NARAL explains why the idea of a "riders" under Stupak is hot air...

[Sparkly]

...Even though the bill already included a ban on federal funding for abortion and a requirement that only women's personal funds could pay for abortion care, Reps. Stupak and Pitts took their obsession with attacking a woman's right to choose to a whole new level. ... (snip)

Keenan said anti-choice members of Congress and their allies distorted key elements of the Stupak-Pitts amendment to make the proposal appear less extreme. Here are rebuttals to these distortions, including the myth of an abortion "rider" that they say women could purchase in addition to their insurance plan:

The Stupak-Pitts amendment forbids any plan offering abortion coverage in the new system from accepting even one subsidized customer. Since more than 80 percent of the participants in the exchange will be subsidized, it seems certain that all health plans will seek and accept these individuals. In other words, the Stupak-Pitts amendment forces plans in the exchange to make a difficult choice: either offer their product to 80 percent of consumers in the marketplace or offer abortion services in their benefits package. It seems clear which choice they will make.

Stupak-Pitts supporters claim that women who require subsidies to help pay for their insurance plan will have abortion access through the option of purchasing a "rider," but this is a false promise. According to the respected National Women's Law Center, the five states that require a separate rider for abortion coverage, there is no evidence that plans offer these riders. In fact, in North Dakota, which has this policy, the private plan that holds the state's overwhelming share of the health-insurance market (91 percent) does not offer such a rider. Furthermore, the state insurance department has no record of abortion riders from any of the five leading individual insurance plans from at least the past decade. Nothing in this amendment would ensure that rider policies are available or affordable to the more than 80 percent of individuals who will receive federal subsidies in order to help purchase coverage in the new exchange.

http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/news/press-releases/2009/pr11072009_househcrbillstupak.html

[sandnsea]

1. Gosh. Write a law mandating ALL policies have a rider

How freaking hard is that. Stupak has agreed to the riders, so make it law.

[joeycola]

2. So, why didn't the Dem Congress have the guts to do at the time?

[joeybee12]

6. because they never have the guts...

...they won't do it...Stupak and his cronies will fight against that also...it's not about federal funds being used, it's aboutfrocing their narrow views on us all, that's what the right-to-lifers really want.

[joeybee12]

5. Yeah, that's gonna pass

:sarcasm:

[sandnsea]

7. Stupak has already accepted this idea

It could have been passed, but the women's groups decided to fight for perfection instead of progress again.

The legislation already allows for supplemental policies. It wouldn't be that difficult to change that to riders on every policy.

[Recursion]

3. Exactly: separate companies will have to offer "abortion insurance"

I could spit nails at this point.

[sandnsea]

4. No, it does not have to be that way at all

The Stupak Amendment specifically allows for a pool of separate funding within any given insurance company. All they have to do is mandate abortion riders on every policy. But they'd rather have another cultural war and screw up health care reform altogether.