Health care vs abortion

For the next couple of months, we're going to hear a lot of debate about the anti-abortion amendment attached to the House bill. Letters in yesterday's NYT were mostly about this.

Feminists and reproductive health activists are decrying the amended bill as though it had suddenly outlawed abortions. Now, I know the practical argument that lack of funding will mean lack of access for many women. But this bill does not in fact outlaw abortion any more than it outlaws any other elective procedure that it does not fund, like cosmetic surgery or psychoanalysis.

And wait -- I am not equating them, except in the sense of their being procedures that are permissible under the law but not funded by the government. In my opinion, there are very good reasons for covering one and not the other. But that is not the argument right now: it's the false claim that lack of funding makes it illegal.

It does not. And when you make a bad argument, it hurts your good argument. Remember Obama's line: "This is a health care bill, not an abortion bill."

On the verge of finally achieving universal health care coverage, lack of "pre-existing conditions," and no cancellation of policies, we should not confuse the two. What we want is health care reform. Changing the status quo regarding abortion must not be allowed to derail this vital legislation.

Some will argue that it does not maintain the status quo. That's true in some details, and some or all of those details could be changed in conference committee. But the federal government does not currently pay for abortions except in some indirect ways. So it is not "the biggest setback to women's reproductive rights in decades," as some critics claim.

Let's just keep our heads clear about this so we can get health care reform -- with coverage for abortions, if possible; but, if not, let's save the abortion fight for another day. Just remember, if you insist on abortion coverage, and the bill fails, all those who are currently uninsured still won't be covered for abortion.

Ralph

Even the Fox questions Palin

I'm trying to avoid thinking about the depressing HuffingtonPost headline that a secret deal between the White House and BigPharma will lead to a $137 billion increase in market sales for them.

I'd rather gloat over this little item they also reported. It seems that Sarah Palin's latest conspiracy theory tries to implicate the Obama administration in demoting God on U.S. coins. A new design moves "In God We Trust" from its prominent place on the face of some coins to the rim. Palin insinuated that this is another "change" that shows the Obama administration is pushing us toward socialism (hint, hint: "godless socialism," you know?).

Whether it's a result of White House criticism or whether they're finally taking seriously their motto of "fair and balanced," FOXNews actually did some fact-checking on dear Sarah.

It seems that the new design was authorized in 2005 when Republicans controlled Congress, and then it was approved by President Bush. Obama had nothing to do with it.

Now it will be interesting to see whether weepy Gleen Beck jumps on Sarah's conspiracy bandwagon or tries to cover up the embarrassment.

Either way, I found in this a moment of "gotcha" that felt sooo good.

Ralph

C'mon, Dems; all together now

The House did it. The Senate can too -- if the Democracts can get it all together.

Progressives and feminists, please go ahead and scream that the House bill is "the biggest setback to women's reproductive rights in decades" and threaten not to vote for the bill if that stays in. Scream and get it over with.

And then let's compromise, starting with Obama's wise perspective:

"This is a health care bill; not an abortion bill."

He says we should not use health care reform to change the status quo of abortion laws. It should not be used either to provide funds for abortions that do not currently exist; nor should it remove coverage in private plans that people already have. And it does not. It does not forbid one single abortion or restrict abortions more than already on the books. It simply says the federal government cannot pay for them.

If you have private insurance that currently covers abortion, that will not change. Any public option could not include it, nor could federal subsidies be used for private plans that do so.

But this is only the House bill. The Senate bill is less restrictive. And there's always the conference committee to reconcile the bills.

I would prefer to have abortion covered, at least for those deemed medically appropriate. But, please, let's don't get bent out of shape about this and ruin the best chances to enact reform since Harry Truman first tried to get single-payer health coverage in the 1940's. Here are some of the benefits we can expect:

Another 36 million more people will be insured or become eligible for Medicaid.

There will be multiple ways to help control the costs of Medicare -- not by "taking away my Medicare" but by eliminating waste, excessive charges, subsidies to insurance companies, negotiating drug prices, etc.

It will eliminate Bush's subsidizing private insurers to prop up his Medicare Advantage boondoggle.

It eliminates the donut hole on Medicare prescription drug coverage, Bush's boondoggle for drug companies.

It finally allows Medicare to negotiate drugs prices, reversing another Bush boondoggle.

It introduces a public option that is inadequate but at least a start.

It stops insurance companies from denying coverage because of preexisting conditions and ends the loss of coverage for any reason except for fraud.

It provides funding to educate more doctors and nurses.

It introduces health prevention programs, pilot studies to improve care, etc.

Now think long and hard if you want to give up all that in order to have abortions paid for by insurance, which may not be enacted at all if you insist on it. Think creatively. Take all your lobbying money and create a national fund to pay for safe abortions for women whose health insurance won't cover it. Let's don't let this chance be lost.

Ralph

Visceral reactions

Trying to understand homophobia, a psychoanalyst friend of mine puts it this way: in our heterosexist society, the defining issue for men is proving that they are not "unmasculine." Denouncing gay men is a way of assuring themselves that they are "not like that."

While I think that's true, I believe there is also a visceral feeling of disgust that plays out in many people who need to reject the possibility for themselves. When it was still a new thing to be talked about in "polite society," two men as lovers conjured up in straight people's minds thoughts of what they actually do sexually; and many found that disgusting. That's gradually changing. (News flash: many gay men also find what heterosexual couples do in bed disgusting.)

At traditional heterosexual weddings, there are so many other thoughts about the bride and groom and their lives that most people don't dwell on images of the couple copulating, especially since it's no longer generally assumed that the wedding night will be their "first time."

So too, now that gay couples are so ubiquitous on tv and on the street and at family reunions, there are other things that come to mind about their relationship, say, or where they live, etc.; so for most people their thoughts don't necessarily go immediately to genital activity, as they once did.

We aren't there yet with transgender phenomena. In today's AJC was an article about an editor employed by the GA General Assembly to help with the written crafting of bills, who was fired in 2006 when he began coming to work dressed as the woman he was transitioning into. She is now suing for wrongful dismissal.

Here's my point. Quoting from the deposition given by her boss:

"It makes me think about things I don't like to think about, particularly at work. It think it's unsettling to think of someone dressed in women's clothing with male sexual organs inside that clothing."

Well, at least he is candid and tells what really bothers him rather than hiding behind "it's bad for office morale" or "it would upset our clients." But is that a reason to fire someone who has been a good employee?

Much of bigotry, I think, stems from the lack of empathy. As we learned in combating prejudice against gays in psychoanalytic organizations, the most effective single factor was getting to know a gay person on a personal level, whether it was a colleague, a family member, or a friend. Then you have something other than your own images of disgusting (to you) genital sex to associate with gay persons.

If it follows the same pattern, transgender individuals will gradually become more familiar to us all and therefore "untainted" by such genital images and averse visceral reactions.

Ralph

Pernicious "anonymous sources"

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.