Rahm, Liberal Women’s Groups, Have ‘Frank Exchange’ on Anti-Abortion Amendment

Rahm: “Don’t worry, we’ll pull it out of comittee.”
NOW: “Our dreams of tax payer funded abortions will finally come true!”
PP: “Free at last, Free at last, abortions will be free at last!”
Obama to Rahm: *high five*

I thought Republicans were [b]for[/b] keeping beaurocrats out of the Doctor-patient relationship.

Upholding the Hyde Amendment is “pushing women back into the back alleys to die.” At least when conservatives use ridiculous hyperbole like that, they get called on it.

I don’t consider the White House statement trying to downplay the meeting. Jake once again you miss the mark.
This amendment is horrible..period.

Upholding the Hyde Amendment is “pushing women back into the back alleys to die.” At least when conservatives use ridiculous hyperbole like that, they get called on it.
___________________________________
‘Back Alley’ abortions used to be quite common back before the legislation was changed.

Most people are very misinformed as to what the Stupak amendment does so they don’t understand what is happening.
The amendment does not merely extend the Hyde amendment that is already in force and does not allow federal dollars to be used for abortions.
The Stupak amendment goes far beyond this.
Currently 85% of health insurance plans for women include coverage for an abortion. The Stupak amendment would make it impossible for an insurance company to offer abortion as part of their plans for women and still be able to participate in the insurance exchange even when it is purchased by a woman’s own money.
It would remove coverage for abortion from a woman’s health insurance policy which is never planned for so it is ignorant to suggest that they can buy an external rider for such a thing.
This is a major setback for women and it should not be allowed to pass.
Frankly I am finding that I disagree with Rahm and the president on most things when it comes down the policies they ‘actually’ push as opposed to what they ‘say’ they support.

If Stupak is a poison pill to kill health care reform, and it’s a shame because millions of people need healthcare to survive and stay financially solvent, then why kill health care reform over Stupak?
And why are liberals suddenly engaging in conspiracy theories and hyperbolic demonization? I thought that’s what we have been rallying against the Beck-Palin axis about for the last year.
And I’m an Obama voter, Obama supporter, and a lifelong Democrat. I just think some people on the left are going absolutely nuts over this amendment.
I do agree that there should be a health exception in Stupak (in addition to life/rape/incest). But outside of that, how many insurance plans currently cover elective abortions? How many poor women who supposedly need this coverage are uninsured right now anyway? What do polls say about whether or not the government should support elective abortions through insurance subsidies? I think the answer to these questions will indicate less harm than currently presupposed by many on the left, and more political benefit than supposed as well.

I do agree that there should be a health exception in Stupak (in addition to life/rape/incest).
Posted by: Tetris | Nov 11, 2009 7:34:25 PM
Nice post. I agree with you for the most part. I understand the upset, but I always say I’m a moderate progressive exactly because of things like this.
Millions of people need healthcare to survive and stay financially solvent. We need to take this historic first step and get legislation. It won’t be perfect, but it will be something we can work on perfecting.

The statement in the Tapper post suggesting that the Stupak-Pitts Amendment “prohibits women who receive government subsidies for health insurance from buying private plans that cover abortion” is flatly wrong.
Rep. Nita Lowey (D-NY) made a similar misstatement regarding of the Stupak Amendment, which PolitiFact rated flatly “FALSE,” here:
####
As study of the amendment text (four pages long) will reveal, it says that people who receive the new federal “affordability credits” cannot use those federal subsidies to purchase the abortion-covering plans. However, it also explicitly says (on page 2) that any individual can purchase abortion-covering policies, so long as federal funds are not used for that purpose.
Moreover, on page 3, the amendment explicitly ALLOWS private insurance companies, through the exchange, to sell policies that cover any or all abortions — both comprehensive policies that cover abortion along with everything else, and/or abortion-only supplemental policies.
Thus, a company may sell policies that do not cover abortions, through the exchange, to customers who use federal subsidies to purchase them. The same company, or others, may also sell to the same customers, or others, supplemental policies to cover abortion, but those supplemental policies must be paid for with private (or at least, non-federal) funds.
The Stupak-Pitts Amendment also prohibits coverage of elective abortion in the federal government insurance plan (“public option”). That is because the public option is a federal program, which would pay for services (including elective abortion) directly, and all of the funds that the agency could spend would be federal funds. Federal agencies cannot spend “private” funds. More on this here:
####

Since abortion is an individual choice rather than a mandatory event it should be the individual who pays for the procedure rather than the majority. I wasn’t the one who made the choices which led to the pregnancy, I shouldn’t have to pay for it.

Refreshing to see an Administration that is willing to listen to both sides of an issue. There isn’t an easy answer to this one – abortion is an appalling procedure, but it is even worse when done with a coat hanger.

Don’t worry. Once the health care reform bill is passed we’ll have a brand new beaurocracy that will make all these decisions for us. What’s funded, what’s not funded (by our tax dollars of course), all based on their idea of social and economic justice. Won’t that be wonderful?

Once the health care reform bill is passed we’ll have a brand new beaurocracy that will make all these decisions for us. What’s funded, what’s not funded (by our tax dollars of course), all based on their idea of social and economic justice. Won’t that be wonderful?
_________________________________
Much better when the decisions are made based on profit for the few, over the welfare of the many.

========================
Put in an amendment to support the delivery of the babies and putting them up for adoption.
========================
Families wait years to adopt kids while abortion-happy women kill one million children every single year.

“I don’t think so. The state should not be taking control of women’s bodies, forcing women to deliver babies and putting them up for adoption.”
But it should be paying for the abortions…
Sick.

I am tired of this nonsense that the “state” would be paying for abortions. I am pro-choice and I pay taxes, as do millions of other people just like me. Stupak would prohibit private insurers who join the exchange from covering abortions, even for women who are not in the exchange and who pay their premuims with 100% of their own money. Stop discriminating against women!

Adoption is NOT the answer to abortion. Many many adoptions are life long tragedies for everyone concerned. Adoption exploits women giving birth, and makes commodities of their children. The shame women feel over having given away their babies is intense, and the loss felt by even tiny infants cripples them for life. Look at the statistics as to how many adoptees are in treatment for mental health issues, how many are in prison.
Do some research, folks.

How did a healthcare reform bill turn into a abortion bill? Personally I am so tired of this “murder baby crap” Perhaps these women can drop the baby off at your door step! To say that no government money be used toward abortions ok fine. But please correct me if I am wrong if a company ex. United Healthcare participates in the Public Option exchange ( they don’t need a dime from the government to stay a float ) sell riders to women for abortion and they pay for it with their own money. How is this does this constitute the tax payer paying for these services? We always manage to get unfocused while the rest of the world laughs at us. This is embarrissing we are the only country that does not have universal healthcare.

Medical science has long shown that a child in the womb is both alive (versus an inert object), human (versus of another specie) and distinct from the mother (own DNA, immune system, etc..). The notion that a child becomes magically a human person only when she/he is born, is a superstitious, unscientific belief straight out of the middle ages. Health care reform, by making health accessible to all, should be about dignity and respect of all fellow humans. Abortion is a failure of these principles. The days of stigmatized out-of-wedlock pregnancies that forced women to seek back alley termination of pregnancies are long gone. Adoption is a viable option. To say that adopted children are better dead is infuriating and insulting to parents that adopt and their children. Are the people saying this in the position of deciding for every one who on this planet should be allowed to live or die? Lets have health care reform that emphasizes life, health and dignity of all fellow humans. Not passé babyboomer generated values of greed and selfishness.

The state should not be taking control of women’s bodies, forcing women to deliver babies and putting them up for adoption.
****************************************
No body is forcing them to do anything, even have sex. Why doesn’t she get the money from her partner? Why come to me with it? I’ll give you Maternity care, but not an abortion.
___________________________________
I don’t think this bill is making you pay.

deep science alert
Medical science has long shown that a child in the womb is both alive (versus an inert object)
Posted by: tka
so cells are alive and not inert objects?
dewde…. that’s pretty damn deep

The souls of the dinosaurs are calling out to you. The souls of the tsunami victims are calling out to you.

2 points about this ammendment:
1) It is unconstitutional
2) It puts a government beaurocracy between a moman and her doctor.

Once the health care reform bill is passed we’ll have a brand new beaurocracy that will make all these decisions for us. What’s funded, what’s not funded (by our tax dollars of course), all based on their idea of social and economic justice. Won’t that be wonderful?
-Woody
_________________________________
Much better when the decisions are made based on profit for the few, over the welfare of the many.
Posted by: tierra | Nov 11, 2009 8:55:59 PM
———————-
I see. Thanks for being so forthright. Might I suggest you check your Constitution. It’s rife with nasty language about the rights of the individual. Liberty. Freedom from tyranny. These are not abstract ideas. They are the law. The idea of the squelching individual rights for the “needs of the many” can be found in the works of Karl Marx, Lenin and other fellow travelers.
This whole abortion amendment is just one small example of why we need to limit government involvement in our lives, not expand it. What will tomorrow’s debate be? Diabetes? Regulating junk food? Alcohol? Tobacco? All lifestyle choices? There is no end. This is a soft tyranny, exactly the kind our framers feared.

This back alley jargon is laughable
Posted by: Mia
not really, there are many folks still around who could relate personal stories about it…
- freedom for slaves used to be ‘laughable’…
- voting rights for women used to be ‘laughable’
- equal rights used to be ‘laughable’
- equal pay for women for equal work used to be ‘laughable’
- 18 year olds voting used to be ‘laughable’
- preemptive wars used to be ‘laughable’
- and on and on……
Posted by: YO | Nov 12, 2009 12:01:03 AM
__
Nice post. It’s important to remind people what it was like in the 1700′s and 1800′s they cling to…
___
We always manage to get unfocused while the rest of the world laughs at us. This is embarrissing we are the only country that does not have universal healthcare.
Posted by: charity | Nov 12, 2009 12:17:27 AM
________
Exactly.
This is a really tough issue. I absolutley don’t want to see health care reform derailed over it, and at the same time “stopalready” at Nov 11, 2009 9:25:00 PM does a great job cutting to the point.
I’m glad the Admin listens to all sides.
Now onward to reform. David Leonhardt had a great article about the House bill, though I tend to agree more with Ezra Klein in that Leonhardt “is much more down on the House bill than I am. But I agree with all of his proposed improvements. I’d like to see a final bill that looks more like the House bill on the coverage and affordability side, and more like the Senate bill on the revenue and delivery-system reforms side.”
We have to stay focused and do our utmost to push the Senate to get this done, preferably this year.

I agree with NOW President Terry O’Neill. I had a friend who, in trying to help her friend abort, watched her friend die. They were young, they had no money, and abortion was not available. That’s a back alley abortion. It’s rude and extremely insensitive to deny our experience. I will the men would get over it — Hyde is enough.

I commend Terry for sticking up for women’s rights…apparently NOW and these other organizations have to, since our own elected leaders won’t. Why is it that almost every single time we make progress for this nation, women are left out of the progress? It isn’t progress for the nation if 52% of the population is having their rights left behind in the process. This Stupak Amendment would see to it that only the very wealthy would have access. That’s not choice for the majority of women in this country – that’s choice for those who have the abundance of money for it. Sounds familiar…oh yeah, kinda like before Roe v Wade.
Back alley abortions is spot on. With only the wealthy able to have access to abortions again, the same will happen to the less privileged in this country as happened before Roe v Wade. Thanks for not caring if women die, Dems. I think the majority of women, being pro-choice, will see to it that you don’t get re-elected.

There is the morning after pill if you are irresponsible enough not to use birth control.
Posted by: wow
unless of course a ‘good christian’ pharmacist decides he can’t sell it to you because of religious reasons..
btw… how long did it take to be able to use that in america?

People pay for other people’s elective procedures all the time! You’re old and fat, so everyone subsidizes you’re care which you yourself likely brought on. You’re a young drug user so everyone pays for your treatment and/or incarceration. The whole argument is mindless and a distraction from the main point. When “life” begins is unknown. You have your opinion and others have theirs. Don’t get an abortion or cause an unwanted pregnancy if it violates your ethics. But don’t impose your definitions and ethics on others. A woman’s right to choose is absolute with regard to her health and ability to raise a child.

I don’t agree with the ammendment…I think it’s yet another way that the ultra-right wing is trying to force everyone to abide by their own religious beliefs while at the same time professing the virtues of religious and other freedoms. I don’t understand how they don’t see how their arguements are so tremendously flawed.
Back to the point…I don’t like it and I definately don’t agree with it, but let’s face facts: there are FAR more women dying today from insurance rejections for cancer treatments and from the inability to find affordable coverage…dying from totally preventable causes. The arguement that no health reform is better than health reform with this ammendment included makes about as much sense as the arguement that stem cell research should not be done because it promotes abortion…even though it would save the lives of countless people. Think about it.