The Family Planning Fracas

There’s been a lot of huffing and puffing this week about a provision to expand access to Medicaid-covered family planning services. First it was Republicans, who grew faint at the idea of voting for a stimulus package that contained such a provision (not that they rushed to vote for it without the provision). Then it was Democrats, who grew faint at the idea that their new liberal president would betray women, family planning, and the republic by removing the provision from the stimulus bill.

I decided to take a look at what the provision actually would have done and at what the deal is now that it isn’t part of the stimulus bill that just passed the House.

The short version? Everyone needs to chill out. Republicans: 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. It wouldn’t have permitted new services to be included under “family planning.” It wouldn’t have required states to cover anything or anyone that they didn’t want to. It just would have allowed them to do what they’re already doing without first going through the red tape of obtaining a waiver.

And Democrats: States can still provide the same family planning services to low-income women by applying for a waiver. Twenty-six of them already have waivers. The others–and this is important–wouldn’t have been required to expand their Medicaid coverage even if the provision had gone through. The only thing the provision would have done is eliminate the waiver requirement for states that changed their minds and decided to start covering low-income women under Medicaid.

Now. The waiver process is burdensome–it can take as long as 24 months, states have to reapply after five years, and because the program was originally set up kind of as a demonstration project, states have to prove that the impact would be cost-neutral. We’re 26 states in now and the evidence is that the program is more than cost-neutral. The CBO score of a similar provision back in 2007 was that it would save $400 million over ten years; a new CBO score of this provision adjusted that total to $700 million over the same time period. So the waiver hoop should be unnecessary now.

What’s more, expanding Medicaid coverage to give low-income women access to family planning services before they get pregnant should be a no-brainer. When bright blue states like Texas, Mississippi, and Alabama already use waivers to provide family planning through Medicaid, you have to wonder what it was about the provision that made John Boehner hyperventilate.

In the end, this week’s fight came down to symbolism. Republicans thought they could paint the stimulus bill as a gift to “the abortion industry” when in fact the provision changes virtually nothing about current law. And Democrats chose to interpret Obama’s decision to remove the provision once it became a political football as a signal that he doesn’t care about preventative health care or family planning or women. Everyone needs to chill out. And when this issue comes up again in the next few months, maybe we can rely on fact instead of fiction.

Related Topics: Uncategorized
  • Latest on Swampland

    Pete Souza / White House

    Obama’s Persuasive Powers on Gay Marriage Manifest in Maryland

    When President Obama endorsed gay marriage earlier this month, the media grappled with two basic political questions: Was his personal “evolution” a case of a politician transparently following a national trend toward accepting same-sex unions (accelerated, perhaps, by his chatty No. 2), and would it hurt his re-election chances by alienating socially conservative voters like black churchgoers? Sure, there was a recognition that it marked a gratifying moment for gay-marriage advocates — as well as some grumbling about the President’s view that it remains a state issue, not a federal one. But by and large, there were few suggestions that one man, even the President, would shift public opinion on the issue or affect public policy. Based on a new Public Policy Polling survey out of Maryland, it seems this possibility was underestimated.

    Lewis Eisenberg, Major Romney Donor, Accuses Obama Of Demonizing Wall StreetHuffPost Politics

    Cherokee Zero

    Apparently, Massachusetts voters don’t mind that Elizabeth Warren foolishly identified herself as a Native American early in her academic career–it was, apparently, a case of family pride and wishful thinking about a Cherokee ancestor. That’s good. Warren may be the best public figure when it comes to explaining the depredations of the financial industry and [...]

  • http://elvisberg.wordpress.com Elvis Elvisberg

    Democrats chose to interpret Obama’s decision to remove the provision once it became a political football as a signal that he doesn’t care about preventative health care or family planning or women.
    -
    I could have missed it, but I don’t think anyone actually said that.
    -
    I heard Democrats complain that Obama sacrificed sound, sane policy to a nonsensical Boehner hissy fit, though, which your post indicates was correct.
    -
    More importantly: I thought it was “fracas”…

  • http://smoothlikeremy.blogspot.com/ sgwhiteinfla

    Amy
    .

    You know whats funny? Plenty of commenters here already posted about what the provision was really about. And our complaints aren’t about President Obama not caring about women’s health. Our complaints about him legitimizing the Republicans’ complaints about the bill which you yourself acknowledged were baseless, by demanding that the provision be taken out. You just asserted that the provision would have saved states over $700 million dollars over 10 years and that in fact shows that it belonged in the bill because the states could then reallocate the money they would have been spending on waivers towards making sure they didn’t have to cut jobs in the public sector. You know what would have been GREAT? If you could have put this post up last week when the story first broke and BEFORE the provision was taken out.

  • Paul-no not that one

    “It just would have allowed them to do what they’re already doing without first going through the red tape of obtaining a waiver.”
    .
    “The waiver process is burdensome–it can take as long as 24 months”
    .
    “The CBO score of a similar provision back in 2007 was that it would save $400 million over ten years; a new CBO score of this provision adjusted that total to $700 million over the same time period”
    .
    So your conclusion is…No big deal. IF your reporting is accurate then it really was a pathetic fold.

  • http://www.hulagate.org hulagate

    Medicaid = SCAM

    Pure and simple organized crime.

  • queencersei

    In the end, this week’s fight came down to symbolism.
    This whole argument, first to last, was nothing but symbolism. Most of the masses aren’t reading up on the minutia like we swamplanders. They only get maybe two minutes of propaganda from their political pundit blowhard of choice.

  • http://smoothlikeremy.blogspot.com/ sgwhiteinfla
  • terrapinion

    Amy Sullivan – Previous commentors have beaten me to the punch on this one.

    Please be aware that you have just engaged in the classic ‘false equivalence’ argument. This is not a case of the Dems and GOP behaving badly in equal measure. This is a case of the GOP distorting the content of legislation to the point of lying and Democrats being disappointed that Obama felt it necessary to try to work with a group of people that have no interest in solving the problems this nation faces.

    Perhaps you are aware of some women’s health group that complained in the manner you described but that was not what bothered he vast majority of Progressives. If that is the case then I would suggest that you expand your reading list to include more serious Progressive voices.

    You describe the petty political games of the GOP quite well. I am mystified as to why you felt the need to extend the pox to both houses when it was clear that there is only one diseased house.

  • jennielah

    great post. thanks for cutting through all the crap.

    although, i think elvis is right — it is fracas.

  • terrapinion

    sgwhiteinfla – Does anybody want to guess what Mark Halperin’s reaction to those ads will be?

    “Oh noes! My glorious centrism! My glorious bipartisanship! How dare anybody argue with a Republican!”

    Post your contest submissions below and remember that your words will be coming out of the mouth of an idiot so do not be concerned with correct spelling.

  • 53_3

    Let’s see here.
    .
    “The CBO score of a similar provision back in 2007 was that it would save $400 million over ten years; a new CBO score of this provision adjusted that total to $700 million over the same time period.”
    .
    Isn’t $700 million one ten thousandth of the money the GOP handed out during their last month in office?
    .
    Ahyuh, ahyuh, by golly, we Republickers gots our priorities straight…

  • usesherbrain

    Just a nit-picking issue, but since when have “Texas, Mississippi, and Alabama” been bright blue states?
    .
    Or did I miss the parties playing capture-the-flag when I wasn’t looking?

  • http://smoothlikeremy.blogspot.com/ sgwhiteinfla

    usesherbrain
    .
    I believe that was an attempt at snark.

  • usesherbrain

    sgw
    .
    Hopefully it wasn’t a miserable failure. I’m no pourmecoffee.

  • usesherbrain

    Doh. Over my head twice.

  • sarcastr0

    But would that stimulate the economy, or would it only give money to rich doctors who would save a substantial amount?

    More New Deal style infrastructure projects, please!

  • Aaron

    First it was Republicans, who grew faint at the idea of voting for a stimulus package that contained such a provision (not that they rushed to vote for it without the provision). Then it was Democrats, who grew faint at the idea that their new liberal president would betray women, family planning, and the republic by removing the provision from the stimulus bill.

    Examples of each, please. In the article false equivalence is used to compare House Republicans to “some bloggers and pundits.” I’m wondering if it is that hard to compare pundits to pundits and legislators to legislators.

  • http://smoothlikeremy.blogspot.com/ sgwhiteinfla

    terrapinian
    .
    The Rethugs are labeling it as “scare tactics”. With people losing their jobs everyday I don’t think they need to be scared any more than they already are. So to them I say, good luck with that!

  • http://phd9.blogspot.com Paul Dirks

    family planning services–but not abortion
    .
    Amy Amy Amy….
    .
    Why do you continue to pretend that opposition to family planning bears any relationship to opposition to abortion? By now you should know as well as anyone that what the Republicans object to is anyone enjoying non-marital sex (unless it refers to the man’s behavior.)
    .
    To pretend that it has anything to do with concern over the unborn is to provide cover for the absolute worst hypocrisy. And I do believe our Savior had a few words for us on that subject…..

  • Friar Tuck

    Please be aware that you have just engaged in the classic ‘false equivalence’ argument.
    .
    Amy, you’ve already jumped the shark, you do realize that, don’t you? Get out while you still have some pride.

  • 53_3

    “Get out while you still have some pride.”
    .
    I’m wondering if there is any connection between QH’s new poisonality and the fact that Amy loves hula hoops.
    .
    Naw, couldn’t be…

  • Aaron

    Whoops.
    .
    The point I left in my post was the false analogy used (aka comparing apples and oranges). The false equivalence is correctly noted above (aka Repulicans dishonesty >> Democratic dishonesty). These are two separate issues.
    .
    Carry on…

  • ivb3016

    terrapinion, nice to see you back. (Unless you have been and I’ve been speedreading and missed your id.) I was just thinking of you yesterday.

  • terrapinion

    Amy Sullivan – Seriously. I was wondering if you could respond to this problem in your post. Why is it equivalent for the GOP to behave in a petty, craven political fashion and for the Dems to express disappointment that the President is pandering to the petty, craven Republicans? In the end – and in your own analysis – the Republicans are still acting in a petty, craven manner. You should just say so and wait to bash Dems when they do something worth bashing.

  • http://smoothlikeremy.blogspot.com/ sgwhiteinfla

    Amy Sullivan how about we compare notes. I will name a Republican who grew faint over the family planning provision and you can name a Democrat that said Obama doesn’t care about women’s health issues.
    .
    I will go first
    .
    John Boehner
    .
    Your turn.

  • cincinnatus est exterminata!

    Sorry Amy, you’re wrong. The program was meant to spend 200 billion dollars on condoms and killing babies. I should know…I get my information from the news.
    .
    Day late. Dollar short.

  • Paul-no not that one

    “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 “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.

    By removing the family-planning aid from the stimulus at Obama’s request, Democrats “were giving a nod to the Republicans, believing they would act in good faith,” the source added. And given how many GOPers voted for the stimulus bill, sounds like the family-planning aid is back on track.”
    .
    Actual reporting -
    http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/01/source-obama-plans-to-get-family-planning-aid-done.php

  • gysgt213

    Too be fair to Amy there was a lot of drama to cover with the republicans fainting and twittering, fainting and twittering. Obama popping in for teh pictures, opening the White House for drinks, republicans when not fainting or twittering waiting in line to give Rush hand jobs. That’s a lot to cover.

  • plukasiak

    Day late. Dollar short.
    _
    precisely. Everyone who reads the comments here was fully aware of what AS has just discovered — and that raises real questions, not the least of which is why Sullivan thinks she needs to lecture us on this.
    _
    Basically, what Sullivan wrote should appear (in a slightly different version) under the headline “John Boehner’s $600,000,000 Lie” in dead tree Time. And it should not only take Boehner to task, but also mainstream media types who didn’t do their homework.
    _
    That, of course, would include luminaries like KT (who considered the family planning provision an unnecessary ornament on the “Christmas tree”) and JK (who approved of Obama’s ‘compromises’.) Its because villagers like KT, JK, and AS that demagoguery thrives; the truth doesn’t matter (too much trouble to explain), only the perception of the truth.
    _
    But its these same people, the KTs, JKs, and ASs, who mold that perception, then “approve” of the actions based on those perceptions — in other words, they participate in the speading of demagogic lies, then talk about how right it is to concede to the political consequences of the lies they spread.
    _
    This, in miniature, is how we got into Iraq. Repeat the lie today, then act as if you don’t bear direct responsibility for the lie when the truth is finally told.

  • http://www.inworldstudios.com jayackroyd

    WTF?
    .
    The Republicans advocate a policy position that will cost more money, will lead to more unwanted pregnancies, lead to more abortions, and they are treated seriously. Obama caves, and then they don’t vote for the bill anyway.
    .
    And we’re all supposed to “chill out.”
    .
    The real story here is that the Republicans have eliminated any pretense to being concerned about abortion. The idea that providing contraception to poor women is an argument that has absolutely no basis in any kind of reality. It’s never been about abortion. It’s always been about the state controlling women’s lives.

  • Art Pepper

    What Paul Dirks and jayackroyd said.
    -
    The provision would have allowed states to cover family planning services–but not abortion
    -
    It’s not that the GOP mistakenly though this was about abortion, and are all in favor of family planning services. Boehner wasn’t shrieking about abortion, he was shrieking about “condom factories.”

  • plukasiak

    Jay (and Art), I disagree that this is about the GOP ‘wanting to control women’s bodies’. This was all about the politics of demagoguery — the family planning provision was targeted for the same reason that the National Mall provision was; because it provided a sound-bite ready means of attacking the Recovery plan that would be mindlessly repeated by the media.
    _
    In other words, it has nothing to do with the substance of the specific provisions, or their costs. Its calculated political opportunism, aided and abetted by a complacent madia.

  • http://elvisberg.wordpress.com Elvis Elvisberg

    Respectfully, Amy, I think it’s not great commenter relations to respond to the comments in this thread by… fixing a spelling mistake.
    -
    The false equivalence you strain to present in this post is a much bigger deal.
    -
    The Republicans are a bitter, extraordinarily unpopular, small by recent historical standards minority.
    -
    There is no equivalence between the Democrats and Republicans, not on substance, not on public trust, any more than there is equivalence between the Boston Celtics and Dallas Academy.
    -
    On this contraception issue, as you point out, the GOP leader in the House took a strident, baseless, noisy stand, received what he wanted, yet voted against the bill anyway. That’s because the GOP is insane. You must back away from your “pox on both their houses” nervous tic. It does not describe the world as it actually exists outside of your brain.

  • sacredh

    Can’t we reach some sort of compromise with the republicans? What if we were to offer to store fetuses in condoms but not keep them in Family Planning Clinics?

  • jcapan

    Hello, knock knock, why are my relatively tame comments being bounced outright only on your threads Amy–not even making it to moderation. Amy, if you are a blogger, it requires that you engage with the chattel. Not necessarily my rants, but just once responding to your critics–Karen, Jay, Mikey do it, hell, even Joe does it on the front page, though I’ve never seen him in here, the dirty caverns of the net.

  • FlownOver

    Amy –
    It might be useful to know whether the details of the current waiver process is in statute or under Administration control. If the latter, the easier – and more likely – course would be unilateral revision of the waiver process… replacing the complexity and expense with something akin to a requirement that the state say “please.”
    .
    …and what Elvis said.

  • Art Pepper

    plukasiak: For sure that was part of it. But Boehner wouldn’t have picked that particular provision if he thought his base was in favor of it.
    -
    I don’t think you’re wrong about “calculated political opportunism”, though.

  • Friar Tuck

    FREE JCAPAN!

  • Friar Tuck

    JCAPAN MUST BE HEARD!

  • Friar Tuck

    BULLETIN: ENTIRE WORLD DEMANDS RELEASE OF HOSTAGE MESSAGES OF JCAPAN!

  • http://www.inworldstudios.com jayackroyd

    This was all about the politics of demagoguery — the family planning provision was targeted for the same reason that the National Mall provision was;
    .
    Pluk–yes i think is true. They are manipulating low information voters, their base, using issues they don’t actually believe in. I am dead flat certain that Meaghan McCain, Jenna/notJenna and Huckabee’s daughters did not practice abstinence to avoid pregnancy, and would eschew and abortion if their birth control method failed.

  • stuartzechman

    There’s been a lot of huffing and puffing this week…
    .
    First it was Republicans, who grew faint…
    .
    Then it was Democrats, who grew faint…
    .
    Amy Sullivan:
    .
    Who are you talking about, specifically?
    .
    Not everybody out here in the hinterland is as affluent in the Village’s currency of common information in these matters as you seem to be. Would there be an example to be had of each side’s swooning that could be fairly judged representative of majority reactions? If these fits of disproportionate shrieking and moaning were as ubiquitous and evenly distributed as you claim, surely a paragraph or two (linked to the full statement, of course) would suffice to support your premises. It’s not too much for us to ask you to back up your impressions of events with actual, demonstrable facts, is it?
    .
    I say this because I find that your account of these events is disturbingly out-of-touch with what my understanding is. My impression is not at all that Republicans were upset about the inclusion of abortion services, nor were Democrats terribly upset about the lack of a waiver for states.
    .
    I read this piece, and said to myself (literally): “What in God’s name is this person talking about?
    .
    Speaking for Democrats, I’d say that most of us were (to the extent that we actually were upset) concerned about giving up good policy to court the votes of House Republicans, none of whom actually ended up voting for the abortion-less/waiver-less package anyway. As it happens, we concerned Democrats turned out to be quite right in our concerns, since we have neither waiver-less package, nor Republican votes (not that we were terribly interested in those, to tell you the truth). Telling us that we should “chill out” is sort of like –oh, I don’t know– telling people who said that it it was a colossal mistake to invade Iraq to “chill out”, although I suppose that’s par for the course with most of your defensive and discredited colleagues.
    .
    So I have to ask you: Who are you talking about? Which Democrats? Who specifically is giving you information about those matters with which Democrats are concerned?
    .
    In the absence of any supporting evidence for your conclusions (beyond normally discredited Village group-think, that is), I’d have to say that this piece of yours is ridiculous at best, revoltingly demonstrative of the lazy, presumptuous, Village-knows-best false equivalences that tend to burden the Beltway cocktail-party set’s “work”. In other words, you’re spreading misinformation –again.
    .
    Please, though: prove me wrong. I’m sure we’d all love to see just who your sources are for this mysterious “knowledge” you have about what “Democrats” think. Who, at least in your mind, is representative of that sort of “growing faint”, Amy Sullivan?

  • southernbeale

    Gee Amy, thanks for getting right on top of this story. After all, the “family planning fracas” was big news on MONDAY and here it is Thursday. The subject has been debated and the bill has been voted on.

    And NOW you look at it? Late to the party, Amy.

  • FlownOver

    My apologies to fellow Grammar Nazis. “…whether the details of the current waiver process are in statute….”

  • http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/02/27/obama-doesnt-hate-women-after-all/ Obama Doesn’t Hate Women After All :: Swampland – TIME.com

    [...] the Abortion Industry!” placards and talking points, they should chill out as well and read my explanations of what this provision would and would not do. I don’t begrudge people strongly-held views on [...]

  • http://time.postdown.com/2009/02/28/obama-doesnt-hate-women-after-all/ Time » Blog Archive » Obama Doesn’t Hate Women After All

    [...] Abortion Industry!” placards and talking points, they should chill out as well and read my explanations of what this provision would and would not do. I don’t begrudge people strongly-held views on [...]

blog comments powered by Disqus