Does the HCR bill which just passed in the House restrict access to abortion?

[ZombieHorde]

This poll is about your opinion concerning the HCR bill's position on abortion.

HCR = Health Care Reform

[emulatorloo]

1. Trick question, isn't it . . .

[ZombieHorde]

2. The poll is not designed to be a trick or semantical trap.

This poll was inspired by some other posts here on DU.

[emulatorloo]

7. then I don't understand it and I can't answer it

[1]

3. nope. not at all. no restrictions. try again...

[ZombieHorde]

4. What would you like me to "try again"? nt

[1]

6. your words, bud. "restrict access?" no more than before. but you know that. why so misleading?

oh! you were intentional about that. to shit stir and piss people off.

ok. got it.

mums the word. nod, nod, wink, wink...

[ZombieHorde]

10. I am not misleading anyone. I asked a simple, straight forward question.

If you choose to add additional meaning to the poll, I can't help that.

Why do you think some people are upset about the Stupak amendment?

I am taking note you are making the HCR bill and abortion issue about me, instead the question. This is a logical fallacy. You are not using your critical thinking skills.

[lapfog_1]

5. I'm going to plead ignorance here.

What EXACTLY does the Stupak Amendment do?

There is previous legislation that prevented federal funds from being used for abortions.

What does the new bill have that either broadens this or changes it somehow?

I've seen a lot of traffic here railing about it, but no explanations.

[cali]

8. here's your explanation. it restricts private insurance companies

from offering coverage for abortions if they accept any public funds whatsoever. That will be virtually ALL private insurance companies.

[lapfog_1]

9. OK, in the time since I made that post, I found a couple of articles

on the Stupak Amendment.

Here is one from Yahoo. http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20091108/hl_nm/us_usa_healthcare_abortion_5

The operative sentences (from the article) says:

---
The amendment offered by Representative Bart Stupak, a Democrat, bans the proposed new government health insurance plan from covering abortions except in cases of rape, incest or where the life of a mother is threatened.

Policies purchased with federal subsidies from private insurers will have the same restrictions and women seeking abortion coverage will have to purchase separate insurance riders with their own money.

DeGette, during the House debate, called the idea of purchasing separate abortion riders "offensive to women," arguing that no one plans for an unwanted pregnancy.
---

Now, this implies that policies purchased or subsidized by federal money will not cover abortions except in the case of rape, incest, or the life of the mother.

What you implied in your response is that if the insurance company accepts any federal money for policies issued, then NONE of those policies can provide coverage for an abortion. Hence your emphasis on the word "ALL".

So, which implication is the truth?

Does the amendment prevent the insurance company from offering abortion insurance AT ALL if they accept $1 of federal money for some random policy (thus, basically, saying there will be NO insurance to cover a legal procedure, whether you pay for such a policy out of your pocket) or is the Yahoo article closer to accurate (basically restating what is already federal law)?

[PeaceNikki]

11. The Stupak Amendment does.

I hope it's pulled.

[ZombieHorde]

12. Me too. nt