Not by my definition.
As most here know, I voted the Republican ticket for the first time last November. Not to bore anyone with a repeat of that discussion, but the main reasons were that as a fiscally moderate-conservative, social liberal, Obama was far too fiscally liberal for my taste, and not socially liberal enough. I wondered if he would be better, in practical terms, for women than the Republican ticket. His and his campaign’s conduct during the primaries were not comforting in that regard. And although the Repubs have also strayed far from fiscal conservative (or even moderate) principles, I knew at least that they’d be more to my taste in that area than Obama’s administration. Add to that his inexperience and it was a relatively easy call.
Now, as Violet peerlessly captures here, the House Democrats have passed healthcare reform for men:
“First, they made sure that women’s medical needs would not be considered part of basic healthcare. Then, today, they added in an extra special amendment to make extra-double-plus sure that abortion wouldn’t be covered. Even by private plans! That’s right: any insurance plan that participates in any way in the new exchange, or receives any federal subsidies, or is paid for with any tax credits, will not be allowed to offer abortion coverage. Gosh, it’s almost like making abortion illegal.”
And it’s hard to disagree with that.
First, it is likely that most or all private insurance plans will participate eventually in some way in the new exchange.
Planned Parenthood says:
“The Stupak/Pitts amendment violates the spirit of health care reform, which is meant to guarantee quality, affordable health care coverage for all. In fact, this amendment would create a two-tiered system that would punish women, particularly those with low and middle incomes, the very people this bill is intended to assist. The majority of private health insurance plans currently offer abortion coverage, and the Stupak/Pitts amendment would result in the elimination of private abortion coverage in the ‘exchange,’ the new insurance market created under health care reform, as well as in the public option, if one is created.”
Only five states restrict insurance coverage of abortion in private insurance plans, with some exceptions for women’s health.
Abortions run approximately $400-$1000 in the first trimester. And much more thereafter.
Therefore, the preclusion on coverage that now exists is tantamount to a denial of abortion for poor women.
Let’s think about the worst case situation under a Republican presidency. Roe v Wade could get reversed. Note: 11 of the last 14 Justices have been appointed by Republicans, and yet Roe v. Wade still stands as the law of the land, so we cannot know for sure that this would happen. But, it remains a possible worst case scenario.
What would happen?
“All of a sudden, abortion would be illegal in roughly 25 states (there is some debate about which states have actually have abortion laws on the books as many states have contradictory laws because Roe v Wade basically declares that all states have to at least allow abortions to adults). These states cover about 1/3 of the country’s population. So if Roe got overturned … all of a sudden … about a 1/3 of the nation’s population will not have ready access to abortion. Many women wanting an abortion may have to drive many hours to get to a state that will allow one.”
This would be a horrible situation.
However, under the House plan, a much larger portion of women will not have ready access to abortion. And their lack of access has a costlier barrier. Arguably, it would be harder to scare up $1000 than to get a ride, particularly given the likelihood that public-interest women's groups would develop funded carpools in the event that something happened to Roe. I know I'd contribute significantly to such a nonprofit, and I am sure I am not alone in this.
That’s why women and feminism should not remain wholly owned subsidiaries of the Democrats and liberalism respectively.
I don’t advocate becoming wholly owned by Republicans or conservatism either. I think in this instance they would be better for women’s rights simply because smaller government has less ability to affect women’s choices, not because they also wouldn’t sell women out for the “greater good.” This particular health plan, rather than simply straight-out subsidizing health care for those Americans who cannot get it through their employers and cannot otherwise afford it, seeks to expand government (male-dominated) power, which then takes advantage of those it sees as reliable, uncomplaining loyalists: women. In cases in which Republicans seek control they shouldn’t have – gay marriage, Supreme Court justices who would get rid of Roe – they too roll over women.
So while individual women may be conservative or liberal in all respects, I don’t think it’s healthy to assume that women generally can be grouped so easily, rather than being individuals who make individual determinations on individual issues. The second we group in under the male-designed rubrics, and subordinate our interests to the larger cause, guess who winds up being told to walk five steps behind?
12 comments:
As to your primary content, I wholeheartedly agree (in much stronger terms) w/your analysis of the democratic party as it now stands.
I'd disagree w/you & the NA crowd that the republicans make much sense as a real alternative or anything other than a temporary protest vote. Easier to start a 3rd party than to get enough people calling themselves republican to shout down the social conservatives.
But mostly, I want to argue with you about Obama being a fiscal liberal. He's not, at all. A pure corporatist. Cares about as much about progressive causes or the lower socioeconomic classes (or for that matter the middle classes) as W.
This House bill is just one component of the grist for the mill of the conference committee that is going to reconcile the House and Senate bills and write the ultimate law for Obama's signature. My understanding is that "Blue Dogs" and other right-wing misogynist Democrat slimebags like Stupak are going to have a substantially weaker influence on the conference committee than they have on the House and Senate as wholes.
MW -- I agree that Obama and W were both corporatists. Look up both their donors and you'll see more big business in Obama's column. Despite his vaunted support from the grass roots, big industry, Wall Street, and global law firms were his biggest donors and remain his biggest influences. And I don't see Bush as having been any less in their pocket.
To me, it would be ideal to get someone who both has her/his heart in the right place and also knows what practical mechanisms could, in the real world, best achieve the optimal result -- meaning, an environment as close to full employment as possible, as minimizing of poverty as possible, as maximizing of incentive to innovate as possible.
Barring that, though, as it's pretty rare, I'd settle for someone who won't do a lot of damage, and who will make some improvements.
A fiscal liberal by definition would support a more progressive income tax, a high level of social welfare, government regulation of businesses, and increased government spending.
Most politicians believe in some level of all of these things. But I think by the average American's spectra, Obama is fiscally liberal and I am fiscally moderate. By your spectrum, perhaps Obama is fiscally moderate and I am fiscally conservative. And by Steve Forbes' spectrum, I am probably fiscally liberal and Obama's off the scale.
So what am I trying to say... I think one can be a corporatist and still be fiscally liberal, in in a lot of ways Obama and Bush were both. And I also think being a fiscal liberal does not equate to caring about lower socioeconomic classes. Some fiscal liberals do -- others don't. The latter are more concerned with expansion of government (and therefore their own) power. Similarly, some fiscal conservatives do care about lower socioeconomic classes -- and others don't.
I happen to think smaller government, with safety nets and appropriate social welfare, does coincide with the optimal situation as I desribed above. But I think others can disagree and still have their hearts in the right place.
CPP -- while I am no fan of the bill generally, I hope you're right.
Both our governments should take an example from Sweden, where there's probably the highest equality between man and women in the terms of power distribution, salaries and other things... I bet they don't have to deal with health care reforms favouring men!
Take care all of you,
Jay from Vancouver
It’s interesting to me when people throw out Sweden as a solution. There are much bigger gaps in unemployment in Sweden between the natives and the foreign born. There is much less upward social migration for the poor than in America. Sweden has been criticized for encouraging a lack of diversity (see: ethnic studies professor Masoud Kamali). Additionally, the country has an exceptionally restrictive immigration policy – unlike ours. And a restrictive asylum policy – Sweden deports families with children who have various psychiatric problems – which violates the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.
A truly outstanding post and a very thoughtful 6:51pm comment, Octogalore. (I have no idea how to create a backlink - sigh - but I've recommended this on my blog.)
As to CPP's hope that the Stupak amendment will disappear in conference, that may come to pass. But even if health reform passes without abortion restrictions (and with birth control as a Basic covered item and without religious and spiritual healing) this go-round, there's nothing that says that can't change a year from now or 2 or 5. The problems inherent in government intrusion into our lives don't disappear just because today the government is only intruding in ways we like.
Elise, thanks! And, well stated. It's like inviting your boss to live in your spare room. All very well if your current boss is a fun companion, but in three years maybe there will be a new boss moving in, with new rules. Too late to board up that spare room. Oops!
If this thing passes without Stupak, it's only a matter of time before it's back in. And a whole lot of other things.
Hmm. I wonder if the government decided that managing the side effects of viagra was too expensive, and the House signed a bill that made it prohibitively expensive. Think we'd hear guys blithely saying "oh, it would go away in conference, no worries!"
Or hey, how about this! Let's say that the government decided that cheating men posed an expensive STD risk, and if a man was caught cheating, his premiums would need to double. Sounds fair, why should the taxpayers pay for that? But hey, it could disappear in conference, right?
Not sure what the first sentence has to do with the rest of the piece? (/English teacher)
Daisy: the theme of the piece is feminism being about women's rights, not simply liberalism plus estrogen.
So the first paragraph leads into the paragraph (third from bottom) saying:
"That’s why women and feminism should not remain wholly owned subsidiaries of the Democrats and liberalism respectively."
Because Stupak is the inevitable result of that.
I do not think either party supports the equal rights of women across the broad spectrum. We have an oligarchy. They all pander to politics first.
The system is corrupt and broken. Who can advocate for women at the same level as oil companies or banks or the insurance companies lobby for their own interests? Women cannot even vote their interests on the national level, as there is no real choice.
good...........................................................................