About us Login Get email updates
County Fair
Print

Attention Chris Matthews: Study finds Stupak Amendment would change abortion coverage "status quo"

November 18, 2009 1:36 pm ET by Julie Millican

If one thing has been clear in the debate over the Stupak amendment, it has been that Chris Matthews has no idea what the amendment is about. No matter how many guests he has on who explain the amendment to him, he still seems convinced that the Stupak amendment would simply extend legislation prohibiting federal funding for abortion to current healthcare reform legislation. Otherwise, how can you explain exchanges like this, in which Matthews allows Stupak to claim that his amendment is a continuation of the "current law," which wouldn't restrict "insurance policies or individuals from using their own money to get abortion service?"

Well, maybe this will help Matthews understand how Stupak's amendment goes far beyond the status quo. TPM is reporting that a new study by the George Washington University School of Public Health finds that, in TPM's words, "The Stupak amendment to the House health care bill--which will prevent millions of women from buying health insurance policies that cover abortion--is likely to have consequences that reach far beyond its supposedly intended scope." Here's the key takeaway from the study's findings: The "treatment exclusions required under the Stupak/Pitts Amendment will have an industry-wide effect, eliminating coverage of medically indicated abortions over time for all women, not only those whose coverage is derived through a health insurance exchange."

Is that clear enough for you Matthews?

According to the study, the Stupak amendment also "will work to defeat the development of a supplemental coverage market for medically indicated abortions" because in "any supplemental coverage arrangement, it is essential that the supplemental coverage be administered in conjunction with basic coverage. This intertwined administration approach is barred under Stupak/Pitts because of the prohibition against financial comingling." Furthermore, the study found that "because supplemental coverage must of necessity commingle funds with basic coverage, the impact of Stupak/Pitts on states' ability to offer supplemental Medicaid coverage to women insured through a subsidized exchange plan is in doubt." Sounds like a change in the status quo to me.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by goesto11 (November 18, 2009 1:49 pm ET)
      1  
      This would be the same Chris Matthews who last week started a question to one of his guests with:

      "Now, you don't have to bother agreeing with my next question, because I know I'm right..."

      That doesn't exactly sound like a man who's interested in ideas other than the ones fixed firmly in his head.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by bilbo_dies (November 18, 2009 4:33 pm ET)
        1  
        "Now, you don't have to bother agreeing with my next question, because I know I'm right..."


        Uh, Chris. That would make it a statement, not a question.








        Report Abuse
        • Author by Don Hussein Fabuloso (November 18, 2009 4:47 pm ET)
          1  
          A point I've heard others make about this issue is that the Dems need to stop entering into these things from a starting point of compromise. I wish they would propose legislation requiring abortions to be covered by health plans, and bargain with the anti-choice crowd from there.

          I still haven't heard a decent explanation from any "Strict Constitutionalists" for why they insist on laws that respect their religious establishment.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by John Paradox (November 18, 2009 5:23 pm ET)
            2  
            IIRC, Jon Stewart once pointed out about compromise, noting that the Democrats start where they should be ending the negotiations. The Republicans start with sometimes downright ridiculous positions, so we wind up with things that are about 70% R, 30% D.
            Report Abuse
      • Author by pointofview (November 18, 2009 5:36 pm ET)
          2
        This is all so simple. If you want an abortion, PAY for it.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Don Hussein Fabuloso (November 18, 2009 5:44 pm ET)
          2  
          That's the idea, Pointy. You pay your taxes, some of it goes to your health care coverage, and you have medical procedures covered, even if they're not accepted by somebody's church.

          Glad to see you're grasping the concept of health insurance.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by The_Cat (November 19, 2009 11:06 am ET)
             
          Fair enough, pointofview. I find 'just say no to drugs' is a very fine idea, and I've built a tiny but extremely vocal coalition of people who want Americans to do just that very thing.

          So, when the bill is in committee, I'm going to make sure that language is introduced that will prevent government funding of anesthesia, along with any kind of pain relief. If you want a local the next time a surgeon has to cut you open, or, heaven forbid you want to be put under, PAY for it.
          Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

About the Blog

Feed Icon
  • County Fair is a media blog featuring links to progressive media criticism from around the Web as well as original commentary, breaking news and rapid response updates to major media events from Media Matters senior fellows and other staff.