Obama: 'This is a Health Care Bill, Not an Abortion Bill'

[kpete]

Source: ABC News

Obama: 'This is a Health Care Bill, Not an Abortion Bill'
President Says Still More Work to be Done on Legislation Passed by House
By JAKE TAPPER, KAREN TRAVERS, SUNLEN MILLER and DEVIN DWYER
Nov. 9, 2009


President Obama said today that Congress needs to change abortion-related language in the health care bill passed by the House of Representatives this weekend.

"I laid out a very simple principle, which is this is a health care bill, not an abortion bill," Obama said. "And we're not looking to change what is the principle that has been in place for a very long time, which is federal dollars are not used to subsidize abortions.

Saying the bill cannot change the status quo regarding the ban on federally funding abortions, the President said "there are strong feelings on both sides" about an amendment passed on Saturday and added to the legislation, "and what that tells me is that there needs to be some more work before we get to the point where we're not changing the status quo."

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

I want to make sure that the provision that emerges meets that test -- that we are not in some way sneaking in funding for abortions, but, on the other hand, that we're not restricting women's insurance choices," he said.

Read more: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/abc-news-exclusive-obama-jobs-health-care-ft/story?id=9033559

[Skittles]

1. I'm glad he spoke up

[timeforpeace]

12. Too late though, the meme's been set.

[robinlynne]

23. not at all. It aint law till obama signs the paper.

[emulatorloo]

2. Dupe

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6973980

[Warpy]

3. Oh, for FUCK'S SAKE

Reproductive care including abortion and birth control, IS HEALTH CARE!!!!

The fact YOU don't need it doesn't make it any less so!

I am disappointed to find out he's got the same arrogant male blindness displayed by too many here and elsewhere.

[sandnsea]

6. Oh bullshit.

This gallant stand by women's organizations on behalf of poor women of America - is bullshit. This does nothing for the women, up to 150% of poverty, who will be on Medicaid.

Obama is exactly right. They tried to sneak abortion funding in through the exchange and they lost.

Time to quit playing games, like pretending birth control is involved in any way, and solve the damn problem.

[WinkyDink]

7. The principle of acknowledging a legal medical procedure is what is at stake, not economics.

[sandnsea]

9. It's not legal to use federal funds

Hasn't been since the 70s. That's what is at stake.

I don't care if Hyde is overturned, but let's not pretend that isn't what they tried to do with the exchange and public option. They lost.

That's democracy, like it or not.

[defendandprotect]

20. It's not legal because MALES made this rule . . . we need to fight it --

We need to fund birth control and abortion -- and certainly women shouldn't need

permission to buy health insurance which coves birth control and abortion!!

[FLDCVADem]

30. Exactly n/t

[Generator]

33. Oh for fuck's sake I've had it

This is you defending the government telling me as a women that if I get a subsidy from the government because I can't afford it that I am mandated to buy by that government or face a fine or even criminal penalties-that I can't have an abortion. GODDAMN it the tea baggers are right. They are taking our rights away.

Good luck licking Obama's ass the next seven years. Because that seems to be the reason d'etre of people like you. Fuck women-fuck the people. DEMOCRACY-bought and paid for by the health industry and defended by idiots like you.

[bain_sidhe]

14. No, they did not try to "sneak abortion funding in"

and saying that sixteen gajillion times on every thread about the Stupak amendment doesn't make it true. The underlying bill did NOT FUND ABORTIONS. PERIOD.

[sandnsea]

15. Yes, my dear, IT DID

If it didn't, then what the hell is the problem?

[defendandprotect]

21. Good question . . . the problem is with the GOP propaganda . .. however,

both the pill and other contraceptives should be covered and so should abortion --
whether elective or for health of the female.

[robinlynne]

25. the problem is that the right wants to make abortions illegal. So they created an amendment

which would make any health care provider who provides abortions in-eligible for federal funding. That means no-one will be able to get an abortion. providers would have to stop providing if they want to be part of the exchange..

[FLDCVADem]

32. That is absolutely untrue

Where in the world did this misinformation come from?

[robinlynne]

34. here is a part of one of the MANY articles about it.

Huffington Post
WASHINGTON — A bipartisan House coalition voted Saturday to prohibit coverage of abortions in a new government-run health care plan that Democrats would establish to compete with private insurers.

The 240-194 vote on an amendment by Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., was a blow to liberals, who would have allowed the Obama administration and its successors to decide whether abortions would be covered by the government plan. Sixty-four Democrats joined 176 Republicans in favor of the prohibition.

Stupak's measure also would bar anyone getting federal health subsidies from purchasing private insurance polices that included abortion coverage.

"Let us stand together on principle – no public funding for abortions, no public funding for insurance policies that pay for abortions," Stupak urged fellow lawmakers before the vote.

The amendment also would prohibit people who receive new federal health subsidies from buying insurance plans that include abortion coverage.

The Democrats' original bill would have allowed people getting federal subsidies to pay for abortion coverage with their own money. Abortion opponents dismissed that as an accounting gimmick.

[FLDCVADem]

35. Very nice

Now where in that article does it say anything about health care providers being banned from performing abortions if they want to be able to accept insurance policies from the exchange?

[robinlynne]

36. try this. Rachel will explain to you:

"The effect of this ammendment will be no insurance coverage for abortion in the US, period."
link:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x400976

[robinlynne]

37. and here is a congresswoman explaining it:

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."

[robinlynne]

38. and here is an example of what is already happening today, just because insurance

companies will not cover abortions over 3 months: from a DU thread.


2. my workmate`s wife had a similiar situation

her baby was`t viable (?) but the insurance company would`t pay for the "abortion" since the baby was over 4 months. she had to wait over a month till the baby inside her died. everyday he became more depressed and angry. i felt helpless because i did`t know what to say to help him....

[robinlynne]

40. and here is one more form another Du thread.

3. Do you understand the problem with the Stupak Amendment? The problem is that it basically would have banned ANY insurance company from providing abortion coverage. Because it would have banned any insurance company participating in the exchange (a.k.a., all of them) from offering abortion coverage, period--even to people paying for their insurance with their own money, not federal subsidies. You seem to have the mistaken impression that only poor women were at risk, when the reality is that the Stupak Amendment would severely restrict access to middle-class women as well.
Silenced.

[Doctor_J]

42. Untrue - rich women will still be able to get abortions

We are returning to the 50's, when wealthy women could get abortions "on demand" by paying themselves or traveling to somewhere that it's legal. Women of more modest means will be in dark alleys as before.

[bain_sidhe]

43. The problem is

The amendment goes beyond banning the use of federal funds to pay for abortion (or even to pay premiums for plans that cover abortion, which I gather was what was in the original bill) - it made it impossible for any plan in the exchange to even OFFER abortion coverage (the "guaranteed issue" provision means that *every* plan will have to meet the requirements for subsidized purchasers). Even to people paying with their own money, or companies paying the premiums with their own money. And since the exchange is intended to be progressively made accessible to larger and larger employers, chances are the provision will eventually affect many, many employees of employers that offer private plan coverage now.

[FLDCVADem]

31. Indirectly it did

It funded insurance policies that covered abortions. Women can still a) buy abortion coverage as part of a regular policy, provided they don't use subsidies or b) buy an abortion rider with their own funds if they are getting subsidies.

[robinlynne]

41. Are you visiting from another blog?

[bain_sidhe]

44. No, it didn't

Public funds were NOT to be used to pay premiums for policies that covered abortions.

[Oregone]

4. We CANT use federal dollars to subsidize abortions! None would remain to subsidize private dividends

[LisaM]

5. I WANT my tax dollars to subsidize abortion

the whole thing makes me so angry.

[LeFleur1]

10. What If...

a woman's health depends on getting an abortion? Why should she have to pay for that out of her pocket? I don't understand this total disregard for the health of women who might need an abortion.
It can only be that women are considered lesser humans who do not deserve health care when needed. That appears to be the mindset of our President, more's the pity.
I wonder...will insurance cover health care for sexually transmitted diseases? Or have they been written off, too? How about diseases that appear genetic? Are they covered? And why should they be since it must have been pure carelessness that fostered the decision to have a child that was 'damaged' by genetics.
This argument against abortion for any reason is ugly and cruel.

[boppers]

13. It's not "against abortion for any reason". That's a strawman.

The current wording allows for abortion if the pregnancy would place the woman "in danger of death", or is the result of rape or incest.

Here's the text:
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/15284081/Stupak-Amendment-to-HR-3962-Rev-108

What *isn't* covered, and needs amendment, is wording for things like pregnancies that wouldn't kill somebody, but would still otherwise affect their health, i.e. paralysis, mental health disorders, etc.

[sandnsea]

16. Not a strawman, a cruel and hateful lie

But nice of you to be kinder with your words than I am.

This is why nothing ever gets done in this country. Nobody can be honest.

[defendandprotect]

22. "health of the female" --- otherwise, we're denying women the right to self-defense . . . !!!

Do we want to go there?

[Coyote_Bandit]

8. It's a frickin ***INSURANCE*** bill

Nothing more. Nothing less.

But it will masquerade as healthcare reform.

[depakid]

17. +1

That's exactly what it is- accurately characterized. A 'lil something for everyone. Well, almost everyone. Some folks didn't have the cash to buy a seat at the table.

[w4rma]

11. Perfect response. (nt)

[optimator]

18. his words ooze cowardice

the status quo is not acceptable

[defendandprotect]

19. ...But we can "subsidize" organized patriarchal religion's "faith-based" organizaitons!!!

Why help poor women who want abortions when you can use that money to

give to the Catholic Church for their pedophile priest lawsuits!!!????

[Xithras]

24. Abortion IS Health Care!

'This is a Health Care Bill, Not a Heart Surgery Bill'
'This is a Health Care Bill, Not a Cancer Bill'
'This is a Health Care Bill, Not a Stroke Bill'
'This is a Health Care Bill, Not a Diabetes Bill'
'This is a Health Care Bill, Not a Colitis Bill'
'This is a Health Care Bill, Not a Prostate Surgery Bill'
'This is a Health Care Bill, Not a Mammogram Bill'
'This is a Health Care Bill, Not an AIDS Bill'
'This is a Health Care Bill, Not a Pregnancy Bill'
'This is a Health Care Bill, Not a Dermatology Bill'
'This is a Health Care Bill, Not an Obstructed Bowel Bill'
'This is a Health Care Bill, Not an Abortion Bill'

Medical care is medical care.

[lib_wit_it]

26. +infinity!

[kelly1mm]

27. I agree that President Obama wants the Stupak amendment out

but the real question is if the bill that lands on his desk mirrors the House passed bill (I know this is highly unlikely) will he sign it or will he veto it? Should he sign it or veto it? (two separate questions).

[Nikki Stone1]

28. You're a coward, Obama.

A real coward.

[EFerrari]

29. I have to believe that Obama remembers at all times that he has two daughters. n/t

/oops

[Hannah Bell]

39. who will have plenty of money to buy whatever health care they like,

including abortion.