So let me get this straight, Abortions being covered by insurance

[Egnever]

is more important than cancer being covered by unsurance.

Do I have that right?

[PeaceNikki]

1. No. But nice leap!! I expect to see you in Vancouver!

[Egnever]

4. So then how do you decide to vote against the health care bill

Based on legislation stating it wont be covered?

[PeaceNikki]

5. I never supported voting against it for anything.

It's the fucking DFLA and Stupak who threatened to "torpedo it" if it wasn't explicitly EXcluded.

Get it?

[Cleita]

42. Why? Are you moving to Canada to get real health coverage? Maybe we

should have a migration up north until the Canadians build a wall to keep all us Yanks out looking for better health care.

[greennina]

48. It's a helath problem!

Why are you claiming it shouldn't be covered?

[LWolf]

2. No.

They should both be covered by insurance.

No questions asked.

Have you got it now?

[Cleita]

3. Shouldn't they both be equally important as a health issue?

[Egnever]

6. Not even close

One can be prevented.

[Cleita]

18. Sorry buddy, both can be prevented but not all the time. People who

take care of themselves and aren't exposed to carcinogens will have a better chance of not developing cancers just like using effective contraceptives will lessen the chance of pregnancy, but those things can happen anyway, so this isn't a black and white situation.

[uppityperson]

23. True, many cancers CAN be prevented or caught early.

[Hello_Kitty]

44. So should everything that can be prevented not be covered by insurance?

Or just things that involve women having sex?

[greennina]

46. It can't be prevented!

No birth control is 100% effective.

[Hepburn]

61. No skate boarding ~~ no broken bones.

No drinking ~~ no heart or liver problems.

No driving ~~ no accidents.

No cooking ~~ no hot food burns.

I think we could go on forever.

[Egnever]

70. should we denyt coverage for all of them because we deny coverage for one of them?

or only the ones that effect women?

[sunnybrook]

99. doesn't this involve men having sex?

I've been out of it for awhile, maybe I forgot...

[Hepburn]

62. You have Ted Kennedy as your avatar...

..how DARE you make a total bullshit remark like that! :mad:

[Egnever]

63. Pregnancy cant be prevented?

BTW Teddy would have been championing this bill even with the stupack amendment which is my point.

Teddy understood compromise. Many on this board do not.

[uppityperson]

68. Often no, preganancy can't be prevented.

Edited to add:
Contraceptives fail.
"just say no" fails.
You can't always prevent a rape.

[Egnever]

73. As has been pointed out countless times

this does nothing to prevent abortions being covered in the case of rape or when the life of the mother is threatened.

I would rather the amendment had not been put in but to imply the whole health care bill should have been killed because of it is rediculous and that was the point of my OP.

[Hepburn]

74. OMG......

........:puke:

Who in the hell gave YOU the right to channel Ted Kennedy!?!?!!??

[Egnever]

78. Me

Dont like it tough tity.

Ted Kennedy's greatest legislative regret was failing to strike a deal on health-care reform when Richard Nixon seemed ready to cut one with him. "The simple lesson from this story," writes Pearlstein, "and certainly the one Kennedy himself drew, is that when it comes to historic breakthroughs in social policy, make the best deal you can get, leaving it to subsequent generations to perfect. That's what happened with Medicare and Medicaid, and there is no reason to think it wouldn't happen again with universal coverage and reform of the health insurance market."



puke back at ya

[Hepburn]

80. Your ego is simply amazing....

...considering you have no qualities which should engender one of the size which you possess.

[Egnever]

84. yawn

[Hepburn]

100. Congrats....

...that is the most intelligent remark you have posted...ever.

:hi:

[dflprincess]

130. Teddy understood compromise

I'm not so sure he'd think selling out for a bill that does nothing but reenforce a failing system would be a good idea.

I really can't believe his life's work was to get us Romney Care. The prayers at his funeral asked that everyone have access to health care not to health insurance. If this bill was going to get us access to care it would mandate low copays and deductibles (as Hawaiian law does with their health insurance) instead, this one allows high out of pockets. So, the insurance companies will be able to continue to collect premium dollars, but avoid paying claims.

[Horse with no Name]

132. Quit dragging his corpse around

because you have no idea how he would have felt.

[Justitia]

125. Hey, I'm never going to have prostate cancer, so why should it matter to me?

For the irony-challenged: :sarcasm:

[TwilightGardener]

8. Um...no. Unless there is a life-threatening condition involved with

an abortion--but then, that's covered in the bill, so...no.

[Cleita]

25. What if a woman doesn't want to carry a baby to birth at a particular stage of

her life and finds herself with an unwanted pregnancy? She should have the right to make that decision as to whether bring another life into the world or to terminate a small clump of cells until she feels ready to do it. Women are not brood cows you know. Having to bow to some authority telling her she can't abort unless she has a life threatening condition is a violation of her freedom rights. Actually, pregnancy is a life threatening condition because there is always the chance you will die in child birth.

[TwilightGardener]

33. Maybe it's a failure of my imagination, but I can't see any real equivalence

between cancer and abortion. Pregnancy is not inherently a disease state, although it may have medical consequences. That said, you seem to believe I am not for legal abortion. I am.

[Cleita]

37. One is an issue that deals with women's health, the other affects both

genders, which is why cancer is sanctified as a real health problem and the other is treated like cosmetic surgery. They both are health issues.

[TwilightGardener]

43. Sorry, still no equivalence to me. You'd do better to leave actual disease

out of your argument. Abortion may be a health issue for some women (and if it is medically necessary, that is to be covered by the bill), but in many other women, pregnancy is simply something they don't want to undergo, even though they physically can. That's fine with me. There's no need to exaggerate the medical/health angle to lend your argument more urgency. The thing is, the choice to have an abortion is still the law. How it gets paid for, is to be determined. We will have to see what happens to the amendment.

[Cleita]

51. Sorry but women's reproductive health is an issue for ALL women and that

includes not only the possibility of pregnancy and abortion, but cancer as well.

[TwilightGardener]

109. Terminating a pregnancy is not usually indicated for female health--

when it is, it will be considered therapeutic and will be covered or subsidized. If not, a woman may have to pay for it out of pocket, IF the amendment holds. This will hamper some women from exercising their right to choose, I understand that--and that will have to be fixed with a rider or some other solution. But there's no rationale for conflating it with other conditions and diseases.

[Cleita]

110. It's known as family planning, however, you probably don't

think contraceptives should be included either because it's not a condition or a disease. However, most insurance pays for Viagra. Go figure.

[TwilightGardener]

112. I'm all for contraceptives. I think all insurance plans should cover them.

I support legal, safe abortion--women should be able to choose from private insurance plans that cover them, which is why I think the Stupak law is wrong in how it will cause insurers to drop the coverage altogether, for all women--we agree on that. They need to either discard the amendment or fix it so that women can still have the procedure covered (though I oppose subsidized abortions except for rape/incest/health). But neither restores health or cures a disease state, in MOST cases. (Exception-- I was on the pill as treatment for menorrhagia, but I digress). To me, they pertain more to QUALITY of life--that doesn't make them unimportant, but it also doesn't elevate them to, say, a colostomy for a tumor, in terms of funding necessity. I think Viagra is also a quality of life issue--important, but not vital in terms of funding necessity. There's an argument to be made that Viagra IS restorative of function after a disease state, the same argument can be made for fertility treatment. But that's my hierarchy in terms of funding--yours may vary.

[TicketyBoo]

36. You can still get an abortion.

You just have to pay for it out-of-pocket.

[Cleita]

41. Yes, but this is going to affect teenagers and poor women disproportionately.

If you think teen pregnancies and single mothers are a burden on the economy, it will get worse without these women stop having access to terminate their unwanted pregnancies.

[TicketyBoo]

47. You think it is cheaper to have and raise a baby

than to pay for an abortion?

Likely, a teen or single mother will be able to ask her boyfriend to help fund an abortion, since otherwise he will be on the hook for 18 years of child support payments.

I don't see this as a huge concern. If somebody wants an abortion badly enough, she will find a way to pay for it (or have it declared--wink, wink--essential to maintaining her life).

[Cleita]

49. It is a concern because the stats done at various time bear witness that this

is true. Family planning clinics that include abortion and are paid for by Medicaid funds used to lower the birth rate of teens and single mothers on welfare until that resource was removed. So it's far cheaper to provide it. Also, not all women have boyfriends who are willing to support them about this inconvenient problem. Also, if you have to take a trip to another city or state to do this, as the clinics are becoming fewer and farther apart, often poor women can't.

[TicketyBoo]

69. Are you suggesting, then

that not only should insurance cover the abortion procedure, itself, but travel expenses, too?

if you have to take a trip to another city or state to do this, as the clinics are becoming fewer and farther apart, often poor women can't

I don't think travel expenses are going to be covered for any procedure, are they? And if a woman can't get to a providing clinic, what difference does it make whether the procedure is covered?

So do we just give up on rural health care entirely? Because many people with serious health problems aren't going to be able to afford to travel to hospitals to get treated for other problems, either, even if the problem IS covered under their insurance.

[Cleita]

103. If it's covered, there will be more clinics because there will be more

money available to fund them. Also, they would be set up in inner cities where they are needed more than in suburban middle class areas who can afford to pay.

[TicketyBoo]

Neither would do a girl any good

for a girl where I live.

Besides, I don't think there are going to be many clinics opening, regardless of funding, because of right-wing activities (such as the assassinations of abortion doctors).

Unfortunately, their activism has been quite effective. Not many doctors are willing to take up this type of practice in the face of such a threat.

[Cleita]

118. It's also the hospitals like the ones who do take care of the underclasses,

who are on Medicaid and who do get this help. If they do this, it will cut across the coverage available.

[TicketyBoo]

120. As far as I know,

no clinic anywhere around here provides abortions. A girl would have to travel over 200 miles to find an abortion provider.

[TwilightGardener]

124. Bellevue has a Planned Parenthood--I believe it's the only abortion provider

in the state.

[uppityperson]

123. Where are you? If in nebraska like your icon, there are clinics, depending on what part of state

I lived in Linooln for a while, would probably have gone to Colorado or Wyoming from there. If they'd been legal anywhere except CA or NY at the time that is

[Hepburn]

64. LMBO....

...it's OK for the boyfriend to pay for it, but it's a no-no for government money.

What planet are you from?

[Egnever]

66. Thats not what they said at all

They said abortion is pretty cheap.

[TicketyBoo]

76. I didn't say that

at all.

I'm saying it was okay to do this compromise in order to get health care legislation passed.

I'm totally pro-choice. It's perfectly okay by me (I would prefer it) if abortion were to be covered, but it took this back-room compromise to get enough votes to get this thing passed.

Better this than nothing.

[Hepburn]

82. So sacrifice the health care of women to get what you want....

...wow, aren't YOU wonderful.

[TicketyBoo]

93. Oh, crap-on-a-stick.

Abortion is a very small part of the health care of women.

http://edlabor.house.gov/documents/111/pdf/publications/AHCAA-WOMEN-102909.pdf

Abortion hasn't been "sacrificed." A woman still has the option of paying for it, herself.

[Hepburn]

101. Geeeeeeeeez....

...take a reality pill and come back, OK?

[treestar]

133. As if abortion were the only health care a woman ever needs?

Guess there is no such thing as breast cancer or say a million other things?

[uppityperson]

75. For some, yes, it can be. Read my reasons...

1) Get medicaid while pregnant, covers all prenatal care, delivery, healthcare afterwards. Welfare and food stamps and section 8 all can help with costs also. Or, simply abandon the baby after it is born.

2) Some people cannot plan that far ahead. Getting together the $500 for an abortion NOW can be a very difficult if not impossible task. Later, if no abortion and give birth to a live baby, that will be dealt with then. But now? How does a 14 yr old get that money without telling those in power over her?

[TicketyBoo]

83. She does what she has to do.

I'm thinking that nobody is going to give a 14-year-old an abortion without parental consent, anyway. I would hate for that to happen to my 14-year-old, for sure. I would want to be there for her. I wouldn't want for her to have to go through something like that alone.

If the girl needs to tell her parents (or the police, in case of rape or incest), or whatever she needs to do, get to a school counselor or doctor to tell her tale of woe, whatever it takes, she is still going to be able to get an abortion.

Nobody is going to throw her or a doctor in jail for getting or giving an abortion. The fundamental right is still there, and people do what they have to do, financially, to get what they want all the time.

This was a necessary compromise to get this legislation through. I don't like it any more than anyone else does, but it was this or nothing, and this is certainly better than nothing.

[uppityperson]

89. Yes, 14 yr olds can get abortions without parental consent. Issue was cost.

edited for typo
For her, right now, it may very well look cheaper to have the baby than get together funds for an abortion. Having worked with women, and girls, with this issue for many yrs, believe me, it can be cheaper for her, right now when the time for an abortion is, to not get one but hope something happens to be able to live on later.

Friend had 1st child day after turned 14. 2nd when was 16. Lost both to courts by 17. She didn't have the money for an abortion so didn't get one. She was on medicaid, etc, until the courts took the kids away.

It happens.

[TicketyBoo]

96. Maybe in your state.

I don't think it can happen here. (I don't have a daughter, so I haven't really looked into it.) What about 13-year-olds? 12-year-olds? How low can they go before requiring parental consent, or is that never an issue?

So, where were her parents in all this?

I would be supporting my child in whatever her decision was, whether that was an abortion or helping her raise the child(ren).

[uppityperson]

107. I would hope to have that relationship, but won't mandate it. The parents?

Maybe they would beat her? Maybe they are druggies or drunk? Maybe they are in jail and she's out on the streets? Maybe they would burn her or stone her?

Lots of things the parents can be in a negatively unsuporting way. While I would like parents and children to be able to be open about sexuality, in reality it doesn't happen often.

Here is a link to parental notification laws by state.

http://www.positive.org/Resources/consent.html

And another. This one is a pdf that includes which states have a judicial bypass option.
http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_PIMA.pdf

[TicketyBoo]

111. So there is NO age limitation?

A 10-year-old would not be required to notify her parents of an impending abortion in our nation's capital?

Why wouldn't a child be taken from her parents and put in foster care if this situation arose? That is what I would hope for, that if she cannot go to her parents with this, they should be out of her life as far as custody is concerned.

[uppityperson]

113. Washington is not our nation's capital but a big state nw usa.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.02.100

RCW 9.02.100
Reproductive privacy — Public policy.


The sovereign people hereby declare that every individual possesses a fundamental right of privacy with respect to personal reproductive decisions.

Accordingly, it is the public policy of the state of Washington that:

(1) Every individual has the fundamental right to choose or refuse birth control;

(2) Every woman has the fundamental right to choose or refuse to have an abortion, except as specifically limited by RCW 9.02.100 through 9.02.170 and 9.02.900 through 9.02.902;

(3) Except as specifically permitted by RCW 9.02.100 through 9.02.170 and 9.02.900 through 9.02.902, the state shall not deny or interfere with a woman's fundamental right to choose or refuse to have an abortion; and

(4) The state shall not discriminate against the exercise of these rights in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information.

http://www.plu.edu/~rosssb/doc/issues-paper.doc

Parental consent for an abortion in Washington State for a minor child is not required. Washington law states that, “minors may receive an abortion and abortion related services at any age without the consent of a parent, guardian or biological father” (RCW 9.02.1001). Further, RCW 9.02.170 allows for an abortion of a fetus up to the age of viability (approximately 23-27 weeks). The age of viability is defined as follows: “the point in the pregnancy when, in the judgment of the physician on the particular facts of the case before such physician, there is a reasonable likelihood of the fetus's sustained survival outside the uterus without the application of extraordinary medical measures”(RCW 9.02.190). Since the law prohibits undue influence upon teens from a parental standpoint, a teen in Washington State can pursue reproductive services without interference. Furthermore, services that can be rendered on her behalf can be either at a very small cost or none at all. When a teen or her legal parents or guardians choose not to pay for an abortion and related services, Washington State Department of Social and Human Services (DSHS) can issue a medical coupon to cover for cost of these services. This allows the teen to continue to pursue her rights without intervention or delay. It must be enforced “that the sooner an abortion is performed, the safer it is for the health and welfare of the teen” (Planned Parenthood, 2008). Thus, timeliness is paramount and both the judicial and parental establishments should be cognizant of this fact.

The justification for supportive legislation on behalf of minor reproductive rights appears to carry considerable validity and reasonableness. The following quote is indicative of the major reasons for this legislation: “When a teenage girl finds herself in trouble and doesn’t feel that she can confide in her own parents to help her sort her way out of it, then that’s the terrible tragedy for that family”. Do we really think that our state legislature, of all institutions, is well equipped to provide a one-size-fits-all framework for resolving such a situation? If there are any matters that are too private and personal for the legislature to insert itself and muck around with, this is probably one of those” (Sound Politics, 2008). This quote is at the core of how state legislation should continue to support minors. It is personal and very much a private matter indeed. Although it may be preferred that teens engage and even pursue to include their parents in the process, it is often not an easy situation or desirable. In some cases, it may actually be safer and prudent for teens to preclude parents or guardians from the entire process. There have been cases and incidents where the teen has been physically injured for informing her parents. Not uncommon is verbal or emotional abuse that can ensue and escalate. Thus, these reproductive rights laws serve to preserve teen privacy, health and safety....

[TicketyBoo]

116. I was referring to Washington, DC.

I believe that is our nation's capital? Yes?

http://www.positive.org/Resources/consent.html

Lists "NONE" as to whether or not parental consent or notification is required.

As far as Washington State's law is concerned (I have visited there, and have relatives there, by the way), the law you've quoted says "teen" and "teenage girl." So, is the law for children age 13 and up, then? What about if a girl is younger than that, do you know?

[uppityperson]

117. Ah, I've been refering to WA, thought you were confused as some are

As far as I can tell, in my state there is no lower age limit. Reading the rcw and the other link and others I found, no lower age limit.

[TicketyBoo]

119. The law you quoted for Washington State

referred to "teen" and "teenage girl." So, in Washington State, do you know if the references to "teen" actually are law, and a girl must be in her teens for it to apply?

And, if so, what about younger girls?

[uppityperson]

121. The rcw (law) says woman. The commentary says teen. No age limit.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.02.100

Minor's Health Care Rights
http://depts.washington.edu/hcsats/PDF/guidelines/Minors%20Health%20Care%20Rights%20Washington%20State.pdf

Std's 14
Contraception, Abortion Services, Prenatal care- at any age without the consent of parent or guardian

[TicketyBoo]

127. Okay.

Thanks.

[bluetrain]

128. A pregnant 10 year old most likely has terrible parents and should definitely not have to notify

them much less ever have anything more to do with them.

[noamnety]

104. That's not a valid argument.

that's not how poverty works.

People who can't afford immediate expenses get stuck with larger bills ALL THE TIME. They pay more because they put things on credit, they get foreclosed on and have to pay more for rent. They skip dental cleanings even though getting their teeth pulled costs more than the preventative care.

It's ridiculous to claim they WILL find hundreds of dollars lying around rather than go into debt later. Sometimes the money just isn't there today, even if we KNOW it will save us money in the future.

States do the same thing. They don't pay for headstart programs because the money just flat out isn't there, even though they know in the long run in saves them money.

You can't make money appear out of thin air just because it's cheaper to buy something now than pay for the alternative later.

[noamnety]

10. Things that only affect women < things that affect men, too. nt

[jwirr]

11. That is an interesting question. What does this bill say about

therapeutic abortions? Did they go the Catholic way toward no abortions regardless of the cause of need?

[Hello_Kitty]

13. Doctors will have to prove to the specially appointed Stupak Abortion Panels

That the abortions were medically necessary.

[Dreamer Tatum]

16. If you don't "treat" a pregnancy, you get a baby. If you don't treat cancer, you get dead.

So there's that.

[Justitia]

26. yeah, because pregnancy & childbirth never killed anybody

:sarcasm:

[Dreamer Tatum]

32. Cancer kills a few people now and then...might want to look into that

:sarcasm:

[Justitia]

122. Let me know when cancer treatment is removed from the ins exchange in the bill.

:crazy:

[treestar]

134. Childbirth doesn't kill people inherently

It can, but that's not its purpose. Most pregnancies are healthy. But something is very wrong with someone with cancer.

[Cleita]

27. Or you could still die in childbirth, particularly if you find yourself

in a situation where you aren't able to get the right care through pregnancy.

[Hello_Kitty]

7. Jesus Christ. That post is so full of straw it should be declared a fire hazard.

So I guess if they added an amendment that stripped Jews of their right to vote you'd be okay with it because, you know, cancer. :eyes:

[Luminous Animal]

9. Abortions can be lifesavers.

When I told an abusive ex-husband that I was pregnant, he strangled me until I blacked out. The next day, I made an appointment for an abortion & then I escaped. My insurance company covered my abortion. My insurance company also covers my cancer meds & but only some treatment. I've been denied some treatments and procedures that have been recommended by my doctor. Who knows if that denial might ultimately kill me.

[PeaceNikki]

14. There is the issue. Everyone who acts as though abortion is merely a "convenience" is so utterly

full of shit.

They don't know SHIT about "medical necessity".

[demmiblue]

21. You are a brave woman.

On a side note: most people do not understand that domestic violence increases when a woman is pregnant. Kicking/punching the belly is one of the preferred methods by abusers.

I am glad you got away.

:hug:

[Cleita]

35. Stay positive.

Maybe some good will come out of these "reforms", small ones any way.
:hug:

[Egnever]

67. I do not doubt that

That doesnt make me think killing this bill that helps provide life saving treatments for thousands of conditions is anything other that lunacy.

[Luminous Animal]

91. You seem to be making a claim that one is more important

than another. I assert that any medical procedure or treatment can be a lifesaver and it is lunacy to throw one under the bus to "save" another.

You present Democratic women with a "Sophie's Choice".


As Angry Mouse says on DKos:
"Either women are full and equal citizens of this country, with the exact same rights that men have -- including autonomy of our bodies -- or we are not."

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/11/8/802199/-Im-Done-Talking-About-Abortion

[Egnever]

102. Not at all

the amendment did not restrict abortion when the life of the woman was in danger only elective abortion.

Perhaps if it were to deny it in the case of all abortion regardless of circumstance I would agree with your assesment.

Abortion for the most part is still a fairly inexpensive one time procedure. It does not in the overwhelming majority of cases require any sort of ongoing treatment over and above the original procedure.

abortion is in no way equivilent to cancer or diabetes or a host of other chronic diseases that this bill will not only help cover but will ensure that coverage of them can never be denied.

I will help fight for the rest of my life to ensure that it stays legal but I wont sacrifice chronic disease coverage to ensure that it is paid for by insurance.

[Luminous Animal]

114. You use the language of fundies.

It is offensive.

Many insurance companies already covered abortion - a reproductive health medical procedure. There is no evidence that HR 3962 would have been defeated without the amendment. It was fundie grandstanding, pure and simple.

This unnecessary amendment mandates that insurance companies who wish to participate in the exchange must drop abortion coverage. This not only throws women's autonomy under the bus, but poor women's health, as well. It is part and parcel of a movement to further restrict access to reproductive health which, if unavailable, makes the notion of its legality laughable and your pledge to fight for its continued legality ring hollow.

Reproductive health is as important to cancer & diabetes. It is a primary concern for women from their first menarche through menopause.

Finally, though the bill seemingly bars insurance companies from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions, it does not compel insurance companies to cover treatment recommended by ones doctor. As I pointed out, my doctor has prescribed treatments & tests for my cancer that have been denied by my insurance company. There is no rectification for this in the current bill. This bill does nothing to ensure that I get the treatment that my doctor feels that I need. It only ensures that I get the treatment that the insurance company believes won't affect its bottom line. That is, the insurance companies will still be free to make decisions about my health care that may kill me.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

12. vile, vile, vile post

[peace13]

15. Unless it's dick cancer...that trumps all.

Who even said anything about cancer?

[fascisthunter]

17. Talk about Bullshit Flame Baiting

sick

[Cleita]

29. These threads always are.

It goes to show just how far away we still are in equal rights and freedom for women.

[Bluenorthwest]

19. Really a disgusting post

Are you really that binary and simple minded? I think not. Vile.

[Bluenorthwest]

20. If men could get pregnant abortion would be a sacrament.

[Cleita]

28. Yes, and if they did give birth, it would be an only child because that's the

only one they would ever have.

[DemBones DemBones]

22. Won't the bill cover abortions that are

medically necessary or if the pregnancy is due to rape or incest?

That's what I've read, and that was at a site where everyone was complaining that those were the only cases in which abortion would be covered, so it's not like they were supporting the bill.

[treestar]

24. Yes, it's the reverse of the right wing insanity

From the right the already born are to sacrifice any health care for themselves just because it might lead to an abortion paid for by the health care plan.

From the left it appears that the already born are to sacrifice health care for themselves just because it might lead to an abortion not paid for by the health care plan.

In either case, the stance on abortion is more important than covering the already born. It's the pre-born on the not to be born that matter more.

Gawd, this country is full of crazies.

[Hello_Kitty]

30. I am stunned by this attitude

Tell me, treestar, what other Constitutional rights are you willing to compromise with fundies on so that health care reform gets passed?

[treestar]

56. None

I'm just not willing to let people who need every other procedure under the sun suffer without it just because the plan wouldn't pay for abortions (which would still be obtainable as they are now).

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

38. Disgusting

[treestar]

57. No, you are

People with cancer and everything else can just keep suffering merely because of one controversial procedure not going your way? It seems you are willing to let a lot of people continue to suffer for lack of access to every other goddammed procedure under the sun that they might need. That is what is disgusting. You are living in this dream world which takes precedence of real flesh and blood people.

[Hepburn]

71. What's the difference?

Bleeding to death from a coat hanger abortion ... or ... dying because of no med treatment for cancer.

Dead is dead.

Gads, you are sooooooo thick headed.

[Egnever]

77. So all of a sudden people will be having abortions with coat hangers?

Cause the local planned parenthood is to hard to get to?

Talk about thick headed. Abortions are still perfectly legal nothing in the amendment changed that.

[Hepburn]

85. Were you of age prior to Roe v. Wade?

Ever find someone who bled to death because of a butchered illegal abortion? I did.

When you have some life experiences ~~ respond back to me. But until then? Fuck off.

[Egnever]

86. Heres a clue for you

Abortion is still legal. Despite your lunatic ravings.

[Hepburn]

90. So...

...you weren't of age and you have no clue.

Figures.

[Egnever]

94. Will you live in the past your whole life?

Abortion is legal , has been for quite some time and will remain so for the forseable future, once again despite your mad ravings about what used to be.

[dflprincess]

131. If the Planned Parent Clinic were local, it wouldn't be hard to get to

In South Dakota the only clinic is in Sioux Falls - not exactly local if you live in Rapid City. And, not only that, a couple days a week they have to fly doctors in from Minneapolis because, thanks to the nut case anti-choicers and their enablers in Congress, there aren't any doctors in South Dakota to work there full time.

As long as the Democrats are willing to treat abortion as something other than a medical procedure, and use it as a bargaining chip, they are putting women at risk.

[MattBaggins]

31. Ask your Mom for fifty cents,,, fifty cents

[JerseygirlCT]

34. False choice. It's not an either/or nt

[Odin2005]

39. Abortion is a medical procedure, just like chemo.

To deny coverage for abortions is an attack on a woman's right to health care. it perpetuates the "sluty women need to be punished for having sex" mindset.

[Hippo_Tron]

40. Your argument is full of right wing nonsense, abortion is an important medical procedure

A reasonable argument would be that since the current political climate does not allow us to cover abortions and cancer, should we not pass something that allows us to just cover cancer?

But if you consider access to abortion to be unimportant and something that women could live without, you're not going to get a lot of sympathy here.

[TicketyBoo]

50. I think access to abortion is vital.

I just don't think it's vital that it be covered by insurance in all instances.

I would prefer that it would be covered, but, in my opinion, insurance coverage for abortion is less essential than getting the bill passed so that some help is on the way for those with NO insurance coverage for ANYTHING.

[Hippo_Tron]

52. In an ideal world it should be covered by insurance in all instances

But since we don't live in that world unfortunately the only way to get help for those people with no coverage for anything is to make crappy choices like this one.

Having to sacrifice abortion rights for health care is disgusting, end of story. But sometimes you have to pick the less disgusting of the two options and I think that having no health care at all would be worse. I can certainly empathize with those who see it differently, though.

[TicketyBoo]

60. Well, no abortion rights

were sacrificed, really.

A woman still has a right to an abortion. She just has to pay for it, herself. Hopefully, the father-to-be will help her with the expense in order to keep from being saddled with 18 years of child support payments.

[Hippo_Tron]

65. Access to abortion should be a right regardless of one's ability to afford it

[cali]

45. you really don't understand. I'm not sure I can explain it to you very well

but I'll try. Having control over one's body, particularly one's reproductive organs is something you've never had to be concerned about. So that's part of it. It's scary to think of people controlling our lives on that level. And being so... expendable doesn't feel good. There's been an erosion of commitment to choice among democrats. I don't mean that they still don't give it lip service- they do, but that it's now perfectly acceptable to be a pro-life democrat and side with the extremists.

[Nikki Stone1]

53. It depends Egnever: would you rather be brutally raped and made pregnant or have lung cancer from

your own smoking?

[tandot]

54. I thought abortion because of rape, incest, or health of the mother are still covered

and will be paid for?

Did they exclude funding of ALL abortions?

[cali]

58. would you please stop spreading a lie?

for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest are exempted in both the Hyde Amendment and in the Stupak Amendment. Despise the law, but at least I know what it is.

[petersjo02]

55. My health insurance paid for my abortion in 1975.

Part of the package my employer offered, called women's reproductive health care. Was that the dark ages, and now we're more enlightened and have to stop woman from having abortions? My pregnancy was a result of contraceptive failure (IUD). I was a single mom of a 14-year-old and worked a job that required me to take call and work weekends and holidays. What was I to do? Make the 14-year-old babysit so I could go to work? She had school and an after-school job, too. This situation wasn't just inconvenient, it was impossible. No right-wingers stepped up to the plate and offered to take care of that child from birth. Funny how that works.

[tonysam]

59. As long as abortion remains a controversial issue, with millions and millions of people

just as opposed to it as for it remaining legal, don't expect it to EVER be covered in any kind of health care/insurance reform bill.

That is reality. It's time to quit pretending that 100 percent of people in the real world are in favor of it being legal, let alone be covered in any kind of mandated program.

[Hepburn]

72. OK....

...then NONE of MY tax dollars go to wars.

:eyes:

[ipaint]

88. True in the US, not so much in more advanced countries.

We are plagued with a bunch of conservative authoritarian worshippers who's default mode is to punish. If they can control a women's womb by regulating access to care, regardless of that women's rights under the law or the misery and violence visited upon her, they will all jump at the chance to exact punishment.

They are control freaks with no sense of boundaries, empathy or basic manners. People must be punished for their perceived sins whether that punishment be financial and/or physical and a lifetime in duration.

The humane treatment of women who choose to abort, for whatever reason, is not an option unless of course they can prove they are victims of a violent crime, authoritarians love victims and will feed off of the ego boost they get from their faux compassion.

Because in the end it is always just about them.

[etherealtruth]

79. This is disgusting ....

It appears to be an attempt to trivialize the importance of a woman's control over her body and sexual reproduction.

Should we only cover fatal illnesses? Can we possibly cover illnesses and conditions requiring medical intervention?

[Egnever]

81. It is in no way trivial

It is a jab at those who seem to think that because an amendment was put in the health care bill in order to asure its passage the whole bill should have been shot down. An amendment that does very little to change what is going on today.

I would rather it was not there but the screaming ninies that think this bill should have failed because it was are in my opinion lunatics.

[Hepburn]

87. It figures and I knew before I checked....

...this bullshit anti-women crap is coming from...


...wait...

...wait...


















...a man. Whodda guessed. :eyes:

[Egnever]

92. Case in point

[etherealtruth]

108. As I am sure you are aware there is a sister (?)/ spawn (?) thread

I have expressed my displeasure with the assertions made in both.

Human beings deserve health-care ... whatever, is necessary for them at the time. one issue does not need to be diminished to elevate another. The health and well being of human beings is important ... all of the time.

[Shagbark Hickory]

95. +1. Seriously. This whole abortion shit is really getting old.

The idiots have been in power for decades and they still haven't outlawed it yet.
Let them have their douchepak ammendment.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

97. contemptible

[PeaceNikki]

98. Yeah yeah. We know you're ok with more restrictions on abortion.

But it matters a great deal to a good number of us.

And it's "amendment".

[tekisui]

105. Abortion shit getting old? I assume you are a male.

As long as the right to have an abortion is under attack, this 'shit' will never be old.

[Hello_Kitty]

106. And then let them have the next "compromise" they want

Then the one after that. And so on. Next thing you know the anti-choice lobby has everything they want, up to and including the banning of abortion, all forms of contraception, and sex ed. This was a major victory for the fundies, as every piece of legislation they get is. You need to understand that they are never operating in good faith and you should NEVER compromise with them. There is no "middle ground" with anti-choicers.

[LeftyMom]

115. This whole "marginalizing women's health care needs" thing is really getting old.

[Justitia]

126. Spoken like someone without a uterus. -eom

[bluetrain]

129. Women aren't full human beings so they shouldn't get full coverage, right?