Skip to main content

View Diary: Schakowsy Will Vote Against Bill with Stupak (182 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Stupak is a Democrat. (0+ / 0-)

    One with sense.

    Is the logic that moderate Democrats are insane, and the far left is the only way to be a Democrat? Man, who hijacked THIS Party?

    And you mock the far right?

    both extremes are the same..."My way or the highway"

    nuts. most of us live in the center. Noone is harming any Roe V. Wade...it is wise to let people not pay for what they cannot support beacuse of convictions and faith.

    I only wish the Military Industrial Complex would let me not have my tax dollars kill adults. Overseas. In wars.

    •  Bugger off. (11+ / 0-)

      Stupak represents a right wing minority. He can win in his district; the country opposes him.

    •  wrong argument (5+ / 0-)

      The only thing extreme is Stupak's amendment.

      Stupak is a Democrat,One with sense.

      LOL

      Language is wine upon the lips. -Virginia Woolf

      by valadon on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 05:26:09 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  But that isn't what the Stupak amendment (11+ / 0-)

      represents.

      A) You, I, and everyone else in the country, every day, pay for items through tax dollars that we may not support individually. This is a fact of life. Why is abortion a special case? Why do a pro-lifer's convictions and faith trump mine, exactly?

      B) It is a well worn aspect of law that subversion of the spirit of a law is breaking the law. If this passes, abortions will become illegal de facto, due to price, and the onerous requirements put in place by the amendment. Much like the "poll taxes" used to keep blacks from exercising their franchise.

      Purchasing a separate rider? What B.S.! How would you feel if you had to purchase insurance for each illness you MAY have in the future separately? What if you had to purchase colon cancer coverage separately?

      Subverting Roe v. Wade via this crap is wrong. You may have your views, and I mine, but this represents economic arm-twisting, no less real than physically blocking access.

      •  Not sure they will become illegal de facto (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Persimmon, Zikar

        From my reading of the amendment it looks like poor women will continue to get screwed it won't really be restricting past the right to pay. It certainly won't be helping any though...

        •  Very true. (0+ / 0-)

          I realized that wasn't quite what I wanted to say. But, it is the gist. Just like other states add more and more stipulations, it is obvious that this is being used to make abortions completely unavailable, without making it "illegal".

          •  It essentially does the following (0+ / 0-)

            The amendment makes abortion more expensive which hurts poor women, it does not make it illegal.  

            The pro-choice lobby has let this exact same restriction go on for decades with federal employees (the "status quo" the pro-life lobby points to).  Pro-choice Members have grown complacent with Hyde and now that Hyde-isc type restrictions are being used to justify this expansion.  10s of millions of Americans already have this restriction on abortion coverage (Medicaid and federal employees).  

      •  Thanks for being civil Zikar (0+ / 0-)

        I am not being snarky in saying that, I mean it.
        You interpetation of what is going on with Stupak's amendment is one view.

        He REPRESENTS his area of the country and populace.
        The UP of Michigan has more centrist Democrats.

        It is PRACTICAL to not involve religion in healthcare.
        Religion is a divisive issue, and if one can avoid issues that divide...that is wisdom.

        By taking taxpayer funded abortions out, and making people pay for the results of their own decisions (like having sex)it is taking religion and the divisiveness out of it.I think the same should be done for smokers and lung cancer tratments personally, heart disease and obesity, etc.

        What I am getting at (and I know that it is an unpopular theme in liberal circles)...

        is "PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY" gasp!

        I do not want to pay one thin dime on some stupid idiot because they forgot birth control of any sort.
        Why should I pay for that????????????????

        •  You are thinking of only one (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Liberal Thinking, 1BQ, SuburbanGrrrl

          situation; a careless accident.
          There are other situations: birth control fails; and a pregnancy can go terribly wrong. It's convenient to dismiss those and only think of the single instance that serve their argument.

          If Government can MAKE a woman bear a child, Government could PREVENT a woman from bearing a child. Same diff constitutionally.

          by Catskill Julie on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 06:01:51 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Serve" their" argument (0+ / 0-)

            that is divisive language.

            Of course anything that would be endangering the life of the woman would be covered. If a woman is in danger now she can walk into any hospital or doctors office and see if that is the case.If it is, she gets help, noone is going to put her life at risk of death or compromised health because of Stupaks amendment.

            •  And who are you, Mr. Unity? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Catskill Julie

              Serve" their" argument (0+ / 0-)

              that is divisive language.

              Give me fucking break - hypocrite.

              The crooks are leaving have left office, unprosecuted and scot-free.

              by BentLiberal on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 06:13:31 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  That is not correct - fetuses expire in utero (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              SuburbanGrrrl, Catskill Julie

              And then there’s the question of what is considered, in technical medical terms, as an abortion. Hospitals determine a terminated pregnancy where the fetus was not expelled as an abortion, requiring a "D&C" procedure. Under the Stupak amendment, insurance companies would not be allowed to cover this procedure either. It’s possible that this would fall under the "life of the mother" exemption, which is in the bill, but that would only be the case if the life of the mother was directly threatened. There is no "health of the mother" exemption. (Source, emphasis added)

              The same Blue Dogs who decry government intrusion in men's lives demand government intrusion in women's health care choices - NCrissieB

              by 1BQ on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 06:35:50 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  Fine (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          1BQ, Diebold Hacker

          If that were the reason women had unwanted pregnancies. However, no birth control method is 100% effective. Common failure rates range from 1% (for the pill) to about 5% (for condoms). Failure rate is the number of couples who get pregnant while consistently using the method for one year.

          If it were just about stupid idiots, then we could let stupid idiots have kids. (Of course, that would be stupid public policy. But, we've got plenty of that.) That is, if we didn't care about the kids.

          •  Exactly. This article makes this point well (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Liberal Thinking, SuburbanGrrrl

            By broadly writing in that insurers can chose whether or not to cover "abortion services," pro-life amendments don't just affect their intended victims -- women seeking a way out of an unwanted or medically harmful pregnancy.  They also affect another group of victims -- women whose pregnancies have already ended but have not yet miscarried.

            I'm one of those women, and this past Halloween I had what the hospital officially termed an "abortion."
            [...]
            I had learned the day before that the baby I thought was nearly 12 weeks old had no heartbeat, and had actually died at 8 weeks.  I was given three options: wait for a miscarriage to occur on its own, something I was told my body had no intention of doing anytime soon, take medication that would expel the fetus, passing it in my own home (classified a "chemical abortion") or come in for a D&C to remove the fetal materials.

            As much as I struggled with the sudden realization that the pregnancy was over, I also found myself trying to decide financially what I was willing to do.  A chemical abortion would cost $40, but I would be alone, bleeding, and it could still be incomplete and I would require a D&C anyway, since my pregnancy was so advanced.  Surgery would be quick, total, and under controlled circumstances, but would likely be our full maxed insurance amount of $1500.  And of course, there was the free option of waiting for my body to finally realize I wasn't pregnant, but after 4 weeks the risk of infection was steadily climbing, increasing my chances of future miscarriage, infertility, or even death.  With a toddler at home, and still nursing hopes for extending our family some day, this was not an option.

            I chose the quick and total route of the D&C, despite the costs, prioritizing my health and the health of possible future children.  I was lucky, and could afford to make that choice, because currently, my insurance cannot chose to refuse to cover what the hospital as termed an abortion.

            Thanks to the Stupak amendment, that can now change. (Source)

            Read it - it's heartbreaking. This is not someone who was careless, nor was the pregnancy unwanted. If this had happened after Stupak becomes law, a woman with health insurance on the exchange would have had no option but to hope she remained fertile after the dead fetus was expelled...

            The same Blue Dogs who decry government intrusion in men's lives demand government intrusion in women's health care choices - NCrissieB

            by 1BQ on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 06:42:44 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Complications (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              1BQ

              This is why the Hyde Amendment should also go away. This is a medical issue, and it should be totally covered so that women can deal with their own medical issues to optimize health.

              It's important for progressives to be on the offensive with issues like this instead of the defensive. Perhaps this giant needle stuck through the whole progressive establishment will goad them into making some changes.

            •  Wouldn't this qualify under (0+ / 0-)

              Health and safety of the mother?  Which is the exemption under Hyde?

              •  What "health of the mother" exemption? There (0+ / 0-)

                isn't one. McJoan broke this down:

                It includes only extremely narrow exceptions: Plans in the Exchange can only cover abortions in the case of rape or incest or "where a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death."  Given insurance companies’ dexterity in denying claims, we can predict what they’ll do with that language.  Cases that are excluded: where the health but not the life of the woman is threatened by the pregnancy, severe fetal abnormalities, mental illness or anguish that will lead to suicide or self-harm, and the numerous other reasons women need to have an abortion.

                dday also provided a breakdown:

                Hospitals determine a terminated pregnancy where the fetus was not expelled as an abortion, requiring a "D&C" procedure. Under the Stupak amendment, insurance companies would not be allowed to cover this procedure either. It’s possible that this would fall under the "life of the mother" exemption, which is in the bill, but that would only be the case if the life of the mother was directly threatened. There is no "health of the mother" exemption.

                The same Blue Dogs who decry government intrusion in men's lives demand government intrusion in women's health care choices - NCrissieB

                by 1BQ on Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 11:29:23 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

        •  Don't expect Civility (0+ / 0-)

          when you compare mainstream Progressive thought with right-wing teabaggers.

          You come on here preaching your keep-your-legs-shut warped morality, and then you want civility?

          As Elwood said, bugger off.

          The crooks are leaving have left office, unprosecuted and scot-free.

          by BentLiberal on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 06:12:19 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Come back to us when you put that in the bill (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          valadon

          I think the same should be done for smokers and lung cancer tratments personally, heart disease and obesity, etc.

          You talk a good game, but you and other conservatives have conveniently only put abortion in the amendment.

          How convenient that your whole personal responsibility thing only involves abortion in this case.

          The crooks are leaving have left office, unprosecuted and scot-free.

          by BentLiberal on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 06:22:37 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  gotta start somewhere. (0+ / 0-)

            BTW,
            I do not have any recollection I put anything in that bill.

            I was making a point.The point was that anything that is caused by doing things that are known stupid things to do...other peole should not have to pay for your stubborness or bad choices.

            Look, none of us  have any power to stop the USA from killing people overseas we have no quarrel with...but we pay for that everyday. Where is the outrage over that???

            •  MILLER AND PAINE CRUMB COOKIES (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              1BQ

              MILLER AND PAINE CRUMB COOKIES

              1 cup Crisco
              1 1/2 cups sugar
              1 cup dark molasses
              2 teaspoons baking powder
              1 teaspoon baking soda
              1 teaspoon cinnamon
              3/4 teaspoon cloves
              1 teaspoon salt
              3 eggs
              1/4 cup milk
              2 cups raisins
              5 cups flour, sifted
              5 cups yellow cake crumbs

              Cream together Crisco and sugar. Add molasses and mix well. Add baking powder, soda, cinnamon, cloves and salt. Mix together eggs and milk, then add to the creamed ingredients, mixing well.

              In one bowl, place raisins and 2 cups of flour, mixing well. In another bowl, place cake crumbs and 3 cups of flour, mixing well. Mix the two together.

              Combine the creamed ingredients with the raisins and crumbs. Roll out the resulting dough on a sugared surface. Cut out cookies with a large, round cookie/biscuit cutter. Arrange on an ungreased cookie sheet. Bake at 375 degrees for 15 minutes.

              Miller & Paine department store use to be in town. These cookies were made and sold in their bakery. You couldn't leave the store without buying a dozen. This recipe makes a big batch for cookie lovers and pot luck dinners. Enjoy!

              The crooks are leaving have left office, unprosecuted and scot-free.

              by BentLiberal on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 06:33:30 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  There were NO taxpayer-funded abortions to (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          BentLiberal

          take out of the bill and Stupak-Pitts does nothing to prevent them.

          Like it or not -- and we don't -- the Hyde amendment prohibits federal dollars from being used to fund abortions except in the case of rape, incest or life-endangering threats to the woman. This denial of federal funding for a legal medical procedure has been contained in annual appropriations bills for many years. And it was included in the health bill before Representatives Stupak and Pitts offered their amendment. (Source, emphasis added)

          The same Blue Dogs who decry government intrusion in men's lives demand government intrusion in women's health care choices - NCrissieB

          by 1BQ on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 06:27:33 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Let's not fund Viagra or Avodart either (0+ / 0-)

          Correcting erectile dysfunction isn't medically necessary and an enlarged prostate can be removed.

          The same Blue Dogs who decry government intrusion in men's lives demand government intrusion in women's health care choices - NCrissieB

          by 1BQ on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 06:47:21 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  MM is a troll (0+ / 0-)

          do not feed.

          •  http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/Troll_rating (0+ / 0-)

            "Conversely, there is one particular reason troll ratings should never be used:

            to express disagreement with a poster's opinion.

            If you disagree, you can say so, but so long as the commentor is stating their opinion civilly, merely disagreeing with your own opinion does not constitute being a "troll".

      •  A) is a good argument. (0+ / 0-)

        I would love to not pay for most of the military, if I had the choice.

    •  Only women's health is so-singled out (4+ / 0-)

      In NO OTHER area is there even consideration of a taxpayer opt-out. It's as if Roe didn't happen and the law of the land is not the law.

      If Government can MAKE a woman bear a child, Government could PREVENT a woman from bearing a child. Same diff constitutionally.

      by Catskill Julie on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 05:55:06 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Screw off. Blue Dogs are finished (0+ / 0-)

      The Blue Dogs aren't moderate Democrats - they are Republicans.  Their says are numbered.  Hey, if you don't like it go become a Republican.  If there no Democratic values you are willing to stand for why are you here?

      No more Blue Dogs -- join PCCC.

      by noofsh on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 05:55:08 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  We'll Stand Up for Your Rights (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      SuburbanGrrrl

      Should it come to it.

      How much should we compromise your rights to get what we want?

      •  lol (0+ / 0-)

        Man, since the Patriot act we have no rights.

        we have the right to do as we are told.

        Noone gave a rats ass when the real shell game with EVERYTHING was going on...

        emotional people are manipulated sooooooo easily.
        I am one of them, I'll cop to it. But I am awake enough to see that if the far left Democrats want to steer so far left as to alienate everyone else in the party that is not standing next to them....

    •  Separation of church and state - they (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      valadon

      have no business opposing legislation because of "faith."

      The same Blue Dogs who decry government intrusion in men's lives demand government intrusion in women's health care choices - NCrissieB

      by 1BQ on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 06:19:52 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  legislation because of "faith." (0+ / 0-)

        Have you not read the history of our country?

        It is all about "Faith" of all sorts. All the sorts that came here to escape persecution, or otherwise.

        I am saying, why touch a third rail and bring Roe V. wade into this???? Stupak is trying to keep the anti-abortionists out of the fray so a bill can get passed...then the far left hijacks and calls a free for all hissy-fit.

        stupid, and impractical.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site