stupak amendment question

[abelenkpe]

Does this amendment mean that no abortion is covered by insurance? Even one needed where the mothers life is in danger? Or a selective one where one twin is threatening the viability of the other twin? Are there any links one can recommend that go over this? Just want to get a better understanding of it. Thanks!

[sandnsea]

1. Here's the text of the amendment

http://www.rules.house.gov/111/SpecialRules/hr3962/111_part3_hr3962.pdf

The same rules apply to this amendment as are already in Hyde, rape, incest and life of the mother.

It also allows for supplemental policies as long as no subsidies are used for administration or coverage. The argument is that that will make it too difficult to cover abortions and insurance companies will stop. So write a law and mandate the coverage. We mandate insurance companies to cover all kinds of things.

[PeaceNikki]

2. On the face of it, Stupak just extends the Hyde amendment into the bill

or so he and his friends claimed last night. It actually goes far beyond the Hyde amendment, which states that public funds can't be spent on abortion. The underlying bill already did this. Stupak went further and now the legislation states that if a woman buys her MANDATED insurance through either the public option or the insurance exchange - EVEN IF SHE DOESN'T QUALIFY FOR A SUBSIDY, AND PAYS THE ENTIRE PREMIUM OUT OF POCKET - that plan cannot include abortion coverage, because public funds were spent setting up the public option and the exchange.

So, self-employed women either pay a fortune for a plan outside of the exchange or the public option or she's denied payment for a LEGAL MEDICAL PROCEDURE. And her plan will cost her thousands of dollars a year more if she purchases her plan outside. It's just meant to make it harder and less affordable for women to have a LEGAL abortion.