Eating Disorder Legislation

With the plethora of promising dieting methods, Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt's very lean and very attractive physiques in Mr. and Mrs. Smith, and constant reminders of health concerns for America's obese, the slogan “thin is in” has become very accepted with a manic weight loss mindset vis-a-vis eating disorders. In response to this phenomenon, Congresswoman Judy Biggert (R-IL) re-proposed bill H.RES.13 to the House of Representatives on January 4, 2007, which called for the increase of public awareness of eating disorders and expansion of research for treatment and cures. The bill implicitly seeks to achieve social order and is characteristic of Congresswoman Biggert who has prominent background of Health issue-related involvement, particularly Health Care. With the advent of the U.S. House of Representatives elections in 2008, Congresswoman Biggert has successfully assessed the concerns of the 13th district of Illinois albeit this H.RES.13, and by doing so, has increased the chance of her re-election. While H.RES.13 advocates for what much of the general electorate would consider significant, it should be noted that the bill’s re-proposal has come at a time in which domestic policy is less politically important that foreign policy and when issues such as Health Care, Stem Cell research, tax reform, and other large-scale issues are dominating the political agenda. Nonetheless, the upcoming Senate, House of Representatives, and Presidential elections in 2008 may shift political attention to more domestic policy, depending on those elected. It is possible for H.RES.13 to be enacted into law before the 111th session of Congress; however, it seems that thus far, the bill is at a standstill in the legislative process because of a lack of attention from Congress and will most likely be thrown out at the next session of Congress.
H.RES.13 has four major points: i.) the increasing public awareness of eating disorders, ii.) the expansion of research for treatment and cures, iii.) broadening access to treatment, and iv.) and the promotion of healthy eating habits and a healthy body image. Proceeding these resolutions, the bill includes statistics and quantitative predictions that convey the significance and the need for this bill—at most, roughly one-sixth of the American population suffer from eating disorders, most of which are female (H.RES.13). The bill implicitly calls for government action through programs that promote awareness for and attempt to remedy eating disorders:
Whereas eating disorders are associated with serious physical health consequences, including irregular heartbeats, heart disease… diabetes, and death;
Whereas eating disorders are also associated with substantial psychological problems, including depression, substance abuse, and suicide; and
Whereas shame, guilt, and misunderstanding often afflict a person who suffers from an eating disorder, and prevent the treatment of the disorder…(H.RES.13).

The bill’s preface implies that because “heart disease”, “diabetes”, and “substance abuse” are potential health consequences of eating disorders, eating disorders should then be responded to with the same attention and concern as their potential results. For instance, because the Center for Disease Control provides extensive information on and increases public awareness for diabetes, suicide, and heart disease, the implementation of H.RES.13 will guarantee that eating disorders are given the same amount of attention, publicity, and political spotlight. In order for this bill to reach its potential, the involvement of the public and other incumbents must be paramount, for which this bill has not yet seen enough of. The most active organization for this bill and issue is the non-profit organization, Eating Disorder Coalition (EDC) for Research, Policy, and Action, which has attracted Congressional stars like Hillary Clinton (D-NY), a prominent contender for the Democratic Presidential Nomination in the 2008 Election, and various Congressional representatives such as Representative Ted Strickland (D-OH), Representative Patrick Kennedy (D-RI), and Representative Judy Biggert as keynote speakers and sponsors at Congressional Briefings at the U.S. Capitol. In the “Dangers of Eating Disorders and the Need for Health Care Reform” House Briefing on April 24, 2001, Senator Clinton was quoted supporting and encouraging the initiatives of the EDC, and also offering hope to future policy implementation:
And there is a lot of guilt, there's a lot of shame, there's a lot of denial and a lot of ignorance.
What I hope is that each of you realize how important it is you came today. That you return home even more energized by what needs to be done. That you will stay in touch with my office. And to know that you are not alone in this. I see this as a beginning.
I hope we are successful at persuading insurance companies to provide the kind of treatment that is needed, in raising awareness through education and outreach, in getting more research and treatment dollars in general so that this disease which strikes so many vibrant and intelligent young people will be seen for what it is - something that we have to invest some time and money and our mental and emotional resources trying to combat (EDC).
While support for Eating Disorder awareness has verbally and reverently been advocated for, the dilemma facing the ends of H.RES.13 is one of a “preached, though not practiced” caliber—the EDC has received participation from incumbents with policy influence, though the bill itself is without co-sponsors (H.RES.13). Nevertheless, the EDC has sponsored grassroots lobbying sessions annually since 2001, is partnered with many small and large-scale members from the Eating Disorders Association in New Jersey to the National Council of Women’s Organizations, and is accepting donations on a consistent basis (EDC). Based on these observations, an incongruity exists between effort anticipation and progression, as a moderate effort can accurately be anticipated in dealing with this issue albeit political progression is lacking.
The ideology of the bill itself belongs to the ideology of maintaining order, an essential purpose of government. Maintaining order is done so in two ways: preserving life and protecting property. The preamble of H.RES.13 explicitly approximates that, at most, one of six Americans suffer from and experience the consequences of eating disorders. This statistic serves as evidence and justification for the government to intervene, for it is the government’s purpose to preserve lives that are at risk because eating disorders have become more pervasive in America. Another ideology that the bill identifies with is equality—in the sense of social equality—another essential purpose of government. Promoting equality can be done through health and welfare programs, and implemented through social interest policies. The social inequality that accompanies eating disorders is posited in the last line of H.RES.13’s preamble by stating that social equality is hindered by a personal psyche altered by the disorder or the perceptions of their peers:
“Whereas shame, guilt, and misunderstanding often afflict a person who suffers from an eating disorder, and prevent the treatment of the disorder...”
For if equality is limited, so too will be electorate and civil participation in the political process. H.RES.13 is a relatively moderate bill, as liberal bills are characterized by a propensity for government action to promote equality and their conservative counterparts aspire for order through government action.
Congresswoman Biggert has been a strong proponent for Health Care, Health-related issues, education and humanitarian and social concerns since she assumed office in 1999, with notable sponsorship in bills such as the Club Drug Anti-Proliferation Act and National Cyber Tipline Reporting Act , both passed during the 106th Congress. As such, her advocacy for awareness and research of eating disorders, being an ailment of mental and social health concerns, is concordant with her legislative reputation in Congress. The bill, relative to the Republican Party as a whole, is more inconsistent as the party has been opposed to directly supporting health and social-related programs, Medicaid being one. This can be
Tosco 6
noted in Victoria Wichino’s report for the Center on Budget and Priority Policies
(CBPP), “The House Budget Committee’s Proposed Medicaid and Schip Cuts are Larger
Than Those The Administration Proposed”, which reported that the majority of Congressional GOP and the Bush Administration supported a reduction in Medicaid’s growth rate by supporting larger administrative cuts to the Medicaid program than were earlier proposed:
“Because the House’s proposed cuts, which would be at least $14.9 billion and potentially as large as $20 billion in Medicaid over the next five years, substantially exceed the savings CBO estimates that the President’s proposals would achieve, the Energy and Commerce Committee will have to develop additional proposals -- beyond what the President proposed -- to achieve its required level of savings. Energy and Commerce could also not accept all or some the Administration’s proposals, instead developing different changes to Medicaid and SCHIP to achieve up to the entire $14.9 billion in savings” (Center on Budget and Priority Policies).
According to the Washington Post, during the 110th Congress, average GOP percentage of votes on which Congressional incumbents agree with the position taken by a majority of their party members is 84.9%, omitting missed votes—Representative Biggert’s exclusive percentage is 86.6%, which, I would argue inductively, conveys that the Representative associates herself with the ideology of the Republican Party more so than her party counterparts. Though the ideology of Representative Biggert and the Republican Party are concordant, H.RES.13 is consistent with the ideology of Representative Biggert more so than her political party. At the end 2008 House of Representatives Election, Congresswoman Biggert will either be clearing her office for the succeeding incumbent or making preparations forre-election for the 2012 House Election. While it is quite possible that H.RES.13 was designed to bolster Congresswoman Biggert's chance of re-election, the bill is one which is also largely applicable to the population of her respective district. According to a compilation of data from Congressional Quarterly, the 2000 U.S. Census Bureau, and the 2005 American Community Survey, a major industry of the 13th district of Illinois is Health Care and the percentage of women in the district is 50.7%. It can thus be inductively concluded that H.RES.13 would be concordant to the interests of the majority of the district's population, as well as a prominent industry of the area. While H.RES.13 is not completely consistent with the Republican Party, the positive attention and response that Congresswoman Biggert is placing on this specialized topic of health care may extend to the Republican Party and assist to reconcile any negative qualms that the public may have toward the Republican lukewarm response to national health care initiatives. Congresswoman Biggert may also benefit by attracting the support of groups, such as the EDC, that advocate for legislative action in promoting the awareness of eating disorders—this will improve the Congresswoman's favorability by the general female electorate of her district and ultimately increase her chance for re-election. As the majority of voters classify themselves as Moderate, they treat specific issues represented by the incumbent as determining factors for their vote. Eating disorders, being specialized and “often a bimodal issue amongst voters” could reasonably be
expected to attract attention and support by undecided voters as there is “very little controversy surrounding the issue”and like Diabetes, many would prefer to remedy the dis
order rather than fight it. As such, undecided voters who may suffer from an eating disorder are more likely to support Congresswoman Biggert because of her advocacy for the issue, because of her attention to a smaller-scale health issue, or because of the humanitarianism of the H.RES.13. The EDC and its organizational members such as the International Association of Eating Disorders Professionals Foundation (IAEDP), which participate in regular grassroots lobbying programs are likely to extend advocacy for the bill to their lower-level members, legislative incumbents, and the general electorate—these activities may appeal to the pool of undecided voters and attract their support in the next election. The most prominent factors that explain why Congresswoman Biggert proposed this bill are those of personal ideology and electoral advantage; eating disorders, being specific and small-scale is an issue not infamous for scrutiny of the public or media which is more characteristic of policy reforming issues such as immigration and abortion that lead to incumbents becoming more legislatively influential. Electoral advantage, I feel is only attributed to H.RES.13 in a minimal sense. Because the bill has the potential to appeal to the majority of Congresswoman Biggert's electorate, the bill could be advantageous to Biggert for the coming election, relative to possible running mates. H.RES.13, while not entirely concordant with Republican Party ideals, is a notable bill for its philanthropic elements and its ability to attend to a more exclusive voting pool that is consistent with the legislative reputation of
Congresswoman Biggert.
H.RES.13 is a re-proposal of a preceding bill that was thrown out at the end of the 109th session of Congress. H.RES.531, which was thrown out at the end of the 108th session of Congress was also thrown out. Each introduced to Congress by Congresswoman Biggert, H.RES.531 gained twelve cosponsors, while H.RES.13 (109) gained one cosponsor, and currently, H.RES.13 (110) has gained no cosponsorship. The two proceeding bills lost legislative momentum after their referral to the Subcommittee of Health, which is the current position of H.RES.13 (110) as of February 2, 2007. The decline of attention to these eating disorder initiatives may be reflect the degree of responsiveness which Congress has historically given this type of proposal. However, the discrepancy between foreign and domestic policy has been great since President George W. Bush's induction into office—as there has been a prevalent emphasis on foreign policy. With the advent of the 2008 Presidential Election, it is possible that with leadership that is geared toward domestic policy, H.RES.13 will have a chance for
legislative progression. Hillary Clinton (D-NY), for example, unveiled her 2008 domestic platform, “American Dream Initiative” on July 24, 2006 in Denver to the Democratic Leadership Council. Senator Clinton proposed “expanding the home-mortgage interest deduction to those who don't itemize their taxes”, among other domestic policy
initiatives. As such, even with Congresswoman Biggert's formal political positions as a Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit and Co-Chair of the Congressional Missing and Exploited Children's Caucus, neither positions apply directly to Health-related issues and will provide insufficient gravity in influencing the passage of the bill.
While the H.RES.13 has not been publicized enough to the general public enough for there to be a definite public opinion on this bill, a research survey conducted by the National Eating Disorder Association (NEDA), a non-profit organization, which sought to specifically gauge American public opinion on eating disorders, found that in 2005, 96% of Americans considered eating disorders to be a serious illness. It can then be inductively—and ideally—argued that if more of the American public were aware of H.RES.13, they would extend the same seriousness and attention toward the bill. There is no significant opposition to H.RES.13 by third parties; I would attribute this to the lack of controversy characteristic of this bill as controversy on issues has a propensity to strengthen the conviction of parties to take a side—this activity has been absent in regards to H.RES.13.Based on declining legislative responsiveness to eating disorders and the current legislative focus on foreign policy, I have little faith that H.RES.13 will be enacted into law. However, with the coming of the 2008 election, it is possible that a reformation may take place in Congress to shift the policy mood from foreign to domestic policy, and given that Health Care and Health-related issues become more recognized, H.RES.13 may gain momentum to progress through legislation. Currently, I find it difficult to place my explanation in either the pluralist or majoritarian models of policy making. While the issue of eating disorders is not shrouded
by competing interest groups that represent the opinions of the people—which advocate
for more legislative responsiveness toward eating disorders—essential facets of the majoritarian model such as majority rule are largely underrepresented as citizen participation is lacking. Leader responsiveness, as observed in the amount of co-sponsors for this issue within the last two sessions of congress have also waned, conveying that the issue has lost interest within Congressional incumbents. The electoral and policy processes on eating disorders are more difficult to conceptualize because of the low attention that is given to the issue. While active organizations such as the EDC and the NEDA attempt to advocate for legislative action to bring awareness and treatment to the disorder, much of the general electorate free-ride rather than contribute to the cause and the incumbents, such as Congresswoman Biggert, who bring bills—H.RES.13—to Congress meet minimal leader responsiveness. The legislative process by which bills become law is also marked by red tape, though I would argue that it is necessary to ensure that bills are passed as democratically as possible. Many bills, likely H.RES.13, are thrown out at the end of Congress after spending prolonged periods of time in their referral to Committees and then Subcommitte. I have come to realize is that bills with more heat, with more controversy, that bring forth the passions of the people, are those while generally produce more legislative activity, though not necessarily progression. Legislative progression through the policy process, I have observed, comes most efficiently with a unified government, the right policy mood—foreign versus domestic policy—significant leadership responsiveness, and most importantly, increased electorate participation. Bob Dylan once said that, “he not busy being born is busy dying”. Well, he not voting in America is not an American citizen.