What Is Abortion About In This Bill

[Leo The Cleo]

Now I'm not the first to say this and it is certain I won't be the last, but the debate over abortion in this bill is about bullying people without means. After all, there is no legislation that could ever be produced that will prevent a person with means from having an abortion. Whether it be getting on a plane to some remote and clandestine locationn or having a doctor produce some pill or series of pills, a person with means will have access to this.

It is very evident to me that policies created around abortion in this bill are simply to keep people without means in check. It may be a stretch, but it's about population control and about economic control. It's a way of keeping people without many means in and around that same economic situation. I can't see it any other way.

But should we strike down this bill or want the bill to be stricken down because of it? I don't know. It's a tough answer. Are there other provisions that can be made. Are there way around it with in the bill? Has anybody here seen the bill? I don't know. I just had some thoughts that I wanted to share.

[Gman]

1. The purists are working with the GOP to stop this at all costs

amazing how people with no principles will sell themselves out to the very people that would love to see their demise. The abortion issue in absolutely no way makes this bill unacceptable.

[depakid]

6. So now those who stand up for women's rights are the "purists?"

Frankly, that's fine by me- better a purist than a smarmy Democratic sell out.

[niyad]

8. so screwing over women does not make this legislation unacceptable?

remdi95

[liquid diamond]

27. I'm with you on this issue.

We are on the brink of history with Health Care Reform. I'll be damned if this monumental achievement is ruined because women refuse to pay for their OWN abortions. Just for the record, I'm pro choice. I just don't think the government has an obligation to pay for a woman's abortion.

[Fire1]

2. Listen. Even a woman WITHOUT "means" can get an

abortion. "Without means" doesn't necessaily mean without insurance. There are medical procedures that Ob/Gyns can recommend and implement that are essentially abortions. It's stupid that it has to be done this way but it's done everyday.

[Vattel]

3. Why can't you see it any other way?

It could just be about minimizing abortion.

[FLyellowdog]

4. Being the Pollyanna that I am

it looks like if the Senate keeps the Stupak Amendment provisions, wouldn't this be a good time for the wealthier progressives to step up and create some kind of private funding to help the more needy pay for abortion insurance riders? While we shouldn't have to do this, it seems like a simple solution to a huge problem. :shrug:

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

10. Or wealthy progressives could just fund ALL healthcare and we can drop the bill altogether

Charity is swell but it is NEVER a replacement for the government. Ever.

Charities help who they want to help. Nobody has a right to a charitable benefit.

[FLyellowdog]

12. I think my point is, if I had one, is that

if we have to live with the Stupak crap, we may have to take it upon ourselves to help those who can't help themselves. We have to work the problem, whatever that may turn out to be.

[lapfog_1]

5. Well, it would be a fairly limited group.

i.e. lower income women who currently have private insurance that covers abortions.

How many people fit that definition?

And, if it's about population control, isn't this the wrong group to force to NOT have abortions?

[Leo The Cleo]

7. Population controll for poor people

If you need a poor underclass then putting them in a situation where there is no recourse for pregnancy is a situation where they have less options to gain wealth. Thus the cycle persists. It's not about ridding that population it's about growing and sustaining it.

[lapfog_1]

9. Two points.

1. Poor women (not just lower middle class, but poor) are unlikely to have health insurance NOW that covers abortions. There are no federal funds available for this either (Hyde amendment).

2. If they want a large population of poor people, it's far far easier to create such a underclass by wage and price controls (free trade agreements, anti-union legislation, expensive fundamental commodities like energy, food, shelter), rather than a much riskier long term program of increasing the population through abortion access restrictions. Not to mention that when you suppress wages, you have a much higher skilled poor person to exploit. And, finally, with automation, a large population of unskilled serfs is no longer desired by the ruling class.

[Leo The Cleo]

11. But Once Again . . .

The fact of the matter is that they know that abortion will always be accesible to the rich and that the people affected the most by either outlawing abortion or not funding it would be people with lesser means. Not simply the poor. Rather it would be people who could not afford an illegal procedure. And the price of anything on the illegal market is significantly higher than it would be if it were legal.

[lapfog_1]

14. Of course, abortion is, in fact, legal.

So your argument boils down to hypotheticals.

[vaberella]

13. Actually it's not really the case. People without money never had insurance anyway.

So they always paid out of pocket. We should be clamouring at the doors of Hyde and repeal that if we're going to use the poverty argument.


Medicaid does offer it and this is maintained in the Stupad, that if you are a victim of rape or incest, or in the case of mother's health you will still be covered. Medicaid abolishedthe provision of funding abortions for thoe without "means" during the 70s. So that's not the strongest argument to make.

However, I won't strike down this bill over this amendment. Sorry---I may be selfish but there are people in the millions who share my case and I'm female. I fuckin' hate this amendment..but proper health care is screaming louder from my side.

[demwing]

16. +1. This is the correct tactic

Pass the bill to protect lives, attack Hyde to protect choice

[Lars39]

19. The mother's health is not included...just her life...there's a difference.

[demwing]

21. Here's the text from Hyde

SEC. 508. (a) The limitation established in the preceding section shall not apply to an abortion-
(1) if the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest; or
(2) in the case where a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself, that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is prformed.

http://www.nchla.org/datasource/ifactsheets/4FSHydeAm22a.08.pdf

Hyde only excluded risk of death, not health

[DrToast]

15. I'm okay with not allowing subsidies to purchase abortion coverage

I mean, I'm not for that, but at least that's consistent with the Hyde amendment. I could live with that.

Where I think this shit went too far is to ban any policies sold on the exchange from offering abortion coverage even if you're not using subsidies to purchase it.

[demwing]

17. It doesn't do that

The amendment reads:
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/15284081/Stupak-Amendment-t...

"...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 contradicts what you fear. 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

[DrToast]

18. So where does this go beyond Hyde? I keep reading that it does.

[demwing]

20. I started out asking the same question

and was so frustrated by the multiple answers that I realized that I would have to chase down the amendment and study it a bit. Check the link in my previous post. Also, the full text to HR3962 can be found at the Library of Congress, here: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.3962:

[boppers]

22. Something about unexpected side effects....:

Get this. Two plans are listed on the exchange. Under plan one, abortion and pregnancy will be covered. Under plan two, pregnancy will be covered, but abortion will not.

Assume 2000 women are on each plan. Guess which plan will cost less, if one plan has a remedy for costly, complicated, pregnancies being carried to term, and the other doesn't?

:evilgrin:

[demwing]

24. Easy

The plan with more limited options will cost less, as it should.

But the plan with the option won't require a rider either, so the costs may end up balancing out.

[boppers]

26. I was thinking it would go the other way, actually.

Assume out of the 2000, 10% get pregnant in each plan.

200 abortions costs *much*, much less than 200 pregnancies, no matter how you slice it... pre-natal costs, birthing costs, pregnancy complication costs, etc.

[demwing]

28. point taken /nt

[Hutzpa]

25. Basically

people of less income will suffer, the bill actually says that,
the bill discriminate against women of low income as they are prune
to having abortion, and these people are trying to distort the bill
and blatantly lie.

It's like they're trying to insult peoples intelligence.

[Hutzpa]

23. I mistook your user ID for someone else

thought it was Clio The Leo, very clever of you to reverse a well like individual on this board.

From one male to another, you should be ashamed of yourself.

This is exactly what Meteor Blades wrote about here

This is so condescending, this is what we've been reduced to, this...

What a pathetic post.

It's shit like this that makes me wonder sometimes.