First of all, I’m delighted to have coined “Stupitts” as the short version of the much more cumbersome “Stupak-Pitts Amendment,” and heartily urge all to start using the short version in your everyday conversation.
Second, however, I do have a serious question about this. As we all know, the Hyde Amendment (on the books for many years) prohibits federal Medicaid funding to be used for abortions, except in the cases of rape, incest, or the life of the mother. However, 17 states use their own state funds to expand Medicaid abortion coverage to reach all “medically necessary” abortions — a terminology that goes well beyond Hyde. Massachusetts is one of those states. (Interestingly, so is Alaska. Does Sarah Palin know about this?)
There are a lot of variables here. Should health care reform in something like its present form pass, we don’t know whether, or to what extent, MA would choose to continue using state money to expand abortion coverage for lower-income women who might be subject to Stupitts. But let’s assume for the purposes of discussion that, as seems reasonably likely to me, MA would choose to find a way to help women in that position obtain “medically necessary” abortions.
What that would mean, it seems to me, is that Stupitts might have very little impact on women in MA, just as the Hyde amendment has little impact on women in MA. Which brings us to my question:
Given that the passage of health care reform would undoubtedly benefit many women (and men, and children) in MA, and that Stupitts would have little effect in MA, is it appropriate for a Massachusetts Senator to vote against health care reform just because Stupitts is in it?
It’s a good point, but I would say this.
<
p>The next junior senator from Massachusetts will, of course, be from Massachusetts. But she or he will also be a U.S. senator, entrusted to act for the good of America and her people.
<
p>There is already a perfectly good nuanced argument that says that the good (to America and her people) of health-care-plus-Stupitts outweighs the bad of Stupitts (or that it doesn’t do so).
<
p>However, I suggest that the impact, or lack of impact, on Massachusetts, should not change the answer to the question of what a responsible legislator, acting for the good of the country, ought to do.
But it is worthwhile to get a fully accurate measure of the impact of Stupak-Pitts* to better determine how poisonous a pill this is…
<
p>*Sorry David, but I’ll continue to use Stupak-Pitts or as likely Stupak just because I want it to be absolutely clear which Congressmen are working overtime to attack women’s rights.
I find it a bit hard to accept your answer, which seems to be that legislation’s impact on Massachusetts as compared to the rest of the nation has zero impact on a Senator’s decision. Yes, the Senators are US Senators, just as the Representatives are US Representatives. But the Senators and Reps from MA are directly answerable to their contituents, and IMHO it is to them that both Senators’ and Representatives’ principal allegiance must lie. So I think that legislation’s impact on MA should always be a factor, and in close cases, perhaps the deciding one.
i agree with Trickle up, Senators are not Representatives. Representatives are supposed to be looking out for their constituents, Senators are supposed to be looking out for the country and its principles. Yeah, they come from all the states, but serve a different purpose.
They do indeed serve “a different purpose,” but it’s not the one you describe. Their purpose is to represent the state from which they come, so as to counterbalance the advantage in the House that larger states have over smaller states. If Senators are just guardians of the U.S. as a whole, the entire compromise that set up the Congress (by which all states have equal representation in the Senate but not the House) is eviscerated.
Given the history of 13 sovereign states that formed a country when the Constitution was adopted, it made sense, and still makes some sense, to have each state send two Senators to the Senate to be Senators. Not only was it probably easier to settle on that plan at the Convention, coming up with some other way to choose Senators might have ended up with most of them being from a few states, which could throw off the Senate’s purpose in being focused on the good of the whole country. They come from each state equally in order to not be biased as a whole toward any state’s interests, not in order to be biased to their own state.
The point of the compromise was to ensure that the large states (who naturally have more representation in the House) didn’t have the ability to run roughshod over the smaller states. Thus, the small states are equally represented in the Senate, where they can look out for their constituents’ interests. But if Senators from small states are only looking out for the “national interest,” whatever that is, then large-state interests will naturally always prevail. That’s exactly what wasn’t supposed to happen.
<
p>Federalist 62:
<
p>
Now why don’t you post the 10th Amendment, for full effect.
<
p>Senators are supposed to look out for their state’s remaining sovereign interests, and prevent other states from running roughshod over them, true. That is a result of there being states and state governments. But Senators are also supposed to have a different focus than the House, more nationally and internationally focused, more long-term focused, more ideals focused, less concerned about their constituent’s interests than Reps. “Senate” means “elders” I think.
Quoting the Federalist Papers is “Redstate”? If so, sign me up.
<
p>Also, “less concerned” is one thing; “not at all concerned” (which is how your previous comments read) is quite another, and not one I agree with.
The whole point of the Constitution is self-interested parties fighting it out against each other in a constant struggle. “Separation of powers” and “checks and balances” are shorthand for this process.
<
p>It’s not Redstate to be pro-Constitution.
Keep in mind also that the Senate was supposed to be a body comprised of legates of state governments whereas the House was meant to represent the people. With the 17th amendment both depend on the people to continue in office, but states cannot be gerrymandered like districts can, which along with six-year terms still encourages more big-picture thinking. The Senate’s national as opposed to parochial outlook also manifests itself in treaty ratification and confirming various presidential nominees, which the House doesn’t get to do. The House, however, MUST initiate revenue-raising bills because it is closer to the people.
national impact with legislation like medicare, SCHIP, immigration, war powers, Patriot Act, FISA, Robert Bork. Why should we expect anything less from our candidates to replace him? We have a tendency to be parochial and ask what will affect me. That is not a progressive value.
But he didn’t let that get in the way of parochial pork fetching, either. He was good at both the high-minded grand scheme federal legislation and the gutter, non-progressive re-election-minded sort of politics too.
Much as I disparage earmarks and wish they were banned, if there is to be a gravy train I want my state to be on it and my senator to be taking with both hands.
<
p>But, this isn’t that.
<
p>Oh sure, you can monetize anything, and such analyses can be useful in context.
<
p>But I think the horse trading should be kept to horses, that is, money. Otherwise you wind up weighing $38M for the Eldred Gerry Center for Advanced Hermeneutics against the health of some poor pregnant teenagers who don’t happen to be from Massachusetts.
<
p>That’s just wrong.
<
p>Yes, she knows. Palin is not a conservative. Think of her as Hugo Chavez in drag: an incoherent authoritarian populist dependent on oil revenues.
is the argument that based upon the laws we have in Massachusetts a Senator has an obligation to constituents to not push to repeal DOMA as it would have no impact in the state? Where’s the line here, is there one?
MA representatives have an even BIGGER obligation to push to repeal DOMA to make sure that their constituents who have full marriage rights at the state level extend them to the federal level and are ensured that they remain married if they cross state lines.
and Stupitts™? Doesn’t the amendment further restrict access to abortion services?
such as social security death benefit for the survivor, etc?
That’s why it is so pernicious with respect to same-sex couples who are legally married in MA (or elsewhere).
and the groundwork that lays the way for success in the lawsuit. And information on bills in the Congress that reverse or chip away at DOMA’s reach.
including the complaint filed in federal court, is available at this link.
Fabulous question.
<
p>While a Senator is first and foremost responsible to his or her constituents, I believe they are secondly responsible to the constituents of the United States. I know that the influence over an elected official decreases as your move away from the center of the sphere of influence, but I believe the senators have a responsibility to stand up for all Americans if they believe it to be in their interest. The Senators from states who don’t have expanded coverage can’t help themselves alone, they need the votes of many others.
<
p>That being said, knowing that prioritizing is a necessity, I’m not sure I would put Stupitts ahead of HCR in general. In that case, I would venture it be the responsibility of senators to pass HCR as the greater good.
I was checking email a few minutes ago and got a message from Democracy For America claiming that 20 of the Democrats who voted for this have prochoice records. Why did they vote for this then? Did they need cover in their districts or did they buy the notion that without the amendment they couldn’t pass the whole bill?
The Partisan Voting Index only goes so far to explain political choices. You also have to look at issue salience, the political organization of supporters and opponents (the latter including potential primary opponents), etc.
<
p>In many instances, a largely pro-life electorate gave priority to other issues (Obama’s margin of victory among Latinos, and Catholics for example, is largely pro-life.)
<
p>Again, the Tip O’Neill Rule applies.
<
p>As an aside, DFA indulges too much in cookie-cutter politics for my taste; each District is unique.
Doesn’t the situation you describe mean that the Hyde Amendment costs MA money? If the federal government would cover abortions, then MA wouldn’t have to. Which means that the Hyde and Stupak amendments definitely affect every taxpayer in MA, while it only affects people who will actually want an abortion (which is potentially every women) and people who are financially connected to them in other states. So in some ways, this is a reason that MA Reps and Senators should care more. There is no question that leaving the restrictions in will increase MA taxes or decrease MA spending, which will definitely hurt me personally. I hope that not having access to abortion would never have a real affect on my life, although I recognize that it potentially could (indirectly of course, since I’m not a woman).
A Senator’s responsibility, as envisioned originally by the Framers, is to his or her state, not to the people thereof. Lest we forget, the Senate members were originally appointed by their state. The design harkens back to an era when the nation was much more of a federation than it is today. The states were much more autonomous, and felt they deserved their own say in international affairs. Hence the Senate, and it’s equal representation for each state (as opposed to the people thereof).
<
p>All this got heavily blurred by the Civil War, when the Federal Government opened up a can of whoop-ass on some uppity states who still believed they were actually autonomous. It was further blurred in 1913 when the 17th Amendment was ratified, removing the selection of Senators’ from the states’ control and giving it into the hands of the people.
<
p>Now the Senate is, if you ask me, pretty much exactly the same as the House, except that the districts are larger and the terms are longer. Which is to say that I think a Senator has the same obligations to his or her constituents that a House member has. And the same obligations to the rest of the nation… none.
<
p>The system was designed (including all the checks and balances and everything) so that if everybody acted with enlightened self-interest, you’d end up with a pretty good result. Maybe not perfect, but pretty good. (Far too often, the “enlightened” part of the equation has been missing, though.)
<
p>It’s all very noble to pretend that Senators should feel a sense of duty to the nation as a whole. And perhaps they do, sometimes. But the nation as a whole didn’t put them in office. We, the people of this state, did (and will). And so it is to us that they are obliged for as long as we keep putting them there.
<
p>You are only really responsible to your constituents – whether that be the state government that appointed you, or the people who elected you. How can it be otherwise? What set of obligations can Olympia Snowe truly owe to anybody outside of Maine? How would those be enforced, outside of noblesse obligé? (Not that I wholly discount noblesse obligé, but in this day and age when members of both parties seem to have abandoned this concep, I don’t think it wise to rely on it.)
Teacher: “Johnny, please use a form of the word ‘stupitt’ in a sentence for me.”
<
p>Johnny: “That health bill amendment restricting a woman’s access to abortion is just about the ‘stupittest’ thing I’ve ever heard of!”:)
According to Salon there is at least one group for whom she doesn’t pass the prolife purity test.
From the Salon article:
<
p>
to me the left’s total obsession with Sarah. How many articles there were totally consumed with different facets of her being. I see the same obsession here. Please explain; maybe I like her because I am thinking only with my penis? (That’s what my oldest daughter said)
How many Hollywood actors and celebrities are there? Thousands? Hundreds of thousands? However many, we are constantly inundated with a tiny fraction, yet so many of them are acting. Why is that? It’s because we are obsessed with the ones that cause news, not just end up in it. The ones who seem out of touch with reality or just plain fun to watch. The same is true for Mrs. Palin. Except the scary part is that she wants to run this country. At least Britney Spears just wants write songs.
Both Christopher’s comment and my good grief referred to her supposed “left wing” positions.
<
p>You daughter sounds wise. You, not so much.
that expensive clothing she wore. How comical is this paranoia to me. I guess what I find most humorous is how Joe Biden is kept under wraps (after his many, many gaffes) and yet the left says nothing about his utter incompetence. Fair is fair: I’ll take one Joe and give you one Sarah.
I said not one word against Sarah.
This diary is about abortion. I selected a quote about Sarah Palin being accused of being “soft” on abortion. It directly relates to the radicalization and polarization of the pro-life movement.
<
p>That you chose to go off on a tangent about my supposed obsession with Sarah Palin as a result defies reason. My “Good Grief” was aimed at the accusations, not Sarah Palin. I thought Sarah was a terrible candidate, but could care less about her now.
<
p>It’s really like you’re arguing with positions you create in your head.
Edgar, I fear you and huh are slipping into a personal exchange that may be distracting you from its content.
<
p>This is a thread about abortion, health care, and — by implication — the question of how personal values and public policy intersect. The reference to Sarah Palin was from Christopher, not huh. The excerpt that huh quoted strikes me as both germane, fair (nobody has claimed that they misrepresent her positions), and revealing.
<
p>Surely you agree that Stupitts is being driven by the anti-abortion lobby. Surely you agree that this lobby is, in turn, dominated by Christian religious organizations. One of these Christian groups really has challenged Sarah Palin’s “Pro-life Credentials.” They really have published a “Prolife Profile” of Sarah Palin. The lead from that profile reads:
<
p>This challenge to Sarah Palin is not coming from huh — or anyone else here. The “selected quotes” were selected by the right-wing anti-abortion groups cited above — not Christopher and not huh. The fact that they reveal the rather breath-taking extremism of the anti-abortion lobby strikes me as an indication of a rift between you and the anti-abortion lobby, rather than with anyone here.
<
p>Christopher, huh, and Salon are the messengers, not the message — and it appears that you share their sense that the message is a distasteful one. I encourage you to refocus your dissatisfaction.
No matter how one feels about Sarah, she and John McCain were solidly anti-choice, including supporting overturning Roe v. Wade (with exception for rape and incest).
<
p>That she is considered too liberal on the position is, as you say, breath taking. It speaks directly to the issues I have with Stupitts.
antipathy towards Sarah which has occurred in the past. You and Huh will enjoy this article in today’s WSJ re Sarah’ shortcomings.http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704782304574542051447849052.html?mod=djemEditorialPage
You might want to think what it means when even the WSJ editorial page has this to say:
<
p>
<
p>Her pettiness really does speak to her weakness as a candidate. I do wonder how it played on Oprah, but not enough to watch or Google it, mostly because I’m allergic to Oprah.
<
p>Yesterday’s Globe letters to the editor had a rather odd piece of e-mail from Palin herself complaining about an AP fact check article on her book. I can’t find it on-line, but the gist is “how dare you question me.”
Can you provide an example of me demeaning her?
<
p>If anything I’m pointing out the silliness of an attack on her from the right.
<
p>
Salon has been criticized, even by like-minded readership, of being a bit Palin-obsessed, but as another commenter indicated she wants to run the country AND she does have a following.
If she weren’t in the press, she would be justified in firing her publicist.
Certain Salon writers do tend to write whole essays on every comment she makes, which leads some to say all they are doing is giving her unwarranted attention where the better way may just be to ignore her.
Sarah Palin could be marketed like a sham-wow and sold to 100 million voted Americans as competent.