Rebutting Stupak

by: Mik Moore

Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 16:27:22 PM EST

Jessica Arons, the Director of the Women's Health & Rights Program at the Center for American Progress, has a sharp piece in The Nation on the logic behind the Stupak amendment, which prevents the goverment health care plan from providing even indirect subsidies for plans that cover abortion. 

Our society recognizes the distinction between direct and indirect funding all the time. Indeed, if we did not, our government probably could not function. Religious organizations receive tax money to provide direct social services but are strictly prohibited from using that money for sectarian purposes. Nonprofit organizations obtain government grants that can be used for charitable activities but not for electioneering. And we already have a precedent with respect to abortion: family planning clinics get public funding to provide contraception that cannot be spent on abortion. No reasonable person sees this funding as subsidizing activities that have been deemed ineligible for government spending or views the accounting practices used to segregate funds as illegitimate or inadequate. 

Anti-abortion politics breeds this kind of nonsensical legislating. If the Stupak irrationale catches on, Amy's list provides a preview of the possible implications.