Uh oh, Cecile Richards of Planned Parenthood just nailed it!

[CTyankee]

She called the Stupak Amendment a "middle class abortion ban...no one should have their rights taken away from them with health care reform."

In other words, when you threaten a middle class entitlement, you've got trouble. And I think that's where the pubs are heading...you can't take a way this coverage that so many women have now with their health care plans and expect no problems.

It's sad that it has to come to this. Poor women have had to deal with this problem for a generation. But political reality is just that...middle class women aren't going to stand for this happening to them.

[xultar]

1. She is right. But I think once the thing is passed, we can fuck with it. But...we can't if we lose

and getting something passed will help us not to lose.

[atreides1]

3. Are you willing to bet your life on it???

"But I think once the thing is passed, we can fuck with it."

Or are you just hoping that someone will do the right thing?

[ChairmanAgnostic]

7. Remember how sausage is made. you don't want to know.

But, we still need one more vote push - at the senate. THEN, during reconciliation, we fix the damned thing, then toss liebs out on his ass, and start a serious search for a stupek primary candidate.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

12. Tell me about it, that DINO.

Voted YES on prohibiting job discrimination based on sexual orientation. (Nov 2007)

Voted NO on Constitutionally defining marriage as one-man-one-woman. (Jul 2006)

Voted NO on making the PATRIOT Act permanent. (Dec 2005)

Voted NO on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Sep 2004)

Voted NO on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)

Voted YES on enforcing against anti-gay hate crimes. (Apr 2009)

Voted NO on decreasing gun waiting period from 3 days to 1. (Jun 1999)

Voted YES on expanding the Children's Health Insurance Program. (Jan 2009)

Voted YES on requiring negotiated Rx prices for Medicare part D. (Jan 2007)

Voted NO on denying non-emergency treatment for lack of Medicare co-pay. (Feb 2006)

Voted NO on limiting medical malpractice lawsuits to $250,000 damages. (May 2004)

Voted NO on authorizing military force in Iraq. (Oct 2002)

Stronger enforcement against gender-based pay discrimination. (Jan 2009)

Voted YES on investigating Bush impeachment for lying about Iraq. (Jun 2008)

Voted YES on redeploying US troops out of Iraq starting in 90 days. (May 2007)

Voted NO on declaring Iraq part of War on Terror with no exit date. (Jun 2006)

Voted YES on allowing reimportation of prescription drugs. (Jul 2003)

Voted NO on removing need for FISA warrant for wiretapping abroad. (Aug 2007)

Voted YES on restricting no-bid defense contracts. (Mar 2007)

Voted NO on reporting illegal aliens who receive hospital treatment. (May 2004)

Voted YES on extending unemployment benefits from 39 weeks to 59 weeks. (Oct 2008)

Voted YES on restricting employer interference in union organizing. (Mar 2007)

Voted YES on increasing minimum wage to $7.25. (Jan 2007)

[ChairmanAgnostic]

44. a hell of a list.

thanks for that.

makes it easy to see where to send my few precious dineros, pesos, rubles, and euros, to candidates outside my district.

[Mojorabbit]

70. I make sausage all the time

but when I do it, I pick the very best ingredients and carefully blend them to make the finest product. It does not resemble in anyway the throwing away of the finest ingredients and the addition of poison pills that I see in the latest health care legislation product. The results will be in the taste test. Mine will be wonderful. The health care sausage will taste ok to some and will make others ill.

[high density]

8. I'm all for abortion rights, but WTF does "betting your life on it" mean?

There are a lot of lives affected by whether or not this legislation passes. Killing the rest of the reform for abortion makes no sense.

How much does an abortion cost, anyway?

[mr_liberal]

10. Its like how they said the Hyde Amendment could

just be changed too. Its been law for over 30 years.

If health reform passes with anti-abortion language you'll never get rid of it. This is the biggest threat to abortion rights Ive seen in a long time.

[noamnety]

84. Yes, that's what I am wondering about as well.

The Hyde Amendment has been in effect 30 years. Why the fuck are we hearing "oh, we'll just deal with that inconvenient clause later" as if it's a serious response to anything.

We have control over the house, the senate, the executive branch. If we were going to deal with abortion restrictions, we'd be doing it now. Instead, the democrats just agreed to deal with it by taking what was on that paper and etching it into stone.

[John Q. Citizen]

9. I know how we can win. If Obama agrees to resign, i bet we can get the

Republican votes we need to get this thing passed.

Biden can sign it into law.

Then Obama can run again in 2012. Good idea, right?

That way we won't lose.

[xultar]

26. Where do you buy your crack? They hate all Dems not just Obama. won't work.

[John Q. Citizen]

32. I think we should make the offer. I bet the teabaggers would want to do it.

They could put the heat on the Senate Repos.

[bikingaz]

65. Planned Parenthood has a huge conflict of interest - dollars for abortions

They don't give a flip whether or not the person needs an abortion. They just want the dollars.
Think about it. How much money is there in providing counseling? But you can do the procedure in less than 20 minutes and get paid plenty for it.
Their comments & everything else they come up with is just window dressing.

[Name removed]

72. Deleted message

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

[Justitia]

74. You obviously know NOTHING about PP. What a load of horseshit.

[robinlynne]

81. This is Democratic Underground. Republicans have their own blogs.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

82. Why do repukes and christians HATE WOMEN?

Stop abortion = KILL WOMEN

why do you hate women?

[glitch]

85. This may very well be the most ignorant post I have ever seen on DU.

Congratulations, that's quite an accomplishment.

[Echo In Light]

2. K&R

[polichick]

4. Relgious beliefs have NO place in this bill - this is ridiculous. nt

[Ruby the Liberal]

5. Why do people keep bleating about "rights being taken away"?

No rights are being taken, only payment.

I have asked several times and have yet to get an answer -- does private insurance (employer plans) pay for abortions now? No plan I have ever been in has.

[valerief]

6. A friend of mine back in the 70s had her abortion paid by insurance.

She mentioned it to me recently.

I thought insurance covered medical procedures for women. Guess only vasectomies and Viagra for men can be covered, since only men count.

[Ruby the Liberal]

16. Insurance covers tubals, hysterectomies and other sterilization

procedures (like Vasectomies).

Your argument fails when you compare apples to oranges -- which was the point of my post.

No one is taking anything away or making anything illegal and people need to stop saying it. They are just backing the Hyde Amendment, which is already the law.

[valerief]

20. Doesn't insurance cover abortions? It used to. nt

[Ruby the Liberal]

22. I am only speaking from my experience, but I have never had abortion coverage

[valerief]

33. I have a good friend who has had insurance cover her abortion. nt

[CTyankee]

11. According to NARAL 85% of current insurance policies include some abortion coverage.

So if they are prohibited from offering the coverage along with all of the other health care you receive from the money you and your employer are paying, then you have "something" taken away from you, don't you? You had it and then you didn't. It will be perceived this way.

[Ruby the Liberal]

13. After I posted that, I counted back and I have been on 8 different plans

over my career from various large and small employers. None covered abortions.

[madfloridian]

15. Then you must be right and everyone else must be wrong.

And women are not being screwed by their party. :eyes:

[Ruby the Liberal]

17. I am a woman. I am just not at the point of tossing

legislation out that will help people (pre-existing conditions, no caps) over something that the Hyde Amendment already addresses.

[madfloridian]

24. That's why they did it.

Because they know we won't fight.

[Ruby the Liberal]

28. This isn't my fight. The Hyde Amendment is already law.

If they want to overturn that, then they need to address it as such a move.

I support choice, don't get me wrong, but a $300 procedure isn't worth losing all of the other provisions. Pre-existing is my fight as I have such a condition and am on COBRA with limited prospects in sight. I am not willing to fight to kill this bill that will help millions over abortion coverage.

[madfloridian]

38. Then you do not see the bigger picture.

And that is a sad thing.

[Ruby the Liberal]

41. The bigger picture is that nothing has changed.

I can appreciate wanting to overturn Hyde. Because the house essentially voted to uphold it isn't taking anything away that wasn't already law.

It is the argument that something has been "lost" from the current situation that I am arguing against.

[madfloridian]

66. Catch the rerun of Rachel's thorough coverage of this....

and tell me that again later.

[kath]

78. It cost around $300 YEARS and years ago - these days, you can't even get a few stitches in the ER

for $300.

[Justitia]

75. That would be truly exceptional. The vast majority of ins plans DO cover abortion.

Did you go back and pull out the printed details of those specific 8 plans?
How can you be so sure exactly what they covered unless you specifically inquired?
Most people can hardly remember exactly what the specifics of their plan covers.

Quick: On those same 8 plans, how many mole biopsies per year does each plan cover???

[FLDCVADem]

58. This amendment has nothing to do with employer plans

Only with plans in the exchange. And abortion coverage isn't banned from the exchange either.

[madfloridian]

14. YES, most private insurance plans pay now.

But much of that will stop if they want to belong to the exchange.

SO...are you so ready to sell out the rights of women to make this bill okay?

If you don't think rights are being taken, you need to realize that the ones meeting with Nancy P. Friday night were Catholic Bishops.

And she even called overseas to a Catholic source to see if it would be okay.

[Ruby the Liberal]

19. What rights are being taken. Seriously.

[CTyankee]

30. This is the kind of attitude that got us into this mess, IMO.

Saying "It's ok because we still have Roe. This is just a financial thing on women. No big deal."

This is how a right can be whittled away. Lack of access due to financial hardship means lack of the right. Funny how that happens. Funny how the right wing knows this and know pretty much that you won't object but will say what you said and just shrug...

Keep it up. They're counting on people like you...

[Ruby the Liberal]

31. "can be whittled away"

is a far cry from rights "being taken away". I am still waiting to hear what "rights" have been lost as so many keep lamenting.

Anything "could" happen - including this morphing into a true single-payer in my lifetime.

[customerserviceguy]

34. Would you feel the same way about other Constitutional rights?

If I'm too poor to afford a gun, or transportation to my church, am I being denied my rights?

[CTyankee]

35. A gun, transportation vs. your health? Surely you are not serious. nt

[Ruby the Liberal]

37. Your argument makes no sense

given that the Hyde Amendment is law. Health of the mother is included.

[CTyankee]

40. It is onerous on the woman. We have a state injunction against Hyde in CT

so poor women can access Medicaid funding for their abortions.

[Ruby the Liberal]

42. Which is why Kucinich's amendment was so important.

And sadly, off the table & tucked away in the dry powder room.

[FLDCVADem]

59. First, there is no such thing

as a state injunction against Hyde, since Hyde doesn't cover state funding. State Medicaid funds can be used for abortions all day long, just not federal funds.

Second, this bill is no more onerous that having no insurance for anything at all.

[CTyankee]

79. We had a court make that decision in CT.

Here is a recent article that explains the situation with states including CT who pay for poor women's abortions with state Medicaid funding: http://www.slate.com/id/2074736/

[customerserviceguy]

43. The Stupak Amendment makes exceptions for health of the mother

At least that's what I read in it.

[Justitia]

76. Oh, no it DOES NOT. Exception for rape, incest or imminent death ONLY.

[customerserviceguy]

69. You're the one who made the case

that not being able to afford a right was the same as denying a right, I'm asking you to defend that stance in regard to other Constitutional rights that are clearly enumerated.

[high density]

21. So you are ready for bankruptcy and death instead of having reform pass without abortion funding?

I think nearly everybody here supports abortion rights, I just don't see how anybody is surprised that the Feds are not going to fund it. I am truly curious about what the general cost of the procedure is anyway. The way people are acting here it must be tens of thousands of dollars and will lead to the financial ruin of any woman who needs one.

[Ruby the Liberal]

23. Here in the NorthEast, it is roughly $300

Thank you for stating what I have been trying to say, but failing miserably.

[high density]

27. Okay... That's less than my deductible for an ER visit

Which is $500. :crazy:

[CTyankee]

36. Hey, I could afford that! But wait, I'm on Medicare. I'm not poor.

At one time, as a single parent, I was poor and abortions were about $150. If I had needed one and had no coverage, well it would have cost me...I literally would have to have faced that or a real problem paying the mortgage...that's just reality. I haven't forgotten those days, out on my own as a single parent trying to raise kids. At one point I was working two jobs just so my kids could have Christmas. Oh well...

[customerserviceguy]

29. I'm curious where you get the "most private plans" thing

Abortion coverage is regional. Since health insurance companies cannot sell policies across state lines, the blue states have abortion coverage (generally), the red states generally don't, and the swing states are mixed as to coverage.

Nationalizing health care has the effect of nationalizing exclusions. You can expect fights where some people insist that controversial treatments be covered, and others insist that they not be covered.

[CTyankee]

39. Go to the website of the Alan Guttmacher Institute. They did an extensive survey of just this

problem. They concentrate on reproductive health issues all over the globe, but this, as I recall, was just the U.S. system of health insurance...

[customerserviceguy]

46. I've looked through there, but cannot find

state-by-state coverage, only generalities that applied to the US as a whole, such as the statistic that a majority of insured American women have abortion coverage. Since a majority of Americans live in blue states, that's to be expected.

[CTyankee]

48. Well, then, that needs further drilling down. I willhave to go back and look at their research.

These are serious researchers, tho. Don't dismiss them. They have a LOT at risk.

Your point about a majority of Americans living in blue states is interesting. It seems like we have legislators (esp. in the Senate) who represent states with very few people making policy for people in states with the majority of people in the U.S. Doesn't that bother you?

[customerserviceguy]

67. Possibly

But it reflects the policy of 19th Century America that thought it was desirable to consider wide underpopulated areas of the continent as "states" that had equality with the highly European populated areas in the east.

I guess we live with the results of that.

[SoCalNative]

18. Many of them

the plans my employer offers do.

[onenote]

25. one more call for someone to explain what I'm missing about the stupak amendment

Let me start with the fact that even if the Stupak amendment doesn't change existing law as some claim, it would be a bad amendment. But my question has to do with understanding what the amendment actually does.

As its been explained to me by more than one person, the Stupak amendment prevents government funds from being used to pay for abortion services. Thus, the "public option" plan will not cover abortion services nor will the subsidized policies that can be purchased with government money. However, the amendment expressly allows the purchase of supplemental insurance covering abortion using private funds.

So the question is whether it does or does not actually prevent the purchase of insurance covering abortions and to what extent. Presumably if you are uninsured today, you don't have abortion coverage; thus, for those people any benefits that they get under the bill don't give them less than they have today even if they don't have the money to purchase supplemental abortion coverage. And if someone has insurance today but would qualify for assistance under the bill, is there something that prevents them from taking the non-abortion coverage plan they get with government assistance and then supplement it with a private abortion coverage plan.

I feel like I'm missing something and it may well be that I am, so I hope someone can explain it further with, if possible, reference to the text of the amendment, found here: http://documents.nytimes.com/the-stupak-amendment#p=2

[enlightenment]

45. Look at it this way.

Say you MIGHT, at some point in your life, need a necessary medical procedure that only affects people with your combination of hair and eye color. If you don't get the procedure when you need it, it will affect the rest of your life.

For reasons that have nothing to do with medicine, Congress decides that government funds will not be used to pay for that medical procedure - BUT, if you THINK that at SOME POINT you MIGHT need that procedure, you can purchase supplemental insurance (how much that will cost, who knows?) to cover the potentiality.

We're not talking about a face lift, or laser liposuction - but a necessary, legal medical procedure that has been arbitrarily excised from coverage for reasons that have nothing to do with medicine.

Why should you have to buy private, supplemental insurance for that? What is the justification? To say that it is 'elective' misses the point - many, many, many medical procedures are elective.

You may never need that insurance, but because you can afford it, you'll pay for it, just in case. But what if you can't afford it? What if you're poor? What then?

And even if you can pay for it, wouldn't it annoy you just a little that just because you happened to be born with that hair/eye combination that predisposes you to potentially needing that medical procedure, you have to pay MORE for insurance than someone else? And if you can't pay for the coverage and can't afford the procedure, wouldn't you think it just a little unfair that just because you have that hair/eye combination, your life will be irrevocably altered?

Keep in mind that the wording of the Stupak amendment would also prevent women who receive any sort of federal or state aid from using those monies to purchase the supplemental insurance. It strikes much harder at the poor, of course.

This is religious morality cloaked in the language of money - it's no different than if they passed a law that suddenly made the minimum price for an abortion say, $10,000. That wouldn't make it illegal, but it would successfully price most women 'out of the market'.

[Ruby the Liberal]

47. Since when did abortions become "necessary"

given the fact that the amendment upholds the current law about rape, incest and life of the mother?

Look, I am pro-choice too, but you are also comparing apples and oranges. Especially with the hair/eye color analogy that has nothing to do with anything.

[CTyankee]

49. When did abortions become necessary? When women got pregnant, that's when.

Look it up. That's when...forever...this is nothing new, folks, please get real. No contraceptive is 100%. It happens.

So what do you want? Unwanted children? A self inflicted abortion because the insurance exchange won't pay for it? What is your choice here? What do you want to happen to us, as a society, if and when a woman feels she cannot carry a pregnancy to term?

[tekisui]

50. You are not pro-choice if you think they should only be covered when

someone else deems them necessary.

[Ruby the Liberal]

53. I am pro-choice, I am not pro-payer.

If someone who was not raped, incested (is that a word?) or whose life is not in danger CHOOSES to abort her fetus, than to me it is just like any other elective operation.

I have friends who have adopted babies from high risk pregnancies (meth, alcohol, crack, heroin) and while their hands stay full with care and medical issues, they are thankful every day that the mothers CHOSE to go through with the birth(s).

Choice goes both ways.

[tekisui]

60. Choice without the ability or resources to access is not real choice.

[FLDCVADem]

62. Then explain to me

What abortions won't be paid for under this amendment that are being paid for now?

Not a single one.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

83. more likely your "friends" who adopted damaged babies

is the very rare case that gets lots of coverage in religious newsletters. How many of these families devoted to adopting "unadoptable" kids are out there really?

How many of these kids that actually need to be adopted won't be because they are undesirable?

How many forcing birth on women adopt at all, let alone disabled, non-white, non-cute, or older kids?

PS. Safe, legal, AVAILABLE Abortion is linked to drops in crime.

[enlightenment]

64. You're about as pro-choice as the Pope, Ruby.

No offense, but your protestation doesn't wash when compared with everything else you post. If you want to keep trying to convince people, fine, your choice. But your position shows through your language, every single time.

And to answer your question - an abortion is necessary if a woman deems it so. That's what pro-choice means - protecting a woman's RIGHT TO CHOOSE.

[Justitia]

77. And about as "Liberal" too. What an odd choice of name for this poster. -eom

[FLDCVADem]

61. Poor women

can't get federally funded abortions now, so why is everyone acting like this is something new?

Bottom line, there was an attempt to circumvent the Hyde amendment, and it failed.

[Xithras]

51. Here's your answer...

I currently have Blue Cross coverage, which DOES pay for abortions with a $125 copay.

If the general plan I'm under were added to the exchange, abortion funding would be stripped from my current coverage. Why? Because the Stupak amendment not only prohibits the direct funding of abortions, but prohibits the funding of health plans that COVER abortions. My existing health plan violates the amendment.

Not a problem for me personally, since I lack a uterus, but I have a wife and daughter who are both perfectly capable of getting pregnant, and who would both be without access to abortion coverage if it were stripped from my policy.

There's an even worse aspect of this that many of the pro-Stupid morons are ignoring. One of the main middle class selling points to the bill is the claim that the abysmally weak public option will subsidize at least part of your healthcare payments. If the Stupid amendment were to make it into the final bill, millions of Americans would be faced with a simple choice...give up their existing abortion coverage in exchange for government help with their healthcare bill, or continue to slog it out on their own in order to maintain insurance coverage of their reproductive options. It's a lose/lose scenario for every American woman who pays for her own health insurance.

[CTyankee]

52. Thank you. Great answer and right on target.

Middle class women are going to wake up and say, "What happened?"

Make no mistake. This is going to be a huge mistake on the part of the repukes. they have gone where they haven't gone before and it won't be pretty.

You want trouble? You got it!

[Ruby the Liberal]

55. I am not willing to fight against pre-existing condition and caps

in order to ensure someone gets a $175 discount on an elective (not covered by Hyde) procedure.

Color me selfish, but people are dying out there.

[Xithras]

63. So shall I put you on the "Supports Coathangers" list?

I have no clue where you got your number, but it's way off. You can get a discounted "clinic" abortion for about $300, but those aren't covered by any insurance policy.

Where I live, an abortion through a policy-covered provider will run you right about $600, which includes both the cost of the procedure and the associated painkillers and antibiotics. If my daughter ever needed one, I'd pay $125, and the insurance would pay the other $475. Without coverage, she'd be forced to go to a clinic (rather than her own GYN) and pay at least $300 in cash. Congrats, your "progress" just doubled the cost of her hypothetical abortion. Unless she wants her own doctor to do it, in which case the cost just increased fivefold.

If you think that poor women won't risk their lives over $300, you haven't been paying attention. If you think that some middle class women won't carry an unwanted child to term simply because they don't have $600 available to end it, then you aren't in touch with reality.

I knew a woman back in college who hid her rape and subsequent pregnancy & abortion from her family because they would have freaked out and she couldn't handle it. Being on her parents insurance meant that she had the resources available to deal with it and she terminated the pregnancy. Your callous attitude would rob future young women of that same protection.

[Zoeisright]

71. Sigh. For many women, having payment taken away IS having the right taken away.

Do you really not get that? Really?

[FLDCVADem]

54. If they already have it under their current plan

No one is taking it away from them.

I wish people would get their facts straight before they start playing "the sky is falling" game.

[arthritisR_US]

56. she is dead on! n/t

[bigwillq]

57. I really hope it's not in the final bill.

Can't support a bill that includes that. We will see.

[bobbolink]

68. Exactly. The muddleclass don't care if poor people are deprived.

BUT, let THEM be deprived, and the shit hits the fan.

Let muddleclass women feel threatened.

Let muddleclass people go homeless.

Let muddleclass people go hungry.

Let the deprivation hit home, and maybe THEN things will change for ALL.

[voc]

73. what do you think would happen

if they suddenly decided that viagra was no longer covered?

[pleah]

80. K&R