Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

In the Dog Days of Summer, Obama Delivers a Death Blow to Vulnerable Women

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
babsbunny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-02-10 05:14 PM
Original message
In the Dog Days of Summer, Obama Delivers a Death Blow to Vulnerable Women
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2010/08/02/days-summer-obama-deliversdeath-blow-vulernable-women

By Rebecca Sive

August 2, 2010 - 8:00am

It's a classic Friday political number: Release bad news in the hopes that no-one is paying attention.

So, last Friday, the last possible Friday in July no less, the Friday two days before the "dog days of August," what was the news?

Well, the news is that the President has directed his Health and Human Services Secretary, Kathleen Sebelius, to issue a regulation for healthcare reform's high-risk insurance pools, a regulation deathly to American women.

Here's Cecile Richards, CEO of Planned Parenthood, responding to the President's decision:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
eleny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-02-10 05:19 PM
Response to Original message
1. K&R even though your being Unrec'd
Looks like certain people don't want this information to be widely distributed. As if it won't see the light of day because they Unrec. Meh.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-02-10 05:21 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-02-10 10:00 PM
Response to Reply #1
37. Deleted message
Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
elocs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 12:42 PM
Response to Reply #1
203. At 190 Recs right now this thread is doing well and is on the front page.
Evidently this topic is so important to you that you used the very first response to it to point out the UnRecs.

You know, after 24 hours you can neither Rec this thread or UnRec it if you have not already done so, but anyone can always respond to it and thereby kick it to the top of its forum where more people will be able to read and respond to it.

Bottom line: the whole Rec/UnRec thing is way overrated and does not deserve the attention that so many seem to give to it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
daleanime Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 04:11 PM
Response to Reply #203
247. I can't help but be curious....
because 9 times out of 10 when I find a new post I like-my rec disappears in to that pool of unrec's. Is it a bad thing to point out that I'm curious?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eleny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 06:04 PM
Response to Reply #203
282. So you responded about the Rec/Unrec issue that you say doesn't deserve attention
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nightrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-02-10 05:22 PM
Response to Original message
3. knr for the truth. Who would have guessed during the campaign was crap
was going to come our way! Yeah, we're getting the "change" alright.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
peacebird Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-02-10 05:33 PM
Response to Original message
4. what health care is this regulation blocking besides abortion coverage?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-02-10 05:56 PM
Response to Reply #4
8. OMG, tell me you did not ask that question. DU has come to that now?
Read who is high-risk for pregnancy and could die without an abortion...from the link above.

"So who does this regulation affect? The high-risk insurance
pools are being created for some of the most medically
vulnerable women in the country -- those with pre-existing
conditions such as breast and ovarian cancer, AIDS, diabetes
and other conditions that may make pregnancy extraordinarily
dangerous.

The HHS regulations mean that women won't be allowed to obtain
abortion coverage through the new high-risk insurance pools
beyond limited cases (rape, incest, endangering the life of the
woman). They won't even be given the option to pay for that
coverage with their own money. We can't let this decision stand.


The final health care reform bill included extensive
restrictions on using federal funds to pay for abortion
coverage, but this new ban goes beyond what it is in the law.
Quite simply, HHS has chosen to place a new burden on women who
are ill and extremely vulnerable, women who may need to seek
abortion coverage."

SO...Are you okay with that?????
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
peacebird Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-02-10 06:20 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. I did ask that question. Is this regulation blocking other health care or just abortions?
Look - I am a firm believer in a womans right to choose. I made such a choice when I was young. However - I also paid for it in cash, insurance did not cover it. I support a womans right to choose, I just wanted to know what else was being restricted by this regulation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-02-10 06:33 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. Did you catch this part??
"The HHS regulations mean that women won't be allowed to obtain
abortion coverage through the new high-risk insurance pools
beyond limited cases (rape, incest, endangering the life of the
woman). They won't even be given the option to pay for that
coverage with their own money.
We can't let this decision stand."

I get your message loud and clear. It is the same message the party is giving.

Women and their rights are expendable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
peacebird Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-02-10 06:53 PM
Response to Reply #11
14. Women in those pools cannot buy abortion insurance coverage. They can still get abortions.
Sorry - I'm not getting all worked up over this one. They can "self-insure" - put the premium in an account and if they ever need it, they have the money. Women and their rights are NOT expendable, nothing here says they can NOT get an abortion. Just they cannot get an insurance policy to cover it.
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-02-10 07:47 PM
Response to Reply #14
22. Oooh..
I have no more words for you. That's it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
newtothegame Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-02-10 11:00 PM
Response to Reply #22
48. Settle down. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 12:25 AM
Response to Reply #48
78. No, I am indignant that Democrats are doing this.
I do not intend to "settle" down.

You worry about yourself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jax Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 02:27 PM
Response to Reply #48
216. never.
new to the game is right, sit on your ass on a message board genius, that will work while women get fucked over.

But you got yours right genius?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pipoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 12:10 AM
Response to Reply #22
72. FWIW
While we disagreed on this other thread, I pretty much agree with you on this sub-thread. I guess I'm not sure if you put me on your ignore list or not..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8851858
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Grinchie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-02-10 11:46 PM
Response to Reply #14
63. Instead of Peacebird, you sure sound like a "Grover Norquist"
It's an ownership society, they should fend for themselves, those broken, abused, pathetic souls that get into that sort of mess, right?

Personally, I find it ludicrous to not insure such a thing, simply because it should be a rare occurrence, but what this says is that the Insurnace companies think it's not a rare occurrence, and frankly, they may be right, so why not get the Government to ban any possibility for the insurers to do the right thing and actually help people in need (Which may cut into profits)

Love that free market thing, whoops, this is no free market,, is it?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
susanna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 01:17 AM
Response to Reply #63
91. I guess it all depends on what you mean about the meaning of "free." n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LooseWilly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 03:40 AM
Response to Reply #14
101. They can "put the premium in an account"?...
Better yet... they can put the premium money in a garter belt and shove that under their mattress... then make sure not to ever become desperate enough to have to spend that money on anything else... because women obviously don't deserve to have such procedures covered by medical coverage (presuming said woman has medical coverage)... and they obviously can't and won't ever become desperate enough to spend abortion sock-money on something like food or rest or what have you because.... because we've bailed out the banks?... err... point proven... ?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
treestar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 06:28 AM
Response to Reply #101
116. How much do abortions cost and how often are they needed?
Why would it be worth insuring?

Almost like getting insurance for over the counter medications or for windshield replacement.

another tempest in a teapot, this one deserves an award for most exaggerated language.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 02:47 PM
Response to Reply #116
224. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 03:26 PM
Response to Reply #224
234. Agree . . . except this isn't a "stupid administration" ... this is a purposeful attack on women --
Edited on Tue Aug-03-10 04:03 PM by defendandprotect
and very often women in desperate need -- !!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Grinchie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-04-10 03:42 AM
Response to Reply #234
299. I disagree, this Administration is beyond stupid.. It's downright dangerously stupid.
I guess when one has done so many things intheir lives, covering many disciplines and field of expertise, one becomes more aware of the BS that simple minded, pigeon holed, self centered point of view other hold, based only on their own desires.

Thta's what is so devasdtatating to me, when I see so many miscreants that have no desire or clue about learning empathy, and the strength it brings to society.

No Matter, when they are found crushed and dying on the street, noone will come to their aid without demanding payment in full before they offer any help.

No more will I ever help anyone I don't know, simply because they could be some sort of miscreant that has such an attitude as these people that defend this sort of thing.

Yes, I know, that makes me a bad person, but everyone is responsible for making the world a better place, and many times, our efforts are lambasted and taken advantage of because we are too nice.

No more Nice Person. I refuse to fall prey to the victimizers who take advantage of kindness.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-04-10 05:10 PM
Response to Reply #299
307. Understand your feelings . . .
Edited on Wed Aug-04-10 05:12 PM by defendandprotect

I remember reading this comment by a native of the Bikini Islands after we had

nuked her home land . . .

"Americans are really smart about really stupid things -- "



and --

capitalism is suicidal in its exploitation of nature, natural resources, animal-life --

and even other humans according to various myths of "inferiority."

This patriarchal war on nature has to be stopped --

Nature is all --





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Grinchie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-04-10 07:02 PM
Response to Reply #307
309. When people finally return to an understanding of the Nature of things
And the interconnectedness of all life on this planet, that will be the great awakening.

Unfortuneately, God apparently gave man dominion over the Earth, free to exploit everytyhing into extiction without a care in the world because it is "Written"

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
snake in the grass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 05:47 AM
Response to Reply #14
103. I'll make it easy for you, ok?
Edited on Tue Aug-03-10 05:49 AM by snake in the grass
What if these women with high-risk pregnancies don't have the cash?

And please don't say they should have kept their legs shut. Please don't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AlbertCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 02:30 PM
Response to Reply #103
218. And please don't say they should have kept their legs shut. Please don't.
Please stop putting words (and motives) in other people's mouths.

Thank you.


BTW... abortions should be FREE. And available to anyone not regularly using them for birth control (very very rare I'm sure).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
snake in the grass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 03:11 PM
Response to Reply #218
231. I didn't put any words into anyone's mouth, but...
...I have heard those exact words coming from so-called Democrats and I wanted to preempt the possibility. That's all. Hell, just look at the posts on this page; some are not far from it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 03:29 PM
Response to Reply #218
236. "available to anyone not regularly using them for birth control" . . .
With words like these, certainly no one has to try to put "words into your mouth."

And available to anyone not regularly using them for birth control (very very rare I'm sure).

YOU, alone, with your snideness are making who you are clear --

"Speak so we may know you -- "

Wow -- !!





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AlbertCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 05:25 PM
Response to Reply #236
273. YOU, alone, with your snideness are making who you are clear --
Does anyone know what the fuck defenandprotect is talking about?

(wait let me get on my soap box...there)
Defendandprotect OBVIOUSLY uses abortion regulary for birth control!!!!!!!!





How'd I do?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BrklynLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 06:00 AM
Response to Reply #14
104. So, every woman should jsut put away a little money..somewhere. JUST IN CASE>>she ever needs an
abortion....JUST IN CASE she is ever pregnant and in a situation where that pregnancy needs be terminated....what a crock of crap that is!!!!!!! If we could all know that in advance, wouldn't this be a wonderful world?

And I think your support for a woman's right to choose is in the same crock.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
treestar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 06:29 AM
Response to Reply #104
117. Why not?
Insurance could be in the form of buying condoms.

Really this is beyond bizarre.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
moksha Donating Member (345 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 07:19 AM
Response to Reply #117
127. What a sick and calloused point of view.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lost4words Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 07:55 AM
Response to Reply #127
129. +1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LaurenG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 09:54 AM
Response to Reply #117
152. better, how about every man who has sex with women put away a little cash
just in case. Why do we constantly have to move backwards, why?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BrklynLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 11:38 AM
Response to Reply #152
192. +100000
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 03:48 PM
Response to Reply #152
239. Now there's a great idea -- !!! And, how about FREE VASECTOMIES . . .???!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jax Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 02:29 PM
Response to Reply #117
217. your posts are beyond bizarre
and sick.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 03:31 PM
Response to Reply #117
237. And you think condoms are 100% effective? Even if the partner agrees to use them?
You have a very limited view of life --
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
derby378 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 04:00 PM
Response to Reply #237
245. More like a limited view of men's responsibility in this equation
This "health care reform" legislation is a huge farce, and this prohibition on women in high-risk pools obtaining abortion coverage, even by paying for it themselves, is one of the reasons why. They are being discriminated against because a DINO in the House stamped his foot and wouldn't support the whole package unless this little provision was included. We should have brushed him aside and sought a "Yea" vote from someone else instead.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 04:05 PM
Response to Reply #245
246. Completely agree -- !!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spheric Donating Member (512 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 10:43 AM
Response to Reply #104
166. And men should sock a little away in case they need it to pay for prostrate cancer.
Edited on Tue Aug-03-10 10:43 AM by Spheric
Oh wait, that's covered.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uncommon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 10:47 AM
Response to Reply #166
168. +1 thank you
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe Bacon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 03:36 PM
Response to Reply #166
238. And men can gat Viagra and Cialis
But when it comes to women, well, that's when the safe is closed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uberblonde Donating Member (993 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 09:28 AM
Response to Reply #14
147. Actually, there's a lot more to it.
Because if women are diagnosed with a serious illness further into a pregnancy, it means they'd need a late-term abortion -- which are higher-risk procedures and much more expensive. (Oh, and they're only offered in a few states.)

It means you're asking a seriously ill woman not only to travel to another state, but to cough up several thousand dollars during a time she can't work.

Boy, the lengths to which people will go to rationalize anything and everything Obama does...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tailormyst Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 10:21 AM
Response to Reply #14
159. Wow- thank you for letting us know where you stand
I hope this never effects you or your family members negatively.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
snake in the grass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 03:48 PM
Response to Reply #159
240. Unlike you, I hope karma does come back to bite these people..
For some, it's the only way they can learn. I think of the objections to stem cell research, until one of their own is in need of treatment. Suddenly they see the light.

These responses and the policies we are seeing coming directly out of the White House seem to indicate that there are only two choices in this country; rightwing and crazy rightwing. I cannot believe the short-sightedness demonstrated here, not to mention the misogyny.

Sickening.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 03:53 PM
Response to Reply #240
242. "Misogyny" is right . . . including from the White House, IMO -- !!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
snake in the grass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 04:19 PM
Response to Reply #242
249. In this case, it is not...
..."including from the White House", but rather "especially from the White House".

What the fuck are they thinking with this? It makes no sense to me that attempts are constantly being made to appease these homunculi at the expense of his liberal base. I don't know a single person in my personal circles who is not disappointed, if not disgusted, with Obama, not a single one, and these are all liberals and/or progressives.

There's a nice little cafe around the corner from me, which is run by two women, who are also partners. During the election they put up the famous "hope" poster in their window. I'd rib them about it, but always in a nice way, that they shouldn't fall for all the hype, but they couldn't be convinced otherwise. All I heard was Obama, Obama, Obama and how things were going to change. About 6 months ago they took the poster down and to this day neither one wants to talk about why.

I know why; "hopenchange" was nothing more than a marketing slogan and many are starting to figure it out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
howmad1 Donating Member (959 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 04:50 PM
Response to Reply #249
260. So tell me again.......
....what the difference would be with a rethuglican in the white house. So plead with me to vote Dem. this fall and again in 2012 because of why?
Such bullshit from this adminstration. Hope and change my ass. Not a damn bit of difference.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 06:34 PM
Response to Reply #249
286. Question is . . . are we uniting and what are we going to do about it -- ???
Edited on Tue Aug-03-10 06:36 PM by defendandprotect
If you recall, during the Stupak moves . . . he got added help when the

Roman Catholic Bishops also had a meeting with Pelosi -- and later Pelosi

got a telephone call from ROME, as well!! I don't think Pelosi ever made

clear here feelings about all of this -- but IMO, she's a Catholic, and think

the Vatican could make things tough for her????



All I heard was Obama, Obama, Obama and how things were going to change. About 6 months ago they took the poster down and to this day neither one wants to talk about why.

I know why; "hopenchange" was nothing more than a marketing slogan and many are starting to figure it out.


Right -- the meteoric rise was also a warning bell for me -- but few seemed to get that --

after Bush, everyone needed to hope and saying anything vs Obama didn't play. The thing is

I never heard him say he was a "New Democrat" -- if I had I wouldn't have voted for him --

I knew Hillary was DLC and wouldn't have voted for her --

The attacks on Kucinich, Edwards -- and anyone with a populist message were really harsh -- vile.

Remember they also refused Nader access to the debates in a TV room!! And the debates are

privatized!!

When are we going to give up this whole faked system???




:eyes:


And, btw, I really feel strongly that a lot of the undermining that toppled Howard Dean

came from the DLC right wing corporates inside the party acting like a cancer on Democratic

Party!!

My son gave a lot of money to Howard Dean -- at this point he won't vote after seeing what

happened !!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
snake in the grass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 07:33 PM
Response to Reply #286
293. I wonder how exactly the game is played.
Does the disinterest come from the knowledge that they will do just fine when out of office? Obama will tour the circuit as a historic figure, raking in the cash and signing books none of us will even open. For me he is a historic figure, who squandered a historic opportunity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 08:05 PM
Response to Reply #293
296. Think so. . . look at what Dodd just did to Financial Reform .. evidently even his
aides/staff were getting the word out he was headed to a new career in

banking -- and that's why this new Dem betrayal.

Too much trust in government still by public -- not enough questioning --

too easily fooled. They need to set their BS meters up a lot higher!!

Also keep in mind that a lot of what is being said openly about the "disappointments"

will be much harder -- if not impossible to express sufficiently -- if Skinner does

in fact put the "New Rules" in play.

AND, by then, we will be complaining individually and less effectually, but we won't be

able to round up support thru a thread criticizing them!!



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xxqqqzme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 11:36 AM
Response to Reply #14
190. But of course - self insure!
I have been a 'high risk' woman for the last 15 years. And I am here to educate you that being 'high risk' is expensive. That which allows me to live with a bit of ease, costs a lot more than when I was NOT 'high risk'. The very idea that a high risk person has an extra 4 or 5 hundred dollars lying around to stash away is an insult, is patronizing and condescending. It is obvious to me that 'high risk' women are expendable and their right to choose has just been usurped by yet another man.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saracat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 01:35 PM
Response to Reply #14
208. Wow. Like everyone can just put money aside/ And why don't you
Edited on Tue Aug-03-10 01:38 PM by saracat
suggest ALL elective surgery for men also have to have special accounts? Should men save up for prostate surgery? I guess all is hunky dory for folks with money, or jobs. But many do not have either of those and now this is being used as an excuse to deprive women of medical choices.And "you" can't get worked up over it. Maybe one day they will come for you and you will understand. I am equally sure you won't get worked up over the marital rights of Gay Americans either.And I am sure cutting the food stamps program in order to fund the disgusting Race to the Top is AOK with you too!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ooglymoogly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 02:58 PM
Response to Reply #14
229. Have you been schooled in propaganda? Or does it just
come naturally to folks like you and innit sad you only have one unrec to give. Tap dancing on the heads of the poorest and most desperate, for a pat on the head, is a hard act to pull off.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 03:50 PM
Response to Reply #14
241. And what procedure is it that males are barred from insuring?
Edited on Tue Aug-03-10 03:50 PM by defendandprotect
It's clear you could care less -- but it's also clear that this is an issue which

could effect your girlfriend, your sister, your aunt, your niece -- any female

friends you may have -- and still -- you could care less!!

Yes -- it's quite clear!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Autumn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-02-10 07:15 PM
Response to Reply #11
17. So you are forced to pay for insurance, which won't cover
a NEEDED medical procedure in the event you have a serious illness? I get that message, now the party can get mine. They can easily be expendable to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LTX Donating Member (400 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 10:28 AM
Response to Reply #17
160. Just a little perspective:
"The HHS regulations mean that women won't be allowed to obtain
abortion coverage through the new high-risk insurance pools
beyond limited cases (rape, incest, endangering the life of the
woman
)."


You are positing a case where coverage is available. The histrionic extremes in this thread about the life of a woman being expendable because she cannot obtain a life-saving abortion are flat out false. And I can't for the life of me discern why such falsehoods are being regurgitated. It is exactly the kind of hysteria that was whipped up by the "death panels" smear.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Autumn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 10:43 AM
Response to Reply #160
167. There are some serious illnesses that do not endanger the
"life of the woman" but can make a pregnancy a very difficult thing, financially, physically and emotionally. I'm not going to be okay with that. It's bullshit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LTX Donating Member (400 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 10:47 AM
Response to Reply #167
169. In which case, you are talking about an elective abortion,
which is not "outlawed," but is excluded from risk-pool coverage. I don't find this a cataclysmic event.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Autumn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 10:55 AM
Response to Reply #169
171. You see things one way I see it another,
if you have a medical condition that makes pregnancy difficult I don't consider that "elective". Not to mention the fact that this is something he just tossed out there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
derby378 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 04:16 PM
Response to Reply #171
248. My neighbor had one of those medical conditions
Namely, an ectopic pregnancy. It was considered such a danger to the mother that it had to be terminated using chemotherapy, but the procedure left her in agonizing pain for months - she had a really bad reaction to the chemo agent.

If she were in a high-risk pool, her case supervisor could just as easily determine that the nature of the ectopic pregnancy didn't warrant termination, which would have been even worse.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 04:20 PM
Response to Reply #169
250. An "elective" abortion can simply be one necessary, but NOT emergency . ..!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stranger81 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 02:35 PM
Response to Reply #160
220. Did you really just use the word "histrionic" to describe the concerns expressed here
about these new regulations? I don't think there's a more loaded, misogynistic word you could have chosen.

:banghead:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LTX Donating Member (400 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 04:42 PM
Response to Reply #220
254. Histrionic:
histrionics: “theatrics, pretense,” 1864, from histrionic; also see -ics.

histrionic: 1640s, from L. histrionicus "pertaining to an actor," from histrio (gen. histrionis) "actor," said to be of Etruscan origin.

theatrical: 1550s, "pertaining to the theater," from theater. Sense of "stagy, histrionic" is attested from 1709.

histrionic: adjective; Of, or relating to actors or acting; Excessively dramatic or emotional;
From histrionicus, histriÅnicus "pertaining to acting"


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 03:56 PM
Response to Reply #160
243. Because this is a right wing decision and when the right wing gets to decide
when something is "endangering the life of the woman" -- it really doesn't

always work in her favor -- for instance, in Catholic run hospitals!!

We need a liberal/progressive president in 2012 who will actually stand up for

all reproductive rights -- including the right of women to protect their own lives!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 04:25 PM
Response to Reply #160
251. "exactly the kind of hysteria that was whipped up by the "death panels" smear" ---????
Edited on Tue Aug-03-10 04:26 PM by defendandprotect
"histrionic extremes" --

Is that you, Newt Gingrich?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spheric Donating Member (512 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-04-10 05:02 PM
Response to Reply #160
302. What about this? This is what you are advocating. Jeez, I want to puke.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
demigoddess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 01:55 AM
Response to Reply #11
95. women's rights have been expendable for a long time now
remember when women were asked to stop asking for the vote so that black men could get the vote, women stood aside and it was another several decades and a good fight before women got the vote. Many felt that hillary should step aside and allow a black man to attain the presidency for the good of the nation, and as soon as gwbush was placed in the white house, it was all over talk radio how the women should give up their right to vote and allow their husbands to have a vote that was not cancelled out by their wives' votes. Today we are expected to forego pregnancy and abortion coverage in health care so that men can have their viagra covered in insurance policies. Women have for many decades been paid less than men because of the old adage that 'men supported families and women did not'. Lately the republicans have been talking about getting rid of one amendment to the constitution or the other. Rand Paul and Ron Paul seem to want to do away with the one that sets up the federal income tax.Others are now talking about getting rid of the one that decides that people born in this country are citizens. If those things happen or even one of them the next thing will happen is that they will get rid of the women's right to vote. Get used to it that is what will happen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 03:58 PM
Response to Reply #95
244. You're right ... and this is why it has so long infuriated me that women's organizaitons . ..
have continued with undying support for all Democrats!!

It was obvious 20 years ago that eventually Democrats would betray them

completely on reproductive freedom issues--!!!

Capitalism is about exploitation -- and that includes women, their bodies -- and

children as exploitable labor!!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LaydeeBug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-02-10 10:39 PM
Response to Reply #10
40. so RICH women , or middle class women who can "pay for it with cash" should still be able to decide
what to do with their bodies, but if they have the misfortune to be born in the wrong neighborhood, or have otherwise fallen on hard times, it's cool, right?

Un. fucking. real.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Grinchie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-02-10 11:49 PM
Response to Reply #40
65. You said it Laydeebug -- The psychopathic logic is painful to watch on this post.
But everyone is "Equal" in Amerika right?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
treestar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 06:30 AM
Response to Reply #40
118. What do they do now?
Federal funds have not covered abortion since the 70s.

Nothing new is happening here. There is no excuse for a word like "death" in this either.

Disgusting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CTyankee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 07:15 AM
Response to Reply #118
126. It sounds like you are making the case only for early abortions where
the cost of a procedure is the least expensive. But what if a late term abortion is necessary to protect a woman's health? These procedures are difficult and expensive, requiring hospitalization in many cases.

Have you any idea on how much money a woman would be required to pay for this type of termination?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LaydeeBug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 09:33 AM
Response to Reply #118
149. Oh, well, shit, if they're relegated to back alleys now, who's worse for the wear?
Edited on Tue Aug-03-10 09:40 AM by LaydeeBug
Holy. Fucking. Shit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 04:28 PM
Response to Reply #149
252. +1000% --
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dflprincess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 12:27 PM
Response to Reply #118
200. Yes something new is happening here
Edited on Tue Aug-03-10 12:27 PM by dflprincess
Women in the high risk pool many of whom will be paying the premiums OUT OF THEIR OWN POCKETS are being told that they will not have the option to purchase a policy that covers elective abortions. The law will only cover this legal medical procedure in case of rape, incest or when a woman's life is threatened. But what if her life isn't threatened but their is a risk to her health? All of a sudden it's an "elective" procedure?

Spare me.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spheric Donating Member (512 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-04-10 05:03 PM
Response to Reply #118
303. No, this is what is disgusting. Why do you support it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Autumn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 11:26 AM
Response to Reply #40
189. You called it right on that LaydeeBug.
This insurance finance reform is targeted to those who need it the most, the poor and they have to suck it up. "Un. fucking. real." The most truth I have seen here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
me b zola Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 12:40 AM
Response to Reply #10
81. WTF do you mean,"just abortions"
To a woman seeking medical treatment, I doubt that her abortion would be thought of by her as "just an abortion". It would be a medical treatment that is not up for fucking discussion for freaking on-lookers. Woman's health care should not be a spectator sport.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
susanna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 01:19 AM
Response to Reply #81
92. 110% agreement, here. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uncommon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 10:56 AM
Response to Reply #81
172. Amen to that -- how about "just a gallbladder removal" or "just kidney failure" or
"just colonoscopies" -- what the fuck makes people think that abortions are "just abortions" and not an important part of women's reproductive healthcare???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Forkboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-02-10 08:25 PM
Response to Reply #8
26. DU came to that in November of 2008.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-02-10 10:36 PM
Response to Reply #26
38. I am beginning to think so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Grinchie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 12:03 AM
Response to Reply #38
70. It's really depressing to watch this train wreck or billions under the bus occur
Edited on Tue Aug-03-10 12:05 AM by Grinchie
Of all the hard working and well researched individuals on DU, you are on my Top 10 of favorite bloggers. You post inteligent analysis consistently, and have worked extremely hard for the Democratic party by spreading the word in an inteligent and concise manner.

It's unfathomanable how the Democratic party has gone out of it's way to alienate people like you and me like we don't matter, and it's come to this point where we are furious with the current maladministration. At least I am, and I think I read a little diappointment in your posts as of late as well.

It is when the little (d) Democrats at the top of the food chain start to notice that the canary isn't moving anymore, it's a pretty clear signal that Obama is done.

I gave up in May of 2008, but have remained civil in spite of repeated episodes of Dubya-like behavior from this President and his cronies.

Of course, the behavior vs the Campaign rhetoric is so far apart that one has to wonder what the hell happened. Is the American Ponzi Scheme so fragile that they are preventing a collapse by churning ahead towards facism? What is the big secret that forced Obama into Bush 3?

I think we are going to find out soon enough. The carnage this fall in regards to the economy will make the fall of 2008 look like the roaring 90's.

While it saddens me to see others finally waking up and lamenting this current mess, it is uplifting because I see the intelligent remaining vigilant and vocal, instead of retiring to the 100 acre wood and stocking up on ammo.

Keep the faith that we will all evolve Madfloridian. You are a great benefit to us all here.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 12:18 AM
Response to Reply #70
74. ....
wow, thanks for that. Very kind. :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BrklynLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 06:02 AM
Response to Reply #70
105. +100000000
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 04:40 PM
Response to Reply #70
253. Secret is corporate money/power -- and think your analysis is correct . . .!!
There are many among us who will simply keep moving to the side of power --

how might Obama have rationalized it ...?

That it would help the nation in ending racism if an AA were elected ... ?

Even if that AA acted like Bush?

I was amazined at the embrace of Obama -- a meteroric rise as his should have been

questioned -- my BS meter prevented me from listening to his speeches, but I knew

others were listening and tried to trust that their instincts would prove correct.

I did vote for Obama -- but I never caught him identifying himself as a "New Democrat" --

had I heard that I would never have voted for him.

And I would never have voted for Hillary/DLC --

The leaders we are being given are those the elites want us to have -- that's all.

And, maybe next time it will be a woman?

But keep in mind what Thurgood Marshall said when he was retiring and press were asking

about whether Poppy Bush should consider it a "black" seat . . .

Justice Marshall said . . .

"It's not the color of a snake which is important -- it's whether or not it bites!"

That also works for women -- IMO.

Unfortunately, Obama "bites" --

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Horse with no Name Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 01:12 AM
Response to Reply #26
88. + bazillion. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Greyhound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 01:16 PM
Response to Reply #8
206. And this (presumably) votes.
We are lost.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mdmc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-02-10 06:42 PM
Response to Reply #4
13. ha ha!
OMG!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Raineyb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 09:31 AM
Response to Reply #4
148. Excuse me isn't that enough or is do you think women are only entitled to partial health care.
Shit like this makes me want to leave the blasted country. Too many selfish, short-sighted, ego-centric people who don't give a damn about anyone but themselves and possibly their relatives and that's a stretch. We're never going to get the universal care in this country, there are too many morons who think so long as something doesn't effect them personally it's okay to screw others over.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tierra_y_Libertad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-02-10 05:41 PM
Response to Original message
5. Seating is now available under the bus for pregnant women. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Autumn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-02-10 07:28 PM
Response to Reply #5
18. Seating under the bus my ass. he backed the bus
up and ran over us. This ban was not in the final insurance reform bill.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 04:42 PM
Response to Reply #5
255. Really, this throws all women under the bus -- all who can get pregnant and all who
have ever been pregnant!!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truedelphi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-02-10 05:43 PM
Response to Original message
6. Sad sad days in our history.
Edited on Mon Aug-02-10 05:45 PM by truedelphi
The jig is up - no matter what we voters do, we are screwn.

Too bad it is not Monsanto with some GM abortion technology needing Presidential approval - then it would no doubt become a recipient of Presidential Executive Order - authorized immediately no matter what the costs.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SunsetDreams Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-02-10 05:52 PM
Response to Original message
7. Where's the links in the "story"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-02-10 06:56 PM
Response to Reply #7
16. lol
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluenorthwest Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-02-10 07:38 PM
Response to Reply #7
19. The link is at the top of the story
All the details you are pretending not to have are there. Do you know what a link looks like? Click it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-02-10 09:13 PM
Response to Reply #19
31. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
SunsetDreams Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 08:02 AM
Response to Reply #19
130. Oh I see the link in the OP
Edited on Tue Aug-03-10 08:03 AM by SunsetDreams
What I am talking about is the links in the article, for the quotes.

That's kind of why I said "in" the story?


:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uppityperson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 11:41 AM
Response to Reply #130
194. I'd like to see a link to a news piece not just op-ed also.
I'd like to read more about this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 04:44 PM
Response to Reply #194
256. There were stories/articles on this up here at DU last week . . .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uppityperson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 04:46 PM
Response to Reply #256
258. Thank you for sharing that piece of information with me but now it is now...
Edited on Tue Aug-03-10 04:48 PM by uppityperson
I want to get upset over news not op-ed piece with a clip of whatever it is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 05:57 PM
Response to Reply #258
281. And what would be the logical thing for you to do if you truly want to know?
Google?

Planned Parenthood?

DU Archives?

or sit and wait for someone to spoonfeed you info which is all over this thread?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uppityperson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 06:16 PM
Response to Reply #281
283. Thank you mommy for making me an independent person rather than expecting
Edited on Tue Aug-03-10 06:18 PM by uppityperson
someone who posts an op-ed piece to be able to give a link to info. So nice you let me read propaganda rather than information.

hugs to you
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 06:40 PM
Response to Reply #283
288. You obviously have no real curiosity about the information . . .
rather it looks like you're here to delay information ---

If you read the thread, you will find links and other information quoting

the regulation --

The OP contained a LINK --

those who didn't like it were about DELAY --

were we supposed to not know that?





:evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uppityperson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 06:43 PM
Response to Reply #288
290. The OP contains a link to an op-ed piece. Those who want info links, not op-ed are DELAYers?
Golly mommy, yet you waste bandwidth admonishing me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 07:49 PM
Response to Reply #290
294. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
LostinVA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-02-10 08:16 PM
Response to Reply #7
24. Ummm.... in the OP via the hyperlink
:wtf:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-02-10 06:10 PM
Response to Original message
9. I recommended this. There is no excuse.
This is catering the rigid religious right, and it is shameful.

"So who does this regulation affect? The high-risk insurance
pools are being created for some of the most medically
vulnerable women in the country -- those with pre-existing
conditions such as breast and ovarian cancer, AIDS, diabetes
and other conditions that may make pregnancy extraordinarily
dangerous.

The HHS regulations mean that women won't be allowed to obtain
abortion coverage through the new high-risk insurance pools
beyond limited cases (rape, incest, endangering the life of the
woman). They won't even be given the option to pay for that
coverage with their own money. We can't let this decision stand.


The final health care reform bill included extensive
restrictions on using federal funds to pay for abortion
coverage, but this new ban goes beyond what it is in the law.
Quite simply, HHS has chosen to place a new burden on women who
are ill and extremely vulnerable, women who may need to seek
abortion coverage."

How dare Democrats support such.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
treestar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-02-10 06:39 PM
Response to Original message
12. What has even happened here?
You haven't even said what the regulation is. Nor proven that it is "deadly to American women."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
peacebird Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-02-10 06:55 PM
Response to Reply #12
15. I asked and was pilloried...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jakes Progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-02-10 10:57 PM
Response to Reply #15
45. Justly so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Greyhound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 02:39 PM
Response to Reply #15
221. If only...
:eyes:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluenorthwest Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-02-10 07:42 PM
Response to Reply #12
21. Here is what Planned Parenthood said at the link you did not
use. An excerpt:
"The HHS regulations mean that women won't be allowed to obtain
abortion coverage through the new high-risk insurance pools
beyond limited cases (rape, incest, endangering the life of the
woman). They won't even be given the option to pay for that
coverage with their own money. We can't let this decision stand.

The final health care reform bill included extensive
restrictions on using federal funds to pay for abortion
coverage, but this new ban goes beyond what it is in the law.
Quite simply, HHS has chosen to place a new burden on women who
are ill and extremely vulnerable, women who may need to seek
abortion coverage."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JerseygirlCT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 11:13 AM
Response to Reply #21
181. So is this what was promised to Stupak way back
when passing insurance "reform" was the fight?

I wish Sibelius would just tell the president no. And quit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 04:50 PM
Response to Reply #181
259. Sibelius should "just say NO" . . . to this . . . yes, looks like a deal with Stupak -- !!
and Vatican -- Roman Catholic Bishops!!

Btw, Catholics want government run health care plan at even higher levels than

average Americans -- especially when Latinos are included -- over 86% --

And they want reproductive services included -- including abortion --



So Stupak and Catholic Bishops are trying to regain control over the bodies of

Catholic women and their exercise of free will by trying to influence government

in the Church's favor!!

Catholic women have just as many abortions as any other women --

This is game-playing with the Catholic Church and certainly not for any moral reason!



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dflprincess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-02-10 08:06 PM
Response to Reply #12
23. What has happened is that the high risk pools will not be allowed
to offer policies that cover "elective" abortion services even to women who do not qualify for any subsidies and will be paying the entire cost of their "coverage" out of their own pockets.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-02-10 10:53 PM
Response to Reply #12
42. Nothing is deadly. The headline is overdramatic.
It covers abortions in cases when a woman's life is at risk, so I think that means there's no "death blow."
Previously these women would have had no insurance and no coverage of abortions in any circumstance, so it represents an expansion of abortion coverage.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jakes Progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-02-10 10:59 PM
Response to Reply #42
47. Yeah. Pay no attention. Move along.
It's just some women stuff. After all. Obama is so cool.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-02-10 11:02 PM
Response to Reply #47
49. Yeah, why be accurate and stick to facts
when it's so much more fun to create the liberal version of "death panels?"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jakes Progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-02-10 11:58 PM
Response to Reply #49
68. You prefer hyperbole, I see.
Again. Parsing the lines, avoiding the truth just to let Obama off the hook. You are doing him no favors. Your blind adoration won't serve him when he goes looking for votes from women.

Your facts are pieces of semantics and hidey-holes of misdirection. You know full well what this action means. You know and either want to deflect the truth with a little slight of verbal hand because it doesn't look well on your prince. That or you fall in with the few others on the thread that don't think it matters because it is just women involved.

Here we go. Try this. Do you believe the law ought to allow women to receive the same consideration as men, that they ought to have access to the same coverage and benefits for their doctor's prescribed action as men would get?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 01:15 AM
Response to Reply #68
89. You want to write about hyperbole and ignore "death blow."
You've got to be kidding.
I've written several times at DU that I disagree with this decision. The only thing I'm objecting to is the exaggeration and overdramatic bullshit. It doesn't help any cause. It only alienates people and spreads confusion. Everything I wrote is 100% factual.

Would you care to explain why expanding abortion coverage in certain cases to women who don't currently have it is a "death blow?" Especially given that women are covered when it's a life threatening issue? Or can we just agree that it was a cheap line that only distracted people form understanding the issue.

Someday you may have to accept that sticking to the facts doesn't always make Obama look like the devil.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
treestar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 06:34 AM
Response to Reply #89
121. +1
Exactly, good heavens, this is a blatant attempt to create drama where there is none.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jakes Progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 11:09 AM
Response to Reply #121
178. -1
Exactly wrong. Good heavens, this is a blatant attempt to pretend that this action does not discriminate when it does.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
burnsei sensei Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 08:21 AM
Response to Reply #89
134. The problem is, when is it a life-threatening issue?
Decisions regarding women's health sometimes have to be snap decisions. We can't always refer to the law.
The fact remains that the Hyde Amendment is still in force.
In fact, it's been strengthened by the Affordable Health Care Act.
Women have died as a result.
They will continue to die as a result.
And these are, of course, abuses of human rights.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jakes Progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 11:11 AM
Response to Reply #134
179. But, but, how can it be about human rights
when it only affects women? (insert sarcasm thingie if needed)

It seems that nothing is off the table when it comes to burnishing the administration's record.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jakes Progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 11:08 AM
Response to Reply #89
176. Like I say. You get caught up in the your own fetish
and totally ignore the meaning. Different people express themselves differently. You know what the post means. You even say you agree with the idea. But you don't like the tone. It's almost as if you would complain about ending wars it they put the semi-colon in the wrong place in the announcement. Or trash the ERA because you didn't like an adverb in the last clause. You said the OP used phrases that distracted people from understanding the issue but your little tirade would seem to say that women's issues don't really matter and that there isn't an issue at all.

A little OCD is understandable, but dragging a thread away just because of an exclamation point or some word you take umbrage with. You stick to the facts. The facts are that it gives women less support than men. You get all caught up in a phrase, but don't mind handing out a lead thump like "liberal death panels". But I guess when you do it, it is okay. Because it is all facts and stuff.

Sheesh.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 07:55 PM
Response to Reply #89
295. Women's health and emotional well-being isn't worth protecting ... ???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
obxhead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 02:37 AM
Response to Reply #68
99. Exactly
"Your blind adoration won't serve him when he goes looking for votes from women."

Or men that support womens rights for that matter. I think 2012 might come as a little shock to the "Obama can do no wrong" crowd. I have a strong feeling my state (VA) will return to a red state based on what I hear from a majority of 08 Obama voters here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Grinchie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 12:23 AM
Response to Reply #49
76. Death panels are for the weak minded
Funny you should bring them up...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tomp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 09:05 AM
Response to Reply #49
138. right! we need a "radical" version, not a liberal one. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uponit7771 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-02-10 11:32 PM
Response to Reply #47
54. The Obama hate usually lacks facts
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jakes Progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-02-10 11:59 PM
Response to Reply #54
69. More facts than Obama blind love.
Edited on Tue Aug-03-10 12:01 AM by Jakes Progress
I do see that you added the word usually. Would you care to elaborate? Which posts that you would identify as "Obama Hate" contain truth and facts? You said some did. So let's hear you tell us what facts about Obama that you say comes from the haters is true.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 12:24 AM
Response to Reply #54
77. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Grinchie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 12:21 AM
Response to Reply #47
75. He's so dreamy, Much better than Rudy Rod, I just love him....
:sarcasm:

The most important people in my life are women. The hell if I'm going to ignore this BS from this woefully misdirected administration.

But take note dear reader.. It is currently August 3, 2010. Only about 1.5 years since election, and we are witnessing lame duckedness.. WTF is up with that? I thought it was a DLC power grab, but that would mean that the DLC is infested with Republicans....

Hilary Clinton is a War Hawk, and hired XE for another year. Something is fucking wrong with this picture.

They admit to fraud, and use that as a defense when called out, and the courts throw out the admission, instead of using it as evidence...

It's a fucking scam.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Chulanowa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 04:28 AM
Response to Reply #47
102. I can't help but notice RA said nothing regarding Obama's "coolness."
That's all you.

So tell me. Do you give a fuck about "some women stuff" if it doesn't give you an opportunity for shit-talk, or is it just these special occasions that you pretend to care?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Grinchie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 12:13 AM
Response to Reply #42
73. and the Moniker "Radical Activist" is not overdramatic?
Sorry Mr Strawman, but I fail to see how a so called "Radical Activist" wouldn't become furious and enraged just by reading the article at the link...

I guess your moniker is just a "Glamour" moniker that hopefully impresses upon some readers that you somehow care, or are somehow related to some "Radical Activists" second cousins brother.

Your attempt to frame it as a non event is a smoke screen, simply because this language apparently made it into law... Screw your spin, I want to know why it was inserted, and I want to know what motivated it, not some spin from people like you.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 01:21 AM
Response to Reply #73
93. "Death blow" is spin.
I don't know why you think I'm "furious and enraged." Projection?

Being a radical activist doesn't mean I have to be a gullible dupe who believes everything he reads as long as it attacks Obama from the left. There's a lot of that on DU. I know how to use critical reading and thinking skills.

If you really want to know more about the issue then you can search old threads. This news has been around for a long while.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Grinchie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 02:25 PM
Response to Reply #93
215. You can diddle with semantics all you want..
The fact remains that you would rather interpret language with the same capacity as a robot to make your point.

I guess when we did have real education in America, people were smart enough to understand the art of writing, like they understood Mark Twain.

Who is the real dupe here? The person that cries wolf when they see a rhetorical flourish, or the person that has enough intelligence to equate "Death Blow" with "it won't happen anymore"?

Your ignorance of Colloquialisms does not make your point any more valid, and especially so since this deals with disadvantaged humans that you would probably cross the street in order to avoid them.

Actually, I never said you were furious or enraged... I find you souless and robotic in defense of yet another DLC Flavored evisceration of the Social Welfare system.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BrklynLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 06:07 AM
Response to Reply #73
108. not overly dramatic..just plain misleading. perhaps even a lie.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tomp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 09:07 AM
Response to Reply #108
139. agreed. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Smashcut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 01:58 PM
Response to Reply #73
209. he's a Radical Centrist
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
demigoddess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 02:03 AM
Response to Reply #42
98. sometimes women need an abortion when they are diagnosed
with a cancer, in order to get the chemotherapy they need. this law is saying that they cannot get the abortion in any way and still keep their insurance for the cancer treatment. IMHO
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
polmaven Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 06:38 AM
Response to Reply #98
123. The lack of treatment for cancer
doesn't endanger the life of the woman????? Huh?

Did you miss this part?

"The HHS regulations mean that women won't be allowed to obtain
abortion coverage through the new high-risk insurance pools
beyond limited cases (rape, incest, endangering the life of the
woman
)
.

While I disagree with limiting abortions under insurance coverage at all, I must say that categorizing this as a "death blow" is misleading. It clearly states that if the life of the woman is endangered, abortion would be covered.

I will continue to ask the question - When will women be considered to be the equals of men in this country?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BrklynLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 06:03 AM
Response to Reply #42
106. Interesting glasses thru which you see the world....
Edited on Tue Aug-03-10 06:05 AM by BrklynLiberal
Wonder if your perspective would be the same if it were about prostrate surgery, impotence or low sperm count.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 12:22 PM
Response to Reply #106
197. If the story were that
men who don't currently have any coverage for those health issues were now going to have coverage in certain circumstances then I would see it as small progress and keep pushing for more. In other words, the exact reaction I have to this story.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
treestar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 06:32 AM
Response to Reply #42
119. More hyperbole and exaggeration.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 04:58 PM
Response to Reply #42
262. Really . . . ? How many times have YOU been pregnant -- ???
Edited on Tue Aug-03-10 05:00 PM by defendandprotect
It leaves these right wing decisions in right wing hands --

and decisions about when a pregnancy is a "threat to a woman's life" --

This is a deal made with Stupak and the Roman Catholic Bishops as they try to chase

down especially Catholic women who use their own free will and consciences to decide

for themselves when and if to have an abortion --

And an attempt by the Vatican to influence our government in controlling abortion --

I think we've already given the RCC enough help with bailing them out with TAXPAYER DOLLARS

for their "faith-based" religious organizations --

and there have been questions raised as to whether the RCC has used these funds to pay

off their pedophile lawsuits!



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 04:45 PM
Response to Reply #12
257. How many times have you been pregnant . . . ???
Women don't need these things explained to them -- they live them!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Liberal_in_LA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-02-10 07:40 PM
Response to Original message
20. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
suffragette Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-02-10 08:22 PM
Response to Original message
25. k&r
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Forkboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-02-10 08:27 PM
Response to Original message
27. And I'm told the women in Afghanistan matter.
Hard to believe when even the women here don't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bullwinkle428 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 12:30 PM
Response to Reply #27
202. Kinda like how the Repukes are all about the fetus, but once
the birth takes place, that kid can go to fucking hell!

Perfectly sensible in an alternate reality, though! :chuckles:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 05:01 PM
Response to Reply #27
263. Did you see the picture on Newsweek currently... ????
If you haven't - it's also on Common Dreams --

Prepare though for a woman's face hacked!!

We've been in Afghanistan 8 years -- did you ever hear about us stabilizing

women's positions there? Improving anything there?

It's all a farce -- from beginning to end!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tinymontgomery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-02-10 08:33 PM
Response to Original message
28. Hey It's change you can believe in
the other guys are worse or so we are lead to believe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Grinchie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 01:04 AM
Response to Reply #28
87. Yeah, they actually produce there own food and don't buy at WalMart
They are much Much Worse.. wooohh, scary.

(Don't tell anyone, but I produce much of my own food.., don't do cash crops, and generally manage my land like the natives did 9000 years ago. I can get no loans, no assistance, no help from academia or th USDA because my systems are over 2000 years old and feed people naturally without chemical fertilizers and external inputs.

I'm a big farm, but the systems for assistance in place have been written by Monsanto, Cargill, and the rest of the Corporate ag enclave... (Which keeps pesticides alive as a precursore to nerve gas wapons), Remember, Sadamm Hussein was attack on account of precursor chemicals - Pesticides - Which were sold to him as part of the attack on Iran..

As an Organic farmer, I am on my own to build capital to invest. If that doesn't flash warning sign to everyone, then you need to wake up.

We subsidize big ag at the expense of sustainable ag, and then the meass media complains the Organic food is more expensive. It is, simply because it is not subsidized. It's not that it is more ineffecient, but the fact the subsidies that support the chemical, tractors, fuel, and other inputs are nt available..

Meanwhile, in afganistan, they grow the best cash crop in the world, Opium Poppy! I could easily grow 25 hectares of these, but I can't because the DEA says no, yet this is used for much of the worlds opiates. Go figure.

Of course, they make more money with Afgan opium then they would wit a couple of tons I could potentially produce.

It's a fucking scam. Protected and condones by the US Military Democracy Militia, paid for by billions from your pocket.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tinymontgomery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 10:05 AM
Response to Reply #87
157. I hear you
and agree. as the WHO sang "meet the new boss, same as the old boss" not quit but close.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-02-10 08:38 PM
Response to Original message
29. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
SoxFan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-02-10 09:12 PM
Response to Original message
30. E.T. Phone Home
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
w4rma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-02-10 09:17 PM
Response to Original message
32. Cheer for another boneheaded DLCer's decision! (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 05:02 PM
Response to Reply #32
264. Imagine what we'd be saying if BUSH had done this .. . our guy -- seemingly fine . .!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fumesucker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-02-10 09:17 PM
Response to Original message
33. K&R, thanks for posting..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laughingliberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-02-10 09:34 PM
Response to Original message
34. K & R nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fearless Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-02-10 09:54 PM
Response to Original message
35. So groups he's pissed off so far who WERE his allies...
Edited on Mon Aug-02-10 09:54 PM by Fearless
1. Single Payer and Public Option-ists
2. ALF-CIO
3. Teachers/Teachers' Unions
4. GLBTQ people
5. Women

Umm... Is there a group that traditionally votes Democratic that he HASN'T disenchanted??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bobbolink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-02-10 11:32 PM
Response to Reply #35
55. Yes. Those of us who are ALWAYS forgotten... ever since LBJ.
Poor and homeless people.

We are expendable, as everyone knows.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eilen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 08:11 AM
Response to Reply #55
132. Actually bobbolink, Clinton threw you under the bus 20 years ago
The poor and homeless were DLC roadkill for a very long time. All one has to do is remember Katrina and the FEMA camps for the visual. I don't think Obama even had you in his sights, except when he refers to the "folk."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bobbolink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 02:16 PM
Response to Reply #132
212. Obama and Clinton are both responsible for their sins of omission.
Telling me it happened 20 years ago (actually, it was 30) doesn't do a thing to give me or others "hope".

I'm waiting for all of YOU to decide that we are important, and deserve your attention.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LanternWaste Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 06:27 PM
Response to Reply #212
285. How others may perceive me...
How others may perceive me and what others may tell me has little bearing on my importance and value either way...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bobbolink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 06:36 PM
Response to Reply #285
287. Yeah, that's pretty much the RW attitude. What a joy to live in such a sociopathic society.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LanternWaste Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 06:43 PM
Response to Reply #287
289. I don't think that the perception and value of one's self being...
I don't think that the perception and value of one's self being independent from the value judgments of others is a RW attitude. You can of course direct me to the relevant reading material which states as much, yes?

Or point me towards the relevant reading material which states it's part and parcel of being a sociopath...?


Or do we simply revel in more ineffectual insults?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bobbolink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 06:48 PM
Response to Reply #289
291. You had an opportunity to respond with what USED to be Democratic concern...
the values this party build itself on.

You chose, instead, to make it all about YOU, and to coldly say you really don't give a rip, and don't care what anyone says. In other words, YOU made it an insult, and said, in effect, "Here is how little I care... if you don't like it, screw you."

THAT is exactly the RW attitude, and if you aren't liking that, you may choose to look in the mirror.

And, no, I'm not interested in insults, and don't engage the RW for that very reason. So, insult away, and I hope it gives you pleasure.

Bye now.....I think its time for some soul-searching on your part.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LanternWaste Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 06:53 PM
Response to Reply #291
292. I made no insults.
I made no insults. Merely stated that my importance is not predicated on what others may think of me. I cannot state that for everyone though, because many people do appear to predicate their own value o the opinions of others.

Insults are funny things-- if you look hard enough, you can find them anywhere-- even in places where they do not exist.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spheric Donating Member (512 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-04-10 05:10 PM
Response to Reply #289
306. I think anyone who supports this is a sociopath.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eilen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 11:24 PM
Response to Reply #212
298. I'm with you.
Alleviating and preventing poverty should be a top priority in this country--and I don't understand why the hell it isn't. I just read a very depressing article in the NYT about a lady who is a self described "99er" and is almost living in her car (which is soon to be repossessed). Another story about a wonderful lady that is a friend of my mother's who is waiting for the tumor to grow large enough for the hospital to deem "life threatening" for only then will they remove it (she is disabled and in a great deal of pain d/t it pressing on her organs and her husband is self employed-- they are priced out of the "historic" high risk pool).

I don't know that the administration cares, honestly. The focus on the media has been all about the "middle class". Everyone is terrified about being "the poor". I guess when the middle class is finally dismantled, someone will remember the poor because we will all finally recognize we are one.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JerseygirlCT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 11:14 AM
Response to Reply #35
182. I guess
if you were going for a "Sister Souljah" moment, but bigger...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Greyhound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 02:43 PM
Response to Reply #35
222. Well, I don't think he has screwed over the wealthy "liberals" yet. n/t
:kick:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 05:08 PM
Response to Reply #35
265. You should also include SENIORS . . . now under attack/"Cat Food Commission" ...
1. Single Payer and Public Option-ists
2. ALF-CIO
3. Teachers/Teachers' Unions
4. GLBTQ people
5. Women



1 -- 76% among Americans -- 76% among Catholics -- 86% if Latinos included!!

2 -- Unions are now only 7% of work force ... which evidently was why Clinton began to

solicit corporate $$$ -- and created DLC!!

3 -- Teachers' union is one of the largest unions -- obviously a target for the right wing -- DLC.

Obama and Arne Duncan are carrying out that attack --

4 -- Fortunately GLBTQ are united -- as are those in unions --

5 -- 52% of the population -- mostly Democrats -- and vote in higher percentages for the

more liberal candidate --


6 -- I'd also break out SENIORS -- those on Social Security and Medicare -- and they aren't

united either, except thru AARP which is an insurance agency!!





So -- looks like Americans have a lot of uniting to do --


Corporations/elites are united in every way possible -- up, down and sideways --

thru every hierarchy that exists!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fearless Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 06:16 PM
Response to Reply #265
284. +1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bertman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-02-10 09:59 PM
Response to Original message
36. Rec. This is a despicable policy. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
susanwy Donating Member (461 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-02-10 10:38 PM
Response to Original message
39. So here is an example of what this means
to the twits on this thread who don't get it...

(hypothetically)

I have Lupus (I do) and have been forced into a high risk pool because I'm currently uninsured and uninsureable. I have an unintended pregnancy (because I can't take birth control because of Lupus, so some other form of birth control fails because my husband and I are no celibate) or I make the choice to risk an intended pregnancy. During the pregnancy (prior to the third trimester) something goes terribly wrong and I develop pulmonary edema and the possibility of a life ending blood clot in the lungs if I continue the pregnancy. Now, because I was not able to buy any elective coverage for an abortion out my own pocket I have to come up with the cash immediately to get a private abortion and the funds to travel to a location where I can even find an abortion provider. Travel is dangerous for me, but what choice am I left with, thanks to this ruling.

(non-hypothetically)

The scenario I outlined can happen. Women with Lupus can be especially vulnerable to life threatening complications when pregnant. I can't believe anyone would defend this decision. I sat there and bristled when Baucus and other DINOs negotiated the original "compromise" on abortion language. I even felt sorry for him and the death threats he received for voting for final passage. But, really we HAD a fair compromise on no federal funding for abortions (even though it didn't help poor woman who could never afford a rider anyway). Why get even more restrictive? Welcome to under the bus, we could build a bridge to nowhere.

Susan
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
girl_interrupted Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-02-10 10:56 PM
Response to Reply #39
44. +1000
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sgent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-02-10 11:03 PM
Response to Reply #39
51. Not quite
From the link in the OP....

The HHS regulations mean that women won't be allowed to obtain
abortion coverage through the new high-risk insurance pools
beyond limited cases (rape, incest, endangering the life of the
woman).

So in the case of a life threatening condition, abortion will be covered.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
susanwy Donating Member (461 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-02-10 11:15 PM
Response to Reply #51
52. so its the chicken and the egg
I don't know I'll have a life threatening condition until I HAVE one...so how can I purchase coverage before I have the event???? It does not make any sense. Nor do you know ahead of time if you will be raped. So, if Federal funds cannot be used to cover the abortion and I have not been able to purchase coverage prior to the occurrence....how will that work? In the middle of some life threatening event or after the trauma of a rape I'll have to go out and insurance shop? What about pre-existing condition (most of the law changes for that don't go into effect until 2014)? What about after the high-risk pools are phased out and the exchanges take over in 2014?

Besides being just plain wrong, this also illustrates the complexities of implementing the high risk pools and the coming exchanges.

Susan
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MilesColtrane Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 01:04 AM
Response to Reply #52
86. Seems like it would work like this.
You purchase a policy through the high-risk pool.

If you are raped and become pregnant, or become pregnant and your physician tells you that it is life threatening, you have an abortion and the insurance you purchased will pay for it.

I don't see where you would have to purchase a separate "abortion in case of rape" policy.

Still, this is craven catering to Republican religious nuts and I don't like it one bit.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BrklynLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 06:18 AM
Response to Reply #86
114. ...
Edited on Tue Aug-03-10 06:20 AM by BrklynLiberal
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
susanwy Donating Member (461 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 02:06 PM
Response to Reply #86
210. As I understand the high risk pools
You have to purchase a rider for abortions from your own funds. If you use ANY government subsidies to purchase coverage in a high risk pool (and given the nature of the high risk pools covering people with chronic health conditions, this is likely), then your "standard" coverage in the high risk pool CANNOT cover abortions. In fact as I understand it if the STATE receives federal funds to implement a high risk pool then the pool cannot offer policies with abortion coverage (even with the exceptions), you have to purchase a rider from an outside source.

If someone can clear that up for me, I'd be very curious. The result seems to me to be that women will be so confused in a time of crisis they will not know how to know if they are covered!

Susan
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BrklynLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 06:17 AM
Response to Reply #52
113. Sadly, people who want to limit women's health choices will always find ways to justify it.
Edited on Tue Aug-03-10 06:18 AM by BrklynLiberal
it.
As some folks have said...just put a way a few bucks each month. JUST IN CASE!!!!!!!!!!

I am so angry and pissed off that I could just spit!!!

Why are WOMEN'S RIGHTS so expendable???!!!!

Let's stop covering viagra and low-sperm count treatment as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shagsak Donating Member (328 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 10:30 AM
Response to Reply #113
161. There are shortcomings in the health care plan
It simply doesn't do everything we need it to (like single payer or medicare for all would have) by any stretch. However it does look like it is an improvement on the current system. People I've known have had to pay for abortions in my day (averaging $200), and I wouldn't expect it to be covered by insurance because it never has been - since I've been alive. Like it or not this is a religious nation and that won't be changing anytime soon. Those people are anti abortion, they are passionate, they are vocal, and they are spreading.

Not what you want to hear, but if you are going to have sex outside of a stable environment where you can raise kids, you have to take precautions - men or women. You have to protect yourself and be careful. There are consequences that are inescapable in these times we live in.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BrklynLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 10:35 AM
Response to Reply #161
163. Short comings..that is another problem that should not be covered..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
susanwy Donating Member (461 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 02:14 PM
Response to Reply #161
211. ok so your missing the point
We are not talking about an "off the self" elective abortion to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. In my day we paid for those ourselves too and very few

But in recent years the religious right have forced insurance companies (and now our government) to consider a DNC for ANY reason, including a health crisis like the one I described to be considered an "abortion" and not cover the medical procedure.

That is the problem with the use of language anymore - there used to be a difference between and elective abortion and a medical necessary abortion....today I'm not sure the difference exists, nor do we know if a medical necessary abortion would be covered under the new high risk pools and eventually the insurance exchanges.

Susan
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eilen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 08:19 AM
Response to Reply #52
133. Exactly, and how does one convince an insurance company
what is actually life threatening-- like a woman who suffers from clinical depression in an abusive relationship with too many kids already? Sometimes abusive men like to keep their wives or girlfriends pregnant as way of preventing them from leaving. Some women commit suicide, some abusers do too and take their family with them.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HEyHEY Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 12:46 AM
Response to Reply #39
83. Ah, well that's bullshit
Why the fuck would the dems put something like that through?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BrklynLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 06:11 AM
Response to Reply #83
111. hmmm Now THAT is a good question. Why would they???????
:mad: :puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 05:13 PM
Response to Reply #83
266. 'Cause the Vatican/Stupak and Roman Catholic Bishops wanted it -- ???
Remember the pressure from the Catholic right for this -- Stupak --

and a meeting between Pelosi and Roman Catholic Bishops -- and a phone

call from ROME to Pelosi????

Just as many Catholic women as any other women have abortions --

they'll destroy anything they can -- and finally destroy it all -- if we let them!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BrklynLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 06:10 AM
Response to Reply #39
110. i am horrified that women in your situation have been put into this position!!!
This is what I would have expected under pres shit-for-brains...not under the current administration.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
treestar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 06:33 AM
Response to Reply #39
120. Before the scenario was the same
What's different here is having coverage for the other conditions.

The abortion issue is the same.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
polmaven Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 06:46 AM
Response to Reply #39
124. That is not at all "what this means"....
"The HHS regulations mean that women won't be allowed to obtain
abortion coverage through the new high-risk insurance pools
beyond limited cases (rape, incest, endangering the life of the
woman
).


If a woman's life is endangered by continuing a pregnancy, an abortion will be covered.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 08:53 AM
Response to Reply #124
136. What about her health?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
polmaven Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 10:20 AM
Response to Reply #136
158. On that point
I totally agree with you. My response was to the allegations that a threat to her LIFE would not be covered.

I am, believe me, a feminist. I am disappointed that abortion is not covered under all circumstances, AT LEAST if the woman is able to pay for the coverage herself. I am at a loss to know how that constitutes using Federal funds to "finance" abortion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
susanwy Donating Member (461 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 02:22 PM
Response to Reply #158
213. See above thread response
But I will repeat...

IF the woman is covered in the high risk pool by FEDERAL FUNDS will a medical necessary abortion be covered??? Who defines life threatening - the doctor that may have beliefs of their own? Who defines the health? I thought is was NO abortions with federal funds, period, no exceptions. Now - on that point it looks like I may be wrong. A rider must be purchased out of the woman's own funds.

Thus, in my scenario if the doctor says - well there is a RISK you could die, but not a certainty - what happens?

They have deliberately made the language obtuse so that women will not know what to do! It would be my advice that all women of child bearing age should just purchase the rider, if they can afford the cost.

Susan
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Greyhound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 02:48 PM
Response to Reply #124
225. And you no how we know that is BS? Because your imagined exception doesn't exist.
Every pregnancy is potentially life threatening, yet that has long been established as "not enough" to meet the standard.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tomp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 09:11 AM
Response to Reply #39
142. yes, i thought we had achieved a compromise prior to passing hc"r".
it seems obama is unilaterally dismissing that compromise and moving it rightward.

for the record, i am not surprised.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 05:14 PM
Response to Reply #142
267. Vatican and RCC are persistent -- i.e., Stupak -- !!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
david_vincent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 10:38 AM
Response to Reply #39
165. You're the first one in the thread to spot the real meaning of this
This is clearly an attempt to turn the US into the New World's Ireland. Abortions will be effectively unobtainable -- not outlawed, but out of reach -- and women who need one will be told they can simply go over the border and have one. Vancouver, Winnipeg, Montreal, and Halifax will become destinations for American women as a result. Just as the Irish send their women to England, we'll be sending our women to Canada.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
susanwy Donating Member (461 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 02:24 PM
Response to Reply #165
214. yup
and ONLY if you have the $$. Otherwise....well prior to Row v Wade, we all know the horror of "otherwise".

Susan
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 05:17 PM
Response to Reply #165
268. If you recall the "pro-life" Stupak, the Vatican pressure-and Catholic Bishops ...
Edited on Tue Aug-03-10 05:18 PM by defendandprotect
pressuring Pelosi -- you're very right on!

But even in Ireland, they're having trouble with keeping this stuffed down Irish

throats!! 7,000 and more Catholic women every year go to UK for abortions!!

That's why Catholics Church has to try to influence government to put a stop to something

their own members are giving them the finger over!!

:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yodermon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-02-10 10:48 PM
Response to Original message
41. Link to the new policy/regulation?
thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-02-10 10:54 PM
Response to Reply #41
43. I just did a search. So can you. Try these terms....
Sebelius, high risk pool, abortion

There's a lot there. It's quite true.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulflorez Donating Member (112 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 03:14 PM
Response to Reply #43
233. Google search includes left and right interpretations, not literal text of resolution.
PP says you won't be able to buy 3rd party insurance to cover abortion even with your own money.
Right-wing sites say it will allow federal dollars to be used for abortion.

I don't want an interpretation, I want a literal quote of the resolution text in some form so I can decide for myself.

If someone does find the actual text, a link would be appreciated. Until then, I'm not going to jump on the chicken little bandwagon that both sides seem to be selling.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dogday Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-02-10 10:58 PM
Response to Original message
46. This President has the tools to push a Democratic Agenda, yet he
refuses to use them to help further this cause. When Bush left, he left all his power with Obama and Obama can use it just like Bush did. Republicans don't like it, tough...


I am dissappointed... :thumbsdown:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jakes Progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-02-10 11:02 PM
Response to Reply #46
50. But if he pushed for Democratic issues,
newt and those cool guys might not like him.

Yeah, yeah. Over the top. But the stuff coming from the administration is just disgusting. What we could have had. What could have been. But for ineptitude, inexperience, and indifference to suffering.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RainDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-02-10 11:25 PM
Response to Reply #46
53. Obama is using his power to HURT poor and working class SICK women
by his actions against women's reproductive rights in this case, in which he VOLUNTARILY chose to restrict access to health care for women who already suffer from health problems.

This situation was discussed here last month. I have nothing but disgust toward him over this issue. He's acting like a misogynist pig of the first order - a woman hater - a sycophant for the religious assholes in this nation who also think the earth is flat and was created in 7 days.

Honestly, knowing that he did this - I would definitely support a pro-choice candidate against him in the primary - you know, a candidate that cares about science and medicine, not religious nutcases.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uponit7771 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-02-10 11:33 PM
Response to Reply #46
56. FDR had an 83% congress to work with and LBJ had ~69, Obama does not
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bobbolink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-02-10 11:34 PM
Response to Reply #56
58. *yawn*
Geeee, we've *never* heard those excuses before.

I'm sure that will make the election go so much better come November.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RainDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-02-10 11:35 PM
Response to Reply #56
59. no one coerced him to add this restriction. he did it voluntarily. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tomp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 09:12 AM
Response to Reply #59
144. exactly. as if his other shit isn't bad enough. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Odin2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-02-10 11:43 PM
Response to Reply #56
61. A large number of the Dems back them were Right-Wing Racists.
So that's a misleading post.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rpannier Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-02-10 11:45 PM
Response to Reply #56
62. But they also got out there and publicly beat the bushes to get what they wanted
FDR spent a lot of time on the radio explaining his plans and policies
LBJ went out personally and sent out admin members to any news show they could get on
If there had been shopping networks back in the 60's LBJ would have had someone from his admin on it talking up his programs (or he'd have done it himself)
Plus, much of what they wanted they wrote
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dogday Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-02-10 11:49 PM
Response to Reply #62
64. ++1,000,000
When you have the power given to you by Bush himself, you can get the job done. I hated it when bush did it, each and everytime he stuck it to us, I hated it. Now we have a chance to really change policy and we get squat.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dogday Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-02-10 11:50 PM
Response to Reply #56
66. Please read this..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cherchez la Femme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 02:44 PM
Response to Reply #56
223. And why do you think that is?
Both FDR & LBJ had many, serious fans due to their progressive (as opposed to corporatist) agendas , hence The People were pleased and elected more Democrats.

It's so simple it's downright scary when people cannot see that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
treestar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 06:35 AM
Response to Reply #46
122. -500000
Now there is coverage for other conditions, even for abortion if pregnancy is life threatening, where before there was none.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dogday Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 01:00 PM
Response to Reply #122
204. But to a woman of child bearing age that has a medical condition
Edited on Tue Aug-03-10 01:00 PM by dogday
that is not her fault. How many ladies do you think are out there that fall into this category.


Yours is the ultimate fail, not caring about these women is the ultimate failure on your part...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 05:19 PM
Response to Reply #46
269. ... and yet he's pushing a right wing anti-abortion agenda . . . !!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
burrowowl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-02-10 11:33 PM
Response to Original message
57. KICK!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Odin2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-02-10 11:42 PM
Response to Original message
60. Another FAIL from Obama.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kalyke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-02-10 11:55 PM
Response to Original message
67. Why are so many men against our having choice?
I know why and am thinking of a post...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HEyHEY Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 12:46 AM
Response to Reply #67
84. Hey, alot of women are too
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 05:22 PM
Response to Reply #84
270. What women?
Catholic women have abortions as the same rate as any other women --

which is why the Vatican/RCC is chasing down governments everywhere to try

to regain control over women's bodies!

Catholic women want not only reproductive freedom they want it covered by government!

Jewish faith supports reproductive freedom, including abortion --

Protestants as far as I'm aware support family planning and abortion -- and PERSONAL

CONSCIENCE and FREE WILL --

So who are you talking about?

Other than "pro-life" fanatics?




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 05:22 PM
Response to Reply #67
271. Abortion is a very large ERASER . . .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jim Sagle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 12:08 AM
Response to Original message
71. You're cute when you're mad....sweetie. And besides, where else ya gonna go?
:sarcasm:

Are they hacks doing this for votes, or arrested frat boys doing it for shits and giggles?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bbgrunt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 12:26 AM
Response to Original message
79. k and r
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hekate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 12:33 AM
Response to Original message
80. Are we now doing Death Panels with no help from the Teabaggers?
A death blow to vulnerable women from the POTUS? Are we now doing Death Panels with no help from the Teabaggers?

It seems that we are. We hate Obama -- therefore no crime is too heinous to attribute to him.

Hekate

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 05:24 PM
Response to Reply #80
272. If Bush had done this . . . would you have posted that?
It is a death blow to women in need -- and when the right wing decides whether

a late term abortion can go forward --

and that's what this does -- it puts decision making in the hands of those who

stand AGAINST reproductive freedom, rather than in the control of women.

Obama will get what he earns and deserves -- that's fair, isn't it?



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HEyHEY Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 12:42 AM
Response to Original message
82. n/t - question answered upthread
Edited on Tue Aug-03-10 12:47 AM by HEyHEY
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beacool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 01:01 AM
Response to Original message
85. What a betrayal!!!
My mother became a strong pro choice advocate when she saw what happened to women of little means who could not afford a safe abortion prior to its legalization. Some were scared girls, others were married but already had too many mouths to feed and not enough money. These women were lucky if they survived a backroom abortion. Some bled to death or died from infections, others were left infertile. The lucky ones survived physically unscathed, but mentally scarred from the experience.

Shame on the Obama administration!!!

A sad day indeed......

:-(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftstreet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 01:17 AM
Response to Original message
90. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
inna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 01:47 AM
Response to Original message
94. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hfojvt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 01:56 AM
Response to Original message
96. Cecile Richards seems to contradict herself
"and other conditions that may make pregnancy extraordinarily
dangerous.

The HHS regulations mean that women won't be allowed to obtain
abortion coverage through the new high-risk insurance pools
beyond limited cases (rape, incest, endangering the life of the
woman)."

First, she says that a pregnancy would endanger their lives and then she says that they will not be able to get abortion coverage except in a case where their life in endangered.

So is this just another product from the factory that is manufacturing reasons to get angry at Obama? It sounds to me like most of the vulnerable women will be covered.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CTyankee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 07:23 AM
Response to Reply #96
128. Continuing the pregnancy may not endanger the woman's life, but would endanger her health.
There can be and ARE situations where a woman discovers a horrifying health situation later in pregnancy, requiring a more complicated termination procedure, perhaps involving hospitalization. Such an uninsured abortion would be enormously expensive. Or are you going to recommend that she "tough it out"?

Have you thought this thing through?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 05:29 PM
Response to Reply #96
274. Richards is correct . . . are you suggesting STUPAK was protecting women's rights?
That would be unique -- a pro-life Stupak acting to preserve reproductive freedom?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kurovski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 01:58 AM
Response to Original message
97. K&R. (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlueIris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 02:55 AM
Response to Original message
100. Shameful. K&R. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MissMoxie Donating Member (5 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 06:04 AM
Response to Original message
107. Reality through a different lens
Here's a different reality check. There are many, many people out there who live to make abortions illegal in this country. We are lucky we still have the option. With that in mind, O had to make some concessions in order to pass health reform. He even said we need to at least get something towards change started (in our partisan world)and we can build on it from there. In other words, something had to go to get rethugs on board.

This isn't taking away anything from women. We can still get abortions. They just won't be paid for by the Fed. Many good things came from health reform. Without a public option, it was disappointing, but it was a start with many good changes. (Ie, Not being denied coverage due to previous conditions.)

I feel bad for women who take this as an affront to our gender.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BrklynLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 06:12 AM
Response to Reply #107
112. bullshit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 08:56 AM
Response to Reply #107
137. Oh, my goodness. It IS an affront to our gender. It is an insult.
This is a Democratic admin doing this to women.

This is shocking so many defend this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 09:20 AM
Response to Reply #107
145. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Autumn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 10:52 AM
Response to Reply #107
170. I feel bad for women who don't
take this as an affront to our gender. I am glad that you can't be denied coverage due to previous conditions but it isn't a bowl of cherries for those of us who have "health" insurance but still can't afford to use it, so the insurance finance reform really isn't all that great for some. Welcome to DU.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BrklynLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 06:09 AM
Response to Original message
109. Betrayed....that is how I feel.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
customerserviceguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 06:24 AM
Response to Original message
115. What's the surprise?
When President Obama cut that deal with Stupak, et al., this was the predictable result. He even gave them a photo op to commemmorate the occasion. Had he not struck that deal, there would be no HCR legislation to even issue regulations about.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sheepshank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 09:53 AM
Response to Reply #115
151. How quickly so many tend to forget.
"When President Obama cut that deal with Stupak, et al., this was the predictable result. He even gave them a photo op to commemmorate the occasion. Had he not struck that deal, there would be no HCR legislation to even issue regulations about."

I hate the idea that the subject is even on the table. That we even have to address the idea of limiting anything related to women's choice of what to do with their bodies. The 'choice' option was at one time put before me...for some very good reasons. So the subject matter is near and dear to me. BUT, you can't shovel this particular political shit with a fork...one side needs to supply the scoop and the other the shovel. HCR/abortion coverage is the way it is exactly because of CSG's post.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
northernlights Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 07:04 AM
Response to Original message
125. well, as long as men can get their viagra
it's all good.

:sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uncommon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 11:06 AM
Response to Reply #125
175. Seriously - we actually live in a reality where a man's ability to fuck is more important than a
woman's ability to deal with an unwanted or unsafe pregnancy.

Try and tell me we don't live in a goddamn patriarchy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dappleganger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 08:03 AM
Response to Original message
131. I have told both of my daughters countless times
Ad nauseum, in fact: if they ever find themselves in a situation when they need an abortion, for any reason whatsoever, to just pick up the phone and call and the money will be sent with no questions asked. I have laid out situation after situation where having a baby is not a good idea, so hopefully after another hundred times of their mom 'preaching' they'll finally get it through their head. They even know where to go (Planned Parenthood) to get info, as our oldest daughter has passed this info along to her friends several times. My biggest nightmare is one of my girls bleeding to death because of a back-alley abortion. They both have a bleeding disorder so if they aren't taken care of properly this could certainly be the case.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MissMoxie Donating Member (5 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 09:08 AM
Response to Reply #131
140. Get real
No one has made abortions illegal!! No need to worry about back-alley abortions. Geesh.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tomp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 09:23 AM
Response to Reply #140
146. another lame ass response.
the negotiated agreement was that they would be paid for.

obama unilaterally went beyond that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sheepshank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 09:55 AM
Response to Reply #146
153. big fat lie...your forget the Stupak Amendment
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tomp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 11:23 AM
Response to Reply #153
188. not required by stupak. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dappleganger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 12:23 PM
Response to Reply #146
199. +10000
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uncommon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 11:01 AM
Response to Reply #140
174. Actually, in many areas abortion is not accessible.
And travel is prohibitively expensive for many American women.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dappleganger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 12:22 PM
Response to Reply #140
198. You are living under a bush...
our state of FL and many other states are doing EVERYTHING in their power to restrict the right to a legal abortion as much as possible. If you think that isn't happening you've got your head up your ass.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 05:32 PM
Response to Reply #140
275. I think you mean ... "no one has made abortions illegal . . . YET" -- !!
Edited on Tue Aug-03-10 05:32 PM by defendandprotect
And, no one has died from back alley abortions since Roe vs Wade -- right?

Remember Becky Bell -- and how many more like her have there been?

How about doctors murderrd by "pro-life" anti-abortion fanatics?

Geesh -- !!

:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
totodeinhere Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 03:26 PM
Response to Reply #131
235. You make sense. However, I hope you are also advising them how not to get pregnant in the first
place. But then if they get pregnant anyway in spite of your advice, then it's great that you will be there for them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dappleganger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 04:55 PM
Response to Reply #235
261. Not just advising them...
we are far more involved than that, and from a very early age.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flyarm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 08:53 AM
Response to Original message
135. K&R and do the unrec'ers think we don't get the emails from Planned parenthood?
are they really that stupid?

Do they really think we women "don't talk among ourselves?"

are they really that stupid?

do they think we don't read at other web sites?

are they really that stupid?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Greyhound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 03:04 PM
Response to Reply #135
230. We do tend to judge others by ourselves. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 05:33 PM
Response to Reply #135
276. As much as they can limit free speech here or anywhere, they'll do it ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flyarm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 09:09 AM
Response to Original message
141. dupe
Edited on Tue Aug-03-10 09:10 AM by flyarm

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Iggo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 09:11 AM
Response to Original message
143. Unrec'd just for fun.
You guys take this rec/unrec thing way too seriously.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Raineyb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 09:52 AM
Response to Reply #143
150. Rec'd to counter.
Unreccing for spite is just plain asinine.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sheepshank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 09:57 AM
Response to Reply #150
154. unrecced for OP hyperbole. Reality would have served better.
the ensuing discussion for the most part has been informative....but the title of the OP needs addressing.....unrec unrec unrec
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Iggo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 10:01 AM
Response to Reply #150
156. Not spite. Fun.
And you're making it funner.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Raineyb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 12:27 PM
Response to Reply #156
201. Then you're a bigger asshole than I thought you were. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Iggo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 01:09 PM
Response to Reply #201
205. Aw, poor bebe.
You feel better now?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 05:35 PM
Response to Reply #205
277. You're UN'ing for "fun" . . . I'm sure that's what Skinner had in mind when he gave you
that "privilege" -- !!!

:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Iggo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 11:21 PM
Response to Reply #277
297. -
:patriot:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spheric Donating Member (512 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-04-10 05:07 PM
Response to Reply #143
304. Yup, this is so much fun. Why do some people make me want to puke?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
orbitalman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 09:58 AM
Response to Original message
155. To Reiterate.....
"...there's just no earthly reason for it,..." :grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LTX Donating Member (400 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 10:34 AM
Response to Original message
162. Just for the heck of it,
I'll repeat myself:

"The HHS regulations mean that women won't be allowed to obtain
abortion coverage through the new high-risk insurance pools
beyond limited cases (rape, incest, endangering the life of the
woman
)."



The histrionic extremes in this thread about the life of a woman being expendable because she cannot obtain a life-saving abortion are flat out false. They posit a situation where coverage is in fact available. And I can't for the life of me discern why such falsehoods are being regurgitated. It is exactly the kind of hysteria that was whipped up by the "death panels" smear.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uncommon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 11:00 AM
Response to Reply #162
173. There are many situations in which a pregnancy may harm the health of the woman,
including her mental health, that would not be covered under a policy this restrictive.

There is no excuse for setting a limitation that requires a woman's life to be in imminent danger in order for her abortion to be covered by insurance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KamaAina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 11:08 AM
Response to Reply #173
177. Some abortions are needed so that the woman will be able to get pregnant again
you'd think even "pro-lifers" could get behind that, wouldn't you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uncommon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 11:12 AM
Response to Reply #177
180. Right?
No, anything that makes life even a little easier for women is an affront to conservative right-wing ideology.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LTX Donating Member (400 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 11:16 AM
Response to Reply #173
184. But of course there are reasons for such a restriction.
And those reasons are grounded in both political reality and the nature of risk pools. We happen to be a country just about evenly divided on the question of elective abortion, and to pretend that we are not is to undermine the value of the risk pool by assuring its demise. Furthermore, risk pool insurance is designed for ordinarily uninsurable catastrophic cases. Hence, it covers abortion in catastrophic cases, and does not in non-catastrophic cases. What this insurance limitation does not do is consign women to death where an abortion would otherwise save her life, as has been suggested repeatedly on this thread.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uncommon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 11:20 AM
Response to Reply #184
187. "Evenly divided" lol
Because even 50% of the population should be able to restrict an individual woman's access to reproductive healthcare on their fucking whim.

A woman's health can be horribly damaged by pregnancy without her being at risk for death - and unless she is at risk for death, she is not protected. Her health is expendable, only her life is not. And frankly if it were up to a large percentage of the population of this country, her life would be expendable to.

You will forgive me if I don't want my health and happiness in the hands of religious fundamentalist anti-choicers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 05:38 PM
Response to Reply #184
278. Even Catholics are in favor of abortion -- and government reproductive programs -- by
large majority -- 76%/+ Latinos/Latinas 86% --

and specificially elective abortion 51% --

What your'e trying to suggest isn't true --

Hebrew faith supports reproductive freedom -- including abortion --

Protestants -- support reproductive freedom - including personal conscience and free will

re abortion --

So who are you talking about?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LTX Donating Member (400 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-04-10 08:28 AM
Response to Reply #278
300. The issue is not as black and white as you suggest.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/poll_abortionrights010122.html

There are nuances to public support for abortion, and those nuances focus on elective abortions. Of course, the risk pool regulations at issue here deal with medically necessary abortions, for which there is broad support.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-04-10 03:30 PM
Response to Reply #300
301. Catholics SUPPORT abortion -- FOR ANY REASON -- by 50% /53%. . .
Edited on Wed Aug-04-10 03:34 PM by defendandprotect
"Elective" is another even larger margin -- because "elective" can include medical

reasons which aren't emergencies -- and that doesn't drop below 66%/71% --

Catholics are the closest we can come to understanding the wide support for reproductive

freedom --

Here's the breakdown on the "alleged" toughest critics of abortion --

Again -- the first figure is Catholics -- the second figure is when Catholic Latinos/

Latinas are included . . .



Catholics favor government or private insurance coverage
for reproductive health services -- 73%/83%

Pre-and-post natal care -- 95%/97%

HIV Aids tests -- 86%/92%

CONTRACEPTION -- 63%/67%

CONDOMS TO PREVENT HIV/AIDs -- 51%/57%

Government or private insurance for an abortion --

When a pregnancy threatens the life of a woman -- 84%/87%

When a pregnancy results from rape/incest -- 76%/80%

When a pregnance poses long term health risk for woman -- 73%/77%

When the fetus has severe abnormal condition -- 66%/71%

When a woman and her doctor decide appropriate -- 50%/53%





PS: And, again, keep in mind that these figures are supported by the reality that

Catholic women have abortions at the same rate as any other women!!

Not many "nuances" involved in that!!

Rather, hopes for "nuances" are in the minds of the male-supremacist Vatican and

US Roman Catholic Bishops who still seek control over women's bodies -- and where

their own members disagree with them on reproductive freedom issues.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LTX Donating Member (400 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-05-10 08:45 AM
Response to Reply #301
310. And the relevant percentage is 50/53.
I simply stated that "We happen to be a country just about evenly divided on the question of elective abortion." And you provide percentages of 50/53 for the category "When a woman and her doctor decide appropriate." That's just about evenly divided.

And now you re-define "elective," apparently because you desperately want to label someone a "male supremacist" and pick a fight. Well, have at it. I'm sure you'll feel better after another few vitriolic posts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-05-10 11:59 AM
Response to Reply #310
312. "For any reason whatsoever" is different from elective/medical condition ....
Edited on Thu Aug-05-10 12:02 PM by defendandprotect
Again . . . you can have a pregnancy which isn't immediately life threatening --

which a woman may decide to end -- infant deformed, whatever -- abnormal condition --

but not necessarily a threat to her life.

That's entirely different from "for any reason" --

because there is a "REASON" connected to the decision.

For abortion backed by "abnormal condition of fetus" there is 66%/71% support!!!



"For any reason" whatsoever is entirely different from that --

So -- "for any reason" -- there is 50/53% support --

a majority among Catholics.

And, again --

Catholic women make clear their feelings by having just as many abortions as any other

women!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JerseygirlCT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 11:16 AM
Response to Reply #162
183. What it doesn't cover is
a contingency for the health of the woman.

So the doctor can conclude her very life is at risk, and that's ok. Her health? That's expendable in order to placate the misogynistic likes of Bart Stupak.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uncommon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 11:17 AM
Response to Reply #183
185. Her health is irrelevant.
:sarcasm:

Never mind that it's HEALTH insurance, not LIFE insurance.

Ugh.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JerseygirlCT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 11:37 AM
Response to Reply #185
191. Very frustrating, isn't it?
And that's not near emotional enough a word for it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 12:18 PM
Response to Reply #162
196. Let's try this
"The HHS regulations mean that men won't be allowed to obtain
HIV coverage through the new high-risk insurance pools
beyond limited cases (rape, incest, endangering
the life of the man
)."


Looks fine to me. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spheric Donating Member (512 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-04-10 05:09 PM
Response to Reply #162
305. So, you support this do ya?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spheric Donating Member (512 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 10:36 AM
Response to Original message
164. K&R Thanks for posting. /nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 11:19 AM
Response to Original message
186. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 11:39 AM
Response to Original message
193. Yeah, but have you seen him with his shirt off??
:loveya:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dembotoz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 11:53 AM
Response to Original message
195. every day just a bit more disappointed
sum total
a whole damn lot disappointed.

will i vote for him again?
yes
i always vote and i always vote dem

my campaign thing is i do lit drops
last cycle in excess of 5,000 pieces for one candidate.
Do not think i would do 5,000 pieces for Obama
will for someone else on the ticket-maybe whoever is running against sensenbrenner-but probably not
for obama
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
emsimon33 Donating Member (904 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 01:22 PM
Response to Original message
207. The irony here is that
those for whom denying women the right to control their own bodies and destinies is a hot button wouldn't vote for Obama or a Democrat while the rest of us just shudder that we gave our wealth, our time, and our health to a whore who sells us out at every chance,
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Grinchie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 02:30 PM
Response to Reply #207
219. It's not ironic, it's a fucking Greek Tragedy
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
judesedit Donating Member (450 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 02:51 PM
Response to Original message
226. First...read the regulation for yourself. Second...women will still get abortions when they need
them one way or another. Just as they have been doing for centuries. I can go along with the federal money NOT being used for abortion. It is a highly charged issue and the lobbyists have lots of money. BUT...to tell a woman what to do with her own body with her own money is against the Declaration of Independence which states, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men and women are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If this article states the full facts, there will definitely be repercussions. NO MAN should have ANY say in predominately women's issues and vice versa.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uncommon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 02:53 PM
Response to Reply #226
227. Should Viagra be covered by insurance? Should prostate cancer
treatments that are designed to save the nerves that allow erection be covered by insurance? Should low sperm count treatments be covered by insurance?

Should fertility treatments of any kind be covered?

If so, then so should abortion and all birth control methods.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 05:42 PM
Response to Reply #226
279. For "centuries" women have been reliant on back alley abortions .. !!!
Edited on Tue Aug-03-10 05:54 PM by defendandprotect
Has that information escaped you somehow?

Yeah -- let's be sure to save the MONEY to buy more bombs!!

If you're in favor of reproductive freedom and abortion -- and I think you are -- odd way

of reaffirming that!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulflorez Donating Member (112 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 02:55 PM
Response to Original message
228. Where is the actual text of the resolution?
I see quotes from a couple of talking heads but no quote of the actual resolution.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alp227 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 03:12 PM
Response to Original message
232. This plan seems self-contradictory.
So who does this regulation affect? The high-risk insurance pools are being created for some of the most medically vulnerable women in the country -- those with pre-existing conditions such as breast and ovarian cancer, AIDS, diabetes and other conditions that may make pregnancy extraordinarily dangerous.

The HHS regulations mean that women won't be allowed to obtain abortion coverage through the new high-risk insurance pools beyond limited cases (rape, incest, endangering the life of the woman).


Aah, the return of that bogeyman "pre-existing conditions". I guess the Obama admin doesn't see pre-existing conditions as "endangering the life of the woman"? That is messed up right there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 05:55 PM
Response to Reply #232
280. Morally -- it has to also protect the HEALTH of the female . . .not only her life --
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spheric Donating Member (512 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-04-10 05:14 PM
Response to Original message
308. Why in the name of God shouldn't this be covered?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Steely_Dan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-05-10 10:35 AM
Response to Original message
311. I Can Only...
repeat what has been said here already.

Just how would feel if this had come down during the Bush Administration?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun Jan 05th 2025, 05:23 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC