Thou shalt have abortion rights

Robyn Blumner calls herself an atheist. But I think she's religious.

Her religion is reproductive self-determination. But not that heretic branch that claims that women have the right to have as many babies as they wish. She's of the sect that holds the right to an abortion as sacrosanct.

Which brings us to her editorial column in last week's St. Petersburg Times:

In the vote on health care reform offered by the House Democratic leadership, women were given the status of potted plants. It didn't seem to matter that women generally vote Democratic at substantially higher rates than men, their reproductive health care was sacrificed on the altar (and it was an altar) of getting the thing passed.

No wonder she's mad. The altar of a competing religion was getting in the way. Better no health care bill than to see her religion slighted?

On with the sermon:

Rep. Bart Stupak, a Democrat from Michigan and a purported member of the secretive fundamentalist Christian group known as The Family, threatened House Speaker Nancy Pelosi like a spoiled child possessing the playground's only basketball. He promised to let health reform fail, with about 40 members in tow, unless the bill included his amendment that barred abortion coverage from any public option or private health insurance plan purchased with federal subsidies.

I'm sure there are times when Blumner recognizes rights of conscience. But not where her religion is concerned. If the courts recognize the constitutional right of a mother to kill a fetus, then taxpayers need to pay for it whether or not they find it highly objectionable.

From what I can tell, the bit about "The Family" is an unsubstantiated rumor. Stupak lists his religion as Roman Catholic and maintains a membership at a Roman Catholic church in his home state. Classy of Blumner to mention the rumor.

Pelosi didn't have a choice. Even with Stupak's amendment, health care reform squeaked by on a vote of 220 to 215.

The stubborn position of Stupak and his lobbying partner, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, is made even more extreme by the fact that a compromise had been reached to protect the status quo's strict limits on federal funding of abortion. The House bill contained a provision directing health insurers in the new exchanges to segregate federal subsidies from private premiums and use only the private funds to pay for abortion coverage. No public money would be used for abortions except in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother.

What a laughable compromise. Private religious schools should try that one sometime. Let them receive federal money, but keep it segregated from the religious activities of the school.

I'd give Blumner ... 2.5 seconds to blow her top if that arrangement became reality.

Funny how Blumner noticed Stupak's alliance with the USCCB but without letting on that he is a Roman Catholic.

But Stupak and his fellow conservative Democrats wanted more. They wanted to use health reform as an antiabortion tool. Stupak's amendment means insurers in the exchanges are unlikely to offer plans including abortion coverage since most customers will be federally subsidized.

It makes you wonder whom Stupak's team is playing for?

I suppose it is too much to assume that Stupak's well-known Catholicism and the associated probability that he would adopt a pro-life stance was known to Michigan voters. Let's go with the rumor that he is part of the secretive cult known as "The Family."

Passing health reform is the Democrats' top domestic policy priority. In addition to helping save nearly 45,000 people who die every year from a lack of health insurance, Democratic hopes in midterm elections may ride on its successful passage.

Funny stuff! Why is health care reform the Democrats' top domestic policy priority when unemployment is over 10 percent? And why push it when the price tag is so high while the federal deficit is blowing up like a passenger-side airbag after a high-speed collision? Especially when the American people are not behind it? Whether Blumner likes it or not, a majority of Americans oppose providing abortion services under the health care reform bill:

At least on the level of rhetoric, all the politicians and outside groups that have weighed in on health reform seem to agree: taxpayers shouldn't pay to fund abortion. "No federal dollars will be used to fund abortions," said Barack Obama in his speech to Congress on Sept. 8. His Democratic colleagues say they agree with the same principle, as do GOP leaders. That stance mirrors public opinion as well. A 2008 Zogby poll found that 69% of Americans oppose "taxpayer funding of abortion."

It makes no sense except as a long-term strategy to make Americans more dependent on government and thus more likely to vote for the Democrats who dependably vote for more spending on entitlements. Not counting Medicare under the health care reform bill, of course.

Short term, the Democrats will not do well politically to pass health care reform legislation--except with the hard left base. Blumner must be smoking something to think otherwise.

So what else is she thinking these days?

But Stupak and his crew were prepared to trade their own party's electoral prospects and all those lives for a rule that tells low- and middle-income women that they are on their own to pay for a needed abortion. Even in cases where the fetus is deformed and won't survive outside the womb.

As pointed out above, the federal health care reform legislation is unpopular as it is, and it would be even more unpopular if abortion coverage was included. With a reality base like that, Blumner should get Lucy in the Sky to give her enough diamonds to retire from the editing biz.

I'm kind of wondering about this "needed abortion" thing. The reform legislation includes an exception where the life of the mother is at risk. What are the other times an abortion is "needed"? It seems to me that a "needed, elective abortion" is oxymoron territory.

The Catholic bishops also made that calculation. To them, standing in the way of health coverage for an additional 36 million people — which they did aggressively — was worth it. Because now, maybe, some working woman who can't possibly afford another child since she can't even pay for an abortion, will be forced to have an unwanted baby. That was their compassionate, charitable reckoning.

The compassionate thing, evidently, would be to kill the fetus. Beezlenut! Beezlenut! Rah! Rah! Rah! It's not like people adopt babies or anything. And it's not like we'll need workers to pay for the health care of retiring baby boomers.

Whatever the numbers, the reason Stupak and the bishops were so keen to get their regressive amendment through was to make it harder for women to exercise their right to choose.

Probably not. The amendment probably would not make it any harder for a woman to have an abortion than it is at present. If Blumner meant to say that Catholics wanted to keep abortion from becoming an easier choice, that may be accurate. But the rights of conscience should not be discounted without mention.

Blumner ends with a howler:

Every lawmaker with a shred of decency knows that health reform is essential for our nation's future. But reform can't take abortion access with it. Women have to count for something.

The implicit argument: Unless women receive federal funding for elective abortion, women count for nothing.

Is that stupid or what?

As a bonus, we get the implication that a health care reform bill that will either increase the deficit (while being advertised as a deficit cure) or result in much higher taxation--during a recession, no less--is essential to the nation's future.

Dude.