The HCR bill as it stands right now (as passed by House) is UNCONSTITUTIONAL

[Hawkeye-X]

Why?

It defies settled law on Roe vs Wade.

The anti-choicers should be ashamed and thrown out of their asses come next primaries.

They better strip the amendment out of the conference, if the HCR companion passes without it in the Senate version.

Hawkeye-X

[bluestateguy]

1. There is no constitutional right to government funding of abortion

It's a policy debate. As of right now, there is no controlling constitutional mandate to fund abortions.

[The Magistrate]

5. That Is Not What The Gentleman Is Referring To, Sir

Though it is execrable social policy, the Hyde regulation seems to have passed Constitutional muster. The Stupak amendment, however, interferes with private contract for a lawful medical procedure, on fairly dubious grounds that may exceed Congressional authority. If it is not stripped out in Conference, as it should be, it certainly will be challenged in the courts.

[cynatnite]

7. It interferes by denying payment?

Is that what you're saying?

[truedelphi]

9. It not only interferes by denying payment, it will totally cloud the issue of treating women who

Are miscarrying. One of the reasons that I first became an ardent supporter of abortion rights is when I was denied the ability to be admitted to a hospital and have treatment when I began hemorrhaging during a miscarriage. (Back when abortion was illegal.)

Doctors should able to focus on the appropriate treatment - and not focus on the morality of the situation that they are dealing with. But with this discussion, the doctors have to evaluate not just what is happening - ie a woman hemorrhaging, but the how an dwhy of it. (that is the possible reasont he hemorrhaging is occurring, along with "morality" issues.)

So if the woman hemorrhaging happens to be the wife of the chief oncologist, she will be given a D & C to stop the blleding, while if the person hemorrhaging is a nineteenyear old college student, the young resident in attendance might decide that this woman pushed a coat hanger up inside herself, and so now he cannot carry out what amounts to an abortion on this "sinner."

[cynatnite]

10. So, how are they not focusing on appropriate treatment with this?

I'm very confused here. Abortion is still as legal now as it was well before the vote. Taxpayer money for elective abortions is something that a lot of people, Dems included, don't want to see.

The arguments being thrown around here are just confusing to me.

[truedelphi]

20. If, as I imagine might happen with this, there are provisions that

State that hospitals or doctors that help wopmen with abortion procedures will lose their licenses,t hen a doctor on duty has to be concerned about a hemorrhaging woman. Is she someone who induced the "miscarriage." So if the doctor agrees to admit the patient for a D & C, then those who look into such a matter may decide that the D & C ws used to finish an abortion. The docotr and/or hospital might lose their license.

This was the situation that existed back when abortion was illegal.

[The Magistrate]

13. It Prevents People From Contracting For a Lawful Service, Ma'am

A service to which they have a Constitutional right. It does so on very dubious grounds. The argument is, because some people will receive Federal subsidies to purchase medical insurance, any insurance company which sells policies to people receiving such subsidies will, if it pays for any abortion, be spending Federal funds to do so, and that this cannot be allowed. It strikes me as over-reaching.

[cynatnite]

14. I see your point, but I haven't seen anything that attempts to limit insurance companies...

in that way.

[The Magistrate]

15. The Stupak Amendment, Ma'am

Does not allow any insurance company to offer coverage for abortion, outside very narrow restrictions, if it receives funds appropriated under the Health care Act it amends.

[cynatnite]

16. Thanks for the clarification...

I might add, though, that the latest statistic show that only 13% of abortions were submitted to insurance companies. The number is low for a variety of reasons. There is stigma still attached and some women were not even aware that their insurances offered coverage. That's not to mention that majority of abortion providers are out of network, too.

Also, I was just reading up on H.R. 3200 and found this...

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/factcheck-mailbag-week-of-aug-18-aug-24/

What do you think?

[The Magistrate]

19. You Are Quite Right, Ma'am, That There Is More Of Symbol Than Substance About This

The overwhelming preponderance of elective abortions are un-insured, and paid for in cash. Those that are covered by insurance are generally prescribed, and owe to either threats to the life of the mother or gross malformations of the fetus. The wording of the Stupak amendment, unfortunately, would bar payment for the latter, though many doctors will probably write the things up as threat to the mother in such cases.

That something is more symbolic than substantial, though, does not mean it should be, or can be, simply written off as inconsequential. This is a bad amendment, and put bluntly, those who insisted on it and voted for it are bad people.

Regarding the discussion at the link, it seems to me the lady from Planned Parenthood had the right of it. There are numerous programs in which funds are sequestered by accounting methods, and no one bats an eye over it. A religious charity, for example, which receives government funds to administer foster care for a state, while the church of which it is part collects private funds, some of which go to that charity and are used for shelter programs that engage in evangelistic out-reach: no one seriously argues the state government is paying for evangelism, but of course, there is more money available to the charity all around owing to the state funds provided for the foster care program. It is considered enough that the accounts are kept separate.

[Davis_X_Machina]

8. By that analysis...

...restrictions on what may be purchased with food stamps, or with a swipe card loaded under WIC, are also unconstitutional, so long as what is being purchased is not illegal.

[The Magistrate]

11. Food Stamps, Sir, Are Not Analogous

They are a direct subsidy for a particular purpose, the purchase of unprepared foods.

The grounds on which 'federal funding of abortions' is held to exist, and 'prevented; by the Stupak amendment, is that some of the people purchasing insurance will be receiving Federal subsidies, so for the company to pay for an abortion is an expenditure of Federal funds for abortion, and therefore no company can offer in the regulated exchange a policy that will cover abortions. Since abortion is a legal procedure, to which persons enjoy a Constitutional right, and no direct path of Federal funds obviously exists, as it would in, say, a Federally funded program such as Medicaid, it is far from clear Congress has the authority to impose this restriction, which after all would certainly affect a number of people who do not even receive a federal subsidy in purchase of insurance in the regulated exchange.

[Davis_X_Machina]

2. The Hyde amendment has survived....

...twenty-five years without a Constitutional challenge.

Could just be a coincidence....

[Oregone]

3. How?

[earth mom]

4. Isn't it also Unconsitutional to force people to buy something from a private company?

I can't wait for the lawsuits to begin!!! :evilgrin:

[Davis_X_Machina]

6. There is little reason...

...to expect them to succeed.

[girl gone mad]

12. Many law scholars..

http://www.politico.com/arena/perm/Randy_Barnett_8256A4EF-01E6-4207-B4E8-C761F2FDB5BF.html">say otherwise. It will http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204518504574416623109362480.html">end up in the courts.

[excess_3]

18. the --> penalty <-- is unconstitional .nt

[andym]

17. Doesn't that mean that the provision in the amendment will be stripped by the courts

leaving the rest of the bill intact? So the vote for the amendment provision is effectively meaningless, since it won't hold constitutional muster. That's good news.

[truedelphi]

21. The provision re: abortions is not meaningless

It is a straw man, in part it is there to get people all riled up about this ONE SMALL ASPECT of this piece of turd legislation and then when the courts strip it, (Or the Senate strips it) we are supposed to accept it.