Rachel Maddow on MTP. Stupak amendment must be stripped...

[madfloridian]

Run time: 05:06 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YisXbmVcHDc   Posted on YouTube: November 08, 2009 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: November 08, 2009 By DU Member: madfloridian Views on DU: 3543

 
or many Democratic women will sit on their hands.

Maddow: "The Stupak amendment . . . is the biggest restriction on abortion funding since the Hyde Amendment, it's the biggest restriction on abortion access in this country in a generation, if it took a Democratic President 60% majorities in the House and Senate are Democrats to get that I think you can expect Democratic women to sit on their hands at least, if not revolt if that doesn't get taken out in conference."

More from the Ministryoftruth's diary at DKos:

Maddow on Stupak amendment

On Meet The Press today, Rachel Maddow made a point that should NOT be overlooked by Democrats in the House and Senate who wish to remian in their elected offices in 2010 and beyond, and that is the fact that if the Stupak-Pitts C Street anti abortion amendment in the House version of Health Care Reform is NOT removed if/when the bill goes to Conference to be merged with the Senate bill, there will be MASSIVE blowback for the Democratic party from it's female base.

[Enrique]

1. none of the boys on the panel wanted to talk about that

it was actually pretty rude how they all utterly ignored what she said.

[defendandprotect]

9. Almost goes unnoticed because so typically male . . .!!! They're trained to not listen to females.!

[Enthusiast]

26. It is like that on every political

talk show. This is why Rachel can speak so fluently while talking so fast. She's amazing, in many ways.

[booley]

30. Didn't fit the paradigm

Sure what she said was true.

Sure it's the reason we need health care.

But it doesn't play along with the GOP's framing.

Sure people are suffering but won't you please consider the poor money?

[OneGrassRoot]

2. So, what was David Brooks saying at the end?

When he said the problem is the "fee-for-service system that has been driving up cost for decade after decade."

Does that mean he's in favor of a single-payer system?

[indimuse]

3. fee for sercive..?

exactly WHAT services do insurance co's offer??

[galloglas]

4. Rejection of claims

is a real biggie.

[emulatorloo]

5. She is absolutely right - it should be stripped. Call your Sens and Reps n/t

[Hutzpa]

6. Listening to David Brooks

reminds me of those cocksure lobbyist who where saying Obama's policy to
ban lobbyist from the White House was just that, it's just a matter of
time before they start using all the loop holes, where are they now?

Last I heard, they are fast becoming a thing of the past.

The morale of this anecdote Mr David Brooks is, there are times when you so
called experts can really speak outta that special place just to get attention.

[defendandprotect]

8. Ban lobbyists from Congress . . PLEASE...!!!!

[defendandprotect]

7. How does anyone watch or participate in this garbage . . . ? First --

Rachel Maddow ALONE to express the outrage with Fundi control over women's reproduction

being pushed by our supposedly secular Congress??????????????

No comments by males??????????????

Secondly, Hyde amendment should have been overturned ages ago -- by Dems.

If Democrats want to follow Repugs into the religious pit, then they should pay for it!

As soon as America wakes up to "god-induced" fear by Repugs and what it actually does.

In fact, the GOP/God is hell bent on war it seems and no one on that panel seemed to want

to discuss just how much the MIC absorbs of our taxpayer funds!!!

[WestSeattle2]

10. Not just the females. n/t

[golddigger]

11. Rachel will be on the warpath monday and rightly so!

[mmarsh]

12. I hate to say it but the bill should probably pass with the abortion

clause in it. Don't get me wrong, I think it stinks to high heaven too, but if comes down to getting the bill passed or not getting it passed it because of abortion we should take the lesser of two evils. That's what the right-wing wants they are hoping we kill are own bill because of the abortion issue (that's why they added it). We can always pass the bill as is, and then work to eliminate that nasty little cleveat later.

Its better than nothing at all. And Obama needs this bill passed (with its imperfections).

[madfloridian]

14. I have been making excuses for the party like that for years.

There was no need at all to sell out women's rights. We have a majority, we gave them the majority.

I am not going to rationalize what they do anymore.

[Tx4obama]

18. WE WOMEN ....

We women fought for and won the 'right to have an abortion'.
We did NOT fight for and did NOT win the right to have insurance companies to pay for them, or for the government to pay for them.
Those are TWO very different issues.

NO ONE IS TAKING AWAY THE **RIGHT OF WOMEN TO HAVE AN ABORTION**.

Every women has and will have the 'right to' and 'is free to' take their own money and have an abortion.

[madfloridian]

20. No, not really true.

47 states already have severe restrictions on women's rights to an abortion.

And no one is fighting for that right anymore.

In fact anyone who speaks out here gets yelled out in all caps or put down as fringe.

What other issues do you think insurance should not pay for. Could you list them?

[Tx4obama]

22. Off of the top of my head...

Viagra shouldn't be covered by insurance.

My list of what insurance SHOULD cover is longer than what it shouldn't.
1) Should cover pre-existing conditions (including domestic violence, rape, etc.)
2) Should cover 'experimental treatments'
3) Should cover all organ transplants, especially for children
4) Should cover cosmetic surgery for infants and children in cases of disfigurement
Etc, etc, etc.

But the point here is we are talking about 'insurance company covered abortions'.

[Tx4obama]

19. You are correct....

The RIGHT-WING is already starting to blur the line between these two separate issues.
1) A woman's right to have an abortion
2) An insurance company's policy to cover abortions

Palin is already begun (with her speech in Wisconsin) getting the PRO-LIFERS riled up over the HCR bill's stance regarding insurance covering abortions and it is going to be a huge mess if the focus of the HCR bill isn't redirected elsewhere!

[madfloridian]

21. The deed is done. We did not "rile" up Palin. We caved to her.

She is just not smart enough to know it.

We did not stand up and take a stand against the religious right, and now it is too late.

[Tx4obama]

23. I do not believe ....

I do not believe that all democrats are in support of 'government funded abortions' or even 'insurance covered abortions'.

I have never seen a study or poll on these two issues.

Do you have a link to anything that shows what percentage of democrats support either of these two issues?

[cui bono]

35. When we're talking about health coverage, which SHOULD be a right

You are framing the issue just the way the republicans want you to and that is hurting the cause.

1 - No one "supports" abortion. Not really. I don't think you'll find anyone who will answer any poll saying they "support" any kind of abortion no matter who pays for it.

2 - 'government funded abortions' or even 'insurance covered abortions' - If it is legal, and it still is legal, why should it matter who pays for it? Why should this one thing not be covered? By bringing it up as a who pays for it you are creating an argument where none should exist. I mean this isn't cosmetic surgery we're talking about here.

We have been consistently allowing the right to keep dragging the issues farther and farther to the right by these methods. Look, we're actually arguing about abortion rights on a supposedly democratic board. And you know what? I used to qualify this board as not progressive or liberal, now I question if it is even truly Democratic. The things everyone wants to just shove under the rug and ignore just to pass a bill, no matter what it actually says, is astounding.

Dems just have no fight in them. That's what it is. And Dems are allowing the minority party to walk all over them. And our president wants to have them over for tea and give them what they want while telling us liberals to just be quiet. He couldn't even bring himself to say the words single-payer, let alone bring it to the table.

Bunch of BS all over the place.

Sorry this post rambled out of control... it is just so incredibly astounding to see the Dems in such a fucking mess when the Reps have gone completely cuckoo. How the fuck is it that the Dems are so useless???

[shadowknows69]

25. RNC or DLC?

[cui bono]

36. No! Dems should write a proper bill that actually addresses the problem.

We've compromised enough FFS. DAMMIT! Single-payer wasn't even mentioned!!! Fuck that.

This is all theater folks. Just a show to make you think they are doing something for us but too many have already been bought and paid for. And so what do we do? Give up and give in.

FUCK THAT. WE HAVE TO FIGHT FOR WHAT WE WANT!

But Dems don't do that, so nevermind. Just give us some scraps to survive on, we'll be fine.

[Tx4obama]

13. I disagree with Rachel on this one, and I am a woman

I believe insurance companies should NOT cover abortions except in cases of rape, incest, or where the life of the mother is in danger.
No matter what insurance companies cover or not cover women still have the right to take their own money and have an abortion.
We already have THE HYDE amendment (from the 70s) which states that federal money can not be used to fund abortions.
All of this new dust-up is regarding INSURANCE COMPANIES that will be in the 'exchange' and has nothing to do with the actual 'right of a woman to have an abortion'.
---------------------------------------

From HuffPo:

The (Stupak) amendment would/will bar the new government insurance plan from covering abortions, except in cases of rape, incest, or where the life of the mother is in danger. The Democrats' original legislation would have allowed the government plan to cover abortions, if the Health and Human Services secretary decided it should.

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/08/strict-abortion-ban-inclu_n_349957.html&cp

[madfloridian]

15. Who do we make the scapegoat next?

Gays, immigrants, now women?

Who is next?

And why in the world would we do it?

MY My my DU is suddenly anti-choice.

It is very obvious.

[Tx4obama]

16. I am PRO-CHOICE

I just think that insurance companies should not be paying for abortions.

[madfloridian]

17. Why do you just choose abortion? What other procedures do you question?

.

[tomm2thumbs]

24. actually they should charge men's insurance for it

oh, I know I'm dreaming

[M_A]

29. I am curious

the reasons why you don't think abortion services should be covered by medical insurance? Please, state your case, I am willing to consider your views.

[Tx4obama]

31. Because ...

it is a CHOICE to have an abortion, it is not a necessary procedure.

The exceptions being abortions due to rape, incest, and in the cases of when the life of the mother in danger ARE covered by insurance and even Medicaid.

If someone make a choice to have an abortion WHICH IS THEIR RIGHT TO DO (and the HCR bill does NOT take that right away) then they should use their own money and not have the cost distributed to others with the same insurance policy.

One of the main purposes of the HCR bill is to bring the cost of health care / insurance premiums DOWN, so if someone chooses to have an unnecessary medical procedure then they should pay for it.

Same thing with breast implants, cosmetic surgery, gender re-assignment, etc. --- these are also not paid for with government funds.

[LeftyMom]

32. But they cover childbirth, which is not a necessary procedure either,

and costs a good bit more than an abortion.

Once a pregnancy exists, it will end in either a delivery (live or not,) or an abortion (natural or induced.) Insurance covers the first three options (live birth, stillbirth, miscarriage) and there's no sensible reason the fourth possibility should be excluded from coverage.

[bullwinkle428]

38. Horseshit - I chose to have shoulder surgery because of pain issues last year.

It certainly wasn't anything close to a life or death kind of thing, and it was totally covered by my health insurance company!

[Farzan]

27. I see this happening...

Senate not passing Healthcare reform Bill but GOP get this very strong anti-abortion legislation out of a Dem-controlled congress and President.
With Dems like this who needs Reps?

[Tx4obama]

33. Not going to happen.

The Stupak amendment affects the insurance companies in the HCR bill 'exchange' of insurance providers.
If there isn't a passage of the the HCR bill then the Stupak amendment 'to the HCR bill' also dies.

There is no 'anti-abortion legislation' in the HCR bill.
The Stupak amendment does NOT take away the RIGHTS OF A WOMAN TO HAVE AN ABORTION,
the Stupak amendment only prohibits any insurance company participating in 'the exchange' to issue a policy that covers abortion, therefore disallowing the insurance company to pay the costs of abortion.

Women are free now and will be free in the future to take 'their own money' and get as many abortions as they chose.
And women are free to go outside of the exchange and purchase a policy that includes whatever they wish to be covered.

DON'T LET THE REPUBLICANS BLUR THE FACTS REGARDING THIS NON-ISSUE!
LET'S NOT LET THE ANYONE DELAY THE PASSAGE OF THE HCR BILL!

[Farzan]

39. Thanks

I am enlightened and I guess I was headline shopping.

[Prana69]

40. I think you are being obtuse here....

For a woman who cannot afford to pay the surgical / in-patient fees for an abortion, this is effectively a ban on access. If it is not covered by the already mandated and paid for health insurance, what if the woman in question cannot afford to pay for the procedure?

The Stupak amendment does not directly "ban" abortion procedures, but it does seek to substantially restrict it.

For many women, this is as good as a ban and for you to fail to acknowledge that is disingenuous.

[M_A]

28. Medical insurance

Must cover all medical procedures including abortion, contraception, sex change procedures, cancer treatments, plastic surgery, etc. Allowing the restriction of just one procedure opens the door for denial of coverage for any procedure. Targeting women by refusing to cover a procedure only they will ever possibly have performed is a slippery slope of restrictions such as denying smokers lung ailment treatments, or denying treatment of heritable conditions. If we must be stuck with corporate medical insurance in this country (as opposed to a National health plan) then there must be no restrictions placed upon any medical procedure to be a fair and equitable plan. I have contacted my Senators telling them to strip the Stupid amendment. and while there at it dump Hyde too. This is what we get for giving the theocrats a seat at the table ;(

[Tx4obama]

34. That is ridiculous...

Letting everyone in America (that wants one) have a nose job, face lift, breast implants, lippo-suction, sex change, etc. on the taxpayers dime will bankrupt our country more than it already is.

You surely were kidding, if not then you really must not have really thought through what you said.

Goodnight :)

[cui bono]

37. I cannot believe a female Dem would say what you say.

So sad to see how far to the right the RW extremists and corporatists have pulled this country.

The left is dead.

We haven't got a chance.