NOW (National Organization for Women) releases statement on the House Health bill

[MarlaM]

November 8, 2009

The House of Representatives has dealt the worst blow to women's fundamental right to self-determination in order to buy a few votes for reform of the profit-driven health insurance industry. We must protect the rights we fought for in Roe v. Wade. We cannot and will not support a health care bill that strips millions of women of their existing access to abortion.

Birth control and abortion are integral aspects of women's health care needs. Health care reform should not be a vehicle to obliterate a woman's fundamental right to choose.

The Stupak Amendment goes far beyond the abusive Hyde Amendment, which has denied federal funding of abortion since 1976. The Stupak Amendment, if incorporated into the final version of health insurance reform legislation, will:

*Prevent women receiving tax subsidies from using their own money to purchase private insurance that covers abortion;

*Prevent women participating in the public health insurance exchange, administered by private insurance companies, from using 100 percent of their own money to purchase private insurance that covers abortion;

*Prevent low-income women from accessing abortion entirely, in many cases.

NOW calls on the Senate to pass a health care bill that respects women's constitutionally protected right to abortion and calls on President Obama to refuse to sign any health care bill that restricts women's access to affordable, quality reproductive health care.

http://www.now.org/press/11-09/11-08.html

[PeaceNikki]

1. K&R

[flpoljunkie]

115. A few votes? How about 64 Dems? That's not a 'few.'

Pelosi would not have allowed the vote, if it was not absolutely necessary to get the bill out of the House.

Weiner is right. He's on MSNBC as I type. He says insurance companies will not cover abortion at all because of the Stupak amendment. This ought to be discriminatory, but, sadly, with the Robert's court, it won't be considered as such.

[MarlaM]

125. 64 sounds like a big number, until we realize that 192 Dems. voted against it

For every Democratic vote for the ammendment, there were three votes in opposition, and virtually all of those 64 in favor of the ammendment are probably conservative Democrats anyway, for whom I don't have much respect.

[flpoljunkie]

216. 64 is a big number, any way you slice it.

[grantcart]

2. K and R -- welcome to DU

[Oregone]

3. These corporate Dino sell-outs should be having tea with our arch-nemesis Kucinich

[Vincardog]

4. our arch-nemesis Kucinich? K was my second choice for POTUS WAY ahead of Obama

[Oregone]

Figures. Shouldn't you be out protesting the Afghan war and undermining the Democratic admin?

How do you people even find time to post when you aren't plotting to mandate veganism?

[Vincardog]

9. WTF are you going on about. Do you hate all liberals?

[Oregone]

13. Easy there

Im just trying to emulate the status quo DU as of late, to blend in a bit. The liberal hate thing is contageous. Its sorta like when sweater vests came back in style. All the rage

[dflprincess]

47. I hoped that was your intent

for a moment I was afraid someone had gotten to you since your posts about the "reform" bill last night and you'd been turned into the Manchurian DUer.

[crikkett]

208. I like sweater vests

they're cozy and you can wear them beneath a jacket.

[skipos]

11. Even Kucinich's awful hypothetical VP choice, Ron Paul, isn't my arch-nemesis

and RP is as anti-choice as all hell. DK is a-ok!

[Bluenorthwest]

127. DK would never, ever have picked Ron Paul for VP

that was a Paulist rumor of the most laughable sort.

[PeaceNikki]

135. Actually, I spoke to Dennis directly about this... and he DID say it.

[skipos]

153. Can you tell me what you think of the audio here:

http://blog.cleveland.com/openers/2007/11/exclusive_audio_kucinich_consi.html

I am guessing you won't respond.

[Kdillard]

5. Good I am glad they are speaking out on this.

[joeycola]

128. The Catholic bishops were in the room with Pelosi et al, not NOW. It is too

late for them to be harping.

[ClarkUSA]

6. The bill pays for abortions where the mother's health is at risk or that were caused by rape/incest

"Birth control and abortion are integral aspects of women's health care needs. Health care reform should not be a vehicle
to obliterate a woman's fundamental right to choose."

Women can still have abortions and use contraception, so why is NOW using such misleading and hyperbolic language?

Also, why does NOW feel it is necessary for taxpayers to pay for elective abortions? I have known women who have had no
insurance or Medicaid who still managed to pay for multiple abortions and their own contraceptives via Planned Parenthood
and other clinics, so how is the HCR bill changing the ability for women to continue doing that? None of the women I know
expected taxpayers to pay for their abortions even though none of them were wealthy or had great jobs.

Sometimes, people need to take responsibility for their actions instead of expecting others to pay for them.

[Diamonique]

8. Wow. I feel like I just fell into Freeperville! nt

[ClarkUSA]

16. Why? I am a liberal Obama supporter and have no problem with a woman's right to choose.

I simply don't feel it's a dealbreaker if HCR doesn't force taxpayers to pay for elective abortions or contraception.

[Hello_Kitty]

19. Or contraception!

OMFG. What part of "health care" do you not understand?

[ClarkUSA]

22. Why should taxpayers have to pay for contraception? nt

[Hello_Kitty]

26. Um, maybe because it's an important part of women's health care?

Wow. I can't even believe I'm having this discussion. Today has been very illuminating on DU.

[ClarkUSA]

31. Do you believe that condoms are an important part of men's health care?

[Hello_Kitty]

33. Absolutely. They prevent STDs in men. I have no problem with them being covered. eom

[ClarkUSA]

35. Then shouldn't HCR cover alcohol hand rub since they prevent colds and flu?

And perhaps HCR should cover seasonal clothing since going naked during winter months could cause frostbite and pneumonia?

[Hello_Kitty]

41. If those things prevented the spread of disease then yes.

We can go all night ticking off things covered by insurance that are not absolutely necessary to save your life right now. Did you know, for example, that many insurance plans help pay for gym memberships?

[ClarkUSA]

46. You think HCR should cover cold weather clothing and alcohol hand rub? Oy vay. nt

[Hello_Kitty]

51. And you think it shouldn't cover birth control. Oy Gevalt. eom

[ClarkUSA]

55. No, I don't. But you still want HCR to pay for alcohol hand rub and everyone's winter clothing.

:eyes:

[Hello_Kitty]

60. If there's a sound medical reason for it, then yes.

BTW, the reason that many insurance plans - both private and government - cover contraception is because it's a helluva lot cheaper than paying for maternity care and childbirth. Not to mention the costs of dealing with the needs of poor and often unwanted children.

[ClarkUSA]

63. Good luck with including the Winter Clothing and Alcohol Hand Rub Amendment in conference, then. nt

[Hello_Kitty]

66. Good luck persuading your fellow progressives that not covering contraception is a good idea

I would say good luck getting laws passed that do that but after this Stupak thing I have a feeling your anti-choice pals will go after contraception next. :(

[ClarkUSA]

71. I'm not interested in persuading anyone. People are entitled to their opinions.

I have a feeling your anti-HCR pals in the Senate and their insurance allies will try their best to filibuster and
torpedo the final bill vote, so you and NOW can always hope that the status quo wins and HCR dies.

[Hello_Kitty]

74. No, a bill will pass.

It will be pretty much the Baucus one (insurance industry wet dream) and your precious Stupak Amendment will be retained.

[ClarkUSA]

76. I don't know if it will but I'm sure if you had your way, HCR wouldn't stand a chance. nt

[Hello_Kitty]

81. You don't know that at all.

I'm a single payer gal, but would have settled for a decent public option.

I'm positive if you had your way, women would be forced to buy health insurance but would have to pay for contraception out of their own pockets.

[ClarkUSA]

83. Uh huh. Sure. nt

[Garam_Masala]

231. If the PO will cover my condoms, I am thrilled

I am dumping my private insurance ASAP and sign up on PO
:toast:

Come on senate, hurry up!!

[Hello_Kitty]

234. I don't think it will but it would be great if it did, huh?

I can't for the life of me understand why anyone would oppose subsidized contraception and STD protection. :shrug:

[PeaceNikki]

45. OOooo, I've got one!!

HCR should not cover prenatal care and delivery since they can be prevented with contraception and/or arbortion!

[ClarkUSA]

49. You're good at apples and oranges, aren't you? nt

[PeaceNikki]

54. Serious question. What is the primary reason you object so vehemently to Contraception and/or

abortion being included in HCR? The cost involved? Your moral and/or religious objection to them?

[Hello_Kitty]

62. It'll lead to health insurance being used to buy alcohol wipes and winter clothes for naked people.

Or something. Hey, whatever. :shrug:

[ClarkUSA]

64. Yeah, you're serious about making strawman arguments and casting aspersions.

That's about all you're good at in your replies to me in this thread and another one earlier today.

[PeaceNikki]

65. Why won't you answer that question?

What is the primary reason you object so vehemently to contraception and/or abortion being included in HCR?

[ClarkUSA]

68. I am not "vehemently" opposed "to contraception and/or abortion being included in HCR".

I simply do not see why it is necessary for taxpayers to pay for elective abortions and contraception when women can buy
supplemental insurance or go to clinics like Planned Parenthood. Or why men can't go to the supermarket to buy their own
condoms or go fish out the free condoms in the fishbowls they set out at Planned Parenthood clinics.

I also think NOW's language about the HCR bill "obliterating the fundamental right to choose" is ridiculous, disingenuous
and over-the-top crapola. So far as I know, abortions are still legal. :eyes:

[PeaceNikki]

142. OK, now... one more time.

I *GET* that you don't see why it's necessary, but WHY don't YOU want "taxpayers to pay for elective abortions and contraception"?

The cost involved? Your personal beliefs? They aren't important?

Why? It's not a complicated question.

[mkultra]

171. its probably moral (ill take your bait)

just like my objection to elective abortions. I think that a baby is human from the moment of conception. That's not religious, its my scientific view. I think that abortions in general are immoral. I also though see very clearly how dangerous it is to try and legislate which abortions are health related and which ones are convenience related. There is no way to draw a legal line in which women, acting in their interests regarding survival or health, could make a decision without being faced with the possibility of criminal prosecution when they are merely trying to protect their own health.

I'm willing to accept the immoral convenience ones to protect those innocent women from criminal prosecution. I think you have a right to your own body, but when you are pregnant, there is another human who's rights are involved as well. I think people's rights end at the border where they overlap the rights of others.


Ill listen to your criticism, but unless you could convenience my that the point of conception is not unique human life, then i doubt you will change my mind.

[PeaceNikki]

174. Perhaps.

And you know what, I do see why you might see things differently and that it's a complex issue wrought with passion on ALL sides. And if it's 100% about personal conviction, then have the guts to SAY that (not you, you just did).

More importantly, if the desire really is to reduce the number of abortions, then WHY, in God's name, WHY didn't Stupak include a TON of assurances that full access to contraception and full women's wellness and prevention programs be included? This is what I don't get. At all. Not even a little.

I started this thread yesterday after getting some knee-jerk "Not with *MY* money!!" responses and didn't really get many people really answering the question. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6960206

In this thread, it was directed at a poster who has dismissed women's health care issues, accused me of lying, and repeatedly not answered a rather direct question.

But, thanks for taking the time to answer... honestly. :)

[mkultra]

177. as far as contraception

as you might expect, i think full monetary support should be put behind contraception and sex education. But then again, my views are based less in some zealous religious view and more in basic morals. Furthermore, i think anyone who is against abortion or contraception should be willing to adopt. You cant just create one problem then turn your back.


I have no idea why the bill came out the way it did. I would assume because it was put together by congressman.


As for others, i can see their point of view a little. Let me try to see if i can untangle it.
Everything that involves us or our environment could be classified indirectly or directly as pertaining to human health. if you can see that these things exist on a continuum from light to heavy instead of on either side of the health/not health line, then you will notice that at some point, we have to draw our own line regarding what gets paid for.

I think the difference simple lye in where we are drawing our lines. My line includes contraception, theirs doesn't. Hopefully that makes sense.

[kestrel91316]

189. A fetus may be human (I think we can all agree it's not bovine or canine),

but it's not a "person". A woman, however, IS a person. Person's are referred to in the US Constitution as being "natural-born", or not, therefore under the Constitution if you aren't yet born, you aren't a person.

[karynnj]

198. Natural born refers only to the President in the Constitution

It does not refer to to personhood - even the birthers conclude Obama is a person!

[CTyankee]

250. There is another reference in the 14th Amendment. Here:

Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


The fact is that the antichoicers have LONG wanted an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that says that an "unborn" person could have the same rights as a "born" one. I think THEY saw the "born" language in the Constitution a problem they had to deal with...

[mkultra]

255. i think your confusing "person" with "citizen"

this amendment referees only to citizens when it speaks of being "born" this the only thing you have proved is that an embryo is not a citizen.

An existing example is that of illegal immigrants who do not receive full protection under the constitution but do receive those protections afforded to "persons"

[CTyankee]

257. I get your point but I can see a problem with "born."

As in "all persons born..." It wasn't meant to be used this way, I would agree, but the fact is that the 14th amendment does seem to recognize only born or naturalized persons. No reference has been made to any person "unborn."

[mkultra]

258. well, what im saying about persons in reference to the constitution

is that sometimes it refers to people as persons and sometimes as citizens. Specifically, the 14th amendment established the principle of citizenship so anything after that can use both or either term.

[mkultra]

204. sorry, that argument lacks merit

first and foremost, your addressing the constitutionality of abortion not the morality. Secondly, there is no definition in the constitution regarding the meaning of "natural born" so your essentially making one up and using it how you please. Third, your definition of a person is highly subjective. Finally, your implication that only "persons" deserve protection is just weird.

As far as I'm concerned, all humans are valid and worth protecting whether they meet your highly scientific definition of a "person"

If i was asked to define a person, i would include a fetus as well. Like i said before, they are unique humans at an early stage of existence.

[D23MIURG23]

218. Its considerably better than the idea that a blastula deserves constitutional protection.

Or the assignment of humanity based on chromosomal number and cellular differentiation. If we define humanity in terms of sentience then there is nothing that closely resembles a human in the womb for at least seven months. "Human" by your definition would also apply to the skin cells on my back if not for the process of DNA methylation.

[mkultra]

232. You would be hard pressed to actually make that

case even for children under the age of two. My concept is far more reasonable than assuming that passing through a magic opening suddenly bestows rights. Simplistically, its either inanimate or its life. It is life and it is human life.

[D23MIURG23]

237. Your argument puts potential and actualization on equal footing.

You are essentially saying that because a fertilized egg can become a human it already is one. But it can't become a human on its own (its mother's body does most of the work), and most eggs that get fertilized don't become human as it is really easy for things to go awry early in the developmental process. A fertilized egg isn't a human, just as an acorn isn't an oak tree, and grape vines don't grow 20 year old bottles of chardonnay. Birth is when a person becomes fully individual, and when you define birth as such you have minimal fascist invasions of female bodily functions.

Obviously there are distinctions to be made between young children, older ones and adults in terms of function and legal status, but my experience is that people go ahead and make those distinctions. Toddlers are not given the right to drive, and teenagers cannot become emancipated prior to the age of 16. The obvious corollary is to not treat unborn (or unfertilized) reproductive precursors as though they were fully developed until it becomes biologically reasonable to do so.

[mkultra]

238. i am saying that

as far as I'm concerned, at the moment of fertilization(or actually shortly there after) the embryo becomes life by scientific definition. Add that it is a unique being with a unique DNA representation and, to my mind, it is unique human life. This is regardless of its probability of survival given outside conditions. Even a newborn cannot survive on its own.

oak tree is the name given for an adult oak. But an acorn is an oak in very early form. I understand that many people disagree with me and I'm perfectly fine with that but i think your correlations to driving and emancipation are poorly conceived. Driving is a privileged, not a right, and emancipation refers to legal rights in a legal system that requires certain faculties be developed. To receive protection of your life is not a privilege and does not require any advanced faculty. Essentially, people who see it differently are doing just that. Assuming that protection requires some special level of faculty development.

From my perspective, an embryo is just a human in an early stage of development who needs care an protection, just like any child. Like i said, passing through an opening does not magically confer rights or title. If this is your belief, i would like to here why you feel that passing through that opening conveys rights. If not, at what point do you think a human becomes a human and why do you choose that level.

My stated point is that fertilization creates a unique human DNA structure and to me, this is what makes us human.

[D23MIURG23]

239. By definition the egg was life before it was fertilized.

Life is continuous; it doesn't begin simply because the egg is on its way to becoming an adult human. On the other hand, not everything that fits your definition of a human resembles one. I used to work in a lab that was using fertilized embryonic cells left over from a fertility clinic for research in cancer biology. These cells had a "unique human DNA structure" as you put it, but they weren't on their way to becoming a human; so were these a "life" or what? How about the embryo that develops without a head; is that a life?

The birth argument is an argument about value. In a perfect world I would have no problem giving protections to a fetus, but in ours you are usually talking about protecting the fetus from the best interests of a fully developed woman with thoughts, feelings, and experiences. I do have a problem with the argument that the fetus is as human, and as deserving of protection as the woman simply because they have similar DNA in a majority of cases. I don't think that something so simple and ubiquitously easy to generate as a fertilized egg is worth as much as the life of a full grown woman, or even as much as her best interests. After seven or eight months of development you have a better argument in this sense, because at that point the fetus is a structure with a brain, a heart and possibly even thoughts and emotions.

DNA is not like the christian soul, which supposedly confers a personality and identity to an individual. It is a chemical that stores nearly enough information to make the range of proteins expressed in your cells (I say nearly because there are several stages in the manufacture of proteins and not all of them involve information that comes directly from the genome) and some other structures. The rest is a complex interplay of development, experience, etc. Chimp DNA is actually about 98% the same as human DNA, so the shocking differences between chimps and humans should tell you something to that end. The idea that anything with a full set of human chromosomes is automatically human is pseudoscientific. And the idea that we boil down to nothing more than our DNA is frankly insulting.

[mkultra]

240. the egg is life but not unique life

Yes, a fertilized egg is unique from a DNA perspective and you should be aware of that considering your experience. Yes, to me they where unique humans at a very early stage and yes they were life. In nature, some life survives longer than others. sometimes, people die due to natural circumstances. The fact that nature ends life does not mean that i feel comfortable ending life. an embryo with "no head" is an issue for nature.

If you feel that the age of a human determines their inherent value, then i would say that's an interesting perspective and i would also ask you to expand on that. I'm curious to hear why you think that age is important in the value of a human life. i understand that as things move on for a fetus, more and more people begin to recognize the humanity. I would classify that stance in the "gained faculty" group, in other words, some people feel that you must achieve a certain level of mental faculty to be considered human.


As a matter of fact, DNA does confer personality and identity to an individual. Although you are correct about the similarities between humans and apes, all you achieve with this demonstration is to point out the inherent value of all life. Who we are is currently believed to be 70% genetic 30% environmental(it was previously 80/20). DNA has a huge impact on who we are and what we feel. The idea that anything with a full set of human chromosomes is automatically human is not pseudo scientific but rather the exact method for classifying species. We are immersed in an ocean of our own chemistry and at the odds of our material desires. We are half of our father and half of our mother.

[D23MIURG23]

243. Your uniqueness argument wouldn't extend to identical twins.

Identical twins result from splitting of an egg early in the developmental process shortly after and barring uneven splitting or subsequent mutation they have the same genetic makeup. Identical twins are literally clones of one another, but they do form unique identities.

Furthermore DNA is used in the classification and taxonomy of species, but that doesn't mean that a biologist wouldn't differentiate between the blood smear that they got the DNA from and the monkey it came from initially.

On to the meat of what I want to say...

I do feel that gained faculties are what give life value, precisely because gained faculties are what define life in the first place. Life is not defined by its chemical composition or structure. Specifically a living being is usually defined as as one that can:

undergo metabolism, maintain homeostasis, possess a capacity to grow, respond to stimuli, reproduce and, through natural selection, adapt to their environment in successive generations.<1><6> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life)

Or in other words, the only way you would ever know the difference between Human DNA and DNA I cooked up in the lab with a totally random sequence and the same ratio of bases would be the ability of one of them to sustain the complex processes (with considerable help from already existing proteins and RNA molecules) usually associated with life. The same kind of logic can be applied to Humans, who in my opinion are not special or valuable due to any inherent material property they possess (or some kind of vaguely defined non material property) but rather by virtue of the ability to behave and experience in the ways we usually consider Human. Similarly, if Humans were to invent a type of computer with self awareness, autonomy and feelings like ours, I would want it to be protected and treated like a Human regardless of whether it had any structural components that resembled ours.

I don't want to go into this any further because I feel I have communicated my standpoint as well as I possibly can without unduly depriving myself of sleep.

and finally...

Praise BOB!

[mkultra]

247. twins do not have the same DNA

Thanks for your openness. Feel free to respond slowly or not at all if the conversation becomes boring.

I woudl mention a few points then ask some questions.

Identical twins are not clones of each other. Although they have nearly identical DNA, environmental conditions both inside the womb and throughout their lives influence the switching on and off of various genes. I only assert that DNA is used to distinguish a separate and unique form of human life. Not that it is used to determine the organism or a piece of that organism.

Regarding faculties gained, i must conceded that a sentient computer process or system would, in my view, be a candidate for preservation. I must the following question though. Do you think that humans gain the necessary faculties to qualify for protection before, during or after passage through the birth canal? I know this question seems trite and you have my apologies ahead of time.

I guess my point is that if a ones argument is faculty based, then they must either accept that children in the womb deserve protection at some point, accept that some infants are not yet deserving of protection, or believe that the magic opening conveys faculty.

[D23MIURG23]

259. Re: the birth issue.

I guess my point is that if a ones argument is faculty based, then they must either accept that children in the womb deserve protection at some point, accept that some infants are not yet deserving of protection, or believe that the magic opening conveys faculty.
----------------------------

I don't think birth signifies anything other than actual separation from a mother's body. It seems like the most appropriate line to draw for a number of reasons, most of which involve keeping the government out of decisions that should be made by medical professionals (like whether to remove a headless fetus to prevent a life threatening labor). I'm somewhat open to arguments that protections should come earlier, but I do think they would have to be applied in a very situational basis, due to the range of medical complications that can occur during gestation.

[msallied]

251. I think your definitions are FAR too subjective. Listen...

I think all of this twisting in the wind in terms of trying to make a fetus fit a specific set of criteria of whether or not is an actual "life" is more or less people trying to absolve themselves from the guilt of killing a fetus. As pro-choice as I may be (because I don't think the government has a place in this argument), I believe abortion is a very horrible and unfortunate thing. I do not believe a fetus has legal "personhood," but it is a life, and an abortion--quite literally--kills it. Now we can accept that this is what abortion is and then learn to deal with the emotional repercussions of extinguishing that life--however fledgling and rudimentary it may be after only a few months--in favor of our own, or we can continue to lie and change the facts to fit our world view that is somehow threatened by calling something what it truly is: human life.

I say this as someone who is both pro-choice and who has experienced an abortion. An elective abortion. A very emotionally-damaging, painful, guilt-inducing abortion that I will have to live with for the rest of my life, and that I am reminded of every time I look at the two children I did choose to carry. It's not an easy thing and I accept the responsibility for my actions. I paid for it out of my own pocket, even when I had little money to do it with and no medical insurance (hence the abortion), and I honestly wouldn't have had it any other way. Making the decision to rip my growing baby from my uterus was MY cross to bear. I stopped trying to rationalize my decision about two weeks in, when I found myself studying a baby book and looking at pictures of fetuses at varying stages of development and suddenly felt the world cave in, and the reality that I ended the life of someone who could have gone on to cure AIDS, for all I know. I don't even like killing spiders. How could I rationalize killing a fully-formed human being with a heart beat, even if it was only a few inches long?

I am saying all this because I think you're wasting time having this argument. You can deny the truth or shape it to your desired reality, but the truth usually comes home to roost about a week after you've laid on that table with your legs in the air listening to the sickening sound of regret that remarkably resembles that of a shop vac.

[mkultra]

254. wow, I was trying to avoid that level of boldness

Essentially i agree with your thoughts without having had the experiences. My stance is very much as you have stated. I feel very confident that a fertilized egg is unique human life. I think ending it is taking a life. I do not think that an embryo has any legal standing in America and i don't think the the government should be involved in monitoring those kinds of decisions.

If the government where to get involved, we would have to pick a line to draw in the sand regarding the health of the mother vs the child and so forth. The end result would be that women seeking only their own safety would be exposed to criminal prosecution on what would probably be pretty heavy charges. After having thought it through many times, i see no plausible way to involve the law.

ergo, its a completely moral issue. I, however, cannot say with confidence that choice proponents are rationalizing as i truly think that many truly believe in their stance. I just happen to disagree with them.

thanks for your response.

[D23MIURG23]

261. Respectfully, your testimonial is completely subjective.

Not to devalue your experience, but it doesn't prove that your perspective is the truth and the rest of us are deluded. I don't view myself as denying anything on anyone's behalf. I certainly don't view myself as complicit in murder for using embryonic cells in research aimed at curing ovarian cancer. You can frame that and other related issues however you want, but keep in mind that not every situation is identical to yours.

[harry_pothead]

93. Tell you what. When you can buy several years of birth control pills from the clothing store for $20

without needing a prescription or a pap smear, I'll be happy to let contraception not be covered.

Until then, put the contraception-to-sweater analogy away. Reading the analogy was like being bukkaked with stupid.

[ClarkUSA]

122. Um, you missed the fact that I was being sarcastic. Maybe I should've used the sarcasm thingy. nt

[druidity33]

100. so says the man

comparing winter coats to contraception...

:eyes:

[freddie mertz]

104. It is beyond stupid, it is viciously, hatefully ignorant.

Not to mention deeply, passionately hateful toward women.

This guy belongs in the Junior Anti-Sex League.

Go Clark!

Go USA!

[ClarkUSA]

121. What "is beyond stupid" and "is viciously, hatefully ignorant" is your attempt at demonization. nt

[freddie mertz]

158. You could call it mockery.

But it is not "Demonization."

As you should be able to recognize.

[ClarkUSA]

117. No, I was replying to the DUer who insisted ANYTHING that prevents illness should be covered by HCR.

[druidity33]

140. you're the one who made the comparison

and pushed it. You set up that strawman. Yes, contraception including condoms should be covered by any HCR because... gasp, they are an integral part of a persons Health Care!

Also, you should read the statement by NOW, because the Stupak Amendment is different than you are implying. It would, in effect, limit if not eliminate the ability of Lower Income people to get abortions. It would hurt exactly the population that is susceptible to unplanned/unwanted pregnancy. It goes a lot further than the former "Federal ban" on abortions.

I think you don't like to admit when you're wrong and will continue to argue this point or you'll ignore the people who oppose your viewpoint with logic too difficult to refute. In either case, i hope you come to see this isn't a petty disagreement in policy... it chips away even further into the laws governing a woman's right to choose. And i'm sorry to say, i believe you are on the wrong side of the argument.

:shrug:

[ClarkUSA]

151. No, I was being New Yorker sarcastic, though some took me seriously.

Like I said, I should've used :sarcasm:

As to what you've outlined, I've responded to similar points throughout this thread and don't want to keep repeating myself.

However, I do thank you for taking a non-vitriolic/mature approach to debating our differing opinions. It's sad that DU is
rarely a place of such exchanges, as this entire thread (and others that take place 24/7 around here) demonstrates.

[freddie mertz]

159. "Never mind! Just kidding!"

Very mature and non-vitriolic.

Like the part where you describe "watching peoples' posts"....

Please, give us all a break.

Go Clark in 2004!

[ClarkUSA]

162. I wasn't speaking to you, but bitter is as bitter does, I guess. nt

[freddie mertz]

165. Gotcha then.

:toast:

[ClarkUSA]

173. Not at all, but I'm glad it makes you happy to think so. nt

[kestrel91316]

186. I'll tell you what - you get your fucking Stupak Amendment provided that

HCR also pays nothing whatsoever for diagnosis or treatment of any male erectile dysfunction or STD's. Because sex within proper biblical monogamy NEVER leads to STD's anyway, and if a guy can't get it up that's God's will or the devil's doing or his own damned fault.

[ClarkUSA]

190. I'll tell you what - I believe the language will be removed in conference. See reply #181.

[freddie mertz]

102. Are you actually suggesting condoms should NOT be covered?

Do you realize that condoms are a front-line preventative in the war against STDs and AIDS?

I am having trouble believing that you could possibly be as ignorant as your posts suggest.

[PeaceNikki]

103. I know. It's like performance art, right?

Did you see the other thread in which he compared abortion to "elective breast enhancements, face lifts and botox" and then feigned offense at the fact I said he was ridiculously ignorant? Classic.

[freddie mertz]

107. Do you think these posts are even serious?

I could accept them as a parody of extreme right-wing woman-hating.

But if they are serious, whoo boy....

[PeaceNikki]

108. Sadly, yes. I think he's dead serious.

I've run into a good number of DUer's who: don't agree with choice, agree with choice with conditions, or CLAIM to agree with choice but don't really.

[freddie mertz]

109. It's so weird.

Controversies like this must really bring them out.

[ClarkUSA]

123. "Controversies like this" bring out those who demonize anyone who doesn't walk in lockstep with NOW.

[freddie mertz]

156. Do you have a job or something?

[BrklynLiberal]

225. Lately I have found the Ignore option to be invaluable. Saves lots of time trying to figure

out if a poster is really serious...

[ClarkUSA]

124. As opposed to the majority of your posts on Pres. Obama since you arrived here?

I could accept yours as a parody of extreme right-wing Obama-hating but I have no doubt you are serious.

Meow.

[TheBigotBasher]

230. Yes they are

A lot of gay clubs give them out free in Britain, funded by the NHS.

[harry_pothead]

94. Contraception is an important part of women's AND men's health care.

At least that's the way I look at it. When I was in college and my girlfriend at the time wanted to get on the pill, I drove her to the Planned Parenthood clinic over in Sacramento to get her pap smear, waited in the waiting room for her, and drove her back to Davis. Same thing when she went in later for the pills. The way I see it, she wanted to get on the pill so the *both of us* could have sex, and so the contraception was just as much for me as it was for her.

The same thing goes for everyone else I've been with who has been on the pill or shot - *regardless of how serious the relationship was.*

Contraception is an important part of all of our health care, and damn well should be covered. End of story.

[flpoljunkie]

112. Um, to prevent unwanted pregnancies?

[PeaceNikki]

27. Um.... You seem to be totally confused.

These women WOULD be paying for/contributing to the coverage, just like you ans would explicitly be denied normal health care coverage. Just because they're women.

Your argument could be used for any health care service from antibiotics to pain meds to surgery to repair a torn ligament.

[Hello_Kitty]

29. No goddamn alcohol or drug treatment, that's for sure.

You did that to yourself so buck up and take responsibility! :sarcasm:

[ClarkUSA]

32. No, I'm quite clearheaded on this issue, thank you. nt

[Diamonique]

101. No you're not clear-headed on this issue at all.

The argument isn't about taxpayer money paying for abortions. We outlawed that years ago(Hyde Amendment).

But the Stupak amendment says that no plan in the "exchange" can cover abortion. Subsequently, if a woman loses her job and wants to use HER OWN MONEY to purchase private insurance under the exchange, she wouldn't be able to purchase -- WITH HER OWN MONEY -- a plan that covers abortion.

This simply goes too far.

[ClarkUSA]

119. So says you.

<<The argument isn't about taxpayer money paying for abortions. We outlawed that years ago(Hyde Amendment).>>

If that's so, then why is 90% of this thread about vilifying anyone who doesn't support HCR not including "taxpayer money
paying for abortions"?

<<But the Stupak amendment says that no plan in the "exchange" can cover abortion. Subsequently, if a woman loses her
job and wants to use HER OWN MONEY to purchase private insurance under the exchange, she wouldn't be able to purchase
-- WITH HER OWN MONEY -- a plan that covers abortion.>>

A woman buy supplemental insurance if she feels she needs the option. Also, "if a woman loses her job" she can "use HER
OWN MONEY" to go to Planned Parenthood and get a low-cost abortion like many women I know who've had multiple
abortions that way (all of them did NOT have insurance or Medicaid, BTW). These same women have also gone to Planned
Parenthood for low-cost day-after pills and contraception. One I know went to a private clinic to get an abortion in her
22nd week. She did not have insurance or Medicaid, either.

I'll wait until the final bill in order to comment on an amendment that has yet to come out of conference. Alot of anonymous
folks at DU seem to think they know the outcome of legislative events before the happen. I am dubious, but even if your
worst fears came true, I am still in favor of HCR because I have family members with pre-existing conditions who would
no longer be denied insurance come January 2010 if it passed. The legislation will also cover 96 percent of Americans by
2015, while reducing the deficit by tens of billions of dollars by 2019. Not too shabby.

The perfect should not be the enemy of the good. There are many years ahead to tweak legislation, as Congress did with Social
Security and Medicaid. I see the House bill as the beginning of HCR, not the end.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I

FYI, this DUer speaks for me. No doubt, many Democrats and more Americans feel the same way, despite being pro-choice.

"I have absolutely no problem with the way the abortion section is written, as long as it pay for abortions that were the result of rape,
incest or if the health of the mother is at risk -- which it does.

People can either pay for their own elective abortions or buy a supplemental policy that covers it. Much like they do for elective breast
enhancements, face lifts and botox. Should tax payers have to pay for those elective procedures as well?

Elective abortions are legal, but that doesn't mean they should be tax-payer funded."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8739881&mesg_id=8741656

[PeaceNikki]

120. And this one speaks for me.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6960206&mesg_id=6968823

Even necessary procedures can also be elective...

The problem with the public perception of the term "elective abortion" is that it renders the procedure as frivolous and unnecessary. That's just not true.

In medical terms, ANY procedure or surgery that can be scheduled and/or rescheduled (due to unforeseen circumstances delaying the procedure - sudden illness, unavailability of an OR/procedure room, etc.) is termed as "elective". It does not mean the procedure isn't medically necessary or justified. It only means that it is not an immediately emergent life-threatening problem requiring urgent, emergency medical intervention to save a patient's life. Even biopsies can be done on an elective basis, although it's obvious that is a procedure that is certainly medically necessary!

So, even an abortion that is medically indicated (say, due to fetal health problem or maternal health problem) can be an elective procedure. The term elective does not negate the procedure as necessary to the patient's long-term health interests...

Yes... it's JUST fucking like "elective breast enhancements, face lifts and botox". :eyes:

[ClarkUSA]

132. Thanks for sharing. It's been nice to differ in opinion without you cursing my POV. Oh, wait...

That didn't happen, did it? :eyes:

[PeaceNikki]

139. Anyone who puts abortion in the same category with "elective breast enhancements, face lifts and

botox" doesn't deserve to be taken seriously.


At all.

[ClarkUSA]

144. That's ELECTIVE abortion, not all abortions. And they are not "in the same category".

However, I don't expect Obama-hating DUers who agree with dishonest, hyperbolic NOW press releases to be able to
debate an issue without resorting to insults and invective.

Here's a fact you can't twist into a strawman argument:

"While the amendment would prohibit abortion funding through the exchange, its advocates have tried to explain that
women could purchase a separate, single service rider to cover abortion related expenses."

http://www.examiner.com/x-25800-DC-Political-Buzz-Examiner~y2009m11d8-Prochoice-movement-dealt-serious-blow-with-passage-of-Stupak-amendment-in-health-care-reform-bill

Some of us understand that there is plenty of opportunity to improve the HCR bill in conference and if legislation is passed,
that amendments could be added for decades to come, as Congress did with FDR's Social Security and LBJ's Medicare. There's
no doubt in my mind that they'll do it with Obama's HCR, if the bill ever makes it to a vote.

But obviously, 24/7 bitter outrage bloggers don't.

[PeaceNikki]

145. Ha!!! You're calling ME an "Obama-hating DUer"?

:rofl:

That's awesome.

[ClarkUSA]

147. I didn't say that about YOU. If you feel the label resonates, then that's your problem.

It does describe a few of the DUers who've personally attacked me on this thread.

[PeaceNikki]

150. You just keep on keepin' on, ClarkUSA.

Clearly you are the primary authority on women's reproductive health and we should all be mesmerized by the depth and breath of your knowledge in addition to your compassion and on this topic. You continue offer valuable input while always being rational, reasonable and sane. I can only aspire to be as awesome as you someday.

Good day, sir.

[freddie mertz]

161. Nikki, you are just awesome.

I thought you should know.

[PeaceNikki]

207. awww... thanks.

:blush:

You're pretty awesome for being rational and reasonable and stuff, too. :)

[waiting for hope]

228. Kinda like Senator Kyl saying he didn't think

maternity care should be provided since "he" didn't need it .... ;)

[Sebastian Doyle]

57. Well, if you don't like the idea of paying for abortions

Then perhaps you SHOULD be in favor of preventing unwanted pregnancies? :shrug:

[havocmom]

129. Because so many of them don't want to pay for schools

just for starters

[Neecy]

141. Wow

So, why are taxpayers paying for Viagra? Are limp dicks more important than contraception?

[ClarkUSA]

146. No, they are not. I disagree with taxpayer-funded Viagra. nt

[freddie mertz]

164. Yeah, that one really causes me to lose sleep too. nt.

[kestrel91316]

185. Why should taxpayers have to pay for Viagra?

[ClarkUSA]

193. They shouldn't. nt

[winyanstaz]

224. Why not throw men's right to have care for prostate cancer under the bus?

contraception is also a HEALTH issue.

[Lorien]

242. By your logic, taxpayers shouldn't pay for anything tied to personal choices

so, if you eat beef or fast food and get diabetes and heart disease we should just set you adrift on an iceberg somewhere?

[PeaceNikki]

23. Nice, huh? This is the face of the DFLA.

[ClarkUSA]

28. Bullshit. I'm pro-choice but I'm not sold on the necessity for HCR to pay for elective abortions or

... or contraception.

[Hello_Kitty]

30. Okay, we'll let abortion go for a second.

What is your explanation for not wanting to cover contraception?

[ClarkUSA]

34. See Reply #22 subthread. nt

[karynnj]

194. Does your insurance now pay for contraception?

Most plans I know of do pay part of the cost through the drug plan, but certainly not all of it. (In fact looking at internet sales prices, they are essentially giving you a price only slightly below the cost I saw for a 6 month supply.)

[Hello_Kitty]

212. Honey, they payed for my tubal ligation and I don't have any kids.

Before that it was Depo and I just had a small copay IIRC.

[kestrel91316]

184. Why the hell should taxpayers then be forced to pay for treatment of

erectile dysfunction with surgery and medication in, say, single men who have no business having sex since they aren't married? Or perhaps elderly men whose wives are not breeding age?

Because sex is only for married people and for reproductive purooses, right?

[ClarkUSA]

202. I agree with you. nt

[Lorien]

241. Truly. nt

[CTLawGuy]

10. what about the practice

of treating domestic violence as a "preexisting condition" that this bill would end?

[ClarkUSA]

39. That's a good thing. nt

[PeaceNikki]

12. Here is the kicker:

Prevent women participating in the public health insurance exchange, administered by private insurance companies, from using 100 percent of their own money to purchase private insurance that covers abortion;

[Hello_Kitty]

17. Unless they purchase special rider

That properly labels them as sluts who might need abortions.

[ClarkUSA]

37. They can buy supplemental insurance. or go to Planned Parenthood like my friends did. nt

[Hello_Kitty]

48. Yay for your friends.

This may come as a huge surprise to you but Planned Parenthood would not be able to handle the mass influx of women needing contraception and abortion services if your idiotic notion that taxpayers should not fund those things in the HCR came to be.

[ClarkUSA]

52. Name calling? Tsk tsk.

As for your opinion re: Planned Parenthood, I remain dubious given your complete lack of data to back up your assertion.

[Neecy]

143. Not everyone has a Planned Parenthood nearby

The closest one to me is 2 hours away. For those who can't afford a car in rural areas Planned Parenthood is not an easy option.

[ClarkUSA]

170. Life isn't perfect or fair and neither is the HCR House bill. But it's not the end product.

I will be surprised if the language in the Stupak Amendment will make it out of conference. You needed it to be in the mix
for HCR to pass in the House.

But on the off-chance that it does stay in, then there is plenty of opportunity to improve the HCR bill in conference and if
legislation is passed, amendments could and will be added for decades to come, as Congress did with FDR's Social Security
and LBJ's Medicare. There's no doubt in my mind that Congress will do the same with Obama's HCR, if the bill ever makes
it to a final vote and gets signed into law.

In the meantime, I'm not a proponent of the perfect being the enemy of the good. I am focusing on the fact that the House
HCR bill eliminates pre-existing conditions and ends caps, two incredibly positive changes that will benefit the 96% of
Americans it will cover by January 2010.

[kestrel91316]

191. They should go to Planned Parenthood where they can risk being stalked or bombed?????

[msallied]

253. You think that only happens at Planned Parenthood?

Try ANY local abortion clinic.

[ClarkUSA]

214. It won't be much different than things stand now.

Before the HCR bill and the Stupak-Pitts amendment, if a woman relied on Medicaid or Medicare for her primary health insurance,
and wanted an elective abortion, she would either have to have additional private insurance to cover it, look for state funding (if
she lived in such a state that allowed and financed the procedure) or pay for the procedure out of pocket.

Nothing has changed. No new laws, no new restrictions.

Women already have to pay extra for abortion Insurance. Nothing has changed.

[Hello_Kitty]

15. Shorter ClarkUSA:

Dirty sluts!

[ClarkUSA]

20. What a foolish deduction. Bet you got an F in Logic class at university...

[Hello_Kitty]

24. Dude, you've already revealed yourself here.

You don't think that health insurance women are MANDATED to purchase should include CONTRACEPTION!

Jesus God. :wow:

[ClarkUSA]

38. I don't think it's an HCR deal breaker if taxpayers aren't required to pay for elective abortions...

... or contraception. That's right.

OMG! What a terrible thing not to walk in lockstep with you over the latest DU outrage! :eyes:

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ClarkUSA]

58. Name calling from you, too? Tsk tsk. Gimme a fucking break.

So you think "an essential aspect of women's health" is an elective abortion and contraception? That's news to alot of my women friends.

[Justitia]

79. Do any of your "women friends" have functioning ovaries anymore? -eom

[ClarkUSA]

85. lol! Lemme ask them and get back to you later, okay?

:crazy:

[Justitia]

86. You do that. If not, they have about as much stake in this as you do. -eom

[ClarkUSA]

89. Only those with "functioning ovaries" need apply, eh? Better tell that to NOW's BoD. nt

[Justitia]

92. YOU are the one that made your "women friends" a source on the issue.

Of course, NOW is a legitimate source of information.

[freddie mertz]

105. They are probably "imaginary" friends.

Pinned to the wall.

Pictures of Lily.

[ClarkUSA]

111. Don't you have an Obama-hating OP that you forgot to K&R, Bitter One? nt

[freddie mertz]

113. Good morning officer!

:hi: :patriot:

[ClarkUSA]

110. lol! That's right, I did, but you're the one who came up with the BS question re: their "ovaries"

As for NOW, they sent out a disingenuous and over-the-top press release that ridiculously accuses the House HCR bill of "obliterating
a women's fundamental right to choose" which is an absolute lie because so far as I know, HCR doesn't overturn Roe v. Wade and
abortions are still legal. They discredit themselves as an organization by not sticking to the facts and using doomsday hyperbole
that out a teabagger to shame.

[freddie mertz]

114. Typical "hysterical" feminists, eh officer?

:nopity: :tinfoilhat: :patriot:

[ClarkUSA]

118. Classy as always. I guess you're done reccing and kicking all the Obama-hating OPs?

[freddie mertz]

Well, I won't be kicking the anti-women's rights ones...

I mean, it is one thing to vote for the bill or support it IN SPITE of the Stoopidpak amendment.

It is quite another to not only DEFEND it, but go on to oppose contraception coverage as well.

That is just plain crazy wingnutism.

[ClarkUSA]

154. I also hope you don't create ridiculously demonizing strawman arguments, either. Oops, too late!

[freddie mertz]

155. No strawman here.

You have made your views on these issues clear enough.

[ClarkUSA]

160. Bullshit. Provide links and precise quotes to prove your allegations, then. I'll be waiting. nt

[freddie mertz]

163. Tell ya what Clarkie...

Go up to the top menu, click "My DU", and READ YOUR OWN POSTS.

Come back with any questions, and I'll be sure to heck em out (or not, this is getting dull...)

[ClarkUSA]

167. lol! You have nothing, eh? Thought so. nt

[freddie mertz]

168. No, I have read your posts against contraception coverage.nt.

[ClarkUSA]

172. Wrong again. I just don't see it as a HCR deal breaker if men have to buy their own condoms.

There is plenty of opportunity to improve the HCR bill in conference and if legislation is passed, amendments could and
will be added for decades to come, as Congress did with FDR's Social Security and LBJ's Medicare. There's no doubt in
my mind that Congress will do the same with Obama's HCR, if the bill ever makes it to a final vote and gets signed into
law.

[freddie mertz]

176. I'd love to know what COULD be a "deal-breaker" for you

Since you seem to be willing to go along with any sort of right wing "compromise" that they tell you to.

[ClarkUSA]

180. Pre-existing conditions and caps would be deal breakers for me. The House HCR bill got rid of both.

Speaking of the "right wing", how's that bitterness and opposition towards all things Obama going? That dislike obviously
extends to Obama supporters who support the HCR effort and are realistic about how to move legislation forward.

[freddie mertz]

215. Oh give it a rest.

[kestrel91316]

196. Are you even aware that birth control consists of a hell of a lot more than condoms???

As a RW male, I suppose not........how sad.........

[ClarkUSA]

199. Patronize/demonize much? See reply #181. nt

[kestrel91316]

201. Why WOULDN'T I demonize someone who doesn't want a major portion of

women's healthcare covered, but who is suspiciously silent on the issue of whether or not men's erectile dysfunction should be covered???

[ClarkUSA]

203. You need to read my replies before (falsely) accusing me of being "suspiciously silent".

As for your attempts at demonization, now I know why it's useless to debate topics with certain folks who can only dialogue
with those who walk in lockstep with them and have no interest in having a civil discussion with anyone who disagrees with
their opinions.

BTW, have you even bothered to read my reply at #181, much less those which answered ALL of your concerns about Viagra and
"erectile dysfunction"?

[Oregone]

18. "why does NOW feel it is necessary for taxpayers to pay for elective abortions"

So not so many fucked up right wing morons clusterfuck the world and steal my air. More abortions for all == less fucktards who oppose abortion being produced. Sounds fine to me. If only the government funded these earlier...

[PeaceNikki]

21. Good answer.

:thumbsup:

[ClarkUSA]

40. NOW if that were their reasoning, I could get behind it...

Alhough I doubt it is. ;)

[treestar]

44. Exactly, there is no change on the government's role in this question

Working to get that changed would be better than blocking health care for everything else.

[ClarkUSA]

61. I agree. You summed it up succinctly. nt

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SPedigrees]

73. Thank you for a voice of sanity. As pro-choice as I am, I fail to see

how this health care bill will seriously limit women's access to contraception and abortion. I've managed to pay for my own birth control and hrt over the years. Both are affordable, even for one in a working class income bracket. Although my single abortion decades ago was covered by insurance, many of my friends and relatives have managed to pay for abortion services out of pocket. I'm willing to bet that with advent of the abortion pill, it is much more affordable these days.

I'm far more frightened of my hubby or I being denied coverage for a truly expensive malady because of pre-existing hang nails.

[ClarkUSA]

82. I agree and understand what you're saying completely.

<<I've managed to pay for my own birth control and hrt over the years. Both are affordable, even for one in a working class
income bracket. Although my single abortion decades ago was covered by insurance, many of my friends and relatives have
managed to pay for abortion services out of pocket. I'm willing to bet that with advent of the abortion pill, it is much more
affordable these days.

I'm far more frightened of my hubby or I being denied coverage for a truly expensive malady because of pre-existing hang
nails.>>

I hear you. And like you must be, I'm very happy that the House HCR bill gets rid of insurance company caps and requires
coverage of pre-existing conditions by January 2010.

[SPedigrees]

84. Thanks for the agreement. Now let's hope that a decent plan passes the Senate

and that the two plans can be merged. Crossing my fingers and toes....

[ClarkUSA]

87. Definitely...

<<Crossing my fingers and toes....>>

Me too. And while we're at it, let's help OFA convince Senate Democrats to pass a good bill.

Have a good night. See you around. :hi:

[Bluenorthwest]

130. So yours was covered when you needed it

And now you need something else. 'I got mine, what's wrong with those poor women'. Got you, loud and clear.
The new law will mean no Insurance company can cover abortion, so what you once took as a benefit will not be available to others. You took that benefit. Now you would deny it to others. That is the fact of your post.

[ClarkUSA]

157. That's not true. Women can buy supplemental insurance to cover abortion services. Link, quote -->

"While the amendment would prohibit abortion funding through the exchange, its advocates have tried to explain that
women could purchase a separate, single service rider to cover abortion related expenses."

http://www.examiner.com/x-25800-DC-Political-Buzz-Examiner~y2009m11d8-Prochoice-movement-dealt-serious-blow-with-passage-of-Stupak-amendment-in-health-care-reform-bill

There is plenty of opportunity to improve the HCR bill in conference and if legislation is passed, amendments could and
will be added for decades to come, as Congress did with FDR's Social Security and LBJ's Medicare. There's no doubt in
my mind that Congress will do the same with Obama's HCR, if the bill ever makes it to a final vote and gets signed into
law.

[lovelyrita]

99. Abortions are medical procedures that insurance should

pay for. It's not of your business why someone wants one. Contraception should be treated exactly like any prescription medicine, not like it is now where an insurance company decides to offer only a few options. Having a uterus does not make one a second class citizen.

Reproductive health is part of women's regular medical care and should not be voted on by our public officials. It is between a woman and her doctor.

[goclark]

134. Ms.goclark agrees with you

I am well aware women of all economic levels that feel as you do. In fact, in all my years I have known so many friends that had abortions. Since I am a Senior, that was when women had NO choice but to go into back alleys and use coat hangers and all kinds of horrible items to abort.

That was way before modern products for Contraceptives.

I am all for the Rights of Woman but the Bill is almost as close as it can get on that point IMO. Considering that there are so many that don't believe in Abortions in this country -- not me.

I believe that a Woman Should have a right to Have One or Not have one. I'm just not totally sold on the government paying for it. I am sure NOW will clarify that point for me but from what I read, I don't agree with them.


I am reminded of the film "Precious" that just came out.
Every woman and man should run to see it.

I also have a question ~ is Viagra covered under the new Bill? :popcorn:

[ClarkUSA]

175. Thanks for your support and your perspective, Ms. goclark.

<<I believe that a Woman Should have a right to Have One or Not have one. I'm just not totally sold on the government paying
for it. I am sure NOW will clarify that point for me but from what I read, I don't agree with them.>>

We're on the same page. It remains very likely that the Stupak Amendment language will be removed in conference and other
things added. Nice to see another Clarkie from 2004 here, too.

<<I am reminded of the film "Precious" that just came out. Every woman and man should run to see it.>>

I'll have to make plans to see "Precious" now. I've read rave reviews about it and the lead actress. It's not a tearjerker, is it?

<<I also have a question ~ is Viagra covered under the new Bill?>>

lol! I hope not. :)

[goclark]

187. I would say it is not a tear jerker ~ it is profound Food For Thought

All of the acting is superb, awesome.

[ClarkUSA]

192. Great. I'll be going this week, then.

[kestrel91316]

183. Guess over in Freeperville nobody has ever experienced a birth

control failure leading to unwanted pregnancy, eh?

Sometimes "responsibility" has nothing to do with it.

[ClarkUSA]

188. Are you accusing me of being a freeper? nt

[kestrel91316]

197. WEll, let's just say your opinions on women's health are distinctly undemocratic.

[ClarkUSA]

205. dupe - self-delete nt

[ClarkUSA]

206. Hmm. Are the folks who have agreed with me on this & other threads also "distinctly undemocratic"?

Have you even bothered to read reply #181 despite my multiple requests that you do? Guess not. You're having to much fun
ranting and berating those who differ from you in perspective while ignoring the bigger picture.

[snake in the grass]

245. Hell, why stop there?

Why should my hard-earned tax dollars go to coronary treatment for obese people? Liver transplants for alcoholics? Orthopedic surgery for extreme athletes? Chemotherapy for smokers? Shit, if you have faulty wiring in your house and it catches on fire, why should others have to pay for your irresponsibility by putting it out?

Better yet, just do away with all insurance and tax funded first responders. Let the people decide whom they want to finance with their hard-earned money. That goes especially for nasty women who can't keep their legs closed, right? I mean, they already have the right to "elective" abortions. What the fuck else do they want? Actions have consequences, you know!

Signed,

a REAL 'Murkan!


FREEDUMB!!!

[handmade34]

7. it's a slippery slope downward

and we must fight to keep on an uphill course.

[napi21]

14. There's something I don't quite understand. I looked up Planned

Parenthood on Google and THEY receive federal funding. Although I disagree with the Stupak ammendment, if it gets the damn health care bills passed in the house & senate, I say go for it. Planned Parenthood clinics are nationwide and from what I can tell is the best alternative for women who seek abortions for whatever the reason.

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



PPFA is a federation of 94 independent Planned Parenthood affiliates around the United States. These affiliates together operate more than 850 locations, offering a variety of services to more than three million people. Services include abortion services, contraceptive (birth control) services; emergency contraception; screening for breast, cervical and testicular cancers; pregnancy testing and pregnancy options counseling; testing and treatment for sexually transmitted diseases; comprehensive sexuality education, menopause treatments; vasectomies and tubal ligations, and more. Not all services are available at all locations.

Planned Parenthood describes itself as "the nation's leading sexual and reproductive health care advocate and provider." In 2007, contraception constituted 36% of total services, STI/STD testing and treatment constituted 31%, cancer testing and screening constituted 17%; other women's health services, including pregnancy, prenatal, midlife, and infertility were 11%, and approximately 3% of total services involved surgical and medical abortions.<6> Planned Parenthood affiliates performed 305,310 medical and surgical abortions in 2007, up from 289,750 in 2006.<7>

Planned Parenthood receives about a third of its money in government grants and contracts ($349.6 million in FY 2008). In the 2007–08 Annual Report, clinic income totaled $374.7 million and miscellaneous operating revenues $68.9 million. Planned Parenthood is also heavily sponsored by private individuals, with over 700,000 active individual contributors.<7> Large donors such as the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation contribute a substantial part of the organization's budget.<8> Pro-life groups have long advocated the boycott of these private organizations.

Some pro-life organizations have lobbied federal lawmakers to halt government funding for Planned Parenthood.<9>

[ClarkUSA]

43. Planned Parenthood is a great resource for those seeking abortions and contraceptives. nt

They offer free HIV tests and counselling as well as low-cost sliding-scale fees for all their services and for those in a hurry,
free condoms in fishbowls. :)

[cornermouse]

98. Not all states have a planned parenthood clinic that

offers abortions. But don't let facts stop you from steadfastly opposing women's rights.

[ClarkUSA]

136. Bullshit. Give me an example where I've been "steadfastly opposing women's rights."

[cornermouse]

219. This entire thread and several others that I've observed over the last couple of days.

[Justitia]

69. PP consists of different corporations. The corp that does surgical procedures does NOT receive fed

funds. It is 100% privately funded.

The non-profit corp that provides family planning is eligible for federal funds.

[Hepburn]

25. KNR...thank you and welcome to the DU....n/t

[me b zola]

36. K&R

[treestar]

42. The health care plan didn't exist before

Geez. They talk as if the health care plan already existed, covered abortions, and now that's being taken away.

The government already doesn't pay for abortions, and that goes back to the 1970s. It's a different issue.

[dflprincess]

56. I believe this amendment goes further than existing law

and would make if difficult, if not impossible, for any private insurers who participate in the exchange that's suppose to be set up eventually to offer abortion services as many private policies do now.

[treestar]

59. Thank you for that informative response which is not overemotional and attacking

If the private policies offer it now, then it would be a loss that they no longer could.

[dflprincess]

67. On, I can get pretty emotional about it -

and I refrained from responding to some of the other posts in this thread that did push my buttons.

But, to clarify, it isn't a matter of "if" some policies now cover elective abortion, I know for a fact that at least some of them do. A young acquaintance recently had an abortion and her insurance did cover all but the same deductibles/copays she would have had with any other procedure.

[Justitia]

72. Yup. 90% of all health ins plans in the US cover abortion svcs. -eom

[treestar]

78. So does this amendment remove that possibility

If the bill passed as is, the no insurance company could cover it?

[Justitia]

80. That is exactly correct. -eom

[ClarkUSA]

137. You're wrong. Women can buy supplemental insurance to cover abortion services. Link, quote -->

"While the amendment would prohibit abortion funding through the exchange, its advocates have tried to explain that women could purchase a separate, single service rider to cover abortion related expenses."

http://www.examiner.com/x-25800-DC-Political-Buzz-Examiner~y2009m11d8-Prochoice-movement-dealt-serious-blow-with-passage-of-Stupak-amendment-in-health-care-reform-bill

[freddie mertz]

166. IF they can afford it, and IF it is offered in their sate.

You just refuse to get it, don't you?

[ClarkUSA]

178. IF Stupak amendment is taken out in conference, THEN you'll have to find another topic to rage about

HCR is not meant to itch every scratch at once and magically be the perfect solution for all.

There is plenty of opportunity to improve the HCR bill in conference and if legislation is passed, amendments could and
will be added for decades to come, as Congress did with FDR's Social Security and LBJ's Medicare. There's no doubt in
my mind that Congress will do the same with Obama's HCR, if the bill ever makes it to a final vote and gets signed into
law.

You just refuse to get it, don't you?

[joeycola]

195. The blue dogs and Repugs saw a perfect opening--that is what you refuse to get! This

opening was the health care bill itself. all they needed was the help of Pelosi and other dems and they got their wish.

[ClarkUSA]

200. I "get" more than you think. See reply #181. nt

[joeycola]

222. BTW-Obama agrees. The House language goes TOO far.

[ClarkUSA]

138. No it doesn't. Someone is fibbing to you or is ignorant of the facts. Link, quote -->

"While the amendment would prohibit abortion funding through the exchange, its advocates have tried to explain that women could purchase a separate, single service rider to cover abortion related expenses."

http://www.examiner.com/x-25800-DC-Political-Buzz-Examiner~y2009m11d8-Prochoice-movement-dealt-serious-blow-with-passage-of-Stupak-amendment-in-health-care-reform-bill

[joeycola]

220. goodie goodie. Women will have to pay extra for health care once again!!

[ClarkUSA]

227. "once again"? It's no different than what women have to do now.

[izzybeans]

152. .

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/15284081/Stupak-Amendment-to-HR-3962-Rev-108

[ClarkUSA]

210. I disagree, it does not go much further.

Before the HCR bill and the Stupak-Pitts amendment, if a woman relied on Medicaid or Medicare for her primary health insurance,
and wanted an elective abortion, she would either have to have additional private insurance to cover it, look for state funding (if
she lived in such a state that allowed and financed the procedure) or pay for the procedure out of pocket.

Nothing has changed. No new laws, no new restrictions.

Women already have to pay extra for abortion Insurance. Nothing has changed.

[TheKentuckian]

179. No, this goes beyond Hyde

This amendment bars plans including coverage for abortion services from the exchange even if the consumer and/or their employer pays full value for their plan. In effect this bill will BAN coverage for a legal procedure for more and more people as more enter the exchange over time.

I don't believe people are discussing this honestly because they want or even need this overall reform but I see no question that this is an expansion on Hyde that inserts the very flawed argument that any funds the government touches or contributes funds to a body associated with a service means that the government is funding the service. The scope of this amendment can be stretched well beyond this exchange to virtually eliminate access to all but the most wealthy. No clinic or hospital will be allowed to perform this procedure eventually because they all receive funds that are touched in some way by the Federal government.

Show of hands that believe the Confederates and their allies will stop here with this language codified into the law.

Come on, this is not maintaining he status quo but a Trojan that uses health care reform to put language in the code to outlaw this service for most. Let's not kid ourselves, I think we all know the existing language in the underlying bill reenforced Hyde strongly. The only purpose of this amendment is to extend the existing compromise utilizing a brand new contortion of logic.

The underlying bill already has terrible flaws but flaws mixed with fixes that very arguably improve the lot in life of millions and maybe everyone that really gets sick but this is a bit of a horse of a another color and deserves to be discussed and hashed out. The argument that the bill will help far more women than it harms can and should be made but it is dishonest and wrong to just pretend this is nothing but same as it ever was. God knows this isn't even one of my breath and pulse issues and have seome serious personal concerns on the issue (though I never have tried or desired to make others live based on them) but I can see the obvious expansion and rankle at it. This is a clear effort to curtail and even eliminate civil rights by restricting access.

There is no viable secular argument for the current restrictions and this new language expands already faulty logic into a whole new ball game. Hell, they'll probably be twisting this into stem cell restrictions and just go from there. The next thing we know this same argument will dictate that having a road leading to a facilaty equates with funding because that is exactly how strained the logic is at this point. DeMint will be saying that using money at all for the procedure is a violation because currency is Federally funded. This amendment is a deep ass rabbithole that smacks of unintended consequences that I am very uncomfortable getting behind.

I for one am not reflexively trying to kill the effort but saying this changes nothing is not convincing to a person that is very pro-choice but isn't personally pro-abortion at all and I'm sure I'm not alone even in this sub-category of thought. My gut says this not only counters settled law but is a logic trap that will erode rights in a way we cannot foresee now because we come from a perspective that wants to expand rights and equal protection rather than seizing every chance to reduce them.

[PeaceNikki]

182. Than you for putting my thoughts so eloquently.

:)

[ClarkUSA]

209. I disagree, it does not go much further.

Before the HCR bill and the Stupak-Pitts amendment, if a woman relied on Medicaid or Medicare for her primary health insurance,
and wanted an elective abortion, she would either have to have additional private insurance to cover it, look for state funding (if
she lived in such a state that allowed and financed the procedure) or pay for the procedure out of pocket.

Nothing has changed. No new laws, no new restrictions.

Women already have to pay extra for abortion insurance. Nothing has changed.

[TheKentuckian]

211. What about the women who pay full price either on their own or through their employers

for a private plan on the exchange?

What about the twisted logic on which the amendment was created that any funds the government ever touches or is in anyway associated with is seen as funding?

I really think you are missing what they are doing on purpose so you don't have to actually wrestle with issue right now. How did the underlying bill fail to account for and honor the Hyde amendment?

[ClarkUSA]

213. How is it going to be any different than things stand now? FYI, only 2% of women per year have one.

And the abortion rate is going down: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html

[Beacool]

70. *Prevent low-income women from accessing abortion entirely, in many cases.

My mother remembers a time when young girls and women were left sterile or died due to botched abortions performed by quacks. To try to pass a health care bill that does not include the right to have an abortion on demand, as stated by federal law, is unconscionable.

So, some of you can go ahead and pop the champagne. I'll leave mine corked until we get a final bill and have the opportunity to read it.

;(

[Better Believe It]

75. K & R and welcome to Democratic Underground

[jenmito]

77. It'll likely be taken out. n/t

[nemo137]

88. Would there be grounds to challenge the Stupak Amendment in court?

Just wondering if it's bad law in addition to be policy.

[bluetrain]

95. I don't understand how it could possibly be constitutional both because of the gender discrimination

and that it's clearly an insertion of religious beliefs into the law. But...

[wisteria]

90. Heath care reform by depriving women of their fundamental right to reproductive freedom.

There shouldn't of even been a debate about this. I hope it receives a lot of revision in the Senate version.

[Eyerish]

91. K&R

[Mithreal]

96. K&R

[Vidar]

97. K&R

[freddie mertz]

106. Kicked and rec'd.

[Thrill]

116. Everyone wants an all inclusive party. This is one of the downsides to it

A ton of conservative Democrats

[Bluenorthwest]

126. A downside for those who feel compelled to play with them

The rest of us will not be wasting time and energy on that routine. So you will have room for all the anti woman, anti gay people you want. Enjoy the company.

[Thrill]

131. If you want majorities in both houses this is how its going to be

This is the way its been since at least Reagan. Conservative Democrats hinder liberal agendas.

[Bluenorthwest]

133. What good is a majority to me?

It is not helpful in getting reform, or equality. I have objectives and I can follow them well without the use of the DC crowd at all. The majority is their concern, not mine. I'm a person, not a Party, and I will not support people who do not support my rights, no matter the Party, no matter the excuse.
If the Party is just going to hinder my agenda, I will just leave the Party out of my plans, as I did for many years while the 'majority' argued about the existence of AIDS and if God wanted gays to be put in camps.
I will not be in a Party with people who do not think I am human, or that women are equal. Knock yourself out, many 'Democrats' love that Reagan, Obama droools over the transformational nature of Ronny. And you assist them by assuming they win.
The same bastards you are courting just brought the GOP to the gutter, and they can do that for the DNC in about a year.
I'm not in this for a politician or a group of politicians, but for my family, and my country.

[Tom Rinaldo]

148. The Pro Choice movement lost majority public support

More set backs like this one will follow if the majority of voters continue to not support abortion rights. In the current money and media environment it is already difficult for us to win political battles when the majority of the American people are in agreement with us. Without that at least, we move backward.

[izzybeans]

149. Is this the text of the amendment?

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/15284081/Stupak-Amendment-to-HR-3962-Rev-108

Just curious.

[demwing]

246. yes /nt

[paparush]

169. Republicans HATE WOMEN!

Period.

Of course, they hate gays, minorities, and the poor too.

Basically Republicans hate anyone who isn't white, uptight, and in church every night (and rich).

[ClarkUSA]

181. They wanted to kill the bill's chances of ever going forward to conference. They failed.

This was the House Republicans' Hail Mary pass and it fell short, although it accomplished its ancillary goal of causing controversial
fallout within the Democratic party.

Many folks here are treating this House bill as if it will be the final product, but it remains very likely that the Stupak Amendment
language will be removed in conference and other things added.

[wisteria]

217. Those few votes were necessary, and sometimes tough choices have to be made. n/t

[winyanstaz]

223. women will DIE because of those "tough choices". you are so happy to make.....

and that is just unexceptable.

[ClarkUSA]

229. How is it going to be any different than things stand now? FYI, only 2% of women per year have one.

And the abortion rate is going down: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html

Before the HCR bill and the Stupak-Pitts amendment, if a woman relied on Medicaid or Medicare for her primary health insurance,
and wanted an elective abortion, she would either have to have additional private insurance to cover it, look for state funding (if
she lived in such a state that allowed and financed the procedure) or pay for the procedure out of pocket.

Nothing has changed. No new laws, no new restrictions.

Women already have to pay extra for abortion Insurance. Nothing has changed.

FYI, it's expected that this language will be removed in conference, especially since Pres. Obama has signalled his disapproval.

[winyanstaz]

233. and for dang good reason....

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

252. How many women will die if nothing is done?

And how is that any more acceptable to you?

[winyanstaz]

221. We must stand up and be heard loud and clear on this.....

This is UNexceptable....and we cannot let them get away with this.

[pleah]

226. K&R

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

235. ...

[joeycola]

236. ....

[demwing]

244. NOW is wrong

Let's break this down in lay terms

"...OPTION TO OFFER SEPARATE SUPPLEMENTAL COVERAGE OR PLAN - Not withstanding section 303(b) nothing in this section shall restrict any nonfederal QHBP offering entity from offering separate supplemental coverage for abortions for which funding is prohibited under this section, or a plan that includes such abortions, so long as -- ...(3) any nonfederal QHBP offering entity that offers an Exchange-participating health benefits plan that includes coverage for abortions for which funding is prohibited under this section also offers an Exchange-participating health benefits plan that is identical in every respect except that it does not cover abortions for which funding is prohibited under this section."

1. nothing in this section shall restrict = THERE ARE NO RESTRICTIONS ON

2. any nonfederal = ANY ORGANIZATION (OTHER THAN THE FEDERAL GOVT)

3. QHBP offering entity = THAT OFFERS A QUALIFIED HEALTH PLAN (AS PER TITLE 1 OF THE BILL)

4. from offering separate supplemental coverage = FROM OFFERING A RIDER THAT COVERS

5. for abortions for which funding is prohibited under this section = "ELECTIVE" ABORTIONS

6. or a plan that includes such abortions = OR A PLAN THAT COVERS "ELECTIVE" ABORTIONS

7. so long as = AS LONG AS

8. any nonfederal QHBP offering entity = SAID ORGANIZATION

9. that offers an Exchange-participating health benefits plan = OFFERING A PLAN ON THE EXHCHANGE

10. that includes coverage for abortions for which funding is prohibited under this section = THAT INCLUDES "ELECTIVE" ABORTIONS

11. also offers an Exchange-participating health benefits plan = ALSO OFFERS A PLAN IN THE EXCHANGE

12. that is identical in every respect = IDENTICAL TO THE FORMER PLAN

13. except that it does not cover abortions for which funding is prohibited under this section. = EXCEPT THAT IT DOES NOT COVER "ELECTIVE" ABORTIONS.


Now read the layman's version =

"There are no restrictions on any organization (other than the federal govt.) that offers a qualified health plan (as per title 1 of the bill) from offering a rider that covers "elective" abortions, or a plan that covers "elective" abortions, as long as said organization offering a plan on the exchange that includes "elective" abortions, also offers a plan in the exchange identical to the former plan, except that it does not cover "elective" abortions."

Can it get any more clear? How can this POSSIBLY be twisted to mean that you cannot offer a plan in the exchange that offers "elective" abortions? Read the line: "that offers an Exchange-participating health benefits plan that includes coverage for abortions for which funding is prohibited under this section"

AGAIN: "an Exchange-participating health benefits plan that includes coverage for abortions for which funding is prohibited under this section"

How can their be such a plan if such plans are banned by this amendment? There cannot! The amendment does not ban these plans from the exchange, and (barring any evidence to the contrary not presented here) anyone who says differently is incorrect.

I don't care how famous they are, or what TV show they star in, or what internet videos they produce, or what organization they represent. Call me any name you like, it doesn't change the reality of the words as they appear in the amendment.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

248. you have put a lot of work into this

god knows why

[ClarkUSA]

249. The Haters/Whiners who are clueless re: Stupak should all read demwing's factual analysis.

Especially the snide ones who refer to the "baby-killing industry" in their clueless OPs.

[Dr Robert]

256. some people value the truth,

and take offense when someone tries to whip them into a frenzy based on false claims.

[demwing]

262. I don't know why - I guess it's because I believe we have the truth on our side

and truth matters

[RoadRage]

260. Thank-You

I was trying to understand the gist of this.. and as suspected, it's not nearly the "big deal" that those on the far-far-left are trying to make it out to be.

Is it great? No.. but it's not the end of the world, and it sure as hell shouldn't be the issue that ENDS healthcare reform.

Anyway.. thanks for the effort you put into your post!

rr