Hyde Amendment has pro-aborts kicking themselves
Pro-lifers tend to see the glass as half empty, understandably. Wherever we are not succeeding, innocent humans are dying.
So I’m always interested to read how the other side views its glass.
The pro-abort call right now is to overturn the Hyde Amendment, which bans public funding of almost all Medicaid abortions. Pro-aborts have never liked it, of course. Every year they try to kill it, since it must be renewed annually.
But the Hyde Amendment was shown during the healthcare debates to be more problematic than previously understood. It left the other side stunned and embarrassed when incorporated into the Stupak Amendment and passing in a pro-abort-controlled House.
Pro-aborts are now kicking themselves for letting it pass in the 1st place, which I find intriguing – as if it were all up to them.
Following are excerpts from a piece published yesterday by Frances Kissling, former president of Catholics for Choice on all this:
The debate about abortion coverage in health insurance reform is the latest disappointing moment in the efforts of feminists to ensure… the social transformation Roe promised….
To hear President Obama call the Hyde Amendment… an “American tradition” is only the most recent of many misstatements about what a fundamental right entails….
It seems that prochoice legislators, following the president’s lead, now explicitly consider that throwing women who cannot afford to pay for their own abortions under the bus is a reasonable compromise between those who favor and those who oppose legal abortion and a sensible concession to those who think abortion is immoral.
The compromise is the logical outcome of one of Roe’s essential weaknesses: the fact that the constitutional right to abortion was based on the principle of privacy rather than non discrimination. A private right, even a fundamental one, did not, according to the Supreme Court, require the state to pay for its implementation.
The Hyde Amendment, which was introduced in Congress starting in 1973 and passed for the first time in 1976, was the first and most important defeat the abortion rights movement sustained – and it embodied the profound disapproval and stigmatization of abortion that no other restriction on the right to choose represents…. [I]t sent the message that abortion was immoral and that no taxpayer should be obliged to pay for something they think is immoral.
It first passed at a time that anti-abortion forces were pursuing 2 lines of attack against legal abortion – an effort to pass a human life amendment to the Constitution, which would make all abortions illegal, and an incremental strategy with the Hyde Amendment the 1st effort to chip away at Roe. The young prochoice movement realized that its naïve assumption that Roe would end the debate about abortion was wrong and that it needed to mobilize both grass roots and elite support for protecting abortion rights. The tactical question was whether the threat to poor women’s access in Hyde or the threat to all women’s access in the human life amendment would be the best organizing vehicle.
Based substantially on the advice of direct mail and political consultants, the decision was made to put efforts to overturn Hyde on the back burner and go against the less real threat of a constitutional amendment that would ban all abortions. The advice was clear and classist. It accepted the racism that lay buried in middle class hostility to poor women, “welfare queens” and the “sexually promiscuous” – all those who might be expected to look to Medicaid to pay for abortions – whom the rest of us should not support.
Not concentrating on overturning Hyde was arguably the worst decision the mainstream choice movement made. No effort at a constitutional amendment ever got off the ground, but the largely unchallenged Hyde Amendment emboldened anti-abortion groups to pick off powerless constituencies one at a time. From poor women they went on to adolescents and secured “parental consent and notification” laws.
Since 1980, choice based federal legislative strategies have focused on everything but restoring federal funding for abortion. The movement took on far more unpopular issues such as the ban on what was dubbed “partial birth” abortions…. Starting in 1989, versions of a “Freedom of Choice Act” to “codify Roe” were initiated; none of them included federal funding for women on Medicaid.
Tacitly, the well-funded political arm of the movement accepted that Roe and Hyde were compatible…. And we should not be shocked when Democratic members of Congress, including some of the most feminist and ardently prochoice, accept the compromise with vague and mild expressions of discontent and no commitment to immediately work to overturn all federal restrictions on funding for abortion.
As I write, it would seem that the deal on abortion is made. Health insurance reform will not be the vehicle that restores poor women’s ability to choose abortion. It will, in some onerous way, make it exceedingly difficult for women who get their insurance through whatever “exchange” exists to get coverage for abortion.
The day such a bill passes, one would hope a bill to overturn the Hyde Amendment, to restore federal employee abortion coverage and to restore such coverage for women in the military will be introduced in both houses with the co-sponsorship of every prochoice member of Congress. All the choice PACs – Emily’s List, Planned Parenthood and NARAL – will make it clear that they will not fund or support any member of Congress who is not a co-sponsor of such legislation.
Most importantly, the repeal of the Hyde Amendment must become the number one priority of the prochoice movement and an explicit goal of the larger women’s movement. Much has been written about both movements’ need to identify more strongly with low-income women and to frame issues of reproduction in the context of social justice and well as human rights. The restoration of funding for abortion as well as a commitment to ensuring that no woman has to choose abortion for solely economic reasons could help build the base of support needed to save legal abortion in the United States….
God bless Henry Hyde. Surely, he must be smiling down from Heaven knowing that his initiative slowed down the slaughter of innocents, and still gives the baby butchers headaches.
throwing the women under the bus….I love their thought process. they throw babies under the bus every day.
How sickening that the author of this angry, violent rant called herself “Catholic.” I assure you, she is anything but. What a disgrace.
For the record, there is NO SUCH THING as Catholics for Choice. Those who believe in abortion as a choice are simply not Catholic.
“The compromise is the logical outcome of one of Roe’s essential weaknesses: the fact that the constitutional right to abortion was based on the principle of privacy rather than non discrimination.”
Hmmm…consider the legal criteria for determining whether some class of people should qualify as a “protected class,” with legal protection from discriminatory practices: 1. hisotry of social oppression limiting the opportunity to attain education, income, or practice recognized culture; 2. some obvious distinguishing characteristic serving to define the class; or 3. clear evidence of political powerlessness.
For females, the obviously observable aspect, and the hisotry of discrimination applies. What about for the not-yet-born? Deliberately and systematically prevented from achieving anything close to a normal economic life of education or salary by institutional means of society’s power structure? Check. Obviously distinguishable? Check – all it takes is the EPT test, never mind the MRI – unless you refuse to show anyone the mandated MRI. Political powerlessness? Is there some union of the not-yet-born? Do the not-yet-born get together to form PACs? Do the not-yet-born endorse candidates, or sign petitions for ballot propositions? No. The only way the not-yet-born have power is if some other constituency advocates on their behalf. Check.
For the record, there is NO SUCH THING as Catholics for Choice. Those who believe in abortion as a choice are simply not Catholic.
Posted by: Jennifer at January 5, 2010 1:20 PM
***********************
Thank you Jennifer. I agree. I think they are deceived and their eternal welfare is in jeapordy.
These abortionist Pigs, don’t care about the wimon they hurt, and if you are a member of congress, then You’re an abortionist Pig, unless, you repent, then You loose the pig labal! RJ
She shows that the abortion lobby is about abortion and not about the well being of poor women when she denigrates the Hyde Amendment — which has been shown to reduce the incidence of hospitalizations for abortion complications among Medicaid-eligible women in states that don’t fund elective abortions. With NO concurrent increase in other pregnancy-related hospitalizations. In other words, the Hyde Amendment produced (when allowed to produce its good works):
*Reduced abortion complications
because of
*Reduced number of abortions
because of
*Reduced number of pregnancies among abortion-inclined women.
Who could be against that?
Kissling et al, that’s who.
I always count the number of separate fallacies in any piece of abortionist writing. I counted 58 fallacies in Frances Kissling’s work of just a few paragraphs. Abortionist “arguments” are always loaded with fallacies because their mentality has no philosophical foundation and their positions are completely unsound.
Did anyone else notice that there was no mention whatsoever of unborn children or the killing of these helpless kids? We are after all talking about killing them so you think they might at least get a passing mention. Not in a piece about “choice” and “reproduction” and “abortion ‘rights'”.
Frances Kissling supports unlimited killing of human beings whom Christians believe are made in the image of God. A Catholic CANNOT support this killing. She is NOT anything remotely resembling a true Catholic.
Also, don’t you love how the abortionists are always crying about poor women not being able to kill their children? Thing about it, 20 or 25 years ago when these same women were unborn children, the abortionists, including Kissling, wanted to exterminate them by the millions and wanted to take money by force from taxpayers to do the job. How can you pretend to care about a group of human beings whom at one time you would have ruthlessly destroyed?
The abortionists are just totally out to lunch.
yo,
ms quissling or hireling or quibbling or whatever the B.O. your name is,
Wake up and smell the incense.
Everything is negotiable with B.O.
Nothing is ‘off the table’.
You and your deluded damsels are only valueable to B.O. as so long as you are useful.
When you cease to be useful B.O. will slap you naked and hide your clothes and discard your exposed corpses under his campaign bus.
You will not be alone. Look for B.O.’s ‘racist’ maternal grandmother and his ‘racist’ former pastor and you will soon be joined my missy Napolitano, Guantanamo Bay, the Aghanistan war, and man made disasters.
yor bro ken
I wish someone would start a charity that would pay for these poor women’s abortions. If you want to donate to that fund, you are welcome to. But leave my tax money out of it!
When can we expect federal funding for those who cannot afford to keep and bear arms? I believe that actually is a constitutional right.
Posted by: Jeanne Gawdun at January 6, 2010 10:39 AM
“When can we expect federal funding for those who cannot afford to keep and bear arms? I believe that actually is a constitutional right.”
———————————————
Sweet.
Yahooooooo! [redneck for haleleujah!]
You have driven head on into the truth.
The only ‘constitutional’ authorization for the federal government providing health care, housing, clothing, transportation, education, weaponry, a guaranteed income and retirement benefits is if you enlist in one of the branches of the U.S. military.
yor bro ken
@Peg: I believe there are already groups that fund abortions for low-income women, sadly. I’ve met several women who had gotten grants of some kind to cover their abortions.