About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Matthews continues to allow Stupak to misinform about abortion funding in the Senate health care bill

March 04, 2010 12:46 pm ET — 26 Comments

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.

EMBED

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.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by toombsie (March 04, 2010 12:55 pm ET)
      10 1
      Thank you Matthews for again not informing your audience.

      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.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by BISHAMON (March 04, 2010 9:00 pm ET)
           
        I am sorry to hear Chris Matthews is still on TV. I have not wasted one second on him in a very long time.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by seahawks123 (March 04, 2010 1:15 pm ET)
      1 15
      He just doesn't think killing millions of babies should be tax payer funded.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by John Paradox (March 04, 2010 1:35 pm ET)
        9  
        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
        Report Abuse
      • Author by The_Cat (March 04, 2010 1:35 pm ET)
        7  
        It's not currently, and won't be under the current health coverage reform legislation.

        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.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by all your eyes (March 04, 2010 2:15 pm ET)
        8  
        No one is killing babies. Calling a fetus a baby is simply inaccurate.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by BISHAMON (March 04, 2010 9:02 pm ET)
          4  
          And the abortion is not taxpayer funded, as ABC News reported. Stupak is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by smarshall1432997 (March 04, 2010 2:35 pm ET)
        7  
        Wonder how many "un-insured" pregnant women there are in America today that won't benefit from the passage of HCR because of Stupak's stubborness? Hmmm. Think about this, million of babies would be harmed without the passage of HCR due to Mothers who maybe the working poor, or the under insured, or the un-insured. But, if HCR passes then Stupak (and other Members) would be able to AMEND the HCR Bill to make it much much more better in the near future. Just to STOP it (HCR) just because makes no sense when the Bill could be tweaked later with Amendments. These people are just pathethic. AAAAAAAGGGGGHHHHH!!! LOL.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by fantagor (March 04, 2010 6:53 pm ET)
          4  
          Stupak doesn't care squat about BABIES. He cares about TELLING POOR WOMEN WHAT TO DO. Babies are an abstraction to jerks like Stupak. Fetuses, on the other hand, are worth fight for. But once born, YAOYO.

          Randy
          Report Abuse
      • Author by rsinebada7366 (March 05, 2010 12:30 pm ET)
        3  
        Babies are not killed during an abortion unless at "baby" stage they might be of danger to the mother. Fetuses, however, are aborted frequently and are perfectly legal according to the USSC.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by draftedin68 (March 04, 2010 1:18 pm ET)
      9 1
      No surprise

      Tweety's anti-choice position is nothing new and it's likely the result of his dogma-driven WASC-ishness.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by cbcbcb (March 04, 2010 3:48 pm ET)
          4
        People who use "anti-choice" clearly have a bias and there is no reasoning with them. At least call them anit-abortion.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by eweston8542983 (March 04, 2010 6:40 pm ET)
          4  
          Since everybody has bias's you must get little chance to use reasoning.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by BISHAMON (March 04, 2010 9:04 pm ET)
           
        I believe I have read that Matthews is in fact pro-choice. His poor performance results from his poor thinking and poor journalism skills, not his politics.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by aBeck in 10-O-C (March 04, 2010 11:36 pm ET)
          2  
          "Matthews.... poor performance results from his poor thinking and poor journalism skills, not his politics. "

          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.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by rsinebada7366 (March 05, 2010 12:33 pm ET)
            1 1
            Mathews is every Catholic boys' school product I have ever met. He is arrogant, dismissive and totally and completely rude.
            Report Abuse
        • Author by dickdata417424 (March 05, 2010 10:01 am ET)
          1  
          Matthews was raised a Roman Catholic, with Irish ancestors. Irish-Catholics make up a large potion of his regular guests. (This was also true on "Meet the Press" when Tim Russert, another Irish Catholic, was the host.) NBC is heavy on Irish Catholics and they just tend to bring the Catholic dogma into the discussion, regardless of their rational beliefs.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by sluggo (March 04, 2010 1:25 pm ET)
      6  
      Since Matthews is doing an Entertainment show and not a News show, his priorities are different. He is not going to risk the ability to get "controversial" guests to come on his show by treating them badly. These guest know that Chris will provide a forum for them to lie and deceive and that they won't be called on the facts.

      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...
      Report Abuse
      • Author by smarshall1432997 (March 04, 2010 2:20 pm ET)
           
        Sluggo, so what you are saying is that Chris Matthews wants to be like the Hosts over at FoxNews Network by letting Guests give false facts to stifle the Democrats proposed legislation that they don't like or support? If so, you may be on to something. Wink, wink. LOL.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by MadRiver Jack (March 04, 2010 1:46 pm ET)
         
      [http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_olhMzt_rwyo/S4sSxfvv-bI/AAAAAAAAB4Q/e2wjRNlO0Qw/s1600-h/NOTwSTUPAK.jpg]
      Report Abuse
    • Author by MadRiver Jack (March 04, 2010 1:49 pm ET)
         
      [http://tinyurl.com/y9fbhlj]
      Report Abuse
    • Author by eekeller (March 04, 2010 3:11 pm ET)
      1  
      I "hate" to say this, but can you imagine how wet the top of Tweety's desk must be at the end of his show?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by wesley (March 04, 2010 3:53 pm ET)
        3
      Without the Stupak amendment the house version of health care reform would never have passed. 64 democrats voted for the Stupak amendment.

      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. --

      Report Abuse
      • Author by fantagor (March 04, 2010 6:48 pm ET)
        5  
        What you miss is that if you have a single insurance provider, they will NOT take TWO CHECKS: one from the gov't, one from you. So basically, there goes your coverage for abortion. And try to find affordable insurance that'll JUST cover abortions exclusively. It doesn't exist.

        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
        Report Abuse
    • Author by proudObamasupporter (March 05, 2010 9:01 am ET)
         
      Considering the fact that Matthews has a habit of talking over people, maybe he simply didn't hear him. I agree with those who say they don't know why he is still on the air. I watched his special on the health care summit and I was amazed at how rude he was to his guests, who both had better comments than he did anyway. Especially Savannah Guthrie.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by shaggles (March 05, 2010 11:21 am ET)
      1  
      This reminds me a lot of that 'Obama voted to kill babies' smear. Some jackazz tried to stick an amendment on some bill requiring doctors to do everything they could to save the life of a fetus that was delivered alive from an abortion. The amendment was rejected because there was already such a law. Just like there is already a law to prevent federal funding of abortions. This whole thing is stupid.
      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.