Over the past 72 hours, I’ve been engaged in various debates about the contents of our newly minted-health care system and the effects of the executive order that was issued to appease Bart Stupak and his ilk.
The central question in the debate is whether the bill will–does–fund abortions, and whether the Executive Order that Obama has promised to sign is enough to prevent that from happening.
It’s my suspicion that significant confusion remains on the issue. So here’s my attempt to shed light on the question of abortion in the Senate bill.
But let’s do this Q&A style. Because that’ll be more fun.
Did the Senate health care bill, which was the bill under consideration, cover abortions initially?
Well, yes. The bill establishes some $9-11 billion in funding for “Community Health Centers.” Robert Destro, a professor at Catholic University, writes:
CHCs and other federally funded primary health care providers such as migrant, tribal, rural, and public housing health centers are required by law to provide “comprehensive” primary care services. The statutory term “comprehensive health care services” is broad enough to include reproductive health services, family planning services, and gynecology services. And the courts are unanimous in holding that – in the absence of the Hyde Amendment – this statutory term necessarily includes federal funding for elective abortions.
The Court decision to note here is Beal v. Doe. While these CHC’s don’t currently perform abortions, that’s largely because their money has come from appropriations bills subject to the Hyde amendment, which prohibits abortion funding. But $9 billion is quite a bit of money, and it’s slated to go into a new “Community Health Center Fund,” not be intermingled with all the other monies.
But isn’t this bill covered by the Hyde Amendment, which prevents federal funding for abortions?
If it was, what is all the wrangling about? You could be assured that Stupak wouldn’t have held out for months for redundant language in the bill. But as John McCormack (an invaluable source) points out:
But the Hyde amendment does not say that “none of the funds channeled through HHS” may pay for elective abortions; it says “none of the funds appropriated by this act” may pay for elective abortions. A Hyde-like amendment needs to be included in each different act authorizing public health programs, or the programs will end up paying for abortions, just as Indian Health Services did long after the Hyde amendment was on the books.
In other words, no. The bill isn’t subject to the Hyde amendment.
So Stupak solved this with the Executive Order, right?
If you want to think that, you go ahead. But you’ll be lonely. No one, Left or Right, agrees with you. Including Bart Stupak.
But if you’re still not convinced, there are three problems with it:
1) It’s not clear that the language actually adds anything to the bill itself. Ezra Klein (a lefty commentator) thinks that it essentially promises to enforce the bill…as it’s written. Which is a pretty plausible reading of it.
2) While executive orders may have the force of law, they cannot alter the laws on the books.
3) Again, given Beal v. Doe, the federal government is 0bligated to provide abortions as a part of comprehensive health services in the absence of laws prohibiting it. Given that the Executive Order is not in fact the law, a court challenge will have to nullify the Executive Order in favor of the bill as its written. And if you don’t expect that court challenge to come quickly after the appropriations are received, you’re dreaming.
Why did Stupak cave, then?
Apparently, it was the plan all along.
Did Stupak get anything for it?
Nope. Except a nationalized race in November. At time of writing, his opponent has some 17,000 facebook fans. It had 100 yesterday morning.
At least Sir Richard got Wales.
And pro-lifers?
They didn’t get much either. As I’ve argued, the bill as it is funds abortions.
Which is why it’s so disappointing to hear facile Christian endorsements of this bill without a single acknowledgement that we have increased abortion funding significantly, overnight. Endorsing the bill without repudiating not what might be pragmatically or economically inefficient, but what is morally wrong, is simply to turn a blind eye to the substance and effect of the legislation.
And as much as we want health-care for all—and health care for all is a good—it is deeply inconsistent to claim a pro-life ethic while endorsing a bill without qualification that directly funds the intentional killing of human persons.
Can we be done talking about this now?
Yes. I’ve written on this more in the past two weeks here than I have in five years combined. So I don’t write about this all the time. But it’s worth saying that this issue isn’t going away in debates about health care. And to make the point, I yield the final word to Phillip Klein:
And speaking of abortion, it’s fitting that in the final hours, the outcome of the vote hinged on the issue. While many saw abortion as tangentially related to the health care debate, in reality the dispute is central to it, and a harbinger of things to come.
The expansion of government’s role in health care will elevate the importance of social issues and trigger contentious battles in the future over the government’s role in personal decisions. Given that abortion is a legal procedure in a free market, government cannot restrict private policies from covering it. But once ostensibly private policies are regulated by the federal government and subsidized with tax dollars, Washington has a say in the matter.
While the year-long debate over whether this particular legislation should pass this particular Congress has just ended, the broader debate over the future of America’s health care system has only begun.
March 23rd, 2010 | 8:30 am
Sir Richard got Wales. Sir Douglas (Kmiec) got Malta. An understandable slip.
March 23rd, 2010 | 8:55 am
This is very disappointing. I hold senate Republicans largely responsible for this, however. They threw away their bargaining power by acting like obstructionist lunatics, shouting “socialism” in an apoplectic incomprehensible rage. Just one republican vote could have bought a Stupak-style amendment in the Senate, and we could not only have completely prevented any possibility of tax moneys for elective abortions, but also established a vital precedent that standard health insurance plans – public or private – are not to cover elective abortion.
Republicans allowed this as part of their strategy to derail the inevitable.
March 23rd, 2010 | 9:20 am
The new health care bill is not perfect – far from it – but as the old Chinese saying goes, “The journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step.” There will be improvements made on it down the years – there absolutely needs to be – but this is a fairly good first step. We’re on our way! The Conservatives will whine, but that’s what they do best. They’ll whine just as they whined when Lyndon signed into law the Voting Rights Act of 1965, or the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Just as they whined when Harry Truman desegregated the army in 1947, or when Franklin D. Roosevelt brought Social Security into being in 1935. They’ll whine just like they did when Woodrow Wilson tried to form the League of Nations in 1919 – or when Abraham Lincoln ended the institution of slavery in 1863! They whine a lot. Did you ever notice that?
There’s gonna be a whole lotta obstruction goin’ on between now and Election Day, you can be certain of that. The success of health care reform in America can only spell trouble for the GOP. They will do everything humanly possible to see to it that it fails completely. Count on them trying to get it declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of John Roberts. This is going to get really interesting.
http://www.tomdegan.blogspot.com
Tom Degan
March 23rd, 2010 | 9:27 am
[...] On abortion and the healthcare bill. [...]
March 23rd, 2010 | 9:29 am
[...] On abortion and the healthcare bill. [...]
March 23rd, 2010 | 10:13 am
Chris, I’m I reading you right, that the Republicans passed this bill? If I remember the tally count was because Democrat Senators and Representatives voted for this bill. Remember the White House Summit, and how Rep. Ryian was brushed aside.
Strange logic.
March 23rd, 2010 | 10:34 am
[...] probably stop posting on this for the time being, but I’ll leave you with this very helpful FAQ from Matthew Anderson on what just happened. Here are the questions he [...]
March 23rd, 2010 | 10:58 am
John,
Yah, I actually had Kmiec in mind when I wrote this. Sorry about that–it’s been corrected.
matt
March 23rd, 2010 | 11:03 am
[...] Healthcare Law: The FAQ By Rob Leave a Comment Categories: Abortion and culture Matthew Lee Anderson does a good summary of the connection between the new law of the land on healthcare and [...]
March 23rd, 2010 | 11:39 am
What’s important now is will the bishops do anything about this with the Catholics who ignored a clear teaching for the pastors of the church and voted for the thing anyway. If not, we will see a further erosion of the tangible teaching authority of the bishops in this country. Many bishops have been much more outspoken over the last 10 years or so but without some concrete response (and not just hand wringing about how bad this is) people will continue to ignore them.
I was in DC with my family (6 of us). We drove up from Atlanta. There were ‘Catholics for Healthcare Reform” signs everywhere . If you don’t think there’s a concerted effort to undermine the bishops authority here you are being naive.
March 23rd, 2010 | 12:40 pm
Excellent rundown (SO much more informative than anything over at Gateway Pundit!). And i whole-heartedly agree with Chris Burns above – the amount of leverage Republicans had at that moment was *stupefying*, when considered. A true waste.
March 23rd, 2010 | 1:42 pm
Degan: I rather prefer the “Demotivation” poster which says, “A Journey of a Thousand Miles Can End Very Very Badly.” You could look it up. It’s clever.
And it applies to nationalized health care. I predict that if you live long enough to be affected by it, you will see that this journey has a bad ending.
March 23rd, 2010 | 3:07 pm
[...] through the implications of this $940 billion new HCR system. One, here’s an informative Q&A specifically about the bill–how it passed, what this Executive Order for Pro Life Democrats [...]
March 23rd, 2010 | 3:48 pm
Degan says: “There will be improvements made on it [the bill] down the years – there absolutely needs to be – but this is a fairly good first step. We’re on our way!”
Way to where? If we couldn’t get abortion funding stricken from this bill, how likely is it to happen later? 0 percent with Democrats in control. ‘Nuff said.
March 23rd, 2010 | 4:33 pm
[...] a comment » This is a helpful post on what really happened with President Obama passing the Health Care Bill into [...]
March 23rd, 2010 | 4:58 pm
“Health care for all is a good”. Fine as a slogan but in practice you will need the money to provide it and there will not be enough to sustain it over time. The end result will be rationing i.e. sham health care for the elderly and seriously disabled. So we will have abortion, as you so ably demonstrate, and health care for some according to the policy choices of the government.
March 23rd, 2010 | 5:12 pm
ROB,
I’d encourage you to click through and read what I wrote. You may be pleasantly surprised. : )
Best,
Matt
March 23rd, 2010 | 5:23 pm
Thank you for putting all of this info in one place. very helpful.
March 23rd, 2010 | 5:25 pm
Degan,
A fairly good step? I wonder how many people have read the whole thing. I have met not a single one.
Further proof that Dems accuse conservatives of hating change, whereas it is rather obvious Dems hate reality. Wishing something good will not make it so.
Only thing worse than a sore loser is an obnoxious winner.
March 23rd, 2010 | 5:35 pm
[...] by John McCormack of the weekly standard is entitled,” read the bill.” the second is a FAQ over at first things (HT: Justin Taylor). In regard to the exucative order all sides seem to be of the same mind. [...]
March 23rd, 2010 | 6:40 pm
Stupak’s vote for the bill, as well as this article and associated comments, make it abundantly clear to me that social conservatives are not necessarily advocates of limited government. The take home lesson of the last few days is that social conservatism is not a reliable ally of the advocates of limited government and individual liberty.
March 23rd, 2010 | 11:14 pm
[...] 24, 2010 in America, Current Events, Reasons We Need Revival A Final FAQ on Healthcare and Abortion Tuesday, March 23, 2010, 8:00 AM Matthew Lee [...]
March 24th, 2010 | 10:21 am
“The take home lesson of the last few days is that social conservatism is not a reliable ally of the advocates of limited government and individual liberty.”
Nor are advocates of limited government and individual liberty reliable advocates of social conservatism. But that lesson was not new.
March 24th, 2010 | 10:37 am
[...] Matthew Anderson at First Things has brilliantly demonstrated this point in a post entitled A Final FAQ on Healthcare and Abortion: But isn’t this bill covered by the Hyde Amendment, which prevents federal funding for [...]
March 24th, 2010 | 11:34 am
[...] to obtain abortion-covering insurance. (And that’s without getting into the tangled issue of community health centers.) But what struck me most, at the end, wasn’t the folly of Stupak’s decision to [...]
March 24th, 2010 | 11:59 am
[...] 24, 2010 · Leave a Comment I recommend Matthew Lee Anderson’s article “A Final FAQ on Healthcare and Abortion,” in First Things (posted: tuesday, March 23, 2010, 8am). It addresses a number of issues, including [...]
March 24th, 2010 | 1:39 pm
[...] sure if you heard, but our government did some vote on doctors or hospitals or something. Read a helpful FAQ on the new healthcare legislation and how it relates to the issue of abortion, so you can be [...]
March 24th, 2010 | 4:58 pm
Are you sure you are not against publically funded abortions only because there are biblical reasons. If we were a church state as, you must like, then your wishes would have some validity. Of course your higher morals should be followed especially by you and your family. Place your vote and let America move on with the rest of us sinners!
March 24th, 2010 | 8:49 pm
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by First Things, PEG, PEG, We The Posterity, DJ Jenkins and others. DJ Jenkins said: @cassieolguin @alishadawn33 A good Q&A on the abortion issue and the Health Care Bill: http://bit.ly/aY0Ky2 [...]
March 25th, 2010 | 1:27 am
“Nor are advocates of limited government and individual liberty reliable advocates of social conservatism. But that lesson was not new.”
Social conservatives have more freedom to live by their values in a society based on individual liberty with limited government. By definition, those who believe in limited government and individual liberty have no desire to restrict the rights of those who choose to live socially conservative lives.
March 25th, 2010 | 4:41 pm
[...] community health centers in the bill, which were not covered by a specific abortion limitation, the health reform bill bars funds from going to any school-based clinic that “performs [...]
March 25th, 2010 | 5:01 pm
[...] it makes for the clinics over the next two years.Unlike community health centers in the bill, which were not covered by a specific abortion limitation, the health reform bill bars funds from going to any school-based clinic that “performs [...]
March 25th, 2010 | 10:35 pm
I linked your excellent analysis at my site. Thanks.
March 30th, 2010 | 3:56 pm
[...] that discuss this issue, and they can be difficult to sift through. Two I found very helpful are here and [...]
April 16th, 2010 | 12:50 pm
[...] language from the Hyde Amendment that would prevent public funds being used to pay for abortions. This statement is untrue and can be substantiated online in many places. I have requested an interview or comment from the Congressman on this topic as well. To date, no [...]
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact