Why I'm okay with the abortion restriction

[thesquanderer]

First, I'm pro-choice.

And yes, I bet I'm about to make yet another unpopular post, but consider this...

--- the abortion restrictions were probably necessary to get passage of the bill

--- in exchange for giving up insurance coverage for abortion procedures which typically run in the hundreds of dollars, many people will now be able to get coverage for the many, many medical procedures that can run into the thousands or even tens of thousands of dollars. I'm talking about people who could not afford insurance before, as well as people who could not get insurance at any price due to pre-existing conditions.

The biggest boon of the health care overhaul is that people will be able to get medical services they would otherwise not be able to afford. Abortion is *relatively* affordable. Unlike many medical procedures, most people could manage to afford one without bankrupting themselves or putting themselves into massive debt. An abortion is typically less than the cost of a year's car insurance (well, at least in New York), and not much more than the cost of a television. So the need for insurance to cover the cost is not tremendous, relatively speaking, from a financial burden point of view.

Yes, of course, there are poor people for whom even the hundreds of dollars needed for an abortion is unaffordable. And there can be solutions for that, as there are clinics today, and pro-choice organizations can raise money to help pay for abortions for people who can't afford them. Remember that while the bill is greatly impacting the ability to get abortions covered under any insurance, abortions will still be available. And the people who can't afford the hundreds of dollars for an abortion today also can't afford insurance today, so they're not losing anything here. Giving them access to insurance that doesn't cover abortion is far better than what they have now, no insurance at all. Sure, I'd rather they had abortions covered, but that "missing" coverage is actually relatively small, compared to what they will be getting. And the poor will certainly be far better off, able to go to the doctor at the first sign of trouble, instead of avoiding the possible expense and hoping the problem goes away, a common situation that often later lands people in the emergency room too. So the poor are still better off with this plan, and the non-poor can reasonably afford abortions anyway.

Obviously, there are many "imperfections" in the health care plan, this is just one of them. But if this is what it took to get the bill passed, I don't think it was the most terrible price to pay. I understand that just mentioning the word "abortion" is an emotional trigger for many people (on both sides), but pragmatically, looking at the overall balance of burdens and benefits, I don't think this is so awful a compromise.

[Stinky The Clown]

1. So when do we get back to "the girls" and tell them they have their rights restored?

IT IS NOT ABOUT THE FUCKING MONEY

I K&R your thread to keep the concept you espouse in everyone's faces.

[RadiationTherapy]

40. *Kick* for 'exposure'

[thesquanderer]

48. It *is* about the money

re: "IT IS NOT ABOUT THE FUCKING MONEY"

We're talking about *insurance* here. Pretty much by definition, it's all about the money. You get insurance so that you don't have to go broke trying to stay alive. Sure, people will use all kinds of things to try to score political points one way or the other, but in end, it's about making sure people can afford to stay healthy, so it's indeed about the money.

[Le Taz Hot]

2. Justify it all you want.

There's no getting around the fact that impregnated rape/incest victims were just thrown under the bus. Consequently, ALL women were thrown under the bus. Again.

[roakes10190]

7. exceptions

The abortion amendment allowed for exceptions for rape and incest victims.

[Horse with no Name]

13. Who gets to approve or deny the exceptions?

Do you see the slippery slope we are creating here?

[Le Taz Hot]

32. You beat me to it.

I just saw this.

[PeaceNikki]

3. Do you....

have a uterus?

Also, since it's ok now to deny services, what if they decide that treating AIDS is bad because it's something "the gays" get?

[nightrain]

4. and your gender and financial status are?

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Stinky The Clown]

8. +1

[Hepburn]

12. +1

[golddigger]

24. +1

[SammyWinstonJack]

29. +1

:applause: Well deserved. :thumbsup:

[TorchTheWitch]

31. +100000000000000000

[thesquanderer]

34. women not losing rights here

re: "a woman that is losing rights to her own body"

There is nothing here taking away a woman's rights to her own body.

People who can get abortions today will be able to get abortions just as readily after the bill takes effect.

People who can't easily afford abortions today will find it no easier -- but no more difficult either -- after the bill takes effect.

In effect, the people arguing against the bill on this basis are complaining, not that rights are being taken away, but that the plan isn't making it any *easier* for women to get abortions than it is today.

In today's climate, a bill that makes it easier to get abortions was going to be a tough sell.

[PeaceNikki]

35. Restricting access *IS* losing rights, dude.

[thesquanderer]

38. Restricting access?

re: "Restricting access *IS* losing rights"

Abortion access is not being restricted compared to what exists today; it is, however, not being expanded, either.

Everyone who had access to an abortion before will still have that access under the bill.

So even if you define "access" as equivalent to the right, no one is losing rights here. Yes, an opportunity is being missed to create *increased* access compared to what exists today, but no one is losing rights or access that they have today.

[PeaceNikki]

39. Bullshit. Read the Stupak amendment. Many women will lose abortion coverage.

Coverage = access.

[thesquanderer]

45. Good point

Good point that people who *have* insurance may lose abortion coverage. Most of the discussion here has focussed on the poor (who don't typically have coverage now anyway). You're right that this could create a hit on people who are doing a little better and have insurance already. And again, my preference would have been that abortion be covered. But that said, even if that means that people in this group may have an extra x-hundred dollar procedure or two in their life time, they may still come out ahead by the possibilities of lower annual rates, not being dropped by insurance companies, not losing insurance if they lose their job, not being denied coverage on pre-existing conditions... Again, I'm just saying, look at the whole thing on balance. People who are not poor are unlikely to be broken by having to pay for an abortion... and by giving up having their insurance company pay for abortion, look how much more they get in the long run. I'd say, overall, it's even better for this group.

[PeaceNikki]

46. Restricting access is not OK.

It's part of a larger agenda.

This is why I am *NOT* OK with the Stupak Amendment. At all.

[thesquanderer]

49. larger agenda

It certainly does play into the agenda of the religious right. But I think it can be looked at by itself, too. I am always wary of the "part of a larger agenda" "slippery slope" "camel's nose under the tent" arguments no matter which side they come from. Because ultimately, that argument can be used against pretty much anything at all, since anything, if taken far enough, will generally be seen unfavorably by most people. So I really prefer to analyze each actual situation on its face and see if it's a net positive or negative.

I wonder what would happen if separate insurance sprung up for abortions. I could imagine that, if abortion coverage in "standard" policies is effectively made largely unavailable, new insurance companies could offer, say, dollar-a-month abortion coverage... I see a new industry being born!

[roakes10190]

6. I agree with you.

I agree with you. Some of the people who responded to your post are just as dogmatic and unreasonable as the teabaggers. I kept listening last night for the part that some Dems found so objectionable and I didn't hear it. I don't like the amendment but getting the overall bill passed was much more important. People should focus their animus on Dems like Kucinich who didn't even vote for the bill just to hold out for an ideological position that offers no room for compromise. Kucinich is far left and the country will never be that far left. Alan Grayson voted for the bill, didn't he?

[Horse with no Name]

11. Have you EVER been poor?

Seriously?
$300 bucks may be NOTHING to you, but it might be the difference of being homeless to someone else.
If you have a woman that is already supporting a family and living on a limited income--regardless of whether it is state supported or not--that $300 might be a difference in whether her family is able to hang on--or not.


There was NO good reason to include that in this bill. It didn't HAVE to be there.
None.
But it threw bones to the zealots and allowed the Democrats to take one more position that is more in line with their fascist co-conspirators across the aisle and one more inch to a nose-dive to the squishy middle.

[PeaceNikki]

14. According to another DUer last night, the BOY is supposed to pay for it. Problem solved.

:eyes:

[Horse with no Name]

20. LOL

:eyes:
Yeah, that's why the Attorney Generals task force sits idle. There isn't any back child support to collect.
It's ALWAYS paid and ALWAYS on time.

[thesquanderer]

33. $300 versus...

re: "$300 bucks may be NOTHING to you, but it might be the difference of being homeless to someone else."

As I said, " the people who can't afford the hundreds of dollars for an abortion today also can't afford insurance today". You're right that that $300 can be a terrible burden to some people. As I said, there are ways to address that, just as there are today, while today people in such dire straits have no insurance at all.

In this bill, everyone is better off than they are today, including the poor. The fact that some people aren't *as* better off as we might like them to be doesn't make it worth defeating. On balance, if you can't have everything, this isn't so bad, IMO.

But mostly I wanted to answer you because I relate to your tag. "Proudly displaying "Less Than Zero" on most topics I initiate" You and I have at least that much in common. :-)

[Hepburn]

18. Dennis is a LIBERAL...

...and your problem with a LIBERAL is?

[stray cat]

27. Dennis is a voice - what bills has be passed that have changed the nation

[thesquanderer]

21. Kucinich

Thanks for your sympathies on this thread. ;-)

As for Kucinich, I commented on that in the thread at http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6956027

In short, I agree with everything he said, and I'm glad someone is out there saying it... and I suspect (or at least hope) that he would indeed have voted for this compromise bill if he had determined that his would have been the make or break vote. But we don't really know.

[Starry Messenger]

9. "relatively affordable"

Well, just post your address and women who can't afford it will just mail the bills to you.

[thesquanderer]

41. there are ways

As I said, I recognize the problem of people who can't afford abortions... and it's a problem that exists today *and* has solutions today, clinics, etc. I don't think many poor women are saying that they had kids only because they couldn't afford the abortion. As far as I can see, anyone who can get an abortion today will still be able to get one after the bill passes.

[PeaceNikki]

42. What about the women who would lose coverage under Stup(id)ak Amendment?

Aw... fuck 'em. They'll scrape up the cash. Right?

[Starry Messenger]

44. You think there are free abortions?

What clinics are these?

[thesquanderer]

51. not free, but assistance is available

I don't know about all states, but there is generally assistance available for people who cannot afford the procedure. As far as I know, nothing in the bill will prevent the poor from receiving any assistance they are currently eligible for here.

[Horse with no Name]

52. No. There is not.

Please provide some "proof" of your assertions.
I am sure I will wait a long time for this.
Those programs do NOT exist strictly BECAUSE of people like you who want to impose THEIR "morality" on others.

[Starry Messenger]

54. Thank you.

I was too flabbergasted to form an answer.

[Horse with no Name]

55. I'm flat gobsmacked at what DU has turned into.

:wtf:

[thesquanderer]

57. assistance

There are groups that provide assistance:

http://www.nnaf.org/

but yes, I was wrong to imply assistance directly from the state, as that is the exception rather than the rule. Some is available, though. Medi-Cal in California, at least.

But the point remains, there are sources of assistance for people in need, and I don't see where the new bill would change that.


re: "people like you who want to impose THEIR "morality" on others."

Are personal attacks really necessary? Phrases like "people like you" are the things that most turn me off about DU, as people so often want to make things personal ("freeper!" "puma!" "you must work for them!" "you must have stock in them!" and those are the kind ones) instead of just discussing the issue. I am not trying to impose any morality on anyone. And as I said, I am pro-choice.

[Hepburn]

10. Getting rid of the Jews was necessary for the greater good....

...same bad logic, just insert "women's reproductive rights" for "Jews."

BTW: ESAD

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

15. This bill has improved the fine art of caving in to the right and calling it "compromise".

[theHandpuppet]

16. Am I really on DU?

Reading OPs such as this one, there are days that I wonder....

[The Straight Story]

30. There are a lot of folks who believe 'your body, your choice' is not good

and that others need to have morals forced on them.

[nc4bo]

17. Well I'm not. nt

[ipaint]

19. Interesting the class of people who ALWAYS end up sacrificing

for the greater good of the perpetually comfortable middle class and up.

[golddigger]

22. Now all they have to do is pass the "laws of Rape" bill in the senate

to get the blue dogs to vote for it.

(Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT)

"If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her".

:sarcasm:

[ipaint]

23. Only if dark age era catholic bishops agree. n/t

[havocmom]

25. I'd be OK with it, if it included a bit about taking the balls of Americans who could impregnate

Hey, why should only one gender pay for getting the thing passed?

:sarcasm: but only just a little of it. Men need to ball up and protect ALL Americans or turn in the equipment they aren't using. From the Hill down. x(

edited for typo

[stray cat]

26. It comes down to if this bill or the status quo is better - this bill was not getting passed

without limiting tax money for abortions.

[msongs]

28. free condoms and birth control for everyone on request - reduce abortion rate pls nt

[EndersDame]

36. While the procedure costs hundreds of dollars; How much is the cost to raise a child

Alot of women who have abortions already have multiple kids and this figures into the decision . I myself make just below 1000 dollars and trying to get back into school. Please tell me what I should do if a condom breaks?

[havocmom]

43. Evidently, females just aren't supposed to engage in sex unless they have $$.

Males, on the other hand, seem to be able to get out of the financial liabilities without much inconvenience to their recreation. x(

[thesquanderer]

58. what to do

re: "Please tell me what I should do if a condom breaks?"

You should do the exact same thing under the new bill as you would do today, whatever that is. While the new bill, sadly, does nothing to make an abortion easier for someone in your position, it also does not to do anything to make it harder.

( And in case you were actually looking for advice besides making a point in your post, my actual advice would be to look at a site like http://www.nnaf.org/ )

[thesquanderer]

59. deleted, accidental duplicate (NT)

[Neecy]

37. Are you self employed?

Others have covered how unfair this is to the poor. But for the self employed, who will purchase and PAY FOR their insurance either through the exchange or the public option, they won't have the option to have abortion covered in their plans, even if they can afford to pay the full cost of the premium. And the suggestions I heard last night that women buy separate abortion insurance is just laughable, a big joke on us.

This is just anti-woman, a brutal slap in the face by the same dicks in suits who think they can lecture us about how "good" everything is.

[thesquanderer]

56. self employed

re: "But for the self employed, who will purchase and PAY FOR their insurance either through the exchange or the public option, they won't have the option to have abortion covered in their plans, even if they can afford to pay the full cost of the premium"

That's an interesting perspective... the self-employed person who is forced to buy coverage she may just barely be able to afford, yet still have it not cover something she needs. Again, though, instead of comparing it to an ideal, I'd come back to comparing it to the situation we have now. If this self-employed person has no coverage at all now, I would argue that she's probably better off *overall* paying for "everything-but-abortion" coverage through a public option that is available below today's rates, as opposed to having no coverage at all and therefore having to pay for any abortion as well as any other medical issue that may come up. If even the public option is too hard too afford, there will be subsidies available. And again, I get back to the fact that abortions just aren't prohibitively expensive for most people, including most self-employed people. Again, I'd rather they covered it, but not covering a relatively inexpensive procedure (even if only for political reasons) seems to me an acceptable trade-off if we get something that is otherwise so much better than what we have now.

[cornermouse]

47. No problem.

What meds do you take or treatment do you need? I want to know so that I can be willing to sacrifice you when its your turn. One good sacrifice deserves another.

[petronius]

50. First they came for gay marriage, and it seemed a reasonable compromise because I'm not gay.

Then they came for the right to choose, and I didn't fuss because I'm not a woman.
Then they came for...

[csziggy]

53. Here is the one good thing about the Stupak Amendment

Maybe it will piss off enough women to revitalize the women's movement. In another thread, someone made the comment that young women are in denial and do not realize how bad things were before abortion was legal and before it was relatively easy to get. Even though the Hyde Amendment has been in effect for a generation, it has not affected most young women today.

If the Stupak Amendment is as bad as we are afraid it might be, it will make abortions harder to get and hard to afford and affect a much larger portion of the population. Hopefully that will have more of a galvanizing factor than the Dr. Tiller assassination on the fight for reproductive rights. If we cannot mobilize the next generation of women, I worry that their reproductive rights will be as restricted as they were prior to the development of the birth control pill and Roe vs. Wade. That certainly is what the American Talibaptists want.

[Odin2005]

60. Yeah, fuck women, we need the bill passed!

:eyes:

[niyad]

61. kicking to keep this misogynistic bs in everyone's face.

[haele]

62. The Stupak amendment is a red-herring.

It's a "nice" way for the Dems already taking the "Medical" lobby monies to delay the vote or to vote no; they can always claim that it's a "moral imperative" and that they're representing their constituency to demand to revoking medical rights - such as abortion or contraception (which would be the next battle) by insuring that any health care bill denys even private insurance coverage if there's any passing contact with government monies.
I've seen this happen before, the anti-choice agenda or other so-called "moral" or "pro family/pro-church/"just think of the chilllldren!" stances being used to hide financial interests that want to ensure not passing a bill.

As for "rape and incest" clauses - they also know that "rape and incest" clauses are basically unconstitutional; creating a separate class based on criminality rather than need for a medical procedure. If other quality of life medical procedures are covered - like physical and mental health therapy or therapeutic cosmetic surgery (i.e. facial reconstruction after a severe auto accident), abortion cannot be singled out for coverage only due to the "criminality" involved with an unwanted pregnancy event.

Haele