Abortion Compromise Unconstitutional? Key House Members Raise Objection

[cal04]

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/12/abortion-compromise-unconstitutional-key-house-member-raises-objection.php?ref=fpblg

A number of key pro-choice Democrats--including Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Patty Murray (D-WA)--have said they can get behind the new abortion compromise in Senate health care legislation.

Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA), author of an early abortion compromise that would have required insurance companies to segregate federal and private dollars, and to finance abortions through the latter pool, is disappointed, but ultimately supportive.

(snip)
But Reps. Diana DeGette (D-CO) and Louise Slaughter (D-NY)--co-chairs of the Congressional Pro-Choice Caucuse--say they're not sold. They say the new compromise is possibly unconstitutional, and that they and other pro-choice House members could still reject it.

As the Co-Chairs of the Congressional Pro-Choice Caucus, we have serious reservations about the abortion provision included in the U.S. Senate's health care bill. This provision is not only offensive to people who believe in choice, but it is also possibly unconstitutional. As we have maintained throughout this process, health care reform should not be misused to take away access to health care. The more than 190-member Caucus will review this language carefully as we move forward on health care reform.

The Nelson compromise may ultimately allow health care reform to pass in the Senate--but with strong opposition from both pro-life and pro-choice members and constituent groups, the language still an open question in the House. Onward to conference!



Pro-Choice Caucus leaders have 'serious reservations' on abortion compromise
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/73099-pro-choice-caucus-leaders-have-serious-reservations-on-abortion-compromise

[Laelth]

1. Excellent. I hope the House blows up the bill in conference.

Kill the bill.

Forcing people to buy insurance is no more the answer to a failed health care system than forcing people to buy houses is the solution to homelessness.

:dem:

-Laelth

[depakid]

6. Put this damn thing into reconciliation and be done with the weak kneed pandering

[AzDar]

13. This.

:thumbsup:

[G_j]

2. Good!

K&R

[Ozymanithrax]

3. IF it is unconstitutional, they should pass the bill and then go to court...

and get that part of the bill tossed out.

50+ million Americans dying at a rate of 40,000 a year because they have no health care need something.

[laughingliberal]

7. They need something, alright. Unfortunately, what they need didn't get into the bill nt

[Ozymanithrax]

14. This bill will help millions of Americans get health care...

It will be built upon and improved over time.

I am a proud incrementalist...

[laughingliberal]

16. Yes, so you've said. Problem is it's a nice talking point but it's not true

You either know that and have another agenda for promoting this pile of crap or you really don't know how shoddy the bill is. I'd go with incremental improvement. This is not incrementalism. It is full speed ahead in the wrong direction handing over of a fresh crop of victims to a criminal enterprise that has operated within our country with impunity for years.

Sorry, I have too much experience with public health policy, as a patient, as a nurse, as a student of health systems to suck down that "built on and improved over time." Save it for the easily led.

[Ozymanithrax]

17. I've read many bills, including the 1964 Civil Rights act.

All of them were weak to shitty in their origins and have been improved, numerous times.

Hell, the Constitution was a piece of shit when it was signed by the states. We needed to actually add the bill of rights to that sucker, and it has been amended 27 (27 increments) times and still falls short in many areas including gender rights and the way we make war.

Our founding fathers limited the vote to male land owners. It took almost 2 centuries to fix that piece of shit legislation, one increment at a time.

Incrementalism is the way things are done in this country. I look forward to seeing this bill improved over time.

[laughingliberal]

19. You just keep looking for that improvement. Meanwhile, I'm gonna do what I can to get out of the way

of a freight train heading in the exactly wrong direction. To have something to build and improve on, it has to start out as a step in the right direction. That is where we disagree. And that is not likely to change.

[Ozymanithrax]

22. Then we respectfully disagree...

I look forward to finding things that we agree on.

[laughingliberal]

24. Mutual nt

[pleah]

4. K&R I thought it might be, but was waiting to see if someone with

real legal knowledge to bring it up. So glad for Reps DeGette and Slaughter. Surprised at Boxer and many others.

[dkf]

12. What makes it unconstitutional?

I'd love it to be so

[pleah]

15. Like I said, waiting for real legal opinions to point that out. n/t

[Ozymanithrax]

18. If unconstitutional, it will be because it does not follow the law as set by...

Roe V. Wade.

[FLDCVADem]

20. Sorry, but that's just crap

Roe v. Wade does not guarantee the right of women to have abortions paid for by the government or by insurance. Payment isn't even addressed in Roe v. Wade.

[treestar]

21. And there is the later case that said they wouldn't be covered

under Medicaid, from way back in the 70s.

[NJmaverick]

5. The irony is the House bill is much more restrictive than the Senate bill

sort of makes the congress woman look like hypocrites for knocking the Senate women.

[ThomCat]

8. Having "Serious Reservations" isn't enough.

I hope they are threatening to vote against this crap piece of legislation unless it gets improved.

The conservatives are getting every giveaway they want in exchange for their vote. Let the 190 strong pro-choice caucus get Their wish list in exchange for Their votes! They should commit to voting against this bill unless they get their way. Without their 190 votes this bill would be doomed.

[earthboundmisfit]

9. Good.

It's a backhanded way for the motherfuckers to skirt Roe v Wade.

[FLDCVADem]

11. I keep hearing this

but I don't see it.

Could you please explain to me how keeping federal abortion funding the same as it is now is skirting Roe v. Wade? Maybe I'm just missing something, but I don't see it.

[earthboundmisfit]

27. Little by little they've been whittling away at access

This will help narrow the providers even more. If they can't do away with Roe v Wade itself, they will do it by limiting access so much that a woman will have a damned hard time finding anyone to perform the procedure.

[FLDCVADem]

28. How is not covering something in the future

that isn't covered now going to narrow providers? That doesn't even make sense.

[malaise]

10. Good

Rec

[amborin]

23. petition to sign in opposition:

<http://action.stopstupak.com/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=385>

[Thickasabrick]

25. This bill will be tied up in the courts for years. Class Action will be

brought for the mandates to buy a private service.

[cbdo2007]

26. Wait....so if everyone isn't covered for everything, it coud possibly be unconstitutional?

"...health care reform should not be misused to take away access to health care."

Every health care plan has stuff that isn't covered. If the govt creates the plan and administers it, its their decision what does or does not get covered. There's nothing constitutional or "unconstitutional" about it.