Clarification of Senator Feinstein's Position on Health Care Reform

On Monday evening, some of you may have received or had forwarded to you an email from a local OFA coordinator that read as follows:

"In speaking to Dianne Feinstein’s office today, our OFA Regional Field Director quoted her staffer as saying, 'She's not sure yet how she will vote on the bill'!! On further questioning, the staffer said specifically, 'She is in favor of a public option'. Also, while she is pro choice, she has 'not taken a position' on anti-abortion wording, e.g. as in the Stupak amendment. In general, she has not decided how she would vote on the bill if it was called for tomorrow. The staffer did say that they are receiving '700 calls per day', but did not say whether they were pro reform calls or opposition calls. Bottom line…keep the pressure on Feinstein! I don’t know what else she has to base her position on except the desire of her constituents. So, let her know what that is!!"

The message did not come directly from the OFA Regional Field Director referenced in the email, but from an OFA coordinator. Nor did the email name the Feinstein staffer who provided the information.

It's important to know that the email was sent in good faith, but that some of the information provided by the Senate staffer is clearly mistaken. And I am intentionally withholding the name of the OFA coordinator who sent the email because it's certainly not their fault that there was a miscommunication.

When I contacted one of the two OFA Regional Field Directors for Northern California, he confirmed that the other OFA Regional Field Director had indeed been given this information by Senator Feinstein's office, and he recommended that I circle back with Feinstein's office the following day to see if I received a different response.

I did, and will take the points one-by-one:

1) “She's not sure yet how she will vote on the bill!!" This is not quite the story I was given on Tuesday morning when I asked Feinstein's staff whether Feinstein knows how she will vote on the bill. Instead, I was told that Feinstein will not say how she will vote until she sees the final amendments. Given that the final amendments will likely deal with reproductive rights, it may be entirely reasonable that Senator Feinstein has taken this position at this time.

2) "Also, while she is pro choice, she has “not taken a position” on anti-abortion wording, e.g. as in the Stupak amendment." This was quickly refuted by Feinstein's office today, which sent me the following official message from Feinstein on the Stupak Amendment:

"I am disappointed that the House bill includes major new restrictions on women’s reproductive rights. Health insurance reform should not be used as an opportunity to roll back health care options for women. The House bill is a step back in this regard. It would force private health insurance plans to choose between offering full coverage and accepting people who purchase coverage with new subsidies. Any reform bill in the Senate should discard this flawed approach."

I was also able to find links through Planned Parenthood's website that indicated Feinstein's opposition to the Stupak Amendment.

3) "The staffer did say that they are receiving '700 calls per day', but did not say whether they were pro reform calls or opposition calls." This generated some puzzlement from the staffer I spoke with today, so we'll leave it as unconfirmed.

4) "Bottom line…keep the pressure on Feinstein! I don’t know what else she has to base her position on except the desire of her constituents. So, let her know what that is!!" You'll have no argument from me on that one. The question is how much pressure? If you've been reading Senator Feinstein's website regularly, or this email newsletter, you know that since October 23, 2009, Feinstein has not only come out in strong support of the public option, but has generated several interesting ideas of her own.

*****

Which brings us to... Dianne Feinstein's appearance this past Sunday on "Meet The Press." As a public option supporter, what I found noteworthy was that Feinstein seems willing to trade (an admittedly weak) public option for a rate authority.

GREGORY: So would you vote for a plan, a bill that did not include the public option?

FEINSTEIN: Well, I would vote for it if it had a rate authority to be able to control the increase in premiums, at least to keep it to medical inflation.

Now this is important. The public option currently on the table is weak, and it wouldn't go into effect until after 2012, possibly not until 2014. In the meantime, what do we have? Well, Feinstein herself has proposed three intermediary ideas that would have a greater immediate impact than the weak public option we're looking at.

(Bear in mind that neither Germany nor Switzerland nor the Netherlands has anything resembling either single payer OR a public option, but they do have a strictly regulated and strictly non-profit insurance industry, and it appears that this is the direction Feinstein might be highlighting with these three "back-up" ideas:)

1) Medical Rate Authority in every state: (from Feinstein's Oct 23 statement: "It would regulate premium increases in the state’s market. Companies would not be permitted to increase premiums more than the rate of medical inflation unless they received permission (by majority vote) of the Rate Authority.") Personally, I'd prefer if that specified a "National Rate Authority with a presence in every state" but it's a start.

2) Capping of medical loss ratio: (from Feinstein's Oct 23 statement: "I also believe we must restrict a plan’s medical loss ratio, which measures how much is spent on health care, and how much is spent on profit and overhead. According to Health Care for America Now, insurance companies, on average, spend only 81% of premium dollars on medical care. This number has decreased from 95% in 1993. There is no reason for a plan’s administrative expenses to exceed 10%, and this cap should be included in any legislation.")

3) Elimination of the existing Anti-trust exemption for insurers (including health insurers.) No explanation necessary.

Why should you trust Senator Feinstein's ideas? That answer is up to you. Perhaps those of you who continue to say you deeply distrust Feinstein can take Cato's words in support of Pompey, that the same men who do great evils know best how to cure them.

Have a Happy Thanksgiving weekend, rest up, and get ready to dial some senators when you return. Not just Feinstein, who has earned both praise and a strong reminder of what she's promised, but the more troublesome "Gang of Four" - Landrieu, Lincoln, Nelson and Lieberman.

Best holiday wishes,

Eva Chrysanthe

The Feinstein 1200

P.S. I'll list events in an upcoming newsletter - but in the meantime please mark December 2 for an anti-Stupak Amendment rally organized by a group of reproductive health physicians and December 6 for the EQUAL Health fundraiser, where you can meet not just Ellen Shaffer but Deborah Leveen.

November 16 Newsletter

Local Hero Edition

1. Local Hero Deborah Leveen Explains It All For You

2. Your Comments: Another Local Hero Sends Link to Rabbi's Efforts to Get Joe Lieberman to Support HCR

3. Your Comments: Pharma Industry Raises Prices in Advance of Reform

4. Get Out Your Handkerchiefs!

5. More Tomorrow

1. Local Hero Deborah Leveen Explains It All For You

I promised that I would send Deborah Leveen's synopsis of gains in the House bill as soon as I got permission. If you're not on the email list and would like the attachment, please contact me at this email address:

thefeinstein1200newsletter@gmail.com

2. Your Comments: Another Local Hero Sends Link to Rabbi's Efforts to Get Joe Lieberman to Support HCR

Alyssa is one tireless HCR advocate, attending and speaking at rallies, and combing through details of the legislation with a fine-toothed comb. Today, Alyssa sent this video from firedoglake, which highlights a Connecticut rabbi's brave effort to get Senator Joe Lieberman to get in touch with his conscience. Nice Hillel quote in the firedoglake coverage. Rabbi Fish appears in the second video in the link; the first video is of a Unitarian Universalist Minister.

3. Your Comments: Pharma Industry Raises Prices in Advance of Reform

Several of you sent this article on pharmaceutical companies raising prices, and one included this comment which sums up the feelings of many in our group: "Dear Eva - Did anyone think that the drug companies would NOT do this? Our lawmakers and deal cutters are incompetent. We need a third column in the part(y)(ies.) A column of people who are not bought, and who stay that way!" What most amazed me is that the pharma industry is doing this in advance of expectation of closer scrutiny - because I didn't think there was that much scrutiny coming forward. So maybe it's an indication of what Maggie Mahar predicted: that pharma and insurers know the gig is up - our country simply does not have the money to keep their merry-go-round going.

4. Get Out Your Handkerchiefs!

This one's a tearjerker - love the portrayal of the doctor in New Orleans. I hope Ms. Deavere Smith brings the show to the Bay Area.

5. Many More of Your Comments In The Coming Days

Trying to get answers to some of the questions you sent through me. Keep 'em coming, please!

November 15 Newsletter

1. Your Comments: T.R. Reid On The Medicare Scare

2. Your Comments: Give ‘Em Hell, Harry!

3. Your Comments: A Professor Emeritas Explains It All

4. Your Comments: A Doc Writes: Pragmatism Is The Name of the Game

5. Your Comments: A Pediatrician Diagnoses the Problem

Your Comments: Journalist T.R. Reid on the Medicare Advantage Cuts and a Silver Lining

There was a big, enthusiastic response to the radio interview with journalist T.R. Reid on the passage of the House bill, provided in yesterday's newsletter. (Who doesn't love T.R. Reid, the creator of the Frontline documentary "Sick Around the World"?) The radio interview with T.R. Reid is only 23 minutes long, but if you're having trouble downloading it, I made a partial transcript of some of the essential points covered in the interview, especially Reid's comments on Medicare Advantage cuts.

Interviewer: “Do you know what the cuts to Medicare Advantage would mean? Why would those be cut?”

T.R. Reid: “They would be cut, and people with Medicare Advantage now would pay a little more in premium, and that’s because all the rest of American taxpayers are subsidizing those plans. Those plans were set up to prove that the private insurance companies could be just as efficient as government. Initially, the law said that their fees could only be 95% of the standard Medicare fees, because they were going to be 5% more efficient than government…”

Interviewer: “They were basically competing with standard Medicare, right? People could sign up for standard Medicare through the government or sign up for these Medicare Advantage plans.”

T.R. Reid: “That’s right and you get it through one of these insurance companies. And initially they (the insurance companies) said ‘Hey, this is going to be a good deal, we’re going to save the government money, provide the same care for 5% less because we’re so efficient.’ As it turned out, they (the private insurance companies) weren’t efficient enough to do that, so they keep coming back to Congress for subsidies from the taxpayers. You and I pay for peoples’ Medicare Advantage. It now costs 14% more – they cost 114% of what it would cost to provide basically the same coverage through Medicare. So Congress said ‘Why should we pay 14% subsidies to insurance companies that take about 20% out of every dollar to pay for their administrative costs?’ They (Congress) cut that to save money and it’s definitely true – people who are now getting subsidized by other taxpayers for Medicare Advantage will have to pay more out of their own pocket.”

A few more points made by journalist T.R. Reid in that essential interview:

1. He points out that cuts in the wasteful Medicare Advantage program are going to subsidies to help uninsured people get coverage.

2. He breaks down who will benefit from the House bill, and who will be left out.

3. He doesn’t see the possibility that employers will dump employees into the public option as a downside.

4. He reinforces the fact that universal coverage provides the political will and the leverage to do the tough cost-cutting that is necessary.

5. Lastly, he saw an upside to an imperfect bill:

T.R. Reid: “I have good news for that caller who said she had thought we were going to cover everybody and was surprised that we don’t. I think this is going to lead to universal coverage in this way: I think a lot of state legislatures are going to see that Washington fell way short. I mean, the bill improves some things, but it doesn’t cover everybody. I think in January there are going to be bills in 25 different legislatures trying to set up some kind of state program to get to universal coverage. A couple of states, three or four, will make it work, the rest of us can watch them and copy it, and we’ll get there state by state. And the reason I say this is in my book I list some countries that got to universal coverage on a province-by-province basis. Or a state-by-state basis: one state makes it work and the others see it and say, ‘Hey, let’s try that.’ So I think this is going to lead to local experimentation that will get us to universal coverage. That’s my bet.”

Your Comments: Give ‘Em Hell, Harry!

Following on T.R. Reid’s ideas on cost-cutting, Pat sent Friday's important message from Robert Reich, which urges Senate Leader Harry Reid to push for reconciliation first, and she included this note:

“Of course you must have received tons of links to the Reich letter to Senate Leader Harry Reid (I don't think I missed it in your earlier newsletter), but I gotta say I love the "Give 'em hell Harry" diatribe, and wouldn't it just be something? It even leads me to view the prospect of an "opt out" option in a positive light. If only!”

Your Comments: A Professor Emeritas Explains It All

Yesterday I promised a synopsis of the House bill, and I’ve found an excellent, highly readable one by Professor Leveen. I need to check with her on one small point, and will send it to you ASAP, but no later than tomorrow morning. In the meantime, I am including a brief note that arrived from her after the passage of the House bill.

“I believe there are some remarkable provisions in the House bill that are by no means guaranteed in the Senate bill and are worth fighting for. Two of these include:

1) The Exchange is really intended to play a strong role, with authority to reject premiums or premium increases that are too high.

Indeed 3962 has a new title --Title I--with "immediate reforms" which include Sec 104: "Sunshine on price gouging by health insurance issuers"--and the Manager's amendment provides more details re: this process as well as $1B in grants to help establish this process. And it starts in 2010. The issue of premium increases has really received much more attention than in the original bill.

2) Eligibility for the exchange has been expanded: from business with 10/20 employees, and more permitted, in the original bill, to 25, 50, and 100, required, and then more permitted. With additional expansion partly determined by "excess of premium growth outside the Exchange..." . there is a lot to build on here!

Affordability may not be ideal, but there is a mininum benefits standard with limits on cost-sharing, no annual or lifetime limits on spending, and it will apply to ALL plans... there will be no "junk insurance."

31 million people will gain coverage! And since only 10% of the uninsured have incomes over 400% FPL, 90% should be eligible for subsidies. And since median family income is about $70,000/year (household income is about $50,000), that means more than half of our families will qualify for some subsidy: it phases out at $88,000 for family of four.

And once those subsidies are in place, and with employers forced to pay 65-72% of premiums, there will be even more political pressure to stop "price gouging". and I personally am impressed that the term "price gouging" appears in the legislation itself. All those who have worked so hard to bring attention to the abuses by private insurance have had a huge impact. I believe we have a lot to build on, and a lot to fight for!"

Your Comments: Pragmatism Is The Word of The Day!

Doctor Tom wrote this cautionary note with regard to the Stupak-Pitts Amendment:

“The most critical need here is to get a health care reform act on the President's desk. If abortion is a deal breaker for a few critical Democrats (or, for that matter, Republicans), and we run the risk of losing the whole bill because of it, then I would advocate opting for an imperfect bill now with the expectation of improving it over time, as has happened with many other pieces of important legislation in past.... Pragmatism is the word of the day!”

Your Comments: A Pediatrician Sends an Article Showing What We’ve Been Up Against

…and unfortunately, it’s not just the GOP who took the lobbyists’ money:

“Statements by more than a dozen lawmakers were ghostwritten, in whole or in part, by Washington lobbyists working for Genentech, one of the world’s largest biotechnology companies. E-mail messages obtained by The New York Times show that the lobbyists drafted one statement for Democrats and another for Republicans.”

The same pediatrician included his personal note regarding our Congress:

“One has to have some level of self-imposed ignorance or misinformation to think we do not already have ‘socialized medicine.’ Many of those opposed to health care for other US citizens are already receiving government administered “socialized medicine” from Medicare, Medicaid, or the Veterans Administration. Millions of Americans have government subsidized health insurance because they work for some branch of the school systems, city, county, state, or federal government.

It is both immoral and shameful that members of our Congress would continue to deny adequate health care to so many of our citizens.

The Republican solution was recently voiced by Representative Cantor (R,VA) when he told a woman facing massive bills for her cancer treatment that she should “spend down” her assets to try to qualify for Medicaid and/or look for charity.

Maybe it is now time for the "Blue Dog" Democrats to join this pseudo compassionate, pseudo conservative political party. Considering that the late Strom Thurmond's former “Dixiecrats” are now in control of the Republican Party, former respected members of the party such as Abraham Lincoln, Nelson Rockefeller, Everett Dirksen, and Barry Goldwater must be rolling over in their graves.”

November 14 Newsletter

The “How-Eva-Is-Wrong-About-the-Stupak-Pitts-Amendment” Edition

1. Your Comments: The Lady Begs To Differ

2. Your Comments: Stop Pussyfooting Around!

3. Ellen Shaffer Sets The Record Straight

4. Your Comments: A Catholic Scientist Weighs In

5. Your Comments: A Physical Therapist Says “Get Back On Topic!”

6. Your Pictures: Spelling “Thank You” to Pelosi on Thursday at lunch

7. Essential Listening: T.R. Reid’s Take on the House Bill

Your Comments: I Beg To Differ!

Some of my favorite anonymous Feinstein 1200’ers wrote in to correct my defense of the Catholic Bishops and my focus on the evangelical C-Street. Here is the first of many:

“Dear Eva: Your point re Evangelicals is well taken, I will add, however, that while American Catholics are known to be pro-choice, the Bishops and higher do finance pro-life candidates. Are they killing doctors who perform abortions? No. Are they financially supporting Congressmen who are pro-life? Maybe. Yes, give Catholics credit for all they do in healthcare, all the support they give to help the uninsured, but recognize the pressure they might be putting on parishioners and lawmakers.”

An excellent point, thank you!

Your Comments: Stop Pussyfooting Around!

To reinforce the previous writer's point, another Feinstein 1200'er wrote in:

“We can no longer pussyfoot around on this. There are hardly any doctors left who will do abortions. Yet overwhelmingly, the people favor freedom of choice… I will read the Bishops' letter. I can tell you this: I have been a pro-choice advocate since I found myself in a backstreet situation as a teenager. I have watched the Roe decision go under attack since it came out in '73. In my view it is wrong not to call a spade a spade. Religious extremism drives just as much on this issue, as it does on issues in the Middle East.

“But let's not quarrel over this. I am in the same camp as you: Pro-choice.”

Agreed. I truly believe that abortion should be a last resort – especially given the finely-tuned, low-dose oral contraceptives (which can now also be used as morning-after pills.) But we still need to be extremely vigilant about protecting a woman's right to choose.

Ellen Shaffer Sets The Record Straight

I still don’t know if I agree with Ellen Shaffer on exactly what the Stupak Amendment might achieve, but let’s face it, only one of us has a Ph.D. (from Johns Hopkins, no less), and it’s not me! Shaffer has decades of experience as a policy expert and advocate, and she obviously looks at the issue on a broader and more complex level than I am able to. You can read her critical analysis of the Stupak-Pitts Amendment here. There is, as she puts it, a credible threat posed by Stupak-Pitts, which she carefully outlines in that analysis.

I hope you will take the time to meet Ellen Shaffer at her December 6 EQUAL Health fundraiser in San Francisco. I had the privilege of hearing her speak to the League of Women Voters, and I was amazed by the breadth of information she had compiled, by the wisdom she employed in interpreting that data, and by her speaking ability. I feel strongly that we should support our local health care reform advocates who have built a national network and presence, and this event will let you interact with her directly.

Your Comments: A Catholic Scientist Weighs In on the Importance of the Separation of Church and State

"Dear Eva: I admire the focused dedication you have brought to this effort. By comparison I feel like I’m flitting from one issue to the next in the few minutes I can spare between work and school."

(Editor’s note: That's because our Catholic scientist, like our readers, has a life, unlike yours truly. But onward…)

"Rest assured the Stupak amendment and the role of the US Catholic Bishops in pushing it is distressing for many of us. The Catholic Church is fraught with division and I know there are many Catholics, lay and clergy alike, who find the level of pressure applied by the Bishops distressing. While I personally find the term “no apologies abortion” an egregious disrespect to life, that has no bearing on my opinion that the more we permit the government to be influenced on the basis of religious views, the more we risk sacrificing the freedom to worship (or not) enjoyed in this country by all of our citizens. One of our friends wrote a scathing letter to our Pastor after he read the letter sent out by the Bishops. The Bishops’ letter contained some very significant components stressing the need for health care reform, but pushed the anti-abortion agenda as well. I think our parish priests walk a thin line regarding how they express their generally progressive views at Mass and the criticism from both ends of the spectrum among parishioners.

"Let’s hope that the Stupak amendment gets toned down in the final version."

My comment: Let’s do more than hope, let’s get to work. We have two tasks - to voice our opposition to Stupak-Pitts, and to make sure that the focus isn't taken off the public option during this time.

Your Comments: A Physical Therapist Says “Get Back On Topic!”

I met this charming woman early in the week of August 10. If I recall correctly, she had in tow her beautiful young children, who did their best imitation of not being insanely bored while sitting in Dianne Feinstein's lobby for over an hour. (I could relate!) She recently wrote in response to the passage of the House Bill:

"I have to say that I'm out of step with all the self-congratulation going on. I have not read the 2000 page document, who has?"

(Editor's note: Who has? Ellen Shaffer has. Several times. I'm serious!)

"Has someone come up with a condensed version? It would be helpful."

(Editor’s Note: I don’t have a condensed version, but will provide links for various synopses in tomorrow’s newsletter. Back to the letter:)

"As a Physical Therapist, I am plunged into crisis at the PT-owned clinic where I work, as Anthem Blue Cross just issued an edict which they plan to put into effect Feb 1st 2010, capping treatment for PT at $75! And if you have a $30 co-pay, they will only put in the difference to bring it up to $75, i.e. $45. We have an office staff of five just to track the insurance people down their own particular rabbit holes!

"Why did they send this information to PT offices on November 1st. Why? Open enrollment closed October 31st! And this way they don't have to announce it to their clients, as there is no change in the deductible or total cap. Why would anyone sign up for a plan that will creep by $45 per treatment towards that never obtained $3500 deductible? NO OTHER OPTION!

"Maybe my cynicism is blinding me, but from where I sit, the people in power, those holding the purse strings, cannot be trusted to do the 'right' thing. They haven't up until now, so without oversight and enforcement, it will be business as usual for Health Insurance Corporations and the Congress they own.

"General Strike Anyone?

"This is like when the credit card companies put their prices up just before the new legislation went into effect.

"One last thing, would be great if you can suggest that people who have Anthem/Blue Cross Insurance write letters or call them about this. Seems this will affect most state employees, so they should contact their PERS administrator."

People? You've heard the lady - get out that letter-writing set!

Your Pictures: Spelling “Thanks” to Pelosi on Thursday at lunch

So funny, I’m dying to know how they came up with this idea – are they ex-cheerleaders? Leslie set up another thank you to Pete Stark on Friday, which was well-attended.

Essential Listening: T.R. Reid’s Take on the House Bill

I’ll write more about this tomorrow, but in the meantime, it was enlightening to hear T.R. Reid on WNYC talk about his response to the passage of the House bill.

T.R. Reid Reacts to Passage of House Bill

Does the House Bill - Even with the Stupak Amendment - Actually Increase Access to Publicly Funded Abortion?

After reading through the transcript of the NPR report on the Stupak amendment, I began to wonder if the House Bill, even with the Stupak amendment, would actually broaden access to publicly funded abortion. For low-income women who find themselves with an unplanned pregnancy, this could be very important. But even moderate-income women might gain increased access to abortion, though not through public funding directly.

How would access to publicly funded abortion increase?

Possibility 1. Through Medicaid in 17 states:

The House Bill expands the number of people (including women of child-bearing age) who can enter Medicaid. And there are seventeen states that currently fund abortion services through Medicaid. I'll quote from NPR's report last night: "If you get your health insurance through your state, as in Medicaid, your state could buy supplemental abortion coverage for everyone it insures. And 17 states already do this under Medicaid."

I checked that "17" number, it's from the Guttmacher Institute, a well-respected reproductive health advocacy group that is an offshoot of Planned Parenthood. I don't think those 17 states do that out of conscience entirely, but out of a desire to prevent future costs to the state. So in this economically perilous environment, I would expect the number of states that buy supplemental abortion coverage to increase as the number of women on their rolls increases under new legislation. (Pro-life forces are one thing; state budgets are another.) As well, those seventeen states that already provide coverage are likely to buy additional coverage, as it is less costly to provide more access to abortion than to bring a pregnancy to term.

Possibility 2. Indirect Funding for Riders

Say you're like me, still (barely) of child-bearing age, but unable to afford insurance. The exchange would give me access to insurance, and at my current low income, I might even qualify for a federal subsidy. That means I would be getting insurance that would have been previously out of my reach.

But that insurance, under Stupak, doesn't cover abortion. Ostensibly, this should be no problem, since, through either the exchange or the public option, I would have access to oral contraceptives like Ortho Tricyclen Lo, which are now, BTW, entirely more sophisticated and low-dose compared to earlier versions of "the birth control pill."

But say that even while taking the low-dose Ortho Tricyclen, I am worried about accidental conception. (I don't know how I would be, given how effective the pill is, but this is all hypothetical.) In that hypothetical case, there is a solution: I could buy an insurance rider to cover abortion out of my own pocket. That out of pocket expense for the rider would be made more affordable by the fact that I'm already being subsidized for the insurance in the exchange.

Let's think about pricing for the rider. If you're a major health insurer, how much do you want to charge for an abortion coverage rider? From a cost-benefit analysis, wouldn't insurers want to provide this rider at low cost, as they save more money if a woman doesn't go to term? In fact, the company might provide the rider for a very nominal fee, one that is easily dwarfed by the subsidy the individual receives from the government.

Having said that, I think this is the time to voice objection to the Stupak amendment. But I don't think it's worth abandoning the entire effort just because of Stupak.

Separately: The Media Focus On the Bishops:

I thought the media's focus on the Catholic Bishops' letter was out of place - whenever I've interacted with anti-abortion protesters or tea partiers, it's been pretty clear I'm dealing NOT with Catholics, but evangelicals. (It was also odd that almost no one in the media seemed interested in what the Bishops had said on non-repro health issues - e.g., their insistence that health care cover immigrants.)

Almost all of my friends who either attended Catholic school or who remain within the Catholic Church have rejected traditional church teaching on birth control and other issues relating to sexual matters. So I wasn't surprised when Rachel Maddow revealed on Monday night what most of us already know - the Catholic Bishops have about as much influence on Washington D.C. as they have on actual Catholics. That is to say, not much.

But Stupak and eight of the men who voted for Stupak's amendment belong to C-Street's "family" - the conservative evangelical organization. Mr. Stupak even lives at the C-Street complex. Apparently, we'll get to know a lot more about C-street over the next few years, since, as Maddow points out, they've effectively infiltrated the Democratic party.

Here's an essential quote from Rachel Maddow's interview with Jeff Sharlet (transcript here), who has written extensively on "The Family" and "C-Street":

MADDOW: Well, let me ask you about some of the other conventional wisdom here, because the sort of conventional explanation for this is that this anti-abortion amendment to health reform resulted mostly from the Catholic bishops pressuring Catholic politicians to support it. But I know that you think that it's bigger than that. Can you explain why?

SHARLET: Well, I think it's unfair to Catholics. I think it's unfair to Evangelicals. First of all, most of the press has focused on Catholics despite the fact that a number of the congressmen involved in this are not Catholic including congressman Pitts, including Congressman Shuler, who you mentioned.

And frankly, the majority of American Catholics are pro-choice. That's not true of the majority of American Evangelicals. I think it's a very comfortable story to tell ourselves this is just traditional Catholic conservatism rather than facing the fact there's a growing and new Evangelical - conservative Evangelical influence within the Democratic Party."

P.S. Vince Hall of Planned Parenthood had a response to what I wrote, I will post it verbatim if he gives his permission.