Skip to main content

Here's what it says:

The amendment will prohibit federal funds for abortion services in the public option. It also prohibits individuals who receive affordability credits from purchasing a plan that provides elective abortions. However, it allows individuals, both who receive affordability credits and who do not, to separately purchase with their own funds plans that cover elective abortions. It also clarifies that private plans may still offer elective abortions.

There's been a lot of debate around here about what that exactly means. Here's what it means. Millions of women will not have access to a legal medical procedure. Remember that, the legal part?

What's the harm, some say? It only makes sure that federal funding doesn't go to providing abortion, right? Wrong. Here's Jessica Arons, Director of the Women's Health and Rights Program at American Progress.

  1. It effectively bans coverage for most abortions from all public and private health plans in the Exchange: In addition to prohibiting direct government funding for abortion, it also prohibits public money from being spent on any plan that covers abortion even if paid for entirely with private premiums.  Therefore, no plan that covers abortion services can operate in the Exchange unless its subscribers can afford to pay 100% of their premiums with no assistance from government "affordability credits."  As the vast majority of Americans in the Exchange will need to use some of these credits, it is highly unlikely any plan will want to offer abortion coverage (unless they decide to use it as a convenient proxy to discriminate against low- and moderate-income Americans who tend to have more health care needs and incur higher costs).

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

3. It allows for a useless abortion "rider": Stupak and his allies claim his Amendment doesn’t ban abortion from the Exchange because it allows plans to offer and women to purchase extra, stand-alone insurance known as a rider to cover abortion services.  Hopefully the irony of this is immediately apparent: Stupak wants women to plan for a completely unexpected event.  

4. It allows for discrimination against abortion providers:  Previously, the health care bill included an evenhanded provision that prohibited discrimination against any health care provider or facility "because of its willingness or unwillingness to provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions."  Now, it only protects those who are unwilling to provide such services.

Once again, just like in the pre-Roe days, the wealthy will have access to abortion, those who can't scrape several hundred dollars together won't. Because of how the exchange is structured, most of people covered through it will be receiving credits or subsidies. Therefore, most of the participants will not have access to a legal medical procedure. Additionally, the reality, as Arons says, is that the insurers participating in the exchange won't offer it at all, and the question remains whether they'll continue to offer it for women in employer-based programs outside the exchange, or whether it would just be easier for administrative and overhead purposes to stop covering it at all. Right now, nearly 90 percent of private, employer-based plans cover abortion services. This legislation could result in many of those plans dropping it, to make administration of plans simpler and more cost-effective. We know how critical the bottom line is to them.

And take another look at those exclusions: "where the health but not the life of the woman is threatened by the pregnancy, severe fetal abnormalities, mental illness or anguish that will lead to suicide or self-harm, and the numerous other reasons women need to have an abortion." Even planned pregnancies are regularly terminated--legally--because of the health of the mother or severe fetal abnormalities. Forcing women to carry these pregnancies to term is dangerous and cruel. Forcing low- and moderate-income women to have to make hard financial decisions to try to come up with the money for the procedure is cruel. It's also diametrically opposed to the very principles of healthcare reform. This legislation is supposed to be freeing Americans from having to make horrible financial choices between basic necessities and medical care.

Consider this real-life example:

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

I'm one of those women, and this past Halloween I had what the hospital officially termed an "abortion."


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

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

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

This is the most expansive restriction on access to abortion Congress has passed. It goes well beyond Hyde, which has never been codified and which only governs federal, public plans. It's particularly galling that it comes under the umbrella of healthcare "reform."

Remember the promises? Reform was about expanding choices, not allowing government to come between you and your doctor, no one will lose their coverage, and if you like your current plan you get to keep it. Apparently being female is a preexisting condition that exempts us from the promises, too.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 10:20 AM PST.

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

  •  Does the public option cover Viagra? (22+ / 0-)

    I don't know the answer; I'm honestly asking. But I bet it would. Which makes this even more ridiculous.

    Denying a safe, legal medical procedure based on nothing but politics is precisely what should be avoided. For all the moaning Republicans do about the government intervening in people's lives, they sure as hell don't mind when it comes to controlling what medical decisions a woman and her doctor make.

  •  I'm stunned. n/t (12+ / 0-)

    Torture: An act... specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering upon another person within his custody or physical control.

    by MsGrin on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 10:23:06 AM PST

  •  Another iteration of opt-in (6+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TomP, skohayes, kyril, fernan47, LeanneB, noe44

    insurers can chose whether or not to cover "abortion services,"

    "The smartest man in the room is not always right." -Richard Holbrooke

    by Demi Moaned on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 10:23:40 AM PST

  •  Yep -- LEGAL. (21+ / 0-)

    That's what gets lost in this.

    Shit, you'd think Roe had been overturned or something.

    Abortion is a legal procedure.

    Women should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their women.

    by droogie6655321 on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 10:24:07 AM PST

    •  yep... LEGAL... but... (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Samer, Womantrust, LeanneB, noe44

      not for poor women? Roe IS under attack face it.

      •  I am repeating myself. "A right without a remedy (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        VA Gal, cacamp, kyril, Womantrust, noe44

        is no right at all." This is an old legal axiom that says if you have in the abstract a right, but you are unable to exercise that right, you really don't have it, no matter what the legal theory says. The purpose of this amendment is to increase the number of ways that women are encumbered or practically barred from exercising their constitutional right to an abortion if they individually choose to have one.

        In the old days, Hyde barred Federal money paid directly for abortion, and from coverage in Federal plans. This goes much farther, and in the context in which all Americans are required to buy plans, prohibits private plans from covering abortions if any part of the premium is paid by means of the tax credits and incentives built into the plan to make its mandatory character more affordable for those who otherwise could not afford a plan. These tax credits are taken on the IRS 1040 or whatever tax form you use. It is not clear whether tax credits as referred to in the amendment also includeds conventional IRS tax deductions provided on the 1040, but I don't see why not, since the test is whether the IRS reduces taxes based on the cost of the policy, an innovation in this amendment.

        It is also not clear to me, having seen it several different ways on Kos alone, whether the prohibition forbids coverage if it allows the option of a part of a premium to be paid for by the incentives on a policy basis, so that it covered all who buy that policy, or whether it is done on a case by case basis, have it in a policy but you can't have it, and you over there can't have it and those three women in the corner can't have it. But it is one of the two. There is apparently now a loss of parallelism as insurance companies are told they may offer policies which exclude abortion, but no parallel clause that says they may offer policies including it. In either event, what it says is that women cannot buy the coverage using their own money.

        Ihave also run budgets for moderate income women, and suggest you try it. From what I see, the inclusion of a mandatory policy purchase and its estimated cost sucks out all the financial upsides of smaller deductibles and co pays and lesser premiums as against prior plans, and then some. Thenotion that poor women could afford a free standing policy bought every year for an event which might never occur at all and might cost in premiums every year as much as the procedure which alone is insured in the policy, whether as a supplemental to a free standing non Exchange Policy or as a single purpose policy, suggests a nearly insurmountable financial barrier, leaving a woman less able than before to use her own money.

        Please go to the Guttmacher Institute website and see their releases on use of abortion services by poor women and women of color. I would put in links but I have after long drafting lost too many posts today to my trouble doing links, in the course of which the post and the diary vanish. What I conclude from those website postings is that this provision will have grossly disproportionate effect on the poor and women of color, and that this is probably known to the Stupakers. Since they have more of the abortions, taking away their ability to use incentives which are unrestricted for men will have more negative effect on the availability of abortions for those who statistically use them most. There is also no evidence that the supplemental insurance would be available at all or the cost, and whether the cost of buying it year after year until the year in which the emergency finally arises for a particular woman would be an insurmountable burden. IE, if you buy the supplemental and have to pay for it for six years without using it, and the situation only arises in the seventh year. How many poor people can afford to do that, without reference to the cost. Another matter, cost of supplementals, not addressed by those who see that as a way of themselves avoiding the personal responsibility of allowing this compromise to go forward. It is possible, though I have seen no hard policy information, that the annual cost of the supplemental might approach the cost of a procedure, which means you pay each year for a procedure in premiums, and may never in fact use the procedure or use it once during a long payment history. Definitely not 'affordable' especially for those on limited incomes. And limited to this one procedure which affects only women.

        It should also be noted that the Guttmacher Institute Site has a series of tables worthy of perusal which indicate that the highest use of abortion services in the US is people in their twenties or younger, but not anymore as much with true adolescents as it once was, which are women more likely to be single, and less likely to have jobs which pay at the rate required to be able to readily and on short notice find the sums necessary for the procedure. To me the charts also indicate that a very large percentage in the vicinity of half or so of all abortion users are doing it for the first time, with numbers dropping off sharply thereafter. But read the Guttmacher site for yourselves.

        The loss of coverage and its cost in this system only forces poor women to do desperate things to get money together when the emergency situation actually arises in her life which requires paying for an abortion to end an unplanned pregnancy.

        The bottom line is that  this amendment goes far beyond Hyde in making abortion a 'right' still technically legal but for all practical purposes barred from actual exercise by those not willing to go to the back alley and who can't afford entirely private care.

    •  Oh, this is true, but (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kyril, princss6, noe44

      is it still going to be affordable for the urban and suburban middle class?  It's already out of reach for the poor and for many rural women regardless of class.

      In this case, "legal" just looks like a fig leaf.

      I'm sterile.  The abortion issue per se does not affect me personally.  But it does affect women I know and love.  Any diminishing of choice is a non-starter for me, for very personal reasons I've written about elsewhere on this site.

      "Fighting Fascism is Always Cool." -- Amsterdam Weekly, volume three, issue 18 (-8.50, -7.23)

      by Noor B on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 11:21:24 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I see this as an attempt to do an endrun around (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kyril, Womantrust

      legal abortion. It should not be enshrined in this landmark legislation. It creates too many loopholes to deny access or create obstacles to access.

  •  It's still a choice, just not paid for (4+ / 1-)
    Recommended by:
    dancerat, fizziks, PittsburghPete, icemilkcoffee
    Hidden by:
    There are a lot of ELECTIVE, non-necessary medical procedures not covered by insurance.  This includes everything from accupuncture to chiropractic to marital therapy.

    Abortion is just one example of this problem.

    "It is a serious thing to live in a society of possible gods and goddesses." - CS Lewis, Weight of Glory

    by Benintn on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 10:24:24 AM PST

  •  Give up your privacy rights for "reform" (19+ / 0-)

    And give insurance companies the right to control the health care you receive.

    This is a high price to pay for less than universal coverage.

    look for my DK Greenroots diary series Wednesday evening. "It's the planet, stupid."

    by FishOutofWater on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 10:24:26 AM PST

  •  a vagina is a "pre-existing condition" (24+ / 0-)

    according to pete sessions. it's akin to smoking in his book.

    Dreaming permits each and every one of us to be quietly and safely insane every night of our lives. ~ William Dement

    by whataretheysmoking on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 10:24:33 AM PST

  •  Abortion Rider (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    AggieDemocrat, dancerat, david78209
    1. It allows for a useless abortion "rider": Stupak and his allies claim his Amendment doesn’t ban abortion from the Exchange because it allows plans to offer and women to purchase extra, stand-alone insurance known as a rider to cover abortion services.  Hopefully the irony of this is immediately apparent: Stupak wants women to plan for a completely unexpected event.

    Not that I'm in support of this, but isn't that what insurances does?  Cover you in case of unexpected events?

    I am that gadfly which God has attached to the state, and all day long and in all places...arousing and persuading and reproaching you.-Socrates

    by The Navigator on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 10:24:44 AM PST

    •  A stand alone policy, not a rider which is an (0+ / 0-)

      attachment to an existing policy expanding or altering it, requires a woman to buy it every year, whether she is pregnant or not or expects to be, and depending on the cost of an abortion and the cost of the policy may be for many years paying for a procedure she does not need, but is required to pay additional and separately for every last miserable year, against the possibility that on virtually  no prior notice, she will need it. And nobody talks about the cost. Given the very low numbers I have seen people slinging around on this site while arguing that the cost is not huge for one, I note that it is entirely possible that a woman's freestanding abortion policy might cost her as much each and every year as an abortion would cost. Since the weight of this falls on poor women and middle class women, the fact of having to pay additional may make the coverage prohibitive until the day of the emergency arrives, at which point it is unavailable. but the whole point of the provision for supplementals is to make the cost prohibitive for low and moderate income women in the first place.

      While the theoretical purpose of insurance is to provide for unexpected events, pregnancy is an event in the ordinary course of the lives of women, one which often slides out of the ordinary course into the awful with no prior notice,  and everyone buys insurance against a bad outcome of such events. Everyone now except for this event and any woman of childbearing age.

      •  Well, OK (0+ / 0-)

        ...a rider which is an attachment to an existing policy expanding or altering it, requires a woman to buy it every year, whether she is pregnant or not or expects to be, and depending on the cost of an abortion and the cost of the policy may be for many years paying for a procedure she does not need, but is required to pay additional and separately for every last miserable year, against the possibility that on virtually  no prior notice, she will need it.

        Again, sounds a lot like what insurance is for to me.  I have been paying for auto insurance for many, many years and have never once needed it.  I have been paying for  health insurance in one way or another for many years and have never spent a day in a hospital.

        Your point about the cost is well taken, however.  The average cost of an abortion at a clinic in this country is 400.00, however, that can be as low as 90.00 or even free, as there is a wide variety of assistance available for low-income women.  Unless a woman has an abortion every year, it seems to be that the relative low cost of the procedure would make buying an abortion rider an unnecessary expense for most women.

        Furthermore, considering that abortions are relatively inexpensive as far as major medical procedures go, and the amount of state and private subsidies out there for low-income women, I'm not sure what the issue really is.  Is there a widespread problem in this country of low-income women being forced to carry a child to term because she can't afford an abortion? I don't think so...but I guess I could be wrong.

        Let me be clear though...I'm against this amendment and think it's absurd. I'm just not sure that abortion coverage is such a big deal beyond the politics of the thing.

        I am that gadfly which God has attached to the state, and all day long and in all places...arousing and persuading and reproaching you.-Socrates

        by The Navigator on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 01:57:02 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  perception and reality (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mamamedusa, RustyCannon, fernan47, drache

    immediately under the text of this, on the front page, appears an ad in which a woman's body is posed provocatively, suggesting that it is being used to sell a product.

    Women's bodies are used to sell almost everything in the American commercial world. Why are we not surprised that cretins like Coathanger Stupak thus have no respect for women as people?

    The destiny of nations depends upon the manner in which they feed themselves.--Brillat-Savarin

    by Mnemosyne on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 10:25:00 AM PST

  •  Great post mcjoan (13+ / 0-)

    You always say what I want to say about a trillion times better.

    "I think a basic principle of our Constitution is nobody above the law" -Obama

    by heart of a quince on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 10:25:03 AM PST

  •  This pathetic nonsense to suit the morans (4+ / 0-)

    accomplishes WHAT exactly?!?  Oh, allows some avenue for the chauvinist throwbacks to wield some weight,  and ensure that more disenfranchised women suffer.  That's pretty important.

  •  As an aside, (0+ / 0-)

    I've just diaried some healthcare reform proposals here.

    Iuris praecepta sunt haec: Honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere. - Ulpian, Digestae 1, 3

    by Dauphin on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 10:26:47 AM PST

  •  McCaskill A-OK with abortion ban in Senate bill (7+ / 0-)

    Appearing on MSNBC's "Morning Joe", McCaskill was asked whether an amendment added by Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) to the House's legislation would be too bitter a pill to pass the Senate.

    "I am not sure that it is," replied the Missouri Democrat...And frankly, once again, this is another example of having to govern with moderates. We can't just turn our back on the fact that the reason we are in majority, is because states like Indiana, and Arkansas, and Louisiana, and Missouri, and North Carolina, and Virginia sent Democrats to the Senate."

    •  Her state sucks but so do many Missouri Dixiecrat (0+ / 0-)

      ...  Dixiecrats which are nothing but panderers to the religious right.

      There are NO feminists in politics in Missouri. Period. Too many Southern Baptists.

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

      by AmericanRiverCanyon on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 10:40:35 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  She's right (0+ / 0-)

      We can't just turn our back on the fact that the reason we are in majority, is because states like Indiana, and Arkansas, and Louisiana, and Missouri, and North Carolina, and Virginia sent Democrats to the Senate.

      That's absolutely correct.  There are a lot of Democrats in both the House and Senate that are from socially conservative areas, where the choice isn't between a moderate Dem and a liberal Dem, but between a moderate Dem and a Republican.

    •  disgrace-both as a woman and a Senator. (0+ / 0-)

      suck it up Claire

      Language is wine upon the lips. -Virginia Woolf

      by valadon on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 12:08:29 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  So much for Kossak women relying on the word (0+ / 0-)

      of Kossack men that we should let this go because it will be fixed 'later.' There is no later if this goes forward now.

  •  oh well, we still get a bill (0+ / 0-)

    even if it has trigger, opt in or out, we still get bill.

    Yes, the NSA can hear you.

    by Muggsy on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 10:27:24 AM PST

  •  It kills any idea of health CARE as a right. (8+ / 0-)

    It sets the precedent that Congress can define anything they like as out-of-bounds. It furthers the idea the 14th amendment means separate and UNEQUAL.

    No one is safe here. Terry Schiavo, anyone?

  •  This article is the biggest piece of (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dancerat, ImagineOhio

    misinformation I have yet seen on Dkos.  This amendment merely reiterates the standing law baring the use of federal funds for abortions.  Claiming that it is doing anything else is purely fiction and should be corrected immediately.

    President Barack Obama; I helped make this happen!

    by PittsburghPete on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 10:27:29 AM PST

  •  Repeal Hyde? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    maryru, mamamedusa

    There are a lot of federal employees--they should have coverage for abortions.  I just checked my company insurance (United Health Care through huge employer)--it has it.

  •  Wouldn't it SAVE MONEY for insurance companies (14+ / 0-)

    if they offered that "rider" for a dollar a year -- or a penny, or a check mark, or even automatically if you didn't check off that you don't want it?

    Elective abortions are a lot cheaper than deliveries.  They're probably cheaper than even treating the complications of coathanger abortions.

    We're all pretty strange one way or another; some of us just hide it better. "Normal" is a dryer setting.

    by david78209 on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 10:28:13 AM PST

    •  Awesome post (0+ / 0-)

      I hope you are atheist.

    •  This is a great point, (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      and I hope it accurately predicts what the insurance companies would do.

    •  not to mention maternity care (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      david78209, BachFan

      before the delivery - more costs savings.  You'd think they'd be the biggest abortion advocates on the planet.

      Want a progressive global warming novel, not a right wing rant? Go to for a free audio thriller.

      by eparrot on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 10:52:28 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  That makes a lot of sense (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      I wonder if the insurance companies are smart enough to figure this out.  Large bureaucracies of all sorts frequently do the simpliest thing, not the most efficient thing, and in this case the simpliest thing would be to deny coverage or make it complicated or expensive to acquire.

    •  Yeah, but I bet their gamble (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      david78209, BachFan

      is that most will find a way to pay for the abortion themselves.

      Best of both worlds, the insurance doesn't have to cover the abortions and still doesn't have to pay for delivery.

      The Empire never ended.

      by thejeff on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 11:01:38 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  What makes you think they all cover deliveries. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      VA Gal, david78209

      One of the preexisting conditions being eliminated in the HCR is prior pregnancy, C section or not, which has been used to deny coverage to subsequent pregnancies. They DO know pregnancies are more expensive. This way, they need not cover the cheaper procedure, the way many don't cover the more expensive one more than once now. Cheapness always translates to no coverage at all.

      Stupak does not allow for an option on a policy that you do or do not want abortion coverage. It is banned outright where the amendment can touch it at all.

    •  Rider - HUGE Privacy Issue (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      david78209, i like bbq

      Even at $1/year - just asking for an abortion rider exposes women to retaliation by employers, nosy coworkers, family, etc.

      Even fear of the possibility will decrease access to this LEGAL medical procedure.

      Absolutely unacceptable.

      Surprise, we live in a Left-Of-Center Nation! Act accordingly.

      by VA Gal on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 07:15:25 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  How much longer until it is time (21+ / 0-)

    to burn the entire house to the ground? Inch by inch, day by day, we cede ground on all progressive fronts, civil liberties, women's reproductive rights, endless wars, green energy/climate change...where does it end? How much more do we lose in this process?

    'Fuck a bunch of Mohawk tires'

    The era of procrastination, half-measures, soothing & baffling expedients, & delays, is coming to a close. We are entering a period of consequences - Ch

    by PrometheusUnbound on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 10:28:35 AM PST

  •  Choices: It's a "guy thing." (11+ / 0-)

    Because if it's left up to these guys, women get no choices.

    Book excerpts: nonlynnear; other writings: mofembot.

    by mofembot on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 10:29:00 AM PST

  •  Why do they hate us so much? (19+ / 0-)

    I feel like crying.  This amendment is evil.  It is sad and i just want to scream...IT IS MY GOD DAMN BODY!

  •  and down goes healthcare reform. (7+ / 0-)

    what sucks even more than Stupack-Pitts is it is going to do exactly as intended, sink healthcare reform and millions of poor women, men and children will continue to die because they lack coverage.

  •  Why is this happening under our first Dem Prez in (8+ / 0-)

    ... years ?  It's not like we have had very many of them since Reagan.

    "And under the Obama administration, a Democratic Majority House was told to put a virulent anti abortion amendment up for a floor vote at the last second, in order to make all health insurance Catholic Bishop Sanctioned and to pay the ransom of the Blue Dogs."

    These idiots have no idea how stupid they are if they think this is going to motivate the base to want to elect more Democrats to the sell out party.

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

    by AmericanRiverCanyon on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 10:30:07 AM PST

  •  I think the easiest way to get (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    rid of this is to "magnanimously" allow the amendment in (if it's either that or no reform at all), and then simulate a lawsuit, get it up to the SC, and then have it struck down.

    Iuris praecepta sunt haec: Honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere. - Ulpian, Digestae 1, 3

    by Dauphin on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 10:30:29 AM PST

  •  Has Stupak accepted campaign contributions... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    VA Gal, skohayes, An Affirming Flame

    ...from any health insurance companies? If so, he's accepted abortion money, as someone pointed out here yesterday.

    Forgive me for not being impressed by the transformation of "Change we can believe in" to "It could be worse."

    by expatjourno on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 10:30:54 AM PST

  •  I watched this entire debate unfold on Sat. (8+ / 0-)

    That these Democrats feel they need the endorsement of Catholic bishops is utterly depressing.  

    Don't tell me about the "new politics" if you're an asshole.

    by Ms Johnson on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 10:31:10 AM PST

  •  The vote was 220-215, right? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ImagineOhio, fernan47

    Including this changed at least three votes from nay to yeah.  The choice was include this provision, or no bill.  Hopefully they can clean it up in conference, but the same issue will probably come up again during final passage.

    Net result is the same: Include this amendment, or the public option is dead.  Period.  Maybe this amendment is bad enough that the public option should die if it includes this.  But we must face the fact that that is the choice.

    •  public option? (5+ / 0-)

      the whole damn bill will be dead. Public option has nothing to do with this. The whole of health care reform is on the line because of this.

    •  Then the whole thing unravels (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      J M F

      because there can be no mandates without a non-triggered PO.

      "I think a basic principle of our Constitution is nobody above the law" -Obama

      by heart of a quince on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 10:34:24 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  i wish you were right (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        heart of a quince

        but do you seriously think that something will pass WITHOUT mandates?  Take away mandates and even without a public option this bill is a huge loss for the insurance company.  They own enough dems that it won't happen.

        Want a progressive global warming novel, not a right wing rant? Go to for a free audio thriller.

        by eparrot on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 10:56:19 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  No I don't think something w/o mandates will pass (0+ / 0-)

          However I do believe the progressives will block passage if the PO is pulled out or triggered with the reason being the mandates.

          "I think a basic principle of our Constitution is nobody above the law" -Obama

          by heart of a quince on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 10:58:01 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  that is the question, isn't it? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            heart of a quince

            our line in the sand was the robust P.O.  That was what our progressive bloc absolutely would vote against.  That was the pressure that was going to finally show that progressives could stand up.  And they caved.

            If the P.O. is pulled out, then yeah, I suppose they might block it.  I don't know about a trigger, though, it strikes me as exactly the kind of thing enough of them could tolerate.

            I don't mean to be overly critical.  The fact is that the right and the blue dogs are willing to blow up the bill over what they want.  Progressives are not nearly as willing, because they know that having no bill affects real people.  It's mostly admirable, but let's not delude ourselves here.

            Negative prediction aside, we obviously need to keep up the pressure.  My best hope is for an opt-out and language to reinstate abortion coverage for threats to health in addition to life.  I think that is the best we could possibly expect.

            It still will probably lose Democrats Congress by 2012, because there is no real cost containment with a negotiated rates P.O.

            Want a progressive global warming novel, not a right wing rant? Go to for a free audio thriller.

            by eparrot on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 11:06:35 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I think we're on the same page (0+ / 0-)

              I too question when exactly progressives are going to stand firm. The pledges were obviously garbage for all but 2 of them (and those 2 were blasted here after the vote).

              I base my guesses about where they pull out on where I think the bill tips from good thing to bad thing. I might be wrong about their principles or about their thoughts on where that tipping point is.

              "I think a basic principle of our Constitution is nobody above the law" -Obama

              by heart of a quince on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 11:09:07 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  yeah, impossible to predict (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                heart of a quince

                the tipping point.  I couldn't tell you where it is.  I believe that politically, in terms of how bad this will seem to the masses over the next 5-7 years as it fails to contain costs, the House bill is already past the tipping point.  But practically as opposed to politically, it's probably not there yet.

                And it's amazing how people love to hate on Kucinich on this site.  I know some of it comes originally from kos - and I find kos incredibly level-headed, I just disagree with him some on kuchinich.  It's not that I'm a huge fan of his, but man the guy is constantly standing up for stuff that most of us claim to support.

                Anyway, the Senate process will make the House stuff seem like the smoothest process ever.  Whatever the outcome, it will be painful to watch.

                Want a progressive global warming novel, not a right wing rant? Go to for a free audio thriller.

                by eparrot on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 11:16:21 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

    •  I say kill it. Degette is my Rep and I'll support (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wsexson, esquimaux, noe44, Buttercup61

      her if she has to kill the bill in order to defeat this amendment. It sets very bad precedents having nothing to do with abortion and everything to do with your right to health CARE.

    •  I read the RW subtext (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      skohayes, princss6, heart of a quince

      It's clear to me that this is a poison pill calculated to kill off the PO.  Is it even calculated to kill off the exchange?  Blue Dogs managed to do what Republicans could not.  This amendment now endangers passing any bill.  If there is no public option or even exchange but only mandates to buy insurance I will jump on the bandwagon to crush this bill.  I am sure that would be fine with the right wing as well.

      Bottom line - Blue Dogs must go!!!

      Let's pass HCR already!

      by noofsh on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 10:36:43 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  SDon't assume they are out of this. Once his (0+ / 0-)

        vote was over, Stupak walked into the R gathering room and received their congratulations. I wonder when he will change party. Maybe he's like Lieberman, staying close to the Ds until the majority changes and him with it.

  •  Great...all these compromises we liberals have to (9+ / 0-)

    make, and in the end, we probably STILL won't get a public option.

  •  I am declaring war on the Blue Dog coalition (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Larry Bailey, esquimaux, fernan47

    There is no room for them in the Democratic Party.  Get Out!

    Let's pass HCR already!

    by noofsh on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 10:33:25 AM PST

  •  These are your neighbors, America. (4+ / 0-)

    They're your relatives.

    Stop having dinner with them and going to Church together if you have a problem with it. Stop pretending like there's no problem and maybe these cretins will get the idea that their backwards ideas ARE actually a problem.

    But it doesn't make sense to me to blame the people representing the neanderthals. That's their job. They're supposed to act like cavemen. They're representing cavemen.

    Until Americans internalize this cultural divide and start acting on their consciences in their own lives, nothing is going to change.

    Anti-Choice cretins need to be made to feel that their misogyny angers their friends and relatives, and there has to be fallout if anything is ever going to change. If American liberals want to go on being frauds and pretending like everything is fine with their friends and relatives, then they're helping undercut women's rights by being insincere and fake.

  •  Thank you for this detailed (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    esquimaux, Buttercup61

    clarification on what the bill actually does.  

    I had tried yesterday to get a better understanding, and was basically told I was irrelevant for even posing questions about the bill.

    Much appreciated.

    I agree, that this bill needs to be struck down.

    "GOP, Grandstand Oppose Pretend" (Rep. Ed Markey, November 7, 2009)

    by cyeko on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 10:34:15 AM PST

  •  Pray the bill fails in the Senate (3+ / 0-)

    This bill does not contain a robust public option which will contain costs.  It will give guaranteed issue and force cost sharing through an individual mandate.  Older people will disproportionately benefit, and the people who will disproportionately pay are younger poorer people, and especially younger women, the poorer ones of whom will lose practical access to abortions. ...

    I would suggest that if progressives ever want their threats to be taken seriously by anyone again they go into opposition against this bill until such a time as it both has a robust public option and the Stupak amendment is out. [emphasis added] Failure to do so will show that their threats were always hollow, that they are willing to sell out child-bearing age women, and that they prioritize the interests of older people over younger and poorer people. ...

    Obama and the Democratic leadership’s bottom line is they must pass some bill called "health care reform".  Unless you threaten to take away their bottom line, they will take away anything that isn’t progressives bottom line - and that includes practical abortion access, and a robust public option.

    •  why would you pray for something so stupid? nt (0+ / 0-)
    •  Thx. Would recommend this +100X if I could.... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Rarely does one get much in the political world by being "nice" - it's hard ball time.

    •  Are you prepared for President Palin? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      If progressives want to split the Democratic party, then fine.

      But they should realize that doing so will create a much more favorable climate for the extreme right wing of the Republican party to capture and control that party, and to ensure the election of an extreme right-winger in 2012.

      Most people--independents, especially--don't obsess about politics like people do who read and write on dailykos.  Most people in America simply watch the news and figure the President is doing well, or the President is doing badly. They will see the defeat of health care legislation--with a Democratic controlled House and a Democratic controlled Senate--and they will figure that the Democrats can't govern anything.  So, to hell with them.

      And they will listen to and vote for Republicans--because at least those people seem to know what they are doing.

      Being a Democrat is not an easy thing to be; it's always a disappointment, one way or the other. But I want to believe that there is no other option: socialism will never take hold in a country as capitalist as this one, and we're too selfish to ever be truly green.  The Democratic party--with all its flaws, lack of backbone and surplus of corruption--is the only thing keeping the religious nuts and right-wing loonies from destroying the earth and bringing back slavery.

      And to defeat health care reform because of the Stupak amendment sends a message to the country that the Democratic party is too disorganized to govern.  Is that the message you want to send?  Think.

      •  So whole constituencies in the party, Remember (0+ / 0-)

        the size of the womens' group who supported HRC, should go into this assuming they can and will be cut off and cut out at any time because they have no business actually believing and trusting in the party's statements of support for their equality, but still work for it, contribute to it and vote for it even when those promises have been shown to be hollow and ImagineOhio says we should continue to believe in the hollowness of those promises. I got a butterfly collection that needs my money more than the Dems if you are correct that this is how women should respond to this. And if I stay home and keep my money, I can put it into my flower garden. And you, ImagineOhio will have to do the work pay the money, give the votes by yourself. And wait alone until you are on teh back end of the betrayal. And howl alone.

      •  It's self-fulfilling. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Obama, Reid and Pelosi will keep throwing women and gays off the sled unless they pay a price.

        And if we wind up with President Palin, it won't be because progressives stuck to their values. It'll be because Obama failed to stick to the values he won the election on.

        Forgive me for not being impressed by the transformation of "Change we can believe in" to "It could be worse."

        by expatjourno on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 03:44:36 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Republicans seem to know how to govern? (0+ / 0-)

        It was pretty clear to the electorate a year ago that they failed miserably.

        Socialism is alive and well it seems for Wall Street and the top 1%.  Capitalism died a year ago if you haven't been paying attention.

        Cowering to the far miserable right is a reflexive condition without merit under the present circumstances of one whopper of a post modern collapse of  of the big backdrop in economics and politics.

        These things are immediately clear to any thinking, voting American that no party or ideology is immune from the chaos of unemployment and mass foreclosure.

        Might as well be true blue progressives and stand for something instead of running and dreading the spector of a wolf in lipstick at the door.

  •  So what would you do mcjoan? (5+ / 0-)

    not allow reform to pass?

    Is that really what you are suggesting? Because if so you're playing right into the hands of the people that got this included.

  •  What are you all getting so hysterical about? (9+ / 1-)

    This is just about whiny, shrill, slutty women who actually think they're more important than the 8 week old fetus they're unwillingly carrying around. And, really, why should anyone give a shit about these irresponsible slatterns?

    Huge snark, in case anyone doesn't understand how angry this makes me.

    I'm on the Death Panel...and I'm killing stupid people.

    by vacuumslayer on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 10:36:09 AM PST

  •  I Am 56 And No Longer Capable Of Getting (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lirtydies, BachFan, fernan47

    pregnant, but I do not want to see women's right to have abortions overturned.  This ammendment is telling the government that they can decide for a woman what she chooses do to with her own body.  I think we should pass an ammendment to tell men what they can do with their body.  If they have a sexual problem than they should have to pay to get it fixed themselves, or pay 100% for the coverage.  Men would have to pay for viagra themselves.  Would not be covered under any of the exchanges.  Penis implants would definitely not be covered.  

  •  Much, much worse that it seemed initially (4+ / 0-)

    I'm aghast.

  •  Will someone please explain to me how this is (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ManhattanMan, Pozzo, princss6

    worse than the status quo?  That's the part I don't get.

    Pro-choices have never had an issue before that uninsured women couldn't afford abortions.  Why is that their top issue all of the sudden?

    Since the issue isn't women in desperate poverty, they're covered by Medicaid, not the new healthcare bill, but middle class and lower middle class women who probably can scrape up a few hundred dollars for an abortion if they need one, I really don't see what the big deal is. If anything we should be more worried about Medicaid not covering abortion.

    The real purpose of the amendment was spreading FUD, and it's working way too well.

    Remember the promises? Reform was about expanding choices, not allowing government to come between you and your doctor, no one will lose their coverage, and if you like your current plan you get to keep it. Apparently being female is a preexisting condition that exempts us from the promises, too.

    That's exactly what they want you to think.  They're laughing their asses off at how the left if buying into there anti-healthcare FUD now.

    Donate to planned parenthood so they can provide abortions to women who can't afford them, as they already do using a system of sliding scale fees. And quit spreading FUD.

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

    by Futuristic Dreamer on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 10:39:37 AM PST

    •  Did you read the diary? nt (0+ / 0-)
      •  I did, and I don't get it. (0+ / 0-)

        The anti-healthcare FUD got in the way of any point the diarist was trying to make.  Diarist lost me at the private insurance will stop covering x because public insurance won't cover x.  I thought we'd debunked that before.

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

        by Futuristic Dreamer on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 10:46:53 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  No one has mentioned separate but equal (0+ / 0-)

          Here's it in a nutshell:
          Stupak knew this was the nuclear option on the Public Option.
          Through the exchange or the PO it implied the government could not get around the services the private insurers already legally offer and the conflict with the Hyde Amendment.
          It creates a separate but equal segregation of life over choice if HCR passes.  In your face kind of stuff, if you're a woman.  A reasonable Democrat (not some pious fool blue dog).
          It was there all along, but the Democratic leadership failed to account for the explosive nature of the petard.
          In a desperate last ditch effort, the leadership thought it reasonable to accommodate and gloss over the final blow.
          Although it was a political miscalculation.  Now the direct heir to Civil Rights legislation has to sign into law a new form of separate but equal to seal his electoral defeat in 2012.  A brilliant, cunning, all encompassing GOP death blow.

          And it wasn't just Stupak.  They should've known this was coming, seen it from a hundred yards.  They blew it.

    •  You have some valid point (0+ / 0-)

      It's unconstitutional though as is the Hyde amendment.  On that grounds, I oppose it.  I don't think there should be intrusions into the private sphere just because a plan is purchased on the exchange.

      Let's pass HCR already!

      by noofsh on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 10:43:38 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  If you think that promise is true for women, (0+ / 0-)

      kindly demonstrate how. I don't see it.

      Quaere to the women here, can we establish a photo sign for total rejection of idiots on this site, like the recipes and the cat pictures. without all the typing. How about a flower.

      To futuristic dreamer.


      1 cup hot water.

      One tablespoon of tea. No bag.

      Mix tea into water and steep for three minutes.


      •  It's true for women like it's true for everyone (0+ / 0-)

        What is and isn't including in the exchange doesn't affect what's including in private insurance.  There is an economic incentive for insurance to cover abortion - it's cheaper for the insurance company than pregnancy, child birth, and newborn care - and newborns are by law on the mother's insurance policy at birth.  You don't think insurance companies cover abortion because they're so liberal, believe so much in women's rights, or out the goodness of their hearts.  They do it because it's good for their bottom line, and that won't change.

        Go on having your hissy fit now.  I know uninsured and under-insured people never had coverage for abortion, so this is a win for us.

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

        by Futuristic Dreamer on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 03:01:12 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  WTF are you talking about? (0+ / 0-)
          Yes, insurance covers abortions because it affects there bottem line, but the Stupak amendment makes doing so if its enrolled under the exchange I-L-L-E-G-A-L.

          I know with some things, being illegal doesn't neccesarily stop them from their actions, but if is outlawed, they no longer have any incentive to keep it, and have a more incentive to drop it. Hell, it might actually make their bottam line BIGGER, because now they don't have to cover something they were previous because its now the law, and it won't do anything since all other insurances in the exchange will be forced to do so as well, and if any private companies remain outside the isurance, and the bill really does kinda force them to, because if it didn't, the exchange would be meanigless as true competition or meaningful cost reduction, those women who were going to get susidies through the exchange wouldn't be able to afford the insurance out of the exchange, making abortion still available but for the rich.

          It's worse than degrading women, its classwarfare.

    •  You have been where I have been... (0+ / 0-)

      since the issue hit.  I think the debate is good, but it is very frustrating to see poor women exploited as a rallying cry against this amendment when poor women have long been barred from getting abortions covered by their healthcare plans, primarily Medicaid.  I was seven at the time that the Hyde Amendment was passed so I have no idea (and maybe someone can clue me in) on the reaction barring abortions to women received public subsidies via Medicare.

      My initial thoughts as you correctly pointed out is , "well, we will have to go around the system to provide access."  As you pointed out, if the concern is truly poor women, there are plenty of avenues to help these women receive abortions if they so choose.  

      I do not support the amendment as it clearly has the possibility of removing benefits that people who currently have healthcare may receive.  That is wrong, and I asked the question with little response earlier, if the amendment pass how will this change access to abortions for poor women or women without healthcare?  

  •  Can someone explain this? (0+ / 0-)

    Because of how the exchange is structured, most of people covered through it will be receiving credits or subsidies.

    The link to Ezra Klein doesn't provide any more details. Does this include people making more than 400% of poverty?

  •  I dont want my taxes going to murder (9+ / 0-)

    So we should begin passing amendments to legislation making sure no federal funds go to killing Iraqis or Afghanis.

  •  This is a warning (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    valadon, AmericanRiverCanyon

    If we set up some level of Federal control over health insurance - which the bills being considered certainly do - then that Federal control can be used in ways we don't like, as soon as a Republican President is elected.

    No funding for contraception, or any technology derived from stem cells, or whatever. All it would take is a Presidential executive order and then it would take years for the courts to sort it out.

    In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice; but in practice, there always is a difference. - Yogi Berra

    by blue aardvark on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 10:42:25 AM PST

  •  Call HCR "Health Care For Men" (4+ / 0-)

    and maybe next century we can add women.

    A nation is a mutual undertaking. - Roger Ebert

    by Bob Love on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 10:42:45 AM PST

  •  Only 13% of abortions are billed directly to ins. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    princss6, Gravis

    Who pays for abortions?

    ■Some 74% of women pay for abortions with their own money; 13% of abortions are covered by Medicaid, and 13% are billed directly to private insurance. Some women who pay for the procedure themselves may receive insurance reimbursement later. (31)

    If you trust the internets, but whatever.  Medicaid actually pays 13%, meaning that thirteen percent avoid the Hyde Amendment restrictions.

    So I would ask...what's the difference at the margin between the women who can afford it now, and the women who will be able to afford it after reform?

    Seems to me that the difference between an insurance policy that covers abortion services and one that doesn't is a hypothetical to the tens of millions of women without insurance.  

    And if we stop breaking people over insurance premiums, the cost of abortion services will be within reach.

    I simply think that the assumption that abortion services are going to be more unaffordable after the reform is overstated.

    The stigma that is placed on women who choose abortions is another matter.  The idea that women are supposed to buy a special rider so that the Westboro Baptist Church shows up in their backyard is odious.

    A vote for a filibuster on the health care reform bill is a vote for higher deficits and 44,000 deaths/year due to lack of insurance.

    by Inland on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 10:43:02 AM PST

    •  Why the discrepancy? (0+ / 0-)

      If the only people getting abortion coverage on insurance now are those on generous plans (ie, not likely the ones that would be offered on the exchange), this seems to mostly codify the status quo.

      If mcjoan's number is correct, and 90% of employer plans cover them, then why are so many paid out of pocket?

      Do people just not know that their insurance covers it, or do insurance companies come up with creative excuses for denial, or do insurance companies conveniently not partner with providers except those that only "medically necessary" abortions?

    •  Exactly..the poor have been screwed prior to this (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      amendment by not being able to afford insurance and they'll be screwed after this amendment too.

    •  The only way to avoid the (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Hyde amendment restrictions is for the following exceptions:

      At present, the federal Medicaid program mandates abortion funding in cases of rape or incest, as well as when a pregnant woman's life is endangered by a physical disorder, illness, or injury.

      With the Stupak amendment, there probably won't be much difference between women who can't afford it now, and or get into an exchange or the PO and still won't have coverage, if this amendment is included in the bill.
      But it also threatens abortion coverage to women in private plans, which is another big problem I have with it.
      I guess the outrage I feel is that this amendment came from a Democrat, and then several Democrats voted for the amendment, and then voted against the bill.
      They are playing politics with my rights- Democrats, for god's sake. Who needs a majority when this kind of bullshit goes on?

      Save the Earth! It's the only one that has chocolate.

      by skohayes on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 02:45:31 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Why don't we just make abortions free... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    pass the healtcare bill, and fund Family Planning clinics with "other federal funds" and make abortions free, or low cost.

    That would solve the problem.

    "GOP, Grandstand Oppose Pretend" (Rep. Ed Markey, November 7, 2009)

    by cyeko on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 10:43:16 AM PST

  •  Another potential problem (3+ / 0-)

    A lot of anti-abortionists believe that the Pill causes abortions because of a theoretical chance that taking it could prevent a fertilized egg from implanting.  They have the same objections to all hormonal birth control, like Nuvaring, Depo Provera, and Norplant, plus the IUD (which does prevent implantation).

    Given this, I could easily see anti-abortionists trying to extend this ban to every type of prescription birth control except sterilization and diaphragms.  That would be nothing short of disaster for American women.  On that ground alone the Stupak-Pitts Amendment MUST be defeated.

    •  Sound to me like we should invade (0+ / 0-)

      Iran because they may 2 years from now get the know-how to make a nuclear bomb.
      When a ban on birth control comes up, argue against it. Now you're just fear-mongering.

      •  They're starting to pull that shit NOW (0+ / 0-)

        It isn't "fear mongering" at all - it's REAL and it's HAPPENING even as we post.

        (Note to Ellid: they would forbid sterilization AND diaphragms TOO, as being "Contrary to GAWD's Will".)

        If it's
        Not your body
        Then it's
        Not your choice
        AND it's
        None of your damn business!

        by TheOtherMaven on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 11:48:48 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  That would be an EPIC FAIL (0+ / 0-)

      When somebody tells me that my condom killed an unborn baby will be the exact same moment I smack them in the head and tell them "there is no unborn baby you idiot..that's precisely the idea".

  •  Seperate abortion insurance... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RationalMan, StringTheory

    However, it allows individuals, both who receive affordability credits and who do not, to separately purchase with their own funds plans that cover elective abortions.

    The odds that a woman between the ages of 15 and 44 will get an abortion in a given year.

    1 in 50.

    The average cost of a first term abortion.


    If those 50 women pooled some money and covered each other (which is what insurance does) the cost per woman would be $475/50 or $9.50 per woman per year.

    15 to 6. Pulled ahead as soon as the gate opened and never looked back....

    by BobTrips on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 10:49:23 AM PST

    •  How about separate prostrate cancer insurance? (5+ / 0-)

      If you going to discriminate against women why not against men?  The point I made yesterday is that if the insurance industry had their druthers they would claim that prostrate surgery is elective as you could get cheaper radiation therapy (but is it a better answer ...).  

      No, I don't support discrimination of any type in HC.

      Let's pass HCR already!

      by noofsh on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 10:52:03 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Just quit trying to go there... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        RationalMan, Gravis

        This is political reality.  A very large number of people oppose abortion and even more oppose using federal dollars to pay for abortion.

        Overall the health bill is a huge, huge, huge, huge, huge net gain.

        Think of the millions and millions of women who will be getting health care via this bill.  

        Think of the tens of thousands who would die without it.

        Celebrate this gain that has been decades in coming.  

        Accept the fact that we don't have the votes to create federal funding for abortions.  

        America, in toto, is not ready to extend equal rights to all.  Non-whites are still suffering from discrimination, as are LGBT people.  Women are not exactly second class citizens any longer, but they're not exactly full first class either.

        We have work to do in changing public attitudes.  We.  All of us liberal/progressive types.  

        Until we finish that work we will have to adapt.

        15 to 6. Pulled ahead as soon as the gate opened and never looked back....

        by BobTrips on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 11:05:18 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  you might "adapt" (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          but women's health is part of healthcare.

          Language is wine upon the lips. -Virginia Woolf

          by valadon on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 11:13:59 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

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

            It looks like millions of women are now going to be able to get health care for things that are killing them right at this moment.


            Apparently all women will no longer be charged extra because they are female.


            It seems that women will not be getting help in paying for abortions.  (It's not something that they had that is being taken away from them.)



            Not covered cost?

            Less than $10 per year per woman.

            Bottom line?

            Women win and women win big!

            15 to 6. Pulled ahead as soon as the gate opened and never looked back....

            by BobTrips on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 11:22:41 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •'s NOT something they really had to (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              a huge extent anyway. The poor women have always been getting screwed. If their too poor to afford health insurance that will cover abortions, they have had to rely on Medicaid which due to the Hyde amendment has been doing very little to help them anyway--what like 13% or something? That vast majority have had to pay out of pocket too.

              •  Heard on the way home... (0+ / 0-)

                Seventeen states apparently provide abortion coverage for the poorest of the poor via their Medical programs.

                That won't change.

                What will change is that the woman working a 25 hour week at WalMart and then a 25 hour shift at McDonalds will now be assisted in obtaining affordable health care.

                If she needs an abortion for reason other than rape, incest, or her danger of dying she will have to either pay for it herself or purchase an insurance policy for a few bucks to cover it.

                What an improvement over pre-bill when she had not health insurance.  

                (Remember she had no abortion coverage either, so she has lost nothing.  And possibly gained her life.)

                15 to 6. Pulled ahead as soon as the gate opened and never looked back....

                by BobTrips on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 08:37:48 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

            •  You self-contradicted. (0+ / 0-)
              You post "Apparently all women will no longer be charged extra because they are female."

              But that's exactly what Stupak does. It makes women have to get two seperate plans, when men will only need one.

              Noone wants an abortion, no one plans an abortion, just like noone plans or wants to get a neck injury.

              But you have isurnace there as a safety net to protect you just incase, like the neck injury.

              Further, are you yet another coathanger denyier who still doesn't get that, yes, women would be losing what they have right now if their insurance covers abortion, you bet your sweet ass it does.

        •  Silence makes you complicit. Adaptation also does (0+ / 0-)

          when it involves essential equality. Let us remember Bob Trips and cite him when notifying the Dem moneyraisers that we are not prepared to adapt to our own subjugation. The NAACP did not adapt. They kept fighting.

          •  I wish you would remember me... (0+ / 0-)

            But remember me for what I am saying, not for what you imagine I'm saying.

            'Cause you got your stuff really wrong....

            15 to 6. Pulled ahead as soon as the gate opened and never looked back....

            by BobTrips on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 08:43:15 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  I get what you are saying, but... (0+ / 0-)

          I am not convinced that the public is against federally funded abortions.  I think you have some congresscritters in some districts where the majority of their constituents do.  I think you have some congresscritters who are throwing their own convictions into the mix.

          •  That's the point... (0+ / 0-)

            If you are the Representative from a district that opposes spending public money for abortions you either represent your district or you go against their wishes and damage your next election chances.

            The way our states have been sliced and diced into Congressional districts there can be very right wing districts in a left wing state.  (Recall NY-23?)

            It could be that some blue dogs are coming from Democratic districts, but they are heavily Catholic districts which tend to vote liberal on everything but abortion.

            And I haven't seen an analysis of what drives the Democrats who voted against the bill.  (Except for Purity Dog Dennis.  And I've got nothing but bad to say about his vote.)

            I'd like to see someone write a diary and give us some detail about the dogs.  Tell us whether it is a case of representing their districts, their own opinions, or something else.

            15 to 6. Pulled ahead as soon as the gate opened and never looked back....

            by BobTrips on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 08:49:56 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  Abortion= FAR cheaper than childbirth (5+ / 0-)

      If anything, the insurance company should offer you a discount for having an abortion rider.

      •  Yes, but... (0+ / 0-)

        Stupak disallows them to give you that discount as I understand it.

        You raise a good point, however.  It would seem to be a good idea for the insurance company's bottom line to offer you a separate abortion insurance price at a very attractive price.

        15 to 6. Pulled ahead as soon as the gate opened and never looked back....

        by BobTrips on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 11:08:59 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  That seems logical in theory, but ignores (0+ / 0-)

      the circumstances of the girls and women who are most likely to need it.  Teen-age girls saving their allowance to buy into an abortion pool should they need it someday?  Seriously?

      •  The world ain't perfect... (0+ / 0-)

        My plan ain't perfect.

        But it's a place to start.  Take it, consider it, improve it, replace it with something better.

        But don't get in the way by being a fault finder rather than a problem solver.

        15 to 6. Pulled ahead as soon as the gate opened and never looked back....

        by BobTrips on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 12:02:32 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  You're going overboard mcjoan (3+ / 0-)

    No one is forcing women to carry a pregnancy to term. If the government does not want to pay, that is not equivalent to forcing women.

    Since when is a fetal demise treated the same as abortion?

    Please be objective.

  •  Dems are the worst negotiators in the world (7+ / 0-)

    Holy shit. I would have expected this as a last line of defense for REPUBLICANS if a robust public option passed the House.

    But now they're throwing that on top of a watered down public option? And a Dem is proposing it?

    I guess I should have known when the Dems capitulated immediately on single payer before negotiations even began.

    Where's Gandhi to say, "I like your Democratic Party. I do not like your Democratic representatives. They are so unlike Democrats."

    "unless you have what's called the single payer system... you're probably not going to reach every single individual"--BHO

    by just some lurker guy on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 10:50:55 AM PST

  •  I think the rider will be cheap (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    southernphilosopher, fernan47, Gravis

    Think about the money involved:

    Childbrith (w/ the attendent pre-natal care, etc): $10,000 (more for c-section)

    abortion: depending on the severity- probably somewhere between $30 (morning-after pill) to $3000.

    It's a no-brainer. Abortion is cheaper for the insurance company! If I was the insurance company, I would offer a rider like this: $1 premium for a rider which covers up to 1 elective abortion per year. That would be the easiest money maker for any health plan insurer.

    The main objection I have is that the public option is not allowed to provide for abortion at all. This is bad for the public option, and financially BAD for the taxpayers as well. I wonder how the CBO scored this amendment.

    •  Not to mention the child's healthcare costs (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      After they're born.

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

      by Futuristic Dreamer on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 11:08:35 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yup- much cheaper for the taxpayers (0+ / 0-)

        Now I am sounding like some kind of evil eugenicist. But the truth is- if somebody is on public subsidies fo health care, then guess what- their children will also be on public subsidies for health care. Having that unwanted offspring carried to term is just a bad deal for the taxpayer (and a horrible deal for the mother of course). In fact, having an unwanted child will probably ensure that the mother stays on public subsidies for years to come. Having an unwanted child is one of the surest way of keeping a poor woman poor.

        Just from a financial standpoint, this amendment fails.

        •  That's been my point for days. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Futuristic Dreamer, noe44

          For all who are arguing that they don't think they should have to pay for an abortion on economic grounds (why should I pay for your abortion), they need to consider the cost for taxpayer subsidized prenatal care, hospital/doctors cost for childbirth, plus 18 years of raising this child (welfare and other government relief).  Not to mention the emotional strain this puts on women AND their families.

          $500 vs hundred of thousands of dollars, start to finish?

          Not to mention the fact, however, that to deny coverage for women for a LEGAL medical procedure is just plain immoral.

    •  I agree I think the rider should be very cheap (0+ / 0-)

      and if their is no killing this thing then riders had better be very affordable, and accessible to those women who need them.

  •  Aren't there non-hypocritical wingnuts... (0+ / 0-)

    ...protesting private insurance plans that cover elective abortions?  

    And that these private insurers use family-values christian money -- in the form of premium payments -- to turn around and pay for an abortion for the precious, snowflake choir girl who lives 2 McMansions down. Of course, it's a private matter that she partied a little too hard at the after-prom party, and got knocked up by someone on the football team. But that's okay, he sits a couple pews back at church, so no one will ever notice the awkward glances.

    National Socialism is to Socialism, as counter clockwise is to clockwise

    by Carbon on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 10:51:17 AM PST

  •  Private plans will drop abortion coverage? (2+ / 0-)

    Vague notions of cost-effectiveness and bottom-lines don't convince me that some private plans will drop abortion coverage entirely.  Can someone provide an argument which shows that this amendment will actually impact these factors?

    •  Why would they? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      boofdah, Gravis

      Pregnancy costs are higher than an abortion..then you have that child added to the insurance policy...and any complications from the pregnancy or congenital birth defects that might occur with the child..

      I really don't think private plans that already cover abortion will drop abortion coverage.

    •  Nobody has proven yet that insurance companies (0+ / 0-)

      will make supplemental policies available or at what cost, or has even thusfar that I have seen proven that any insurance company has ever offered a supplemental to an insured whose own principal policy, probably employment realted, does not offer it. Until somebody does that work, your request for that information and proof is sitting in the In Box waiting for information, if there is any.

      Can any of the 'you can insure it' crowd produce any supplemental abortion specific policies now being issued to people whose principal policy does not provide for abortion coverage? Has anyone ever seen such a policy that they can name so we can look at it and see how it is charged? If you can, naming the company and the policy and the premium, it might unfraught some of this conversation of people who are being forced on both sides to argue about a black hole where that information is concerned.

      •  Wasn't talking about supplemental insurance. (0+ / 0-)

        I was talking about this assertion in the article:

        Right now, nearly 90 percent of private, employer-based plans cover abortion services. This legislation could result in many of those plans dropping it, to make administration of plans simpler and more cost-effective. We know how critical the bottom line is to them.

  •  Is the IUD and MAP next??? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Samer, southernphilosopher

    I am very disturbed at this bill.  Instead of real health insurance reform we have an extension of anti-abortion politics extending now into private plans which for the most part covered abortion.  Many representatives and the anti-abortion zealots also consider the IUD and the Morning after pill as abortion.  Are these not to be covered too??  Why have restrictions on women been made and not men??  It is like having the right to vote but then blocked at the polls by a poll tax that is levied to prevent some groups from exercising their right to vote by making them pay.  

    I hope this is striped out of the bill but something tells me, many people lost more than we bargained for with this "historic" bill that was supposed to be about extending choice and coverage for all and now has actually restricted coverage for half the country's women who may need access to a safe and legal procedure that women in developing countries die because of lack of access and the ignorance of elected officials too afraid to protect all of its citizens.

  •  These twits will go down swinging (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Samer, fernan47 imaginary flies or the bats that flew out of their ears just pooping up a storm. Who gives a flying-fuck regarding when a soul makes it's implant in a uterine wall and has no compuction toward dropping cluster bombs on people who don't look like them?

    Jesus. Some people are dumb as hell. I'm almost ashamed to be related to them.

    Look! A recently married gay immigrant couple at an abortion clinic! Teabags!

    by Anthony Page aka SecondComing on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 10:52:36 AM PST

  •  bad day for rep. sepsis (7+ / 0-)

    I think they're having a bad day at Stupid's Stupak's DC office.

    i called to inquire about whether the amendment forces women with dead fetuses to carry to term, but the minute I got the word "Stupak Amendment" outof my mouth, the woman who answered the phone began screaming at me at the top of her lungs and slammed down the receiver.

    So i called back and asked her why she was screaming. She answered by screaming some more.

    Then i said "I just have a question, I am gettign conflicting information on the bill".

    "well, i can't answer that, you'll have to talk to the legislative aide".

    "well then put me through," i said.

    "i can't. that person's not here."

    "Wwll then transfer me to voicemail," I said.

    "No, i have too many people on hold."
    "OK," I said, "I'll call back later."

    "yes," 5:30 would be a great time."

    the office closes, of course, at 5:00.  nice try, epic fail, I'm calling back throughout the day.

  •  "The coathanger amendment" (9+ / 0-)

    is the perfect way to frame this POS. In fact, I think the entire anti-choice movement should be labeled the "Coathanger crowd". Younger people need to be taught about the the significance of coathangers in this ongoing debate.

    You can no more win a war than you can win an earthquake. Jeannette Rankin

    by RustyCannon on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 10:52:56 AM PST

    •  Call to send coathangers to Rep's Offices? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      valadon, RustyCannon

      I wonder how long it will be before an organization starts asking its members to send metal coat hangers to Congress critters.

      "Leave it as it is. You cannot improve on it. The ages have been at work on it and man can only mar it." -President Theodore Roosevelt

      by DemHikers on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 11:38:56 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm seriously considering sending one to MY Rep (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        RustyCannon, DemHikers

        for all the good it would likely do. It's Frank Wolf and he's a No-Choice Republican.

        We could have had Judy Feder, who would probably have voted "No" on Stupid and "Yes" on health care. But nobody outside VA-10 lifted a finger, dropped a penny, or gave a damn. She got nearly 40% of the vote ANYWAY.

        If it's
        Not your body
        Then it's
        Not your choice
        AND it's
        None of your damn business!

        by TheOtherMaven on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 11:53:56 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Addendum, joan (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BachFan, skohayes, noe44

    This does not only affect individual (Exchange) plans.

    Affordability credits can be used to pay for group plans as well. Millions of people are paying their own premiums through COBRA for employer-provided group plans, and lots of those people are going to qualify for government assistance.

    BUT the group plan, which must service the customer (per COBRA), must now include an abortion exclusion in order to do so.

    Therefore, all members of the group will lose their abortion coverage.

    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 Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 10:52:57 AM PST

  •  it seems like (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Futuristic Dreamer, princss6

    most of the women who would have trouble paying for an abortion under this bill are the same women who currently don't have health care anyways. Everyone I knew who had an abortion paid for their abortion out of pocket; they didn't want their parents to find out.
    this amendment sucks, don't get me wrong, and people are right to be angry, but it doesn't seem like the effects would be nearly as far reaching as people here are suggesting. And it does seem like it will get tied up in the courts for years.

  •  Thought... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Futuristic Dreamer, noe44

    is there anything in the legislation that requires insurance companies to "charge" for the rider?  I mean if this ends up saving the insurance company money because abortions are cheaper than bringing a baby to term and delivering, wouldn't it make sense to offer these riders at virtually no cost to the members?   I am not saying they will do that, but if there is nothing in the leglislation saying they have to charge for such a rider and it saves them money, they could use it as a marketing item - yes, I understand they probably wouldn't want to touch it as a marketing item with a "ten foot pole" but perhaps to the right audience?  

    •  That is just so far out of character for how (0+ / 0-)

      insurance companies have worked in the past, I can't see them not charging whatever the market will bear. They are in the business of scaring you into giving them your money now so you will not have some bad thing happen and have to pay more for it in the future.  In the meantime, they get to invest your money in the stock market and you don't.

      •  bottom line... (0+ / 0-)

        couple of things:
        a. this saves the insurance company money if women use the benefit rather than deliver a baby; and
        b. women who purchase the rider are doing so just in case, which means the vast majority will probably never use it, which means more profit and fewer claims paid for the insurance company.

        win-win for the insurance company.  

        I am a realist and understand that they will charge some amount, but I can't see it as being overly expensive as utilization would be relatively low and premiums collected would more than offset the claims paid. Unlike Dental or Vision where most folks that have to opt-in to get the coverage do so with the intent of using the benefit, this would be kind of like life insurance, you buy it for the unlikely chance you will actually use it.

        yes, I've seen the argument that this puts undue burden on women to get extra coverage and I agree, its unfair and biased.  However, if we are strictly talking about cost, I really don't think it will be prohibitive, even for low income folks.  

  •  Amen and thank you. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    valadon, noe44

    I don't want the liberal elite communists socializing my Nazism.

    by Kaili Joy Gray on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 10:54:18 AM PST

  •  I think Congress doesn't want to do anything... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    regarding healthcare. I mean seriously. Piss off women. Don't give the "little people" who have crappy employer insurance an option into the exchange. Taking months on end procrasting through this while other important legislation (second stimulus anyone) sits idly by.

    The Democrats in Congress don't get it.  The Republicans don't have any leadership.  They are now led by their whacko grassroots.  Our grassroots is going to have to force Congress to get off their butts and do something.

    I'm beginning to think that the only way that will happen is if things get worse. I can't take things getting any worse.  I don't know about the rest of you.

  •  I find myself wondering ... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    southernphilosopher, noe44

    will/has abortion gone underground. My state has only one abortion provider in the southeast corner of the state. Women in the northwest corner must travel hundreds of miles in any direction to reach a dedicated provider. I don't believe many of them 1) make the trip or 2) continue the pregnancy.

    Are physicians performed abortions as, say, DNCs for uterine cysts? Are women performing their own? In the early weeks, it's not a complex procedure. Non-M.D.s did it for years. We don't yet have septic abortion units in hospitals but how long before we do.

    The one truth in the issue is that outlawing abortion will not eliminate abortion.

    Recommended by:
    TheMomCat, valadon, BachFan

    Stop the rabid right-wing from restricting American womens medical choices. Call Congress and demand the "stupak-pitts amendment" be stripped from Health Care Reform.  Also, demand that liebermann be stripped of his chairmanship of HSC and kicked out of the Caucus.

    Congressional Budget Office (CBO) score's the baucus plan at $829 Billion over a 10 year period, that is paid for.  The CBO also states that it will lower the deficit by $80 Billion and it would be much lower if there was a public option.

    Criminally corrupt politicians are the reason the U.S. is ranked near the bottom of every catagory when ranked next to other modern, industrialized nations. Time for publically funded elections.

    lieberman $12.6M, mcconnell $7.8M, baucus $7.7M, cornyn $6.7M,
    kyl $5.6M, grassley $5.4M, ensign $5.2M, conrad $5.1M,  cantor $4.9M,
    nelson $4.9M, burr $4.8M, boehner $4.4M, hatch $4.4M, lincoln $4.1M,
    vitter $3.9M, carper $3.6M were paid by the Medical Industrial Complex to kill Health Care Reform. (Source:, Aug. 09)

    Follow the Money: Link

    Call Congress and demand, Single-Payer Health Care for All!

    (Toll Free # House and Senate)

    Sign Single-Payer, Public Option and Health Care as a Civil Rights Petitions: Link Link Link  kucinichpetition

    Don’t let the Medical Industrial Complex steal your Health Care from you and your family by donating huge sums of money to Crooked Politicians in order to maintain the Status Quo. Keep up the good fight.


  •  Let's create a nonprofit corp that funds off-plan (4+ / 0-)

    procedures....  If this health bill passes with these contraints, why not form a nonprofit that funds off-plan procedures, such as abortions and any other ideologically skewed restrictions.

    Let's call it American Incremental Insurance Corp.  Once someone has a procedure and pays for it, the corp would reimburse her/him for whatever the difference through a simple online form.  The corp would use funds garnered from donations and perhaps small percentages of aligned nonprofit funds....

    We could effectively null out this stuff.

    •  There already is a nonprofit that does that (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      princss6, JC from IA

      Planned Parenthood.  They offer abortions with sliding scale fees based on the woman's ability to pay. We can all donate to them.

      People who have the money up front probably won't have the biggest problem with it not being covered.  If you do start such a nonprofit, you should pay the providers directly.

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

      by Futuristic Dreamer on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 11:01:21 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Separate from the main consequences (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    listed here, the aside mentioned could be huge:

    Any plan in the exchange that covers abortion will be off-limits to everyone receiving government credits.  Some smart insurance company will pounce on this with half-assed abortion coverage (say, covering 50% after some huge co-pay) because they will be cleverly allowed to bar all low- and middle-class individuals from their plans.

    So not only does this have all the ridiculous consequences listed in the diary, but it could significantly contribute to the breakdown of the public exchange by allowing plans to bar poorer (and, perhaps, higher-use) people.

    Guide to my comments: When in doubt, assume sarcasm.

    by Gray on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 10:58:31 AM PST

  •  One has to wonder (0+ / 0-)

    Have any of these religionists ever stepped out of the bubble and walked suburbia and seen the High-School drop outs that are making their precious white children these days?

    It boggles the mind.

    Look! A recently married gay immigrant couple at an abortion clinic! Teabags!

    by Anthony Page aka SecondComing on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 10:58:40 AM PST

  •  This is anxiety talking (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    KayCeSF, princss6

    You might be right, but you might be wrong. Let's just focus on fighting for what we want the bill to look like, not on rejecting it. Please.

    An inclusive perspective for a changing world: Spiritual Persistence

    by sunflight on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 11:00:22 AM PST

  •  I'll admit I had no idea that insurance paid (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    rian90, Hope08, princss6, noe44

    for abortions except maybe for ones that were medically necessary.
    I've never had a policy that pays for elective abortions.
    Not saying it is something we should not fight for, just remarking I was surprised that there were policies out there that do.

    In lieu of flowers let's pass health care reform.

    by vintagejulie on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 11:01:44 AM PST

    •  All the employer plans I know about had coverage. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      It may have a lot to do with the state or region.  Kaiser plans covered it and that was offered to many government employees and union members.

    •  Every policy I've ever had did cover them (0+ / 0-)

      I know women co-workers who did get abortions under the plan that covers me.

      Here's another story that's a bit ironic:  A woman friend of mine had an elective abortion, and her insurance policy covered all costs except for a small co-pay.  Her employer?  A Jesuit university.

      Procrastination: Hard work often pays off after time, but laziness always pays off now.

      by Linnaeus on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 12:08:47 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  How many members of the Progressive Caucus (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    southernphilosopher, fernan47

    voted for the Stupak amendment?

    Does anyone have the info?

  •  National Network of Abortion Funds (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    valadon, cricket7, princss6, noe44

    It's going to get harder to provide enough funds. Senators and Reps: Sorry, I can't give to your campaign this time; I gave instead to the National Network of Abortion Funds. [P.S. You screwed yourself as well as women's rights. Go high five with The other side!]
    About Us

    The National Network of Abortion Funds was formed in 1993 to respond to this urgent problem. We are a network of over 100 grassroots groups in more than 40 states that help women pay for abortion services.

    We believe that:
    The legal right to abortion is only meaningful when women have the resources to obtain abortion services.

    Restrictions on abortion care and on public funding for abortion are discriminatory because they especially burden poor women, women of color, young women, and rural women.

    Abortion is part of basic health care, which is a right that should be guaranteed to all through an expanded Medicaid program or another universal health care plan.

    All women are entitled to reproductive justice. All women deserve to live in a world in which they have the power and the resources necessary to make healthy decisions about their bodies and their families.

    What all this shows is that the G.O.P. has been taken over by the people it used to exploit.

    by mrobinson on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 11:06:46 AM PST

  •  thnk you for the FP coverage (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lirtydies, Angry Mouse

    on this issue, McJoan.

    Language is wine upon the lips. -Virginia Woolf

    by valadon on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 11:07:02 AM PST

  •  About the rider... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    exploring, Hope08

    Isn't buying insurance, in itself, planning for an unplanned for event? Be it car insurance, or Accidental Death, aren't you planning for the unplanned?

    So, lets throw the baby out with the bath water.

    You usually get what you paid for.

    by IowaMike on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 11:09:34 AM PST

  •  I don't get the example, there is nothing (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    worldwideellen, exploring

    about that case which would have prevented her from getting a D&C before or after the amendment.  The fetus no longer had a heartbeat, even in Catholic hospitals it could be done.  

    •  I don't get it either. (0+ / 0-)


    •  And she called 'it' a BABY not a fetus. (0+ / 0-)

      "I had learned the day before that the BABY I thought was nearly 12 weeks old had no heartbeat, and had actually died at 8 weeks."

      The BABY was already dead.   The Stupak issue is if the BABY were alive should the government pay for killing it or stay out of it.

      •  Oddly enough most women (0+ / 0-)

        who wanted the pregnancy think of the fetus as the baby they're going to have.

        Yes, the baby was dead. I believe the procedure is still classified as abortion and could not be covered by insurance under the Stupak amendment. Many/most late-term abortions are similar.

        The Empire never ended.

        by thejeff on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 11:54:16 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I would like to see proof of this... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          worldwideellen, boofdah

          because I am not sure its true. I would think if the life of the mother is in danger..and having a dead fetus in her womb would put her in danger..then it would be covered differently that an abortion.

          I am very pro-choice, but I don't think it does us any good to make claims without something to back them up. Its fear mongering, just like any other.

        •  I really can't believe that the Stupak Amendment (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          would eliminate aftercare for a miscarriage or spontaneous abortion. The risk of sepsis is incredibly high if even a small piece of tissue is not expelled. Toxic shock could kill a woman within hours.

          And these are very common especially in the first 8 weeks.  According, to this website, 10% of all pregnancies end in spontaneous abortions.

          Nature tries a lot of different things and makes a lot of mistakes and miscarriages are one of the ways it takes care of those mistakes. Unless, it does a quick and clean job, the risk of infection is considered a life-threatening emergency.

          If the Stupak bans that coverage, the life span of women will be like that of the Congo.

          Maternal mortality rates in the old days were about 1 in a hundred from all the various causes. It was a very unsafe condition and in places without adequate medical attention.

          •  I'm no doctor, obviously (0+ / 0-)

            I'm relying here mostly on the report in the story.
            That case is reported as not life threatening and therefore wouldn't be covered.

            If the miscarriage was actually life-threatening then it would be, as I understand the amendment.

            The Empire never ended.

            by thejeff on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 12:47:00 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  It's not a problem of threatening her life (0+ / 0-)

              it's the fact that the fetus no longer has a heartbeat. Therefore there is no ethical dilemma.  

              I worked in a Catholic hospital which sometimes refused to allow women with ectopic pregnancies to have a medical abortion IF the fetus had a beating heart.  If emergent surgery was indicated it could be done but you could not "end the life" of the fetus if the life of the mother wasn't threatened.  So often you had to wait until the fetus had no heartbeat to medically abort the fetus thankfully that usually didn't take long...

          •  It wouldn't (0+ / 0-)

            because physicians wouldn't let it. Myriad problems can go wrong and physicians are going to make judgment calls that are inherently unenforceable by this amendment.

        •  The is a difference between an elective abortion (0+ / 0-)

          and a D&C for medical reason.  When a fetus has no heartbeat, a D&C is indicated for medical reasons.  The woman said she had a choice, no one dissuaded her from one vs another.    There is NOTHING in the amendment language which would change that unless they're changing standard of care for medical providers across the nation.  

    •  FWIW, I lived this (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      exploring, Hope08

      No fetal heartbeat at 12 weeks and presumed death at around 8 weeks -- maybe 10 at the outside.  My ob/gyn said my choices were to wait for my body to handle this or to do the D&E.  Why wouldn't we just do the procedure?  "Because it's an intervention," he said.  How long would he have me go before doing something? Two weeks, he said.  And it took that long -- two very hard, sad weeks, during which my wonderful doc called me twice, just to see how I was doing emotionally and otherwise.  That was followed by a surprisingly difficult "labor" at home.  I did not complete the task, so I had an in-office procedure to retrieve remainders.

      I can't comment on whether the procedure would be termed an abortion, though I think not.  I cannot guess at what the Stupak amendment does to this kind of situation.  But I can say two things: First, this story seems a little inaccurate and possibly exaggerated (especially the part about danger to mom and being "so far along"  -- you aren't far along if the fetus stopped growing at 8 weeks.)  Second, that I am eternally grateful to my doc for giving me that time to wait for nature to take its course.  I have read accounts of women who have had miscarriages and many seem to have trouble with the quick now-you're-pregnant-now-you're-not aspects of having a procedure -- I mean emotional trouble that goes on for years, even decades.  Some even wonder if the "baby" was really dead.  I had time to make a psychological transition and say my goodbyes, if you will.  I had no doubt by the time it was over that the pregnancy had failed on its own.  

      This is all tangential to the conversation, but when I see the opportunity to make a few comments about how miscarriages can be, should, are handled, I like to offer my two cents'.  This woman's account seems to imply that surgical intervention is a necessity for the health of the mother, and I would say -- at least -- that it's not always true.

      "My subconscious is a genius." -- my smart, funny, 16 year old.

      by worldwideellen on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 01:24:14 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  There weren't a lot of (0+ / 0-)

    Congressmen and women that voted against this amendement, and then voted against the bill, were there?

  •  List of Dems who approved the amendment? (0+ / 0-)

    So we know who to target in 2010?

    •  Answering my own question (kinda) (0+ / 0-)

      That's the full list of congress-critters who voted on the amendment...

      •  Explicit List (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        lirtydies, valadon

        Altmire, Baca, Barrow, Berry, Bishop (GA), Boccieri, Boren, Bright, Cardoza, Carney, Chandler, Childers, Cooper, Costa, Costello, Cuellar, Dahlkemper, Davis (AL), Davis (TN), Donnelly (IN), Doyle, Driehaus, Ellsworth, Etheridge, Gordon (TN), Griffith, Hill, Holden, Kanjorski, Kaptur, Kildee, Langevin, Lipinski, Lynch, Marshall, Matheson, McIntyre, Melancon, Michaud, Mollohan, Murtha, Neal (MA), Oberstar, Obey, Ortiz, Perriello, Peterson, Pomeroy, Rahall, Reyes, Rodriguez, Ross, Ryan (OH), Salazar, Shuler, Skelton, Snyder, Space, Spratt, Stupak, Tanner, Taylor, Teague, Wilson (OH)

  •  I remember the days of back alley abortions, (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I have no desire to hand that world down to my daughters.

  •  I say we ADD a few amendments in the Senate... (0+ / 0-)

    Federal funds will not be provided for the following and policy holders shall be required to purchase a rider to cover:

    Coronary bypass surgery, for folks who eat bacon cheeseburgers.

    Orthopedic care, for people who engage in dangerous sports like skiing, touch football, jogging...(see attached list).

    Kidney transplants, for consumers of alcoholic beverages.

    Brain surgery, for people who ride bicycles without a helmet.

    BushCheney Inc. - They lied to me, they lied to you, they lied to our troops.

    by jjohnjj on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 11:20:34 AM PST

  •  Jane Collective, Anyone? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    valadon, An Affirming Flame

    I have long been convinced that feminism is dead (in the past month, two women at my job have railed against that word which they "hate" and have peppered a conversation about glass ceilings at law firms and the unfairness with "I'm not a feminazi or anything..."), but I'm hoping, just maybe, that this wakes women up to the fact that women's bodies, while always under threat from the patriarchy (yes, I did just use that word) are increasingly finding their bodies regulated out from under them.  

    I'm hoping maybe this lights some fire under some asses about the fact that the need for women's struggle and women's movements (the political movement that dare not speak its name) start up again.  I think its time for some serious woo to the woo, some feminist, matriarchy juju to kick the hell back up again.

    I'm thinking that the a modern day Jane collective (see diary of a former abortionist) needs to get kick started and that we, as women, need to start to rerecognize that our knowledge is ancient and powerful.  that's why women are burned at the stake.  literally and figuratively.

    Enough distractions with bridal magazines and body hate and interfeminine disregard.  Enough of the lavender menance freakouts to prevent women from seizing their own lives back.  Women truly need to start looking out for their own interests (because at the end of the day?  When pressed?) it is pretty clear how many will bail from protecting them.

    yes there are men who support women.  yes there are men who support a woman's right to have an abortion.  but at the end of the day, not their pig, not their farm.  and if the grand history of struggle shows us anything, only those who are doing the farming can make the change or will invest (in great numbers) the blood, sweat and tears to get their rights.  Allies are great, but they are never enough.

  •  I had the same situation (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    exploring, Shocktheworld
    my embryo's heartbeat stopped at around 7 weeks.  At 9 weeks, my dr. suggested a D&C.  It was technically termed an abortion.  My insurance, which does not cover elective abortion, paid every penny.  So I am not sure you are right about saying insurance would not cover this.
    •  My wife & I went through (0+ / 0-)

      a similar situation with the almost the exact same facts and insurance did cover the D&C (even though the policy said it did not cover elective abortion).  

      •  Same here (0+ / 0-)

        same situation.  I gather that the point is that situation may change if the amendment stays in which would be a tragedy.  

        I've heard that nearly a quarter of first time pregnancies end non-viable like that, no heartbeat, no further growth.  It's going to be a real tragedy if woman don't get an affordable option to remove the non viable and start over.

        •  I don't think so. (0+ / 0-)

          I think the diary author assumed that because it was called abortion, it would be included under the amendment. But I htink she is wrong.

          •  Has to be. The AMA would be making headlines with (0+ / 0-)

            warnings if it weren't.  Talking about going back to the dark ages. One out of a hundred pregnancies ending in death of the mother.  Some countries have it down to less than ten per 100,000.  The US still has a lot of improvement to make as far as access and timely access.  We have 13 per 100,000 maternal deaths.

  •  Daily Kos is a right wing option that kicks in to (0+ / 0-)

    kill legislation.

  •  #2 is the worst (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    How the hell do the people who voted for this amendment get the idea that they can usurp the discretion and judgment of physicians to care for their patients? How can they not consider the morbidity, not just the "mortality* of these women? For them it's perfectly ok if a women is maimed or permanently disabled due to the pregnancy as long as she doesn't die. That's so fucking wrong

  •  The exact same thing happened to us (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    as described in the 'real life example'.  My wife had the same reaction too: let's get it out now and have a hope of starting fresh rather than to start bleeding on a bus on some random day.

    We didn't even know what was going on at first.  The Doctors kept using the medical term 'D and C' so we didn't even actually realize it was technically (and legally) an abortion until the day of the operation.   To us it was just what was needed to let us start trying to have a family again.  There was no moral quandary involved because the embryo was not viable.

    I didn't realize it until we were at the hospital and several nurses kept coming in asking my wife the same type of questions, 'do you know why you are here today?', 'have you been informed of the options?'.  

    We were both confused until I had a sickening realization....the DandC is technically an abortion, and I was pretty convinced that some of those nurses were just making political attempts to convince my wife of another option, even though if those nurses were at all interested in her safety, they could have read her chart and found out that this was hardly an 'elective' surgery, and there were no other good options.  It made me extremely angry, and it had my wife in tears.  As if losing our potential child wasn't enough trauma.

    It got to the point where my wife blew up in tears at being asked again 'So why are you here today' and responded "I don't know, it seemed like a good way to spend an afternoon'.

    I'm not saying all the nurses were nosy interrogators.  Some of the questions are probably because abortion opponents have gotten lots of laws written involving consent and notification and education and forced hospitals to adopt certain procedures.  I also imagine that since abortion is such a hot button issue, there are many studies going on in various hospitals where people are collecting data about abortions, people's attitudes towards it and the circumstances that bring woman in.

    The experience taught me that it is absolutely ludicrous and ridiculous to try to legislate 'medical procedures' because you never know why people might need those procedures.  

    It also taugh me never to trust statistics on how man 'babies are killed' each year, because they probably count my wife's procedure.

    Also, I found out that nearly a quarter of all first pregnancies end this way (non-viable) so I began to understand just how much the abortion statistics are likely distorted.

    This amendment is a blunt legislative hammer that would keep people like my wife from getting a sensible operation even when there are no reasonable moral issues involved AT ALL. NONE.  The embryo was dead.  It was essentially a cyst.

    Of course, I'm for total reproductive freedom, I'm just saying that EVEN IF you're morally opposed to abortion, you must (if you are sensible) agree that a procedure like this is acceptable, and making it illegal (or too costly) is a legislative and medical tragedy that ignores the real reasons many people get them.

  •  I'm sorry, but I just heard Rep. Miller (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    state on MSNBC that without allowing that Amendment, the HCR Bill would not have passed on the floor of the House.

    Though I am not happy at all with this Amendment, used only to hijack the Bill and stomp all over pro-choice legislation, I also don't think our Democrats should reject the passing of a health care reform bill that will protect, medicate and cover way too many more Americans, because of this Amendment.  

    I do believe that this Amendment can be left out of the Bill in conference.  But if it remains in the Senate and House Bills, if that's what it takes to pass this Bill for the majority of people who NEED are DESPERATE for health insurance coverage, then so be it. Someone with a life-threatening disease needs health care coverage more.  

    We will have to fight to have it purged from the Bill later.

    I trust Rep. George Miller to know how this went on the floor of the Senate on Saturday night.  He fought too damn hard with others to pass that Bill. I know full well he was not happy to say that w/o that Amendment this Bill would not have passed. He looked serious and upset about it.

    Rep. Cao in Louisiana said that had that Amendment not been in the Bill, he would not have voted to pass the Bill.

    I am a woman.  I am pro-choice.  But I'm a realist. That's not to say that we shouldn't raise hell now, write our Reps and tell them this Stupak Amendment should be taken out of the Bill at conference.    

  •  If you think... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I mean, actually no-kidding believe--that the New Knighted States Congress is going to pass a healthcare bill that provides for gummint-funded abortions, then we've got a worse echo chamber than FOX.  Just because a cause is noble, and just, and right, and of supreme importance (as a woman's right to choose most certainly is) does not exempt it from political reality. We gotta get this bill passed, not win every important human right we've ever been fighting for.

  •  Discrimination against women's health (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Phoenix Woman, valadon

    Loss of abortion and reproductive choices are a part of the picture of discrimination against women. Women die in childbirth.

    Four million American women give birth every year, and about 500 die during childbirth or from pregnancy-related complications.

    Why are woman here more likely to die in America?

    What all this shows is that the G.O.P. has been taken over by the people it used to exploit. -Paul Krugman

    by mrobinson on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 11:53:32 AM PST

  •  When perfect is the enemy of the good (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    While I am disappointed  at the passage of the Stupak Amendment, I would not go as far as to hold the whole HCR Bill hostage and cannot understand the whole outrage.

    At the moment we have NOTHING! All of us here know that people are dying without health insurance. All of us here know that people are going bankrupt without health insurance.

    My coworker has ovarian cancer and has just gone for her first set of treatments. If she loses her job, she will lose her health insurance. And we all know what will happen.

    On a purely monetary terms, an abortion according to a quick search costs less than $2000. I uneducated  guess is that  my friend's first set of treatments will alone at least $20,000 or more.

    Given the brave men and women of Congress (and that's a given) which would you rather have?

    Stupak plan and HCR or No HCR, No Stupak plan?

    Consider this: My Congressman Ricard Neal (W. MASS) voted for the plan! And this from liberal MA!

    Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much. Oscar Wilde

    by RationalMan on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 11:55:30 AM PST

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

    I am disappointed in you. In your "coathanger" addition to the discussion.

    As far as I can tell there is zero attack on a woman's right to obtain an abortion.

    The right continues to exist, unencumbered by federal law if Stupak stands.

    Let's discuss facts and solutions.  

    Front pagers, especially, should not be throwing bogus gasoline on the fire....

    15 to 6. Pulled ahead as soon as the gate opened and never looked back....

    by BobTrips on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 11:59:35 AM PST

  •  US didn't sign the CEDAW (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), adopted in 1979 by the UN General Assembly, is often described as an international bill of rights for women.  Consisting of a preamble and 30 articles, it defines what constitutes discrimination against women and sets up an agenda for national action to end such discrimination.

    The United States has failed to sign this convention. The United States has failed to amend the Constitution to guarantee equal rights for women.

    The Convention defines discrimination against women as "...any distinction, exclusion or restriction made on the basis of sex which has the effect or purpose of impairing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment or exercise by women, irrespective of their marital status, on a basis of equality of men and women, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural, civil or any other field."

    What all this shows is that the G.O.P. has been taken over by the people it used to exploit. -Paul Krugman

    by mrobinson on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 12:01:40 PM PST

  •  WriteYour Senator!! (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    valadon, raincrow, skohayes

    I have already written the following email to my senator.

    Dear Senator Feinstein:

    It is my strong belief that the Stupak amendment to the House bill must be purged from the final Health Care bill that finally passes the congress.  I strongly encourage you to vote against inclusion of this tragic anti woman's effort.

    Thank you


    I encourage everyone on this list to do the same.

  •  That's a lot of democraps in the democratic (0+ / 0-)

    party. I didn't know we had so many people willing to push THEIR religious beliefs off on the rest of us. Any bill or amendment such as this, is unconstitutional, because it crosses the line between church and state.

    Another thing, why don't these men stay the fuck out of women private affairs. I don't give a pee pee about what YOUR religion says are you think it says. Keep YOUR religions away from me or i'll start getting in the way of your rights to practice the religion you choose.  

  •  I couldn't believe my rep voted for this POS (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    raincrow, skohayes

    In the ten years I've lived in MA, I've always voted for Ritchie Neal and never had any indication he's sell out women like this.  I feel deceived.  Here's my short letter to him:

    Dear Rep. Neal,

    I am writing to express my disappointment in your vote for the Stupak Amendment.  In all those years I have voted for you, I assumed I was supporting someone who respected a woman's autonomy over her own body as well as her own health care decision.  

    I look forward to supporting your next primary challenger.

    With deep regrets,

    (my name)

    by Dissento on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 12:24:15 PM PST

  •  any possibility it's unconstitutional?* (0+ / 0-)
    •  Yes, read Justice O'Conner's opinion in Casey (3+ / 0-)

      where she outlines the standard for 'undue burden' on a woman's exercise of her right to choose.

      Tell us what you think after reading her opinion. Of course, Scalia and Thomas did not agree. But we knew that.

      •  if a full array of health care needs are add- (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        ressed and abortion--already legal--is not among them, then it seems it might be illegal on SEVERAL grounds, starting with O'Conner's argument and flowing to the issue of why abortion alone, a legal process, is unfairly singled out for exclusion.

        The problem, as I see it, is that liberals have given too much ground historically in the debate and not argued abortion as a simple necessary fact--not a "choice"--but an act that saves a young woman's future, career, etc., mental health, etc. (Against the objections of some friends, I have always argued that I was "pro-abortion," and I am. A potential life, yes. But you run the risk of reifying the personhood of a lump of cellular matter if you sing rueful rhetorical threnodies about the loss of the foetus, I have come to believe. Personhood is a matter of BECOMING, and some of these wingers are not their yet, even at 50-60 years of age. :)) In Europe, where abortion is much less stigmatized, this assumption of abortion as matter-of-fact necessity tends to inhere more fully. And, of course, it has always inhered more fully among the rich, who oftne simply won't allow a young woman's future to be compromised--or eventual marriage matches in which her economic role as pristine object to be undone--by unwanted pregnancy (pace Gayle Rubin and Emma Goldman on this subject).

        •  Yes, well , most of Europe didn't get hung up on (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Matthew Detroit

          this issue or single payer either. Business is a means to an end, not the end and be all to be protected first.

          Ireland is still one of the most backward on this issue and even bans women leaving the country for the purpose of having an abortion some place else. They would rather see them in the Magdalene laundries or worse than to have an abortion.

          •  yeah, I used to live in Ireland; I think (0+ / 0-)

            they may have actually recently passed a law that says the constitution can never be altered to admit abortion!

            I'm not one of those who romanticizes Europe. In many ways racism is worse here (in England, where I am now, for ex.) than back in the USSA.

  •  I've not read all the comments..... (0+ / 0-)

    But one thing that should be said to the Congressidiots is this:

    The Stupak-Pitts Amendments will force a woman to carry a rotting corpse inside her body, should the heartbeat stop, until it becomes so toxic that she's dieing because it's not been removed.

    The key words would be 'rotting corpse'.  They want graphic, there's something that's graphic.  It just might be graphic enough to shake up a few.

  •  Is this amendment designed to test Roe v. Wade? (0+ / 0-)

    If a national health care bill is passed with this amendment, surely a court challenge will be in the offing that will ultimately end up in the Supreme Court.

  •  Logically, nothing truly "elective" should be (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    covered. That means no boob jobs, tummy tucks, eye lifts, no hair transplants, nothing that isn't medically necessary.

  •  Great post (0+ / 0-)
    But could you drop the "coathanger" language please? It is not helpful to act as if this amendment bans abortion. It's bad enough without being demagogic about it. This "coathanger" meme is really bothering me. We need to be honest about what we're fighting, and the rest of your post does that admirably.
    •  Another mushy centrist (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      alizard, Gemina13

      whose hands flutter at the sound of strong but accurate language.

      McJoan, the term "coathanger" is absolutely apt. Don't change a word.

      •  I am no centrist (0+ / 0-)

        And you have a fine case thinking you can label my ideological position based on my objection to inaccurate, demagogic language.

        I am a social democrat and Democrat by default, and totally opposed to restrictions on funding for abortions.

        I'm also opposed to demagoguery, however - regardless of what position it's in service of. It's clear that this propaganda meme is what front-pagers and the most popular diarists are going with here, so I'm going to give up complaining about it in the future when I see it on these pages. But mark my words: It does our side no credit to emulate the out-of-control right by yelling slogans that are exaggerated or false.

        This is the "denial of coverage" amendment. It's bad and needs to be fought vigorously. But there's no reason to make honesty a casualty in the fight, and if you think that makes me "mushy," you can go fly a kite as far as I'm concerned. How's that for "strong language"?

  •  Thank you, McJoan. You are a treasure. (0+ / 0-)

    I just finished listening to the audio of "Revolutionary Road."  Is that the direction the U.S. is moving?

  •  What About a 501C3? (0+ / 0-)

    Why not simply start a major non-profit foundation to donate to abortion clinics for payments for abortion for low-income people who can't afford to pay for one?

    We're only talking a couple of hundred bucks per procedure.  What's the big deal about this?  Loads of people and foundations would contribute to such a fund.

  •  Where is my tax rebate? (0+ / 0-)

    I want back the money they spent to operate secret black hole prisons and torture innocent Muslims.  Every goddamned cent of it.

    The GNOP: We take the "bi" out of bi-partisanship.

    by Mother of Zeus on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 06:31:43 PM PST

  •  Any Constitutional experts on board? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    i like bbq

    If I understand this bill correctly, it's going to force people to buy health insurance, but with this amendment the law will limit a woman's right to choose.

    This isn't exactly Viagra, there are clear Supreme Court decisions, starting with Roe, that establish this right. They even overturned the "late term abortion" prohibition.

    So how is this amendment not discrimination against a protected group of citizens?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site