The World According to Stupak

[alp227]

Jessica Arons is the Director of the Women's Health & Rights Program at the Center for American Progress.

This is her really thoughtful guest commentary on The Nation.

----

President Obama's healthcare proposal adopts language on abortion from the Senate health reform bill that requires insurers to segregate public and private premiums and use only private money to pay for abortion services. But Representative Bart Stupak will have none of it, claiming that the legislation still allows public funding of the abortion. In fact, the legislation very clearly prohibits direct government funding of abortion. But Stupak also objects to "indirect" funding, refusing to vote for a reform bill unless it prohibits taxpayer money from "subsidizing" health plans that cover abortion care.

The amendment Stupak sponsored, which is currently part of the House bill, does bar so-called indirect funding. It forbids insurers from selling plans that include abortion coverage to any people who receive help from the government in paying their premiums--a restriction that would apply to approximately 85 percent of customers in the new health insurance exchange and thus virtually eliminate abortion coverage from the exchange.

An analysis of Stupak's opposition to indirect funding, however, reveals implications that go well beyond the fight over abortion.

Money in Stupak's world is "fungible," or interchangeable, meaning whatever money the government gives you frees up private money for you to use on something else. So every dollar the government pays toward your health insurance premium allows you and the insurer to spend private funds in that plan that you might not otherwise have had on abortion. To Stupak, that subsidization is the equivalent of a direct payment.

More: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20100315/arons

[jemelanson]

1. Stupak and his cohorts want a return to a time when

all women were property. Property of their fathers until they wed then property of their husbands. Women could not own property, vote, receive any wages they earned, sign a contract or bring suit in a court of law. Their sworn word had no weight unless their father, husband or which ever male in their family which had control of them vouched for their word. They could not claim their own children, basically women were slaves. The reason for this goes back to a time in early history when the male half of the race too over. They (men) then claimed that all evil came into the world due to Eve. For this crime all women are evil, and weak, and are not to be trusted. This also goes back to times when damage to hair cuttings or nail cuttings would cause damage to the man that these cuttings came from. Sos it goes that any damage done to the sperm or unborn child of said man would do damage to that man's spirit. So, therefore, these things could not really be trusted to the evil perverted nature of woman. This was also a time then the only God blessed reason for having sexual relations with this evil creature called woman was to create a baby. Allowing a woman any pleasure in the act was unthinkable. Allowing a woman to refuse a have sexual relations with her husband was a sin. It was justifiable for the husband to use any means at his disposal to force his wife into meeting his needs. Men were encouraged from the pulpit on a weekly basis to physically and sexually abuse their wives. There are some today who still look at women as property, and are teaching even today that women who are abused by their husbands are to blame for their own abuse because they are not submissive enough to their husbands. Husbands who abuse their step daughters do so only because their wife is not doing her duty to care for her husband's needs.
Stupak wants to revert to a time when women had NO rights, received no education, and had to have a male keeper to keep the rest of the MALE world safe from woman's evil nature. Stupak and his cohorts want to make woman less than a full member of the human race. This goes along with the guy in Utah who wants to make it possible to charge any woman who as a miscarriage with a crime if she has engaged in any activity which is deemed as may have contributed to that miscarriage. Like if she falls down a flight of stairs, did she do so to cause a miscarriage. If she is mugged or beaten, did she pay someone to beat her or mug her in the hopes of causing a miscarriage. Any activity which is deemed reckless could be grounds for charging her with the murder of her unborn child.
The underlying theme, Women are less than human, evil creatures, and if not required to continue the race and provide sexual pleasure to men they would have gotten rid of all of us a long time age. So somewhere in their black little hears, they really hate women mostly because they can not do without us and because that one external muscle that men can not flex and plays such a large part of man's self-esteem seems to be there and respond to the sight, smell, thought of this evil creature woman.

[Demeter]

2. Who Cares What Stupid Thinks?

and that goes for any Stupid. I don't discriminate.

[caraher]

3. I see. So tax cuts for the working and middle class should be opposed...

after all, they might go out and spend all that extra money on abortions, right?

This is WAAAY beyond stupid.

[True_Blue]

4. Stupak is just using abortion as a cover to kill healthcare

He's never had a problem accepting abortion money in the past:
http://www.mediaite.com/online/stupak-campaign-steeped-in-abortion-cash/

[ezmerelda39]

5. Stupid Stupak has killed

his chances of reelection in Michigan. This one negative position wipes out entirely any good that he has accomplished in Congress. Maybe he understands this and has already accepted a position with the anti climate change lobbyists. Follow the money....