Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  Everyone is saying "what this bill does to women" (0+ / 0-)

    and it's not that simple.  There is one thing this bill doesn't do for women, but there is a hell of a lot it does do for women, and everyone seems to be forgetting that.  I'm just trying to remind people that people, including women, still have a lot more to gain by this bill than they have to lose.

    "I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent."

    by Futuristic Dreamer on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 06:14:38 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Yeah (0+ / 0-)

      I think this opinion piece articulates the amendment fairly well http://opinion.latimes.com/...

      Essentially

      1.  Women on Medicaid, who work for the federal government, or have no insurance would have nothing changed on abortion coverage.
      1.  Women on private plans that are lower income (thus qualify for subsidies) would have the restrictions of the Hyde amendment (nothing covered unless its health/life/rape/incest).
      1.  Women that this does not affect are ones that are wealthy enough to not qualify for subsidies (its based on income) and work for an employer that does not touch the Exchange.

      The questions out there really are, for me at least as I am pro-choice, how do we ensure affordable access to abortion for low income women and do a better job than Medicaid (I think less than half the states provide funding to poor women for abortion coverage).  

      Is this going to be used by the pro-life lobby to keep asking for more restrictions?  ABSOLUTELY.  Which is why its refreshing to see pro-choice folks finally WAKE UP to the fact that this is one of many steps the pro-life lobby has taken over the last few decades starting with Hyde.  By letting Hyde stand in law for so many years, it has become status quo, and thus the amendment was adopted by a majority in the House.  Can this get changed in the coming months in healthcare reform?  Personally, I doubt it because it would require the Congress to overturn Hyde.  I do think something can be done to take care of the women in group 2 though.  Women in group 1 is a fight in the future.

      Pro-choice lawmakers have become complacent voting for Hyde year after year after year.  Now suddenly we're all surprised that we're on the losing end in the House vote?  My big hope is that the pro-choice lobby really remembers this day and fights more rabidly than the prolife lobby, cause that's how you get things done in Congress.  

      •  Your handle gives you away (0+ / 0-)

        Only followers of Haley Barber would us his slur, calling it the DEMOCRAT PARTY rather than the correct, DEMOCRATIC PARTY.

        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 Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 04:51:56 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site