Will 19 House Dems succeed in getting health care bill not to pay for abortions?

[madfloridian]

There are rumors about both the Senate Finance Committee bill, and some about the bill coming out of the house....that in order to get bipartisan health care abortion must be stripped out of it. Wonder what other health care services would be stripped out in the name of religion or in the name of bipartisanship?

From the blog called Our Bodies Ourselves

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 want it explicitly excluded. What's next...birth control?

Here are the 19 Democrats who signed the letter.

These are the signers: Dan Boren (Okla.), Bobby Bright (Ala.), Travis Childers (Miss.), Jerry Costello (Ill.), Kathy Dahlkemper (Penn.), Lincoln Davis (Tenn.), Steve Driehaus (Ohio), Tim Holden (Penn.), Paul Kanjorski (Penn.), Marcy Kaptur (Ohio), Mike McIntyre (N.C.), Charlie Melancon (La.), John Murtha (Penn.), Jim Oberstar (Minn.), Solomon Ortiz (Texas), Collin Peterson (Minn.), Heath Shuler (N.C.), Bart Stupak (Mich.), and Gene Taylor (Miss).

The Wonk Room at the Think Progress blog covers this issue further:

Is Denying Women Abortions The Price Of Bipartisanship?

And according to some reports, Hatch is working hard to translate his criticism into reality. Hatch and his Republican colleagues on the Senate Finance Committee are pushing legislation that would require insurers operating within the new Exchange to to deny coverage for abortion services. From Raising Women’s Voices:

The Senate Finance Committee has been writing a health care reform bill and struggling to create legislation that will have bipartisan support. Chairman Max Baucus (pictured left) considered several compromises to win Republican support, so they can claim it is bipartisan legislation. One of these potential compromises comes in the form of an abortion exclusion, which would prevent abortion services from being covered by some or all insurance plans in the Health Insurance Exchange. We fear that members of the Senate Finance Committee are considering such a compromise.

..."Should it pass, the Senate Finance version would be the only bill that specifically prohibits — takes away, rations, if you will — a medical service. Approximately one in three American women will have an abortion by age 45 and private insurers typically cover the procedure. In 2002, The Guttmacher Institute found that 86.9 percent of “typical” employment-based health plans “routinely cover” surgical abortion and 86.5 percent “routinely cover” medical abortion. The language under consideration would take away this benefit from women receiving coverage through the Exchange, eliminating the service for millions of American women.

As Republicans often argue, Congress should leave benefits decisions to the medical professionals. After all, if denying abortion services to women is the price of bipartisanship, then perhaps winning those one or two Republican votes isn’t worth the price of jeopardizing women’s health and well-being. In fact, according to a new national opinion survey conducted for the National Women’s Law Center (NWLC), 71 percent of Americans overwhelmingly support requiring health plans in the Exchange to cover women’s reproductive health services. Even 78 percent of Republicans prefer an independent commission of citizens and medical professionals make decisions about what should be covered under reform rather than the President and Congress. Allowing an independent commission of medical professionals to make coverage decisions is the real face of bipartisanship.

The religious right views are gaining strength in our party since we regained Congress and the White House. In fact a bill put forth by two Democrats, Bob Casey and Lincoln Davis, is supported and pushed by the Southern Baptists, the Catholic Bishops, and groups like Democrats for Life.

Yet another bill shows their power strengthening. The Pregnant Women Support Act.

Parts of this bill bother me.

White House leaning toward Pregnant Women Support Act

Congressional sponsors of the Pregnant Women Support Act, which aims to reduce abortions by providing assistance to economically distressed pregnant women, are growing more optimistic about prospects for White House support. The bill is backed by antiabortion groups like the Southern Baptist Convention and the U.S. Council of Catholic Bishops and by Democratic groups like Democrats for Life. It was introduced this year by Pennsylvania Sen. Bob Casey and Tennessee Rep. Lincoln Davis, both Democrats.

Planned Parenthood opposes parts of the bill that are designed to influence women to decide to forgo abortions; the group says it wants to inform pregnant women of options but not influence them either way. But Planned Parenthood has not officially come out against it.

The White House won't comment on its view of the Pregnant Women Support Act. Obama aides are still working up what they say will be a common-ground policy plan on abortion and related reproductive issues. But a congressional source close to the legislation
E-mailed me this status report:

"Earlier this year, the White House office of Faith Based and Neighborhood Partnerships reached out to our office at the staff level for information on the Pregnant Women Support Act to begin what would become a larger dialogue on the issue of abortion reduction. Since then, we have had ongoing correspondence with their office, and a meeting is scheduled in the coming weeks between White House Administration staff and Congressional staff to discuss the issue further. I don't want to get in to reading the tea leaves on the White House's position or strategy for this issue, but I would call their interest in the Pregnant Women Support Act significant"

Planned Parenthood not yet taking a stand.

NARAL looks like it might fight for women's rights, and stand up to the 19 Democrats who are willing to take them away.

NARAL president Keenan on health care and women's rights

NARAL is asking its supporters to write to their Senators in opposition to a specific anti-choice amendment from Sen. Tom Coburn, which would establish an Office of Unborn Children's Health. That seems patently absurd. But other senators and House members are proposing, very seriously, that both private and public health care plans, after health reform, be prevented from covering abortion services.

You haven’t seen reproductive health care be a big topic within the debate until some of the anti-choice members of Congress poised to offer these amendments. They’re wanting to rattle their sabers here. They are the ones that are trying to make this political, versus keeping the divisiveness out of the debate.

Are there specific services women currently have from employer-based health coverage that are under threat right now?

Obviously, many of the private insurers do provide care for reproductive health, including abortion care. And I think that would be under threat if you saw these anti-choice amendments succeed. The potential there is that many, many women could lose the coverage they presently have.

It is said the Pregnant Women's Support bill does not even discuss the issue of contraception which is the building block of planning a family.

Abortion is opposed on religious grounds, and there is no place for that in forming a health care bill.

[sandnsea]

1. losing coverage you have, choice

Now people are getting an idea of what health care choice means from a liberal side.

Do we need these 19 to pass a health care bill?

Do we really want to risk women's reproductive care with only one health plan? Do we want to have every medical advance be a fight like stem cell research has been?

There's something to be said for the private sector.

[madfloridian]

2. I am not sure what you are saying.

I don't advocate for just one health plan. I don't know where you got that. There must be a plan that is government run in addition to the private plans.

Don't know if you are agreeing or disagreeing or both.

:shrug:


I am tired of the religious right trying to dictate our legislation, and I am tire of Democrats letting them do it.

[sandnsea]

4. Rambling, mostly

With a question in there. Do we need the 18 votes to pass this in the House?

Then rambling about what if we had single payer and had to fight for every "controversial" medical advance. Remember when people thought heart transplants were creepy and immoral?

[madfloridian]

5. Not sure about the 19.

We have such a good house majority we might not need them.

[WonderGrunion]

20. It's safe to lose all 19 of them and still push the bill through

Although Pro-Life democrat Mike Michaud from Maine is not among the signees, so there may be more in the wings.

[kenfrequed]

18. Riight...

But again, red herring. We fought for all those medical advances WITH the existence of a private-for-profit medical industry.

[sandnsea]

21. No we didn't

We didn't have to fight to make transplants legal. Stem cell research was done with private money, Bush only removed federal funding. Private insurance can choose to pay for abortion and reproductive services, we can't prevent them covering a legal procedure at the state level. Putting everything under one government funded umbrella would make many more medical procedures completely political.

[kenfrequed]

24. Uhm...again. No.

1) Just because private insurance "can choose" to cover abortions does not mean that it will. If you look at the records you will find many abortions are still paid for by the patient. Believe me I volunteered at planned parenthood for a bit and there were not many private insurances that would cover it.

So again I call "Shenanigans" and throw lots of red herrings at you for that little gem.

2) Actually the government did limit research in this country to existing lines during the Bush administration. Amazingly the countries that were making all the research advances were foreign and most of them seemed to mysteriously be in countries where there was universal healtcare.


Stop with the pro-insurance lobby "divide the democrats" tactic. It isn't going to work unlike repukes, most of us are too clever for that.

[sandnsea]

26. You might want to learn something

before you go calling people repukes.

The federal government limited FUNDING on stem cell research. California has been doing stem cell research all along, with its own funding. There have been legal challenges in the state over it. How can you justify calling people names when you don't know what you're talking about?

If there is ONE insurance company that pays for abortion, then that's progress that should not be ignored. But what about procedures that are truly necessary to save women's lives? Are you really going to sit there and pretend that women wouldn't be at risk with a single payer system under control of right wing zealots? Some of them would support single payer just to have the power to eliminate all abortion. How can you deny that?

People have got to THINK. I have never seen a more fanciful group of people than single payer devotees. There is no utopia. Every solution is going to create its own set of problems. We don't live in Canada. We don't live in Europe. We live in the U.S. with our own brand of nutballs that have to be considered. They WILL try to outlaw all reproductive care in the public option, just like they have done for the last 8 years. Why would you choose to stick your head in the sand and ignore that?

[kenfrequed]

29. Almost definitely probably....

I am sorry but I will call republicans repukes, rethugs, thuglicans, plutocrats, theocrats, neo fascists, corporatists, or the screaming green meanies if I want.

Introducing your untennable arguments with a rebuke to my name-calling directed to parties that are not a part of this conversation and selfsame parties that have declared what is tantamount to a decades long propoganda war against progressive liberalism and the tattered remnants of the new deal is absurd.

Now on to the show...

Denying the full weight of the federal government to research directed at stem cell research can occur within or without a private insurance plan. Directed grant research programs given by states can occur within or outside of a public health care system. It occurs all over the world.
Verdict: Red Herring.

One insurance company providing access to reproductive health services is not progress it is an abberration. If you honestly think that republicans will support single payer in hopes of doing away with abortion than I have Saharan Swampland to sell you. Again. Most working people and poor people end up paying for their own abortions.
Verdict: Rule by exception to the rule. Logically and rationally invalid.

Oh wait, the third paragraph was just a repeat.

[sandnsea]

38. Almost definitely probably

explains why your post is nothing but gobbledygook.

"Denying the full weight of the federal government to research directed at stem cell research can occur within or without a private insurance plan."

Huh?

"One insurance company providing access to reproductive health services is not progress it is an abberration."

No, it's progress and there is more than one. Regardless, my post wasn't focused ONLY on abortion. It was in reference to a number of health care advances that have been opposed by religious idiots in the past, and will be in the future. Recognizing the probability that they will be in control again in the future is something to consider when hammering out our health care solutions. You won't directly address it, because you can't.

"If you honestly think that republicans will support single payer in hopes of doing away with abortion than I have Saharan Swampland to sell you."
I see you're also sarcasm-challenged.

Take your blinders off and deal with the country you live in. ALL of it.

[kenfrequed]

47. Your humor circuits are down.

Else you would have either:
A: Gotten the reference

or

B: Understood that I was giving my post a title that referred to the ambiguity and meaningless of your arguments.

You still have not refuted anything nor justified your argument adequately.

You are basically arguing right wing talking points (we will lose out on the glory of our technological great capitalist system) With a provacatuers spin (the republicans will keep valuable procedures from you).

You cannot deny simply that

A: The overwhelming majority of people that HAVE medical insurance, do NOT have abortion as a medical benefit on their isnurance.

B: Most people seeking abortions pay for it themselves.

C: Stem cell research WAS inhibited by way of the government not committing resources to that (by the way this has already been reversed by Obama already.)



Now onto your little bits of nonsense.

My simplified point was that stem cell reserch could and has been stone walled with or without universal healthcare, and research has been accomplished in countries very effectively WITH various public health plans. I put it in two sentences that basically said the that either way it could be affected. Pulling one line in quotes out of context REEKS of the very illogic you have thus far demonstrated.

Whether my Saharan swampland meets your threshold of humor, sarchasm, cuteness or whatever other standard you have applied is meaningless. The Republicans would never sell out Wallstreet for Church-street. See David Kuo's book on the treatment of the religious right by the Bush administration.

My blinders are operating are open enough to see the majority of Americans want a public option and that the issues and examples you have thrown are tangents that do not address healthcare but are poor attempts to scare us 'crazy liberals' into being against universal healthcare.

[kenfrequed]

17. Lets divide up this tangled argument

1) What do you mean when you say
"Now people are getting an idea of what health care choice means from a liberal side" ?

2) What are you saying about the 19 needed to pass? That we should placate them? Or that we should abandon healthcare?

3) Amazingly countries that have a universal healthcare plan have somehow gotten ahead of our 'free-choice-greedy-insurance-profit-driven' bonanza. I mean this argument is so tangential that it practically qualifies as a red herring. Also note that many private healthcare plans do not cover abortion either. So again tangential.

Basically there is little good to be said for the private sector. Your arguments appear to be little more than concern-troll provocation to split up progressives on this matter.

[pkdu]

3. Arent they all House members?...pardon the language , but Fuck 'em. n/t

[JonLP24]

6. Can't speak for the others but Gene Taylor is not bi-partisan or pressured by the religious right

He is a freakin' republican! This doesn't suprise me at all. In fact I was expecting to see his name on the list. He votes with the republican leadership over 50% of the time, skips the DNC, voted in favor of medical malpractice reform, all 4 articles of impeachment vs Bill Clinton(the only so-called 'dem' to do so), and to tighten the rules on bankruptcy. He is the a supporter of DOMA and is more conservative then some republicans on issues such as crime. He opposes affirmative action but often votes against anti-discrimination bills as well as votes against bills and amendments supported by labor unions.

I know we have a rule that we must support Democratic candidates but if I lived in Gulfport, Moss Point, etc. I'd vote for a liberal 3rd party candidate all the way. I will not compromise my principles by voting for this guy, it's not like it hurts the democratic party if he does lose because he is a republican.

I don't know much about the others but Marcy Kaptur suprises me. She has been one of my favorite Democrats so I don't understand it. I guess I didn't know her as well as I thought. As far as Gene Taylor he is not feeling any pressure from the right because he is in fact right-wing of the political spectrum.

[madfloridian]

7. Kaptur surprised me also.

:hi:

[KamaAina]

53. Kaptur is an odd duck -- progressive on about every other issue, but anti-choice

I'm guessing she's a staunch Catholic. Remember, Kucinich used to vote anti-choice, until he entered national Dem politics.

[Freddie Stubbs]

9. Actually, Taylor votes with House Democrats more than 80% of the time:

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/111/house/party-voters/

[JonLP24]

11. I guess he's getting better

I was referring to this http://archive.redstate.com/story/2005/2/11/154627/855 which lists him as the most conservative democrat. Still don't like him because of the positions he takes on the issues I mentioned and before I even clicked on this thread I just KNEW he was going to be on here. He is very Pro-life. Still wouldn't vote for him.

[Freddie Stubbs]

12. Even in 2005-2006 he voted with the Democratic Caucus 3/4 of the time:

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/109/house/party-voters/

I'm sure that he would be heartbroken to know that someone in Arizona would not vote for him.

[JonLP24]

13. And I sure don't care about his pro-life opinions

I had to scroll down VERY far to see where he ranks among support for the Democratic party. Even if it is 3/4ths it doesn't excuse his anti-labor, anti-discrimination, anti-gay marriage, pro-life, positions. Maybe you have no problem supporting someone like that simply because he has a D next to his name.

[Freddie Stubbs]

14. Considering that Taylor's conservative district is unlikely to elect a more liberal Democrat, he is

much better than the alternative, a Republican who will vote with the Democrats a lot less than 75% of the time.

[JonLP24]

15. I realize that he is in a conservative district

I got my facts wrong about how often he votes, I guess it depends on the year and who has control of the house. I just don't like where he stands on those issues and I guess I'm wrong for that. All I said is if I lived in that district which I don't so it is moot I'd vote for someone more liberal and if I was the only one voting for that person then I am ok with that. I'm sure very few people in politics care about who I vote for. I'm sure Michelle Bachmann doesn't care I wouldn't vote for her if I lived in her district just as much as Nancy Pelosi doesn't care that I would vote for her if I lived in her district.

[Hippo_Tron]

32. As you demonstrated quite clearly, you don't know jack shit about Taylor's district

First of all, they vote about 7 to 3 Republican in presidential elections so the possibility of anybody pro-labor, pro-choice, or pro-environment being elected from there is a joke.

Second of all, Gulfport and the surrounding areas were damaged just as bad if not worse than New Orleans during Katrina. Gene Taylor worked his ass off to get the federal government to provide relief for his constituents and to hold the Bush Administration and the insurance companies accountable for their negligence. His Republican counterparts did not do the same.

I guarantee you that if you had lost your home during Katrina you would have a different perspective. But hey it's easy to call somebody worthless when they aren't your congressman.

[jody]

60. Excellent reply. n/t

[Quantess]

8. Thanks for posting this.

K & R

[madfloridian]

67. It worries me to see religious beliefs about women take such root

Trying to make women seem incapable of making their own health decisions.

Our party is now just as guilty as the other one.

[DireStrike]

10. Isn't this just letting them "vote their district"?

We don't need the votes... right? So who cares?

[bertman]

16. Abortion is a MEDICAL PROCEDURE. It should be entirely up to the woman and her doctor

as to whether she gets an abortion.

I can't say I'm surprised that there are at least 19 House members who feel that way. But we should have the votes to pass it regardless.

Recommend.

[Freddie Stubbs]

19. Penis enlargement is a medical procedure also. Should tax dollars pay for that too?

The test should be if the procedure is medically necessary. Not just that the patient wants it and there is a doctor willing to do it.

[Lars39]

22. Psychological needs must be included.

[Freddie Stubbs]

58. Would that mean that the person would have to have been diagnosed with an actual

psychological disorder?

[haele]

66. The anti-choicers don't recognize psychological needs -

Because then they'd have to admit that most abortions that are not for physical medical issues are for psychological needs - whether they're diagnosed or not.
Having a child is a huge psychological burden - to a woman, whether she's trying to hold down a job or just trying to get herself together, to the father - if he knows about the child and is part of that woman's life, and to a family where one more child might be what sends the family over an economic and emotional meltdown.
In most cases, a pregnancy is a welcome event, not a burden - just something that causes priorities to shift a bit and then it and the subsequent child will be a welcome addition.
In others, a pregnancy can result in a life of pure hell (be it long or short term) for the mother, the child, and whatever family may be impacted. Motherhood does not automatically - or even naturally create an emotional transformation into a warm, loving nurturing personality - in other words, a woman doesn't suddenly become Harriet Nelson when she gets pregnant - sometimes she turns into Medea, and creates far more sorrow and pain to a wider range of innocents and bystanders than she would had she not had become pregnant.

I had a friend who, though she was relatively stable in life at 45 years of age, wished she had never been born. The scars and the suicide attempts (she actually died twice, but was necessitated) are still there in her life, and she can never have a normal family relationship - nor does she try, because of what she went through growing up "a bastard that should have been aborted" (she grew up in an "Old World" Catholic community). Her quality of life is always in question. She had accomplished some in her life, but she always was on the verge of giving up. And it sounds like a broken record, but before she moved with her job away and broke contact with me, every time something would happen, she'd say "I wish I was never born" - then grudgingly deal with it.
I don't know if she's still alive, or if it got to be too much for her again. I do know she was under constant pain.

Probably only 5% of abortions do not have a serious psychological quality of life question involved - where it's supposedly a form of birth control. But even in many of those cases, there's a serious psychological issue involved with reason the woman became pregnant (see my friend above - her mother was apparently a mix of self-medicating clinical depression and psychosis).

When people claim "it's a whim and not a need unless it's rape, incest, or health of the mother" - by including rape and incest as a necessity, they're including a psychological/quality of need - or they're hypocrites. The question is "Quality of Life" enough of a psychological need to be able to choose to have an abortion?

I'm with the Buddhists on this - give the soul waiting to be born another chance on the wheel with a loving family, then chain it to a life of suffering and misery because of a mistake, be it intentional or unintentional. An abortion is only a symptom of an unwanted pregnancy - whether it's the brain's choice, or body's choice.

Haele

[bertman]

23. Freddie, I had a great witty comeback for that one, but here's the plain old difference

as I see it.

Very, very few women choose abortion as a convenience or a casual elective procedure. If a woman feels that she has to have an abortion, whether it's for medical or psychological reasons, then I'd rather she have it and it be covered by tax dollars, than for her to not have the option. No medical procedure is cheap. No safe medical procedure should be denied to a woman who needs it.

[kenfrequed]

30. Bah

The whole "using single payer to eliminate abortion" argument is a complete red herring. Very, very few people covered by private health insurance can get their abortions paid for. The overwhelming majority of them have to pay for them themselves.

Giving this argument any amount of time is absurd.

[Freddie Stubbs]

59. The problem differentiating between need and want

Who will make that decision?

[Hugabear]

71. That is the DUMBEST fucking comparison I have ever heard - even from freeper types

Congratulations. You just beat out freeperland for what might be the worst fucking attempt to make an abortion comparison.

[tabbycat31]

25. then take away coverage for boner pills (Viagra, etc)

[liberal_rxstudent]

85. I'm going to say this...

although viagra (sildenafil) is used for ED, this same drug is also very useful for other medical conditions. So....I will simply state that it is imperative that an independent group of medical experts be employed to determine what procedures/ drugs will be prooffered, rather than make this into a political brouhaha. And there are studies being done currently on the 'boner' pills because there may be potential for other uses. **The boner that accompanies the use will then become an unintended bonus... ;)

[madfloridian]

27. From a pro-life blog...a reference to a vote about abortions in DC

I am not sure how this fits in to the overall health care reform. The post is very biased in tone, but it tells who voted against women's rights in DC.

http://www.lifenews.com/nat5200.html

"Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- A House committee on Tuesday night defeated a pro-life amendment designed to stop President Barack Obama's plan to fund abortions in the nation's capital with taxpayer dollars. The House Appropriations Committee voted largely along partisan lines to prevent restoration of the funding ban. When he released his budget request to Congress, Obama called for repealing the Dornan Amendment, which has blocked taxpayer funding of abortions in the District of Columbia for decades.

A House subcommittee pushed forward Obama's pro-abortion agenda and a bipartisan pair of pro-life lawmakers offered an amendment in the full committee last night to restore the tax-funding ban.

With Democrats largely voting no and Republicans supporting the amendment, the panel defeated the move by Reps. Todd Tiahrt, a Kansas Republican, and Lincoln Davis, a Tennessee Democrat, 33-26.

Five Democrats (Reps. Barry of Arkansas, Davis, Kaptur of Ohio, Mollohan of West Virginia, and Murtha of Pennsylvania) joined 21 Republicans on the panel in voting to restore the Dornan Amendment.

However, 32 Decorates on the committee, along with pro-abortion Republican Rep. Frelinghuysen of New Jersey, voted to keep Obama's pro-abortion agenda in place."

I love the way they use the words...."pro-abortion agenda"

Frank Luntz did a heck of a job with their propaganda.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

28. Maybe I'm the oddball here,

But i do not want my tax dollars paying for elective abortion. I think there needs to be a line drawn as a blanket prohibition or acceptance of coverage is not right. IMO, abortions made for medical reasons (physiological dangers, rape, incest, or other medical problems with carrying a child to term) should be covered by healthcare. Abortions that are 100% elective should not be covered.

I just think the topic is to much of a wedge issue to fight for 100% one way or the other.

[madfloridian]

34. It is a medical procedure. The argument is a religious one.

The religious right has done their job well.

I think we should have a say in which men get vasectomies...you think?

I also don't think viagra should be so freely prescribed.

How do you feel about those added restrictions on health care?

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

39. I don't see an abortion any differently than

another elective surgery when not performed out of concern as in a rape/incest/medical type case. Breast implants, vasectomies, tied tubes, abortions, cosmetic surgery... when all done as purely elective procedures the patient should foot the bill. If a true medical concern is at the heart of the procedure, there's no reason a doctor cant "prescribe" the surgery and have healthcare foot the bill. I might even make a stretch to support allowing healthcare-covered abortions for people below the poverty threshold, as having a child in that scenario may be considered irresponsible and the mother likely has no money to abort.

The ONLY thing mandating covering (or not covering) all abortions under healthcare is creating yet another wedge issue to weaken and segregate our platform.

We should not have to foot the bill for people too irresponsible to deal with the consequences of adult actions.

[madfloridian]

40. Well, then, I consider a vasectomy an elective surgery.

And under your line of thinking, should not be paid for.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

41. Correct, that is my opinion.

I see no reason vasectomies should be covered.
Is there medical conditions that ever require a vasectomy?

[madfloridian]

42. No. it is a matter of choice. If women can have abortion...

because it is considered choice...then men can't have vasectomies paid for because they are choice.

Do you realize how deep the doo doo is getting on banning certain procedures just because you don't happen to approve?

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

46. Allright, I'm officially confused...

I'm saying that both procedures should:
A) Be allowed freely
B) Not be covered under healthcare as choice-procedures.
C) Be covered under healthcare with doctor prescription or other valid medical reasoning.

I think this is fair to both. I never advocated banning any procedure.

[Horse with no Name]

49. WHY someone has an abortion is really none of your fucking business

Somebody should not have to PROVE they were raped or PROVE that they are mentally or physically unable to bear children.
It really is none of your fucking business WHY someone seeks to have an abortion and there should be no arbitrary conditions attached to it.
It is really quite foolish to relegate this to the ranks of cosmetic surgery and breast implants.
And just so you know--because apparently you do not--the elective surgeries you are so ready to dismiss...tubal ligations and vasectomies SAVE money. They prevent unwanted pregnancies and are actually much cheaper than having babies. It is called PREVENTION and lack of PREVENTION is one of the reasons our society is as unhealthy as it is and why healthcare is so damned expensive.

[madfloridian]

51. Thanks for the post.

Much truth.

[Horse with no Name]

52. It is an important topic

However, since it centers on women's reproductive rights, it will be brushed aside as it always is. :(

[madfloridian]

72. Women are a convenient issue to concede.

[Scout]

48. i don't want my tax dollars paying for pregnancy and childbirth....

the world is overpopulated, and having children is a choice.

:shrug:

[Horse with no Name]

50. I actually object to insurance paying for in vitro fertilization

I really really do.
Especially when abortion isn't covered.

[tritsofme]

31. Wouldn't the Hyde Amendment apply, and presumably moot this whole discussion?

Its still the law as far as I know.

[madfloridian]

35. It doesn't have to do so if we get real reform.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyde_Amendment

Maybe someday women will be treated as equals in this country.

But I have very bad vibes right about now.

Women and gays....thrown to the wolves to win over the religious right.

[tritsofme]

44. My point was that these calls for a "new ban" are a non sequitur.

It would seem to me that the Hyde Amendment would likely prohibit the public option from paying for abortions anyway.

If anything it should be progressives pushing to ensure that the procedure is not blocked by the Hyde Amendment, these conservatives are crying about nothing.

[Hippo_Tron]

33. This is what Conference Committees are for

Strip out all of this garbage and then force them to vote up or down without it.

[Kaleva]

36. Stupak, my congressman, is a devout Catholic...

who's right there with the Pope on abortion issues. No need for anyone to suggest that he ought to be challenged in upcoming primaries as he easily beats all comers and has been doing so since '92.

[madfloridian]

37. Well, the Catholics and Southern Baptists are winning against women.

Ain't that amazing? Look at the Supreme Court make-up. Look at the ones in congress who think women are incapable of making their own decisions.

The religious right is controlling the debate on women's rights and gay rights.

They are winning.

[madfloridian]

68. Then what that means is that a religious agenda is taking over government.

[PassingFair]

79. If he is against Public Option, he CAN be taken down by a Progressive primary challenger.

There is NO excuse for religious bias
where citizens are concerned.

[bobbolink]

43. Does Medicare, Medicaid, VA, Congressional Health Care pay for abortions?

There's some precedence there......

[madfloridian]

45. That exclusion would carry over to women and PRIVATE insurance.

This is really getting scary to me how the religious right are getting so much power on this issue.

Here is an article from Time today by Karen Tumulty.

Could Abortion Coverage Sink Health-Care Reform?

Should government-subsidized health coverage pay for abortion procedures? For more than three decades, that question had seemed pretty much settled. The Hyde Amendment, passed by the House on Sept., 30, 1976, forbade Medicaid — a program for poor people, jointly administered by Washington and the states, which had, up till then, paid for about 300,000 abortions a year — from using any federal money to pay for the procedure. All but 17 states followed suit, banning use of their own funds as well; with a few modifications, the ban has stood up ever since.

The prospect of sweeping health reform, however, has reopened the issue. While current versions of the legislation do not address the abortion issue at all, late last month, 19 antiabortion Democrats in the House sent a letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi, warning that they "cannot support any health-care-reform proposal unless it explicitly excludes abortion from the scope of any government-defined or subsidized health-insurance plan." Among those who signed the letter were two members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee (one of the three panels with principal jurisdiction in the health-reform effort): Bart Stupak of Michigan and Charlie Melancon of Louisiana.

..."If an explicit ban on abortion coverage were imposed, say sources involved in writing the legislation on Capitol Hill, it could have much further-reaching implications than the Hyde Amendment ever did. It could, in fact, have the effect of denying abortion coverage to women who now receive it under their private insurance plans. Nearly 90% of insurers cover abortion procedures, according to a 2002 survey by the Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit organization whose statistics are relied upon by both sides of the abortion debate.

Under the legislation being worked on by three committees in the House, Americans earning up to 400% of the poverty level — $43,000 for an individual; $88,000 for a family of four — would be eligible for government subsidies to help them purchase coverage. But if the antiabortion legislators get their way, those subsidies would have a big string attached; they could not be used to purchase a policy that has abortion coverage. For many women, that would mean giving up a benefit they now have under their private insurance policies. And it would raise all sorts of other questions if insurers were allowed to discriminate among their customers based on whether or not they are using federal dollars to pay for their policies.

[madfloridian]

87. 71% favor including reproductive services such as birth control and abortion as part of health care

"Abortion-rights advocacy groups are pushing back. On July 6, the National Women's Law Center (NWLC) released a poll of 1,000 likely voters conducted by the Mellman Group indicating that 71% favor including reproductive services such as birth control and abortion as part of health reform. The poll also found that 75% believe an independent commission should determine what medical services are covered among the basic benefits offered under health reform. (Congress is also considering giving that power to the Health and Human Services Secretary.) Said NWLC vice president Judy Waxman: "Congress should refrain from practicing medicine and instead let medical professionals determine what health-care services will be included in a benefits package."

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

54. Do many current private insurance policies cover abortion?

Is it terribly expensive to have done?
I've never had to worry about it and don't know anyone who has.

[madfloridian]

55. Don't know the prices.

I know that private insurance covers it for now until the religious right gets done.

Many have had to worry about it.

But it's only them women who should stay home and be barefoot and pregnant. }(

[Horse with no Name]

69. An abortion is anywhere from $300-500

A vaginal delivery is anywhere from $2500-3000 and a C-Section is anywhere from $5500-7000.
This does not include the nursery cost for a normal newborn which can range anywhere from $2000-3000 depending on length of stay.

[ecstatic]

56. Flame away, but a UHP can't pay for everything and still be practical

Money doesn't fall out of the sky. As much as I'd love to have my abortion paid for should I need one, it's just not practical nor is it something the gov't should be on the hook for (unless, of course, in the case of rape or incest).

[madfloridian]

57. Women are expendable.

So it does not surprise me when people do not stand up for their rights.

:shrug:

In the name of Christianity, women are expendable.

[Horse with no Name]

61. Then they shouldn't pay for childbirth.

THAT is much more expensive and also elective.

[ecstatic]

62. I disagree. Once the child comes, s/he is a citizen entitled to care

I'm just saying, if we want the public option to pass we must be realistic. Including abortion would stop everything in its tracks. We can maybe add it on later once we have the program started.

[madfloridian]

63. That is just ridiculous. To cave in like that.

Do we stand for nothing at all now?

[ecstatic]

64. It's not caving in, it's easing our way into a program

which can be modified and improved as we go along. But we have to get the basic groundwork in place first.

[madfloridian]

65. It's caving in and saying women's rights are not important.

I have no respect for anyone who thinks women are inferior and can't make their own decisions.

[katandmoon]

73. You are absolutely right. Abortion is a legal medical procedure. It should be covered. Period.

But I'll be very surprised if it is. Why? Because health insurance companies that participate in the Federal employee health insurance program do not cover abortions for Federal employees.

[katandmoon]

74. Nobody is denying that. Let the parents pay for that care. They're the ones who elected to have the

kid.

[madfloridian]

70. Fantastic blog post about denying women's right in health care.

Proposed Amendments Would Deny Health Care to Women

ear Gentlemen of the Congress:

Excuse us, but have you forgotten about the women in your life? We are waiting for you to deliver quality, affordable health care for all -- as soon as possible, given the economic trials our families are enduring. Instead, some of you are wasting valuable time and taxpayer dollars proposing amendments that would deny health care to women, gays and lesbians, people with HIV and anybody else conservatives don't like!

Imagine our dismay to see the proposed amendments submitted to the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) committee this week by Republican Senators Michael Enzi, Orin Hatch and Tom Coburn:

* Coverage for abortion would be banned;
* Health providers and insurers would be protected against "discrimination" for refusing to provide health care requested by their patients including abortions, emergency contraception, aid-in-dying (such as in Oregon, Washington and Montana, where this is legal) or really just about any health service they find objectionable;
* Federally-qualified health centers could not provide abortions and still get government grants;
* Any independent medical board appointed to determine the benefits that would be included in national health reform coverage would have to include "professional ethicists...with specialty in rights of the life of the unborn."

She doesn't spare Democrats either.

Now, let's turn to you Democrats who are supposedly running Congress. You are spending far too much time trying to win over colleagues who are never going to vote for health reform, no matter if you offer them abortion exclusions or new provider "conscience" laws or other provisions that would hobble health reform. You need to get over your worries that if you support inclusion of a strong public plan in health reform, somebody is going to call you a socialist. Don't forget that women are among the strongest supporters of moving quickly on health reform this year. Why? Women are grassroots experts on what is broken in the current health system.

Insurance plans try to squirm out of covering us when we are having babies by declaring our pregnancies to be "pre-existing conditions." In a lot of states, insurance companies charge us more than men for health coverage, largely because of the costs of having children. They call this "gender rating." We call it discrimination.

If we're not ready to have children, we're also out of luck. Some insurers don't cover contraception. And low-income women have no coverage for abortions in the federal Medicaid program that you're talking about expanding. It's not included in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, either, so let's not make that a model for health reform.

Amen.

Women are not 2nd class citizens.

[Libertas1776]

75. Blue Dog Dems

nothing but sheep in wolves clothing. If these scum derail health care, I will lose any shred of faith I have left in the Democratic Party.

[dflprincess]

76. How very typical of "prolifers"

willing to deny everyone who has been born health care just to push their twisted agenda. I don't suppose it has dawned on any of the idiots that just having access to pre and post natal care might itself help lower the numbers of abortions? - Especially for someone who finds out their child might have physcial problems that would be very difficult to pay for with our existing system.

[iamjoy]

77. What If It Were Medically Necessary

Is what they are considering a provision that would not pay for abortion procedures that are medically necessary? It's bad enough (but understandable) to not cover elective abortions, concerning for those gray areas but downright scary when you consider things like ectopic pregnancies, incomplete miscarriage, mole pregnancies, etc.

[gtar100]

78. Tyranny of a minority group

A majority should not oppress the rights of a minority but a minority should not dictate over the majority. What is it about free will that these fuck-ups don't understand?

[humbled_opinion]

82. LOL I can answer that too

I asked them that question too, the idiots I work with,..... and the answer is simple to them.

We live in a Republic not a democracy, explained as follows just because 51 percent or more of the population wants to do something it can be denied by our leaders because it is not in keeping with the Constitution. Then I got lectured on slavery and how the majority wanted slavery to remain legal but the Republicans fought on the grounds of the Republic that Slavery was unconstitutional... blah, blah....

They use healthcare as an example and state simply, No where in the Constitution does it say that the government will provide heatlh insurance for the people then they counter any questions on that with No hospital rejects patients they care for them then send them a bill the people that can't pay don't, they agree costs are passed down to everyone and they wish that could be addressed by mandating everyone must pay for insurance... I said costs are extreme they said the costs could be pro-rated and subsidized by the government based on a persons income...

and on and on it goes...

LOL I wonder sometimes how I maintain my sanity.

[humbled_opinion]

80. I have talked to Fundies where I work

and they said, "Yep let it pass and we are gonna turn right around and screw them with their own legislation". I said how is that?

Ans: Well as soon as the government is running the healthcare there will be patient compliance standards that will be put in place. Non-compliant patiences may be denied care. When Republicans are in charge again we will bind the issue to Reproductive health i.e., Everyone is given birth Control under the government plan therefore pregnancy must be viewed as a patient who did not comply with Birth Control so their choice was to get pregnant. There will be no abortion option for women who chose to get pregnant.

Yes I work with nut cases, but I understood their point government rules and regulations are only good if the people that enact them have the best interests of the people at heart.

[madfloridian]

81. And you agree that person is right and we should give in?

So they won't overrule in the future?

Confused.

Why bother to win a majority? Why bother to donate money? Why the hell bother if you are going to take their side from the start?

[humbled_opinion]

83. I didn't say I agree I said they are idiots...

I said that it concerns me, thats all. I think it is important that our leaders but in checks to make sure that future administrations cannot use patient compliance standards. I totally reject Patient compliance standards. If the doctor told me to lose 25 pounds and I really couldn't and I tried and tried and then got heart disease and they said to me I can not get a heart transplant because i was a non-compliant patient then I would reject that type of coverage.

[madfloridian]

84. We fight now hard, or they will win. That side fights hard for what they believe.

I don't think you agree with them, but you sounded tentative.

That's what they want.

I am very worried about our even getting any health care reform now at all. The religious right has already started in our party just like K Street.

I want to be wrong.

[liberal_rxstudent]

86. I'm with you...

We should realize that those that we elect are NOT capable of making medical decisions for anyone-- unless of course, they have had training in the respective field...the first guys that come to mind include my beloved Howard Dean and...lol... Dave Weldon and Bill Frist. I may not agree with all positions offered, but surely they realize their colleagues are not in a position to make the determination. Instead of the typical knee jerk reaction when abortion is mentioned, we should be thinking 'hmmm...would I trust my rep to assess my health?' I hope that MOST people would say 'hell no'. **Especially if it was someone like former congressman Dave Weldon or Frist! lol...those guys are always good for lifting the mood. So...I am all for having an apolitical independent group comprised of medical professionals (doctors, nurses, patient advocates...) to work out details regarding what procedures, drugs, exams should be included in the proposed plan.

[BrklynLiberal]

88. So...women's rights are expendable.......?

:mad: :puke: :wtf: :grr: :thumbsdown: