Skip to main content

I am writing this diary with knowledge that my opinion is unpopular.  The purpose of the diary is to express my support for the amendment by educating the community on the minimal impact of the amendment, the potential political benefits, and the murky nature of the abortion issue anyway.

UPDATE:  A lot of people in the comments are parroting the anti-Stupak argument that women who need abortions will be denied them.  Please read the diary, or at least the amendment, before you comment.  Stupak allows federal funding for abortions where a physician "certifies" that there is a "danger" of death.  This includes "life-endangering physical conditions" caused by the pregnancy (think about diabetes, paralysis, and other diseases that shorten life spans).

UPDATE 2:  I'd like to note that I take some liberties and assumptions based on the text of the amendments that may not be supported by judges and lawyers if the amendment becomes operational.  There is always some ambiguity in the law, so predicting the path the law will take based only on the language of the statute is always speculative to some extent.  In my opinion, the best criticisms of the amendment in the comment are that the amendment does not cover enough health issues.  Please note that the if a physician "certifies" that a pregnancy, or a condition arising from pregnancy, poses a "danger" to the life of the mother, the abortion is eligible for federal funds.  However, this leaves open the possibility that a lot, but not all, "health" problems from pregnancy will be covered.  Blindness is a good example of such a trait.  I still don't think this is enough to tip my support of the amendment into opposition.  For one, most private plans already limit access to abortion similarly to this bill.  Also, I wager that in practice it will be easy to get a physician certification for an abortion when a health issue arises, even if the danger of death is attenuated.  Furthermore, consider that abortions aren't that expensive and so many people are over or under insured that the health care bill will still expand their access in most cases.

A.  The amendment minimally interferes with abortion, and permits expansion of abortion access by federally funding abortion where there is an issue of life, health, rape and incest.

According to the New York Times, the pertinent part of the amendment reads:

§ 265.  LIMITATION ON ABORTION FUNDING.

(a) IN GENERAL -- No funds authorized or appropriated by this Act (or an amendment made by this Act) may be used to pay for any abortion or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion, except in the case 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 unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself, or unless the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest.

(b) OPTION TO PURCHASE SEPARATE SUPPLEMENTAL COVERAGE OR PLAN -- Nothing in this section shall be construed as prohibiting any nonfederal entity (including an individual or a State or local government) from purchasing separate supplemental coverage for abortiions for which funding is prohbitied under this section, or a plan that includes such abortions, so long as --

(1) such coverage or plan is paid for entirely using only funds not authorized or appropriated by this Act; and

(2) Such coverage or plan is not purchased using --

(A) individual premium payments required for a Exchange-participating health benefits plan towards which an affordability credit is applied; or

(B) other nonfederal funds required to receive a federal payment, including a State's or locality's contribution of Medicaid matching funds.

First and foremost, everyone should understand what, precisely, the amendment does.  In general, it prohibits the use of federal funds for abortions (whether through the public option, a government-subsidized private plan, or the use of tax credits).  Exceptionally, it permits federal funding for insurance plans (including the public option) that allow abortions where "a [health problem] would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed [...] or the pregnancy is the result of [rape] or incest."  Additionally, it permits a private parties and non-federal entities using federal funds for their insurance plan to buy additional coverage (with their own money) that covers additional abortion procedures.  

A few points to make here, in support of my argument that this amendment minimally interferes with abortion access.  One is that the amendment apparently restricts only "elective" abortions.  The "as certified by a physician" standard for permitting an abortion is a pretty low standard.  If the physician believes there is a "danger" of death, he or she can grant access to the abortion under this amendment.  In practice, I imagine that health issues like major depression, paralysis, risk of diabetes, and so forth will be grounds for an abortion because those conditions carry a risk of death and people suffering from those conditions have shorter life spans.  This means that a de facto "health" exception (as opposed to strictly "death") will likely be interpreted from this language.  

Note that the amendment doesn't impose criminal penalties for doctors who fail to abide by this standard.  Where states try to outlaw abortion, this becomes a major issue (for example, South Dakota's recent attempt to outlaw abortion imposed 10 years of prison for doctors who gave an abortion for merely health reasons, since the only exception was the life of the mother).  However, there are no criminal penalties attached here.  Conceivably, insurance fraud is still an issue (if the doctor certifies the "danger" of death), but fraud usually requires an intent to defraud.  Thus, as long as a doctor is certifying the "danger" of death in good faith, there is nothing to worry about.

Second of all, people who will receive federal funding are probably paying "out of pocket" for abortions now.  This includes elective and health-related abortions.  Most people who will get federal subsidies or access to the public option probably have limited or no coverage right now, and will pay "out of pocket" for elective abortions either way.  However, they will have the benefit of rape, incest, life, and health abortions that can be paid for by the federal government.  

Ultimately, the amendment is not terribly restrictive even if you are pro-choice.  Since federal funds can be used for life/health/rape/incest abortions, the health care bill ultimately expands abortion access over the status quo.

B.  The inclusion of the amendment is good for the Democrats.  

The political impact of the amendment is worth noting.  The Stupak amendment can be used as a shield by Democrats in conservative districts, such as my home in South Dakota, where pro-life sentiment is strong.  Additionally, this can be used as a way to reach out to religious organizations who are pro-life but like the idea of helping out the poor with health care.  

The only downside I see is that it could anger pro-choice supporters who make up an important part of the base.  But they should understand that the amendment only restricts elective abortions but maintains access to health (and rape/incest) related abortions.  It's fairly radical and left-wing to support federally funded elective abortions.  The current status quo is that the government doesn't subsidize elective abortions, and this amendment only solidifies that status quo.  Thus, opposition by the pro-choice that has a material affect on ongoing political efforts (such as less door knocking and fundraising) is unfounded.  

C.  The opponents and supporters of the amendment exercised their moral consciousness.  

I'll make this point brief, but we should all keep in mind that opposition as well as support for this amendment reflects a moral decision.  I see people on all sides of the abortion argument declaring that people on the other side are necessarily unreasonable and immoral.  

Without getting into a long-winded discussion about the theoretic underpinnings of the "right to life", I would point out that in the end we are all engaging in mere line-drawing.  Each line is arbitrary to an extent -- do we draw when the family decides to accept the baby (the old Norse left unwanted babies in the wilderness and did not have a duty to take care of the baby until they sprinkled it with water)?   At birth, as the English recognized under the Common Law (but then why should we deny the right to life the day before birth)?  When the fetus can feel pain (doesn't the mental ability to suffer occur gradually)?  In the third trimester?  Second trimester?  First?  Attachment to the uterus?  Conception?  Does it earn the right to life before conception?  

My point is, no matter what position one takes, there is some amount of arbitrariness and some value.  Reasonable, moral minds can differ on where to draw the line and we should respect members of Congress who drew the bright line wherever they did.  Many people on both sides of the abortion issue are guilty of failing to understand and respect the other side.

D.  Conclusion:

I support the Stupak amendment, and you should too, because it only minimally interferes in abortion access (and arguably expands it by federally funding health/rape/incest abortions), it reinforces the status quo, it provides a defense from potential pro-life healthcare sympathizers, and is a morally uncertain issue to begin with.

Originally posted to Tetris on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 12:27 PM PST.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Congressman Stupak, this will not (9+ / 0-)

    save you from what I hope is the most ferocious backlash primary you will ever face and lose!

    Good bye Congressman Stupak.

    Today, 11/8/09, 4359 Americans, and untold Iraqis are dead, tens of thousands more maimed. Bush lied; President Obama, it is your war now.

    by boilerman10 on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 12:30:56 PM PST

  •  I agree on some points (5+ / 0-)

    I do not care about the political convenience as much as you appear to- but I do agree that the issue is morally uncertain. I understand this is an unpopular position, but it is what it is.

    Thanks for writing - I enjoyed your diary

  •  This will not end well (39+ / 0-)

    I think I'm gonnna stick around to see how ugly this gets.

    Might I suggest that the diairst and those who agree simply do not get abortions themselves and MIND THEIR FUCKING BUSINESS in regards to other people's bodies and personal lives?

    Is that too much to ask?

    If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face -- for ever.' ~ George Orwell, 1984

    by MinistryOfTruth on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 12:36:47 PM PST

    •  That's my view (12+ / 0-)

      I don't personally agree with abortion...it's always been an issue I was ambivalent about. However, my personal beliefs shouldn't dictate whether others can or can't get a legitimate medical procedure.

      Don't donate to the DSCC in 2010 - they'll give your money to Harry Reid. Donate to the candidates instead!

      by arcticshadow on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 12:39:33 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Fine, just don't ask me to give up health (14+ / 0-)

      care reform because some people want to grandstand on ONE issue that couldn't be funded anyway.

      The diarist gives good thought to this issue.

      Wonders are many, but none so wonderful as man.

      by Morgan Sandlin on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 12:39:43 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Women arent just one little issue (16+ / 0-)

        we are more than half the US population.

        We aren't asking YOU to give up YOUR health care reform, we are demanding that we be equal partners in it.

        Though I find it very  telling that  you frame this as something you are forced to give up on cuz of us.

        We're oft to blame in this--tis too much proved--that with devotion's visage and pious action we do sugar o'er the devil himself"- William Shakespeare

        by SFJen on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 12:44:03 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Morgan is a woman, IIRC. (6+ / 0-)

          "Intolerance is something which belongs to the religions we have rejected." - J.J. Rousseau

          by James Allen on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 12:48:45 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  that makes it worse (5+ / 0-)

            not better.

            We're oft to blame in this--tis too much proved--that with devotion's visage and pious action we do sugar o'er the devil himself"- William Shakespeare

            by SFJen on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 12:53:10 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  No..it doesn't make it worse. (0+ / 0-)

              What I understand is that it isn't worth getting overdramatic over an issue, that can be resolved at a later date, to risk health care for all.

              The bill wasn't going to provide for abortion funding anyway, the Hyde amendment took care of that.

              You give more strength to a solvable grandstanding gesture rather than seeing the big picture.

              Its not all about you. Sometimes its about the 8 year old that just needs to see a doctor.

              Wonders are many, but none so wonderful as man.

              by Morgan Sandlin on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 01:21:07 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  and when that 8 yr old is 13 and pregnant (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                blueness

                who is it about?

                And no, its not the same as the Hyde amendment, tho this  provision does remove the yearly sunset clause to that amendment. Yay.

                It specifically does not allow any women taking even a subsidy to purchase private insurance to purchase a plan that fully covers reproductive health. Do you think women that need a subsidy to purchase insurance will be able to buy an "abortion rider" to their plans?

                so yeah, its worse. WAY worse.

                People said we could get rid of the Hyde amendment too, at a later date. We all saw how that worked out. The only time we really can get this language out is now. So it needs to happen now.

                We're oft to blame in this--tis too much proved--that with devotion's visage and pious action we do sugar o'er the devil himself"- William Shakespeare

                by SFJen on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 01:27:48 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Good luck with that..I don't like the language... (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  terabthia2

                  though I'm not interested in the drama statements about how outraged everyone is, that this is over..when we are speaking of health are reform and victories come one step at a time.

                  We are only in our first year of an Obama Presidence...and work is happening.

                  Criminey, the tax cuts being eliminated hits me..guess what, I'm fine with that. I'll take the hit.

                  We get a health care bill, imperfect, but a big step forward...and I've got women all around me going "It shouldn't have happened."...Well, guess what. My gay and lesbian friends are still waiting for "Don't ask Don't tell" to go away..I still have friends serving in Iraq. They're waiting in line.

                  We just got here..progress is starting, and our ovaries don't put us in the front of line.

                  Wonders are many, but none so wonderful as man.

                  by Morgan Sandlin on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 01:34:09 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  8 yr old kid was your scenario (4+ / 0-)

                    and your language about "getting in line" to be considered equal citizens is exactly the problem Im talking about.

                    The bill was a big step forward for some, and a big step backward for others. And the others are half the population of the US.

                    I did not work to elect a Democratic President and majorities in both Chambers so that this type of amendment could make it onto the floor. In fact, I worked specifically so that this type of crazy crap would not get on the floor during a Democratic controlled administration.

                    Progress is about moving forward. Id be dissapointed but understanding if the only issue was a lack of forward momentum. This is the biggest backward movement in womens reproductive right in 30 years. Damn right I'm outraged.

                    We're oft to blame in this--tis too much proved--that with devotion's visage and pious action we do sugar o'er the devil himself"- William Shakespeare

                    by SFJen on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 01:49:52 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                •  You're too kind (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  sidnora, Heiuan, SFJen

                  There are subsidies and tax credits throughout this bill to both individuals and employers.

                  A person may fall under the shadow of this amendment without knowing it or knowing why.

                  In fact, a person may not discover s.he is subject to this amendment until the end of the year in which the insurance policy was in effect!

                  Money is fungible. It's absurd to legislate that the dollar on the left may be used for x but not the dollar on the right.

                  Ignorance isn't exactly bliss but some things are better known when they are unknown to start with and pieced together on the way. - WineRev

                  by Clem Yeobright on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 01:52:57 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

          •  So what ? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Picot verde

            ... I'm equally sick of women who go along to get along, let men dictate their entire agendas, and betray their gender, and then go Nyah Nyah Nyah I'm more holier than thou.

            Which was what I saw at the pathetic press conference the Republicans put on last night after the vote, with their few token women Republican Congresscreatures. These women are not popular in their districts and get all their funding from Republican conservative PACs in other districts.

            Who was grandstanding ?

            "Toads of Glory, slugs of joy... as he trotted down the path before a dragon ate him"-Alex Hall/ Stop McClintock

            by AmericanRiverCanyon on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 01:22:55 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  And a whole lot of women are pro-life... (6+ / 0-)

          But don't let that fact get in the way of your gender war...

          Ivory Soap is a Sell-out - It's only 99 and 44/100% pure!!

          by Jonze on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 12:49:30 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  My friend is a woman (0+ / 0-)

          She has a pre-existing condition. Guess what she cares more about; the abortion issue or finally being able to get insurance. It should not be that difficult of a guess for you.

          •  oooh - anectode wars (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            corvo, Clem Yeobright, blueness

            I am a woman
            I am uninsured
            I have a preexisting condition
            I do not want my ability to have my preexisting condition covered predicated on NOT receiving equal care to you.

            kthx.

            We're oft to blame in this--tis too much proved--that with devotion's visage and pious action we do sugar o'er the devil himself"- William Shakespeare

            by SFJen on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 01:13:27 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Please..its ONE issue that would not have (0+ / 0-)

              been covered by taxpayer funds in any event...unless you're saying that many of our leaders were misleading voters when they stated that abortion was NOT covered by the Bill.

              ..and you would give up this entire Bill for the funding of this one procedure..an issue that we can address in the future?

              Criminey..someone save me from Kucinich, his followers and the purity brigade.

              Wonders are many, but none so wonderful as man.

              by Morgan Sandlin on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 01:46:02 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Wanting equal rights =/= the purity brigade (0+ / 0-)

                Jesus its sad that I even need to make this argument. As is your factually inaccurate assertion that the Stupak amendment is in no way different or worse than the Hyde Amendment. This is just sad.

                And trying to compare people that support full equality for women in the same fringe as Kucinich shows just how far to the right on this issue you are.

                We're oft to blame in this--tis too much proved--that with devotion's visage and pious action we do sugar o'er the devil himself"- William Shakespeare

                by SFJen on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 04:39:06 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

      •  Health care reform is not JUST FOR MEN (0+ / 0-)

        .... you selfish *******.

        Wake up and smell the 21st century.

        "Toads of Glory, slugs of joy... as he trotted down the path before a dragon ate him"-Alex Hall/ Stop McClintock

        by AmericanRiverCanyon on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 01:16:26 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Of course it isn't. And I do believe that the (0+ / 0-)

          Bill passed last night in the House covers both sexes.

          Do you wish to say "No" to all progress for everyone until you get your perfect reality?

          Wonders are many, but none so wonderful as man.

          by Morgan Sandlin on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 01:47:19 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  By the way sweetie...instead of calling me a (0+ / 0-)

          "*******", which is a bit of mystery to me..I was thinking "bitch"..but too many asterisks, why don't you wake up and smell political reality.

          The amendment passed last night because we've been weak regarding our framing of this issue. We have failed to mainstream its effect and let the far right frame the talking points.

          You're on DKos for heaven's sake, and finding this diversity of opinion. Is that a wake up call?

          So, while you're venting asterisks to me, prepare for more of this if you're going to continue to communicate your view in this light.

          I'm not willing to give up a Health Care Reform Bill on this one issue.

          However, I'll be working to solve the issue with my Senator and Congressman, while you're just empowering yourself by bitching about the subject.

          Wonders are many, but none so wonderful as man.

          by Morgan Sandlin on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 02:11:29 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Wait a sec..going through my (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            terabthia2

            "Naval Dictionary of Creative Use of the King's English"..I think you called me an "asshole".

            Or, in case this is an episode of "Dkos Jeopardy", let me rephrase that:

            "Alex, I'll take 'Juvenile Statements by Individuals Who Can't Effectuate Change for $200.00'"

            Wonders are many, but none so wonderful as man.

            by Morgan Sandlin on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 02:15:29 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  Like Congressman Stupid did? (0+ / 0-)

        HE was the one who threatened to take his ball and go home if we didn't knuckle under to him.

        You may think that. I couldn't possibly comment.-- Francis Urqhart

        by Johnny Q on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 01:53:43 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  What ever happened to that, anyway? (12+ / 0-)

      When I was growing up in the 1980s, "mind your own business" was a pretty common sentiment. People understood it and respected it.

      Today we have even Kossacks trying to get all up in other people's business.

      If you don't like an abortion, don't get one. The moment you try regulating whether someone else can get one or not, you are touching a third rail, and deserve to get the intellectual equivalent of electrocution.

      I'm not part of a redneck agenda - Green Day

      by eugene on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 12:41:23 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  eugene..did the amendment limit rights to an (6+ / 0-)

        abortion? Did it limit the legal right to have one? No.

        It stated that tax dollars could not be used to obtain an abortion.

        While everyone is up in arms regarding this I rather liken it to the right to bear arms. Just because you have the right to bear arms doesn't mean that I have to provide you with one.

        Wonders are many, but none so wonderful as man.

        by Morgan Sandlin on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 12:45:56 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Read point "C" in my argument. (4+ / 0-)

        The issue here is where to draw the line of "when does a fetus/baby get what rights?"  

        If you think of abortion as a purely personal issue -- where the only person affected is the mother -- then it makes sense not to get in someone else's business.  

        But if you reframe it as a mother with a person or quasi-person in her uterus, then the state has a duty (or at least an interest) in protecting that fetus.  Think about abusive parents that have their children taken away.  No one would argue that we should let the parent do whatever they want to their child.  Now apply that same thinking to the fetus.

        In general though, I agree with your "mind your own business [if no one is getting hurt]" philosophy.  It's just that here, someone is getting hurt depending on how you think about the issue.  And reasonable people can see the issue differently.

        The day may come, when the rest of the animal creation may acquire those rights which never could have been withholden from them but by the hand of tyranny.

        by Tetris on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 12:46:11 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  It's not too much for Kossacks, but in a country (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      hlsmlane, Tempus Figits, James Allen

      that is passionately divided and entrenched on this issue, it's clearly too much to expect the answer you'd like. The diarist doesn't seem to be pro-life, just scrupulously pragmatic about this vote. I'm not convinced, however, that everyone who voted for this, voted their conscience. They may have voted their desire to stay in Congress.  

      I never liked you and I always will.

      by Ray Blake on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 12:48:24 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Fine (0+ / 0-)

      The will you please address my friend who has a pre-existing condition and WILL NEVER GET COVERAGE BECAUSE OF PEOPLE LIKE YOU WHO ARE DEMANDING THE PERFECT BILL!

      I wish people would at least attempt to try to figure out what is more important, the bill itself or this issue.

      Hell, we have almost 50 million without insurance as it is! Good grief!

    •  I think that is fine (0+ / 0-)

      Everybody is free to follow their own path. But what do you say to those who don't want their tax dollars spent funding abortions. Right now abortions are generally paid for out of pocket, and the amendment preserves that.

      Now I don't agree with the pro-lifers, but I respect their right to hold whatever opinion they want.  The political reality is that the public option is dead without the abortion rider. I saw the news conference with Stupak and the supporters yesterday, and there is no way that any bill without the abortion rider is passing the House. It just isn't going to happen.

      And I would ask you to explain to me how the Stupak amendment restricts choice. As I see it - and correct me if I'm wrong - abortions today are largely paid for out of pocket; How is this any different than what would be happening with a public option operating within the Stupak amendment?

      •  If I have to pay for wars I don't want, they have (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        arcticshadow

        to pay for shit they don't want.

        How come the pro life people are also pro war, pro death penalty and pro torture? It's cause most of them are FUCKING HYPOCRITES.

        If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face -- for ever.' ~ George Orwell, 1984

        by MinistryOfTruth on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 01:24:09 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Listen - you don't have to convince me that... (0+ / 0-)

          conservatives are hypocrites. That is a given.

          And clearly the easiest retort to my first point was that we had to pay for the Iraq war, why doesn't the other side have to pay for abortions? Fair question. But there has never been public funding of abortions and there has always been public funding for the National defense. And like it or not, public opinion is against us here pretty substantially (like 70-30).

          We could go round and round with this - but the diarist is right, the Stupak amendment doesn't take away any existing rights. The political reality is that HCR isn't getting passed without the abortion provision. And right now we need a public option more than we need to have the government funding abortions (which essentially would be a new right). Sure, we'd like both, but we aren't getting both.

          I would love to see Planned Parenthood and other centers become better funded from the private sector so that cost is never a hurdle to a woman exorcising her right to choose.  Private individuals have the ability to make choice readily available regardless of cost - but private individuals do not have the ability to provide health care for everybody. We need the government for that and we need to prioritize.

  •  In my book, even a minimal interference (9+ / 0-)

    in abortion access is wrong. I notice that only men have voted for the Stupor Stupak amendment.

    The eejit formerly known as AAF!

    by Patric Juillet on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 12:37:03 PM PST

  •  You have an overactive imagination, I think (7+ / 0-)

    I imagine that health issues like major depression, paralysis, risk of diabetes, and so forth will be grounds for an abortion because those conditions carry a risk of death and people suffering from those conditions have shorter life spans.

    "The required presence of health professionals did not make interrogation methods safer, but sanitized their use" Physicians for Human Rights

    by Catte Nappe on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 12:37:46 PM PST

    •  I'd say bat-shit crazy fantasist. n/t (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      acerimusdux, Clem Yeobright, LeanneB

      "George RR Martin is not your bitch" ~~ Neil Gaiman

      by tardis10 on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 12:40:39 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I don't mean to be inflammatory, (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mozlover

        but read the amendment before you go off on me.

        "except in the case 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 unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself."

        The amendment provides literal support for my position.  Either you don't know how to read, or you called me bat-shit crazy without reading the amendment yourself.  Please educate yourself before you throw out insults.  

        Also, please spell "fantasist" right.

        The day may come, when the rest of the animal creation may acquire those rights which never could have been withholden from them but by the hand of tyranny.

        by Tetris on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 12:59:04 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I think you're bat-shit crazy if you actually (8+ / 0-)

          believe any abortion is NOT an elective abortion. Plenty of women would choose to die rather than abort their baby.

          Furthermore, women should not be FORCED to "justify" their decision to abort the product of rape/incest. Do you have ANY IDEA how traumatic that can be? Millions of women never report their rapes due to shame, fear, and the impending trauma of a court case. Now you're saying they "should have to" prove rape/incest to get an abortion or, what? we FORCE them to carry and raise a child?

          THINK IT THROUGH!

          Women can be trusted to make this decision. We don't need politicians to decide for us.

        •  I can read,spell and think. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          blueness

          You seem unable to do all three.

          I do find you inflammatory as I am sure you do me.Your anti-choice position is quite clear,why not just own it?

          "George RR Martin is not your bitch" ~~ Neil Gaiman

          by tardis10 on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 01:43:56 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  I have a lawyer's mind. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mozlover

      Its a very reasonable interpretation of the statute, and the one that I think would prevail based on the language and purpose of the health care bill and amendment.

      The day may come, when the rest of the animal creation may acquire those rights which never could have been withholden from them but by the hand of tyranny.

      by Tetris on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 12:48:23 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Mmmhmm (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        corvo, emsprater, blueness, tardis10, OldAthena

        If the pregnancy places the woman in danger of death
        We are all in danger of death, eventually. A woman with diabetes, for example, is not, by virtue of that fact alone, in imminent danger of death due to carrying a pregnancy to term.

        Your lawyerly mind is engaging in wishful thinking to put a positive spin on a very negative outcome.

        "The required presence of health professionals did not make interrogation methods safer, but sanitized their use" Physicians for Human Rights

        by Catte Nappe on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 01:06:21 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Where do you keep it, tetris? In a jar? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        blueness

        Ignorance isn't exactly bliss but some things are better known when they are unknown to start with and pieced together on the way. - WineRev

        by Clem Yeobright on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 01:16:46 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Well, that explains .... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Catte Nappe

        the ability to mince words and insert clauses that might be used one way, but may be used another, depending on who is doing the interpreting.

        Lawyers who write legislation: the reason the country is so messed up now, IMHO.  They allow absolutely nothing to be done in the most simplistic of ways.

        In honor of the Obama Administration's actions on GLBT issues during Pride month, Pride 2009 is proclaimed "Back of the Bus Pride Month".!

        by emsprater on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 01:20:27 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  No you don't (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Catte Nappe, blueness, tardis10

        Because if you did, you would realize that Congress says what it means and means what it says.  The decision not to include a health exception is clear evidence that Congress did not intend for it to be interpreted to have one.

        You would also realize that this very language has already been litigated, both at the federal level (Harris v. McRae) and in just about every state (e.g. Right to Choose v. Byrne).  So Congress knew what it was doing with its choice of language.

  •  You've got nerve. (18+ / 0-)

    I support the Stupak amendment, and you should too

    That's a pretty hefty categorical imperative you're tossing out there.  You're entitled to your opinion.  Telling people what they should do on a moral issue that's politicized, like abortion, is way over the line.

    Just mho.

  •  You tried to put a good spin... (15+ / 0-)

    ...on a very bad amendment (it is fundamentally anti-choice).
    Your diary is well written, but I'm not buying the spin.

  •  Most intelligent diary of the day. (16+ / 0-)

    As Markos pointed out earlier this week, HCR will complete explode the core Republican myth that government is the problem, not the solution. Enacting it in such a way as to respect the consciences of others involved in the process is a good thing - and I say as someone who is 100% pro choice. However, I do not think that people who are not 100% pro choice are women hating ovary kickers, as they have been described elsewhere on this site today. I think they are people who think life begins at a point much earlier in time than the one I would choose.

    Nancy Pelosi, who is often described as the Whore of Babylon in Catholic circles, got the endorsement of the US Council of Catholic Bishops for this bill because she allowed the Stupak Amendment to come to a vote. That is a huge blow for the Rovian wanna-bes who want to use Pelosi as a wedge to drive Catholics - who voted fro Obama 10+ - into the R camp.

    •  Which part of .... (0+ / 0-)

      Pelosi's soul should be auctioned off to the next highest bidder from the religious wing of the right that seeks to enslave the rest of the Nation under it's beliefs?

      In honor of the Obama Administration's actions on GLBT issues during Pride month, Pride 2009 is proclaimed "Back of the Bus Pride Month".!

      by emsprater on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 01:23:34 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Hyperbole much? (0+ / 0-)

        Who has done more to advance progressive causes in this nation - Nancy Pelosi or emsprater?

        •  Not at all. (0+ / 0-)

          Compromises with the Catholic Bishops that have the effect of putting all Americans under the belief system of that of the good (not really) Bishops is jst the start.  Which religous group will 'win' the next compromise?

          Who has done the most harm to America, the catholic church or emsprater?

          In honor of the Obama Administration's actions on GLBT issues during Pride month, Pride 2009 is proclaimed "Back of the Bus Pride Month".!

          by emsprater on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 11:45:18 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  I appreciate your effort to voice your opinion (18+ / 0-)

    However, I do not and will not support the amendment. Rationalizing the omission of reproductive health care as a "moral issue" fails to address any number of other "moral issues" which, while I oppose, I also pay for.

    My tax money subsidizes the administration of the death penalty.

    My tax money has been used to teach so-called "abstinence only" health education.

    My tax money helps to pay for a war that I wholeheartedly oppose.

    The list is endless. Stupak can bit me.

    GOP Talking Points Hotline: 1-800-WHINE

    by Auntie Neo Kawn on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 12:38:53 PM PST

  •  I would like to see Stupak introduce legislation (10+ / 0-)

    getting rid of elective abortion coverage in the health plan that the fed govt provides to members of Congress and their families.  The vote on that would show us who the hypocrites are.

  •  support (6+ / 0-)

    Just wanted to say good diary, and I'm one of the few on here that supports your positions and sentiments on this. Your points were well laid out as well. I know it can be hard to exercise some clear thinking and arrive at a different, yet objective, conclusion among all the furor. And, I also agree with you that you're right about a lot of the group-think that goes on in this day and age. I guess it's just the environment we live in now. Diaries like yours make me appreciate daily kos more and remind me why I've left the other blogs.

  •  I have to admit (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mozlover, Tetris, mnguy66, iBlue, terabthia2

    If all of what was said in this diary is true, then I think much of the pro-choice side has, really, not much to be worried about.

    People were clamoring on and on about "The govt already doesn't do stuff, so leave it at that!"

    ...It would appear that's what happened here.

    And I mean, again, if Stupak included language to protect a woman's right to terminate based on incest, rape, or her life being in jeopardy, we should be lauding him on that part. I mean, for God's sake, the most ardent anti-choice people often want zero abortions 100% of the time, it doesn't matter if you were raped by your father and you'll die, you're giving birth to that baby unless it is stillborn or something.

    ...and even then, there have been anti-choice people who want all reports of stillbirths reported to authorities because God forbid someone might have maybe aborted it instead of it being essentially an auto-abortion that the woman had no control over.

    I didn't like the idea of this amendment, but frankly, if your succinct summary is correct, I would tell the super pro choice people to get over it and realize that this doesn't appear to change anything.

    Of course, I think it can probably be said that the devil is still in the details, but again, I'll say that if the details are correct...things appear to be...not all that bad.

    •  Who gets to make the determination? (10+ / 0-)

      And I mean, again, if Stupak included language to protect a woman's right to terminate based on incest, rape, or her life being in jeopardy, we should be lauding him on that part.

      Why should a woman have to prove anything before getting a perfectly legal medical procedure?

      I know theft is illegal, but look at all the cool stuff I got!

      by BoiseBlue on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 12:45:37 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Silver Lining in a Cloud (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mozlover, hlsmlane, Tetris, mnguy66

        My point was simply that for all the people who are characterizing this as the worst anti-choice amendment to a bill ever, they should look at where the right to choose was protected in this bill.

        It is not as bad as it could have been, is all I am saying.

        Too many people will not read it that way because they have tunnel vision about abortion, but I do not.

        In a perfect world, abortion would never, ever be needed. Women wouldn't get raped, birth control would never fail, and in the event a woman could not afford to carry a baby to term, the government health care would be able to take care of her and her child as long as possible - or - would provide her with the means to give that baby up to a couple who cannot have children and wants one.

        Adoptions would be high, and abortions would be low and would literally only be used when absolutely medically necessary.

        But we do not live in a perfect world, so this scenario is not plausible.

        It would be nice if government would do more to make this perfect world scenario a little more achievable, but that will take a lot more time and a lot more political will.

      •  If there's any justice .... (0+ / 0-)

        perhaps only the sons of the folks who voted for and support Sutpak's mess will be accused of rape so that a woman can qualify for help.

        They should think about that one.

        In honor of the Obama Administration's actions on GLBT issues during Pride month, Pride 2009 is proclaimed "Back of the Bus Pride Month".!

        by emsprater on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 01:27:08 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  The bill subsidizes small businesses (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      buckhorn okie

      to provide health insurance to their employees.

      Under Stupak, a business that accepts a subsidy will be limited in the plans it can offer its employees, differently from other businesses in the same neighborhood, on the same block.

      Is the business even going to be able to find a group policy that does NOT cover abortion?

      If this passes, then it is reasonable to legislate that people who accept food stamps cannot live in a town that has an abortion provider. That's how tenuous is the connection.

      Ignorance isn't exactly bliss but some things are better known when they are unknown to start with and pieced together on the way. - WineRev

      by Clem Yeobright on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 01:22:26 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  That business can, (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mozlover

        under sub-section (b), pay for a separate "mini plan" that includes more abortion access, as long as that second "mini plan" is not paid for by the government.  

        Furthermore, the amendment is already closely tailored to the status quo in the private market.  I'd be surprised if anyone on this site has medical insurance that covers more than Stupak does.  And certainly, those of us without medical insurance would be paying out-of-pocket today for abortions that Stupak will pay for.

        The day may come, when the rest of the animal creation may acquire those rights which never could have been withholden from them but by the hand of tyranny.

        by Tetris on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 01:26:05 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  My plan covers abortion, no q's asked. (0+ / 0-)

          I'd be surprised if anybody's doesn't.

          Know what? That abortion add-on is likely to come with a rebate, a negative cost, since the insurance company is way ahead if someone chooses an abortion instead of full natal care. Does the company get to keep that rebate even if the bill paid 100% of the primary plan premiums?

          Ignorance isn't exactly bliss but some things are better known when they are unknown to start with and pieced together on the way. - WineRev

          by Clem Yeobright on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 01:39:14 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  I think I will reverse that question (0+ / 0-)

        Is the business even going to be able to find a plan that does cover 'elective' abortions.  Basically no large plan does now (not to mention crappy co-pays for birth control while covering viagra).

        I support abortion coverage within a single payer system.  But I am not sure this amendment changes the status quo much.

        "Empty vessels make the loudest sound, they have the least wit and are the greatest blabbers" Plato

        by Empty Vessel on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 01:59:42 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  THAT will never happen. (0+ / 0-)

          Once we get single payer, abortion coverage will never get through Congress.

          And yes, this amendment changes the status quo.

          Ignorance isn't exactly bliss but some things are better known when they are unknown to start with and pieced together on the way. - WineRev

          by Clem Yeobright on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 02:05:19 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Thanks for your perspective. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mozlover

      You're right to be skeptical of my analysis -- that the "devil is in the details."

      For example, pregnancies which have a "danger" to death -- as well as conditions arising from pregnancy -- may be aborted with federal funding.  This should include pregnancies that lead to diabetes and paralysis, among other "conditions."  However, judge could conceivably read this ever more broadly, or even more narrowly.  Does a "danger" mean even a 1% chance, or must there be a "reasonable likelihood" of death (>50%)?  

      I think some other language in this bill is hopeful that it will be interpreted broadly.  Namely, there are no criminal penalties attached, and a physician must merely "certify" that there is a danger.  As long as the physician does so in good faith, I can't imagine any situation where anyone would get in trouble.

      The bill is also ambiguous about how to qualify for the rape or incest protection.  I assume it must merely be alleged and certified by the doctor, since there is no accompanying procedural law on that issue.  But again, the devil is in the details and it could turn out more poorly than my reasonable but admittedly non-omniscient analysis assumes.

      The day may come, when the rest of the animal creation may acquire those rights which never could have been withholden from them but by the hand of tyranny.

      by Tetris on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 01:22:42 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  This is a fair analysis to a point. (8+ / 0-)

    However it ignores the underlying assumptions driving the amendment, which are inherently sexist. The idea that "federal funding" can be denied on an ad hoc basis to a single medical procedure is inherently flawed.  Women contribute to the funding, yet women are the only ones directly impacted by this exclusion. That is inherently unfair, and in this case it's inherently sexist. It's also intrusive, in that it acts as a bar to a perfectly legal procedure.

  •  Well written but I don't agree (11+ / 0-)

    It is a legal medical procedure. If you don't like it, I sumbit you use your right to choose not to have one. And the whole idea of "in case of rape" is absurd. Does the jury have to find the rapist guilty before an abortion is allowed? Those things can drag on well over nine months.

    I know theft is illegal, but look at all the cool stuff I got!

    by BoiseBlue on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 12:43:58 PM PST

  •  Don't agree (6+ / 0-)

    The Stupak amendment can be used as a shield by Democrats in conservative districts, such as my home in South Dakota, where pro-life sentiment is strong.  Additionally, this can be used as a way to reach out to religious organizations who are pro-life but like the idea of helping out the poor with health care.  

    And it can be used to show how little the democratic party really cares about womens rights these days. That also works well in the more conservative areas.

    What group should be used as political football? I vote for Latinos (gays got Maine and now this attack agaisnt women).

    So, what to take away from them? And if they complain, let's just say that it is good for the democrats in conservative areas.

    "Hey Joe, could you check his bearings. Again!"

    by allmost liberal european on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 12:44:10 PM PST

  •  Well done. There is another reason you should (6+ / 0-)

    mention. As I understand, most insurance plans do not currently cover elective abortions. Also, those getting subsidies to buy plans which cannot cover abortions, don't have coverage today. So they are not worse off than they are today.

    I don't like the Hyde amendment, or the Stupak amendment. But Stupak does not put anyone in a worse position than they are today.

    •  Yes it does. (0+ / 0-)

      Employers may receive a tax consideration through this plan to cover health insurance for employees.

      If they now carry a plan covering abortion, they will be forced to cancel it and buy another (which may be more expensive).

      And, in fact, the employer may not know when he arranges a plan that at the end of the year he will receive a tax rebate; how does he know, then, if the group plan he selected will suddenly become illegal?

      And the employee is nothing but a pawn in the whole matter!

      Ignorance isn't exactly bliss but some things are better known when they are unknown to start with and pieced together on the way. - WineRev

      by Clem Yeobright on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 01:28:02 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  You're wrong. This only cover appropriated (0+ / 0-)

        funds, not tax deductions or credits.

        •  The diarists sees it differently (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Gary Norton

          whether through the public option, a government-subsidized private plan, or the use of tax credits  

          Are you sure tax credits aren't classified as expenditures?

          Ignorance isn't exactly bliss but some things are better known when they are unknown to start with and pieced together on the way. - WineRev

          by Clem Yeobright on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 01:58:03 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yes, 100%. It only covers appropriated (0+ / 0-)

            funds. Tax credits and deductions are not appropriations. (I used to write this stuff for a living.) Also note that the diarist wrote an update where he states he may have taken liberties with what is in the bill. Final note. There may be other things in the bill which create a problem, though I don't think so, but this provision does not.

  •  There is no good reason... (11+ / 0-)

    on this earth why an amendment that singles out and penalizes women should be in any piece of legislation. Denying coverage on moral/religious grounds? It's ludicrous.. bad enough when the insurance companies deny coverage because of profits.  

    •  There are other elective procedures which (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mozlover

      not covered due on moral grounds.  This one is just the most hotly debated.  I am pro-choice, but let's face it if someone wanted a sex change operation for psychological reasons, I am sure it is not covered by most insurance plans.  Why not?  Moral/religious reasons.

      That is just one example off the top of my head.  This is about who pays, not making it illegal.  Insurance covers some things and not others all the time in reality.  What about paying for a heart transplant for a 98 year old with other medical conditions?  I bet not.  For moral reasons.  "Better to have it go to someone else".  Taking out the morality from medicine is impossible, IMHO.

      There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were, and ask why not? - Robert Kennedy

      by choochmac on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 01:34:27 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  And if sex-change operations. (0+ / 0-)

        were singled out and put in a piece of legislation would it be okay? For me it's not about the coverage, it's about the United States Congress singling out women, and legislating their disapproval.

  •  brief response (11+ / 0-)

    A.  The amendment minimally interferes with abortion, and permits expansion of abortion access by federally funding abortion where there is an issue of life, health, rape and incest.

    Wrong. As your own citation to the bill and subsequent explication make clear, there is no exception for an issue of "health." There is no "health" exception unless the life of the woman would be snuffed out; that is, unless she can find a physician to certify that she would die unless she is allowed to remove an unwanted growth from her body.

    B.  The inclusion of the amendment is good for the Democrats.

    Wrong. It is bad for Democrats. It signals that Democrats will, same as GOoPers, bend the knee to demented fetal worship, while giving actual living women the back of their hand.

    C.  The opponents and supporters of the amendment exercised their moral consciousness.  

    Wrong. Your "moral consciousness" stops at my body, as mine stops at yours. Whatever I want to put in or take out of my body is none of your concern. You should not be permitted to use the government to codify your "moral consciousness," which is precisely what this amendment does.

    •  Response (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mozlover

      A.  If you read the amendment, it includes life-threatening physical conditions arising from pregnancy.  This means it would include, not only death while pregnant, but lifespan-shortening conditions like diabetes that might kill someone 20 years after pregnancy.  Again, note the physician "certified" standard and the lack of criminal penalties to see that it should be easy to convince a physician to sign off on a legitimate problem.  I can't think of any health conditions that would warrant an abortion but are not covered by the language in this statute.  If you want to brainstorm and reply, I'll do my best to acknowledge your hypothetical if you come up with a good one.

      B & C.  This isn't about you and me; this is about what interest the government/society has in protecting a fetus, and at what stage in development.  As I argued in "C", ANY stance on this is a mixture of valuable moral insight and arbitrariness.  

      The day may come, when the rest of the animal creation may acquire those rights which never could have been withholden from them but by the hand of tyranny.

      by Tetris on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 01:08:46 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  That's a possible interpretation of "life of (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Clem Yeobright

        the mother," but I really wouldn't want to stake someone's health to it.

        Revolutionary Road was an awful, awful film.

        by burrow owl on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 01:13:31 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  wrong (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        corvo, Clem Yeobright, tardis10, OldAthena

        You are hallucinating words that are not in the amendment. The actual words that exist in the actual amendment, taken from your own diary, are these:

        (a) IN GENERAL -- No funds authorized or appropriated by this Act (or an amendment made by this Act) may be used to pay for any abortion or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion, except in the case 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 unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself, or unless the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest.

        The words that you would want to put in there are not there. In order to remove an unwanted growth from her body, a physician must certify that "the woman [is] in danger of death unless an abortion is performed." This is not a "health" exception, this is a "life" exception.

        I have a feeling you are not real familiar with the history of the struggle over abortion rights in the years post-Wade. Otherwise you would recognize a "life" exception when you see one, and not try to pass it off as a "health" exception.

      •  20 years down the road? Hardly. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        blueness

        Read the damned amendment.

        Now you're just making shit up, tetris.

        Stop making shit up!

        Ignorance isn't exactly bliss but some things are better known when they are unknown to start with and pieced together on the way. - WineRev

        by Clem Yeobright on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 01:31:07 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Admission. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          mozlover

          I admit that the "death in 20 years" as covered by this amendment is speculative, but the position is clearly supported in the text.  I included the text of the amendment precisely so people can make their own judgment about my conclusions.  I never purported to be infallible.  

          The day may come, when the rest of the animal creation may acquire those rights which never could have been withholden from them but by the hand of tyranny.

          by Tetris on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 02:23:31 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  There are criminal penalties (0+ / 0-)

        It's called the False Claims Act.

        (a) Whoever, in any matter involving a health care benefit program, knowingly and willfully—
        (1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact; or
        (2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements or representations, or makes or uses any materially false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry,
        in connection with the delivery of or payment for health care benefits, items, or services, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

      •  and here: (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        OldAthena

        B & C.  This isn't about you and me; this is about what interest the government/society has in protecting a fetus, and at what stage in development.  As I argued in "C", ANY stance on this is a mixture of valuable moral insight and arbitrariness.

        you're dead wrong. Your "moral insight" into what happens in my body is not "valuable" in the least. Confine your "moral insight" to your own body, please

        And if you want to "protect[] a fetus," grow one in your own body. The various growths that form in other people's bodies are of no concern of yours.

        If the government is going to ensure health care for all, it needs to enable the removal of all unwanted growths. Not, as this amendment does, erect a protective barrier through which the government genuflects before a particular growth worshipped by demented god-bothered do-badders.

  •  Let's be honest, the Stupak Amendment is (5+ / 0-)

    nothing more than posturing.  The Hyde Amendment is still the law of the land.

    "Nothing is more powerful than an idea whose time has come." Victor Hugo

    by lordcopper on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 12:46:07 PM PST

  •  What Were the Explanations of the Womens' (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jaywillie, m00finsan

    groups that backed the amendment?

    When a group of citizens sacrifices rights or opportunity, I like to hear what made them willing to do so on behalf of society.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 12:47:31 PM PST

  •  The sad reality is that a lot of private (5+ / 0-)

    insurance will not pay for reproductive services. A number of years ago, I was stunned to learn that my employer-provided insurance would pay for birth control pills, which were considered a medication, but not for a diaphragm or IUD, which was considered a "device."

  •  Any stats on how many abortions the US government (5+ / 0-)

    pays for currently?

    I don't see why everyone is in such an uproar on this.  My suspicion is that it isn't really going to make things much different in that arena than they are today.

  •  If you think any abortion is NOT an elective (10+ / 0-)

    abortion, then you are profoundly ignorant of women. All women who have abortions choose them, and live with the profound consequences of that choice, irregardless of the circumstance of their pregnancy.

    But they should understand that the amendment only restricts elective abortions but maintains access to health (and rape/incest) related abortions.  It's fairly radical and left-wing to support federally funded elective abortions.

    This? This is tantamount to saying "we'll decide" for you. Imagine being forced to recount a rape by a family member to "justify" your decision to have an abortion? Women shouldn't have to go through that. Women can be trusted to make this decision without the interference of politicians, and anything less is bullshit.

  •  Here's the thing that gets me (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    acerimusdux, sersan, Clem Yeobright

    Why should Democrats have to kow-tow to the pro lifers when the public is on our side of this?  

    That is a rhetorical question, because I know the answer, which is even more infuriating.  The pro lifers will demagogue the hell out of HCR if we don't dance to their tune.  

    There has to be some way of combatting this because it is happening on issue after issue.  We have the majority in Congress, the majority in public opinion, and they still have to kowtow to the minority loudmouths in order to get anything done.  

    It's not like dancing with them gets us anywhere either.  They still vote against us even with all the compromising.  The stimulus bill is a great example.  It would have been far better to have cut the Republicans out of it completely, keep the funding and ditch the tax cuts, because we still didn't get any support in the house, and minimal support in the Senate for the final watered down package... which doesn't work as well as what we wanted but which we now own.  We're still being bashed over the stimulus so why not pass what we want and own THAT rather than owning something crafted by the other side.  

    Now I'm just rambling...  I suppose I should make this a diary or something.  

    I am the neo-con nightmare, I am a liberal with the facts.

    by bhfrik on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 12:52:34 PM PST

    •  Surprised (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mozlover, Aurelia

      I'd be surprised if this amendment did not have popular support.  Most Americans support the right to abortion, but within limits.  I highly suspect that this amendment falls within those limits that most Americans can agree with.

      This amendment falls right in the middle of the abortion issue, and I would also be surprised if pro-life groups didn't criticize this amendment as being too liberal still.

      The day may come, when the rest of the animal creation may acquire those rights which never could have been withholden from them but by the hand of tyranny.

      by Tetris on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 01:28:40 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  As a pro-choice feminist (10+ / 0-)

    I recognize that there may be an argument to be made for supporting this amendment. I read today that it ironically gave conservative Dems cover to vote for the bill. I do think health care reform will save lives--including children's--and that is the ultimate goal.

    But where your diary goes off the rails is where you talk about "arbitrary line-drawing." Um, unless you are advocating changing established law--a completely different issue--there is no arbitrariness involved.

    Elective abortions are legal! Sorry if you don't like it, but that is the fact, and to prevent federal funds going to the purchase of private plans that cover abortions is just ideological bullshit. It means that if you were a MAN buying a private plan that happens to cover abortions, you couldn't use a federal subsidy to do so. If you subscribe to such batshit insane policy proposals from the far right, I wonder what you are doing on this site.

    "A lost battle is a battle one thinks one has lost." --Sartre

    by hannahlk on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 12:53:20 PM PST

    •  We can still purchase plans that cover abortions! (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mozlover, Aurelia

      You just have to use your own money, like you do now.  It doesn't take away a right, it just limits the expansion of one.  And the federal funds can still be used if there's a certification of a danger of death, or a danger of a life-threatening condition.  

      Also, if you receive federal subsidy for insurance, you can use your own money to buy a miniature insurance plan that includes more abortion coverage.

      The day may come, when the rest of the animal creation may acquire those rights which never could have been withholden from them but by the hand of tyranny.

      by Tetris on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 01:12:46 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Abortion services are already horrifically hard (8+ / 0-)

    to get and the burden placed on poor women to a much greater extent. ANY restrictions, ESPECIALLY in a House, Senate and White House controlled by the Democratic Party is unacceptable.  Why is it that it is always so easy for political men to screw women, (children, interns, prostitutes, Argentinian journalists, staffers...)for political expediency.  I am horrified that Nancy Pelosi agreed to this.  I hope there is a back room deal to take this out in conference in the final bill.

  •  And many insurers don't provide (5+ / 0-)

    contraceptives. There are 24 states that require insurers to cover all prescription drugs ordered by doctors, including contraceptives, but there are also 26 that do not. The anti-choice folk would have them be outlawed as well.

    If this gets passed, it is a huge step in the wrong direction. The fact is that if men were the ones who had to carry fetuses to term, deliver babies, miss work, and often sacrifice their education or careers (and income which leads to pensions), the Stupak amendment would not have the support it has, here or in congress.

    Let's remember that we should care about people even after they're born. - Rep. Alan Grayson

    by StepLeftStepForward on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 12:55:08 PM PST

    •  Oops,this went meant as reply to blue jersey mom. (0+ / 0-)

      Let's remember that we should care about people even after they're born. - Rep. Alan Grayson

      by StepLeftStepForward on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 12:56:29 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Well said... (4+ / 0-)

      Oddly, men typically have no concern that Viagra and Cialis are covered by some plans, but contraceptives aren't.  That fact alone demonstrates the level of insignificance assigned to women's reproductive health.

    •  Carrying that one step further (3+ / 0-)

      I suspect that if men became pregnant (and I am reminded of (I think Friedan's) famous quote that if men became pregnant "abortion would be a sacrament"), the anti-abortion movement would exist only as a tiny fringe widely disregarded and certainly not paid heed in the halls of Congress. Anti-choicers stalk abortion clinics in part because they see women as easy prey. The nature of these anti-choicers is a profound contempt for women. That's the root of the anti-choice mindset, though it be dressed up in religious and moral terms. The fact is that those morals and religions all have one thing in common--they seek to "put women in their place."

      If men were the ones walking into those clinics, the protestors would rightly fear that their shrill screaming and waving obnoxious and offensive signs would most likely result in having their heads bashed in.  There would be a physical and likely violent reaction by men, and these radical anti-choicers would probably not survive that reaction.  Men are, for better or for worse, entrenched in the power structures that exist in this society, and the power structure would not stand for this type of intrusion.

       And ultimately, that's what this is about--not morals, not religion, not "life," but power.

  •  worthy of a recommendation (6+ / 0-)

    Not because I necessarily agree with you, but because you raise a point of view that others should read and think about.

  •  Other than your imagination (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Catte Nappe, blueness, m00finsan

    where do you get the idea that this:

    except in the case 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 unless an abortion is performed,

    will mean this:

    In practice, I imagine that health issues like major depression, paralysis, risk of diabetes, and so forth will be grounds for an abortion because those conditions carry a risk of death and people suffering from those conditions have shorter life spans.  This means that a de facto "health" exception (as opposed to strictly "death") will likely be interpreted from this language.  

    Nice idea and all but what leads you to imagine that?

  •  It's a VERY complicated issue (0+ / 0-)

    I don't think that anybody's tax dollars should go to fund abortions if they don't want to pay for them.  The problem is that outside of a short-term infusion of taxpayer dollars to get the public option set up, it's going to be self-sustainable.  Is it possible that abortion coverage under the public option could use a trigger?  Perhaps.  It's a point to raise.

    Pragmatic progressivism is the future.

    by Pragmaticus on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 01:03:12 PM PST

  •  I am sorry (7+ / 0-)

    But my body -- and any medical decision is not any of your business.

    "Proud to proclaim: I am a Bleeding Heart Liberal"

    by sara seattle on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 01:07:20 PM PST

  •  So we should be grateful (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    corvo, jj24, Alec82

    that there are no criminal penalties in the amendment? Talk about setting the bar incredibly low.

    Also, you should pick a better example for Part B. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin voted against both the Stupak Amendment and the final bill, so she was definitely not using it as a "shield" as you suggest.

  •  First abortions, next birth control (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Catte Nappe, corvo, jj24, OldAthena

    I hear more and more claims from pro-life people that the pill and other forms of birth control are really forms of abortion. After all, maybe they might cause a fertilized egg to not implant!

    But even if it stops here (and why would it), it does more than just prevent Federal dollars from being used to fund abortions. It forces anyone using the exchange to buy it as separate coverage outside the exchange, which is likely to greatly limit availability.

    And THAT is the reason for it, not their false claim that it prevents Federal dollars from being used to fund abortions. Of course, an honest statement that the purpose is to restrict access to legal abortion would have lost them some votes. So why not lie about their reasons, in a good cause?

    So, Tetris, I don't think you are right that this will "minimally interfere" with access to abortion. I hope you are right, but I don't think so. I grant you that it is a morally uncertain issue, but we aren't talking about whether abortions are moral or not -- we're talking about who gets to decide in the case of a specific woman.

    I'm not sure about your argument that this allows abortion coverage for certain cases where the status quo does not. What in this bill can be construed as overriding the Hyde amendment?

  •  You're pretty outrageous! (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Meteor Blades, corvo, jj24

    Go on and read the amendment all you want, however, its hidden and dangerous agenda is crystal clear to most of us! There's always more than meets the eye.

    The message in these kinds of maneuvers is quite clear: ultimately, its goal is to see the overturning of roe v. wade; to end abortion.

    An analogy for you:

    As a progressive, ultimately I want single-payer(for all the obvious reasons), and I know that the potential way to get there is through a Public Option. So, I am willing to accept a sliver of a piece of shit P/O for now, because.....its something for me to build on, you know, to finally get single-payer.

    Now, take my P/O strategy and apply it to the stup(id)ak amendment...apply it to any sneaky fucking maneuver pertaining to a woman's right to choose, and just try and tell me that the ultimate goal isn't to end abortion!

    This country was founded on the idea of equality.
    we are all about expanding rights not taking them away....(oh yea, except when it comes to women and gays), well fuck that! We're trying to move this country forward, not backward. Open your eyes. Your blind reasoning is dangerous.

    When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. ~H.G. Wells

    by ridemybike on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 01:10:17 PM PST

  •  The problem with the amendment (10+ / 0-)

    is that as I understand it it goes further than the Hyde amendment, which was already going to be applied to the bill. Prohibition of federal funding of abortion has been the law of the land since 1977 and if people are misinformed on that end thinking this amendment is the first time it does that then they are wrong.

    This amendment would prohibit women getting coverage for abortion even if they get NO federal money if they choose a PRIVATE plan from the exchange. It is there where the Stupak amendment goes into unprecedented territory. The issue of federal funding was not at issue here, it was already part of the bill, it is that restriction on private plans payed with private money that this amendment tackles and that is very much a horrific idea and why this amendment is so repugnant.

    "People place their hand on the Bible and swear to uphold the Constitution. They don't put their hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible." --J.R.

    by michael1104 on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 01:11:56 PM PST

    •  Excellent point. Tetris, respond! nt (0+ / 0-)

      Let's remember that we should care about people even after they're born. - Rep. Alan Grayson

      by StepLeftStepForward on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 01:15:22 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  he can't (3+ / 0-)

        because he can't make up an excuse when he put it right there in the diary himself:

        (2) Such coverage or plan is not purchased using --

           (A) individual premium payments required for a Exchange-participating health benefits plan towards which an affordability credit is applied; or

        If an affordability credit is applied to any private insurer in the exchange, i.e. if just one person receives such credit when choosing a private plan featured in the exchange, that insurance company is by law required to not cover abortions for all of it's customers. Including those customers who haven't taken out any subsidies to buy from the exchange.

        It would be incredibly naive to think that most of the plans that will be in the exchange will not be eligible to receive the subsidies from the government. That is absurd, that is about the only thing they like about the reform--the mandate for people to get insurance from them and receiving subsidies from those who can't afford it.

        "People place their hand on the Bible and swear to uphold the Constitution. They don't put their hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible." --J.R.

        by michael1104 on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 02:17:28 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Hilarious considering (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Massman, AmericanRiverCanyon

      the 30+ spiteful little men in the republican party that voted against the Franken rape arbitration amendment because they didn't want to interfere with private business.

    •  Tetris please respond. The silence is deafening. (0+ / 0-)

      eom

      "Jesus died for somebody's sins, but not mine" --Patti Smith

      by andrewj54 on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 01:54:37 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  There is NO health exception in the Amendment. (6+ / 0-)

    It says if the state of her health is such that it creates the risk of death the abortion is covered.

    That isn't a health exception.

  •  Well written diary.....but I think (3+ / 0-)

    that government should have nothing to say about my body or my granddaughter's body or your body.  PERIOD...no ifs,  ands, buts or butinskis.  Medical Care should be solely between one's self & one's doctor.  Abortion for whatever reason is medical care.

    And in addition...the result of this bill is to marginalize the poor even more than they already are.  Why should only the poor be forced to carry pregnancies to term?  And of course that isn't always the result:    I remember the coat hanger poor coming in with botched abortions...near death's door, back in the "good ol' days".  Don't want us going back there again.  

    •  Answer to your question: (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MA Liberal

      Why should only the poor be forced to carry pregnancies to term?

      Keep 'em barefoot, pregnant, poverty-stricken and uneducated so we can keep pulling the wool over their eyes and ruling the world! That's the ticket!

      Let's remember that we should care about people even after they're born. - Rep. Alan Grayson

      by StepLeftStepForward on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 01:21:18 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Wait, let me get this straight (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mozlover, Tetris, arcticshadow, Aurelia

    Because I supported the passage of a bill that offers health coverage for to up to 40 million Americans (presumably 20 million or more will be women) while modestly restricting federal funding for abortion, I'm anti-woman?

    How many of those women now will be able to afford OB/GYN care now because of the bill?
    How many of these women will be able to receive family-planning assistance because of this bill?
    How many women will be able to afford pharmaceutical birth control that will obviate the need for abortion? (Rendering this shit-fest moot, but let's not go there...)

    Sorry, doesn't wash for me. This all makes me anti-woman? This is insane.

    •  yes, you are anti woman (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Meteor Blades, MA Liberal

      .... so wear that new Hawaiian Bachman Lei with Teabagger Pride.

      Catholic Insurance.  All acts of sexual intercourse must be open to the possibility of the conception of a child, and the child must be carried to term unless a doctor swears an oath you really will die.  How many children can you afford ? Too bad. The government is now paying US to tell you to have another !

      Catholic Family Planning. You can opt out of having sex on certain days of the month, but that's it.

      Catholic Birth Control.  Illegal and immoral. So say the Bishops.

      Yay Catholic Insurance !  aka Babies R Us, and all your Womb belong to me.

      "Toads of Glory, slugs of joy... as he trotted down the path before a dragon ate him"-Alex Hall/ Stop McClintock

      by AmericanRiverCanyon on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 01:51:10 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Well think about the fact that (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Clem Yeobright

      they might also make it possible to deny planned parenthood services if those discussions include abortion.
      Bush passed such a stupid law for funds that went to third world clinics.
      And paying for abortions is fine with me. it's a medical procedure and should be covered.
      No man has the right to tell a woman what to do with her body.

      Electing conservatives is like hiring a carpenter who thinks hammers are evil.

      by MA Liberal on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 03:24:19 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  We've been told this for twenty years (6+ / 0-)

    The only downside I see is that it could anger pro-choice supporters who make up an important part of the base.  But they should understand...

    Maybe this 'understanding' thing should be a two way street.  When are you going to understand that I don't want to participate in your religion and don't want to live by your interpretation of your religion?

  •  Apologetic idiot. (6+ / 0-)

    I work full-time with the FDL team on health reform thanks to your donations.

    by slinkerwink on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 01:21:42 PM PST

  •  OK, before I even read the diary and comments (0+ / 0-)

    I have a question just  discussed with severla young women of my acquaintance.

    Exactly what difference is there between thre already existing Hyde amnemdnet which prohibits federal funding for abortions and the Stpak amendment which prohibits federal funds being spent on abortion in private policies or public option?

    In other words is it placing further prohibitions on already exisitng laws or prohibiting ffuture access to federal funds in taxpayer funded public option care?

    So have women LOST something or just not GAINED something.?

    Fact based answers would be appreciated.

    •  Lost something (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      blueness

      ... because now this POS amendment needs to be stripped out somehow or it screws up all the insurance that can be sold in the United States.  Which just turned Catholic Fundamentalist.

      It's way more restrictive than Hyde.

      I don't know if you saw the debate on it last night, because it went pretty late, but some of the women Congresspeople were very, very upset with this. They are the ones familiar with legislation and they know how this is going to muck up what can be offered in insurance policies-  in other words, it gives insurance a way to deny claims for a lot of women's health procedures again.  

      "Toads of Glory, slugs of joy... as he trotted down the path before a dragon ate him"-Alex Hall/ Stop McClintock

      by AmericanRiverCanyon on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 01:36:59 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  "not gained" something. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mozlover, sephius1

      They lose NOTHING.

      1. Private plans and government plans don't cover abortions excluded (non-life/rape/incest) by this amendment.
      1. This bill will cost something like $900 billion.  All the amendment says is that this $900 billion won't go to abortions, unless the abortion is certified as being some danger to life, or rape/incest.
      1.  Women who get the $900 billion are probably poor and uninsured or underinsured now.  The truth is, they will actually have MORE access to abortions since an abortion certified as some danger to life can be aborted with this new infusion of cash.  In the status quo, they are probably paying out of pocket for it.  Only women who want a non-life/rape/incest abortion are "not gaining" something.  And I'm okay with them coughing up $300 for an abortion.

      The day may come, when the rest of the animal creation may acquire those rights which never could have been withholden from them but by the hand of tyranny.

      by Tetris on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 01:38:26 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  OK: Above ar TWO different opinions? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        sephius1

        perspectives, pov's, which is the correct interpretation?

        •  Framing (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          mozlover, soccergrandmom

          Since this whole health care bill is a gift to people (by subsidizing their health care costs with federal money), and since the Stupak amendment is limited to only funds in the health care bill, it goes to reason that nothing is being "taken away."  The amendment merely limits the gift, saying if the health care bill funds are used for abortion, it must be due to a danger to life, rape or incest.

          The day may come, when the rest of the animal creation may acquire those rights which never could have been withholden from them but by the hand of tyranny.

          by Tetris on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 01:45:30 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  I think the key word is "elective". (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mozlover, Tetris

    I am a woman and a mother, and I came very close to having an abortion once-- I scheduled it and everything (why I didn't need to keep the appointment isn't relevant here). But I would never expect to use taxpayer money to fund it. The pregnancy was half my fault (for failing to take the pill or insist that my husband use a condom), and aborting it was a personal choice. I certainly don't want to trivialize abortion, but for elective cases, I don't think it should be covered by taxpayer-funded insurance any more than a breast augmentation or rhinoplasty should be. Shouldn't all elective procedures be the financial responsibility of the person electing them?

    •  It's not just elective abortions (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      blueness, AmericanRiverCanyon

      It's also if they are necessary to prevent serious health problems.

      •  Didn't the diary just say the opposite (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mozlover

        of that? Medically necessary abortions would still be covered, to preserve the health of the mother?

        •  Minute discrepancy. (0+ / 0-)

          Consider the language of the bill:

          All abortions certified as a "danger to life" may be federally funded.

          The commenter suggests there are some "serious health problems" that are not a "danger to life."  If this is true, then they are not covered by the bill.  However, I can't think of any "serious health problems" that a person could not find a physician to "certify" as a "danger to life."  Thus, I think the two terms are interchangeable and you can see why the "life" of the mother exception is also, for all practical purposes, a "health" exception as well.

          The day may come, when the rest of the animal creation may acquire those rights which never could have been withholden from them but by the hand of tyranny.

          by Tetris on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 01:42:55 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  The diary asserts it (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          blueness

          But it is patently untrue.  Read the statutory text.

      •  All serious health problems are a danger to life. (0+ / 0-)

        How many "serious health problems" cannot be certified by a physician as some "danger" to life?  I can't think of any.  All serious health problems have a danger of death or shortened lifespan, and a physician certification for an abortion should be easy to get.  

        The day may come, when the rest of the animal creation may acquire those rights which never could have been withholden from them but by the hand of tyranny.

        by Tetris on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 01:40:20 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  You are just making shit up (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Clem Yeobright, blueness

          There is a very well developed body of federal and state case law about the meaning of those exact words because that exact language has applied to expenditures under Medicare for 30 years.  

          It is settled law, no matter how much you claim otherwise.

          •  Amended. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            mozlover

            I was merely positing, but I'll amend.  Blindness is a good example that another commentator mentioned that could be serious but not a danger to life.  Although, there are a battery of arguments that are addressed in my diary that minimize the impact of blindness not being covered by federal funds (certification may be still be achieved, most plans have limited abortion coverage anyway, the people who are getting federal subsidies probably are underinsured now and would pay out of pocket anyway...)

            I don't think you needed to use foul language though, that was very uncivil of you.  I would like an apology from you, since I conceded the point, and since you unnecessarily turned up the volume of incivility on this site.

            The day may come, when the rest of the animal creation may acquire those rights which never could have been withholden from them but by the hand of tyranny.

            by Tetris on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 02:09:46 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  Kind of like heart attacks (0+ / 0-)

      You don't have to eat fried foods and transfats so the public option shouldn't pay for your angioplasty unless you can prove that you ate healthy for every day in your life.

      •  I don't agree with the analogy. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mozlover

        If you need an angioplasty to save your life, no matter the cause, it should be covered. If you need an abortion to save your life, it should be covered. But if you want an abortion for non-health reasons, it becomes "elective" and basically falls into the same category as plastic surgery.

        •  Why? (0+ / 0-)

          If you want to eat shit and ruin your body why should I pay for that?  You elected to be in poor health and I shouldn't have to bail you out.

          •  Because the focus is on saving lives. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            mozlover

            People screw up all the time, but the point is to keep them alive. I'm a fit person, around 115 lbs, no smoking or drugs. I don't like paying to bail out the smokers & obese people from their self-induced conditions, but I'm still willing to do it, because it's better than letting them die.

            But many abortions are a choice that has nothing to do with physical health (or even mental health, for that matter). My own planned abortion was a lifestyle decision-- another child would've meant more noise, more chaos, more demands on my time, etc. I'd never ask the taxpayers to pay for a procedure when it was based on reasons like that.

        •  By that logic. (0+ / 0-)

          Ichthyosis shouldn't be covered.  Even though it affects your life, many cases are not fatal.  Therefore, the prescriptions shouldn't be covered, right?

          •  Pic didn't show up...here ya go. (0+ / 0-)

            •  Geez, the poor kid... n/t (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              mozlover

              But the difference is that a woman has the option to go ahead with the pregnancy and then give the child up for adoption. End result either way: she doesn't have a kid. Wisdom teeth, blindness, ichthyosis, etc. don't work like that... they can't be resolved through non-medical means.

              Don't get me wrong-- I am pro-choice; I absolutely believe women should have the right to abort. This is just about the use of taxpayer money.

              •  And that child can (0+ / 0-)

                choose to live life without treatment.  If a woman chooses to continue the pregnancy, their health will be impacted.  The pregnancy doesn't magically end with no fuss, no muss, no pain, no scars, and no lifelong questions about the life of the child you give up.  

                Pregnancy is not some antiseptic process that doesn't affect your body.

                •  I know, I have two kids (0+ / 0-)

                  and a third due next month. I know what it does to my body. And how it changes my whole life.

                  But I wouldn't feel right about using any kind of government funding to pay for an abortion, unless it was the result of rape or incest, or unless it posed a serious threat to my health. I'd find another way to pay for it.

                  The baby with ichthyosis had absolutely no way to prevent its condition. (I certainly had ways to prevent mine.) Should personal responsibility factor into it? I don't know... I don't have all the answers.

    •  I'm pretty sure that in medical speak "elective" (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Clem Yeobright, theatre goon

      simply means any surgery that is not considered to be an emergency. When I had my wisdom teeth removed, it was called an elective surgery because it didn't need to be done asap. However, had I not done it at all, my teeth would be pretty fucked up.

      •  The term "elective..." (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        a girl in MI

        ...is being tossed around a lot in this debate in many diaries, often with no real agreement on what the term actually means.

        If you dig zombies, and get the chance, go here and vote for Video#10. Thanks.

        by theatre goon on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 01:31:31 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Not just "emergency" (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mozlover

        The language of the bill makes it clear that if a pregnancy will cause a condition that is a danger to life, it may be aborted with federal funds.  It is not limited to emergencies.  In fact, conditions that take years or decades to kill someone prematurely should still be covered by federally funded abortions.  Remember, the standard here is whether a physician will "certify" that it is a "danger."  If that condition is met, then the federal government will pay for the abortion.

        The day may come, when the rest of the animal creation may acquire those rights which never could have been withholden from them but by the hand of tyranny.

        by Tetris on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 01:48:50 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Tysiac v Poland (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Clem Yeobright

          A case before the European Court of Human Rights.  Pregnacy caused Plaintiff to go blind.  

          Explain how that is a threat to life.

          •  Good example. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            mozlover

            If blind people have shorter life spans, a greater chance of accidents, or the underlying cause of the blindness could have caused problems in other organs, then a physician could have "certified" the abortion.

            Even if there were no certification, the woman (a) probably does not have health care insurance coverage for that abortion now, (b) can probably find a couple hundred dollars for the abortion anyway, and (c) could have purchased, with her own money, a secondary limited insurance plan with more abortion coverage.

            You do have a good example though, and it is problematic.  I some "serious health problem" language should have been inserted.  But even without the language, the harm is existent but very limited.  

            The day may come, when the rest of the animal creation may acquire those rights which never could have been withholden from them but by the hand of tyranny.

            by Tetris on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 02:05:06 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  This is one of my main disagreements... (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              mozlover, Tetris

              ...with your overall thesis.

              I think you're somewhat overly optimistic that the language will be interpreted to actually mean that it is a defacto health exemption.

              You are correct in that it logically and legally does so -- but there are entirely too many judges out there that do not necessarily follow logic and/or legalities, not to mention legislators who wouldn't know logic or the law if it came up and bit 'em.  It remains too open to interpretation as written, in my non-lawyerly opinion.

              If you dig zombies, and get the chance, go here and vote for Video#10. Thanks.

              by theatre goon on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 02:08:38 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Best opposition I've read. (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                mozlover, theatre goon

                I'm still for the amendment though, for the reasons I addressed in my reply to you.

                The day may come, when the rest of the animal creation may acquire those rights which never could have been withholden from them but by the hand of tyranny.

                by Tetris on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 02:10:50 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Um... (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  mozlover

                  I don't think you've replied to my only other post in this discussion so far -- perhaps you've gotten me confused with another commenter?

                  I can easily see how that could be, with the number of replies you've responded to -- kudos, by the way, for keeping up with it as well as you have.

                  If you dig zombies, and get the chance, go here and vote for Video#10. Thanks.

                  by theatre goon on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 02:15:01 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

              •  There's no room for that interpretion (0+ / 0-)

                In my lawyerly opinion.

                Coincidently, I am assisting with a law review article on public funding of abortion at the moment, so I can say with absolute certainty that this bill won't be interpreted as containing a de facto health exception.

        •  the person I was replying to said: (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Clem Yeobright

          Shouldn't all elective procedures be the financial responsibility of the person electing them?

          I can think of all sorts of elective procedures that should be a part of any decent insurance plan

  •  Personally... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mozlover, Tetris

    ...I think the amendment sucks.  Badly.

    However, I also have to say that, in order to get what we want (the beginnings of health care reform), we may have to bite the bullet and put up with some things that suck.

    If anyone really thought that we were going to end up with something that much of anyone here at DKos would think is a "good" HCR bill right out of the gate, I think you need to wake up and join the real world, where we often have to make compromises that stink out loud to get something that we want in return.

    I do not think the amendment will stand -- but I could, of course, be wrong on that.  If it does stand, I do not think it will be upheld by the Courts.

    I did rec the diarist for making a logical, forceful -- though very unpopular -- argument.  I do not agree with it completely, but it does have important points to make, which should be courteously discussed.  I've seen a lot of courteous discussion -- I've also seen name-calling and personal attacks which should have no place.

    If you dig zombies, and get the chance, go here and vote for Video#10. Thanks.

    by theatre goon on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 01:30:03 PM PST

    •  this entire site is going to go to conservative (0+ / 0-)

      ... hell because of the new political correctness which prevents racist, sexist, sell out capitulating a$$holes who wish to destroy women and minoritie's civil rights from being referred to as such.

      May as well tip the diarist for advocating the next bombing of an abortion clinic as being justified- after all, some people do believe in compromising.

      "Toads of Glory, slugs of joy... as he trotted down the path before a dragon ate him"-Alex Hall/ Stop McClintock

      by AmericanRiverCanyon on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 01:42:06 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Who the hell are you or anyone else besides (5+ / 0-)

    the women to decide a women right to have an abortion, only if it's a matter of life and death, incest etc? It's none of your dawn business. Concern yourself with your own fucking matters and what between your legs or in your stomach. Keep your religious beliefs the fuck out of everybody elses business.

  •  I (and you also) should not support this (5+ / 0-)

    Sorry, this diary inaccurately justifies the Stupak amendment and provokes a lot of comments that aren't really relevant to the objections being raised by many progressives. A: The Stupak amendment will exclude insurance plans providing comprehensive abortion coverage from the health care exchanges. B: It is NOT GOOD for Democrats to abandon democratic principles. C: The assumption that "moral consciousness" was being exercised is laughable. Since when is it mandatory to accomodate minority self rightousness. D. I do not and should not support the Stupak amendment.

    •  I gave your comment a recommend. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mozlover

      A: The Stupak amendment will exclude insurance plans providing comprehensive abortion coverage from the health care exchanges.

      For at least correctly characterizing the amendment.  It does deny "comprehensive" abortion coverage.  But, it permits "necessary" abortion coverage -- as in life, health, rape and incest.

      Some people are characterizing the amendment as an attack on all abortions, even life-saving ones.  One recommended diarist even talks about an abortion that saved her mom's life, that would ironically be funded by this amendment.  

      I respect your opinion and your fair characterization of the amendment.

      The day may come, when the rest of the animal creation may acquire those rights which never could have been withholden from them but by the hand of tyranny.

      by Tetris on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 01:52:34 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I agree and well said (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mozlover

    Hard to know if others have said this in the previous 277 comments. Basically, women will be able to access abortion if, in their autonomous decision, an abortion is for the good of their health and their freely chosen doctor agrees to proceed. They can then get reimbursed by their health plan.

  •  Not so cut and dry (0+ / 0-)

    Although I would consider myself to be a right-winged individual, I have a tough time supporting this amendment based on the argument that it is a "morally uncertain issue". I believe that an amendment should support the majority opinion of the United States and serves the better interest of the people. Legislation based in the US is a reflection of the beliefs and ideals held by the people of this country. By saying that the majority of individuals in this country are not totally convinced one way or the other on a particular moral issue, we should pass an amendment anyways seems sort of backwards to me.

    I would rather support the decision to wait to pass any legislation until a more comprehensive opinion can be covered. Maybe this is too utopian of an opinion, but it makes more sense than proceeding with this legislation with the attitude that no progress can be made so why not just move forward now?

  •  The fact we already had an amendment (4+ / 0-)

    (hyde amendment) what other reason would another amendment be added except some anti-choice fanatic's attempt to add restrictions? If this crap stays in the bill, it need to be taken to the supreme court. The amendment is unconstitutional. It is in violation of Roe v Wade.

    The Dems who wrote this amendment, obviously used the Dem label to infiltrate the party and impose upon the rest of us, their rightwing religious fanatical agenda. A Dems joining rightwing Republican Pence to push this crap?

    Keep your religion the fuck out of my life and the government. You are a bounch of bullshitters anyway.

  •  Where's the part that guarantees access (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    chillindame

    to the morning after pill in every state of the union for when people make mistakes? So that women are not forced to have babies when a condom breaks for instance?

    Yes we did, yes we will. President Obama

    by marketgeek on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 01:57:32 PM PST

    •  technically illegal now, congratulations DemParty (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      marketgeek

      ... for setting back women's reproductive rights another 40 years.

      "Toads of Glory, slugs of joy... as he trotted down the path before a dragon ate him"-Alex Hall/ Stop McClintock

      by AmericanRiverCanyon on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 03:08:19 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Is it? If so, huge mistake (0+ / 0-)

        It's legal here in Oregon without prescription, the object being to save everyone the agony of choosing what to do and offering a humane and simple way to deal with unwanted pregnancy before it is a problem. I don't understand the difficulty--it is not considered an abortifacient medically.

        Yes we did, yes we will. President Obama

        by marketgeek on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 03:41:19 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  I have now read the diary and have recommended (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mozlover, Aurelia

    it as it presents a more pragmatic approach and if the penalty for not including it was failure of the entire bill it would have been a total disaster.

    The issue is as much a religious and hot button emotional anti-Catholic one as it is a health issue and i don't see anything that changes anyhthing from the original Hyde amendment.

    The key is that no federal funds can be used and that was already in effect.

    Of course women legislatoprs are upset, and so are the majority of pro-choice women, It is not enough as far as I am concerened to scuttle the entire ship.

    I don't get into arguments about these issues. People's minds are already set in stone and nothing can change them.

    I will do whatever I can do to get some kind of health care reform bill through. My families line in the sand is pre-exisiting conditions and recission.

    •  I don't think it means what he thinks it means (2+ / 0-)

      Not just "no Federal funds can be used". No policy in the exchange, even if entirely privately funded, can offer abortion services except under the stated conditions.

      The camel's nose is now officially in the tent...

      •  my interpretation was that no policy in the (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mozlover

        exchange, even if privately funded, can offer abortion services IF federal subsidies are used, except if the abortion meets the specified standards, which do appear to be pretty malleable - if physician ordered.

        True, one might need to shop around for a physician to 'order' an abortion for affecting the woman's health as described, if the woman has accepted federal subsidies to qualify for the public option or even Medicaid.  

        But that is already true. Very very few doctors will perform abortions anyway.

        IT does not change my opinion that denying the entire bill on these gounds was worth it.

        That would have been an utter and total disaster and would have killed the Obama agenda and vision stone cold dead in the water.

        I appreciate people's hoenst anguish, but SOMETHING MUST go through so we can ALL  focus on improving it as we try and shift the cultural and political climate in this nation at each ealection cycle.

        I won't contribute to throwing this baby out with the bathwater. Sorry. That is my position.

        So the camel is already in the tent.

  •  I went to church and i saw all the peachers in (5+ / 0-)

    my father's wh*rehouse. I became a nurse and i saw the church goers and rightwingers have abortions in the hospitals, sometimes in the dead of night. I have a few rightwingers relatives and their friends alway preach to me about finding the lord. But when they fuckup and get pregnant, they come to me for advice and money to get an abortion. These people live in a fantasy world, when reality smack them in the face, they act like the people they criticize and condemn. It all bullshit! Keep your shit to yourselves.

  •  I don't support the Stupak amendment (3+ / 0-)

    because it is based on his religious beliefs and not mind. Are his belief favored over mind, and why?

  •  Where you are wrong (6+ / 0-)

    A - The impact is not minimal

    First off, it is quite clear that there is no exception here for the health of the mother, and trying to demagogue that away does your argument no good. The argument that some doctors may choose to break the law is weak sauce. You may as well argue that some women could pretend to be raped to get around it. This doesn't change the fact that the overwhelming majority of women with a need for abortion for health reasons which fall short of a life-threatening condition, will be denied as is the intent of the law.

    It is also not true that this is no change. this standard does apply to medicaid, due to the Hyde amendment, which applies only to appropriations through HHS. But it hasn't been applied before to tax credits.

    When I get a tax credit, I am getting my own money back, I am not spending your tax dollars. I should be able to apply tax credits to any legally deductible medical expense, just as Health Savings accounts can currently be used to pay for any such expense including abortions. This is not an extension of current law, it is an expansion of the denial of the individual's freedom of conscience.

    B - This is clearly not good for Democrats.

    It is never good for Democrats to abandon their principles on an issue where their usual position is the broadly popular majority position. Over 60% of the country supports a public option for example. Would you say it was good for Democrats to abandon a public option in order to try and be more popular with the other 40%? Abortion is the same, it is far more important for Democrats to stand for something and support the 60% who believe in individual liberty and freedom of conscience.

    C - Yes, different people have different moral viewpoints on this, but all moral viewpoints are not created equal. Clearly, there is only one rational, enlightened liberal approach here.  And that is clearly not the approach taken by most opponents, who instead inherit their values on this generally through a patriarchical and authoritarian socially conservative mindset, through institutions which promote such views, and through invented traditions, which are really designed to quash liberal values.  

    Look at the degree to which religion gets tied up in this for example. The simple fact is that there is no prohibition of abortion anywhere in scripture. And the historical tradition of both Christianity and Judaism is that life begins at quickening, or when the fetus is formed, at least 1 to 2 months into pregnancy. Yes, there are people who believe differently today, but what is the real origin of that belief?

    For Catholics, the doctrines of immediate hominization and papal infallibility were both only first declared in the late 19th century, both part of the backlash against the Enlightenment. It is pretty clear that such arbitrarily declared laws are more easily accepted by authoritarian mindsets than by students of reason and history.

  •  Abortion (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    AmericanRiverCanyon

    If you don't think that women have a right to an abortion should their conscience and medical advice dictate one, then that is your opinion. But don't force it on others.
    It's like gay marriage: If you don't believe in it, don't marry a gay person!

    •  Those who are opposed believe... (0+ / 0-)

      ...that someone else's abortion or gay marriage harms them, directly or indirectly. So that argument won't work on people who disagree.

      It doesn't work in general, either. E.g., I am opposed to bribery, even if there's no direct effect on me. And I am opposed to torture, even if I will never be tortured. Of course, those cases aren't comparable to abortion or gay marriage. But we need to make the case for why they aren't comparable, if we want to do more than just talk among ourselves.

  •  I think you underestimate the backlash (3+ / 0-)

    If we aren't the party that protects a woman's right to choose, then who is?  

    I know, you say it isn't prohibiting, it's just defunding with Federal dollars.

    Well, will that distinction be apparent to progressive women?  Or when election day comes around will they stay home in droves, or worse, vote Republican because there's no real difference on women's health in their eyes, so why not go ahead and vote on some other issue they might prefer the R take on?

    It will cost us mightily at the polls if health care passes with the amendment in.

    If we leave the "l" out, I'll bet we can get David Vitter to vote for the public option.

    by nightsweat on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 03:03:13 PM PST

  •  I'm so glad that old white religious folks in (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Clem Yeobright, QueenMaeve

    Congress have the ultimate say about whether my doctor and I consider my abortion "necessary."

    •  if I could just say (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Inspired By Nature

      A couple of years back, my wife and I had our girls get the gardasil vaccine at the ages of 12 and 15.  It was an out of pocket cost not covered by insurance, but worth it in our opinion.

      My sister in law, who is neither old nor white, was extremely upset because we were encouraging sexual promiscuity.  Guess which side of the abortion debate she falls on?

  •  Oh, please... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    markw, mozlover, lazybum, QueenMaeve

    So a woman has to face death in order to get an abortion? Are you kidding me man? Abortion needs to be available and free, if possible. We can't put restrictions like death on it.
    The Stupak amendment will only drive abortions into the back alleys again, not a good place to be.
    So typical of a man, who will never have to have an abortion, deciding what is right for women.
    If men could get pregnant, abortion would always be safe and legal. Although, considering how many men (especially Republicans) can't keep it in their pants, there would probably be more abortions than with only women getting pregnant.
    NO MAN, has the right to decide what a woman does with her body.
    NO MAN. Get it?

    Electing conservatives is like hiring a carpenter who thinks hammers are evil.

    by MA Liberal on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 03:21:01 PM PST

    •  Bravo...just (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Aranfell

      had the same argument in another thread.  The concept that we have the right to have an abortion, but not the right to have access to one is overwhelmingly surreal.  

    •  wow (0+ / 0-)

      The Stupak amendment will only drive abortions into the back alleys again, not a good place to be.

      I can't agree with that analysis.  It is an extreme exaggeration - try to invoke fear about how bad it used to be in order to eliminate discussion?

      NO MAN, has the right to decide what a woman does with her body.

      When it is purely the woman's body, I'd agree.  The part that gets sticky is as a pregnancy proceeds, at some point there are two people.  What that point is becomes a matter of debate.  Example, I don't think an abortion in the 8th month should be legal in an otherwise healthy pregnancy.  At this stage the "fetus" would be capable of surviving apart from the mother.

      These discussions are next to impossible to have, and probably pointless.  Nobody is going to move from their position on the basis of words.

      •  Disagree. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MA Liberal

        The Stupak amendment will only drive abortions into the back alleys again, not a good place to be.

        I can't agree with that analysis.  It is an extreme exaggeration - try to invoke fear about how bad it used to be in order to eliminate discussion?

        Maybe you consider it extreme, but it is the truth.  If women are required to pay for insurance which doesn't cover abortions and can't afford the out-of-pocket expense when they need one, they will either be forced into those exact situations or conservatives will see an influx of babies in the foster care system.  Conservatives will then whine and moan about big government budgets and whine about the rising pricetag of foster care.

        •  ok... (0+ / 0-)

          What do women do now when they don't have insurance? Lack of insurance coverage was one of the big driving factors of this whole HCR thing.  And the statistics I was reading yesterday don't support this view.

          I'd gladly take all the proposed government funding (and then some) and make birth control universal and free.

          •  First, (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            MA Liberal, lr3921

            many women don't have health care at all, meaning they don't have premiums.  This obviously is bad, but if a woman needs an abortion she's likely to be able to save for two to three months to pay for one.  That'll be harder to do if you're paying a mandated premium.

            Second, if she can't have an abortion, she's likely having a baby that will end up in foster care.  Women all across this country live in abject poverty because they are already poor when they get pregnant.  Birth control is not generally available (at least in rural areas--I know most cities probably have programs available).  

            So if contraceptives aren't available to prevent pregnancy and abortions aren't available to end pregnancy, what happens?  They have their babies and Medicaid foots the bill.  They can't work if they don't have child care, and they spend years on food stamps and other programs.  Kids often graduate high school on Medicaid.

            I am glad that you favor free contraceptives.  It's just not enough, though.  

            Maybe if the conservatives realize the financial strain this is putting on the system, the "small-government" purists will reconsider abortion.

            •  asdf (0+ / 0-)

              many women don't have health care at all, meaning they don't have premiums.  This obviously is bad, but if a woman needs an abortion she's likely to be able to save for two to three months to pay for one.  That'll be harder to do if you're paying a mandated premium.

              This is a good point.  I don't know off hand whether subsidies would be covering women at this end of the economic spectrum?  But it's a valid consideration to be investigated.

              Birth control is not generally available (at least in rural areas--I know most cities probably have programs available).

              Yesterday I struggled with the Stupak amendment.  I know my rep didn't care, but I felt it important to sort out for myself where I stood.  This was one of the considerations that led me to opposition.  In spirit I agree with the concept of not federally funding the abortion procedure itself.  But in our society the environment is too far right.  I know first hand it can be difficult to obtain goods and services that should be non-controversial and perfectly legal.

              Maybe if the conservatives realize the financial strain this is putting on the system, the "small-government" purists will reconsider abortion.

              But at the end of the day, for many people this issue has nothing to with money.  There is another sentient life involved.  I am not a "life begins at conception" believer - but as I stated above a third trimester abortion is outside of my range of comfortability in most cases.

              What is more irritating to me is the group that gladly speaks in favor of big wars while also insisting that life is sacred.  In the end, the real enemy is the fringe right - you and I may have some differences but they pale in comparison to our collective differences with the "American Taliban".

              •  I tend to agree with (0+ / 0-)

                third trimester being off-limits except in the most extreme circumstances.  

                We are entirely on the same page regarding the right-wing fringe element.

                •  Such an extreme case: (0+ / 0-)

                  A lady I know had a baby born with anencephaly (both hemispheres of her cerebrum were missing).  The doctor knew this to be the case months before the baby was due, but the lady had no way to pay for an abortion.  She had to give birth to her baby in that condition, then watch her die two hours later.  I know late-term abortions are a hard topic to discuss, but they are sometimes necessary, and Dr. George Tiller was a hero for providing them, and sacrificing his life to do so.

                  •  in those types of cases (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    QueenMaeve

                    When it's medically necessary, it's not an issue for me.  Otherwise... In my mind there comes a point where there is another human being that needs to at least be considered.

                    This is where the abortion discussion gets tricky - for many it's a completely black and white discussion.  You are either for or against.  Because I find myself in a gray area, it's been hard to feel comfortable in the Democratic party even when most of my other positions would be to the left of the party line.

                    I switched from independent to Democrat to caucus for Obama.  Unfortunately, he hasn't quite accomplished what I felt like I was being promised.  DADT, more troops to Afghanistan, and where's the 4000 college credit for volunteer work?  :shrugs:  The only thing to do is elect even more progressive leaders.

  •  These idiots say abortion is murder (0+ / 0-)

    i ask this question: If your little daughter gets raped, molested (by her uncle, your brother, by your daddy) and becomes pregnant would you insist she have the baby?

    If your wife daughter's would die if she had a difficult pregnancy and carried through, would you insist she have the baby? Remember according to fantasy world dwellers, "abortion is murder". Wouldn't it still be murder in all cases?

    That's right, these real world situations.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site