Guess what? I don’t know anything about healthcare reform except what I watched here:
So anyone who wants to debate it with me will find me a poor opponent. I know next to nothing about it and tend to let people decide things for me. Plus, I’m crazy. Not crazy like others may say you’re crazy, but disorganized, slightly impaired, and prone to delusion crazy. That’s not you, is it?
So, that disclaimer out of the way, here are my simple observations:
Bart Stupak wants health care reform, but doesn’t believe abortions should be federally funded. So he creates a bill that would prohibit this:
Then, he votes to pass healthcare reform:
Now, I personally don’t agree with Stupak for reasons I’ll get into later, but the basic thing is this:
1) There was something keeping Stupak from getting behind the health care reform as it was written.
2) He proposed how to change it.
3) They changed it.
4) He voted for it.
Again, not my cup of tea on his decision, but an excellent example of how law-making and stuff like that probably happens.
This said, I’m a little saddened by the following folks who voted for Stupak’s amendment and then voted against health care reform anyway:
John Barrow(GA. 12 )
John Boccieri(OHIO 16 )
Dan Boren(OKLA. 2 )
Bobby Bright(ALA. 2 )
Ben Chandler(KY. 6 )
Travis Childers(MISS. 1 )
Lincoln Davis(TENN. 4 )
Artur Davis(ALA. 7 )
Bart Gordon(TENN. 6 )
Parker Griffith(ALA. 5 )
Tim Holden(PA. 17 )
Jim Marshall(GA. 8 )
Jim Matheson(UTAH 2 )
Mike McIntyre(N.C. 7 )
Charlie Melancon(LA. 3 )
Collin C. Peterson(MINN. 7 )
Mike Ross(ARK. 4 )
Heath Shuler(N.C. 11 )
Ike Skelton(MO. 4 )
John Tanner(TENN. 8 )
Gene Taylor(MISS. 4 )
Harry Teague(N.M. 2 )
This was something Stupak created so that he could vote his conscience on the issue of healthcare reform. It seems to me like they’re using it ensure that the healthcare reform that is passed is weakened. If they can’t kill it, at least their constituents will know that they took steps to ensure that abortion won’t be federally funded.
I understand it, I just don’t like it.
This brings me to my second point, just a small issue but nevertheless one that I thought might be worth mentioning.
According to this CNN Article women who want abortion coverage will have to purchase a separate rider with their own money to do so. This, to me, seems exactly like the type of bureaucracy that someone who considers themselves conservative would decry, or call “additional taxation” if it weren’t for a strong moral stance against abortion from that side of the aisle.
There was no information on how soon someone would need to opt-in before the coverage would be in effect. The two options of either a woman having to decide well in advance to purchase the rider “just in case” or a woman having to carry a child to term because she purchased the rider too late are both slightly Kafkaesque in my mind.
At least, according to the article above, the prohibition against federally funding abortions excludes cases of rape, incest, or cases where the mother’s life is in danger.
I guess it’s kind of sad that I was happily surprised to learn that.
Still, like any bureaucracy, I can imagine there’s a nightmare situation out there that no one has thought of yet.