Judith Warner on the politics of everyday life.Tags:
Her evocation of the bad old days was well-timed. For this past weekend saw not only the political sleight of hand that stripped millions of women’s abortion coverage from the House’s health care reform bill; it also brought the season finale of AMC’s highly popular pre-Roe-era series, which concluded with the unhappy housewife heroine Betty Draper leaving her philandering husband, Don, for the promise of marriage to another man she barely knows.
As her lawyer, and Don, have made clear, without a man Betty is nothing. She has the right to nothing — not to marital money, not even to custody of her children.
It was, in large part, to free women from this utter dependency upon — and definition by — men that the women’s movement came into being. Self-determination, at base, is what abortion rights in particular have always been about.
Americans — as the Shriver Report brought home, most recently — have embraced many aspects of women’s “liberation.” They approve of the movement of women into the work force. They have adjusted to the changes in power dynamics that this move has brought into modern marriages. But true self-determination, on the most intimate level, has remained problematic, particularly in the past decade or two, as memories of the prefeminist ’60s have dimmed. At the same time, some of the more insidious elements of the long-brewing antifeminist backlash have become an accepted part of our cultural landscape.
We’ve seen this for years in the way we talk about motherhood: celebrating selflessness, demanding an almost inhuman degree of child-centeredness, positioning the interests of mothers in opposition to those of their children, as our political and personal debates so often do. Nowhere has this come to be more true than in the abortion debate, in which anti-choice activists have pitted the lives of unborn children against the selfishness of their mothers.
And never was the false conflict between women’s self-determination and the greater good more cruelly staged than in the dilemma that confronted the pro-choice Speaker of the House last Saturday night as she faced the decision of whether to let health reform — desperately needed by children and families — move forward with a such a considerable blow to women’s rights embedded within it, or whether to allow it to die on the vine.
Nancy Pelosi shouldn’t have had to face that “choice.” It is a highly depressing sign of our times that she did.
The Stupak-Pitts Amendment, which passed as the House eked out a vote in favor of health reform, prohibits anyone receiving a federal subsidy from purchasing insurance that includes abortion coverage. As a result, it effectively prohibits both private health insurance plans participating in the future-envisioned insurance “exchange,” where individuals and small businesses could shop for insurance policies at competitive prices, and whatever public option may come into being, from offering abortion coverage to any woman. Reports earlier this week suggested that under the amendment’s provisions only a relatively small number of women would lose abortion benefits. But that assertion — based on a poorly understood 2001 figure from the Guttmacher Institute — turns out to be wishful thinking.
A solid majority — and perhaps as many as 87 percent — of typical employer-based insurance policies currently offer their subscribers abortion coverage. The Stupak-Pitts amendment, if incorporated into law, could make it impossible for millions of women to purchase insurance policies that cover abortion. Subsidies, after all, will be offered to all women in families of four earning up to $88,000 a year. Those buying individual coverage, those working for small businesses, those working for larger businesses but paying health care premiums that eat up more than 12 percent of their income, will all be eligible to participate in an exchange. And, as the House legislation is written, firms with more than 100 employees could in a few years be eligible to buy insurance via the exchange, too.
“You can really see those numbers growing,” Debra Ness, president of the National Partnership for Women and Families told me of the women threatened by the loss of coverage.
The pro-choice, pro-health reform advocates I spoke with this week remained confident that they would be able to nudge Congress to soften the Stupak-Pitts restraints in a final health care reform compromise. They took heart from the fact that a vigorous public insurance option — an idea pronounced a dead letter not so many months ago — did at last make it into the House’s legislation. But there’s one key difference: the American public widely supported the public option, polls showed this fall. The support for abortion rights now isn’t so solid.
A Pew Research Center survey released last month showed Americans’ support for abortion rights is at a striking low — down to 47 percent — after hovering consistently just above 50 percent since at least the mid-1990s. And despite the passionate outrage expressed by high-profile abortion rights supporters this week, most of the pro-choice public just doesn’t appear to be all that fired up about fighting for the freedom to choose anymore. According to the Pew poll, only 15 percent of people overall say abortion is a “critical” issue today, and even among those described as liberal Democrats, that proportion has dropped 26 points, from 34 percent to 8 percent, since 2006.
Stupak-Pitts passed not just because a group of Catholic bishops bore down on Democratic lawmakers. It passed because it could. Maybe because our cultural memory is short; because our fantasyland nostalgia for a world of stay-at-home moms and gray flannel dads is too great, because when push comes to shove, in tough times, there’s still a willingness to throw women under the bus.
Abortion access is already all but gone in many states; it has been so for years. Virginia recently elected a governor despite his well-publicized early writing on how working women are “detrimental to the family,” and despite his record of voting against ending wage discrimination between men and women.
Last night, I watched “By the People,” HBO’s new documentary on the election of Barack Obama.
“We’re gonna change our country. We’re gonna change the world,” I heard candidate Obama say.
But we didn’t. And, at this point, I sometimes wonder if we ever really wanted to.
From 1 to 25 of 339 Comments
The answer is no. It is not that Americans don’t want change, it is because they are easily manipulated. Peak Oil should be the biggest subject discussed right now. It will cause even more misery than our rotten health care system. Oh well, the USA was a good idea at one point.
— markThe Stupak Amendment does not change 30 years of law.
The Hyde amendment (passed every year since 1976) prohibits the use of federal funds directly for abortion — or, in a provision that gets less attention but is highly relevant now, “for health benefits coverage that includes coverage of abortion.”
The Hyde Amendment’s language is reproduced almost precisely in the Stupak amendment.
The only thing that changed is Congresswoman Pelosi got caught speeding. Even she admitted in a speach to Planned Parenthood that her bill would have “required” federal funding of abortions.
So the pro-abortion side is only complaining that they weren’t able to sneak a change into the bill. I dont’ feel to sorry for them.
— DLBI disagree with the last point. Getting health care reform passed in the House is an enormous change. Yes, change is slow and hard and imperfect. But it’s meaningful change, and it matters a great deal for our country. I’ll take it.
— Kari“But we didn’t. And, at this point, I sometimes wonder if we ever really wanted to.”
Born in 1968, I came of age in the age of “Free to Be You and Me” – well after the feminists that led the efforts to move our society away from the world of Mad Men, and just ahead of those that considered themselves post-feminist.
I believed that the world had already changed in significant and positive ways and that it was continuing to change for the better. And I believed that this progress would continue on and on.
I am realizing not just that progress has stalled, but that the will of our country is just not there. The challenge isn’t simply one of better political advocacy and organizing – it is at a much deeper, pervasive cultural level.
And, I am so deeply saddened and grieving, not just for myself, but for my 3.5 year old daughter.
— PGTipsAs a privileged young pro-choice woman, I felt this article’s power. If push comes to shove, I will always be able to obtain an abortion, even if I must combine the termination of a pregnancy with a quick European vacation. I find it repellant that my elected officials, most of whom are similarly privileged and whose daughters will also always be able to control their own bodies, would act to remove this choice from poor and middle class Americans. Our constitutional rights to privacy and personal dignity ought not to depend on our wealth.
— KateMost of the women who are vocal or active in trying to repeal the Stupak amendment appear to be too old to be affected by the consequences. Are women in the age group affected by this amendment involved in the fight against it?
— LAS, Redmond, WAJudith – you are right on – but many people have dropped the “right to choose” battle because an even more important element is the right to birth control. If accessible birth control were made available – and there is NO reason why it can not be – then we would not have this issue of abortion. How can a 19 year old unmarried mother think it’s cheaper to have a child than take birth control. How many times do we hear “I can’t afford birth control,” but the woman can afford 6 different kids by 6 different fathers who don’t pay one iota towards the child’s care.
I believe 100% that an abortion should be between a woman and her doctor and or her God, (possibly between she and her husband — if she has one). How can people even begin to think that it’s better to spend millions of dollars towards welfare of mothers and unwanted children than to spend 1 percent of that to fund an abortion.
Yes, agreed, abortion should NOT be a form of birth control… so – why are we not bringing cheap available birth control to the table. (The catholic church be damned.)
Until abortion stops being a sanctimonious political issue, no health or welfare issues in this country will be resolved.
— Bubble HeadThe language surrounding Hilary’s campaign, the Stupak-Pitts amendment, the lower wages and the smaller representation by women in power is ample evidence that we aren’t fully liberated. People who think we’re equal are either myopic or deceiving themselves.
— ckThese restrictions , and the polls that back up these positions on abortion, should be the clearest warning yet that women, and men, can’t take anything for granted. We need the restrictions to be stripped from the final bill so that women, and men, can have their rights back. I include men because men have benifited from feminism too, and while they wouldn’t suffer as much as women, they also need to understand what has been lost.
— AndreaAs a Catholic, I am personally opposed to abortion and do not want to see any of my tax dollars spent on a procedure I consider a violent taking of a life. Many Americans share my view.
Linking universal health coverage to taxpayer funded abortions, is a stupid idea. Universal health coverage will save many lives and the overall improvement in health will benefit this country. The amendment was a wise idea since wit will make it easier for the much needed health insurance coverage for all bill to pass.
Insurance companies, being the bean counters they are, will compare the cost of an abortion with the cost of childbirth and will choose pay for the procedure.
— JudySelf-righteous drivel. I happen to support abortion rights, but the author’s implication that the ethics of abortion — as a matter of public law, not just of private determination by individual women — is straightfoward and obvious, and that everyone who disagrees with the author is a misogynistic neanderthal, is completely offensive.
— ArthurIt is no accident, though, that most of those “principled” anti-abortion leaders are old white guys (take a look at Stupak). As a bunch of them are bishops, they’re also (supposed to be) celibate old white guys, ones who think God told them women aren’t qualified to be bishops like them. There is no single group in the U.S. more opposed to women’s rights than the old white guys club, & in that subset of old white guys, the Roman Catholic bishops are among the worst of the worst.
I would submit that the old white guys are a lot less interested in protecting the unborn than they are in extending their power over women. People don’t become congressmen & bishops unless they really like power. That’s what those jobs are all about. To these fairly Mad Men, oppressing women is just an extension of their power. Forgive them, Lord, for they do know what they do. And it’s pretty sick.
The Constant Weader at http://www.RealityChex.com
— Marie BurnsI wish this episode of “Mad Men” – otherwise known as life in present-day America – would come to an end.
Misogyny continues to be the world’s oldest prejudice.
— KateAgreed it would be great to have this coverage for women but there is a significant number of people who don’t believe that government should be a part of the abortion choice. If this is the case, (and I’m going to sound like a conservative christian here) – why can’t the private sector come in and provide services to these women. Planned Parenthood and other non-profits to my understanding offer inexpensive options to women. We’re not banning the choice, just the government paying for it. Lets get healthcare reform done – this year!
— DavidMs. Warner’s heart is clearly in the right place, but she is overreacting severely. How about a little perspective:
1) Abortion is primitive. Women can abort by pills — AND can (and they should) avoid the whole problem by birth control.
2) It’s only FEDERAL FUNDING FOR abortion insurance that is undermined by the compromise — not abortion, and not insurance. Those of us who are in favor of choice, and of an abortion choice, and of abortion insurance, can get together and raise PRIVATE MONEY to pay for such things. Let’s!
3) There are people of good will who honestly feel that abortion is immoral and evil. Why should we maintain a belligerent stance toward those people? Why not cultivate, rather than denigrate, compromises with those people? We get the abortions, they get the satisfaction of knowing that at least they are not physically contributing to paying for the abortions. Bravo.
4) As a leading author, Ms. Warner should spearhead such positive moves toward a successful overall program, rather than griping narrow-mindedly about a perceived ideological slight (really an obsolescent one) that should be simply bypassed in our modern pragmatic and bipartisan world. I hope she will do that.
- Peter
— PeterPatnterLet’s face it. We are sliding into a theocracy. Who invited the council of catholic bishops to the table so they could wave coat hangers in the faces of American women? Remember in Afghanistan women WERE fifty percent of the doctors and sixty percent of the civil servants before the rise of the taliban. Now, they are not even allowed to read. Don’t think for a minute it cannot happen here. A much overlooked part of the Stupak Amendment is birth control. Birth control will not be covered as well. Why am I required to behave like right wing christianists. Why are my tax dollars going to support this emerging theocracy? I thought we had a separation of church and state.
— MichaelWhat hogwash. The health care bill is about getting HEALTH CARE to the most people. It’s a helluva lot more important than having basic health plan insurance coverage for ELECTIVE abortions by a few women. It’s not about women’s rights at all. Spare us the whining. Abortion is LEGAL. It’s WIDELY AVAILABLE. And women will be able to get their own supplemental insurance to cover it, even with the health bill. It’s not about RIGHTS, you self-pitying proponent of victimization. It’s about paying for something that isn’t a health issue, and that IS available. YOU would have people who are REALLY suffering and dying go without health insurance so you can get the govt. to fund elective abortions. You are merciless. Shame on you.
— Jennifer V.Your comparison to Mad Men regarding the Stupak bill has been in my mind since the bill was introduced. I called Stupaks’ office to voice my opinion because to be silent is not an option. This so reminds me of the bad old days when women were treated as children. It is the height of arrogance for a man to decide what a woman can do with her body, as though we are vapid entities unable to make sound decisions without a man to tell us what to do. I’m horrified that our congresspeople keep trying to dictate what is clearly a decision that should be made by a woman and her doctor. Men should shut up!
— boleroYou hit the nail on the head with this one, Ms. Warner.
It truly feels like women have been thrown under the bus. I think the nation might be in a situation similar where no one talks about abortion: People don’t know that their friends and neighbors have had abortions, and yet are not damaged or immoral people. Despite how common the procedure is in this country, we think of it as hidden and uncommon and something that _other_ people do. Maybe if we talked more about this common occurrence and how it has helped women and families of all classes, there would be broader popular support for laws that support the right to abortion instead of slowly chipping away at it.
— LFMaybe it’s because a lot of Americans simply don’t believe abortion is moral in many situations (and most Americans do believe in the commonly-stated exceptions).
Did you ever think of that? That Americans simply disagree with you?
— AJFThe opening blur for this column on the main web page reads:
“An amendment to the health bill is a throwback to an era when women’s rights were seen as expendable. ”
That is a gross understatement.
The Catholic Church and the far right wing-fundamenatlists who are doing this to women go even further.
WOMEN ARE EXPENDABLE.
And that is really their view.
The Catholic Church takes the position that if the choice is to save the mother or save the unborn child, the mother should be allowed to die and the unborn child saved.
The woman is EXPENDABLE.
The real irony is that until around 1865, the Catholic Church permitted abortion until the fetus was ‘quick’ ie: movement could be felt.
— AnnSand this is hapening under a congress with huge Dem majorities and a Dem president who clearly believe it’s more important to kiss up to Rethugs and religious fanatics than it is to stand up for core Democratic principles and women’s health. obama has always been about process over policy. voting present again Mr. President? post partisainship is a joke. nader was right. ain’t a dime’s worth of difference between the two parties.
— ekdnycYes, the president seems to believe that getting elected was by itself a change so radical that other difficult changes don’t need to be achieved, at least right away. In health care reform, first the president trashed single-payer, and then he refused to actively lobby and twist arms to get a public option. If the anti-abortion clauses remain in the final health care reform bill, it does not deserve to pass. It is a mammoth patchwork of small fixes that will end up forcing millions of uninsured people to pay for very poor inusurance coverage, and it will force those who are now underinsured to pay even higher premiums for coverage that in Canada or Japan would be considered third-rate. The anti-abortion clauses tip the balance and make the reform-in-name-only health care reform bill regressive and not worth voting for.
— C.C.Excellent. And frightening. Perhaps this passiveness on the part of women has something to do with the fact that former activist baby boomers are, for the most part, beyond child-bearing age. And younger women? Where’s the outrage?
— Janet BIn this debate I have yet to see how much it costs to get an abortion. Well, I’ll tell you: Planned Parenthood charges around $350-$600.
Are you telling me that a measly $600 bucks is a deal breaker for health care reform?? This is idiocy.
I support abortion, but not to pay for someone else’s, especially for such a low cost procedure.
— Robin-Bay Area