The Stupak Problem....

I've been hearing Rachel Maddow and others come out scathingly against Bart Stupak and the abortion issue with the upcoming health care reform bill that's slated to be voted on soon. At first - I'm like: "yeah yeah, Bart bad bad guy..."

Then ... a couple of nights ago - Rachel had the night off and we watched Chris Hays (who did a great job - but please do something about the pen!) ... and he had on Diana DeGette from the U.S. House of Representatives on the program.

Now Rachel's contention is that there is no mention of abortion in the pending legislations ... that - Democrats didn't want this to be a sticking point for anyone in order to pass health care reform. The concept was to keep things "status quo." Which in my opinion makes perfect sense and what not.

Except.

When Diana was on the program with Chris - towards the end of the segment, she began to articulate the position a bit more differently. I'm paraphrasing, but she said that the way the current system is, a woman who has bought private insurance can be covered under her plan to receive services associated with having an abortion.

THEN, Diana DeGette stated: "We want to make sure that this feature is also available in a government created market" when health care reform passes.

Wait, wait, whoa. Huh?

Technically, there is no change or provision for abortion, HOWEVER ... When Diana articulated that she wants to have the government negotiate plans in this special health care market - that would include the same provisions as the woman who would be opting for private health care insurance ... a light bulb went off.

I think I understand Bart's contention here.

Abortion is still a very very very divisive issue as it always has been.

But it's disingenuous to portray the abortion reference as being just "status quo." It's not really. Even if the bills out there do not expressly say: "government mandated abortion options," it does say government will negotiate plans for the public just like the ones a woman can get in private ... which is technically *not* status quo anymore.

Keep in mind that this has nothing to do with the right of a woman to choose - as much as it is the coverage options and negotiations initiated by the government which I can see from Bart's perspective as being a step forward in the pro-choice column. In Bart's mind a huge step forward is my guess.

Not that I'm against that -- because I *am* pro-choice and believe that a woman should hold that decision for herself. I do think women should be allowed to get treatment and that's my personal belief and opinion. But the Bart Stupak position contemplates the overall goal for health care reform.

UPDATE: As of this entry - I noticed tonight on Rachel's program that there's little that can be done for Bart's amendment - because the Senate bill has to be passed in its entirety anyway so Bart's efforts are all for not.

But I'm disappointed a bit in Rachel - for spending so much time attacking Bart, without being a bit more credible in her reporting about what Bart's position was. There *is* a difference when you put out all the pieces on the table - and whether you're pro-life or pro-choice, one needs to remain objective when observing that there *is* a difference in the approach. Regardless of your politics - having an honest discussion is better than trying to carry on a bias-slanted one that's based on a half-truth.

C'mon Rachel - you're better than that.