The Stupak Amendment will affect who have miscarriages

[saracat]

http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2009/11/09/will-stupak-amendment-force-women-whove-miscarried-lose-insurance-coverage-i-think-so


This weekend, a group of male pro-life Democrats gambled with women's health, and women lost. By broadly writing in that insurers can chose whether or not to cover "abortion services," pro-life amendments don't just affect their intended victims -- women seeking a way out of an unwanted or medically harmful pregnancy. They also affect another group of victims -- women whose pregnancies have already ended but have not yet miscarried.


more at link

Also at link

Wording unclear = no insurance coverage
As a former employee of the insurance industry, I can tell you that the wording of the Stupak amendment absolutely does leave room to interpret it the way the author says: disallowing coverage to remove the dead fetus by performing a D & C after a natural miscarriage. It also absolutely does allow insurers or government administrators of the new plan to disallow coverage for removal of a pregnancy that threatens the health of the mother (such as in the case of an ectopic pregnancy, or pregnancy of a woman who has one of many other medical conditions that leave little or no hope of the possibility of a safe pregnancy.) When insurers, or government officials with authority over them don't want something to be covered, and there is the slightest ambiguity in the wording of the regulations, believe me, the insurers won't pay for it or the government won't allow them to pay for it.

Submitted by mariekw on November 9, 2009 - 11:41pm.

[tblue]

1. Oh great.

So disgusted I could spit. I expect this of Republicans not House Dems.

[aquart]

2. The Family has neatly infiltrated the Democrats.

They need to be exposed for the treasonous, anti-constitutional cockroaches they are.

[niyad]

3. the defenders of this bs piece of legislation would have us believe that the bill is

completely benign, and couldn't possibly be interpreted as threatening women's health and care in any way.

[saracat]

Delete Dupe

[saracat]

Delete dupe

[saracat]

4. We also are expected to "believe" that Stupak drafted a worthless piece of legislation that

did nothing and then held HCR hostage for an amedment that did nothing but affirm current legislation and the Democratic congresspersons who are protesting the insertion of the worthless amendment are simply wasting time because they have nothing better to do. Or they hate obama!

[joeycola]

5. So, will abortive drugs such as Mifepristone be included in this bill?? I

have not been able to find out.

[tekisui]

6. Shame, shame, shame on the Democratic leadership.

[KharmaTrain]

7. This Ammendment Is Unconsitutional...

It's a big violation of the 14rh ammendment and any court worth its weight in justice will strike it down. If the Senate Democrats try to push through a bill with this regressive ammendment, I would gladly support a class action suit to strike it down. I'm hopeful that the pressure of Senate progressives will see this draconian political poison pill as a backdoor attempt to poison pill any real reform and will strike it out in committee and reconciliation. If not, those who support it will face a lot of angry voters...not just women, but men as well.

[Odin2005]

8. Disgusting!