>> I don't believe it's honestly feasible to get the bill passed if it covers medical procedures that a large bulk of America (unfortunately) believes should be outright illegal. <<
You're wrong about both halves of that statement.
A very large majority of Americans either has no objection at all to abortion coverage, or is okay with the compromise we've had since the Hyde bill, where federal money doesn't pay for abortions. The set of people who think we need to go beyond that is a minority, not a majority. Stupak goes way beyond what the majority of the public would demand, to appease a minority.
Also, it is much more likely that whatever health care legislation passes will stay at the Hyde level - federal money won't pay for abortions - than that it will overreach to the Stupak level. While such an overreach is a real danger, it's something that *might* happen, not something that definitely will. Your suggestion that it's the only feasible possibility is definitely false.
I would've said the same thing back on Monday, but now I can show a bit more evidence: the Senate rejected it on a vote of 45-54. If even the Senate defeated this Stupak language on a 9 vote margin, you can't possibly make the case that it's not feasible to pass reform *without* it. It may not be feasible to pass reform *with* it.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
momijizukamori
You're mistaken
Date: 2009-12-10 13:50 (UTC)You're wrong about both halves of that statement.
A very large majority of Americans either has no objection at all to abortion coverage, or is okay with the compromise we've had since the Hyde bill, where federal money doesn't pay for abortions. The set of people who think we need to go beyond that is a minority, not a majority. Stupak goes way beyond what the majority of the public would demand, to appease a minority.
Also, it is much more likely that whatever health care legislation passes will stay at the Hyde level - federal money won't pay for abortions - than that it will overreach to the Stupak level. While such an overreach is a real danger, it's something that *might* happen, not something that definitely will. Your suggestion that it's the only feasible possibility is definitely false.
I would've said the same thing back on Monday, but now I can show a bit more evidence: the Senate rejected it on a vote of 45-54. If even the Senate defeated this Stupak language on a 9 vote margin, you can't possibly make the case that it's not feasible to pass reform *without* it. It may not be feasible to pass reform *with* it.