The Stupak-Pitts Amendment is a tax on women

[me b zola]

Under the Stupak-Pitts Amendment, women will need to buy a rider on their health insurance in order to obtain an abortion. No one can predict when, if ever, they will need to seek an abortion. This means that all females from ages 10-55 years old will need to purchase additional health care insurance that males do not have to purchase. This equates to a tax on women.

This is a gender-based tax








edited for spelling

[tekisui]

1. Yep.

[niyad]

2. can't wait to hear what the pom=pom group has to say about your accurate post

[demwing]

9. I don't get food stamps

therefore I have to pay an eating tax.

Same "logic"

[me b zola]

10. No, this is a tax based upon gender. n/t

[niyad]

3. k and r

[quiller4]

4. given the average cost of abortion procedures and the cost of a rider

I wouldn't advise any woman of child bearing age to buy a rider that in the course of a year would cost more than 4 times the cost of the average abortion.

[me b zola]

6. That does not take away from the fact that this is an gender-based tax

[sandnsea]

18. So let men buy it too

Maybe the women that choose not to buy it and need it will have a man that made a more responsible choice.

Yes responsible.

It would be delightful if the exchange and the public option offered abortion coverage. It is unbelievable that anybody in Congress thought they would get away with that.

[demwing]

5. That is not correct

If you currently have private insurance that covers an elective abortion, you already pay that out of pocket expense.
If you are already on Federally funded health care, the Fed government will not subsidize your elective abortion.

Saying that the Fed government is not going to subsidize something does not make it a tax, otherwise, all those who are not on Food Stamps are paying an eating tax. Is that the point you want to make?

Furthermore, if any man pays for private insurance for his family, and wants an elective abortion option, he would also already have to pay that out of pocket expense. So, even if it WERE a tax, and it isn't, it wouldn't be a tax on women, as men would have to pay it (if they wanted it) as well.

Why can just say Hyde was wrong, work to overturn it, and not pretend that Stupak-Pitts changes anything for anyone?

[me b zola]

8. As has been pointed out numerous times

~the Stupak amendment goes much further than Hyde. Here, Representative Degette explains why she supports Hyde but opposes Stupak:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x400719

[demwing]

14. I disagree, it does not go much further

Before the HCR bill and the Stupak-Pitts amendment, if a woman relied on Medicad 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.

[Lars39]

26. What has changed is the number of women who are stuck with those conditions

will increase.

[Aramchek]

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

[karynnj]

11. All women will not have to purchase that insurance - certainly not 10 year olds!

The vast majority of women never have an abortion. Only a relatively minuscule have more than one Given the cost of an early abortion, even $10 a year is too much - if all women bought it.

[me b zola]

13. 10 year olds cannot become pregnant?

Do you have a magic eight-ball to predict if you will ever experience an unwanted pregnancy?

[karynnj]

24. There are very few 10 year olds who can become pregnant - that is a very early puberty

not to mention in all cases it would be rape or incest, which is covered. I do know with 100% certainty that I will never have an unwanted pregnancy.

Your comments are overblown.

[sandnsea]

15. $1.00 month abortion ryder

Mandated to be available with every single health insurance policy, men and women, administered separately from the subsidies, would that cover this problem?

[karynnj]

22. I think the math might work, but it would be politically impossible to mandate this

This, more than insurance as a whole, would be a payment for abortion. There are many people who absolutely would not be willing to pay for something that not only wouldn't use, but which they completely disagree with.

I realize you wrote that the mandate be that it be available, not that you have to take it. While I understand the reason you want it spread to men as well as women, I'm not what their rider does for them unless it applies to any pregnancy where they were the father.

I think it has to be voluntary and that gets to why I think it would be hard to price. There are a huge number of women, who absolutely think they would not have an abortion - and some of us never do. There are cultural reasons that may lead to many not adding the rider. This will leave many who have voluntary abortions uncovered for that.

[sandnsea]

23. Yes it would, but they're uncovered now

As are women on Medicaid, Medicare, and afaik, IHS, VA, Tri-Care, and all other direct government health care.

I don't know if it would be $1 a month or $5 a month, but a voluntary rider on every policy is really the only way to resolve this. And if a man checked that box, it would have to go to cover pregnancies he fathered, and his daughters because if a mom checked that box it would cover her daughters.

I think if every single solitary policy were required to have an abortion rider, and I don't know why that would be so difficult to add to Stupak, then this would be easily resolved.

No all women would not be covered, but they're not all covered now. We should not let this derail this bill.

[karynnj]

25. I agree with you here

Both that it shouldn't derail the bill - and the idea of voluntary rider defined as you defined it is interesting.

[sandnsea]

12. So let men buy it too

Many will, especially if it covers SO's and their daughters.

I don't need it and I would buy it, just to do my part.

[me b zola]

16. How about just not discriminating against women?

How many parents have the foresight to know to protect their daughters in this manner? How many parents believe that their children are not having sex?

[demwing]

19. I would pay for my son, but am not sure how that would work

if it would cover a girl he got pregnant, I would do ot in a heartbeat.

[sandnsea]

20. They probably don't have the coverage now

Maybe the boy will have smarter parents and their insurance will cover it.

I don't see how preventing everyone from having health care is made better by keeping the status quo, which is very few insurance policies offer abortion coverage now.

Medicaid & Medicare sure don't. Where's the hoopla over those poor women?

[backscatter712]

27. Think Stupak violates the 14th?

There is this issue with the Constitution mandating "equal protection under the law", and if you have a situation where men get medical procedures appropriate for them, but women are denied their procedures, I'd say that's grounds to argue the law is discriminatory and in violation of the 14th.

Of course, we're gonna have to wait until Scalia or Thomas choke on a pretzel before we issue the challenge...

[demwing]

17. Yes, sign me up as well.

[Vidar]

21. K&R

[Leo The Cleo]

28. It sure is!

[phleshdef]

29. Disagree with the amendment, but you need to look up tax in the dictionary.

A tax is money that goes to the government.

[me b zola]

30. Meant to appeal to conservadems.

Conservadems are so happy to use rw framing, I thought I should appeal to them in language that they can understand. :hi: