January 30, 2009
GETTING FAMILY PLANNING BACK ON TRACK.... It was unfortunate that family-planning aid to states was pulled from the economic stimulus package at Republicans' behest. Fortunately, though, it may have been a temporary move. Elana Schor reports:
A source present at today's White House signing ceremony for the Lilly Ledbetter bill tells me that President Obama gave assurances that the family planning aid would be done soon -- perhaps as soon as next week, when the House is set to take up a spending bill that would keep the government funded until October.
Obama emphasized that the family-planning aid is "makes the budget look better, it's a money saver," the source said. In fact, removing the need for Medicaid waivers for family planning saves states an estimated $700 million over 10 years.
There was an impression in some circles that Obama's willingness to scuttle the family-planning funds was evidence of a lack of commitment on the issue. For the president, however, it seems this was about when to advance funding on the issue, not whether. Obama wasn't giving up on access to Medicaid-covered family planning services, he was just delaying it a little to help advance the stimulus plan.
On a related note, Time's Amy Sullivan (a Monthly alum) has a helpful item on this, taking a look at what the provision would have actually done if passed: "The provision would have allowed states to cover family planning services -- but not abortion -- that they already cover for low-income women who don't otherwise qualify for Medicaid, just without first requiring states to obtain a waiver from the federal government. That's it."
Also, with the White House prepared to move on this soon, consider a good point E.J. Graff raised the other day about the new administration "showing incredible savvy in making controversial changes about women's health." In less than two weeks, this includes repealing the global gag rule and restoring investment in the United Nations Population Fund.
Noting the withdrawal of the family-planning provision from the stimulus legislation, Graff said on Tuesday, "I'm guessing that the Obamamites are being savvy -- taking this fight out of the public eye so that they can handle it in a better way." That appears to be exactly right.
—Steve Benen 10:20 AM
Permalink
| Trackbacks
| Comments (8)
Repubs thought they played the O-Man. Ha, guess again.
Posted by: Allan Snyder on January 30, 2009 at 10:20 AM | PERMALINK
"I'm guessing that the Obamamites are being savvy -- taking this fight out of the public eye so that they can handle it in a better way.
I don't understand this. If the provision is a money saver, as Elana Schor's source says, why not put it back in the stimulus package, and explain that. And out of the public eye? I doubt the Reps are going to miss an opportunity to talk about 200 million dollars for condoms.
Posted by: Danp on January 30, 2009 at 10:30 AM | PERMALINK
You don't put it back in the stimulus package because the repugs have gotten people to thinking that it is condoms for poor people and it would make the stimulus package less agreeable to the common citizen. You put it in something else that makes the repugs look even more ridiculous if they complain about it so that the framing of the repugs as a bunch of jerks gets emphasized. Boomaranged, if you will, to quote one of the king jerks.
Posted by: Texas Aggie on January 30, 2009 at 10:41 AM | PERMALINK
If the provision is a money saver, as Elana Schor's source says, why not put it back in the stimulus package, and explain that.
Because the stimulus package is on a time blitz, and holding it to spend time explaining something that's less than 1% of the whole isn't worthwhile. If something that small, relative to the whole, needs to be taken out and dealt with in a different package to keep the stimulus bill moving forward, that's the right thing to do.
Posted by: cmdicely on January 30, 2009 at 10:48 AM | PERMALINK
Column of the day: Paul Krugman in the Times, pointing out that every person, and by extension family, laid off also loses access to health care, and that the United States is the only country in the Western world still subject to this. Obama's failure to act on healthcare reform in a way that divorces healthcare from employment (he had one of the weakest healthcare proposals in the primary contest) compounds the disaster we're facing and, Krugman says, fuels a growing populist fury over fatcat bailouts that, of course, never trickle down while the rest of us are left to go hang. Compared to this failure, family planning, however praiseworthy, doesn't seem like much.
Posted by: ericfree on January 30, 2009 at 10:58 AM | PERMALINK
From what I've heard, Obama is taking healthcare seriously. Of course he wants this stimulus bill finished first, but I'm confident that we'll be hearing a lot on healthcare reform in the coming months.
The fact that he put Tom Daschle in charge of this issue reenforces this confidence--I'm hoping that between him and folks like Waxman and Kennedy in Congress, that we'll be seeing some major action in a relatively short time.
Actually, they probably won't have much choice but to move swiftly and decisively because of what Krugman is saying--the already serious crisis will be compounded by the recession.
Posted by: Allan Snyder on January 30, 2009 at 11:28 AM | PERMALINK
Family Planning was obviously the lightning rod to draw the GOP's attention. It never "fit" in with the stim bill, and was probably never intended to survive. Now it gets into the next few rounds of appropriations, health care, etc., (where it fits in nicely) until it's implemented.
Man, the GOP's thin leadership bench is really showing. Limbaugh may well be the de facto leader.
Posted by: Media Browski on January 30, 2009 at 11:34 AM | PERMALINK
Perhaps the family planning provision can include making it illegal for a doctor to implant 8 embryos into a woman who already has 6 children. Unless this woman can prove that she can support 14 children to age 18 and pay the hospital and doctors bills associated with the multiple births with no government assistance.
As for the couple who now have 17 (?) children, one at a time the "natural way", well, I don't know. But I think it's just weird.
Posted by: Talk about family "planning" on January 30, 2009 at 1:21 PM | PERMALINK