Matthews continues to allow Stupak to misinform about abortion funding in the Senate health care bill
MSNBC Hardball host Chris Matthews allowed Rep. Bart Stupak (D-PA) to again falsely claim that his health care bill amendment would "maintain current law," even though many people have told Matthews on Hardball that it goes beyond current law in restricting abortion funding.
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
Stupak falsely claimed his abortion amendment "maintains current law"
From the March 3 edition of MSNBC's Hardball:
MATTHEWS: Do you believe the Democratic Party, the majority of the party you're in, is willing to go down to defeat on the major legislative issue of this presidency because of its pro-choice position?
STUPAK: No. No, because --
MATTHEWS: You don't think they're willing to go down to defeat?
STUPAK: No, because even if you look at the pro-choice letter that [Rep.] Diana DeGette [D-CO] and the others claim to have 40-some signatures on -- if you read that letter very carefully, it says, we must maintain current law. Current law. That's all the Stupak amendment does, maintain current law. Just take my name off it. Call the Hyde Amendment. Just maintain current law --
MATTHEWS: I know what the law says.
STUPAK: Put it in the health care act, and we're OK.
In fact, Stupak amendment exceeds restrictions under current law, alters status quo
NY Times: Amendment "reached far beyond Hyde and made it largely impossible to use a policyholder's own dollars to pay for abortion coverage." In a November 9, 2009, editorial, The New York Times wrote that the Stupak amendment to the House bill would make it "largely impossible to use a policyholder's own dollars to pay for abortion coverage" and "would prevent millions of Americans from buying insurance that covers abortions -- even if they use their own money." The Times noted that the amendment's supporters "reached far beyond Hyde and made it largely impossible to use a policyholder's own dollars to pay for abortion coverage" because the amendment "would ban the use of federal subsidies to pay for 'any part' of a policy that includes abortion coverage." As the Times noted, the Hyde Amendment "bans the use of federal dollars to pay for almost all abortions in a number of government programs."
Status quo currently allows people participating in federally funded plans to obtain abortions as long as funds are segregated. Under the Hyde Amendment, people participating in a government-administered health care insurance plan are allowed to use their own money to pay for abortion, but federal funding of abortion is forbidden. According to the Congressional Research Service, the Hyde Amendment was originally passed to prohibit federal funding for abortions through the Medicaid program and has since been expanded to other areas. Nevertheless, notwithstanding the prohibition on federal funding for most abortions under Medicaid, according to a September 1, 2009, study by the Guttmacher Institute, 17 states provide coverage under Medicaid for "all or most medically necessary abortions," not just abortions in cases of life endangerment, rape, and incest. Therefore, in 17 states, Medicaid, a federally subsidized health care program, covers abortions in circumstances in which federal money is prohibited from being spent on abortion.
Hardball guests have previously explained to Matthews that Stupak amendment exceeds current law
Hardball guests: Amendment goes "further" than status quo. Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America; New York magazine's John Heilemann; Rep. Diana DeGette (D-CO); Rep. Jim Cooper (D-TN); Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards; and the Chicago Tribune's Clarence Page have all said on Hardball that Stupak's amendment goes "further" than the "status quo" -- the Hyde Amendment.

















Stupak is using his religious convictions to attempt to deny health care access to 30 million people, which is obviously what Jesus would want him to do. His audacity is breathtaking. I can only hope this guy loses re-election this year because most of the country by now should be aware of how much of a prick he is.
Funny how he only cares about babies, though, isn't it? Once they're old enough to drive, the idea that they could be subject to the death penalty doesn't bother him. Neither does sending them off to die in pointless crusades in places like Iraq, apparently. What a hypocrite.
Randy
Tweety's anti-choice position is nothing new and it's likely the result of his dogma-driven WASC-ishness.
I agree. I think Matthews has too high an opinion of his own bona fides as a political wonk based upon his experiences in politics. I have seen countless examples of his apparent refusal to do his homework or pay attention to the research done by of many of his peers. I think he means well, but he can't shut up and listen... and his attention deficit disorder is contagious to my remote thumb.
Remember, Chris is doing a show to get viewers, not get to the truth. His network is trying to get people to continue to buy stuff they see on the TV and not to educate their viewers. To get people to buy stuff they have to watch Chris long enough to see the commercials.
If they thought it would get more viewers, Chris would be dressed in a Chicken Suit and one of his guests would be a live lobster...
Here's where you can read Stupak's explanation and the text of the bill:
-- Under the amendment, individuals receiving federal subsidies for health care coverage are prohibited from using those subsidies to pay for abortions or to purchase insurance policies that cover abortions. The amendment does not prevent private insurance plans from offering abortion services nor does it prohibit individuals or states from purchasing abortion coverage with non-federal matching funds. The amendment specifies that even those who receive federal subsidies may purchase a supplemental policy with private money to provide abortion coverage. --
This amendment is a Catch-22 designed to deny POOR WOMEN access to abortions. RICH WOMEN can have all the abortions they want, as they don't need insurance and are therefore saved the burden of jumping through draconian hoops designed by Stupak and the other anti-woman a-hole$.
Randy