The Religious Right is cheering last night’s passage of the Stupak amendment, which threatens women’s reproductive rights by severely limiting insurance companies’ ability to cover the cost of abortions.

“This is a huge pro-life victory for women, their unborn children, and families,” announced the Family Research Council, a conservative Christian public policy group that lobbied hard for the amendment. “We applaud this House vote.”

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops also played a major role in persuading lawmakers to adopt the amendment, which 64 House Democrats and 176 Republicans voted to attach in their last-minute wrangles over the Affordable Health Care for America Act. John Nichols raised serious concerns about the Catholic bishops’ involvement, writing this in his post for the Nation:

The tortured final negotiations put serious cracks in Thomas Jefferson’s “wall of separation” between church and state, as abortion foes such as Pennsylvania Democrat Jason Altmire openly acknowledged that they would not vote for health-care reform legislation unless they were told it was appropriate to do so by Catholic bishops in their home districts.

The health bill, with Stupak amendment in tow, passed the House last night by 220-215, simultaneously paving the way for the most ambitious expansion of health-care coverage since the creation of Medicare, and for one of the worst federal curtailments of abortion rights since the Hyde Amendment, which has denied abortion access to most Medicaid recipients since 1976.

Many newspaper articles are downplaying the sweeping nature of the Stupak amendment, failing to signal the ways in which it goes far beyond the Hyde Amendment (a version of which is already part of the House bill in the form of an amendment by Rep. Lois Capps, D-Calif.) and could cause masses of women to lose abortion coverage that they already have. Here’s the alarming analysis of the situation that Rep. Jan Schakowksy issued during yesterday’s debate:

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to Stupak-Pitts. This amendment goes far beyond current law which already bans the use of federal funding for abortions. It goes far beyond the language already in this bill that guarantees no federal dollars are used for abortion. This amendment says that a woman CANNOT purchase coverage that includes abortion services using her own dollars; middle class women, using exclusively their own money will be prohibited from purchasing a plan including abortion coverage in every single public OR PRIVATE INSURANCE PLAN in the new health care exchange. Her only option is to buy a separate insurance policy that covers only abortion – a ridiculous and unworkable approach since no woman anticipates needing an abortion. This amendment is a radical departure from current law and will result in millions of women losing coverage they already have.

This health reform bill is about improving access to care, not further restricting a woman’s right to choose. Our bill is about lowering health care costs for millions of women and their families, not further marginalizing women by forcing them to pay more for their care. This amendment is a back door way of overturning Roe v. Wade; it is a disservice and insult to millions of women throughout our country. I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.

The health reform was already bittersweet before Stupak injected his attack on abortion rights. As Kucinich has argued, the stripping of single-payer provisions from the health reform bill sapped its progressive force in disturbing ways. But despite the disappointing lack of a single-payer provision, and despite the frustrating addition of the Stupak amendment, the bill’s dramatic expansion of health care options still has the potential to help the millions of uninsured people in this country in tangible and critical ways.

The battle for health reform is not over yet. For this bill to become law, a corollary still needs to be passed in the Senate, both houses of Congress to agree on a compromise bill, and Obama needs to sign off on the whole affair.

In other words, there’s still time to strip the Stupak amendment out of the health reform bill, but it will only happen if secular progressives and the Religious Left effectively work together to counter the Religious Right’s sway over this legislation.

Sarah Posner has argued on Religion Dispatches that politics, not religion, is at the heart of the abortion fight, pointing out that many progressive religious leaders have pushed for a health reform that does not include anti-choice measures:

These Democrats, led by Rep. Bart Stupak of Michigan, are pushing for an amendment to restrict womens’ access to abortion. And that’s not theology, it’s politics.

Even so, says Cecile Richards, president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, those attempting to torpedo health care reform over the abortion issue do not represent mainstream religious views. “Pro-choice religious groups and leaders are very mainstream. They are supporting health care reform in the broadest framework,” she said in an interview with RD.

While the USCCB has taken a hard line on opposing health care reform (which it claims to support) if abortion isn’t sufficiently restricted, it does not represent the views of most Catholics. A recent poll commissioned by Catholics for Choice found that 68% of Catholics disapproved of the Bishops’ opposition to health care reform that includes abortion coverage; 56% believed the Bishops shouldn’t even be taking a position on the health care reform legislation. The views of the country’s 65 million Catholics, said Jon O’Brien, the group’s president, “are not represented by 350 members of the USCCB.”

Other pro-choice religious leaders are similarly dismayed. Rev. Debra Haffner, president of the Religious Institute on Sexual Morality, Justice, and Healing, reacting to efforts to restrict abortion coverage in health care reform, wrote on her blog, “It is profoundly unjust when the private moral choices of women … are subject to majority vote and political trading. There can be no common ground when votes are allowed to strip people of their existing rights.”

The upcoming debate over the Stupak amendment and its inclusion in the final health bill will be a moment of truth for spiritual progressives. Will they stick their necks out for women’s rights?

Rumor has it that President Obama promised Henry Waxman that he would personally work to strip the Stupak amendment in conference committee, but such rumors may evaporate if a strong movement doesn’t emerge to push Obama in this direction. Progressive religious leaders could weaken the right-wing religious lobby by standing up for abortion rights and showing Obama and Congress that being sensitive to religious ethics does not mean depriving women of fundamental rights.

Spiritual progressives have often feared to tread into reproductive rights territory, for fear of division within their own ranks. Now more than ever is the time for prominent progressive religious leaders to lay aside those fears and take a moral stance for the rights of women.

Right-wing Christians Celebrate Anti-Abortion Add-on to Health Bill

The Religious Right is cheering last night’s passage of the Stupak amendment, which threatens women’s reproductive rights by severely limiting insurance companies’ ability to cover the cost of abortions.

“This is a huge pro-life victory for women, their unborn children, and families,” announced the Family Research Council, a conservative Christian public policy group that lobbied hard for the amendment. “We applaud this House vote.”

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops also played a major role in persuading lawmakers to adopt the amendment, which 64 House Democrats and 176 Republicans voted to attach in their last-minute wrangles over the Affordable Health Care for America Act. John Nichols raised serious concerns about the Catholic bishops’ involvement, writing this in his post for the Nation:

The tortured final negotiations put serious cracks in Thomas Jefferson’s “wall of separation” between church and state, as abortion foes such as Pennsylvania Democrat Jason Altmire openly acknowledged that they would not vote for health-care reform legislation unless they were told it was appropriate to do so by Catholic bishops in their home districts.

The health bill, with Stupak amendment in tow, passed the House last night by 220-215, simultaneously paving the way for the most ambitious expansion of health-care coverage since the creation of Medicare, and for one of the worst federal curtailments of abortion rights since the Hyde Amendment, which has denied abortion access to most Medicaid recipients since 1976.

Many newspaper articles are downplaying the sweeping nature of the Stupak amendment, failing to signal the ways in which it goes far beyond the Hyde Amendment (a version of which is already part of the House bill in the form of an amendment by Rep. Lois Capps, D-Calif.) and could cause masses of women to lose abortion coverage that they already have. Here’s the alarming analysis of the situation that Rep. Jan Schakowksy issued during yesterday’s debate:

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to Stupak-Pitts. This amendment goes far beyond current law which already bans the use of federal funding for abortions. It goes far beyond the language already in this bill that guarantees no federal dollars are used for abortion. This amendment says that a woman CANNOT purchase coverage that includes abortion services using her own dollars; middle class women, using exclusively their own money will be prohibited from purchasing a plan including abortion coverage in every single public OR PRIVATE INSURANCE PLAN in the new health care exchange. Her only option is to buy a separate insurance policy that covers only abortion – a ridiculous and unworkable approach since no woman anticipates needing an abortion. This amendment is a radical departure from current law and will result in millions of women losing coverage they already have.

This health reform bill is about improving access to care, not further restricting a woman’s right to choose. Our bill is about lowering health care costs for millions of women and their families, not further marginalizing women by forcing them to pay more for their care. This amendment is a back door way of overturning Roe v. Wade; it is a disservice and insult to millions of women throughout our country. I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.

The health reform was already bittersweet before Stupak injected his attack on abortion rights. As Kucinich has argued, the stripping of single-payer provisions from the health reform bill sapped its progressive force in disturbing ways. But despite the disappointing lack of a single-payer provision, and despite the frustrating addition of the Stupak amendment, the bill’s dramatic expansion of health care options still has the potential to help the millions of uninsured people in this country in tangible and critical ways.

The battle for health reform is not over yet. For this bill to become law, a corollary still needs to be passed in the Senate, both houses of Congress to agree on a compromise bill, and Obama needs to sign off on the whole affair.

In other words, there’s still time to strip the Stupak amendment out of the health reform bill, but it will only happen if secular progressives and the Religious Left effectively work together to counter the Religious Right’s sway over this legislation.

Sarah Posner has argued on Religion Dispatches that politics, not religion, is at the heart of the abortion fight, pointing out that many progressive religious leaders have pushed for a health reform that does not include anti-choice measures:
These Democrats, led by Rep. Bart Stupak of Michigan, are pushing for an amendment to restrict womens’ access to abortion. And that’s not theology, it’s politics.

Even so, says Cecile Richards, president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, those attempting to torpedo health care reform over the abortion issue do not represent mainstream religious views. “Pro-choice religious groups and leaders are very mainstream. They are supporting health care reform in the broadest framework,” she said in an interview with RD.

While the USCCB has taken a hard line on opposing health care reform (which it claims to support) if abortion isn’t sufficiently restricted, it does not represent the views of most Catholics. A recent poll commissioned by Catholics for Choice found that 68% of Catholics disapproved of the Bishops’ opposition to health care reform that includes abortion coverage; 56% believed the Bishops shouldn’t even be taking a position on the health care reform legislation. The views of the country’s 65 million Catholics, said Jon O’Brien, the group’s president, “are not represented by 350 members of the USCCB.”

Other pro-choice religious leaders are similarly dismayed. Rev. Debra Haffner, president of the Religious Institute on Sexual Morality, Justice, and Healing, reacting to efforts to restrict abortion coverage in health care reform, wrote on her blog, “It is profoundly unjust when the private moral choices of women … are subject to majority vote and political trading. There can be no common ground when votes are allowed to strip people of their existing rights.”

The upcoming debate over the Stupak amendment and its inclusion in the final health bill will be a moment of truth for spiritual progressives. Will they stick their necks out for women’s rights?

Rumor has it that President Obama promised Henry Waxman that he would personally work to strip the Stupak amendment in conference committee, but such rumors may evaporate if a strong movement doesn’t emerge to push Obama in this direction. Progressive religious leaders could weaken the right-wing religious lobby by standing up for abortion rights and showing Obama and Congress that being sensitive to religious ethics does not mean depriving women of fundamental rights.

Spiritual progressives have often feared to tread into reproductive rights territory, for fear of division within their own ranks. Now more than ever is the time for prominent progressive religious leaders to lay aside those fears and take a moral stance for the rights of women.


Bookmark and Share