Were any NEW abortion laws created by the Stupak amendment?

[demwing]

I've heard Stupak make the argument that there were none, but I respect the passion and integrity of those that opposed the amendment, and who say differently. I'm tired, and I'm a bit confused. Can anyone clear this up?

What did the Stupak amendment CHANGE for women regarding their existing healthcare rights?

[madfloridian]

1. Read these posts. Yes, the denial of abortion was expanded to private insurance.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/5189

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/5193

[demwing]

4. but how is that different than anything currently in place?

The Hyde Amendment stating that no Federal funds would pay for abortion, except in the case of rape or incest, or if the abortion is "necessary to save the life of the woman" has been in place since 1977.

The only Government funds available for abortions other than those outlined above, come from the States, not the Feds.

[madfloridian]

8. Then talk to NARAL and Planned Parenthood.

Read the bloggers who are considered liberal or progressive. They had posts galore on this during the last two days.

You don't have to believe me, talk to them.

[vaberella]

29. You're not giving a good response.

The poster asked what was different from current law versus the Stupak---you should answer that first. You should break it down. You're saying because Bloggers say this or a few organizations rail over it, it's extra bad. I'm not saying I like it, but let's be fair when looking at the situation.

[LaydeeBug]

100. Or you could have...

just sayin'. It's not like your post added anything, other than criticism.

[WinkyDink]

105. "Private insurance" is the operative phrase.

[demwing]

6. Only to private insurance paid for with Federal funds

so its really the same old same old

[madfloridian]

9. It is your right to think that.

I am tired, and not going to argue.

[BrklynLiberal]

17. Read the linked posts

No funds authorized or appropriated by this Act

(or any amendment made by this Act) may be used to pay for any abortion

or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage

of abortion,


So..if you have to buy ANY subsidized coverage, you will not be able to get abortion coverage. So only the wealthy will be able to afford abortions. Isn't this where we were before Roe v. Wade????????????????????????????

[CTyankee]

114. Here's my question: why did they offer the Stupak amendment in the first place if it was just "same

as Hyde"? What's the point?

I take these antichoice folk on the Hill to be nothing if not dead serious in what they do. It makes no sense to do it if it doesn't really affect anything?

[Hawkeye-X]

2. It did - it won't even pass constitutional muster

once it's challenged by the NARAL and Pro-Choice folks.

Hawkeye-X

[1]

3. nope. all existing laws and rights are still in place. same as it ever was...

hyde prohibited federal funding. stupak does as well...

[madfloridian]

5. That is simply not true. It expanded Hyde.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/5193

[1]

11. hey bud... stop making your argument by linking to your blog...

i'm not going to go there and read your 10,000 words.

if you think stupak implemented any new abortion law, you are wrong.

it's about funding. row still kicks wade's ass (or was it the other way around?)

if you have something to counter that, post it as a sentence or two.

some of us don't want to read the every single thought that pops into your head while you are typing your blog...

[madfloridian]

12. Hey bud, I am a woman. Don't read if you don't want to.

But don't be insulting.

[madfloridian]

13. And hey bud, you are in denial about it if you think nothing changed.

But what the heck ever you do, do NOT read stuff I pulled together.

Go do your own research.

[1]

15. sorry, dudette (how was i to know?) but still, no abortion laws changed...

you can't/won't post here to deny that.

so, whatever.

[BrklynLiberal]

18. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.....

[madfloridian]

19. My posts said "access" to abortion had changed.

Which shows me you did not read that much of it.

[1]

24. i read everything you posted. but you didn't post any facts. you posted a link...

no abortion laws changed. if you say that they did you are lying.

[Malikshah]

89. Have you read the link? Stop enabling the misogynists.

Stop it.

[demwing]

93. By your "logic," the following women who supported the bill in Congress are all misogynists

Tammy Baldwin
Melissa Bean
Shelley Berkley
Corrine Brown
Kathy Castor
Yvette Clarke
Susan Davis
Diana DeGette
Rosa DeLauro
Donna Edwards
Anna Eshoo
Gabrielle Giffords
Jane Harman
Mazie Hirono
Sheila Jackson-Lee
Eddie Johnson
Marcy Kaptur
Carolyn Kilpatrick
Barbara Lee
Zoe Lofgren
Nita Lowey
Carolyn Maloney
Doris Matsui
Carolyn McCarthy
Betty McCollum
Gwen Moore
Grace Napolitano
Nancy Pelosi
Laura Richardson
Lucille Roybal-Allard
Loretta Sanchez
Linda Sanchez
Jan Schakowsky
Allyson Schwartz
Carol Shea-Porter
Louise Slaughter
Betty Sutton
Niki Tsongas
Nydia Velazquez
Debbie Wasserman Schultz
Maxine Waters
Diane Watson
Lynn Woolsey

What a foolish accusation.

[Malikshah]

96. What a foolish attempt at argument. Look at me, I can twist words and make

a list...

The person I was talking with before your rude, tiresome, and ill-conceived interruption was not referring to this claim in the post to which I was referring.

You, on the other hand, have chosen the reductio ad absurdum path.

Please do not interrupt others (i.e., adults) when they are talking.

It is rude.

[demwing]

99. Testy much?

It's my thread, oh mighty sultan. As all responses here are either direct or indirect responses to my OP, I'll post in it where I like, as I see fit, and I don't give a damn if you protest. As far as rude goes, look no further than your "misogynists" bullshit. If you are not clear at this point, I can write it out again, and more slowly if it helps.

Sleep tight :)

[Malikshah]

104. Funny, though, my voice never rose. Nice try with the "I'll speak slowly and sound

at the multi-syllabic words for you" bit.

Any other cliches in that bag 'o tricks.

You do get partial credit for the sultan bit. To be precise though, great sultan is more apropos. :)

Remember to wipe.

[demwing]

108. As long as you keep posting

I'll always remember to wipe :)

[Malikshah]

109. Remember...clean to dirty. Intellectual incontinence is always a problem.

:)





(And, yes, I did get the attempt at an insult. Getting better there.):)

[demwing]

111. You're right, you win.

I just don't have it in me to be a bigger ass than you. Congratulations.

[dionysus]

110. what a condescening pile of crap. you sure showed them!

:rofl:

[joeycola]

107. It now asks women to pay extra for reproductive health insurance. But

that is not new.

[Birthmark]

7. Apparently so, but even worse...

...a large majority of the Democratic House voted to confirm women as second-class citizens. That's a development I could have gone without for a lifetime.

[emulatorloo]

73. 30 something Democrats voted for it,. They are all jerks.

[RoadRage]

82. except for Kucinich.. he seems to get a pass around here..

:eyes:

[winyanstaz]

98. seems to get a pass? The guy has principles...of course he does :)

He also read the damned bill.

[skipos]

77. "a large majority of the Democratic House voted to confirm"

How many Democrats are in the house, and how many voted for this amendment?

[tomm2thumbs]

10. link to approx 3 pages of amendment

it still allows for exception in case of rape or incest although a lot of people have been spreading that it does not. See excerpt from the amendment text in italics below. It notes that abortion coverage using federal funds is noted to be excluded...

'...except in the case where a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself, or unless the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest.'

Link -starts on p2
http://documents.nytimes.com/the-stupak-amendment#p=1

Please read the entire text at the link so it doesn't come out of context on my excerpt. I do believe the wording will be changed in the final bill. Limiting a woman's right to choose in such a big way is entirely against the Democratic principals.

[vaberella]

30. FINALLY!!!! Someone who's giving me the details I want. The langauge & everything.

Ugh....why do so many at times run on these weird emotions without reading the whole thing. Ugh,you've made my buddy list.

Ugh, I can't add you, you're already there. Why can't people read the amendments and the such before they go willy-nilly. Well if PP says it's bad, it must be. Maybe it's not that bad?! I personally don't like it, because I believe there was a loophole where some insurance companies were able to give some partial fuding for abortions. However, that could be in the case of rape, mother's health, incest and the such--but no one talks about that clearly enough for me to understand if the HYDE did that rather than fund an abortion period.

[rwheeler31]

14. A woman cannot have the kind of health care she needs

unless her boyfriend pays. got it

[BrklynLiberal]

16. Here is the exact wording of the amendment concerning abortion coverage

SEC 265. LIMITATIONS ON ABORTION FUNDING.

(a) IN GENERAL.--No funds authorized or appropriated by this Act

(or any amendment made by this Act) may be used to pay for any abortion

or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage

of abortion, except in the case where a woman suffers from a physical disorder,

physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician,

place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including

a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy

itself, or unless the pregnancy is the result of an act of pregnancy or incest.


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


So if you can afford to pay for your health care entirely out of your own pocket...you can get
whatever coverage you want. So once again, abortions can be had by the wealthy. Isn't this EXACTLY where we were before Roe v Wade??


So insurance companies will not offer coverage for abortions and therefore hospitals and doctors will not perform them. hmmmmm
Let's see...What is the final result of that?????

[1]

20. exactly. it changed no abortion laws. all still legal. all still in effect. no changes...

no abortion law was changed by stupak.

[madfloridian]

21. When someone stretches truth like that....I have a special..

list. Bye

[BrklynLiberal]

22. One step ahead of you

:thumbsup: :hi:

[1]

52. stretches truth by what? stating facts? wow. what kind of world do you live in?

no one ever calls you on your bullshit? your lies and melodrama and hyperbole?

heh. what a fun life that must be!

THIS IS WHAT I SAY. DO NOT DISAGREE! THERE WILL BE CONSEQUENCES!

:rofl:

[dflprincess]

23. Except that they are trying to use the law to keep

private insurers from offering abortion services.

[BrklynLiberal]

25. EXACTLY!!!!!!!!

[1]

26. no abortion laws changed. that is a fact. you guys don't get law, do you?

law.

actual facts of law.

not emotion.

not hyperbole.

not melodrama.

law.



no abortion laws changed.

[bluetrain]

27. If women no longer have access to legal abortion, why does it matter that abortion is still legal?

If this stays in, we're regressing to coat hangers and back alleys and a lot of false rape accusations. That's what you want? Misogyny is not a progressive value.

[demwing]

33. WHERE does anything say women no longer have access to legal abortion?

For the last 32 years since Hyde, women have had the same access to legal abortions, just not funded by Federal dollars, with the three exceptions noted (rape, incest, life of woman). To use Medicaid for an abortion beyomd those three exceptions, it would have to be state approved. I believe only 17 states currently allow for Medicaid to pay those bills.

The Stupac amendment states that no Federal funds will pay for abortions (with the three exceptions intact), either through the Public Insurance, or through Private insurance that is being paid for-in full or in part-by Federal subsidies. It doesn't say that Private Insurance can't pay for abortions, just private insurance paud for by Federal subsidies.

So I ask again, how is this different from legislation that is already in place?

[bluetrain]

43. 87% of insurance companies currently fund "elective" abortion. They will no longer be able to do so

if this bill becomes a law. We need a thread explaining the bullet points of this amendment, I'm tired of repeating myself.

[demwing]

53. That is not how I read the bill at all

Private companies can fund elective abortions all they like, but no Federal subsidies will be paid on those policies.

In other words, if you cannot afford insurance, and don't want the public option, you can elect to stay with a private insurer, and if you qualify financially, the Fed will help you pay for insurance through subsidies. BUT - those subsidies will not pay for policies with elective abortion options. Individuals or families with subsidies, who want elective abortion coverage, must purchase it themselves on a separately rider policy.

There is no change in law.

[bluetrain]

58. No company which takes a single person through the public option can cover abortion

[Aramchek]

94. false.

[onenote]

79. I agree with you

I think the stupak amendment is a bad thing. But the argument that it prohibits a private insurer that accepts a single subsidized customer is barred from offering anyone abortion coverage is directly and clearly contradicted by the language of the amendment, which makes clear that nothing bars companies that accept subsidized customers from offering supplemental abortion coverage.

[RoadRage]

83. 87%.. cover if the life of the mother is in danger..

Not "elective". And, from what i've read.. about 75% of all abortions are paid for by the patient.. not through insurance or state-funded coverage.

[vaberella]

34. Dude what are you saying? You don't make sense.

You can still get an abortion. You'd pay for it. That has ALWAYS been the case. Abortions were never free so what BS are you running on. So far, people who are raped, mother's health, or because of incest are allowed to get free abortions because they are protected. I don't see why you're saying abortions wouldn't be legal. It's still bloody legal. I hate when people start lieing, there's no point in that. I'm not defending this shit, but let's not lie to get our way.

[1]

36. i don't make any sense?

[vaberella]

49. Not you. Check out who I was responding too. n/t

[1]

55. ha! this thread is too indented. sorry bud (or dudette!)

[bluetrain]

46. Don't call me a liar. You're ignorant of the facts. Educate yourself instead of embarrassing

yourself.

[vaberella]

50. You said, "If women no longer have access to legal abortion"

That is a lie. This does not make abortions illegal. Abortions would still be legal and women would have access to them. If they do not fall into rape, incest, or mother's health---they're abortion is NOT paid for by the nation. They would pay it themselves. Poor women would have always paid for abortion if they needed it, and didn't fall into those categories because they woudln't be able to afford insurance---if there was an insurance plan that covered it.

[bluetrain]

60. It's not a lie at all. Restricting coverage reduces access and as a result the number of providers.

You're not looking at the big picture. And I believe intentionally so. Advocate for misogyny all you want, you're not going to make a convert of me.

[demwing]

62. But these are not NEW restrictions

Thes are old restrictions, in place since 1977.

No NEW law was made.

We can discuss the approriateness of Hyde in another thr, but my guess is that you'll get no dissent on it's value. Still, Hyde has been in place for many years, and through Stupak, no new laws are made.

[vaberella]

64. That's the thing...they ignore Hyde like it wasn't there. nt

[bluetrain]

65. Yes, they are new restrictions. It expands Hyde.

How many times do I have to tell you that should this bill become law any private insurance company (87% of which currently cover abortion in any instance) will no longer by law be allowed to do so if they take on a single "client" from the public option. That will obviously restrict abortion access.

[demwing]

67. Ok, I hear you

but thats not what the amenment says:

Read the full text here:
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/15284081/Stupak-Amendment-to-HR-3962-Rev-108

[bluetrain]

70. You understand that Hyde is the reason the private companies can't offer to abortion coverage

to anyone coming in via the public plan?

[vaberella]

63. Who's coverage is being restricted?

Every woman would already be allowed to have an abortion. Every single woman would be allowed to have an abortion. The thing is, who's paying for the abortion?

So far federal already has in place abortion for those who have been raped, due to incest, or if the mother's health is in danger. That is fully covered by the law, Hyde did that, and now Stupak just reiterated that law. Does it prohibit private insurers from providing payment or some monetary funding for abortions? We don't have the full details on that, from where I am. And even if it did, most insurance companies (well I know the ones in NYC) don't cover abortion just like that. You'd pay an out of pocket expense to have that done.

I have read people say this is an attack on the poor. If you're fighting that insurance companies used to cover this----well the poor don't get private insurance. The whole point of reformation is because the poor don't get insurance so they were NEVER covered, because they never had it. Medicaid doesn't provide it unless it's for rape, incest, or the mother's health from what I understand adn that will be upheld. However, medicaid---post Hyde doesn't pay for abortions---so Stupak so far didn't do much to change the status quo in this area.

[Lars39]

28. Haven't you figured out their strategy by now?

They don't have to get abortion outlawed, they just have to put up enough road blocks so that women's access(particularly poor women) becomes almost non-existant.

[1]

31. women still have access to abortion. that has not changed...

it is existent. it is a fact.

no abortion laws have changed.

period.

[vaberella]

38. Wait....in what State, in what town, was abortion EVER free?! Your logic is FAULTY!!

So how the hell is this a road block. Make sense, don't run on stupidity. If this is affecting insurance. And by your definition poor women could get an abortion using thier insurance---how the hell are poor women able to afford insurance. The whole point of being indigent is that you most likely don't have insurance or you have shit insurance from a shit employer. What does that mean...you were NEVER covered?! So abortion was NEVER FREE or PAID FOR BY insurance companies. Plus, point me in the direction where it evr was paid.

Seriously, sit there and go through your logic. Explain to me how poor women are able to afford insurance to pay for an abortion. Bloody hell, I'm a poor woman and I can tell you there is no way I can afford insurance----to be cover an abortion of mine. And I have had several an insurance over the years and NONE OF THEM offered to pay for abortions if I needed it.

[1]

45. how did "free" ever get mixed in with what the law states? abortion is legal. not changed...

stupak did not change abortion law. abortion is still legal. nothing, in any sense about abortion, has changed.

but you all of a sudden introduce this concept that all abortion should be free?

huh?

well then, take me to the wording in row vs wade that states that. i must have missed that in law school. silly me.

i didn't realize that "free" was the most important element of that landmark decision.

yes, MY logic is faulty.


law.

you get it or you don't.

obviously you don't.

[vaberella]

51. I NEVER responded to your statement. EVER. You need to line up the names with posts.

Then you'd see I never made any remarks to your posts and in actuality I agreed with them.

[1]

56. blerg. i was just rolling down the thread and (not) thinking your posts were to mine. sorry...

[vaberella]

61. De nada. n/t

[vaberella]

32. Can you give me examples where private insurers offer abortion services?! And what kind?!

Thanks.

[1]

35. sorry, no. i don't know all of the the policies of private insurers. and that isn't relevant here...

the op asked what abortion laws were changed by stupak. and i answered.

none...

[vaberella]

40. Yeah....I agreed with you.

I'm not a fan of Stupak because I don't like the langauge there. Hyde was enough. And I had heard that there was some servics offered like clinic appointment...but on a search I couldn't find anything to suggest that. And for some that could be helpful. However, the poor wouldn't be attacked under this.

[dflprincess]

37. I know for a fact that Blue Cross Blue Shield of Minnesota

has some (if not all) policies that cover elective abortions. Other posters in other threads have said most companies have plans that offer the coverage.

[vaberella]

39. Would you please pass them on?

The other posters posts, and also Blue Cross/Blue Shield's statement. Further more, poor people most likely don't have insurance to even have it covered by insurance. So it's not an attack on poor women. That's for sure. Too many people on this site don't have insurance----it's not an attack on them, and some of them are not "poor" by the national definition of it.


And also clarify, if those services are for anyone who needs an abortion or if they have such a clause for women who are victims of rape, incest, or due to their health?

[dflprincess]

41. I don't have a statement from BCBS

I know someone with coverage through them who recently had an abortion that was covered by her plan except for the usual copays and deductibles that come with any procedure.

As far as finding other posts, it's late, I'm tired and it's just as easy for you to look them up as it is for me.

[vaberella]

47. Uh, okay. I'll see what I can find.

The thing is..it's actually easier for you, because you made a claim you read them. I never read such posts. Well not yet, so in the scheme of it, it's easier for you, but whatever.

[demwing]

42. I cannot, but I can tell which states let Medicaid pay for abortions, and to what degree

http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparetable.jsp?ind=458&cat=10

State Funding of Abortions Under Medicaid, as of September 1, 2009

States that follow Federal Standard (the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest, or the abortion is necessary to save the life of the woman)
Alabama
Arkansas
Colorado
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Missouri
Michigan
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Tennessee
Texas
Wyoming

States that fund in cases of physical health endangerment
Utah
Indiana
Wisconsin

States that fund in cases of fetal abnormality
Iowa
Mississippi
Virginia

State provides funds pursuant to a court order
Alaska
Arizona
California
Connecticut
Illinois
Massachusetts
Minnesota
Montana
New Jersey
New Mexico
Oregon
Vermont
West Virginia

States that voluntarily provide funding for medically necessary abortions
Hawaii
Maryland
New York
Washington

States that only pay for abortions when necessary to protect the woman's life
South Dakota

Since this funding all comes at the state level, NONE of this will be changed by the House HCR bill, with or without amendment.

[vaberella]

44. That's the point Demwing...those don't count. Stupak still covers those.

I'm talking about the regular abortions. ie, "Well I had unprotected sex and I need an abortion asap cause I can't raise this child." or "I did the pros and cons and I'm not ready yet."

I'm speaking about those people. Was abortion ever funded by Federal or State or even private insurance for those cases specifically. If not the Stupak doesn't affect any of it...

[demwing]

48. Not through any Federal program since Hyde

In some cases by specific states allowed abortions to be funded by STATE Medicaid dollars (as I have shown above), and as far as I can tell, all of the major Health Insurance players have abortion options in their standard insurance packages.

So I don't think ANY legislative changes will be taking place.

[vaberella]

54. No, Stupak still allows money for abortions for women raped, incest, or mother's health.

All the states you listed have particular reasons for funding----all of which are extenuating circumstances. It would seem that Stupak doesn't affect any of the State legislative decisions you listed above.

[demwing]

57. I am agreeing with you

I think I'm just not communicating that fact very well :P

[vaberella]

59. Okay...I reread to understand. I think I was still lost.

^_^ Okay, I think I understand what you are saying. Man....I dunno, this is all so dramatic.

[Aramchek]

84. you are incorrect. a rider can be purchased separate from the subsidized plan

[1]

66. so, to get us back on topic, were any NEW abortion laws created by the stupak amendment?

nope.

nil, not one at all, no part, not a bit, not a soul, not a thing, not any, not anyone, not anything, not one, nothing, zero, zilch...

no abortion laws were changed...

[Princess Turandot]

68. Going by the language shown in Post 16, the answer to your question..

depends at least in part on what the definition of 'health plan' is, I think, maybe. Example: TrueBlue Insurance Company has three health insurance products: the Caddy Model, the Chevy Model & the Compact Model. They now add a new Model: 2009 Health Reform model. The existing models all covered voluntary abortions to some degree (beyond the standard exceptions to Hyde.)

Does 'health plan' apply *only* to the new Model, '2009 Health Reform'?
Or does 'health plan' and thus the law, extend to *any* health insurance product offered by TrueBlue?

**If** it's the latter, I think it would mean that they could not provide abortion coverage in their existing plans, if they want to provide the '2009 Health Reform model.' That would impact womens' access to abortions even if it does not impact its legality.

I'm used to 'Plan' referring to the equivalent of 'Product' in my example (a specific plan offered by an insurance company, not every plan offered by them) but that doesn't mean much. The question is how 'Health Plan' is defined in the legislation.

[1]

71. first of all, don't redirect people back to a post. there is a "quote" function. use it...

second of all... wtf are you talking about?

did stukpak introduce new abortion law? that is what we are discussing here. the answer. no. it did not.

you post with all of your ridiculous crap about some odd plan? nothing to do with our original discussion?

really?

why?

[Princess Turandot]

72. ?

I assumed that most people could hold the regulatory language in their heads for more than 2 seconds while reading the thread. And, I was replying to the OP's question, in my own way. (I don't believe you were the OP.)

My example was intended to ask whether or not this amendment effectively reduces *access* to abortions for women who already have it, even if it does not make abortion 'more' illegal, *if* it eliminates existing coverage for abortions. I do not know that it does that. If it does, an argument can be made that the ability to get an abortion is, in practice, reduced by the amendment, even if it is not reduced in law. AKA real world impact.

I have to believe that you understood that and are just being disingenuous. But if I actually confused you, so sorry.

[emulatorloo]

74. "Does 'health plan' apply *only* to the new Model, '2009 Health Reform'?"

I am reading through the amendment, and it appears that that is the case. Only applies to plans that receive funding from the federal govt.

In addition it states that you can purchase a rider to those policies to cover abortion as long as you use your own money.

I can't copy and paste. Here is the link again:

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

------

FWIW I think stupak ought to be taken out.

[demwing]

75. In response

The amendment text:

(a) IN GENERAL.--No funds authorized or appropriated by this Act (or any amendment made by this Act) may be used to pay for any abortion or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion

You ask:

Does 'health plan' apply *only* to the new Model, '2009 Health Reform'?

The answer:
This seems simple. No funds will be used to pay for elective abortions. EOS. This is in line with current legislative policy, which - regardless of how you feel about Hyde - means that it changes nothing in existing law, or in existing access.

The HCR bill opened a door - new method of obtaining Federally funded health care, and the amendment made sure that Hyde was applied, just as it is to all existing Federally funded public health options (Federal Medicaid and Medicare).

That door (the instances where Private Insurance companies are in a position to receive subsidies from the Federal govt.) exists to accommodate insurees who cannot afford insurance on their own, elect to obtain mandated coverage through a private carrier, and require Federal subsidies to pay for it.

Those same carriers can sell policies that cover elective abortions, sell policies that do not cover elective abortions, and sell riders that allow for elective abortions. The Federal subsidies will only pay for the policies that do not cover elective abortion. All other policies must be paid for as an out of pocket expense by the insured.

This does not change current law, it does not extend restrictions on current access, and it does not impose additional, NEW restrictions, or expand Hyde in any way.

[1]

69. i get that many here do not want to be open minded, patient or rational...

i get that many here do not understand actual law, just emotion, melodrama and hyperbole.

i get that many here just want to wail away at something that is not at all a change in abortion law, just a funding issue.

i get that.

and you should howl at the moon as you see fit right now.

go for it...

if you ever regain your senses and wish to join the rest of us on planet earth, if you want to understand law and the constitutional process and how things get done and not just your knee-jerkdom reactionism...

come back and join us.

we could use your help...

[PeaceNikki]

76. I get that you don't understand the impact on ACCESS to abortion

and hence are completely unable to understand the issue.

[demwing]

78. There is no new impact on access

All the Stupak bill does is apply Hyde to the new federal subsidies allowed for Private Insurers. It does nothing to limit access paid for by your own personal funds.

In short, no new laws, no new restrictions. Same old same old. In fact, I don't see why the Stupak Amendment was required at all, except for political cover that, in the end, is essentially harmless (or at least no more harmful than existing Hyde regulations).

[PeaceNikki]

80. I refer you to this post

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8743775&mesg_id=8744225

[demwing]

81. And I defer back to this post

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8743775&mesg_id=8744231

[Better Believe It]

85. Yes, after the anti-abortion bill passes Congress and is signed by President Obama

[demwing]

86. And here we go, all the way back to square #1

go by yourself, I'm not doing this again.

[Lars39]

88. You're a male, you won't ever have an abortion.

[demwing]

91. But I have paid for one

and what we're talking about is finding

[Aramchek]

95. is your agenda really worth it if you have to lie to get it?

[me b zola]

87. It is a tax on women

~based on their gender.

[demwing]

92. no

it isn't

[TheKentuckian]

90. It is really simple how access is curtailed

No plan on the exchange be it public or private can cover abortions. It doesn't matter if it is a private plan AND the individual and/or their employer pay in full that covered person cannot access the service. It is doing this on the basis that if the government ever touches or associates with an entity that provides for abortion services that it is in effect sponsoring abortions irregardless of the actual source or purpose of the involvement.

It is entirely plausible that most or at least a sizable minority of Americans will purchase insurance through the exchange regardless of subsidies at which point all of those women will have access curtailed.

Wanting to support reform should not mean one must pretend away serious concerns. This is an expansion of Hyde plain and simple. An expansion that is based on a logic that could easily escalate well beyond the scope of the current conversation. How long til no hospital or clinic that receives a cent from the government is out? How long before some nutter uses the exact same arguments to say that roads may not lead to a health center where these services are offered? How long before the very use of currency for the procedure is seen as federal funding?

This is the slippery slope legislation of the generation here based on the stated need for the amendment since the underlying bill was already explicit that no federal funds could be used to pay for such services. The detractors assert that language didn't go far enough while admiting what it stated. How is it not blatantly clear that the intent of the amendment was to go beyond the scope of the existing law?

[demwing]

101. Your very first sentence is wrong

"No plan on the exchange be it public or private can cover abortions"

That is incorrect. In fact, it is nearly the opposite of the text of the amendment, which reads:
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/15284081/Stupak-Amendment-to-HR-3962-Rev-108

"...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."

As you can see, the text of the amendment directly contradicts your opening statement, and the foundation of your post. Any nonfederal QHBP (Qualified Health Benefits Plan) offering entity can offer a rider or a benefit plan in the exchange that covers elective abortions, as long as they ALSO offer an identical plan that doesn't include elective abortions.

You are incorrect.

[boppers]

102. Hey, demwing, keep flapping!

You're doing a pretty good job, and seem well informed.

[demwing]

103. Flap flap flap!

No matter how hard I flap those ears, I'm still just an old dog who only dreams he's flying.

[TheKentuckian]

106. I am not wrong you're spinning

Your excerpt shows exactly what I'm talking about here. It specifically says that that any plan on the exchange does an edit/delete job on any policy that would cover the service.
The amendment is clearly dictating that even a private policy paid in full with private money is restricted from covering this service as a condition of being offered on the exchange.
Further, the law does the same hack job on how one must pay for what and in some cases could be an existing policy (ex. a small company migrates to the exchange) and then demands payment above and beyond the regular policy stealing benefit or currency from that individual.

A fucking rider or a supplemental is not the policy within the exchange. You are presenting a logical fallacy and then trying to argue that I'm wrong. That's plain silly and more silly is to use evidence that directly contradicts your premise.

[demwing]

113. 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! You are mistaken. 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.

[Sparkly]

97. They can't change the law, so they keep eroding access. nt

[Teramis]

112. To be honest, I'm confused about the whole thing

Many contradictory opinions from both sides. Hopefully in a couple of days everything will be more clear.