Obtained: In Letter To Pelosi, 41 House Dems Pledge To Vote Against Bill With Anti-Abortion Amendmen

[kpete]

Source: The Plum Line

Obtained: In Letter To Pelosi, 41 House Dems Pledge To Vote Against Bill With Anti-Abortion Amendment

In a move that will intensify the coming war over how to treat abortion in the health care bill, more than three dozen House Dems have signed a letter to Nancy Pelosi firmly pledging to vote against the bill if it contains an anti-abortion amendment.

A source sends over a working copy of the letter without the signatories, and the source says it currently bears the signatures of 41 House Dems. They’re all vowing to vote No on a bill if it contains the Stupak amendment — enough to sink the bill:

*****As Members of Congress we believe that women should have access to a full range of reproductive health care. Health care reform must not be misused as an opportunity to restrict women’s access to reproductive health services.

*****The Stupak-Pitts amendment to H.R. 3962, The Affordable Healthcare for America Act, represents an unprecedented and unacceptable restriction on women’s ability to access the full range of reproductive health services to which they are lawfully entitled. We will not vote for a conference report that contains language that restricts women’s right to choose any further than current law.

That’s unequivocal, with no wiggle room. The Washington Post http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/08/AR2009110818453.html?sid%3DST2009110818479&sub=AR reported this morning that Rep. Diana DeGette had collected 40 signatures vowing a No vote, without noting the language of their vow or how this would be communicated.

Now we know — at least 41 House Dems are writing directly to Pelosi, telling her that they will not vote for anything “that contains language that restricts women’s right to choose any further than current law.”

Read more: http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/health-care/obtained-in-letter-to-pelosi-41-house-dems-pledge-to-vote-against-bill-with-abortion-amendment/

[Aramchek]

1. sure they did. That's why they already voted for it.

[pnwmom]

2. Well that's just great. Forget getting help with pre-existing conditions,

being kicked off a plan because you got sick, lifetime limits that can run out in the premature baby unit, not being able to buy any insurance at all -- it's obviously MORE important that women have access to state-paid abortions.

:sarcasm:

[robinlynne]

3. It's not about state-paid abortions. It's about any abortions. State-paid abortions were

already not allowed in the bill itself. The ammendment says that any private company who performs abortions will not be able to receive federal funding at all NOR TREAT ANY PATIENT who does. . That means noone else will provide abortions. They are already risking being murdered. Now they will not be able to teat the klederyl, the poor, or anyone from the exchange. the amendment means the end of abortions in this country. NOT the end of funding for abortions. That was already removed in the original bill.

[mike_c]

4. when we start giving up one right in order to keep another...

...where do we stop and draw the line? You'd freely trade other women's reproductive rights for a Pyrrhic political "victory?" How will you feel when someone trades away your rights for their side's victories? Oh wait-- that's been the story of the last couple of decades....

[mbperrin]

15. Yes, it has. It's bad. This is how they swept single payer away without

so much as a hearing.

[robinlynne]

5. As a matter of fact, even if the patients want to pay with their own money, the providers can not

provide abortions under this amendment.
However churches can get federal funding to pray for people, under this bill. This bill would effect some good changes in some cases, as you mention, maybe, because there is no cap on the price people would pay for insurance, and some terrible changes as well.

[emulatorloo]

6. I don't think that is exactly right -- the amendment appears to allow you to by a rider with your

own money on top of a "regular" plan that is funded with federal money.

The text of it is here, at least that is how I read it:

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/15284081/Stupak-Amendment-to-HR-3962-Rev-108

I can't copy and paste because it is a "scan" not a text file.

Anyway, I think it is still AWFUL and it needs to go.

[robinlynne]

11. BUT there will be no abortions to buy. No provider is going to give up all

federal funding. that's the point. they are ending abortions. This is not about funding of abortions. That was already in the bill from day one. This is MUCH bigger than that. So where are you going to buy your private abortion from when there are no providers? That is if you are rich, if you are on medicaid, for example, no go.

[emulatorloo]

13. No doubt about it, this amendment needs to go

I do read it a little differently than you do, but that really does not matter.

It is horrible and needs to be gotten rid of at conference.

[robinlynne]

16. I just heard a discussion on npr about it. I was mistaken. It is the people who

receive any govt assistance, including anyone on medicaid, medicare (not applicable), or anyone using in the exchanges or public option. They would not be allowed to have an abortion even with their own money. That is obviously unconstitutional and will not stick around. there is no way in the world you can say that a person who receives govt assistance cannot HAVE an abortion. That means only the wealthy are allowed ot have certain medical care regardless of who pays for it.

[TheEuclideanOne]

18. Can that amendment be stripped out?

or is it all or nothing?

[KamaAina]

24. So, basically, that's a "female tax".

Since of course no man would need this rider.

EPIC FAIL.

[LynneSin]

19. You know Kerry & Kennedy were the ones that pushed for the 'Prayer' funding

Christian Scientists are based out of Massachusetts.

Just saying - it was 2 very liberal democrats who got that into HCR.

[defendandprotect]

33. What is the "Prayer" funding, if I may ask?

[nashville_brook]

109. this is what's so wrong about the Shitpak Amendment -- he's pitting my reproductive freedom against

your pre-existing condition. i'm sorry, but if that's what a democratic majority has begotten, then i don't want any part of it.

[bobbolink]

116. VERY well said. Pitting us against each other seems to work well on DU, tho...

There is a contingent that falls right into line on the pitting.......

As long as it doesn't affect them, well, then screw it...

:nuke:

[nashville_brook]

117. they see others' rights as obstacles to their political advancement

and are a-okay with the trade. they are the center of the universe as far as they're concerned.

[emulatorloo]

7. REC n/t

[Lefty48197]

8. Talk about a poison pill!

There's no reason that the bill couldn't be passed with the Stupak Amendment. Voting to alter the plan could be done a few years down the road, but it's much too important to pass the bill now. The Democratic majority in the House will shrink after the 2010 elections and all of next year will be spent campaigning and avoiding real/controversial issues.
It's a very simple question for Democrats: Do you want health care reform to be passed into law or not?

[atreides1]

20. "Voting to alter the plan could be done a few years down the road"

That's like "next year in Cuba", isn't it?

[bluestateguy]

9. I also assume those 41 had a roadmap plan to get the bill passed without the Stupak amendment

I'm all ears. Let's hear it.

[shawn703]

14. Unless they're the leadership, it's not their job to do so n/t

[bluestateguy]

23. Of course

And if they strip the amendment, and then fail to pass the bill, you'll of course be the first one to piss and moan.

[shawn703]

108. If only one side is compromising, it's not compromise

It's capitulation. The liberals have already given up more than their fair share, and it's about time they take a stand for something. They already have enough to hang on the necks of the Democrats next election.. you really want to lose some of our liberal voices because they voted to restrict access to abortion?

[nashville_brook]

110. i assume Shitpak has a roadmap plan to get the bill passed with his amendment...

let the games begin.

[The Magistrate]

10. A Necessary Move, Ma'am

It is the right wing of the Party which must back down on this, not us on the left.

[dflprincess]

12. Yeah and the Progressive Cacaus wasn't going to vote for a bill without a "robust" public option

they caved on that so don't worry about these 41 sticking to this threat.

If they were serious about drawing lines in the sand they would have refused to vote for it Saturday night & they would have demanded that the Kucinich amendment allowing states to develop their own single payer systems be put back into the bill - that way there would have the hope that real reform might happen somewhere in the country.

I don't like the Stupak amendment either and I'm tired of both parties using women's reproductive rights as a bargaining chip, but all that's being done now is posturing. Until we know who these 41 are, it's probably safe to assume that that they think there's something it for them that they're making this noise now and they'll back off just as soon as they get their payoff.

[change_notfinetuning]

25. Yep,most of them are equal opportunity sellouts. Next payoff, indeed. n/t

[LynneSin]

17. I've said it before and I'll say it again, choice should not be in this bill.

I've fought for the rights of women and choice for the longest time, but this is not the place to have our battle. We need healthcare and honestly, the best place to fight for women's rights with Supreme Court replacements. Any legisilation on any level tends to end up at SCOTUS and we need to make sure the bench is protected for decades to come with judges who recognized that it is a personal matter between a woman and her doctor.

[backscatter712]

21. GOOD! This will put pressure on the conference committee to strip the Stupak amendment.

Worst case scenario, the anti-choicers throw their own hissy-fit, but we'll still be able to get a compromise where Stupak's significantly watered down.

Say with language like "The health care bill cannot fund partial-birth abortions, except in cases where there is risk to the life & health of the mother." (which is the only time a competent doctor would use a D&E.)

[chelsea0011]

22. Does the federal insurance that they have allow for abortions?

I would love to know the answer to that. Their plan must go through private insurers of which many allow for abortion coverage.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

26. Well lovely.

But hey, you know, it's a "deal breaker".

:eyes:

[freddie mertz]

27. Im confused. Didn't they ALL JUST VOTE FOR IT ALREADY?

I'm not going to hold my breath on THIS pledge after what we have seen so far.

What a mess.

[ProgressOnTheMove]

28. You've got to hand it to Republicans for evil genius. They threw things into disarray with this one....

Looking at the details this is the law as it stood already and Randi just said it's not likely that womens health issues won't be available for insured after this bill. Randi suggest addressing the issue separately.

Going from what Randi is saying maybe it's better to persuade snowe with ..flowers ... and if she votes for the bill the promise of more flowers .. afterwords. Any Maine Celebs with plenty of flowers please take them to Snowe she'd really appreciate them I'm sure. I think she wants this on her resume she just needs persuading with ... flowers. I like the idea by the radio caller on now too send Rep. Cao flowers too.

[pundaint]

31. What party suggested that amendment?

The enemy is us

[ProgressOnTheMove]

38. Intresting.

[pundaint]

29. Why would anybody believe a Democrat ultimatum?

Surrender monkeys only surrender.

[ShortnFiery]

32. It's DemocratIC ultimatium.

:eyes:

[valerief]

30. America and this abortion nonsense makes us look so ridiculous to the rest of the world.

Abortion is a right. It should be funded by govt money the way they do it in civilized countries. Yes, the Hyde amendment s/b removed from law.

[marlakay]

35. You have no idea

my best friend in Sydney, Aus. just said our country is stupid as we talked about her free counseling sessions she is getting and I said I was jealous.

[valerief]

37. We're a friggin' war-mongering, bible-thumping cesspool. And we have no jobs.

America is the suckiest semi-civilized country in the world.

[marlakay]

34. I guess they have been getting a ton of calls

I emailed Obama today for the first time in a long time telling him what I thought of it. I said the no way Kennedy would ever go for that.

Also I said is this bill worth selling our souls over? And asked him how hard he thinks women will work for him if that is left in.

I reminded him that being a democrat is helping the little guy and who is going to hurt from it, them.

[winyanstaz]

36. well this is more like it.....

[high density]

39. This is going to be great if abortion torpedoes health care reform

The insurance companies and Republicans must be getting wet at the idea.

[w4rma]

40. No kidding. Just pass the bill and deal with this problem later, in a new bill.

It will probably be popular enough to pass on it's own merits, if it's its in a bill all by itself. I don't want to see this kill health reform, and it very easily could. Or it could cost concessions on something more important.

[shadowknows69]

41. Good. Kill this water downed xmas present to insurance and the anti-choice facists.

[joeycola]

42. Abortion an obstacle to health-care bill (Some Dems vow to block final passage if amendment stays)

Source: WPost




Abortion an obstacle to health-care bill

Some Democrats vow to block final passage if amendment stays

By Alec MacGillis
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, November 9, 2009


...............

But abortion-rights supporters are vowing to strip the amendment out, as the focus turns to the Senate and the conference committee that would resolve differences between the two bills.

Although House liberals voted for the bill with the amendment to keep the process moving forward, Rep. Diana DeGette (Colo.) said she has collected more than 40 signatures from House Democrats vowing to oppose any final bill that includes the amendment -- enough to block passage.


"There's going to be a firestorm here," DeGette said. "Women are going to realize that a Democratic-controlled House has passed legislation that would prohibit women paying for abortions with their own funds. . . . We're not going to let this into law."



.............. Obama left the abortion issue unmentioned Sunday when he appeared in the White House Rose Garden to give brief remarks congratulating the House on its "courageous" passage of the bill............................


The abortion debate in the House has centered on how to put the bill in compliance with the ban on taxpayer funding for abortions. Rep. Lois Capps (D-Calif.) proposed that a government-run plan and private plans offered in the new marketplace for people without employer-based coverage could offer abortion coverage but that payments for abortions would come out of premiums, not the government subsidies for those who need help buying coverage.

Antiabortion groups argued that such a segregation of funds would be a mere accounting gimmick. After a compromise foundered, the amendment by Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) and Joe Pitts (R-Pa.) emerged as the leading alternative, with the strong backing of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. The amendment would prohibit abortion coverage in the government-run plan and any private plan on the new marketplace that accepts people who are using government subsidies to buy coverage.

Under that language, abortion coverage would be unavailable not only to working-class women buying coverage with government subsidies, but probably also to women buying coverage on the new marketplace without federal assistance. The amendment suggests that women could buy separate "riders" covering abortions, but abortion-rights supporters say it is offensive to require a separate purchase for coverage of a medical procedure that for most women is unexpected.

....................But Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL-Pro Choice America, said that although the vote was "extremely disappointing and outrageous," the "fight isn't over." DeGette said she remains hopeful that the amendment will be dropped as more Democrats who voted for it -- and their constituents -- realize it goes beyond the status quo of limiting federal funding for abortions. Some of those House Democrats are not against abortion rights, just against federal funding, and she surmised that they may have misunderstood the amendment. She said her House allies have requested a meeting with Obama, saying they "need him to back us up" after lying low on the issue.

"This would be the greatest restriction on a woman's right to get an abortion with her own money in our lifetime," she said. "The stakes could not be higher."...............


Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/08/AR2009110818453.html?sid=ST2009110818479

---

No fear. Obama will be silent. Women under the bus is just fine!

[tekisui]

43. knr!~

Women's rights are consistently under attack. As long as they are, we must push back and strengthen women's reproductive rights.

[chelsea0011]

44. Where is their outrage (amendment supporters) to private insurers who allow

abortion coverage. Do they not all have private insurance and some , if not many, allow abortion coverage? But they stay with the insurers? It makes no sense. We all pay premiums into the policies for the good of all, but they have no problem with this. Why don't they boycott the private insurers that they hold policies in?

Does their federal insurance cover abortions?

[WillParkinson]

45. Considering how many of them hook up with prostitutes and mistresses...

I certainly hope so, for their sake if nothing else.

:sarcasm:

[still_one]

46. All I know is Obama isn't doing his job, and yes the stupeck amendment should NOT be in this bill

Where is Obama putting pressure on the blue dogs to either vote for the bill with a public option, or you will NOT be getting any support in the next election. He should also be telling any Democrat that doesn't support this bill that they will NOT be having any of their pet projects part of any legislation

What we need now is someone like LBJ

Does Obama STILL believe he can get bipartisan support?

[joeycola]

50. Many days it is very hard to know what he actually supports and he

speaks out of both sides of his mouth.

[pattmarty]

74. Meet "Bill" Obama.

[bonnieS]

59. What I did

After getting a message from NOW, and having fumed for two days, I called both my Senators, and told them to use their leadership position (Menendez) or to talk to their colleagues (Lautenberg) to get this abomination out of the bill. I said that rather than celebrating I was quite aware that the new bill puts women in a worse position than they were in before the weekend, and that compromises are always made over the bodies of women. I told them that as a life-long registered Democratic woman I have counted on the Democratic Party to protect abortion rights and if they are not going to do that I can stay home or vote Green Party. That will not be more of a waste than voting Democratic, said I. I also told them that they had been played because the conservative people who voted for the amendment then voted against the bill. In addition, I said that I and other Democratic women realize that the anti-choice Democrats were recruited.

I told them that even if it is a waste of time to talk to their conservative fellow-Senators, women are worth the time. And I repeated how horrified I am.

They have GOT to feel a backlash on this, and we cannot just talk to each other.

[defendandprotect]

66. Good -- I did pretty much the same . . ."betrayal of women" while embracing Church . . .!!!

We have to get this "god" obsession out of our Congress and stop the flow of

taxpayer money into church coffers!!

It's too easy for Democrats to use "god" talk ... we have to make it tougher --

If there was a Creator that creator is not a fascist -- we have been given free thought,

free conscience, and free will and are expected to use them!

Mother Nature is pro-choice -- though much of the plants and information have been destroyed

by patriarchy.

[patrice]

91. 1+

:applause:

[truedelphi]

100. Yes when you are President you need to act in a powerful

Manner, ensuring that the legislation pased while you are in office is legislation you can live with.

Regardless of which House members and Senators conceive of these bills, the Health Care Reform bill will be Obama's legacy. (Few here today know who initially wrote the Civil Rights Act, for instance. It is considered "Johnson's Civil Right Bill.")

The sad thing is, most of those on this board were born after LBJ was in office. They don't remember ANY liberal administrations. During their life time, (as adults) they have experienced ONLY the Reagan and Bush twelve years, very-good-for-a Republican Bill Clinton, and the Nazi George W Bush. So they do not understand how Obama threw away a wonderful opportunity to become the first liberal President since LBJ!

[KansDem]

47. Funny? My tax money is being spent on terminating Iraqi lives...

I wonder why there is no hue and cry over that?

And how can a legal right upheld by the US Constitution not be excluded from public funds?

[AllyCat]

57. Because those people are out of the womb, silly! Don't you know the difference?

And they have brown skin.

[KansDem]

64. Oh, of course! How silly of me!

;)

[patrice]

92. AND they're non-"Christian". Imagine us doing to a White, "Christian" nation what we did to Iraq.

That would probably NEVER happen, under any circumstances short of those described in Cormack McCarthy's The Road.

[bain_sidhe]

70. Because anti-choicers are so SPECIAL, dontcha know

They get to have their moral preferences written into law. The rest of us are just so much chopped liver. Our moral outrage doesn't count.

[PeaceNikki]

48. The DFLA isn't the only group that can threaten to "torpedo" the bill if they don't get their way.

[Mari333]

49. The C street Dems, Stupak is one of them

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6966211

[defendandprotect]

67. We need to break up this organized patriarchal religion in Congress . . .

No difference whether it's a GOP obsession or a Democratic Party obsession --

We need to blast "god" talk out of Congress --

Organized patriarchal religion is simply a landmine placed by patriarchy to keep

control over reproduction and women's bodies!!

[patrice]

93. "God" isn't necessary. All we need is the Golden Rule.

Or, Kant's Categorical Imperative.

[TheEuclideanOne]

51. Is abortion covered?

I thought that it wasn't. Does somebody have the details of what the uproar is over? My understanding is that abortion coverage had not changed one way or another, with the exception of the Stupak ammendment. Without it, there was no effect either way, or at least that was my understanding.

[patrice]

94. I have not seen the precise language, but I have heard that Stupak is an expansion

in what is already not covered by means of the Hyde amendment.

[izzybeans]

52. I'm confused by something.

"Women are going to realize that a Democratic-controlled House has passed legislation that would prohibit women paying for abortions with their own funds. . . . We're not going to let this into law."

I didn't see that in the amendment. Am I reading a version of this amendment that is out of date? The version I read explicitly stated that the amendment does not restrict anyone from purchasing supplemental insurance for abortion coverage or using non-federal funds for it.

This amendment sucks, but it doesn't outlaw abortion, at least in the version I'm reading. If I'm correct then why the lie in the quote?

Here is the text I found: http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090520/hr2454_III_stupak.pdf

[joeycola]

53. You missed the point. Abortion is a medical procedure and needs

to be included in any insurance policy instead of being EXCLUDED!!

[izzybeans]

54. There are a lot of medical procedures not covered by insurance.

I'm asking whether this amendment really does de facto outlaw abortion the way this article claims. The text of the amendment suggests that this is not the case.

[AllyCat]

58. They way it stands is that anyone receiving public option benefits may not

get an abortion, even if they buy a supplemental that allows them to do so. It could even be interpreted to not allow a woman to use her own money to pay for one if she is on assistance. That is what I heard a Congressman say today on the Bill Press show.

[izzybeans]

60. That's not what the amendment says. I found the one that was passed.

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/15284081/Stupak-Amendment-to-HR-3962-Rev-108

[defendandprotect]

69. Why should Congress be doing anything but permitting abortion as medical procedure?

[izzybeans]

75. I don't think they should.

However, they did. I want to make sense of this before I decide for myself whether this should be deal breaker for me.

[defendandprotect]

104. Presume you're saying you want abortion covered ?

[katkat]

77. Bill Press

Well,of course, I always get my news from a show instead of reading the actual bill. Not.

[defendandprotect]

68. What other NECESSARY medical procedures are not covered?

[texastoast]

61. I'm confused too

The quote sounds like a back-door outlawing of abortion outright.

If that's the case, oh hell no.

It's bad enough that I understood that the act wouldn't provide funds for abortion. But maybe I don't have the most current version.

[izzybeans]

62. I think this is it.

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/15284081/Stupak-Amendment-to-HR-3962-Rev-108

I honestly do not believe that the quotes in the OP accurately describe the amendment, as bad as the amendment already is. I think that it will result in more bureaucratic wrangling over abortion coverage than is necessary but it won't outlaw it, which is typically what happens when "compromises" are thrown into any bill.

[bain_sidhe]

73. It will outlaw abortion *coverage* in the exchanges.

Not abortions themselves. But there can be no policy offered in the exchange that covers abortion if even one individual purchased the policy with any part of the premium subsidized, even if all the rest of the purchasers used their own money to pay for the policy.

[izzybeans]

76. not true. Only the individual.

That's why NOW's clarification makes more sense. It makes it harder for poor woman. Not for everyone. Anyone who is subsidized will have a harder time.

[bain_sidhe]

80. I'm not sure I understand your point

the Stupak amendment prevents an individual from buying a policy - any policy - that covers abortion if any part of the premium is paid for with a subsidy. The way the exchange is structured, an individual can buy any policy offered in it. Therefore every policy in the exchange will be barred from offering abortion coverage, because at least some of the purchasers will be using subsidies to purchase it.

It is possible to read the amendment as saying that even policies purchased loutside the exchange, if purchased in part with subsidies, can't cover abortion. And that could opens a whole warehouse of cans of worms, because how can insurers know in advance if a subsidized individual might someday purchase their plan?

[izzybeans]

101. I think we are talking at cross purposes.

Sorry.

My point is mute, really. I was trying to work through what I perceived initially as nothing new here. I can see how this muddles things even further.

[Hepburn]

82. Here is one of the problems:

Let's say you are female and you are mandated to purchase insurance, but you ONLY can do so with the aid of govt funds. However, you are employed and you will have to contribute your share of the premium from your earnings. The asshole Stupid-Pecker amendment PROHIBITS the woman who is contributing her OWN earnings from having ANY funds used for an abortion except in the case of incest, rape or loss of her life. Thus, the POS Amendment TAKES her funds which she is MANDATED to pay and punishes her for the pre-existing condition of being female and having sex.

[greeneyedboy]

112. catch 22: one could buy a rider, but no one will sell it lest they be banned from exchange

If any company covering abortion services is banned from the exchange, how would women find a company to buy supplemental insurance from? This makes it impossible for women to pay for abortions with their own money because the marketplace would effectively ban any company covering the procedure. I suppose women who can afford to pay out-of-pocket will be OK if they can fork over $$$ directly to a doctor--but why should they have to?

(That is setting aside the fact that nobody PLANS for UNPLANNED pregnancy via birth control failures, rape, incest, etc., or for changes in circumstances making a previously wanted pregnancy impossible (e.g. job loss, cancer diagnosis, etc.), so nobody is going to buy a rider to cover abortion.

Also setting aside the fact that most of women's health care *is* reproductive health care. What other medical procedures are being rationed and regulated in this bill? None.)

[Lorien]

55. At this point the only ones who aren't under the bus are corporations

and wealthy straight white males.

[AllyCat]

56. Please tell me they won't completely sell us up the river with "HCR"

[Ed76638]

63. This is what happens when you don't have leadership

We can't get real reform because the Blue Bitches won't have any part of it.

Some Blue Bitches will agree to half-assed reform, but only if there are additional restrictions to abortion.

Now the liberals are upset and will kill reform because they've been shat upon by the leadership time and time again.

[defendandprotect]

65. Another betrayal of women while the Dems push $$$ into Church pockets . . .

[defendandprotect]

71. It should be blocked . . . and why are we still giving taxpayer $$ to Churches????

[katkat]

78. defendandprotect

We aren't subsidizing churches. We aren't taxing them, because of a little thing called the Constitution.

I swear, this thread made me think I'd wandered into rightwing wingnut land, for all the due diligence posters are not doing.

[defendandprotect]

103. Are you kidding? We're giving money to "faith based"/religious organizations -- !!!

And, btw, there is an investigation going on as to whether the RCC has used that

money to pay off its lawsuits re priest pedophile abuse!!!

[nashville_brook]

111. katkat -- who do you think the Office of Faith-Based Initiative writes their checks to?

Churches market their community programs and they're funded thru the OFB grant program.

Here's a link for your due dill:
http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/government/fbci/

[Ozymanithrax]

72. Section b and Section c both allow individuals and states to purchase supplemental plans to pay for

abortions.

The amendment only prohibits federal funds to do that.

Clearly, neither Alec MacGillis nor DeGette never read the amendment.

It pisses me off when Republicans and conservatives pass on a lie without checking it because it fits with their own ideas of what is write and wrong. When we pass out information we should check to see if the informatio is accurate or false. If we don't, then we are telling a lie.

It pisses me off when Democrats/progressives/liberals do the same thing. Read the ammendment.

[ProudDad]

79. So you are ok with discriminating against poor women?

It pisses me off when "democrats" support discrimination...and elitism.

[saracat]

86. I have read it. it also makes the Hyde Amendement permanent instead of renewable

and it banns "private" insurers who particiapte in the Exchange from covering abortions. this is turn encourages the rest of insurers to disallow abortion coverage because it will not allow them to be competitive otherwise. Women are equally "mandated " to pay for coverage under this plan but do not receive equal coverage. Men have no conditions which are excluded from coverage.The language of the bill is also problematic.A women must be in danger of death and only death in order for the abortion to be covered. Sterilization and neurolocial consrquences and other medical consequences are not addressed. this bill treats women as second class citizens and ensures that the damage done tyo reproductive rights is "permanent. Abortions will always be available to those that can afford it but porr and middle class women will have to suffer.
I suggesst you read the Amendement more carefully . Rep Degette obviously has as have ahh the pro-choice groups.

[Gman]

81. Leave it to the purists to fuck it up for everyone else.

and think they're doing the right thing, regardless of what it does to 47 million other people. I don't think it's possible for the purist to get more fucked up than this.

[AzDar]

83. Seems to me this health care bill IS an abortion.

:puke:

[saracat]

84. Thank you Rep. DeGette. Thank you for standing up and fighting. The women cannot and will not be

silent.

[Jeneral2885]

85. So what is

a world with anti abortion to the Republicans and some Democrats? A world rosy and nice with population growing? girls bearing babies liek its second nature to them? Or a world full of teenage girls pregnant but can't abort or can take contraception.

[Lautremont]

87. I'm waiting to see what Archbunker Stevens would say before jumping to conclusions.

[femrap]

88. k and r

I'm sending cards to the anti-choice 'dems' with the message. 'Clipped Balls. Problem Solved.'

I know they don't want that....and that's how women feel about anti-choice.

Plus these anti-choicers need future cannon fodder from poor women who in no way can afford an abortion. Hell even birth control pills are expensive.

The underbelly of this bus is really ugly.

[patrice]

89. ANYONE who voted to allow GWB to CHOOSE whether INNOCENT Iraqis lived or died doesn't have a

leg to stand on when it comes to abortion and if Democrats can't stand up to this and take the heat, then I don't want them deciding anything about LIFE issues such as Health Care/Insurance Reform.

[Jeneral2885]

102. Unborn

people are more important than those born in the Right's mind.

[crikkett]

90. YES. Block it. I don't understand why Pelosi allowed this. n/t

[thesquanderer]

95. unexpected?

I don't quite understand this quote:

"The amendment suggests that women could buy separate "riders" covering abortions, but abortion-rights supporters say it is offensive to require a separate purchase for coverage of a medical procedure that for most women is unexpected."

Isn't the *point* of insurance to cover thing things that are, for the most part, unexpected?

[thesquanderer]

96. hyperbole?

re: "would prohibit women paying for abortions with their own funds"

I don't see how the amendment stops anyone from using their own money to get an abortion. T think this is the kind of over-statement that casts more heat than light.

[tonysam]

98. You're right. It doesn't.

A lot of rhetoric or misinformation is being thrown out there.

If women want abortions for reasons other than life-threatening conditions or rape or incest, they can pay for it out of their own funds. Nobody can stop them.

[dana_b]

107. unless they don't have the funds

to pay for it. Then, too bad lady. It's your fault for being poor. :eyes:

[makeanoise]

97. As well as they should oppose it and take a stand!

it's unbelievable to think that this type of restriction would be place on a woman's choice and her own money.....no way!

[sabrina 1]

99. Have any of the morality police from C Street in Congress

offered an amendment forbidding men from purchasing Viagra? Is there any requirement, eg, that when a man goes to the drug-store to purchase the blue pill, he needs to provide proof that his wife has given him permission to do so?

Are there any provisions anywhere that he must disclose how he intends to use it, outside of marriage eg, considering the propensity of these C Street members to use the services of prostitutes, I would think the family values crowd would want to be sure that only his wife can okay this purchase.

After all, what he does with his body, has an affect on others, mainly his wife and the pregnancies that may result outside of marriage, that his use of Viagra could be responsible for. If they are this concerned about pregnancy, how is it that men have no restrictions on them at all when it comes to their role in pregnancy.

Maybe Nancy could offer such an amendment herself. I've been told that politics is the art of compromise. But you need a bargaining chip to make deals and I think this might be a way to approach this.

I'd like to know if the self-appointed male guardians of women's bodies, realize that it takes two to make a pregnancy. I am certain such an amendment would have broad support among women.

I don't see such an amendment as being any more outrageous than this one. Added to the fact that the pill is dangerous in many cases and can result in death. As pro-lifers, it is something one would think they might have thought of.

I could support such an amendment ~

[kpete]

105. once again,

why did this get moved to GD?
just asking, kp

[Bluebear]

106. I wondered that as well.

If this is not hot news, what is?

[HughMoran]

113. Good

It's encouraging that this ridiculous provision has awakened some who've been pushed around in the Democratic party.

[noamnety]

114. GOOD.

I'm tired of hearing "the only way we can get enough votes is if we leave that in.

It's about time the MAJORITY party announced that they only way they can get enough votes is to take it out.

[Capn Sunshine]

115. Yay! I knew we could snatch defeat from victory!

For a minute there it was looking like we would get something done....whew.
Imagine the horrible consequences of a less than perfect health care bill instead of nothing.

[joeycola]

118. Here is an update from Rep. Degette-Monday eve she spoke with Maddow...

She and her group still want a meeting with the WH but says she is encouraged ...(see bottom third of this).


Forum Name Political Videos
Topic subject Rachel Maddow: Rachel on 'Biggest Restriction on Abortion Rights in Generation'
Topic URL http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x400976#400976
400976, Rachel Maddow: Rachel on 'Biggest Restriction on Abortion Rights in Generation'
Posted by Hissyspit on Tue Nov-10-09 06:36 AM

MSNBC The Rachel Maddow Show - 9 Nov. 2009: "Government-Run Health Care (But Only For Women)" Excellent coverage of Stupak Amendment. Interview w/ Rep. Diana Degette, who is circulating a letter that has about 40 signatures of House Democrats who say they will oppose the health reform bill if it is used to suppress abortion rights.

MADDOW: "Since Barack Obama took office ten months ago, the Democratic Party went from having 58 seats in the U.S. Senate to having 60. Democrats went from carrying 257 seats in the House to now carrying 258. And this weekend, the house grabbed the brass ring, that President after President and Congress after Congress have wanted to grab and failed - health reform, at last; the kind of once-in-more-than-a-lifetime historic achievement that could brand the Democratic Party and inspire voter loyalty for a generation.

Even better for Democrats, they've done it in a way that has brought out the worst in the opposing party -the Republican House leadership last week speaking in front of a banner comparing health reform to bodies stacked up at a concentration camp. Despite reported chants of 'Nazis, Nazis,' not a single House Republican walks off the stage in protest. The chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee now equating medical for women to medical care for smokers. The former House majority leader organizing the anti-health care reform protests outside Congress saying Americans have too much health insurance, and some who don't have it, don't deserve it..."

DICK ARMEY (Video): "Because they eat like a pig, you must now insure them."

MADDOW: "And for women, the boorish behavior of Republicans against health care reform has been even worse. As Democrat women in Congress tried to speak on the House floor about gender disparity in health coverage, here's the treatment they received from Republican men..."

CONGRESSWOMAN (Video): "I ask unanimous consent that my remarks..."

CONGRESSMAN: "I object."

CONGRESSWOMAN: "I would like to revise my remarks."

CONGRESSMAN: "I object. I object."

- snip -

MADDOW: "In terms of the political impact of health reform, this is potentially a huge generational victory for the Democratic Party.

Or is it?

Snatching electoral defeat from the jaws of victory here, Democrats have decided to pass monumental sweeping legacy-building health reform inexplicably along with the biggest restriction on abortion rights in a generation.

It's called the Stupak amendment. Named for Democratic congressman Bart Stupak of Michigan, and if his amendment becomes law, if the bill passes as is, insurance companies across the country would likely stop covering abortions. Period. Stupak's language in the House bill says that anyone who gets a government subsidy to buy insurance through the new health insurance exchange would be banned from buying any insurance plan that covers abortion services. So if you're an insurance company that wants to participate in the new health insurance exchange, if you want access to this new pool of millions of Americans, tens of millions of Americans, choosing between insurance plans on the exchange, well, the CBO says about 90 percent of those people will be getting some kind of government subsidy in the exchange, and if they're getting any sort of government subsidy, they can't even choose your insurance plan if they want to - unless you drop abortion coverage.

The effect of this law isn't just no federal funding for abortions - that's the law now - the effect of this law is likely to be no insurance coverage for abortion in the United States period.

With a single amendment Congress is making a legal medical procedure potentially unattainable for a huge number of American women. All that conservative talk about the evil government gettting involved in which medical procedures are covered and which aren't? It's conservatives who now from Congress are ruling out coverage nationally for one specific medical procedure for political reasons.

Congressman Stupak apparently got this language into the bill by promising lots and lots of conservative Democratic votes for health reform, and what he got was lots and lots of conservative Democrats - 26 of whom voted for his anti-abortion amendment, but then against the health reform bill, anyway.

In response to the Stupak amendment passing, 41 House Democrats have now said in writing that they won't vote for any final health reform bill that includes Stupak's language in it or anything like that. Meanwhile, as the health reform vote approaches in the Senate, even supposedly pro-choice Democrats are now signaling that they're o.k. with the Stupak amendment..."

SEN. CLAIRE McCASKILL (Video): "We're talking about whether or not people that get public money can buy an insurance policy that has any coverage for abortion, and that is not the majority of America. The majority of America is not gonna be getting subsidies from the government ... so I'm not sure this is going to be enough to kill the bill."

MADDOW: "Yeah, we're only effectively banning abortion for people who get subsidies - people making less than $88,000 a year. Who cares about anyone making less than $88,000 a year, right?

This apparent lack of concern among supposedly pro-choice Democrats is made all the more relevant given the news tonight that a pair of anti-choice Senate Democrats are already preparing similar language as what's in the House bill for the Senate version. And Senate Majority leader Harry Reid, the man ultimately responsible for whether the anti-abortion language goes in or stays out, he doesn't exactly have a great record on supporting abortion rights. Sen. Reid is personally against abortion rights. And the National Abortion Rights Action League gave Sen. Reid a whopping 20 percent voting rating last year.

The White House, for it's part, has shifted its position on this issue as the day has gone on. While White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs hedged earlier in the day on the issue, President Obama told ABC News tonight 'I want to make sure that the provision that emerges (isn't) restricting women's insurance choices ... There needs to be some more work before we get to the point where we're not changing the status quo.'

Democrats not only want to pass health reform because they're interested in the policy change, but also because it is supposed to come with a lot of electoral spoils. Leaving us to wonder what the electoral spoils will be for Democrats if they don't get women or anybody who's pro-choice to ever vote for them ever again.

Joining us now is Democratic Congressman Diana Degette of Colorado, co-chair of the Congressional Pro-choice Caucus. She is circulating that letter, which now has about 40 signatures, of House Democrats who say they will oppose the health reform bill if it is used to restrict abortion rights.

Congressman Dieette, thanks very much for joining us tonight. In terms of the substance of the Stupak amendment, how big a set-back is this for access to abortion services in this country?"

REP. DEGETTE: "Well, you said a part of it, but there's even more, even more. In the public option, nobody in the public option would be able to get an insurance policy that offered abortion coverage. And we need to remember that the public option is not funded with public money, it's funded with private insurance premiums. So let's say you have a small business owner who goes into the public option 'cause they can't get
insurance any place else, and they want to buy a policy with their own private money, no federal money. They would be banned from doing that. And as you said, the people in the exchange, who get some kind of premium assistance, could not use their own private portion of their health care premium to buy abortion coverage.

So we think that in the public option, definitely, and, almost for certain, in the exchange, no insurance companies would offer abortion coverage. This is, you know, Congressman Stupak and others said 'well, we're simply codifying the Hyde Amendment, but the Hyde Amendment says no federal funding for abortion. We reached that compromise this summer in the committee, and that was in the base bill. So we already agreed to what the President says, let's keep the status quo.

This would be the most far-ranging abortion restriction, certainly in my political career."

MADDOW: "Congressman Stupak and others who support him are suggesting that women who would like their insurance coverage to include abortion services should buy abortion insurance, specifically."

REP. DEGETTE: "I was, you know, Rachel, I was so appalled by that. I thought that was the most outrageous thing they said, because it what it shows is a fundamental misunderstanding of what exactly happens when a woman needs to have an abortion, because nobody ever gets pregnant thinking they're going to have to terminate the pregnancy. Either it was an unanticipated and unwanted pregnancy, or it was a wanted pregnancy that went terribly wrong. So to say to somebody, you have to pay extra money in anticipation of this horrible event, I think is just appalling."

MADDOW: "I know that you're currently collecting signatures of House Democrats who will oppose a final version of health reform if it restricts abortion rights. What kind of support are you getting now?"

REP. DEGETTE: "Well, let me put it this way. That letter that we're sending, it says that we will not vote for a conference report that extends abortion restrictions beyond current law. We think that's fair. That's the compromise we reached this summer.

I got those 41 signatures in one hour. I put the letter out after we lost the amendment. I had collected those signatures before the final vote on the bill, so we're still continuing to get more signatures this week. And what we want to say to everybody is 'look, we're willing to work, we're willing to work on language, but we're not going to accept language that vastly restricts a woman's legal right to choose."

MADDOW: "The President today voicing some support for your position in saying that the goal is to not change the status quo in terms of abortion laws and funding for abortions. Have you had any response from the White House? Are you at all encouraged by those words from the President tonight?"

REP. DEGETTE: "I just found out about the President's statement about an hour ago, and I'm enormously encouraged, because the President is really saying what the rest of us think. This is a health care bill. This bill is designed to expand health care to 36 million Americans, and all of us have worked so hard to pass this bill for months and months. To have it torpedoed by this extraneous but very dangerous amendment is wrong, and I'm hoping that the President will sit down with us in the next few weeks and really start to hammer out some language that we can all accept."