Until these questions are answered we will be confused about the Stupak amendment

[Teramis]

What is a "rider"?
What is "supplemental coverage"?
How much difficult would it be for women using a "rider" to obtain an abortion in comparison to how easy it is to obtain it at the present time?

It seems clear to me, although I may be wrong, that the Stupak amendment does not "ban" abortions for people who would pay them with their own money. However difficult or inconvenient it may be, a woman can resort to this "supplemental" coverage or "rider."

Any debate should revolve around these questions.

[no limit]

1. Do women really pick their plans based on if it covers abortion or not?

Doesnt seem like most women plan on having abortions and having insurance for it seems a bit silly.

[sandnsea]

3. If women (and men) could check a box

and add it for $1-$5 a month, how many would. And let's not forget daughters, and maybe even sons' girlfriends.

[no limit]

7. Does such a box exist?

I don't know, I don't have health insurance. But the idea of having abortion insurance seems absolutely absurd to me (and I am very pro-choice).

[sandnsea]

2. A rider is added to a policy

A supplemental is a separate policy, as in a supplemental Medicare policy.

[Vincardog]

4. Until we realize that this is a back door attempt to overturn Roe V Wade we will be confused

[Junkdrawer]

5. How many women plan ahead for an unexpected pregnancy?

:shrug:

[csziggy]

6. Or complications to a planned and wanted pregnancy?

Women don't plan on either, but either case can arise. And while an unexpected pregnancy or some complications to a pregnancy may not be life threatening, they can put the woman and her partner in a position they are not prepared to deal with emotionally or financially.

No matter the reason, if a woman is not prepared financially to deal with an abortion, how much less will they be prepared to deal with the result of the pregnancy? In the case of a pregnancy with complications, a late abortion can be very expensive, but trying to pay for treatment for a child with severe problems will be so much more devastating.

Why are women the only people who have to fight to keep the government from getting between them and their doctors in this proposed legislation?