Planned Parenthood nails it

[Neecy]

The Reid/Nelson compromise that forces women to separately insure their uterus is simply a ploy to force women to pay out of pocket for a LEGAL medical procedure - IF they can afford it after paying for their mandated insurance coverage.

We're told that women can buy into an 'abortion pool' and separately insure their uterus for $50 a month. But there's no requirement in the bill for any insurer to provide this 'abortion pool' and indeed, given the administrative costs to set up and administer one, it's unlikely that women will even have this demeaning, offensive option.

Planned Parenthood raised this exact issue when they came out over the weekend in opposition to Nelson.

“The Nelson language is essentially an abortion rider. It creates an unworkable system whereby individuals are required to write two separate checks each month, one for abortion care and one for everything else. There is no sound policy reason to require women to pay separately for their abortion coverage other than to try to shame them and draw attention to the abortion coverage. Moreover, it is highly unlikely that insurance companies will be willing to follow such an administratively cumbersome system, leaving tens of millions of women without abortion coverage.

“After the passage of the Stupak amendment in the House, we heard loud and clear from women across the country that they will not stand for the undermining of their rights and their access to benefits. This Nelson abortion check provision will no doubt create the same outrage, as women learn that they are being made second-class citizens when it comes to health care coverage.

Who would have thought that DEMOCRATS would impose the most radical anti-choice legislation since Hyde? So much change and hope my head is spinning!

Perhaps we should change the Democratic Party symbol from a donkey to a broodmare.

[RainDog]

1. This moment is vomit worthy n/t

we live in a disgusting time.

[Nikki Stone1]

2. It had to be the Democrats. The Republicans would never have gotten away with it.

From now on: Any social legislation that makes things worse for people will be passed by Democrats. Any de-escalation of war will be done by Republicans. To get real actions done, you have to go against the party branding. It gives you credibility.

[JHB]

dupe

[JHB]

22. It's not just that...

Another factor is the fact that the the Democratic leadership is once again a bunch of DLCers. They tend to sneer at any "womens' issue" as just another "far left cultural issue" that they'd like to wash their hands of. So no, it's disappointing but not exactly a surprise that they wouldn't put up a fight on this.

[stopbush]

67. So, all of the D women in the Senate and all of the liberal/progressive males in the Senate

are a bunch of DLCers who are sneering at womens' issues? They're ALL voting for this bill, so they must ALL be washing their hands of womens' issues.

Did I get that right?

[tomp]

129. exactly. nt

[xchrom]

3. Recommend

[stopbush]

4. Couldn't disagree more with this screed from Planned Parenthood.

Unlike many on DU, that doesn't mean I'm going to stop donating $ to PP just because I vehemently disagree with them on a single issue. Strip out the SPECULATION and ASSUMPTIONS in the OP and what are you left with? Not much.

[RainDog]

6. This isn't a "single issue." This is about 50% of the American population

getting pissed on by the religious right and the democrats supporting it.

[stopbush]

20. Are woman being denied their right to an abortion by this compromise? No.

Will they still be able to have their abortions paid for by insurance? Yes.

So it all comes down to having to write a separate check each month. And THAT'S worth going to mat over, killing the bill and denying any and all hope of some health care coverage to the 47-million currently uninsured in this country?

My wife is a cancer survivor who can't get insured due to her pre-existing condition. In your world, she needs to make the choice between paying for tens of thousands of dollars of tests and treatments out of her pocket, or more likely, forgoing such tests and treatments, because PP says we need to kill this bill so a woman choosing to have a $400 medical procedure doesn't have to deal with the "shame" of writing a separate check each month for that coverage?

Bullshit.

[Neecy]

24. Did you even read the OP?

Aside from the patronizing, demeaning requirement that women write a separate check to insure their uterus, there is NO requirement that this insurance even be available - and it very likely won't be.

No one is saying that your wife should suffer. We're saying that the abortion issue was negotiated away with NO discussion, NO public debate, handed away in an afternoon with a casual flick of the wrist. NOT ONE PERSON, INCLUDING THE PRESIDENT, fought against this atrocity.

[hfojvt]

128. why wouldn't it be? It sounds very profitable.

For $50 a month you get coverage for a $400 medical procedure.

Here are some stats that google search provided

http://www.guttmacher.org/in-the-know/cost.html

"How much does a surgical abortion cost?

In 2001, the average charge for a surgical abortion at 10 weeks’ gestation was $468; but since most abortions in the United States are performed at low-cost clinics, women on average paid $372 for the procedure. (31)
How much does a medical abortion cost? In 2001, the average charge for a medical abortion was $487. (31)

Who pays for abortions?

Some 74% of women pay for abortions with their own money; 13% of abortions are covered by Medicaid, and 13% are billed directly to private insurance. Some women who pay for the procedure themselves may receive insurance reimbursement later. (31)
Does the U.S. government help poor women who need abortions pay for them?

Congress has barred the use of federal Medicaid funds to pay for abortions, except when the woman’s life would be endangered by a full-term pregnancy, or in cases of rape or incest. As of November 2006, 17 states used their own funds to subsidize abortion for poor women. (38) In actuality, however, about half of these states provide little to no funds to cover these services. (39)"

So, my question is, why would women pay $50 a month to cover a $400 procedure? Instead put the $50 a month in a savings account. Even if you have one abortion per year, you are still $200 ahead.

Maybe you could change your post to "Not one person, including BARBARA BOXER, fought against this atrocity."

[stopbush]

144. Excellent post. But we're dealing with idealogues here for whom any change to

the status quo - no matter how minor in the grand scheme of things - is unacceptable.

[Hello_Kitty]

36. Bullshit backatcha

Spare us the guilt trip. Bart Stupak and Ben Nelson, actual members of Congress with actual votes, were willing to KILL THE ENTIRE BILL if they didn't get to sniff womens' panties. Oh but PP and NARAL are the real villains here because they criticize this odious anti-choice "compromise" in HCR.

Is that SERIOUSLY your argument?

[saracat]

121. Great response +100000

[fascisthunter]

125. .

[BlancheSplanchnik]

133. best reply EVER!

so good it's even above the jocular, "evar"!

[me b zola]

38. Were voters faced with a poll tax denied their rights? Yes

They were able to vote if they payed the poll tax, so why were poll taxes struck down? Because they were unconstitutional hurdles aimed at a group of people to make using their rights more difficult. Stupak-Pitts-Nelson is the same thing.

[stopbush]

40. Not at all an analogy.

Poll taxes were struck down because the right to vote does not allow for money being charged to avail oneself of that right. The right to an abortion is the right to have a medical procedure which does have a cost attached as a medical procedure.

You're saying that it makes it more difficult for a woman to get a legal abortion in this country because she has to write a separate check every month to pay for a portion of her insurance. Do you really consider that a hurdle?

[Neecy]

42. It's a hurdle if that coverage isn't available

Which is the entire point of the OP.

[stopbush]

47. Again, uninsured women currently have NO coverage available to them whatsoever.

That isn't a hurdle. It's a abyss.

[Neecy]

53. So, here's the deal

A woman is now uninsured. If she needs an abortion, perhaps she can scrape up anywhere from $500 on up to pay for her abortion. It's tough, but she might - just might - be able to do it.

So, now she's required by law to purchase insurance. This will probably take up every last bit of disposable income she had. It might cause her to cut back significantly on things like, oh, FOOD 'n stuff. She might come up with the extra money to purchase her uterus insurance, but no one sells it because the Senate bill doesn't require it.

So now she has this high cost, low benefit insurance plan. She now has zero money left over every month. And for whatever reason, she needs an abortion.

Oops! No way to pay for it now! The insurance policy she was forced to buy doesn't cover it. Guess she's the next Democratic broodmare!

This bill was designed for exactly this outcome.

[Hello_Kitty]

56. But hey, her mandatory insurance will cover the childbirth! eom

[stopbush]

60. Is it worth 30-47 million people continuing to have no insurance

to preserve the "right" to not have to write a separate check?

You've yet to opine on the consequences to the uninsured for following your line of reasoning. I would appreciate your weighing in now. Let those of us without insurance know exactly where you stand on OUR rights to health insurance. As of now, I'm assuming your position is that we uninsured can all fuck off as long as currently insured women can be spared the shame of writing a separate check.

Thanks in advance for your response.

[Hello_Kitty]

63. Apparently it was worth it to Stupak and Nelson

Who actually have a vote in Congress and actually did threaten to kill the entire bill over abortion, and whom you (and the rest of the HCR pom pom squad in both the blogosphere and the MSM) have yet to criticize.

You are asking me to respond to hypotheticals (as I and others on DU have no ability to affect the passage of legislation) when I am presenting you with the FACT that Stupak and Nelson (and a handful of other conserva-Dems) really did threaten to KILL THE ENTIRE BILL.

Respond to that or STFU and go away.

[stopbush]

66. So, you weigh in on the hypotheticals presented in the PP article, but

you don't have the guts to tell us how you feel about the fate of the currently uninsured.

Nice dodge. Cowardly, but nice.

[Neecy]

68. Yes, we know it's all about you

And if you think this bill is going to significantly help you, or keep the insurance industry from plundering you like a pirate, be my guest. I'll check in with you in a couple of years.

[stopbush]

72. Me and 47-million others who have no insurance.

Your point?

[Hello_Kitty]

88. In 2012 his situation will not be better.

Nothing much kicks in until 2014.

[Hello_Kitty]

84. Why didn't you ask Stupak and Nelson the same question?

Once again, and I feel like I'm talking to a 3 year old here, those guys had, and have, the actual power to kill the bill and they were willing to use that power to kill the bill. Did you at any time contact either of those legislators to ask why they were willing to scuttle HCR over abortion? Did any of the HCR cheerleaders in the blogosphere or MSM take Nelson and Stupak to task over it? Funny how Joe and Ezra and Paul and Nate the others have plenty so say about Dr. Dean and the "batshit crazy" (as Nate described us) Left and our criticisms but nothing to say about Stupak and Nelson being actual obstructionists.

[stopbush]

57. You conveniently omit the FACT that such a person would get SUBSIDIES from

the Feds to purchase that insurance.

Figure that in your equation, then get back to me with your revised thoughts.

BTW - as one who "had to scrape together" the $ to pay for an abortion at a time when we were pretty poor, I am certainly aware of the challenges facing people who are uninsured and poor and who need to pay for an abortion entirely out of pocket. At least it was "only" $400 at the time for that procedure. At least it wasn't the cancer my wife later developed that cost over $20,000 to treat. At least we had insurance when that one hit. I can't imagine if I had been asked to "scrape together" $20,000. Most likely, we would have foregone the treatments...or been saddled with debt for the rest of our lives, just like millions of Americans are right now because they have no insurance.

I guess that for you, the "deal" is that those uninsured will just have to buck up because it's more important to preserve the "right" to write a single check for your insurance each month.

[Hello_Kitty]

59. The majority of people who file bankruptcy due to medical bills HAD insurance

The chart that 24 year old blogger Ezra Klein put up and that so many DUers are crowing about shows that working class families will STILL be out of pocket a huge amount, and they're the ones getting the most subsidies. Oh but they'll paying less than under the status quo, so the bankruptcy can be forestalled a year or two.

[Neecy]

61. I've already figured it

Even with subsidies, it's going to take every bit of her disposable income to pony up her hard-earned money to our wealthy insurance overlords. I'm not talking about someone living way below the poverty line - I'm talking about a young woman making barely enough to pay her rent, a car payment, and for food. LOTS of people are living right on the edge as it is, and this mandated insurance will put them right over a cliff.

And, as I've said to you again and again - THERE'S ABSOLUTELY NOTHING IN THIS BILL THAT REQUIRES AN INSURER TO EVEN OFFER UTERUS COVERAGE. NOT ONE GODDAMN THING. The $50 uterus insurance is a complete sham, a fig leaf. You completely overlook this issue as continue to drone about this fairy-tale coverage.

[stopbush]

69. Could you provide a link to a source that gave you all of those figures?

I'd be interested in reading the details and better understanding your point, especially the $50 uterus insurance.

Thanks in advance for your kind assistance.

[Neecy]

74. Here's a copy of the bill

I've read it. Have you?

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/11/reid-unveils-text-of-senate-health-care-bill.php

[stopbush]

81. If I had read it, I wouldn't have asked for the source, would I?

But thanks for providing it. I just downloaded the pdf. Wow. 2074 pages. You really read the whole thing? I will certainly take a look. Are there any pages/sections I should focus in on?

Thanks again for your input.

[PinkyisBlue]

124. I don't know you, but I disagree with you on this issue.

Women have fought long and hard to make their own reproductive choices, and the right to a safe and legal abortion has been attacked from the beginning: doctors' have been targeted, picketed and shot, women's health clinics have been picketed and bombed, restrictions have been placed on where and when a woman may have an abortion. As a result, fewer doctors perform abortions in fewer places, thereby decreasing a woman's reproductive choices. Now, they are attempting to make it unaffordable for low-income women to pay for an abortion by not requiring insurance companies to cover the procedure. It's just one more way they are chipping away at it.

We all feel sorry for you and your wife and hope she is able to receive appropriate medical care. But you are confusing two separate issues. The lack of health care available to people has nothing to do with an underhanded attempt to further decrease a woman's access to a legal medical procedure. The people you should be angry with are the Senators who have demanded that abortion rights (or lack of them) be tied to a health insurance bill; they are separate issues. You are reacting as they want you to react: to be angry with those who want a legal procedure covered by insurance rather than with the Senators who are manipulating your emotions.

I have never had an abortion and will never have one (I'm too old), but I still want it to be available and affordable for any woman who needs it.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

135. the OTHER best post in this thread.

never had one and past that issue now anyway, but it's the same for me -- no woman should be enslaved by her biology.

[PinkyisBlue]

147. Thank you--I agree with you.

[stopbush]

145. You are misrepresenting the issue my making up facts.

You wrote: "they are attempting to make it unaffordable for low-income women to pay for an abortion by not requiring insurance companies to cover the procedure."

That is simply not true. The Nelson Compromise allows insurers to continue to pay for abortions. It just requires that the woman write a separate check for the portion of her insurance premium dedicated to covering abortions.

[PinkyisBlue]

146. I stand by my statements.

Even you admit "The Nelson Compromise allows insurers to continue to pay for abortions." It allows but doesn't require; if insurance companies cover other legal medical procedures, they should be required to cover abortion as well. And why should a woman have to write a separate check for a rider to cover abortions? Who knows when they will need an abortion? A person doesn't write a separate check for a rider to cover a hip replacement or heart surgery, so why abortion? It's a legal procedure and should be covered, period.

[stopbush]

148. Oh, please. Insurance companies are allowed to pick and choose what procedures

they will cover or not cover right now.

Health insurers aren't required to cover anything. They generally cover things because to not cover them would mean that they'd be less competitive in the marketplace. Why choose BC/BS over Aetna if Aetna covers heart surgery or chiropractic or whatever but BC/BS doesn't? It's simple capitalism at work. My insurance - which I lost in October - wouldn't pay for physical therapy. The insurance I had at my previous job did. Different companies, different coverage.

Why do you think recession is an issue right now? It's because insurance policies say they'll cover something, you come down with that condition and they throw you off the insurance for getting the condition they supposedly covered. At this point in time, the government won't even step in and force an insurer to cover a condition they promised they'd cover as supposedly guaranteed by contract with a customer.

But I'm game. Please present a list of legal medical procedures that the US government requires all health insurance providers to cover. Maybe I'll learn something.

[PinkyisBlue]

149. I don't know how much capitalism is at work when most areas of the country

are controlled by only one or two insurance companies. If capitalism is so prevalent in the health insurance industry, why did the companies spend millions of dollars lobbying to eradicate any public option? According to you, they should be embracing the public option in the name of capitalism.

I believe you were wrong to play the sympathy card regarding your family's lack of health insurance coverage; your anger is targeted at the wrong people--you should be angry at the Senators who are trying to undermine coverage for abortions in a backhanded way by pairing it with health insurance reform.

Why should a woman have to pay a rider for abortion coverage in the event it is needed? Maybe an overwt, middle-aged person should pay extra for a rider for cardiac surgery in case he/she ever needs it. Maybe an elderly person should pay extra for a rider for hip replacement surgery. Why single out abortion? It's still a legal medical procedure.

[stopbush]

152. Please provide the list of procedures that the Feds REQUIRE insurance companies

to cover. That is central to your argument that they would not require insurers to cover abortions.

Once you've provided that, we can continue our chat.

BTW - one simple fact about abortion: it will remain a political football in this country until the day that the underlying reason for opposing choice is addressed and eliminated. That reason is the Christian religion. There is no reason whatsoever to oppose a woman's right to choice outside of religious beliefs. And that is to say that the reason to oppose abortion rights for women is based on FANTASY, not reality, because religious beliefs are fantasy - not reality - based.

As the chances of the scourge of Christianity being eradicated in this country any time soon are nil, we are forced to deal with abortion as a political football. We are forced to engage the issue as a political GAME. In doing so, we would be wise to distinguish ploys from strategies, and weigh our responses appropriately. The Nelson dust up is a ploy, a ploy designed to get Ds to scuttle their own health reform by taking the bait and making a mountain over what is in the abortion debate a molehill. Those advocating going to the mat on this silly and insignificant ploy - equating it to the overturning of Roe v Wade - do the work of the Christianistas for them. In effect, giving the Rs a victory without their firing a single shot.

[stopbush]

160. Earth to Pinky Is Blue: where'd ya go?

I'm STILL waiting for your list of medical procedures that the Feds REQUIRE insurance companies cover.

:shrug: :popcorn: :beer:

[FLDCVADem]

155. Insurance companies aren't required to cover abortion now

unless there are individual state laws that mandate it.

No fewer women are going to have their abortions paid for after this bill is enacted than now. Congress tried an end-run around Hyde and got caught.

[me b zola]

58. Yes, it is a hurdle aimed to prevent women from accessing health care

And many of the poll "taxes" were not demands of money, but non-monetary hurdles such as tests. Those too were struck down. Same should happen to Stupak-Pits-Nelson and Hyde for that matter.

[FLDCVADem]

154. Wrong

Women have the constitutional right to access abortion services. We don't have a constitutional right to have insurance or the government pay for it.

Poll tax/abortion rider is apples/oranges

[dana_b]

50. if you are in the lower income bracket

it is the same as being denied - don't you get that? Not everyone has the money for it. And no - the insurance companies are not going to have to cover it!!

[Tailormyst]

65. The ins want to cover it- it is cheaper then a pregnancy

The law would forbid them from covering it, even if they want to.

An abortion costs far less then a pregnancy and the raising of a child.

[FLDCVADem]

156. Absolutely untrue

This bill does not forbid insurance companies from offering abortion coverage.

[omega minimo]

116. It codifies women as The Other, a non-Normal with a Uterus that requires separate but UNEQUAL

treatment.

You need to think this one through a bit better.

[MrMickeysMom]

123. No one should have to write a separate check for such conditions...

The whole idea of insurance reform ensures that cancer and other conditions will continue to drive people into bankruptcy.

THAT'S WRONG.

[unapatriciated]

139. under this bill your wife may still be denied until 2014

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7289554

1. Pre-Exisiting Condition Exclusion: The legislation bars insurers immediately from denying coverage to children based on a pre-existing condition. However, they are still free to do it to adults until 2014. Besides being a blatant exception to immediate consumer protections, this one is a true head-scratcher. Except for expensive risk pools, adults in the individual insurance market with pre-existing conditions have nowhere to go until 2014. Yet the coverage mandate begins in the 2013 tax year. So what are folks supposed to do in 2013? Take out a second mortgage to pay for health plan coverage that won't cover their pre-existing conditions (the risk pool requires going bare for 6 months, activating a 12-month pre-exisiting condition coverage exclusion) or pay a fine, just because lawmakers wanted a better CBO score?
http://healthcare.change.org/blog/view/7_features_in_the_new_filibuster-proof_senate_healthcare_bill

This bill needs to be fixed and there needs to be a strong public option now. We can not depend on it being added later.
The insurance companies always find a way around pre-existing clauses.
California enacted really tough laws in the early 90's. My insurance company still managed to deny and delay treatment for my son over and over again during his 15 year battle with Dermatomyositis. This left him permanently disabled and almost took his life three times

[RainDog]

9. oh, and btw... "screed?"

planned parenthood is on your list of "bad" organizations?

what's on your list of good ones? The Saddleback supports genocide against gays wing of the democratic party?

[stopbush]

25. Yeah, I donate $ to PP because they're on my "bad" list.

Do you even bother reading the posts of others, or does your seeing red blind your ability to comprehend?

As far as Saddleback, I'm an atheist who says fuck all religions.

As far as gays, I donate $ to gay causes as well. I worked to stop Prop 8 here in CA. Beyond that, I see no reason to list my D bona fides to you.

You need to ask yourself why YOU jump to such idiotic conclusions about others simply because they disagree with you on a singe issue - like writing a separate check for a portion of one's health insurance, as this compromise requires.

[RainDog]

27. I took issue with the word, "screed."

and, yes, 50% of the population should not be treated as second-class citizens because of their anatomy.

[stopbush]

34. Sorry if I used the word inappropriately.

This Nelson Compromise is far less odious than the Hyde Amendment. That's the piece of legislative shit we should be working to repeal, as it's repeal would also negate the Nelson deal.

Look, I would prefer this nonsense be stripped out of the bill, but it won't be at this point in the process. If the choice is between killing this bill and passing it with the Nelson shit, then I say pass it. Kill the bill and the Ds go down in flames as well as any chance to revisit the health issue for the next 20 years. Pass it with the Nelson shit attached and steps can be taken to strip the anti-woman stuff out at a later date. I'm up for that battle. I just prefer to live to fight it another day, not on the backs of the 47-million who don't have insurance right now (a large number of whom are women, women who aren't concerned about having to write a separate check to an insurer to cover an abortion, because they will be paying 100% out of pocket for an abortion today and in the foreseeable future because they have no insurance whatsoever).

Those 47-million are already being treated as second-class citizens. I'd like to see that end.

[debbierlus]

15. I see. Women's health and reproductive rights are a okay bargaining chip for you

Because it is a single issue

And, it is okay with you that women's health and reproductive choice are offered up as a means of 'compromise'...

Got it.

[stopbush]

21. See my post #20.

[Tailormyst]

18. Whoa

This isn't some fucking bargaining chip. This is womens lives and women's bodies.

[stopbush]

46. Yet you seem ready and willing to accept the killing of this bill over this issue,

an action whose consequences would include continuing to deny any health care insurance whatsoever to the 20-million or so women in this country who pay all of the medical expenses out of pocket right now, including abortions.

In essence, you are ready to use those 20-million women as your bargaining chip, a bargaining chip that you would happily discard by killing this bill as long as it meant that women who DO have insurance wouldn't have to write a separate check every month. Have I got that right?

Sounds "progressive" to me.

[Hello_Kitty]

52. Who here has the power to kill the bill?

I seriously doubt that Stupak and Nelson read DU, and they're the ones who had the power to kill the bill and, in fact, threatened to do just that.

But you're totally willing to capitulate to them and don't have a word of criticism for it. Oh heavens no! We mustn't say mean things about Stupak and Nelson, who are being principled public servants when they threaten an entire bill over wanting to sniff panties uh I mean save baybeez.

[stopbush]

64. You don't read much, do you.

My posts in this thread have criticized this amendment. I have had nothing to say in praise or defense of Stupak and Nelson. Ex: "This Nelson Compromise is far less odious than the Hyde Amendment. That's the piece of legislative shit we should be working to repeal, as it's repeal would also negate the Nelson deal. Look, I would prefer this nonsense be stripped out of the bill, but it won't be at this point in the process. " And, "would you replace a D with an R who will be a Ben Nelson On Steroids when it comes to womens issues?"

It that's not criticizing Nelson, then I don't understand English.

You're allowed to make shit up to demean others, but it doesn't work so well when the evidence to put the lie to your words is just a few posts north.

[Hello_Kitty]

70. No, that's not what I'm talking about.

Right out of the gate, you criticized Planned Parenthood for a "screed" and people who agree with their statement of being "single issue". You went on to wag your finger at guilt trip people who have no power whatsoever to pass or kill a bill. You and the rest of the pom-poms have been excoriating Howard Dean and other non-politicians for daring to criticize the bill, and especially this odious anti-choice provision for weeks now but have been strangely silent on Stupak and Nelson, who are the reason we're even having this discussion.

And I did a search on your posts on Stupak and Nelson. The ones at the top of the search page are of you essentially defending the amendment. No, an argument starting with "I don't like it and I think it should be stripped out but here's why it's not such a big deal...." is not criticism. It's defending it.

[stopbush]

77. Now, that is the lamest of your reponses.

I donate to PP and I'll be damned if you're going to tell me I'm not allowed to criticize them when I disagree with them. Screw that.

And, really, you defend your assertion in your post #55 that I haven't criticized Nelson by limiting your reading of my posts to "the ones at the top of the search page?" I'd point out that your post making the assertion came at the BOTTOM of the search page.

I get better excuses from my 12-year-old daughter.

[Tailormyst]

87. Thank you

You said what I wanted to without losing your temper, something I don't think I can do anymore today. I just can't believe I am seeing people on a progress, liberal dem board who are defending the whittling away of womens reproductive rights.

[BrklynLiberal]

82. Holy crap..what a surprise...

As long as the women can afford to pay for their own abortions, no problem.

But for the poor women..toooooooo baaaaaaaaaaaaaaad....

No..this is not discrimination...or a denial of rights.

:puke:

[FLDCVADem]

157. No denial of rights

No one has the right to abortion paid for by someone else.

[AndyA]

5. Perhaps we should change the Democratic Party symbol from a donkey to a broodmare.

Or, perhaps an erect male appendage. Last I heard, Viagra and Cialis is still covered for men.

The contrast between how men and women are treated is stunning, to say the least, and discriminatory based on sex, too.

[Sparkly]

11. Hah!!

:thumbsup:

[BrklynLiberal]

Old saying, "If men got pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament."

[Lorien]

112. Indeed. Just bring up Viagia around here and you'll hear "Oh, but that's

an important medical NECESSITY"! :grr:

[Hello_Kitty]

7. It's slut shaming

And Stupak and Nelson are panty-sniffing perverted religiously insane freaks.

[debbierlus]

16. Exactly - that is worthy of its own post Kitty!

[Missy Vixen]

23. After all, any woman who has sex at all is a slut, isn't she?

Nice to know that Stupak and Nelson have such high opinions of women, period.

:mad:

Great post, Kitty.

[Tailormyst]

28. Unless of course, in the words of Nelson she was the victim of a "forced rape"

Whatever the fuck THAT means.

I seriously hate these anti-choice jackasses.

[Missy Vixen]

44. Does Nelson know that all rapes are "forced"?

I hate explaining the basics of Sex Ed to elected officials that should know better.

Then again, maybe he's never had sex. That would explain a lot of things, wouldn't it?

:sarcasm:

[Hello_Kitty]

95. It was Stupak who wanted the "forcible" language in the amendment

Really pushed for it in the committee, from what I understand. But I'm sure Nelson agrees with him.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

26. Sluts should never be shamed.

[Jamastiene]

31. I agree.

:evilgrin:

[stopbush]

35. Your language in this post serves to empower the Stupak's & Nelson's of the world.

You can do better.

[Hello_Kitty]

41. Fuck off with the concern trolling

It's people like YOU who embolden the anti-choicers because YOU treat them as though are operating in good faith and are so willing to compromise with them.

Newsflash: Every, and I mean every, legislative victory the forced birthers achieve puts them one step closer to their ultimate goal of banning abortion AND contraception.

Get it through your head that they don't give a shit about teh baybeez. They want to punish people, women especially, for having sex.

[stopbush]

51. I take it back. You aren't able to do any better.

The points of your lecture are duly noted and taken. You haven't said anything that all of us didn't already know.

[Hello_Kitty]

55. Several posts in and still not a whiff of criticism from you for Nelson and Stupak.

Who actually DID threaten to use their considerable power to scuttle the entire bill over abortion.

Oh no, you just keep pushing Rahm's talking points about how Howard Dean and Planned Parenthood and the dirty hippies are the bad guys.

[stopbush]

71. See my post #34, which precedes your post #55.

It helps to read what's already been posted before posting anew.

[Hello_Kitty]

76. That doesn't cut it.

Once again: Stupak and Nelson threatened to kill the entire bill over abortion and your response is basically to give them whatever they want, while you explain to us ladies why the abortion amendment isn't really that bad. If it's no big deal, why were Stupak and Nelson willing to kill the whole bill over it?

[Jamastiene]

85. You make a very valid point.

There can be no good answer to that question, because it cuts to the core of the problem. Great question!

[stopbush]

91. So, it's all about what YOU accept as opposition, not whether or not I've expressed opposition,

which I have.

It's all a matter of degree.

I understand that. It's the basic argument I've been making in this thread since the beginning, ie: to what degree are you and others prepared to go to deny 47-million Americans a shot at health care to avoid the shame of having to write an extra check every month?

BTW - if Nelson was willing to kill the bill over abortion, why did he accept a compromise that the RW is now saying is a backdoor effort to overturn Hyde?

Further BTW - while I may not have expressed *to your satisfaction* my belief that this compromise is bad (I used the word "shit"), I do believe it is bad. Were there no future remedy available to strip or outright kill this language, that would be one thing. But there are myriad courses of action that can and WILL be taken in the future to strip this out. Hell, Obama could issue a signing statement negating this compromise if he so desires.

I hope you don't think that abortion has suddenly become a political football. It is and has been so for decades. This is just the latest game being played, and it's a deadly serious game. I give our Senate Ds credit for not biting on this issue at this time, striking a compromise that provides a way around the Nelson proviso that is simple and workable. If the alternative was to kill the bill, then we'd all lose.

You and others would do well to think of this as an opportunity to gain back abortion rights that have been given away over the years. The Right realizes this right now. Ds will take a little longer to figure it out, especially Ds at DU who don't think with a long term strategy in mind.

The Nelson Compromise is a Trojan Horse that is going to bite the anti-choice crowd in the balls. In the meantime, we need to pass this bill to lay the foundation for the good that it promises, not the ills people hypothesis about.

[Hello_Kitty]

100. So it's 12th dimension chess now. eom

[stopbush]

103. Nope. Just Politics 101. eom

[bvar22]

105. Its NOT 47 MIllion,

..AND its NOT denying them Health Care.

This bill I'm OPPOSING does NOT provide Health Care, or even access TO Health Care.

It FORCES those 30 Million to PURCHASE a bogus High Deductible, low yearly CAP policy that MOST will NOT be able to afford to use. It provides some subsidies to purchase those policies, which MUST then be given DIRECTLY to the For Profit Health Insurance Cartel.

This is nothing more than a SCAM to transfer Public Wealth directly to the pockets of the For Profit Private Sector.

I don't believe that buying yachts and Summer Homes in Aspen for the CEOs of the Health Insurance Cartel is the proper way to use Public Money, but YOU are entitled to your opinion.

If you believe that this bill is going to get you "Health Care", there is a bridge in Alaska that is For Sale.

[Neecy]

109. lol

Now you're trying to sell the Nelson compromise as some big victory for choice. A neat-o 'opportunity'.

Astounding. You really must think we're terminally stupid or endlessly gullible.

[dflprincess]

114. The bill will leave 23 million people uninsured by 2019

http://www.startribune.com/business/79720077.html?elr=KArksUUUoDEy3LGDiO7aiU

Not to mention the millions that will be uninsured. Michael Moore might as well start working on the sequel to "Sicko" now.

[glitch]

101. +gazillion. loathsome creeps. nt

[Lorien]

113. Exactly. nt

[mimitabby]

8. now you're insulting horses

It's a sad day indeed.

[debbierlus]

10. And, yet there are people all over this board today lecturing why we must pass this atrocity

It is grotesque.

[Tailormyst]

29. yes- it is

it's infuriating to see it minimized as some pet project that some pushy women keep insisting on.

[Horse with no Name]

12. It is QUITE ridiculous when you think about it

but the language PERPETUATES the notion that women use abortions as recreational contraception--an old--and very tired--myth from the right wing.
The MAJORITY of women who need these services are NOT repeat customers--in fact, can you imagine trying to purchase such a policy?
The RW insurance companies would choose NOT to sell them OR they would be priced out of the market--another backdoor attempt at restricting these services.
Sure it is legal--but many women in need have trouble scraping together the money for the procedure--and could ill afford additional insurance premiums or traveling to far away places to have the procedure performed.
What these fuckers want--is a "scarlet letter". A woman who buys an abortion policy is a woman who would have one. Easy to target THAT.
Not only that, but that "rider" would be attached to everything else with a social security number--thus making "these bad women" targets in the workplace (since you have to report any additional coverage to your employer for group coverage).
This is insane.
Coming from "democrats"? Well, it is making me rethink my political affiliations.

[Tailormyst]

30. You hit the nail on the head

[suffragette]

62. Scarlet A -Only now A stands for abortion.

And these separate records will be in some searchable database.

Very easy to target.

Separate is not and has never been equal.

This is atrocious.

[NoSheep]

83. Excellent post!

[BrklynLiberal]

86. Excellent, well stated point!!!

[Hello_Kitty]

90. I know! "Yes, I'll take the Extra Slut Coverage, please"

And people on DU are defending it and acting like living breathing women are seriously going to purchase such a thing. Even more ironically, the women who would be most likely to use this "coverage" would be the least likely to buy it. Young women (late teens/early 20s) and women in their 40s (who often think they are no longer fertile and stop using contraception) are 2 biggest groups who have insurance.

[AzDar]

13. K & R

(with a heavy heart)

[Ian David]

14. Let's call it a Vagina Tax. n/t

[RainDog]

19. thank you. I did. n/t

[Tailormyst]

17. Again they have nailed it.

Shame on everyone who is supporting the Nelson amendment against the rights of women.

[Jamastiene]

32. The thought that some creepy, dirty old man in Nebraska

is thinking about my uterus is sickening. :puke:

The idea that we should just accept this and not complain at all is even more sickening. :puke:

[Neecy]

33. Exactly.

Taking exception to it is 'single issue' around here, doncha know?

Funny how the single issues are piling up, aren't they? Women's reproductive rights, GLBT rights, organized labor, anti-war advocates, those who believe in economic justice...

[stopbush]

37. Nothing wrong complaining, but that isn't the issue.

The issue is - do you kill this entire bill over the provisions of the Nelson compromise?

Well?

[Neecy]

39. That is not the issue.

The issue is - this is how the Democratic party sells out one of it's most longstanding, loyal group of voters. And it was all done to hand billions of public and private dollars to the insurance industry.

I won't forget this, nor will millions of women. Perhaps that is the 'issue' that should concern you.

[Wildewolfe]

45. Here's an idea.. and I guarantee it will restore abortion funding.

Mandate every male in the country have their DNA recorded and that they have insurance to cover reproductive accidents. Put no privacy laws on it, make it public record.

Abortion funding will be back in immediately.

[Tailormyst]

48. Bingo !

[Neecy]

49. I love it!

[stopbush]

92. Will never happen, so what's the point?

Engaging in such daydreams do nothing and mean nothing at this stage of the legislative process.

[Wildewolfe]

98. does it matter?

All significant legislative change start as dreams... daydreams... fancies of imagination.

The day we forget that we lose the legacy of MLK. remember "I have a dream"? That wasn't so terribly long ago. We lose the legacy of the founding fathers, and all those that have dared to dream in the face of opposition ever since.

My post was meant as a jab at those who make decisions for other people when they don't even have the same internal organs and particularly for those with things to lose "hush things up" by whatever means necessary. In short the hypocrits. Dreaming of a little responsibility comming home to roost on them isn't such a bad dream, as dreams go.

[stopbush]

104. This ship has sailed on the current HCR legislation.

You may dream, but your dream will need to wait until some later date to become actionable.

Your writing that "Abortion funding will be back in immediately" if your "dream" was adopted indicates that you see your dream as something that is worth pressing for in the legislation currently under consideration (ie: where abortion funding is being compromised).

And just to be clear, your dream for this CURRENT bill is to, "Mandate every male in the country have their DNA recorded and that they have insurance to cover reproductive accidents. Put no privacy laws on it, make it public record."

That ain't gonna happen.

[stopbush]

54. And when you sit home next election, or choose to vote for an R instead of a D,

thereby replacing a D with an R who will be a Ben Nelson On Steroids when it comes to womens issues, you'll be able to tell the rest of us how you showed those Ds. Or maybe you'll choose to throw your vote away on some glib Independent candidate, electing more women-hating Rs to office in the process.

Hey, it's a free country.

[Neecy]

78. I will remind you

That not even Bush and his rubber stamp GOP Congress passed anything this radical on the issue of choice.

No, it took a Democratic House, a Democratic Senate, and a Democratic President to pass it.

[Hello_Kitty]

89. Thank you. Stupak and Nelson have Ds by their names

C Street godbags, the both of them.

[stopbush]

93. False argument.

To do so, bushco would have had to take up the whole issue of health reform, which they did not.

And, by limiting your outrage to "obvious and specific things bushco did to attack women as it relates to choice/writing another check to cover abortion insurance," you ignore the myriad radical attacks bushco made on the Constitution and the rights of every single American.

What need had bushco of single-issue attacks when they could attack globally?

BTW - only the House bill has passed at this time. The Senate bill hasn't passed. The bills have not gone to conference and the president hasn't signed anything.

You're an intelligent person, but your singular passion blinds you.

[Hello_Kitty]

94. And you are a patronizing, condescending pedant.

You're an intelligent person, but your singular passion blinds you.

"You silly ladies and your silly preoccupation with your rights, with your single issue screeds."

Jesus god, liberal dudes can be even more insufferable than their RW brethren at times.

[stopbush]

97. Written by the person tossing around terms like "slut" like there's no tomorrow

[Hello_Kitty]

99. What?

Do you really not understand the context in which I'm using the word slut?

Really?

[stopbush]

102. The world needs pendantry. It's the way legislation gets done when dreams collide with politics.

And that's always the case, whether you realize it or not.

[Hello_Kitty]

107. So reproductive rights are a "dream" now. eom

[stopbush]

111. What reproductive right does this legislation take away?

[Horse with no Name]

118. ACCESS.

It takes away access.
Are you daft? Do you understand that even if something is legal--if there are so many hurdles in the way of having a legal procedure performed--it makes it unobtainable?
What good is it to make something legal but take away access except for the very wealthy?
I will tell you.
It isn't any good at all.
The states ALREADY put up so many roadblocks...now the federal government is going to toss in a few more.
It reeks.
And...it is a dealbreaker.

[stopbush]

141. How is access taken away by requiring that a woman write a separate check

to her health provider every month if she wants abortion covered?

How does this make abortion unobtainable?

How does this limit access to the wealthy?

How does writing a check to your private insurer involve your state and the Feds putting up hurdles?

How is it a "hurdle" to write two checks a month instead of one check a month for health care? Aren't you already writing a separate check to cover your dental insurance? Aren't you already writing a separate check to cover a supplemental insurance plan like AFLAC? Aren't you already writing separate checks to cover every other insurance you carry, like life, auto and homeowners insurance?

Let's be clear - the Nelson Compromise does NOT make abortion illegal. The Nelson Compromise does NOT make it illegal for your insurer to cover abortion procedures. It DOES require that you write a separate check to your insurer for the coverage. That's the compromise in a nutshell.

Ideally, this compromise would be stripped out of the bill. Realistically, it's not worth going to the mat over at this point, killing the bill entirely and denying access to health insurance to 30-million Americans who are currently without insurance. We're better off passing the bill as is and revisiting the Nelson Compromise at a later date.

You consider it a deal breaker. I cant' and I don't.

BTW - have you stopped to consider the upsides to the Nelson Compromise? It will force insurers to say how much $ a month of an insurance policy goes towards covering abortion. Let's say it's $25. A woman could elect not to pay that to her insurance company and start her own fund. In a little over a year, she'd have enough money saved to pay for an abortion out of pocket. In the meanwhile, women who could not become pregnant (age, hysterectomy, etc) would not have to pay that $25 a month. They would in effect be getting a $300 a year savings on their health premiums. The same applies to men. There are unintended consequences to the Nelson Compromise that will benefit many people in the long run. In fact, I'd think that the insurance companies would be very much against what this compromise could mean for their businesses' bottom line.

Or, we can lose this huge battle in the war by sticking to our status quo way of going about our progressive business.

We need to be the stick that bends with the wind once in a while.

[JackDragna]

106. Don't despair.

The vast majority of liberal men find the lack of support for women's health issues in Congress disgusting. I'm one of them, and every one I know has no tolerance for it, either. The very essence of liberalism, to me, is to tear down any institution that sets any group as second-class citizens. This is one of them.

[Horse with no Name]

117. I think they will be in a surprise come election time

This time I think they have beaten their loyal dog one time too many.
It's not going to come running to the door to meet them and lick the same hands that have always inflicted the pain on the poor animal, just like it always does.
Instead, it will most likely be cowered in the corner.

[Jamastiene]

80. Work on it and make it better.

It's do or die now. The writing is already on the wall. The only thing that CAN be done now is fix it...possibly.

Sperm make babies too. Make it equal. Separate insurance policies for male reproductive organs as well. Or take the anti-choice part out.

[Greyhound]

43. Unfortunately, most of us are too stupid to see this scheme for what it is. n/t

:kick: & R

[bobbolink]

73. Just think... Focus On The Family will be writing two checks.

:rofl:

Some days, you just gotta find the humor...

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

75. Well, you know that PP is nothing but a leftist fringe group who hates Obama. K&R

[jonnyblitz]

115. the new koolaid kids' term for us is "Utopian Liberals"

rush limbaugh taught them well.

[BrklynLiberal]

79. Great post!! Thanks.

[Odin2005]

96. Abortion is a medical procedure. the Stupak and Hyde BS is disgusting.

[hayu_lol]

108. This bill, if passed...

will open the door to the 'back alley' abortionists and in the case of poor women, the self-induced coathanger methods. Means that the deaths and injuries that women suffered over the historic past will start climbing again.

My gawd we are a backward country.

[FLDCVADem]

158. What are poor women doing for abortions now?

Nothing is changing under this bill that affects poor women, so if the bill will make them resort to back-alley abortions, is that what's happening now?

[phasma ex machina]

110. Either that or a "brood burro."

[Solly Mack]

119. K&R

[Hippo_Tron]

120. Can't we simply offer to have separate votes on these issues?

Whether one is pro-choice or pro-life, we need to recognize that there are issues of life and death beyond abortion. I certainly don't expect PP to put their gun down when Stupak and Nelson have theirs raised but I wish both sides could agree to save the abortion debate for a separate occasion and focus on just passing health care.

[saracat]

122. Planned parenthood rocks K+R!

[fascisthunter]

126. Planned Parenthood just got another Donation

we are coming for you anti-abortionists. You should never have started this war... you will lose.

[havocmom]

127. Planned Parenthood misses one essential aspect: it is more class warfare

People in a more comfortable income bracket will have no problem coming up with a spare $50 per month. Those already struggling will be SOL

And one wonders why males will not be required to foot half the bill for 'abortion care' premiums, seems as how they have half the ingredients necessary for pregnancy.

Is there gonna be requirement for separate male reproductive health policies?

It's gender AND class warfare. They keep us at each other's throats lest we rise up together and force some economic justice.

[pleah]

130. K&R

[Bette Noir]

131. The horse you've pictured is facing wrong way 'round.

[Horse with no Name]

151. You're wrong.

To get THAT view, you would have to look in the mirror.

[freedom fighter jh]

132. I wonder if choosing the abortion rider would push a woman's other premium down.

I was working for the federal gov't when the Hyde amendment, banning the use of federal funds for abortion, came in.

The result of removing this service from health care plans was an increase in premiums.

It was a long time ago. Perhaps I do not remember correctly.

[gorfle]

134. This is not about insuring uteruses.

This is NOT about insuring uteruses.

Your uterus will be insured just fine for health problems concerning your uterus.

What some people don't want taxpayer dollars spent on is abortion.

Trying to couch abortion as a uterus health issue is disingenuous.

[Neecy]

137. Well, I'd love to pick and choose where my tax dollars go as well

I'd love to be able to designate that my tax dollars don't go to war. Or to massive bank bailouts. Or to 'faith based' crap. Or to the NSA that spies on American citizens. Or to Blackwater.

But it doesn't work that way, does it? Why do the anti-choice people think they're soooooo special? WTF?

[gorfle]

142. I agree with you.

I agree with you. I also would like to choose that my tax dollars not be spent on the crap you mention.

At least this is one crap it won't get spent on.

[Lars39]

150. So women's reproductive and mental health is crap to you?

:puke: May your tiny penis fall off.

[gorfle]

159. Forcing people to pay to kill the unborn is crap to me.

:puke: May your shriveled uterus fall out.

[edogawa]

136. I am NOT trying to be troll, but.....

Serious question...I agree it is woman's body, but are these children not ours (men's) as well? Should we not have a say, legally, in the abortion decision....???

[Neecy]

138. Will you carry it to term?

Will you pay for the child's health care, education, food and clothing for 18+ years?

Is it your body?

If it's your baby, where was your 'decision' to use a condom?

I think the father should be consulted, sure. But it's ultimately a woman's decision.

[stopbush]

153. Do you have kids of your own?

I ask because you talk about kids and pregnancy as if they're an abstract concept.

[PeaceNikki]

143. Only if the woman involved feels it's appropriate.

Sorry, but that's as much as you should be involved. Unless and until you can carry and deliver.

[David Zephyr]

140. On the mark.

Kick.