. But even then, it was another 100 years before the American people were willing to allow any real freedom for the blacks. Even Lincoln didn't want to give the blacks who joined the northern army guns, and when it finally did, even without proper guns, boots, equipment or other supplies, it they fought as well and bravely as any man could. Meanwhile, in the north, rich men paid to get out of serving. The whole civil war was decided by big factories, men who owned congress, so they could make a profit. And the south was punished, over and over, as a lesson to any who would stand up against the republic. Nothing has really changed. My people are from the south, and I learned early that there is never just one side, and each side always has some right and some wrong on its side. Had Lincoln not caved into the rich factory owners, there would not have been a war. And there never should have been one. No government should treat its people like that. When the people were ready to free the slaves, they would have, as they actually did. And the blacks were punished for what the south did as well. There are many southern states that have never recovered from the war. Me, I wish the south had won. Not that I support slavery, I think it is evil. But no more evil than the economic slavery the federal government has us under now.
Comment archive | Comment FAQ's
 |
 |
|
View Kathleen Parker ezine stories by date or visit the complete archive |
The ArcaMax Politics channel is one of 70 content categories offered by ArcaMax Publishing on this ... |
VideoSquares.com
