A Lawyer’s Tender Ego, The Hyde Amendment and Kathleen Parker
Read Time:1 Minute, 45 Second
Yesterday I wrote about the legislative drama swirling around the health care bill and the Hyde Amendment. My argument was that Obama’s promised executive order, restating what was already existing law in the form of the Hyde Amendment, was nothing more than political jiujitsu to calm the nerves, and give political cover, for anti-abortion Democrats. Otherwise the health care bill and the forthcoming executive order do nothing to change the law of the land. With, or without the executive order abortions would not be funded as a result of the passage of the bill.
Not shortly after giving myself a congratulatory pat on the back for a piece well done, an astute reader of my post, entitled “GOP’ers, The Hyde Amendment, and an Alternative Universe,” directed my attention, by way of comment, to a recent op-ed piece by the talented Ms. Kathleen Parker, damn her.
She, too, took up the same issue as I addressed in my previous post, with a much different conclusion. Though The Hyde Amendment provides that funds channeled through the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) cannot be used to fund abortions, a loop hole exists. Ah, those damn dirty loop holes. They’ll get you every time.
As the bill would seem to have it, community health centers (CHC) will be funded directly from Congress and not via HHS, and therefore the Hyde Amendment is not applicable to those dollars. Result: CHC’s will be in a position to use federal funding for abortions if they choose, though CHC’s do not currently provide abortions.
In the op-ed piece, Ms. Parker wrote: “No one should apologize for being confused, by the way. If not for the patient tutoring of brilliant lawyers, Capitol Hill staffers, medical experts and others, I would be hugging my knees alternately muttering ‘Who’s Jacob?’ and ‘Ibid, Subsection C (1)(a).'” I consoled myself imagining that she was saying that directly to me as she rubbed my shoulders, adding, “There, there, Lawyer-boy. Not everyone can be as smart as me.”
Is it too early for a drink?
Happy
0 %
Sad
0 %
Excited
0 %
Sleepy
0 %
Angry
0 %
Surprise
0 %
0
0
NOW & NARAL were going into fits last week over HCR, saying it was the biggest setback to women’s rights ever, blah blah blah. Months ago, when Stupak Pitts amendment was first added to the House bill (was it the house? or senate? I forget) I wrote a piece saying that I disagreed with NOW & NARAL, and basically came to the same conclusion you did, Lawyer – that it was pretty much rehashing what was already present in the Hyde amendment. It’s nice to see a loophole, though.
I consider myself a feminist. I support a woman’s choice, but I don’t see abortion rights as the holy grail of women’s rights. The right to the choice must be present – but at the end of the day, I could give a shit if federal funds are used to pay for it or not in the cases of elective abortion. Medical necessity is another issue, IMHO. I personally view fair pay as ultimately far more important to women’s rights overall.
I totally agree with you, Bee. I imagine that sometimes people get so caught up on one side of a cause that they forget what they are fighting for, and lose the long view. It’s like the politicians that threatened to not vote for the health care bill because it did not include the public option. It is always a long and slow march for progress, two steps forward and one step back.
Roe v. Wade is still the law.
I would almost guarantee that the journalist had some big time advice from the legal department of her publication. That’s what good journalists do.
In an article I wrote yesterday on HCR, I said that there are a legion of insurance industry lawyer pouring over every phrase in HCR looking for loopholes that they can use to deny preexisting conditions, kick out sick patients, refuse to pay covered claims, and deny covered services to people whose lives depend on receiving them. They will find loopholes. That is why this must be the only the first step toward universal, single payer health care.
As for abortion, I prefer prevention. Although I consider it a bad choice, there are situations in which there are no good choices available. Therefore, it must be a woman’s choice. It should be freely available, fully funded, free from harassment and as rare as possible.
Take heart Herr Lawyer. Simply because a journalist, a female one at that, knows more about the law than you do should not bruise your ego. After all, knowing the law does not necessarily qualify one to be a lawyer does it?
On the other hand I am a university professor, and we all know that we are fountains of knowledge, infinite and across all spectrum. Well I knew even less than you did and I teach that sort of thing! Shame on me…..
Finally, it’s never too early for a drink!
P.S. I see you figured out the thumbnail thing….Congrats 🙂
Yes, I figured out the thumbnail. I figured that I might as well get something right for the day. That is an image of Ungenio, from the Chilean comic book series Condorito, not known for his intellectual acumen.
I also figured out the Gravatar comment post problem. In your profile, you have to have your contact email the same as what you used to register the Gravatar. It uses that as the hook for the php. I was using lawandeng email not my own.