Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  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 ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site