We need to do Health Care reform without Abortion and deal with it later......

[KansasVoter]

Or it will never pass!!!

The abortion factor is not worth losing Health Care reform.

I would rather we deal with it after health care has passed than cause a huge fight now.

It is too hot a topic too discuss and will side track the whole process.

[liberalpragmatist]

1. The worry is that it would never get restored

Just like nobody seems willing or able to repeal the Hyde Amendment which prohibits Medicaid from funding abortions.

I agree that if it proves absolutely impossible to not pass something with it, then I'd hate to forfeit universal health care over this. But it's a really tough call and I can totally sympathize with women who say they're being thrown under the bus.

[hlthe2b]

5. Exactly...

[karynnj]

45. If it is certain to sink the bill, then what does it gain to lose everything

I do think that it should be done just as a last resort, but if it is the deciding factor - I don't see what the logic is then to losing everything on principle. I have no idea what an abortion costs, but I assume that NOW or similar organizations could create funds.

[liberalpragmatist]

47. I agree

I'm just saying I can see why plenty of women would be pissed off. Especially because the proposals aren't merely to strip funding for abortions from the public option but from ANY plan in the exchange.

[PassingTimeHere]

48. You can't restore something that's not there

We don't have publicly funded abortions now. If this sidetracks healthcare I'll be really pissed.

[ZombieHorde]

2. Maybe we could trade abortion for broken legs.

Everything would be covered except for broken legs.

[KansasVoter]

6. I'll choose fixing kids broken legs! Thanks!

[hlthe2b]

3. I know you are being pragmatic...

Part of me may even agree, though I am highly conflicted... But, as a male, do you not feel just a little disingenuous telling women this?

[KansasVoter]

7. No, because I think we will lose it all! I don't want to open up that can of worms!

[hlthe2b]

8. For a male to advocate throwing women under the bus

ought to give you more pause. Just sayin.. Perhaps if the issue were treatment for impotence?

[KansasVoter]

11. Wow, I would trade paying for my own Viagra to having no health care. Stupid comparison!

[hlthe2b]

12. No... you are showing your true colors

Why would you, a male from Overland Park, KS, give a shit about poor women being forced to bear children they cannot support--or dying in childbirth for lack of a therapeutic abortion? DOesn't effect YOU, right?

[musette_sf]

16. no one is going to outlaw Viagra,

no health care practitioner/pharmacist has ever denied a prescription for Viagra on "morality grounds" (if you know of one, please let us know!),
no one is going to make you have a 24-hour or longer waiting period for Viagra,
no one is going to make you view an fetal ultrasound before you can have Viagra,
no one is going to make you jump through hoops to get Viagra,
no one is going to close down all outlets in your state to get Viagra except for one,

yep, Viagra IS really a stupid comparison to women's reproductive health care drugs and procedures.

[stray cat]

18. Is that a vote in favor of throwing health care reform under the bus?

if we can't have both should we forget both of them?

[hlthe2b]

19. No... it is a vote to FIGHT and stop selling women out

for expediency sake.

[peace13]

23. Prostate cancer can go to the back burner too.

This idea is insane. How do these folks think the women get pregnant anyway? I can't believe this.

[Autumn]

68. I like the way you think

lets put it all on the back burner.:nuke:

[musette_sf]

4. unrec

another male member of the Women Are Expendable crew weighs in.

[KansasVoter]

10. How about poor women get NO HEALTH CARE and no abortions. Sounds good to you I guess!

[musette_sf]

13. how about health care gets encoded with anti-woman regulations

that will be difficult if not impossible to rescind?

you're a man, though, therefore it's just not that important to you.

[hlthe2b]

14. ding, ding, ding.... Women are expendable, it would appear

at least to this supposed "progressive."

[stray cat]

20. people are expendable - if we can't have it all lets skip any health care reform!

[hlthe2b]

21. No one is saying that... disingenous argument

[Somawas]

9. Screw 'em. Its a party discipline issue, and

we damn well better have the votes.

[BlooInBloo]

15. It's awkward because the all-or-nothing crowd will rip you a new one for saying it....

EDIT: That said, they should at least START with it there, and fight for it until it becomes the ONLY thing blocking passage. At that point, assuming the bill is otherwise strong, let it go until the day after the rest passes.

[musette_sf]

22. sorry, but we're not staying in the back of the bus any more.

we thought we had fought and won our right to autonomy over 30 years ago.

thanks to religious nuts, Repukes and DLCers, we now have to fight all over again.

we fought for ourselves, and now we fight for the generations after us.

[KansasVoter]

24. And have 500,000 Children without insurance! OK!

[musette_sf]

26. you would have told Rosa

that she just should shut up and stay at the back of the bus.

after all, it would get in the way of and be a distraction to any meaningful civil rights legislation.

[Starry Messenger]

43. And where do those uninsured children come from?

:think:

Women without access to proper healthcare funding.

[stray cat]

17. I tend to agree

[babylonsister]

25. No. Abortion is legal. Period. nt

[musette_sf]

27. + 1

DU is really becoming a misogynist's playground of late.

[Phx_Dem]

40. So are sex change operations, but that doesn't mean taxpayers should pay for them.

[DrToast]

52. Maybe abortions in cases of medical emergencies

If it's to protect the mother abortion should be covered.

I'm pro choice, but I can understand the rationale for not including abortion under all circumstances.

[Phx_Dem]

63. Absolutely! To protect the health of the mother and/or if the "health"

of the fetus is an issue. I am firmly pro-choice, but I don't believe elective/optional abortions should be funded by taxpayers anymore than a face lift of a boob job should be funded by taxpayers.

[joeglow3]

65. I hope you have your flame suit on

I made the same argument a couple days ago and a couple people ripped me a new one. Specifically, I was told that since about 0.000001% of women die from childbirth, that is a legitimate reasons to cover it for free in ALL cases.

[Phx_Dem]

66. Wouldn't come here without it! But a little "fire" doesn't bother me.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

28. Are we talking elective abortions or emergency-related ones?

While fighting for inclusion of coverage for *elective* abortions might be difficult, if not impossible, IMHO we should emphatically DEMAND that any public plans cover emergency/therapeutic ones (and emergency contraception for rape victims)- and include birth control coverage, particularly if things like Viagra ultimately get covered.

[KansasVoter]

29. Elective!

[OwnedByFerrets]

37. Is it any of YOUR/OUR business whether its either?? I think not.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

38. Are you suggesting that debates regarding womens issues should be limited exclusively to women?

Should us guys exclude women from discussion of "men issues"? This IS a discussion board populated by all sorts of people talking about lots of different issues- not all of which may affect us personally but about which we might still have an opinion. :shrug:

[OwnedByFerrets]

50. We can discuss all we wish, but when it comes down to

nuts and bolts, men have no right telling women what they can and cant do with their own bodies.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

51. Respectfully, I don't believe that was what we were discussing

I believe that the discussion was about whether or not we should refuse any health care reform plan that did not contain coverage for (elective/non-emergency) abortions. Nobody AFAIK is talking about telling women what they can and can't do with their own bodies (least of all me). The question (as I understood it) was about whether or not we should refuse to accept and possibly fight against any government plan that doesn't include abortion coverage. I personally have NO issues whatsoever with abortions being covered and I'd gladly pay to have abortions covered for women in this country for any reason but I'm not sure I would argue for ditching an otherwise good plan if it's not ultimately covered for whatever reason (once again, I am referring to NON-EMERGENCY abortions, NOT emergency/therapeutic abortions).

Anyway, as I understand it, with the Hyde Amendment still being in place, I'm not even sure a federal plan could cover it until THAT law is repealed. If we could manage to get THAT repealed, I imagine that we could get that coverage included in a public plan as well. However, given that there is a significant number of anti-choice Repubs AND Dems in Congress (or at least a majority whom would likely oppose covering non-emergency abortions), it seems unlikely IMHO that we could muster enough votes to get the Hyde amendment repealed let alone get elective abortions included in a public health plan. I could be wrong and if it seems like we could do it (or don't have to give it up to secure passage), then I say do it. However, I'm not convinced that we should make approval of a plan contingent upon its including coverage for (non-emergency) abortions. That's just my $0.02.

[DrToast]

54. If it's taxpayer funded it is. n/t

[colinmom71]

58. Well, here's where the terminology can get dicey...

In medical terms, *any* procedure that can be scheduled (i.e. - not immediately an emergent life threat) is considered and labeled as elective. It's still considered medically elective even where it is medically necessary and justified. This is usually for purposes of being able to efficiently schedule operating rooms and recovery areas for the doctor's and patient's use...

In terms of abortion, whether the procedure would be considered elective is a procedure that can be scheduled and planned in advance by the physician, which is usually the case in terminations due to fetal health defect or a maternal health problem (say, a previously existing blood clotting disorder). A non-elective abortion would be a pregnancy that had to be terminated under an immediately threatening emergency situation (say, a woman presenting with HELLP syndrome at 21 weeks).

I suppose the more precise term may be stating the difference between a non-medically indicated, "by choice" abortion versus an abortion due to medical cause. But then that distinction doesn't exactly make for a good "sound bite" for political exploitation or bumper stickers...

[saltpoint]

30. A woman's right to choose is already the law of the land. Health care

reform is urgently required.

[musette_sf]

32. and reproductive health care

MUST be included. it is HEALTH CARE.

[saltpoint]

33. Strongly, strongly agree.

Reproductive freedom should not even be a bargaining chip in the healthcare reform debate.

[and-justice-for-all]

31. Abortion is some times a medical necessity...

it is a medical procedure.

[Bluerthanblue]

44. i don't think that it would be excluded from those cases -

'medically necessary' has been used in the phrases coming out of those who would be against any reform at all if it included abortions that were not medically necessary. :shrug:

[ohheckyeah]

34. There is no choice

when women can't afford abortion. It's time the Democrats stood up and fought for women and if they can't they just may find they will lose the support of women.

[texasleo]

35. I agree. Abortion is viewed negatively and benefits too few.

[backscatter712]

36. Hold off on that decision a little bit...

I too am one that goes pragmatic a lot, but I'm thinking we might be able to get health care through the House without anti-choice language in it. It's on the fence right now, but I'd say hold off before caving to fundie demands.

[Phx_Dem]

39. Abortion has never been federally funded and I'm not sure it should.

It should be a choice, but taxpayers shouldn't be funding it unless there is an extreme threat to the health of the mother.

"Elective" abortions should be treated the same as face lifts, breast augmentations and other elective non-health related procedures.

[Lars39]

49. Not so....it was covered until the Hyde Amendment

http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/facts/public_funding.html

[boppers]

53. Breast augmentation?

Like, for women who just had mastectomies?

Are prosthetic legs also out, too, as being "elective"?

How about crutches?

I'm not attacking you, I'm asking you to develop your point about how "elective" is defined. It's not like women wake up and say "Hey, I haven't done anything nice for myself in a while, I think I'll get an abortion!"

[Phx_Dem]

64. No. All "health-related" surgeries and procedures should be covered

obviously, as should breast reductions that are deemed a health issue becuase they cause back pain. Since I used the term "breast augmentation" in the same sentence as face lifts, I think most intelligent people would see that my point was clearly referring to BOOB JOBS, as in "I want bigger boobs."

The rest of your post is too assinine and sarcastic to warrant a response.

[EmilyAnne]

41. An unpleasant reality, but I agree with you, OP. We keep getting stuck on certain issues, thus

avoiding any changes.
Call the Republicans' bluff and pass Health Care reform anyway.
They pull out the abortion card and think it will stop reform.
They need to see that this won't work anymore.
Plus, a big win in Health Care reform will build up our political capital to focus on abortion later.

[harun]

42. There is no way they would put abortion coverage in this bill and for good reason.

[JerseygirlCT]

46. Open that door and watch all of gov't option health care

continually whittled away, using abortion as precedence.

[stevietheman]

55. Yes, if that's what it takes. This legislation will have to be re-opened for tweaks later anyway.

n/t

[dccrossman]

56. How do you define "elective" abortion?

I'll include a link that I've posted before:
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/magazine/articles/2004/01/25/my_late_term_abortion/

There was no immediate health risk to the mother. The baby could have survived, though the life would have been a living hell and likely very short.

I'm of the opinion that abortion should simply be covered in all cases. It is not the type of treatment that is likely to be abused. Someone else can probably point to studies of the emotional aftermath for women that have had to make this choice.


I'm male and tend to believe that while I may have an opinion, I would really not like to be in a position of making policy or decisions as I can not understand the position of a mother-to-be in this situation. I can view it from the perspective of a father, but that's not quite the same.

I really want to see Health Care Reform pass. I am not fully certain where I fall between pragmatism and ideology in this case. I do know that I would not want to see this dropped from the package easily or lightly. I can, though, see a case where this is the victory that Blue Dogs "win" to show their conservative supporters that they aren't "Pelosi libruls" so they can get re-elected. Damn, that's cynical. Ah well.

[mp9200]

57. Forget it

It's either all or nothing.

[Minimus]

59. The BCBS plan I had in 1984 covered elective abortions -

I am not sure if this is still the case.

Since insurance companies are all about making money it makes sense that abortions would be covered. They are less costly than maternity care.

[colinmom71]

61. My current UHC plan pays for abortions...

For any reason. I would actually lose that coverage by switching to a public plan with no abortion coverage. And yes, it is definitely far less expensive to cover an abortion than to provide maternity coverage, especially for someone with my health issues...

[Umbral]

60. Yeah! They can do it right after they renegotiate NAFTA. nt

[JamesA1102]

62. Agreed.

If the founders took the all or nothing approach they would still be arguing about whether to include the anti-slavery clause in the Decarlation of Independence.

[endarkenment]

67. and no gays either

:wtf: