Skip to main content

View Diary: "She's decided against treatment. A reasonable decision under the circumstances." (226 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Here are the current options: Get coverage (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cassandra77, barbwires, jazzyjay

    for women like the one at the free clinic with metastatic breast cancer or have the health care reform go down in flames because it doesn't cover elective abortion.

    I know it would be best to have full coverage, but without elective abortion coverage in the bill women who want the procedure will be in the same position they are now.

    Today, women have to pay for it themselves. It is not a very expensive procedure. Most of the time it's preformed at a clinic. The cost is an amount that in many cases can be borrowed from friends and relatives.

    Compare that situation with the women who need expensive treatment for deadly conditions like cancer and heart disease. And, how about the kids that have MS or assma and need ongoing care? How about accidents that require long hospital confinements?

    If I have to make a choice, I know where I want my tax dollars to go.

    It's the Supreme Court, stupid!

    by auapplemac on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 10:52:01 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Luckily I don't think Stupak has a chance in hell (5+ / 0-)

      to survive in the Senate so there's no need to keep arguing this issue.

      But just for the record, all abortions are "elective" abortions, just like all medical procedures are "elective" unless you're unconscious and wheeled into the ER by EMTs.

      Silence is consent.

      by Eileen B on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 10:56:32 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  You're picking nits. Abortion in not a life or (0+ / 0-)

        death situation and if it is, it's covered under the law.

        If Stupak is stripped from the bill, will there be a problem getting it passed?

        It's the Supreme Court, stupid!

        by auapplemac on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 11:02:14 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  No. (6+ / 0-)

          Tonight on Rachel Maddow Senator Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) said "I'd be certain that" Reid strip the Stupak language from the bill, and it won't have any problem passing. There are two pro-choice Republicans in the Senate, and the political repercussions for the Dems would be immeasurable.

          Imagine abortion rights surviving the Bush administration, then a Democratic senate limits abortion rights? No way. Won't happen.

          Here's the vid on MSNBC - this conversation starts at about 8 minutes in.

          Silence is consent.

          by Eileen B on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 11:20:37 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Covered under the law (0+ / 0-)

          is not covered by insurance.
          The Stupak Amendment is a disruption of free-will and commerce.
          It is the anti-abortion movement telling women how they will or will not spend their money.

          You cannot present a monster with a flower. Nora Astorga.

          by vivens fons on Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 06:12:07 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  You have several incorrect premises. (12+ / 0-)

      The first is that "women who want the procedure will be in the same position they are now." That is not correct on several counts. The first is that Stupak's horrible amendment goes much further than the existing Hyde amendment restriction on federal funds not paying for abortion -- the reason that it is so egregious is that it forbids inclusion in the new Exchange of any PRIVATE insurance policies that cover abortion. This will have the effect that there will essentially be no private insurance coverage for abortion -- a dramatic difference from the current situation.

      The second incorrect premise is that abortion "is not a very expensive procedure" that's usually "preformed (sic) at a clinic." The issue here is that the insurance coverage that's being banned is not so much an issue for the inexpensive first trimester abortions -- about that part you are correct. The issue is when a significant birth defect is discovered via amniocentesis or via imaging studies done during the second trimester. Abortions for these women are not done in a clinic but in a hospital operating room, and can cost thousands of dollars. Coverage for these procedures will essentially be eliminated under Stupak's language. So, for example, we will be condemning untold numbers of women to carry to term pregnancies that would currently have been terminated for conditions such as Down's Syndrome, anencephaly, significant congenital heart problems, etc. which if survivable would likely require extremely expensive post-natal care.

      "But there is so much more to do." - Barack Obama, Nov. 4, 2008

      by flitedocnm on Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 12:17:26 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm sure you also know that the serious wingnuts (15+ / 0-)

        also consider several of the major forms of birth control to be "abortion"--specifically the pill and the IUD. Don't be surprised if that's their next target when they are given this inch.

        And first trimester abortions are not "inexpensive" to young women. The cost of one ($800 in early 80s money) means I am now a parent and grandparent. Since my daughter has been the light of my life, I would say I "never regretted that decision" if it had actually been a "decision." Instead, it was just a fact that $800 was two months wages when my husband and I were living a hand to mouth existence. The choice was not abortion or a baby, it was a baby or homelessness. Today, even more young women find themselves in that situation ebcause they are likely to have to travel away from where they live to obtain the service, it is so hard to get, and the cost of security services and rarity of trained personnel has driven the price up quite a bit higher.

        I could stomach an amendment like this ONLY if progressive forces can come up with a long-term, permanant solution for the high cost and low availability of birth control and abortion in the US. I have not been especially pleased with my own, my daughter's, or her friends' interactions with Planned Parenthood, much as we have all had to rely on them at times.

        Political Compass says: -8.88, -8.67
        "We never sold out cos no one would buy."--J Neo Marvin

        by expatyank on Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 12:39:16 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  I've been trying to make this point (0+ / 0-)

      You've made it very well. The overeaction to Stupak is the biggest distraction I have seen in a long time.

    •  Is it that simple? (0+ / 0-)

      My understanding is that it leaves millions uncovered and forced to buy insurance they can't afford.   If it is simply expanded Medicaid, Obama could have done that by executive order; and we could have skilled all of this.  Carter created the National Parks by Executive Order because he knew it was the only way it would get done.  

    •  It's not only elective, that is the problem (0+ / 0-)

      I have no problem with elective abortion being excluded, but when you NEED an abortion because you have a damaged fetus, THAT needs to be covered.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site