Maybe it's because I'm from a purple state that considers this issue settled with no federal subsidies for abortion.
Or maybe I'm just tired of having health care held hostage over a procedure that NARAL and NOW could probably fund for all poor women with the money they spend on lobbyists.
I'm for choice, but I'm not willing to keep those with life-threatening or pre-existing conditions without coverage any longer.
I don't see why this controversy cannot be worked out in the House/Senate conference so that the law stays the same as it is now. Our leadership controls both Houses, right?
Why are Democrats fretting over conservative Catholics who would never vote for us under any circumstances? Most Catholics think nothing about using birth control. Only the bishops and seniors make a big deal about it. Let them stew in their own fundamentalist zeal. As the older generation dies off, so will this issue.
So let's just use reconciliation. We have enough Senate votes to pass our bill the way we want. I'm sick of hearing that we must avoid the filibuster. We can bust the obstructionists. We did it with civil rights.
So bring it it on. Let the Senators who are dragging their feet on real change have a name and a face to match it with voters who elected Obama in a landslide. It will only hurt these jerks and the entire Republican Party in the long run.
Time is not on their side on this issue and all the rest of their repressive agenda.
The problem is: with federal dollars going to help people who would buy into the "exchange" pool, any insurance companies wanting to get into that pool will NOT cover that procedure, because the Stupak amendment:
bans coverage for most abortions from all public and private health plans in the Exchange.
And there's this:
Will the Stupak Amendment Force Women Who've Miscarried to Lose Insurance Coverage?
I think so.
This weekend, a group of male pro-life Democrats gambled with women's health, and women lost. 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."
Hospitals and doctors in general do not have terminology to classify a difference between the termination of a live pregnancy and one in which the fetus has already died. To them, a D&C is a D&C, regardless of the state of the "conception materials" removed.
Barbi,
Then we need to fix the wording and stop making this about abortion instead of health care.
Or better yet, let's give everyone Medicare so we can get the insurance companies out of the equation. They obviously are confused and don't realize that everyone has a pre-existing condition lurking in their genes.
I don't care about when life begins. I care about the quality of life for those who are facing sickness without access to coverage or affordable treatment. In other words, all of us.
You are falling into the conservatives' trap of debating abortion instead of demanding that there is a cheaper and more efficient way of delivering health care the way it is.
Stick to the program; don't get sidetracked into going to PalinWorld. The Republicans don't want to reform a corrupt system and should be called on the waste they support.
Bart Stupak Lied at Midnight Friday and then He Lied All Day Saturday
If Bart Stupak was Pinocchio, his nose would just keep growing and growing.
Right after midnight on Friday November 6th, Bart Stupak began his testimony to the House Rules Committee. The (be)witching hour. Less than 24 hours later the vote began on his amendment. Not much time to understand his amendment.
It was a bait and switch. There had been an earlier amendment whose language had circulated. It prohibited the use of federal dollars, i.e. federal subsidies, in only the public option, not the newly created exchanges. The new amendment did much more. It extended the prohibition to the exchanges. By doing that, it will in short order, 2-3 years after the exhanges begin operating, eliminate almost ALL insurance coverage for abortion.
Rep. Bart Stupak lied in his testimony. When he lied in his testimony before the Rules Committee. Therefore he lied to those 64 Democratic members who voted for the Stupak-Pitts-Kaptur-Dahlkemper amendment. Some of them are having buyer's remorse. It should be further inflamed by this. They were sold a dishonest bill of goods by Rep Stupak.
McClatchy: Stupak Amendment Written Because Catholic Bishops Wanted A Tougher Law
- - -
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
How The Stupak Amendment Changes The Status Quo
This measure:
- Goes beyond the Hyde Amendment by preventing women from using their own money to buy an insurance plan that includes abortion, even though no public funding would be spent on abortion services.
- Gives insurance companies an incentive to discriminate against low- and moderate-income women.
- Limits insurance companies in deciding what benefits to offer their customers
- Provides for the purchase of flimsy abortion-only riders that are unlikely to be offered or purchased.
- Allows for discrimination against health care providers who are willing to offer abortion services.
How Catholic Bishops Threw the Health Care Debate into Turmoil with Anti-Abortion Maneuver
The amendment, spearheaded by Bart Stupak, D-Mich., goes far beyond the standard prohibition on the use of federal dollars for abortion services known as the Hyde Amendment; Stupak's would prohibit the purchase, through the health insurance exchange the bill would create, of even private health insurance plans that cover abortion -- even for women who were not eligible for government-subsidized premiums.
The cumulative effect of the Stupak amendment is it would likely kill abortion coverage in nearly all health insurance plans, whether purchased through the exchanges or not, since the exchanges will come to constitute the bulk of the market for policies purchased by individuals.
It would also affect the coverage offered employees of the federal government -- one of the nation's largest employers -- who already choose from among a range of insurance packages offered in the Federal Employee Health Benefits Plan.
George Washington University study:
The analysis adds that insurance companies can be expected to interpret the Stupak amendment broadly, “excluding coverage of not only most medically indicated abortion procedures but also treatments for serious illnesses, injuries, and medical conditions that include an abortion undertaken for health reasons.” In another words, “chemical abortions” or D&E procedures would end up not being covered by any insurance plan, setting up a real barrier for these expensive procedures and severely threatening women’s health.
This is a huge repudiation of the “we’re just following current law” talking point that Stupak has been peddling. According to these experts, it’s bogus. The Stupak amendment would represent the biggest barrier to abortion services since the passage of Roe v. Wade, without question.
Boxer: Senate Has Votes To Block Stupak Amendment
"When we sat down to do health care, I thought there was an understanding that we would be abortion-neutral," she said. "In other words we wouldn't change anything on abortion; that federal funds couldn't be used but of course private funds could as long as this was legal. And Roe v. Wade is the law of the land."
It's encouraging that the votes are there to get rid of it.
Pelosi is smart enough that she realized that putting in the house bill was necessary for the house bill to pass but in conference committee I hope it gets written out so that the full house will then have an up-or-down vote on a health care bill containing the previous language. I doubt if even Stupak will want to be credited with being the reason the whole thing comes crashing down if it gets to that point.
Stupak is actually threatening that:
Dem claims he has enough pro-life votes to defeat health bill
The co-author of a House amendment that would exclude abortion from health care reform says efforts to overhaul the US's health care system will fail if the amendment is removed.
US House Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) told Fox News' Fox & Friends that if his contentious amendment is stripped from the House bill, it will lose 15 to 20 pro-life votes in the House, meaning it wouldn't have the votes necessary to pass the House.
"They’re not going to take it out," The Hill quotes Stupak as saying. "If they do, health care will not move forward."
But that claim was immediately disputed by another House representative, Diana DeGette, Democrat of Colorado and co-chair of the Congressional Pro-Choice Caucus, who said that Stupak's math is wrong, because many of those 15 to 20 votes were conservative Democrats who voted in favor of the amendment, but still voted against the health care bill as a whole.
"I think [Stupak] won't have the votes when people explain to those members what exactly the Stupak amendment does," DeGette told ABC News.
Commenting by HaloScan
