Congressman Tim Ryan: There WILL be a conscience clause in health care reform.

[madfloridian]

Run time: 03:18 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYrD0W_3bB4   Posted on YouTube: July 23, 2009 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: July 24, 2009 By DU Member: madfloridian Views on DU: 3523

 
And there WILL be no funding for abortion.

He does admit that the health care reform should fund birth control for poor women. But he seems to think enough of the pro-life Democrats won't agree. Me, I think they should fund birth control for all women, not just poor women.

Ryan was sounding very apologetic as though he were not a good enough pro-life Democrat. Perhaps that's because he was kicked out of Democrats for Life because he supports birth control for women.

Ryan said he tried to convince officials with Democrats For Life of America, which he referred to Monday as a "fringe group," that the use of contraception is needed as part of any plan to reduce unintended pregnancies but that failed.

Kristen Day, Democrats For Life's executive director, was ready to move on. "DFLA gave Congressman Ryan ample opportunities to prove he's committed to protecting life, but he has turned his back on the community at every turn."

It is my firm belief that the very activist right to life religious right has just about taken control of women's issues in our Democratic Party. It seems to be the prevailing view now in our party that women's rights are expendable and would hurt health care reform

Nineteen House members sent a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi stating that they will not vote for health care reform legislation “unless it explicitly excludes abortion funding from the scope of any government-defined or subsidized health insurance plan.”

"We believe that a government-defined or subsidized health insurance plan, should not be used to fund abortion.

Furthermore, we want to ensure that the Health Benefits Advisory Committee cannot recommend abortion services be included under covered benefits or as part of a benefits package. Without an explicit exclusion, abortion could be included in a government subsidized health care plan under general health care. The health care reform package produced by Congress will be landmark, and with legislation as important as this, abortion must be addressed clearly in the bill text.

They are making a medical decision based on religious views.

[PDJane]

1. Canada has no laws on abortions.

We do, of course, teach youg people about birth control and condoms. The incidence of abortion has gone down; and yes, they're funded via public health care.

This attitude is utterly insane.

[madfloridian]

2. I am beginning to worry about my country's sanity.

Where I live is not helping. I live among people who think and act like this, and nothing will change them.

They think they are righteous, nothing gets through to them.

[cornermouse]

16. "The wages of sin is death"

or "take up your cross and carry it". Having grown up in a religious fundamentalist church and gone to sleep on a pew many times on Wednesday night, I think that the above sentence is a subconscious theme that explains the mindset of the people pushing it. And you're right. They truly believe they are righteous in many of the things (things I might add that I think are distinctly not what my grandparents, who were among the first generation of religious right, believed) they've pushed over the last couple of decades.

[George II]

18. Oh?

[YewNork]

15. The Canada Health Act says govt. health insurance must cover "medically necessary" procedures.

In Ontario, the health insurance does cover abortions. The argument that people have is that most abortions are elective procedures,
and not medically necessary procedures.

[KakistocracyHater]

3. turning women into property she has to have his permission

why are they degrading women? Why do they have such hostility to birth control? Why do they do NOTHING about infant mortality? They should add THAT into the bill, that FIRST they must address the infant death rate.

Why do they want to live like it's 1 A.D.? HOW is using bc hurtful to the soul?

[dflprincess]

4. Anyone ask him about whether or not Viagra or like drugs will be covered?

n/t

[tomm2thumbs]

5. what about the morning after pill?

Or other yet-to-be-discovered non-invasive means which can act within the first week even...? My guess is they will put the clause in and it will be struck down by the Supreme Court in good time (and hopefully with another Obama pick on the court).

The irony is the far right thinks it will stop abortions, it merely drives it into the shadows or creates a dangerous aftermarket for pills and services. It also leaves it in the hands of a woman without funds doing it herself in some horrid improvised manner, and no doubt is one reason we often hear of full term babies found in dumpsters. We do not want to go back to the days before it was legal because it was a dark place for women's health care.

[madfloridian]

6. I am concerned this Supreme Court might not strike it down.

And most of those who are anti-choice consider the morning after pill as abortion.

[tomm2thumbs]

12. if that were possible, it would be devastating

My mom lost her mother (a grandmother I never knew) to a back alley abortion. People forget this was not long ago when women were forced into the shadows and it had real consequences. I have never forgotten that.

[madfloridian]

13. I remember those times.

Girls would disappear for nine months and come home with weird explanations. There was so much shame involved, and it was so hard a time.

We are going backwards.

[mzmolly]

7. I have to say, I'm not confident we'll even have health care reform.

However, I agree with you that medical decisions should NOT be made based upon religion. That is an excellent point.

[madfloridian]

10. And a conscience clause IS for religious reasons

especially for pharmacists who don't want to give out birth control. Convenient for their consciences terrible for women.

[George II]

39. So you want to dictate one's religious beliefs? How about the US Constition (not the ship)?

[GivePeaceAchance]

8. ...

....

[AlbertCat]

9. conscience clause????

How about a "if you don't want to do your job, get another" clause.

[madfloridian]

11. Looks like Obama supports it as well. A "robust" one.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/02/AR2009070202451.html?hpid=sec-religion

"President Barack Obama said today that he still favors a "robust" federal policy protecting health-care workers who have moral objections to performing some procedures even though he plans to roll back a Bush administration rule that expanded such protection.

Speaking to eight religion reporters at the White House before his first meeting with Pope Benedict XVI next Friday, Obama sought to reassure Catholic health-care workers that they would not be forced to perform abortions and other procedures that violate the Church's teachings. Obama said he is a "believer in conscience clauses" and supports a new policy that would "certainly not be weaker" than the rules in place before the expansion late in President George W. Bush's administration."


It does not specify about birth control, so don't know what would happen on that.

[George II]

17. Yet another anti-Obama post

[jwirr]

20. It is a quote - he said it.

[George II]

23. But the premise of the OP is far from what Obama said...

....and that quote (reported on July 3, more than THREE weeks ago!) is taken out of context.

In addition, the OP states that there will be no funding for abortion, which is flat out INACCURATE!

[Mithreal]

21. Is your mind so fragile that is there no separation between

disagreement with a policy statement and general support of the President.

Oh never mind.

If not supporting every policy of the President makes someone anti-Obama, all we are going to have left is the 20 percenters. Clearly that is not happening so the general public can separate overall support from disagreement on specific issues.

Any posts should end with a Go Obama so as not to offend the fragile and preempt stupid statements like "Yet another anti-Obama post".

[Name removed]

24. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[foginthemorn]

33. see my post 37 below. thanks for the OP

[George II]

29. Conscience clause?

Well, let's look at this logically. The so-called "conscience clause" is supposed to be there for those who don't want to perform abortions. But if what the OP claims is true, that there won't be any coverage for abortion anyway (which is not going to happen, despite the hysteria) there would be no need for that "conscience clause", will there?

[YewNork]

14. Does health insurance currently cover abortions? Always, sometimes, never?

Just wondering whether most private health insurance covers abortions currently? Do they only cover them if the woman's life is at risk?

[madfloridian]

22. Yes, most does currently. I read about 90%.

This would make abortion not covered for more women than just those on Medicaid now.

It's a nod to the religious right.

[George II]

25. But I see nothing in the bill that says abortions will NOT be covered...where is that?

If the bill did not cover abortions, a "conscience clause" would not be required.

[jwirr]

19. That idea of no contraception is pure Catholic theology and with

freedom of religion they have no right to enforce their laws on me. That goes for abortion also but that one I do not think we can win at this point. If they do not pay for birth control for all women then it is a farce.

[madfloridian]

26. To make it clear, The 19 Dems want abortion "explicitly" excluded.

"explicitly excludes abortion funding from the scope of any government-defined or subsidized health insurance plan.”

Someone said the bill does not mention it, but they are requesting it be explicitly against it.

[George II]

27. So you agree there is nothing in the bill that excludes coverage for abortion, correct?

[George II]

28. We'll go over this one more time...

...even IF (a big IF) those 19 Democrats did insist that there not be any coverage for abortion, how can one draw the conclusion that "it seem to be the prevailing view now in our party that women's right are expendable"?

The fact that 19 of roughly 240 Democratic representatives (less than TEN PERCENT) certainly cannot be construed as the "prevailing view" of the Democratic party. Most would consider that a fringe view.

Conversely, since about 220 Democratic representative are in favor of abortion coverage, wouldn't that 90% of Democrats more obviously express the "prevailing view" of our party?

This "prevailing view" argument was tried in another discussion and was rejected by DUers.

[foginthemorn]

30. The issue becomes, will those 19 votes

become necessary to pass any legislation related to 'reform' of the current non-health care 'system'? Maybe-maybe not. That remains to be seen.

[George II]

31. Yes, that is something to be concerned about, but...

With a majority of 256 Democrats and 178 Republicans (one vacant seat), even if those 19 were to vote with the Republicans, that would still result in a 40 vote victory. Thankfully we're in a great position right now with respect to membership in the Congress.

The point of my post is that OUR Democratic Party is being falsely portrayed as being willing to ignore women's rights, and that due to this very small group of Democrats (19, less than 7-1/2%!) the very bogus claim is being made that their opinion is the "prevailing view" of OUR Democratic Party.

The OP contains this:

"the very activist right to life religious right has just about taken control of women's issues in our Democratic Party. It seems to be the prevailing view now in our party that women's rights are expendable"

That is TOTALLY false and dismissive of the positions of the 237 other Democratic members of the House.

I find that a highly offensive and insulting portrayal of OUR Democratic Party!!

[foginthemorn]

32. are you counting

the blue dog Democrats in the 40 pt. margin of victory? just curious.


On the issue of the 'prevailing view"--I do not think it is --yet. It is very disturbing that OUR president would want a FEDERAL policy on this this issue--especially when we know that the issue involves abortion or dispensing of birth control pills for many!!!



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/02/AR2009070202451.html?hpid=sec-religion

"President Barack Obama said today that he still favors a "robust" federal policy protecting health-care workers who have moral objections to performing some procedures even though he plans to roll back a Bush administration rule that expanded such protection.

Speaking to eight religion reporters at the White House before his first meeting with Pope Benedict XVI next Friday, Obama sought to reassure Catholic health-care workers that they would not be forced to perform abortions and other procedures that violate the Church's teachings. Obama said he is a "believer in conscience clauses" and supports a new policy that would "certainly not be weaker" than the rules in place before the expansion late in President George W. Bush's administration."

[madfloridian]

34. Wouldn't the conscience clause go further even than that?

I have heard it might enable a doctor to not treat aids patients. That would be unconscionable.

Abortion, birth control, treating patients who are gay, treating aids patients....honestly wonder how far it will go.

In my mind that is giving too much power to religious views in a government that should remain secular.

[George II]

35. But all of those things are NOT in the bill under discussion....

I haven't heard anything about the possibility of a health care bill not including AIDS patients, birth control, or any mention of sexual orientation whatsoever. How far will it go? As far as it is now, which is nowhere close to removing coverage for all of those things, including abortion.

[foginthemorn]

36. Theoretically, -it could extend to all the issues you mentioned,

and lots more---anything a person's conscious says is not right for that person.


It is dangerous for a Dem President to be saying what he did.

[madfloridian]

37. Thanks.

Yes, a conscience clause has dangerous aspects. Thanks for saying that.

:hi:

[George II]

38. No, I didn't, but...

....the actual number of "blue dog democrats" is elusive and I don't think high enough to affect the ultimate vote.

Now, as to your other issue, I totally believe in a woman's right to abortion and, if a government health care plan is passed this year it should include coverage for abortion. I firmly believe it will. However, as to the so-called "conscience clause", I'm not sure yet how I feel about it's inclusion or exclusion. As an American living under the Constitution of the United States, I would not be very receptive to having the government insist that I perform a procedure that violates my religious beliefs. Thankfully, I'm not in the medical field so I would never have to face that situation. Still, with the so-called "conscience clause", from what I've seen it would give a person the right to refuse to perform such a procedure if it violated his/her religious beliefs. BUT (a big BUT!), it will not prohibit that procedure from being performed anywhere. The so-called "conscience clause" does not affect ALL medical people, there still would be many who could perform that procedure.

A simple example. A woman goes to a particular hospital or clinic staffed by several doctors to have such a procedure. The first doctor she sees is Catholic, and he invokes that "clause". However, she is not prevented from seeing another doctor at that facility who does not share the Catholic's belief, and he/she performs the procedure.

So, bottom line is that even if that so-called "conscience clause" is included in the ultimate final bill (and I doubt that it will be), that will not impede anyone from having such a procedure.

[foginthemorn]

40. That is true and as far

as I know---it the case of abortion---there are situations --emergencies-are covered by other staff.

As far as nurses go--their professional organizations (i know for my state)--that if a nurse refuses a certain procedure-i.e. tubal ligation--there has to be available another nurse to take her place--to assist. Same go for a pharmacist--another pharmacist needs to fill the prescription. Now I know some professional organizations have addressed these issues and they seem reasonable. And are written into their Ethics codes or there is a so-called 'white-paper' posted on the websites.


I think the Federal level should stay out of these issues--or just encourage what is already being done. Certainly a Democrat President should not be pushing for a Federal level law of any kind (IMHO).

[George II]

41. Yes, I agree with most of what you say, but...............

"Democrat" President??????

Obama is our DemocratIC President!!!!!!!