Return of the Pro-Lifers

Once again, the far right is out to restrict abortion rights.

When Republicans attempted to change the definition of rape to exclude abortions resulting from statutory cases from being covered by Medicaid in the anti-abortion bill put forward in January by Representative Chris Smith (R-NJ), opposition to the provision forced the Republicans to retract the language from the bill. But that wasn't the end of it.

This past Wednesday the Republicans in the House passed the so-called No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act (H.R. 3) with an underhanded trick that allows Congress to "redefine rape," as the original language meant to. No one noticed, though, because everyone was paying attention to the bin Laden story.

The poison pill in this maneuver is a committee report that accompanies the legislation. It spells out the intention of the legislation to restrict the definition of rape to forcible rape - and thus restrict abortions. Although the Hyde amendment, part of an abortion law and named for the late pro-life Representative Henry Hyde (R-IL), already does prohibit taxpayer funding for abortions, it has made exceptions for rape since 1993. Mother Jones magazine explains how this report would work:

"The backdoor reintroduction of the statutory rape change relies on the use of a committee report, a document that congressional committees produce outlining what they intend a piece of legislation to do. If there's ever a court fight about the interpretation of a law — and when it comes to a subject as contentious as abortion rights, there almost always is — judges will look to the committee report as evidence of congressional intent, and use it to decide what the law actually means.

"In this case, the committee report for H.R. 3 says that the bill will 'not allow the Federal Government to subsidize abortions in cases of statutory rape.' The bill itself doesn't say anything like that, but if a court decides that legislators intended to exclude statutory rape-related abortions from eligibility for Medicaid funding, then that will be the effect."

What the bill clearly means is that it would deny tax credits to companies that offer health insurance plans that include abortion funding and would deny anyone with such a plan from receiving federal tax deductions, among other nasty things that actually are in the legislation.

The Republicans seem to be moved by a sincere belief that abortion is an absolute moral wrong and that it must be curtailed as much as possible. Well, what's so bad about that? Quite a few things, starting with the fact that it interferes with the personal choices women make with regard to their own health and bodies. It also forces personal beliefs on others through the government. Plus, most of the male politicians passing judgment on female reproductive rights are not doctors.

This bill is going nowhere. Even if the Democratic Senate were to pass it, President Obama would certainly veto it. But it could become law in 2013 if the Republicans hold the House and win control of the Senate in 2012 - they have a pretty good chance of doing both - and if there's a Republican president in 2013 or if Republicans and pro-life Democrats have enough votes to override an Obama veto.

Oh yeah, the only House Republicans who did not vote for this bill were those who abstained. My congressman - Republican Representative Rodney Frelinghuysen of New Jersey - voted for it. Given his past support for Planned Parenthood and reproductive rights in general, his vote is nothing short of shocking.

The right-wing era of American politics, far from having ended with Obama's election, has only begun . . ..

The Abortion Debate Is the "Pitts"

Here's the latest on the abortion legislation in the house that no one in the media cares enough to cover. (It's apparently one of those stories Rachel Maddow would say that no one is talking about!) Although the bill sponsored by U.S. Representative Christopher Smith (R-NJ) no longer redefines rape, its cessation of tax breaks for health plans that happen to include abortion coverage would essentially bar women who work for the government or serve in military to receive abortion coverage, and it would deny any access to such coverage for poor women as well. Even worse, by ending tax breaks for such plans, it would manage to prevent private employers from covering it as well.

If you think Smith is a horrible person, wait until you hear what Joseph Pitts, a House Republican from Pennsylvania, has in store. The Pitts bill, called the Protect Life Act, would bar insurance plans in the new system set up by the health care law from providing abortion coverage to anyone who receives government aid while permitting just about any hospital, clinic, or insurance company to refuse to provide, cover, or pay for abortions. They wouldn't even have to refer patients elsewhere for abortions. But here's the clincher - the so-called "Protect Life Act" would allow religiously affiliated hospitals to impose religious beliefs and refuse to provide emergency abortion care even in cases where it's necessary to save a woman's life.

Protect life? Whose life is it, anyway?

Of course, you can't blame Americans for being outraged if no one's informing them because the media are too busy covering President Obama's quixotic attempts to kiss and make up with big business.

And while all of this is going on, an anti-abortion group based in California is trying a sting operation comparable to the one that brought down ACORN not too long ago. Live Action, based in San Jose, sent men posing as pimps to Planned Parenthood offices to get information about abortions for prostitutes and sex workers, getting it on secret videotape. Planned Parenthood insists that the videos do not accurately portray their practices and they that they try to get underaged girls who ask about abortion themselves to talk to a social worker and that they screen these girls for abuse and neglect. They insist that they take the health and well-being of girls very seriously - and why wouldn't they? - and Live Action is trying to prove otherwise.

Let me just state my own beliefs on abortion, if I haven't already done so on this blog. I'm against it, except in cases of rape, incest, and life-threatening pregnancies. I oppose abortion for the same reason I oppose the death penalty - I do not condone the idea of human beings deciding who gets to live and who does not. But - while I am opposed to abortion, I am even more opposed to enforcing my own beliefs on those who think differently, and so I therefore believe the practice should remain legal. Smith and Pitts - and the people at Live Action - are entitled to speak out against abortion as I have just done. They are not entitled to force their opinions on others. Unfortunately, that's what these mendacious House bills would do.

Abortion and the Media

Representative Christopher Smith (R-NJ) was forced to reword his anti-abortion bill to avoid redefining rape. The bill as originally drafted would have limited taxpayer funding of abortions to cases of "forcible rape." That is, women impregnated in cases of statutory rape or women who are drugged into a state of mind that would render them unable to resist sexual contact would have been out of luck. Smith, in a rare show of moral ambiguity on this issue, backed down in response to public outcry.

This is a negligible upward blip in the fight for women's rights. This bill would still end tax breaks for health insurance plans that include coverage for abortions and abortion-related procedures, and it would ban women from using their health savings accounts for abortions. Of course, the bill has no chance of passing in the Senate, and the President would veto it anyway. But this ongoing attack on abortion rights - a sign that the misogynistic policies of the Reagan era, like the Reagan era itself, haven't really gone away - is enjoying new life thanks to a far-right Tea Party movement that was only supposed to be about taxes and spending. Well, this bill is called the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act," so maybe Smith thought he could make it sound fiscally relevant.

I couldn't help but notice, by the way, that this legislation is getting no coverage by the mainstream media. No coverage when I've checked, anyway. Perhaps the press thinks this bill is too insignificant to cover in light of the ongoing crisis in Egypt. Not to mention the Giffords shooting, although reporting on that story has diminished somewhat, lest you start calling for gun control. (Breaking news: Her husband, astronaut Mark Kelly, is going to command the last Endeavour space shuttle flight.) The truth is, the mainstream media don't want to cover issues affecting people's daily lives. If they did, you'd start seeing Lafayette Square in Washington fill up with protesters just like Tahrir Square in Cairo. And that might actually lead to progressive change in this country that threatens the established order of which the mainstream press is part.

But it would be a great story to cover.

By the way, the United States remains the only industrialized country where abortion is still an issue; other industrialized nations have long since settled it, one way or the other. I may have said this once before, but when a Japanese official pointed this out on American television, he was laughing.