I am curious - how do women here feel about the Stupaking

[placton]

of this bill the House passed changing Health Care? Will y'all be more or less likely to work for Dems in '10 and '12?

[rwheeler31]

1. no

[placton]

2. no meaning less likely?

[emulatorloo]

3. Women and Men agree that Stupak is an idiot. I actually question the legality of his amendment

and for that reason think it can easily be removed.

[FrenchieCat]

4. The bill has not been finalized, not has it passed.....

I will wait till then to figure out where to put my energy against folks of my own party.

So for now, I'm gonna be working to get health care...and to pass it without that amendment in there.
Bout you?

[saracat]

43. You would give up women's right to vote to get this passed no matter

what was in this bill.

[ecstatic]

5. Many women who have had abortions had to pay out of pocket

So there's no difference--can't miss something that was never available to you in the first place.

[Justitia]

11. And what about those desperate women w/VERY complicated medical situations?

I personally know a woman who needed a late term abortion (this was a wanted pregnancy) which cost OVER $8,000.
Her insurance covered it.

Now, that will no longer be possible.

The condition which created the need is not that uncommon.

What will these women do?

Since men & the Catholic Church now make our laws?

[ecstatic]

22. I'm guessing that would be covered if it's as you describe

What you described is a medical emergency.

I disagree with Stupak's amendment, but everyone I know who has had an abortion had to pay cash. I never heard of insurance paying for abortion until reading DU. Now that I'm hearing about insurance paying for abortion I think that would be great but if it's not possible then it's not the end of the world for the millions of women who didn't have access to insurance in the first place.

[Justitia]

25. NO IT WOULD NOT. Fetus w/viscera developing outside body.

According to Stupak, unless it was going to KILL the mother, NOT COVERED

People have no fucking idea what they are so breezily dismissing.

[FLDCVADem]

28. And her insurance can still cover it

It won't be mandated, but why wouldn't her insurance cover it? Unless she's in federally subsidized insurance.

[Justitia]

30. ANY INS PLAN IN THE EXCHANGE cannot cover abortion svcs - not JUST subsidized plans.

No PRIVATE plan OR PUBLIC plan

[ecstatic]

34. Can someone clarify: Will everyone including people who currently have insurance

be moved into an exchange?

[Justitia]

36. The first plans in the exchange will be plans that are currently licensed in each state.

[FLDCVADem]

40. No

[provis99]

63. No. current insurance plans are grandfathered.

[Justitia]

67. But, they cannot add a single new person - unless they join the exchange.

[FLDCVADem]

38. I don't think that is correct

My understanding is that only people that are being subsidized will be prevented from buying abortion coverage in the exchange. And plans outside the exchange won't be affected in any way at all.

[Justitia]

42. 100% WRONG. Where have you been? Did you read the amendment?

[FLDCVADem]

46. You need to calm down and go read the amendment

It is very clear that the prohibition against federal funding for abortion coverage pertains to funding appropriated under the reform bill itself. Since such funding will ONLY apply to plans in the exchange, then the amendment will ONLY apply to plans in the exchange. Period.

[Justitia]

47. Calm down? As a mbr of Planned Parenthood, I've been working on this for MONTHS.

You are completely clueless as to how this works.

Educate yourself.

[FLDCVADem]

49. Pretty funny as the Stupak amendment hasn't been out there for months

If you want to panic and cry about the sky falling, feel free, but I'm not falling for that.

Insurance companies have never been legally obligated to cover elective abortions, and they still aren't. Since 1976, the federal government hasn't funded elective abortions, and they still aren't. I don't see where the Stupak amendment changes anything.

[Justitia]

50. Do you think we didn't know this was coming? 90% of all private plans cover abortion.

That now comes to an end.

[FLDCVADem]

51. Wrong

Nothing in the amendment bars any exchange insurance company from offering elective abortion coverage, it just says that a) if your premiums are being federally subsidized, you must buy a policy without elective abortion coverage and b) companies in the exchange that offer elective abortion policies must offer identical policies without elective abortion coverage so that federally subsidized buyers have choices.

Might the companies in the exchange stop offering abortion coverage? They might, but it certainly isn't mandated by law. And there is nothing in the Stupak amendment that pertains to employer-based policies at all.

[Justitia]

52. You do realize that virtually every policy in the exchange will be "subsidized" don't you?

And of course the companies will drop abortion services from their coverage - they won't want to jeopardize being in the exchange.

The vast majority of employer-based policies are expected to be in the exchange as these are the currently licensed policies in each state.

[ecstatic]

54. J... I think the point is--right or wrong---most women did not have

abortion coverage either because their insurance didn't offer it or because they didn't have insurance in the first place. I'm glad you were fortunate enough to have a plan that did cover that, but most women, including myself, did not. And the people I know who do not have insurance will be grateful to get insurance (whether abortion is covered or not).

[Justitia]

56. 90% of all health ins plans in the US today provide coverage for abortion svcs

[ecstatic]

61. Your stat is meaningless

Nobody I know has insurance except for me and that's only because I'm paying for Individual insurance. Things must be great in your world. You just don't get it. You have a wonderful top of the line insurance and because one thing isn't to your liking you want to keep everyone else uninsured.

[Justitia]

66. Your anecdotal opinions are meaningless. This isn't about MY insurance, this is about WOMEN.

You can make this real small about just you & your insurance, people you know or me, but this is about the reproductive health of American women.

Sorry you can't see beyond yourself and people you know to give a shit about anyone else.

And nowhere did I say I wanted to keep anyone uninsured - that is in your imagination only.

Good night.

[ecstatic]

68. Yes and women need insurance

with or without stupak's silly amendment. You want to derail everything, I want reform to move forward. So who is making it personal and who is concerned about ALL women?

[Justitia]

70. Who said anything about "derailing everything"? Quit putting words in my mouth.

I get it - you don't give a shit about the reproductive health of women.

But, quit speaking FOR ME.

[placton]

78. ain't it amazing

how some male DUers think abortion rights are no biggy. This male had a lovely woman almost die before Roe, so I think the Dems sold out again. Obama could give a rat's ass about women.

[CTyankee]

91. From what you say, that must have been one of those tragic, medical situations

and if it endangered the woman, I think it would be paid for by insurance, despite the Stupak amendment. Of course, I don't know the circumstances around your acquaintance's situation but since it was late term and wanted it sounds serious enough to be a medical necessity for the woman's health and maybe even her life...

[noamnety]

14. yep, and the GLBT community isn't upset about DADT or DOMA

because they didn't have those rights to begin with ... so they don't mind at all that they haven't been repealed.

That's the great thing about never having equal rights - it turns out you don't really miss them!

[ecstatic]

24. I don't think your analogy works

For the millions of women with no insurance/healthcare at all, any plan is better than no plan at all. Hopefully Stupak's amendment is defeated, but if not, I don't think the millions of uninsured women are going to reject the plan to return to nothing.

[noamnety]

37. I didn't say they would reject the plan.

I objected to the statement that people don't mind not getting equal rights if they didn't have them before.

When domestic partnerships are legalized in a new area, people can be happy about that - while still mentally noting the fuckwads that voted against marriage equality.

[Bluenorthwest]

79. speak it, sister!

Nail on the head, what I was going to say. This gay man agrees with you fully.

[FLDCVADem]

26. Exactly

Which is also why all of the folks I see challenging the legality of the amendment puzzle me. Repugnant? Yes. Illegal? No.

[placton]

6. but let's say the Stupak stays in the final bill?

How will it affect Dem women on this board, in terms of voting and activism in the next couple elections? Is it ok for Dems to limit abortion access this way?

[NYC_SKP]

8. Do you really think the actions of a few dozen assholes would make us give up?

Couldn't it be argued that we'd fight harder to primary the haters and get more good people in?

:shrug:

[still_one]

20. That makes the most pragmatic sense, to do otherwise would be to give up on all

the issues women had fought for so long, which won't happen

[Iwillnevergiveup]

10. I already hate it

and the sneaky, underhanded way it came into the bill. It's absolutely discriminatory against settled law.

[FLDCVADem]

29. How is it discriminatory?

[Jamastiene]

33. +1

[noamnety]

83. Let me put it this way.

Let's suppose I was black.

How much do you think I'd support the democrats if they passed a health care act that said "We will provide comprehensive health care to all US citizens, except we're going to disallow certain procedures for black people"?

How do you suppose I'd react if they justified it by saying "It's not like the black people have lost anything, if they didn't have coverage this is still an improvement for them, and they can still pay out of pocket for procedures the government won't cover for black people."

You REALLY think there'd be any chance I'd be out campaigning for them - even if the bill resulted in more coverage for me personally than I had before?

I'd like to think even the white folks on board would refuse to support them in that case. I'd like to think that if one democratic congressman spoke out and said "I can't vote for a bill that is so blatantly racist" he wouldn't be trashed around here. Sadly, I suspect a good number of folks here would shrug and say "well, the black folks just need to fight harder and recognize that we need to take baby steps for now, and just so you know I'm celebrating because under this new legislation, here's how the bill will help ME and MY family: ..."

[seabeyond]

7. i am not seeing any difference with this than it already is. yes i will continue to vote dem. nt

[still_one]

21. WHAT? You mean you won't vote republican just to show how mad you can be? /nt

[seabeyond]

35. lol. nope. nt

[redqueen]

92. lol

[FLDCVADem]

31. Same here n/t

[saracat]

41. You don't see the difference? it makes Hyde" permanent"

NOT renewable and banns "private" insurers whom participate inthe exchange from covering abortions. Women will be forced to pay mandates yet will not receive total coverage. currently, most insurers do cover abortion.

[Tx4obama]

9. It probably won't be in the bill for very long...

Excerpt from Open Left:

The amendment can still be stripped in conference committee. Supposedly, President Obama promised Henry Waxman that he would personally work to do just that. We'll see...

http://www.openleft.com/diary/15913/health-care-debate-and-vote-open-thread

.

[Justitia]

12. But those men for it said they will not vote for final passage if stripped.

So, women go under the bus.

[still_one]

23. Do they? Why would women give up their rights? I would presume they would become

fight even harder within the Democratic party to insure those rights

[Justitia]

27. Hello! We just lost 30 yrs of progress & you say we should "fight harder?"

WTF?

[still_one]

74. Really? Was public money being used before to fund abortion? Women's rights

have been slowly eroded since reagan, not because of this amendment, which in reality didn't change anything that wasn't existing before

[Tx4obama]

88. YOU ARE CORRECT

Public money WAS NOT being used before to fund abortion.

Nothing would change with the Stupak Amendment.

Women would still have the right to TAKE THEIR OWN MONEY and have an abortion.

The Stupak Amendment has NOTHING to do with 'the right of woman to have an abortion.

The Stupak amendment deals with WHO will pay.

And we already have 'The Hyde Amendment' which states federal funds may NOT be used to fund abortions.

The Stupak Amendment is an INSURANCE issue, NOT a WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOSE issue.

[noamnety]

45. Weasel words

"President Obama has supposedly promised that he will personally work to remove that amendment from conference committee."

Note that "work to remove" is not the same as "ensuring it will be removed."

I'm not a big fan of empty promises packaged nicely. If I'm wrong on that, feel free to call me out when it happens and I'll apologize. Right now I am beyond skeptical.

[Bluenorthwest]

80. Like candidate Obama promised no mandates?

Or was it some other form of Obama promise that actually means something? Probably it was like his promise to be a Fierce Advocate for gay rights.

[still_one]

13. So you are sure it will be in the final bill, or it was just done to get the process moving? /nt

[Skittles]

15. Stupak is a real piece of work

from Wiki:

When asked if he takes part in "fellowship" activities at the Family's C Street Center, Stupak said that he just rents a room, but does not know what goes on there. Stupak refuses to "discuss what goes on there, because I'm not there. ... Are there other activities going on there? Yes. But what goes on and things like that, I don't know. I have my room there." Pressed again about whether he's "involved" in any "activities" at the house, Stupak responded, "I have a room there. And I participate in a Tuesday night dinner once in a while there. ... So there is no regimen. There is no group stuff I have to do. ... You guys ... are grasping at straws that's not there. I rent a room there." "I do not belong to any such group. I don't know what you are talking about. ... I have no affiliation," he adds.

[cynatnite]

16. I'll always be a Dem and that will never change...

Besides, even as pissed off as I get at the Dems at times, they are still a million times better than the knuckle-dragging woman-hating racist repukes.

[marlakay]

17. We keep hearing more and more things they are

doing to women. Like charging more for women, all those pre existing conditions for having kids and getting beaten...

Now this...

Women should rise up. In my state women got the right to vote and 5 years later the men on the supreme court took it away and we didn't get it back until the whole nation got it.

We have to stand up to the men in this country.

Makes me wonder who the women are that work for insurance companies. My next door neighbor works for a hospital as one of top managers and she listens to Rush all the time. But at same time she couldn't afford to retire until her husband turned 65 and got on medicare.

I have a big problem with republicans who love medicare but vote against health reform for the rest of us.

[Justitia]

18. It makes me sick to my fucking stomach. And completely unmotivated.

[Warpy]

19. Furious

I'll be donating to that skunk's opponent in the primary.

[Jamastiene]

32. Who else are we going to vote for?

Certainly not the Republicans. I mean, really. Who else are we going to vote for?

[Justitia]

39. Why vote at all? The Catholic Church is running our Congress.

[TwilightGardener]

44. I'll be voting Dem just the same. No difference to me.

[kayla9170]

48. I am looking to get hit here BUT

I totally agree with not funding optional abortions with this health care bill. No offense but there are TOO MANY options for birth control for some women to continue to use abortions as another form of birth control. Abortions to save the life of the mother and in sad cases of rape are not excluded from this bill and I agree with this. Otherwise, as in any optional procedure, like most plastic surgeries......the person who makes that election should pay for it, themselves.

And for those who said that abortions are legal.....they are and they should be. In turn, plastic surgery is legal too but I do not want my tax dollars to help someone get their nose smaller. Sorry!

[saracat]

53. Wow So young girls who don't get proper sex ed and only take one pill each time they have sex

should be forced to have babies because they don't have the money to get an abortion? And with more and mor pharmacists refusing to dispense birth control, and that is a real problem in rural communities, birth control isn't as available as you may think and condoms are not perfect either. And you are okay with making women pay the mandates but not get complete coverage? Why should a women pay mandates and not have complete coverage. BTW, speaking of that plastic surgery, do you also include breast reconstruction in your list of things that shouldn't be covered? What about burn victims or cleft palates/ Just wondering.

[Justitia]

57. Jesus Fucking Christ. Another one of these.

[niyad]

59. it is disgusting to see someone on DU parroting that bs about women using abortion

as birth control. you surely know better than this.

[PeaceNikki]

76. But contraception was NOT included.

I also don't get why you're ok with paying for prenatal care and delivery but not termination when deemed the better route by a patient and her physician.

[Bluenorthwest]

81. You have a sick mind

It is not plastic surgery. Clearly you are one of those religious types that oppose other's rights based on a bunch of stuff written by pro slavery authors you admire. You call it the Bible.
One of the most offensive posts I have ever read on DU.

[redqueen]

97. "some women to continue to use abortions as another form of birth control"

What the hell?

[Jennicut]

55. Why would Stupak have anything to do with the Dems that voted against his amendment?

Work to throw him and the other jerks out.

[PeaceNikki]

77. Stupak, the Catholic bishops and the DFLA led the fight to use HCR to restrict access.

[nadinbrzezinski]

58. You are aware that this was already the case

called the Hyde Amendment....

Stupack is an idiot, but the culture wars are the culture wars are the culture wars.

Nothing has changed though. Hyde was this limiting... I wish people KNEW this stuff.

[saracat]

64. Hyde was NOT this limiting and Hyde will now be "permanent" not renewable

and "private" insurance companies who participate in the exchange will be banned fron offering coverage for abortion.Get your facts straight and stop patronizing.You might read up on the Stupak Amendment

[Neecy]

82. Hyde was NOT this limiting

[niyad]

60. I won't support or vote for anybody who throws women and their reproductive health under the bus.

[bluetrain]

62. I'm furious and re-registering as an Independent. I cannot make common cause with anyone who revokes

my standing as an equal human being under the law.

[saracat]

65. I have considered this as well.

[bluetrain]

72. My patience for misogynists has run out. We're supposed to just eat this, but if it had been any

other minority group which had a special amendment created to discriminate against them there would be enormous public outrage. A ban on covering any conditions related to the penis, testis or prostate or HIV+ to Tay-Sachs or Sickle Cell Anemia? This country hates women.

[Tx4obama]

69. THERE IS NO FINAL BILL YET.....

1) There is NO final bill
2) The likelihood of the Stupak Amendment staying in the bill is SLIM
3) President Obama has signed NOTHING as of yet

Why do people keep wanting to jump out of the party when NOTHING has been set in stone yet?

Have a glass of wine and relax!

Patience is a virtue :)

[bluetrain]

73. Have a glass of wine and relax? Calm down angry woman? Calm down as I watch myself and all the

American women I know be relegated to less than human status? Are you kidding?!

[Tx4obama]

85. YOU really must be kidding....

The health care reform bill does NOT take rights away from women
and it does NOT 'relegate women to less than human status'
The the Stupak Amendment has to do with the issue of WHO IS GOING TO PAY FOR ABORTIONS.

YOU are still free to take YOUR money, go to a clinic and pay for an abortion.

The issue here is INSURANCE, the issue here has NOTHING to do with 'the rights of women to have an abortion'.

[noamnety]

84. Patience is not a virtue when it comes to fighting for equal rights.

This statement of yours brought to mind this passage from the letter from a birmingham jail:

"First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will.

I would urge you to reflect on that next time before you decide to tell someone to have a glass of wine and relax while their rights are being trampled.

[Tx4obama]

86. What the hell are you talking about?

No one's rights are being trampled.

A clause in the HC bill to prevent tax-payer money to fund abortions and to limit insurance companies in the exchange to not over abortion coverage DOES NOT take away a womens right to have an abortion.

YOU would still have the right to go and have an abortion - and pay for it out of YOUR OWN POCKET, even if the Stupak Amendment was left in the final bill (But I believe the Senate will take Stupak out before the final vote).

[noamnety]

89. Well, shit, we didn't need the bill at all.

Heck, EVERYONE has the right to ALL health care - and pay for it OUT OF THEIR OWN POCKET.

What do we need any of this for, if that's an acceptable answer to health care needs?

[trueblue2007]

71. HOW DO WE FEEL ABOUT THE ASSHOLE WHO IS WRECKING OUR LIVES??

I hate his guts.

[PeaceNikki]

75. Stupak and his DFLA can FOADIAF.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

95. Mind spelling that last anagram out? nt

[LWolf]

87. I think every Dem who voted for that bill is a betrayal,

and I will certainly not forget on any election day.

[Individualist]

93. +1

[niyad]

90. kick

[BolivarianHero]

94. The Democrats will be lucky if any woman comes out in 2010 unless things change...

Enjoy your trip to the minority, courtesy of the right-wing traitors your party is far too willing to tolerate.

[bigwillq]

96. I would not be very pleased

if the amendment is in the final bill. I will wait and see what happens. I wouldn't have voted for the bill with the amendment in. Yes, we need health care reform, but not at a large portion of the population's expense.

[Mari333]

98. I am now officially an Independent Dem

who will only support progressive Dems who are anti war. and if a green party candidate is more to my liking and supports anti war anti big business policies, I will vote for them.
I am not too happy.