Nelson wants abortion amendment in Senate bill

The Stupak amendment ... (0.00 / 0)

is not about preventing federal funding of abortions, which is a stupid enough idea by itself, it is about further restricting access to abortion.   It may very well have killed health care reform.  And you were worried about the Republicans

---

by: Darwin @ Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 20:59:40 PM CST

If health care dies ... (0.00 / 0)

so does Ben Nelson's political career, along with any other Democrat that got in the way of its approval. Of course his future as a health care insurance lobbyist would be guaranteed.
I can understand Republicans opposing it. That is what they do - oppose anything that Democrats want. But why in the hell some so-called Democrats feel they have to join the Republicans, being such contrarians, is beyond me.

---

by: Brian T. Osborn @ Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 22:32:24 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I say... (0.00 / 0)

we get rid of him, either way.

---

by: Darwin @ Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 06:27:02 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Can we... (0.00 / 0)

get him to go early & take Joe Lieberman with him?

---

by: R. Schommer @ Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 07:24:06 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Finally, an excuse Nelson can really (0.00 / 0)

use to oppose the health care bill.  He has weebled and wobbled over his myriad reasons to oppose, so this one is truly a skanky moral stand that he can deliver on.  

Darwin, why is letting women pay for insurance to provide funds for abortions a "stupid idea"?  Insurance companies pay for men's Viagra and vasectomies, why shouldn't women have the same opportunity to control what is done to their bodies as men do?

This amendment is all about Control and who is in control.  In this particular case, it is about a bunch of aging white men of whom some have their own sexual issues, telling women what they can or can't do with their bodies.

---

by: JFinNE @ Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 09:14:30 AM CST

The stupid idea... (0.00 / 0)

is that there should be a ban on federal funding of abortions in the first place.  None of the issues that I consider morally objectionable are prevented from receiving federal funds.  Why should abortion be any different?

---

by: Darwin @ Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 15:49:31 PM CST

[ Parent ]

most insurance plans do not cover Viagra. n/t (0.00 / 0)

---

by: JET @ Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 13:32:52 PM CST

[ Parent ]

The Stupak amendment (0.00 / 0)

keeps the law abortion-neutral. The Hyde amendment (which prohibits federal funding for most abortions) has been in place for 33 years. Abortion funding is currently restricted in Medicaid, Medicare, CHIP, the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, and the Indian Health Service. You may not agree with the current policy, but lets not pretend that this is something new.

And,iIs this really where you want to fight the battle of getting federal funding for abortion? We have the opportunity to get health care reform while maintaining the status quo on abortion funding. Insisting that this reform effort be used as a vehicle for the expansion of abortion funding may very well be what kills health care reform.

---

by: Eric @ Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 10:56:21 AM CST

Stupak/Pitts does not "maintain the status quo" either. (0.00 / 0)

It will force many insurance companies to eliminate abortion coverage which they currently provide.  This is a tricky situation indeed, and I don't know if finding a middle ground, as the president hopes, is even possible.  Yet success of the bill now seems to hinge on finding that middle ground.  

On the other hand, it's possible our Democratic leaders could actually try leading for once.

---

by: Don Kuhns @ Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 11:25:36 AM CST

[ Parent ]

yes, the Stupak amendment maintains the status quo (0.00 / 0)

Just as with the case of private insurers participating in FEHBP, this will not force insurance companies to eliminate abortion coverage. They just can't cover it in subsidized plans. Abortion coverage could still be purchased as a supplemental plan. This is exactly what those covered by FEHBP must do now.

---

by: Eric @ Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 11:54:28 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Aren't all the plans in FEHBP subsidized? (0.00 / 0)

Forcing women to buy separate insurance for abortions is flat out ridiculous.

---

by: Don Kuhns @ Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 12:20:07 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Yes, all the plans in FEHBP are subsidized. (0.00 / 0)

That's the point I'm making. If you're in the FEHBP and you want abortion coverage, you purchase it as an unsubsidized rider from your insurance company.

---

by: Eric @ Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 12:25:35 PM CST

[ Parent ]

The point you are making is that I'm right. (0.00 / 0)

Any insurance company that wants to survive will want to join the insurance pool, and that means dropping abortion coverage from their regular plans, and forcing women to buy extra abortion coverage.  That is a big change in the status quo for these companies and millions of women.  

---

by: Don Kuhns @ Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 12:53:26 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Regular Plan? (0.00 / 0)

What is a regular plan? Insurance companies will offer plans that fit into the government program (it's not like abortion will be the only requirement/restriction), and they'll continue to offer whatever other products they want on the unsubsidized market. Go take a look at Blue Cross Blue Shield of Nebraska's web page and count how many different plans/options they offer. There are hundreds (if not thousands).

And, it isn't like the idea of supplementary insurance is so out there that we just won't be able to handle the complexities of it all. Right now, if you have health insurance through your employer which doesn't cover maternity care, what do you do? You purchase a supplementary plan directly from the insurance company which isn't subsidized by your employer.

---

by: Eric @ Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 13:18:54 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Again, you are wrong. (3.00 / 1)

Health insurance provided, to its employees, by the federal government, is a benefit, not a subsidy.  Benefits, like salary, are part of a workers compensation.  Denying federal workers the right to buy a plan that covers abortions is akin to telling them what they can and can't do with the money they earned.

---

by: Darwin @ Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 16:15:32 PM CST

[ Parent ]

My intended meaning was correct. (0.00 / 0)

Perhaps I am using the term "subsidy" incorrectly in this instance. Here, I intend to say that the government pays for a portion of the insurance premiums - even if it is a benefit of employment. I used the term with the same meaning in that last comment even when referring to non-governmental employers providing benefits.

As a benefit to employees, the government isn't paying for abortion coverage. Many private employers don't either. Not all private employers pay for maternity benefits. Is this akin to telling employees that they don't have the right to buy insurance covering maternity? Of course not. It's just a benefit that the employer chooses not to provide.

---

by: Eric @ Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 18:57:07 PM CST

[ Parent ]

So then you agree... (0.00 / 0)

it has nothing to do with federal funding of abortion?

---

by: Darwin @ Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 20:16:11 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Huh? (0.00 / 0)

No. The government currently doesn't pay for abortions. It doesn't pay for them as benefits for employees. It doesn't pay for them as part of any government-funded health program. It doesn't pay for them for even impoverished women whom it otherwise does provide with health coverage.

---

by: Eric @ Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 21:29:47 PM CST

[ Parent ]

But as you noted... (0.00 / 0)

these are earned benefits so the government is not paying for them, employees are.

---

by: Darwin @ Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 06:45:40 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I agree, Eric (0.00 / 0)

You're right - it simply reaffirms existing law. And it's even more narrow than you described. It only state that those that have to take federal funds to pay for their insurance cannot use those funds to purchase a plan that pays for abortions. While many plans in this country have th provision, not all do. I have yet to have an insurance plan that will cover that.

If a person doesn't have to use federal funds to pay for their insurance, the plan can cover abortions. Even if someone uses federal funds to get their primary plan, if they really feel they need to plan for a future abortion, they can pay, with their own money, for a supplemental.

Bottom line is it supports Hyde, existing law. And if a person is so focused on feeling they must have abortion coverage, my thought is why don't they maybe invest in birth control if they don't want to have a baby? A friend of mine who's made the decision she never wants a child went out and got an implant that will last 10 years, and it's covered by insurance. So I don't see this amendment as being outside of current law.

Now, if these plans could just be forced to cover fertility issues. That's the big discrepency. Many plans will cover the man's ED issues, but if a woman has issues with having a child, they won't pay for a thing. To this day, since having fertility issues, no matter what insurance I have, if I go even for just a check up, we go through months of having the doctor send in my records, and insurance trying to find a way to deny payment if they think I'm trying to have a baby - even if what was done would be covered any other time. THAT's where major discrimination is!!

---

by: Lisa Hannah @ Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 11:56:16 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I agree. (0.00 / 0)

Once upon a time I had an insurance policy which would pay for progesterone (or rather, a synthetic version of it) if you were using it as a contraceptive but not if you were using it as part of a fertility treatment. Even now, I have what I consider to be very good health insurance, and what is paid for fertility is strangely restrictive.

Cynically, I have come to the conclusion that insurance companies just don't want you to have dependents whom they will have to cover under your family plan without an increase in your premiums.

As it pertains to this discussion, would I be happy with a public health insurance option that required me to purchase a supplementary rider for fertility treatments? Yes. I'll bet you that that's what is going to happen. I'm not sure if it is specifically addressed in the bill, but what is the likelihood that the HHS Secretary will put Clomid on the list of minimum benefits that the public option and subsidized private insurance must cover?

---

by: Eric @ Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 12:48:23 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I hear you (0.00 / 0)

For us, the Clomid costing major bucks was just the start. We had gotten to the point where we'd need to consider IVF. That's at minimum $10,000. Any other treatment to actually address the health issues have already been determined in the past to be for fertility. Who cares if it could result in preventing greater problems later in life. So I think you're right that they don't want to cover new dependents. But it makes people like us make a choice - risk everything we have to have the one thing we want, or give up that dream. It's not a fair choice to make.

As to the amendment, it appears you and I are going to get told over and over we don't know of what we speak. I've read the actual language of that amendment, and it maintains existing law that prohibits federal funding for abortions. Personally I find it a bit insult that people think women are going to be so concern about this that they will go out seeking that supplemental with the idea they're going to get an abortion. That just seems really wrong. I always have to ask - whatever happened to using birth control and taking precautions? Is there suddenly going to be some stampede of women wanting abortions and wanting insurance coverage for it? Again, I have yet to have an insurance plan through employers that even cover them, and most people get their insurance through employers. They have no choice right now, and if they are the types that want special abortion coverage, they have to go find it.

But this is a fight for another day. Maintain existing law should be okay for now because it doesn't take away. The poorest already get medicaid help and don't get that abortion funding right now. People need to look at history when it comes to major social programs. Social Security, when it was first enacted, didn't have everything the more progressive wanted. But step by step, it happened. Keeping abortion legal but not allowing federal funds to go to cover them doesn't change a think in existing law. Someday maybe this won't be an issue. And maybe someday we will have progressed enough that unplanned pregnancies have gone down to next to nothing because people are getting well educated on the issue.  

---

by: Lisa Hannah @ Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 18:02:10 PM CST

[ Parent ]

It is really sad hearing a woman... (3.00 / 1)

imply that women who seek abortions are uneducated or irresponsible.  The idea that we can educate ourselves out of a need for abortions is a fanciful one.  Women seek abortions for a variety of reasons, including changing financial circumstances, a change in a relationship, and changes in health status, that have nothing to do with being uneducated or irresponsible.  There will always be a need for safe, legal access to abortion.

---

by: Darwin @ Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 06:54:14 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Just stop (0.00 / 0)

Don't put words into my mouth based on your own bias. It destroys your credibility and pretty much ends all meaningful discussion. The insult is you all are going on like if there is absolutely no abortion coverage, its like its the end of the world. It's insulting that the assumption you and others seem to be taking that women are in such desperate need of abortion coverage, and will actually be seeking out to plan for a future abortion. Excuse me? Like I pointed out, I have yet to have an employer-based plan that covers abortions and had no choice before. And to assume women are going to be clamoring for this, that leads one to wonder if you ever considered that women will be FIRST looking for birth control? Did you? If there's anything sad is that you never once put that first. If anything, it's you who demeaned women first with that way of thinking.

And by the way, when it comes to a womans health, if an abortion is needed to protect her life or health, that is covered under current law and under plans even if they don't cover elective abortions.  

---

by: Lisa Hannah @ Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 12:38:42 PM CST

[ Parent ]

87% of Employer Based plans cover abortions (0.00 / 0)

And in a broad sense, not just in the case of rape or incest. This is from a 2002 survey. Lisa, you are making a mistake that far too many people make. You extrapolate your experiences onto the general population. The goal of so-called pro-life organizations is to chip away at women's rights bit by bit. I was a bit young pre-Roe v Wade, but one can find plenty of historical examples of what women went through when abortion was illegal.

---

by: TedK @ Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 15:03:51 PM CST

[ Parent ]

What is it with you guys? (0.00 / 0)

You men assuming something about me to make your own arguments. I just have to shake my head. You don't like this amendment. I have no problem with it because it does NOT change existing policy with regards to federal dollars and elective abortions. It's that simple.

And for the record, my birth mom was an activist during the Roe V Wade fight. She was out there actively demonstrating and doing political work to push for the legalization of abortion. After I found her she showed me some of the pictures of her and her work, and told me all about it. She's still, to this day, very much a 60's and 70's feminist. She told me she is okay with this amendment because she also felt that it doesn't stop existing law.

If you want to fight to change existing law, so be it. But when trying to just get health care reform done, I personally believe this is the wrong place for that fight and could completely derail it. There are a lot of people out there who are very much pro-choice, but do not believe in allowing federal funds to pay for them.  

---

by: Lisa Hannah @ Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 16:20:38 PM CST

[ Parent ]

If Stupak doesn't change anything (4.00 / 1)

then why was it added? The Hyde Amendment is still there to prevent Federal expenditures on abortion.

---

by: TedK @ Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 16:43:47 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Excellent question. (0.00 / 0)

Don't hold your breath waiting for an answer.

---

by: Darwin @ Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 17:18:00 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Why... (0.00 / 0)

....do you have to be that way? It doesn't help your case.

---

by: Lisa Hannah @ Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 18:07:00 PM CST

[ Parent ]

You could always... (0.00 / 0)

answer the question.

---

by: Darwin @ Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 18:44:42 PM CST

[ Parent ]

So what difference does it make? (0.00 / 0)

It's just like when language is added making it clear illegals won't get a benefit from taxpayers, even though its already in existing law. If it happens or doesn't in any given bill, who cares? Stupak maintains that no federal funds can be used to subsidized plans that cover abortion.  

---

by: Lisa Hannah @ Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 18:06:12 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Stupak does no such thing. (0.00 / 0)

Stupak maintains that no woman who receives a federal subsidy can buy a plan that covers abortion, even if, from her own pocket, she contributes 99% of the cost of the premium.

---

by: Darwin @ Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 19:10:41 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Wrong. (0.00 / 0)

Stupak maintains that no woman who receives a federal subsidy can buy a plan that covers abortion, even if, from her own pocket, she contributes 99% of the cost of the premium.

Short of posting all the bill language, this is the Congressional Research Service summary of the amendment:

The amendment prohibits federal funds for abortion services in the public option. It also prohibits individuals who receive affordability credits from purchasing a plan that provides elective abortions. However, it allows individuals, both who receive affordability credits and who do not, to separately purchase with their own funds plans that cover elective abortions. It also clarifies that private plans may still offer elective abortions.

---

by: Lisa Hannah @ Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 01:30:05 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I'm giving you a point here. (0.00 / 0)

The statement I objected to:

Stupak maintains that no federal funds can be used to subsidized plans that cover abortion.  

is technically correct.  My bad.

However, my point that Stupak forces women to reach into their pockets to buy policies that do not cover abortion is also correct.  Yes, they can again reach into their pockets to purchase separate coverage for abortion.  You have done a pretty good job explaining what a stupid idea it is to have women try to predict a need for such a thing.  But what is really objectionable is that women would be forced to dip into their pockets twice to pay for something that likely wouldn't cost an extra dime if they were to purchase it all at once.

---

by: Darwin @ Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 06:01:02 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I'll answer that question... (0.00 / 0)

It's called a "message amendment." It gives the right wingers and the Dems like Stupak and our own Ben Nelson a crutch to stand on when pandering to the Right to Lifers. Lisa is right, it changes nothing, federal funding for abortion is already illegal. Now it will be double illegal and Stupak can crow about it on the campaign trail and Nelson can demagogue women's rights when he voted against health care for America.

---

by: huskersolon @ Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 10:50:52 AM CST

[ Parent ]

That just isn't true. (0.00 / 0)

Back in August when FactCheck.org looked into it, they determined that (keep in mind that this was before the Stupak Amendment was part of it)

As for the House bill as it stands now, it's a matter of fact that it would allow both a "public plan" and newly subsidized private plans to cover all abortions.

The Stupak Amendment isn't just "sending a message." If it were, and the bill without it would already not cover abortions, then why would it be so vociferously opposed?

---

by: Eric @ Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 10:59:38 AM CST

[ Parent ]

If that is true - (0.00 / 0)

and I'm not conceding it is - there is plenty of anlysis out there that says this is redundancy and your post below basically says it is - then shame on the Democrats for allowing this to happen.

If its always corrected in this way it should have been included to keep the right wingers from making this about abortion - which they have done successfully.

All in all I think we all agree that the policy is stupid and the vote was disgusting. And it will be used against Democrats in perpetuity.

---

by: huskersolon @ Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 11:07:55 AM CST

[ Parent ]

huh? (0.00 / 0)

You're presented with facts and you cite some mystical body of "analysis" which you don't present or defend to refute them? Then, you read my post showing how the Stupak Amendment is not redundant and somehow deduce that it is?

You're right in that it should have been included from the beginning, but pro-choice groups and legislators didn't want to pass up the chance to finally get the government to fund abortions.

Finally, if we all "agreed" as you suggest (although I don't really get what you're saying), I don't think this thread would have 60+ comments.

---

by: Eric @ Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 11:33:13 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I agree with you, Eric. (0.00 / 0)

That is kind of the point.  Defenders of Stupak are going around saying it is consistent with Hyde.  The reality is, it is not.  It goes well beyond Hyde.  

---

by: Darwin @ Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 15:18:23 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I'm sorry, Lisa (0.00 / 0)

but you are not correct.  Under the Stupak amendment, insurers are forbidden from covering abortions for subsidized individuals unless the pregnancy represents a direct threat to a woman's life or in the case of rape or incest.  There is no health exception.

The whole point of abortion coverage as part of a comprehensive health insurance plan is so that a woman does not have to predict the need for an abortion.  It is Stupak, et al. that are forcing low income women to predict the need to cover circumstances they cannot possibly foresee.

As for my previous comment, you said:

And if a person is so focused on feeling they must have abortion coverage, my thought is why don't they maybe invest in birth control if they don't want to have a baby?

Over at dkos, I saw a guy get ripped apart for saying something similar.

And:

And maybe someday we will have progressed enough that unplanned pregnancies have gone down to next to nothing because people are getting well educated on the issue.  

I don't know what you are complaining about.  Those words came directly from your mouth.  Apparently, the need for an abortion represents some personal failing in women.

---

by: Darwin @ Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 17:17:16 PM CST

[ Parent ]

It does not say that. (0.00 / 0)

It says that insurers who offer plans through the exchange must offer plans that do not cover abortions.  They may also offer plans that do cover abortions and those plans must be identical to plans that do not cover abortion.  Women who receive subsidy in any amount are prohibited from purchasing a plan that covers abortion services.  This bill would force poor women to buy coverage that does not meet their needs.

This is an end run around Roe in an effort to limit access to safe and legal abortion.

---

by: Darwin @ Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 16:26:31 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Oh, by the way... (0.00 / 0)

Pro-lifers are already pushing hard on the idea that contraceptives are equivalent to abortion.  It would be a small step to see that excluded from coverage as well.

---

by: Darwin @ Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 16:29:38 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Where does it say that? (0.00 / 0)

Where does it say that insurers "may also offer plans that do cover abortions and those plans must be identical to plans that do not cover abortion" or that "Women who receive subsidy in any amount are prohibited from purchasing a plan that covers abortion services"?

The Stupak Amendment I'm reading says (emphasis mine)

Nothing in this section shall be construed as prohibiting any nonfederal entity (including an individual or a State or local government) from purchasing separate or supplemental coverage for abortions for which funding is prohibited under this section, or a plan that includes such abortions, so long as-
(1) Such coverage or plan is paid for entirely using funds not authorized or appropriated by this Act; and
(2) Such coverage or plan is not purchased using-
(a) individual premium payments required for an Exchange-participating health benefits pan towards which an affordability credit is applied; or
(b) other nonfederal funds required to receive a federal payment, including State's or locality's contribution of Medicaid matching funds.

---

by: Eric @ Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 21:42:44 PM CST

[ Parent ]

page 4 of the link provided (0.00 / 0)

Any nonfederal QHBP offering entity that offers an Exchange-participating health benefits plan that includes coverage for abortions for which funding is prohibited under this section also offers an Exchange-participating health benefits plan that is identical in every respect except that it does not cover abortions for which funding is prohibited under this section.

---

by: Darwin @ Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 05:57:52 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Darwin's absolutely right (0.00 / 0)

Any policy that could receive a subsidy (every one!) could not include coverage for abortion.  This will have the effect of removing this coverage from all plans.  And who can plan for an abortion (in terms of getting insurance coverage)?  Sen. Clare McCaskill initially thought Stupak was no worse than the Hyde Amendment, but she has since seen her mistake and spoken out against it.  Just another example of men (only 1 woman voted for the Stupak amendment) more concerned with fetuses than living human beings.

---

by: TedK @ Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 16:59:53 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Not correct (0.00 / 0)

insurers will still offer plans that cover abortions because it attracts  younger, healthier women who want to forego or delay childbirth.  These women are lower cost to insure than other women, so they are an attractive group to insurers.  What the Stupak amendment does is force lower income women to buy plans that do not cover abortion.

---

by: Darwin @ Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 17:37:38 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Where do you get your facts? (0.00 / 0)

"only 1 woman voted for the Stupak amendment"

In fact, every Republican woman in the House voted for the Stupak amendment (of which I believe there are about 17).

Furthermore, at least two Democratic women are very vocal supporters of it: Marcy Kaptur and Kathy Dahlkemper. I'm not going to go through all 64 Democratic votes for the Stupak amendment to give you the final count, but needless to say, it is much more than 1.

---

by: Eric @ Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 22:13:18 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Unless there are some women with men's surnames (0.00 / 0)

you've named the only DEMOCRATIC women who voted for Stupak. Out of 64 DEMOCRATIC votes, only 2 were women. 62 were men. Yes, I should have been more precise and said "1 woman who was a democrat", but in the context I figured it was understood since it's clear that Republicans will vote as their leaders tell them. Sorry my count was off, but the site I referenced said 58 - 1. Here's the accurate list. So I guess you are right. 2 is much more than 1. It's twice as much!

---

by: TedK @ Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 23:07:57 PM CST

[ Parent ]

and roughly one quarter of the female membership of the House is much much more than 1 (0.00 / 0)

If you're going to cite shocking statistics to back up your outrage, you need to be clear up front about the qualifiers.  

---

by: Eric @ Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 00:16:02 AM CST

[ Parent ]

You are not correct. (0.00 / 0)

The health care reform bill never had anything to do with expansion of abortion funding.  Coverage of abortion services is an insignificant part of a comprehensive health care plan's costs.  Any woman who makes enough to qualify for participation in the exchange would pay more than enough in their private contributions to cover the cost of abortion services.

As for the Stupak amendment, it is attached to a health care bill that forces individuals to buy health insurance.  The amendment allows wealthier women, who do not need government assistance, to purchase a plan that covers abortion, but lower income women will be forced to buy a plan that does not cover abortions.  The difference in cost between these two plans, $0.00.  That's right, there is no difference in cost between a plan that covers abortions and one that doesn't.  In fact, my taxpayer dollars will be used to coerce women into buying plans that do not meet all of their needs.  I find that morally objectionable.

The Stupak amendment is about making it more difficult for lower income women to obtain safe and legal abortions.

---

by: Darwin @ Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 16:11:08 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Would you care for a side of class warfare to go with your misogyny, gentlemen? (0.00 / 0)

...Or is it the other way around?  It's so hard to tell.

---

by: Don Kuhns @ Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 16:58:10 PM CST

[ Parent ]

It's mostly just misogyny. (4.00 / 1)

Pro-life forces have always used money to try and limit access to abortion.  Things like waiting periods, mandatory counseling, mandatory ultrasounds are all designed to increase the cost of abortion and limit access to abortion.

The icing on the cake is that the Stupak amendment does not make an exception for threats to a woman's health.  I don't think it's necessarily that these people hate women.  They just have a general disregard for them.

---

by: Darwin @ Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 17:42:11 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Just to be clear, (0.00 / 0)

the Stupak Amendment has exemptions to protect the life of the mother (as well as for rape and incest).

I'm assuming that you're implying that it doesn't have exemptions for "health" broadly defined. Again, these are the same exemptions as the Hyde Amendment. It's the status quo for federal funding of abortions. Why should health care reform be the legislation that sinks because some don't like this long-standing policy?

---

by: Eric @ Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 22:33:12 PM CST

[ Parent ]

It doesn't have exemptions to protect health... (0.00 / 0)

broadly defined and it doesn't have exemptions to protect health narrowly defined. One can therefore conclude that those who support Stupak don't give a shit about women's health.  Personally, I think that's plenty good reason to sink legislation that labels itself "health care reform," but you will note, it is Senator Nelson who is threatening to sink reform if he doesn't get exactly what he wants.

---

by: Darwin @ Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 06:16:42 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Please... (0.00 / 0)

When your arguments have nothing left to stand on, it sure is easier to just try and pull your opponent into a woman-hater vs. baby-killer grudge match isn't it?

---

by: Eric @ Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 08:04:29 AM CST

[ Parent ]

It isn't in the bill, is it? (0.00 / 0)

Pro-life whackos generally don't favor health exceptions because "'Health' could mean anything."  That is correct.  It could mean anything, including something serious.  But that does not matter.

So where is it, Eric?  Where is the effort to protect women's health?  It doesn't exist, because extremist pro-lifers value the life of a fetus, be it at 6 weeks or 36 weeks, more than the health of a woman.

---

by: Darwin @ Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 17:36:11 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Hey Eric and Lisa (0.00 / 0)

I was just wondering, do you think it's a good idea for women to purchase extra maternity insurance just in case their or their partner's contraception fails?

---

by: Don Kuhns @ Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 12:39:45 PM CST

[ Parent ]

my general personal opinion? (0.00 / 0)

Obviously, everyone has different circumstances (different risks, risk tolerances, financial means, etc.), but I certainly don't think it is a bad idea to purchase supplemental maternity insurance if it is not covered by your primary health insurance.

---

by: Eric @ Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 12:58:39 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Wow (0.00 / 0)

That's really a scenario. If both are on birth control and it still fails, that's one of those scenarios that happens, like, well less than 1% of the time. And it appears you're also going off the assumption that that small percentage will automatically want to choose abortion. They won't. But the reality is there will never be a way plan for every single scenario out there. I agree with Eric that if a current plan doesn't have enough coverage for maternity, and a person or a couple feel they may need that in the future, maybe they should get it. Same goes for buying a supplemental for an abortion, but again, I find it insulting to think women would plan for an abortion rather than every other choice out there first. Abortion is usually the last option for most women.

---

by: Lisa Hannah @ Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 13:21:08 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Wha? (0.00 / 0)

More like 1% of 1%.  I didn't mean to suggest they were both using contraception.  Who does that?  I was asking if you think it's a good idea for women who want to have sex but wouldn't want to get an abortion.    

---

by: Don Kuhns @ Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 15:21:11 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Wow. (0.00 / 0)

This post really blew up.  The reason my original post was so short was because I couldn't really figure out what I thought of it.  After reading a bunch of news articles, and all of these comments I still don't know how I feel about it.  

Here is an interesting interview with FireDogLake's Jane Hamsher on the Stupak amendment.

---

by: toltman @ Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 13:45:10 PM CST

I can't believe (0.00 / 0)

I missed this.  Must have been too busy getting the word out to our folks to thank Ben Nelson for his latest very good comments in the media.  Anyway, Eric and Lisa are doing a great job here. Sounds almost like my Federal Legislative Director. I'm impressed.  Remember over the summer when the mantra was that healthcare reform didn't need Stupak-type language because the Hyde Amendment would cover it?  As stated here very well, Stupak-type language needed to be inserted because Hyde covers appropriations outside of the scope of a full blown new program.  

---

by: Julie Schmit-Albin @ Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 23:38:09 PM CST

And, (0.00 / 0)

I think it is important to point out that in all other instances when federal funding is involved in health care and the Hyde Amendment doesn't apply, the principles of Hyde have been included with separate legislation. For instance, CHIP (see 42USC1397ee Section (c)(7) titled "Limitation on payment for abortions") and FEHB both have their own language banning use of federal funds for abortion. In fact, [pdf alert] click here to see the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 and just search for the word "abortion". Hyde-like language is inserted all over the place (the section dealing with FEHB is in the appropriations for Financial Services and General Government, Sections 613-614). Where appropriate, legislation has banned federal funds which have been mixed with private or state funding from covering abortion (while explicitly allowing coverage for abortion for any funding come entirely from private or state sources).

The President has said

As you know, I'm pro choice. But I think we also have a tradition of, in this town, historically, of not financing abortions as part of government funded health care.

The Hyde-like language used in all of these programs is what he's talking about - it's not just Hyde itself. Nothing short of the Stupak Amendment maintains this tradition. If this really is a health care bill and not an abortion bill, then the language has to be included.

---

by: Eric @ Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 10:52:28 AM CST

[ Parent ]