Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Why is Obama blocking abortions through healthcare reform?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
MikeNY Donating Member (242 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 01:52 PM
Original message
Why is Obama blocking abortions through healthcare reform?
Edited on Wed Jul-21-10 02:19 PM by MikeNY
Years ago, I was all for national healthcare. I figured, like most Americans, that the US healthcare system was floundering about. Statistics showed that the US spent more money on healthcare per capita than any industrialized nation. Then I learned the government was the entity that bungled the healthcare industry to begin with. And then, when I saw what President Obama's healthcare mandate actually was (a merger between capitalist healthcare insurance companies and career government politicians, and not actual universal healthcare!), I became even more concerned.

It seems like that concern wasn't an off-the-wall conspiracy theory.

I became more aware of just how serious the "national healthcare" fiasco has become when I became aware that even the ACLU is upset over the Obama administration's utopian vision of purportedly free healthcare. We now know that the Democrat version of "universal healthcare" is an unholy alliance between moneyed business interests and government politicians.

To make matters hideously worse for anyone who is sane or rational, and supports equal protection under the law:

Obama himself has decided that abortions should not be subsidized under the plan for SOME patients, as part of the sweeping legislation, even after the motion was defeated by Congressional Democrats. Let's not even go into the abortion debate in this thread, but at least admit that either you are going to let women do it, or not, with national healthcare. However, as this becomes more and more of a fiasco that lines the pockets of big insurance companies and blood hungry politicians, we can see that Obama has intentionally denied abortion rights to people who are deemed, under the program, to be "at risk". This could include women with diabetes or other pre-existing conditions who probably have a actual health justification for having an abortion to begin with. Is Obama protecting the health insurance companies that he is now the de-facto Chairman of?

Not only is this healthcare insurance fiasco obscene, since pretty much everyone has realized that this just makes it compulsory to buy health insurance, and does not actually provide any kind of national fund to provide free health services to people, as in Europe, but more and more dirty details are coming out about this program and how it caters to big businesses.

It becomes clear that President Obaama has made his decree, and soon thousands of legal challenges are going to take place once the bill is fully enacted by 2012 due to a partial-abortion ban signed by a DEMOCRAT President:

https://secure.aclu.org/site/Advocacy?id=2493&cr=1&cr=1

It begins to become clearer and clearer on a day-to-day basis that a government takeover of healthcare in this manner is not meant to improve health conditions or livelihoods of Americans as much as it is for those in positions of centralized power to make unconstitutional decisions that violate peoples civil rights at a federal level. After all, if a central government can control your access to health resources, especially in a government as large and coagulated with graft as the U.S. federal government, what prevents them from taking advantage of the situation for political purposes?

Well, the answer is, nothing, of course! So as we see here, the Obama administration, whether you support abortion or not, has already made the decision to apply discriminatory tactics towards women who have pre-existing medical problems; forcing them to carry a fetus to pregnancy even when they may die in the process. This act becomes a law. The decision is not made by the mother, father, family, the local community, a professional doctor, or even a lawyer. It is made by government bureaucrats.

So what do you think? Will Obama's healthcare scheme survive a day in a state or federal supreme court? Isn't it unconstitutional NOT to provide someone equal protection under the law? (14th amendment), irregardless of how you feel about abortion? That is why this type of government-sanctioned corporatism is going to destroy whatever progress we have made in healthcare, albeit very little.

I am reminded when I read about this topic of how it was not the free market that ruined healthcare in this country, but Nixon's support of HMO creation. Nixon was excited at the idea that HMO's would provide the least amount of care to generate the largest possible profit, and announced his sweeping healthcare reform in this area, literally, a day after hearing this from one of his advisers. Since then, backwater socialist countries run by military dictators have outsmarted the United States in providing great healthcare to their citizens at a fraction of the cost, all the while using the advanced methodologies that our doctors, in the USA, discovered under free market capitalism. That was before we let politicians destroy and manipulate that system.

Are people really that quick to trust the government in making decisions about their own bodies, or were they mislead in the spirit of "change"?

More than anything else, the writing is on the wall: Obama's version of universal healthcare is going to become a enormous civil rights issue, and possibly even human rights issue by the end of the decade.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
uncommon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 01:55 PM
Response to Original message
1. Re: the subject line --
"So what do you think? Will Obama's healthcare scheme survive a day in a state or federal supreme court? Isn't it unconstitutional NOT to provide someone equal protection under the law? (14th amendment), irregardless of how you feel about abortion?"

Of course it is unconstitutional. However, fundies have gotten past this by demanding rights for the fetus as if it were a person protected by the 14th amendment.

People's emotions shouldn't have any bearing on my insurance coverage, or my uterus.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MikeNY Donating Member (242 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 02:02 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. Re: the subject line --
I agree with you, but why did President Obama allow this to take place? Man, so many people were depending on this guy to finally do the right thing. Its our responsibility not to let them slip one past us, especially on an issue this important. If the healthcare reform bill can't be distributed to people equally then that is a real problem, and by the Constitution, it is illegal. Someone needs to do something about this. Remember: Congressional Democrats blocked this, but Obama still allows for it. Im not even a woman and I think this is disgusting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uncommon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 02:09 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. It is disgusting but it doesn't surprise me -
even a lot of liberals are willing to throw women under the bus to get other things they want.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BrklynLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 01:56 PM
Response to Original message
2. To placate the repukes and ensure they will support health care reform.....
Edited on Wed Jul-21-10 02:00 PM by BrklynLiberal
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

I hope you are right..and the courts do the right thing in the matter of equal protection..for women's control over their own bodies.
This may be a big part of the core of the repuke activism about who is nominated for the Supreme Court.

and yet again.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 02:00 PM
Response to Original message
3. No, Obama is not making any abortion illegal. That's one of several factual errors you made.
Not paying for abortion in some cases is not making it illegal. Don't pretend it's the same.

You wrote: Are people really that quick to trust the government in making decisions about their own bodies, or were they mislead in the spirit of "change"?

You would have a fair point if Obama had proposed a single-payer system that many liberals want, but that's not what we're getting. There are still other options in this system.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MikeNY Donating Member (242 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 02:06 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. Re: No, Obama is not making any abortion illegal. That's one of several factual errors you made.
Well the exact people that this measure targets are people who are at risk, or already dependent on government subsidy. So essentially you are talking about a certain group of people, based on their status in society, from having an abortion, probably, in all likelihood, for political reasons. The sick part about this provision is that it targets people who probably REALLY need to have an abortion for medical reasons. While you may want to argue about the technicalities of what I wrote, I still think its reprehensible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 02:17 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. Being factually accurate is not a technicality.
I agree with the need to make abortions available to low-income women, and in fact, Obama's action will fund abortion for women in these plans in some cases (another fact you omitted). But there's a big difference between not funding and outlawing something.

You damaged your own credibility and made it impossible for me to take anything else you wrote seriously because you didn't stick to the facts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MikeNY Donating Member (242 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 02:19 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. OK, so I changed it to reflect
"should not be subsidized under the plan" vs. "made illegal"

What other factual errors did you find? Not the fact that we're being screwed right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 03:59 PM
Response to Reply #8
11. Thanks.
An expansion to include the first federally funded abortion, for a limited period of time, after which elective abortions will also be included doesn't seem like getting totally screwed to me. It looks like slow progress. Slow isn't great, but it is progress.

The rest of your post is a good argument against single-payer health care, which Obama's plan is not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nightrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 02:24 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. distraction from main point 101. Obama is favoring limiting/denying abortion to many women.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 04:05 PM
Response to Reply #9
12. It's actually an expansion of abortion coverage
for certain cases to a group of women who currently have no insurance. Right now no one in the programs being discussed has any insurance or coverage for any type of abortion. That will now change.
I agree that the limitation on abortions in certain cases is wrong, but once again, facts matter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nightrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 10:43 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. tricky spin. In my state the new Federal pool denies abortions to ALL.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 11:16 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. To all people who don't have any insurance
because they have pre-existing conditions? You know that's all this applies to, right? These high-risk pools are for people who can't get insurance currently because of pre-existing conditions.

It's not spin. Just the plain way of describing it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nightrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-22-10 06:00 PM
Response to Reply #14
17. more information about abortion de-funding in the Federal pool
there's no expansion of abortion coverage, but this is what there is---

----------------


"wake up call - now on Huffington Post:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ellen-r-shaffer/abortion-rights-at-risk_b_652922.html
(by Ellen Shaffer)

Post-script:
This time they did not have to do it. There was no Ben Nelson, no Joe Lieberman. No applicable federal law. Not even much to lose. The Obama Administration chose to deny abortion funding in the new high risk pools, due to start next month. These enrollees will be among the most vulnerable women in the US: uninsured, with an existing health condition. The high risk pools were not already subject to the infamous Executive Order banning use of federal funds for abortion through the health insurance exchanges (due to start in 2014). The Executive Order was part of the price for heath reform. Well, ok, something to be fixed down the road. The road seems to have come to our door.

Why did the Administration extend this bad ruling to the high risk pools? Anti-choice groups went viral about the President betraying them if he did not extend to the already unconscionable Executive Oder to the high risk pools. Who thanked him? The Catholic bishops.

We have allowed abortion to become toxic. A procedure experienced by at least a third of women during our lives has been stigmatized. It is not enough to appoint and elect many fine, smart, progressive women – and pro-choice men – to government. They need, and we need, militant mobilized advocacy for reproductive choice and justice.

Post:

The Department of Health and Human Services' recent announcement would create a new sphere of abortion restrictions, undermining women's reproductive autonomy. It states that abortion coverage may only be obtained in the new high risk pool plans in cases of rape or incest, or where the life of the woman would be endangered. This wording mirrors the restrictions articulated in the Hyde Amendments, which currently apply to particular federal programs by virtue of their inclusion in certain appropriations bills. Anti-choice activist groups have demanded the new regulations.

As federal law currently stands, there are no restrictions placed upon federal or state money regarding abortion coverage in the Pre-existing Condition Insurance Plans (PCIP). The PCIPs are temporary insurance pools to provide insurance coverage to those deemed "high risk," meaning the individual has some kind of pre-existing condition.

Because no law specifically addresses PCIPs and abortion coverage, the HHS statement would create new restrictions on abortion not already mandated by federal law, and elevate its status as a policy.

None of the current federal abortion restrictions that are in place apply to the PCIPs. The Hyde Amendment, which restricts abortion coverage to rape or incest, or where the life of the woman is in danger, only applies to funding appropriated through the Departments of Labor and Health and Human Services, including Medicaid. The appropriations for the Federal Employee Health Benefits Plan also restrict abortion coverage, but this clearly does not apply to the PCIPs.

There is no precedent for this action in prior federal law. In addtion, there is no precedent in the Patient Protection and Affordable Acre Act (PPACA). The Nelson Amendment, adopted in the new law, only applies to plans obtained in the healthcare exchanges, which will not be active until 2014. The Executive Order that the President signed regarding abortion coverage through PPACA gives no indication that it was meant to apply to more than the healthcare exchanges and community health centers.

The abortion coverage restrictions placed on the PCIPs is reminiscent of the Stupak Amendment first seen in the House version of PPACA, but later removed. The Stupak restrictions would have limited use of any funds, even those procured privately or through states, to provide abortion coverage to individuals participating in the PCIPs. This provision should be opposed and reversed.

Objections to the White House and HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.

White House:
Call: 202 456 1111
Email: public@who.eop.gov

Department of Health and Human Services
Call: 877 696 6775
Email: http://www.hhs.gov/..."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-22-10 07:24 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. The story you linked says this is an expansion of abortion coverage.
You need to read more critically instead of looking for confirmation of what you want to believe.

From the article:
"It states that abortion coverage may only be obtained in the new high risk pool plans in cases of rape or incest, or where the life of the woman would be endangered."

So let's think this through.

This is a NEW program for people who DON'T CURRENTLY HAVE ANY INSURANCE.
They will now have insurance coverage when they didn't before.
That coverage will pay for abortion in some cases.

THEREFORE, a group of women who previously had ZERO insurance coverage for any abortion procedure will now have coverage for abortion in some cases. That's an expansion of their existing coverage for abortions.

Get it? It's very simple. Just plain facts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nightrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-22-10 11:20 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. or that's very creative twisting on your part.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JuniperLea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 02:27 PM
Response to Original message
10. Aren't there already laws prohibiting tax dollars from paying for abortions that aren't medically...
Necessary?

:shrug:

I thought we beat the hell out of this bush a long time ago.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 11:26 PM
Response to Original message
15. It was the conserva-Dems in Congress who did that, not Obama.
Edited on Wed Jul-21-10 11:27 PM by Cleita
as well as every Republican in both houses. Place the blame where it belongs. Abortion is not illegal where it's legal, it's just not paid for under this law.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nightrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-22-10 05:52 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. and who signed this crap health insurance bill into law and is ultimately responsible??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat May 04th 2024, 07:14 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC