Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
A WAIVER KIND OF DAY
Let's walk through the apparent decision to drop the family planning provision from the stimulus bill. At present, if a state wants to fund family planning service through Medicaid, they have to apply for a "Section 1115 Waiver". If the House provision passes, states will not need to apply for a waiver, but will still need to take affirmative steps to fund family planning through Medicaid. In one sense, there is no "money" to be "dropped" from the spending bill, contra this AP headline. Presumably the likely impact of eliminating the waiver is that more states would use federal money to fund these services, which would lead to increased outlays. Without it, we're stuck with the status quo; states will have to apply for a waiver, and even with a pro-choice administration that will result in delays.
Public opinion on this issue makes Barack Obama's decision look like a mistake. You can try to twist the numbers and make a case that while public opinion shows the country is mostly pro-choice, among people for whom choice is a top voting issue things are less clear cut. But you cannot make that case with birth control. To take one example, 67% of Americans support giving birth control to teenagers, something that you might think would be controversial. Almost everyone who can afford it uses birth control; it's popular, effective, and people think others should have access to it. The short-term politics in Congress are less clear; if there are votes to be gained by dropping this provision, it would be worth doing if you can kill the waiver requirement in a separate bill. I count sixty pro-contraception votes in the Senate even without Arlen Specter's shaky not-exactly-pro-choice but not-exactly-pro-life record; only Ben Nelson is truly anti-choice among Democrats, and Snowe and Collins are solid pro-choice Republicans. So to recap, if there is in fact a pot of votes under the bus at the end of this rainbow, and if Democrats are willing to fight for a standalone bill in the Senate, then it makes some sense. But otherwise we're still living under rule by Republican hissy fit.
COMMENTS (13)
Leaving aside the utter immorality of abandoning this support, this will probably prove to have been a political blunder as well. Now, if they had any doubt, the Republicans know they can whine their way to victory on any and every issue.
And, meanwhile, the Republican goal of keeping poor women barefoot, pregnant, and docile has been further advanced.
Posted by: K | January 27, 2009 10:48 AM
Except it's not being advanced. It's just ... not in decline either.
Posted by: Nicholas Beaudrot | January 27, 2009 10:50 AM
Nice piece. I should have looked before posting the redundant item just above it!
Posted by: HAP | January 27, 2009 11:16 AM
President Obama and the Democratic Congress must choose their battles carefully. They and we are going to have many many battles with the Republicans on critical issues regarding health care, foreign policy, U.S. infrastructure, and so on.
Give them a few of these cheap victories, and we save our ammo for the big ones.
I'm happy with the Republican Party looking like the party of hissy fit... and I think the Democratic Party might be choosing wisely.
Keep the faith...
Posted by: Jim G | January 27, 2009 12:31 PM
I think I see where you're coming from, Jim G., but I have to point out that for a lot of women, having access to affordable birth control is indeed an important battle. In fact, for a lot of people, support for sensible family planning policies is a big part of why we vote Democrat.
Posted by: Houdini's Ghost | January 27, 2009 1:34 PM
Ya' know....who needs the private sector and the permanent and productive jobs it can create when you have know-it-alls that believe government jobs paid for by taxpayers is equivalent?
We can just tax and spend our way to prosperity!
Posted by: El Viajero | January 27, 2009 1:54 PM
JimG., this looks like a small win for the Republicans if you have no horse in the race. For low income women and those who care for them this is a huge loss. Allowing funding of contraceptive services would allow women to have more stable work schedules, healthier birth outcomes when they do have children and would lower health costs over the long term by ensuring better outcomes for mothers and infants early on.
Add on that most infrastructure jobs are for industries that are still primarily male dominated and you have just cut the one stimulus initiatives for so-called pink-collar work.
Posted by: Hawise | January 27, 2009 2:33 PM
El Viajero, you are aware that most of the infrastructure work will be done by private sector companies who buy from private sector companies and whose workers will shop at private sector companies? The Democrats aren't talking about creating new government departments here, just repair, expand and improve what already exists.
Posted by: Hawise | January 27, 2009 2:37 PM
You guys are also correct of course... and I should take caution about being too involved in the horse race at the expense of people who are hurt by Republican intransigence.
We all must balance our cost-benefit analysis with compassion...
Sadly, all of life and politics requires tradeoffs.
Posted by: Jim G | January 27, 2009 2:59 PM
The problem with the contraceptives wasn't pro-lifers, it was that contraceptives and stimulus don't jibe. Now maybe on reflection they do, but your average bear will think, "what do contraceptives have to do with stimulus?", and conclude that the Democrats are sticking unnecessary items in the bill.
Posted by: Asher | January 27, 2009 4:37 PM
Most women who have no insurance receive their well woman exams from planned parenthood... or family planning groups.. w/ a very small percentage of funding going towards the "services".. pro-lifers don't like.. I guess someone who can vote this down.. must have insurance!
Posted by: Anna Marie | January 27, 2009 7:12 PM
...you are aware that most of the infrastructure work will be done by private sector companies who buy from private sector companies and whose workers will shop at private sector companies?
And the multiplier is low. The jobs last as long as the government handouts continue.
But help create jobs whose ultimate customers and financiers are not government and the multiplier is high and those jobs don't go away when the government teat is dry.
Posted by: El Viajero | January 28, 2009 9:59 AM
Of course, El Viajero is right to throw a hissy fit. The only people who use the National Mall, public spaces, public parks, roads, bridges, tunnels, ports, etc. are those evil big-gummint libruls and their islamunofascist masters.
Meanwhile, those daring captains-courageous of American bidness are forced by the evil big-gummint libruls to accept flipping-great wodges of evil gummint money. Because the evil big-gummint libruls won't allow those lions among us to selflessly continue to waste their meager profits on giving it away to the poor and building their own infrastructure, policing our streets, fighting fires, making sure everyone has healthcare and decent housing and generally doing great things for all the real and loyal "red-state" Americans.
Isn't it amazing how El Viajero can take perfectly useful and meaningful words and string them together in such a way as to make them seem authoritative yet make no sense whatsoever?
Posted by: yagottabekiddin | January 28, 2009 10:51 PM