Abortion-Rights Advocates Pursued Wrong Strategy Against Restrictions In Health Reform, Opinion Piece Says

Main Category: Abortion
Also Included In: Health Insurance / Medical Insurance
Article Date: 29 Jan 2010 - 5:00 PDT

email to a friend   printer friendly   opinions  

American Prospect senior correspondent Michelle Goldberg examines the abortion debate in the context of health reform in an opinion piece, concluding that whatever the outcome, "the pro-choice movement loses." The movement "can't rally behind the existing legislation," but "[a]t the same time, because the future of abortion rights in America is deeply entwined with the future of the Democratic Party, the failure of health care reform, and the consequent weakening of the Democrats, would ultimately be disastrous for choice," according to Goldberg.

Goldberg questions whether the current health reform situation was "inevitable," noting that it is "increasingly clear" that the abortion-rights movement "made a mistake going into health care reform" because it "compromised too soon and underestimated the implacability of the opposition." The movement "didn't demand enough and ended up with less than nothing" when leaders "decided to try to take abortion off the table" and advocate for an amendment offered by Rep. Lois Capps (D-Calif.) that "aimed to preserve the status quo while avoiding new restrictions on abortion funding," Goldberg argues.

Although "[n]eutralizing the issue" for the sake of health reform "seemed smart," the abortion-rights movement "was left in the perverse position of essentially defending" the Hyde Amendment, "an ugly piece of legislation that, among other things, denies abortion coverage to women on Medicaid with pregnancies that threaten their health," Goldberg writes. Center for Reproductive Rights President Nancy Northup said, "I think without question it was a mistake to begin in a compromised position," adding, "It's our job as the advocacy community to make clear what the optimal policy outcome would be for Americans who care about access to abortion services and to strenuously argue that the bill should not differentiate between abortion services and other health care."

Goldberg continues that "when the status quo is your opening offer, there's nowhere to negotiate but down," adding that the "pro-choice movement should have made fighting Hyde a priority a long time ago." GOP opposition to abortion coverage suggests that "conservatives were going to accuse any bill, no matter what it said, of being an abortion bonanza," she writes. If the abortion-rights movement had made stronger demands earlier on, conservatives still would have opposed the efforts, but "instead of acquiescing to the idea that federal funding of abortion is beyond the pale, the pro-choice movement would have forced a debate and possibly pushed the center a bit more in the direction of justice," Goldberg contends.

The "lesson here goes far beyond abortion," she writes, continuing that it is "not that progressives should be uncompromising or refuse to make concessions to political reality." Rather, it is that "concessions will never mollify the right or ward off political attacks," Goldberg writes, concluding that it is "a mystery why the Democratic Party never seems to grasp" that there is "no choice but to fight" (Goldberg, American Prospect, 1/26).

Reprinted with kind permission from http://www.nationalpartnership.org. You can view the entire Daily Women's Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Women's Health Policy Report is a free service of the National Partnership for Women & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.

© 2010 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.

• Additional
• References
• Citations