Bart Stupak Threatens Dems If His Amendment Is Removed
By Susie Madrak Thursday Nov 12, 2009 4:00pmVia Huffington Post, the latest from Bart Stupak, clearly under the loving spiritual guidance of his C Street family:
Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) is warning fellow Democrats not to mess with his restrictive anti-abortion amendment.
Pro-choice outrage was sparked by the inclusion of a provision in the House health care bill making it harder for private insurers to cover abortion. President Obama himself suggested that the language disrupted the status quo and should be taken out of the final legislation. Abortion rights supporters in Congress requested a meeting with the president next week to discuss the issue.
Now Stupak is saying he won't go easily.
"We won because [the Democrats] need us," Stupak said. "If they are going to summarily dismiss us by taking the pen to that language, there will be hell to pay. I don't say it as a threat, but if they double-cross us, there will be 40 people who won't vote with them the next time they need us -- and that could be the final version of this bill."
Login or Register to post comments.
wonderful. We are a patient people us Americans.
Fuck stupak
he is just another hypocritical phony religious
misogynist.
Pass the word: Do not tithe in church and do not donate money in synagogue until congress removes the Stupak Amendment from the bill
and sets up a public option that works like single payer paid from taxes and people do not pay for any medical care or patented or generic medications.
and create a new prescription drug benefit in Medicare Part B with 80 percent coverage of generic and patented drugs, with no extra monthly premiums, no extra yearly deductibles, no coverage gaps, no means tests.
http://www.democratz.org
and continue to-- then no donations in church will certainly make the Stupak folks squeal like hogs...No DCCC, DSCC, DNC, NRSC, GOP, and Catholic, Baptist, Methos, Temple, or Synagogue!
Certainly we can start a fund to primary Stupak and those that voted for this crime against women and our rights!
Fucking useless, worthless DINOs!
So efin what?
Take your best shot you hateful little creep.
This HCR bill is not a vehicle for you to control any womb.
These a**holes think they can make women into baby warehouses.
He doesn't have the nads - IMO
If these people (I use that term generously) don't believe in abortion THEN they should NEVER get an abortion. They also should NEVER think that means they have the authority or the purview to address anybody else.
See it really is that easy.
go round with an anti-choicer the other day. Were you there in the thread? I don't remember. But he didn't seem to understand that just because he and his wife are finally expecting after a long struggle to concieve, it doesn't give him the right to dictate that women should stay pregnant or avoid getting pregnant with children that he and his wife aren't going to adopt themselves, much less even know they exist...
...........his 'arguments' were lame, he didn't answer when I asked him if he/wife found out that what she was carrying was not a functional human being what would happen then???? He never answered that one. Hope one day, he has that on his plate.
seemed ready to provoke ... throwing out a lot of bait... his arguments were the accepted claptrap from the patriarchy-- rightwing, christianistas ... he couldn't argue because his mind is closed; he's told what & who to believe (& value) and clearly it's not anyone outside his cult of american taliban
and i thought he was a poseur (poser).
I asked this earlier:
Is it just me or does stupak sound like a PAC group for stupid people
Who can't spell
Like the tea-baggers?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGBeaztBRNA
Stu-PAC's literature is notoriously typo ridden.
amendment!! May he live in irony! The Stoooooooooooopid amendment. Cut tax exemption for all 'churches'!!!!! Esp. 'C' street, and rev. Ensign.
No one 'needs' to have progress rolled back for women's rights because you belong to a cult that effectively believes that women should be relegated to the role of brood mares.
These same jerks never even consider the insurance for vasectomies, Viagra, or even prostate as worthy of their religious review? I wonder why those are no prob.
Grrrrrr.
Three words.
Bring. It. On.
also,
You're a cowardly titty-baby.
"If they are going to summarily dismiss us by taking the pen to that language, there will be hell to pay. I don't say it as a threat, but if they double-cross us, there will be 40 people who won't vote with them the next time they need us -- and that could be the final version of this bill."
Then what the hell do you call this, a love letter? It's a threat, and you my sweet little whiny crybaby, are going to regret making it, as it will be shoved back down your throat.
Bring it. "There will be hell to pay." Ya think, Bart? Did Businessman Jesus say he has your back? Yo, "Jesus Plus Nothing."
Whatever we gotta do to pass sumpin! No need to get mad sir I mean, I got to put food on my family.
Isn't that rather uncomfortable for them?
;)
Only if carving is needed - spoons just tickle.
no one gets forked.
Everybody should get forked!
Oh wait - nevermind
.
gets his way....we'll ALL be forked.
Everyone should get . . . Laid?
(Could be fun?)
Ew.
Ew. Ew. Ew. Ew. Ew. Ew. Ew. Ew. Ew.
Nothing even related to family
a family style Italian Restaurant is a bad thing?
.
I think the only solution here is for a Senate democrat to create a carefully worded amendment which echoes the sentiment of the Stupak-Pitts amendment but prevents it from being interpreted as stricter than the Hyde doctrine.
I totally think passing a bill would be a good thing - not a great thing but a start.
But not at the cost of medical care for women - it is wrong enough to scrap the whole thing.
I mean why single them out - especially the ones who might need it the most.
Obama has already stated that he won't push to invalidate the Hyde amendment. The problem with the Stupak-Pitts amendment is that it could require that private insurers and employee plans which accept federal money to not cover abortions. We're not going to see any expansion of abortion coverage in this bill, but we need to keep women who have such coverage from losing it.
stupak can only succeed because congress & admin want him to.
it does seem a very 'backdoor' hyde amendment plus... women's health regressive measure beyond hyde amendmt (remember the married mr. henry hyde's @ 40+yrs old had what he called a youthful indiscretion, actually an affair with a married with child(ren?) younger woman??)
it seems congress critters (dems) and admin are ok w/this (status quo???) can't give away enough, fast enough to please the same old power brokers.
if the administration and congress are ok with viewing as status quo the hyde amendment and via stupak increasing & intensifying regressive measures on women's heath issues, other outcomes will follow--like diminished access and erosion of professional expertise in a lot of women's reproductive health issues. if you're from an economically and socially advantaged niche you're ok, otherwise ... too bad for you and yours.
this well-written article shows how limiting access plays out: http://www.msmagazine.com/summer2004/womanand...
edited by poster./
I think Michigan should threaten Bart Stupak with going home next Election Day if he doesn't simmer down.
Just beat the living shit out of this little creep and let the motherhumpers vote however the hell they like. I'm sick and tired of being blackmailed to death by squishy little scrotum crawlers like Stupak.
Now them is some descriptive prose...
lol
"..there will be hell to pay. I don't say it as a threat, but if they double-cross us, there will be 40 people who won't vote with them the next time they need us -- and that could be the final version of this bill."
Not a threat?
Perish the thought.
RNC Insurance plan COVERS abortion.
why don't we just "split the baby" and criminalize abortion for GOP women, who have coverage, and keep it legal for Dems, who don't have coverage. that way, everybody's righteously ticked off.
This isn't a bigger story...at least on C&L.
Maybe it's been posted already.
That would be ONE way to see how people REALLY want their lives to look, when it comes down to it. Join one party: willingly give up certain things. Join the other: same-same. Ah ah ahhhhh, pregnant GOP hypocrites! You can't change your mind about an abortion now, no matter how good the reason! YOU wanted to be in the GOP. YOU wanted to stand by your precious principles! Now, go on! Make a baby you can't have for whatever valid reason has arisen! GO ON! Shoo!
(of course, we stinkin' libs would find a way to help these fools in their time of need, but the flip flopping would be amusing to watch in a very dark, tragic way)
call his bluff. let him be the poster boy for candidates who were pilloried for their principled stand against health care for the american people. see how that plays at election time.
attempted blackmail? Are you a member of the "He-Man Woman Haters Club," too?
Dems will think hell's come home if they keep this shit in the bill.
having a choice, but 45,000 who won't vote being dead.
Hey, Stupak. You know you have to get re-elected next year, don't you?
I could be wrong, but I've heard that women whose reproductive rights have been restricted and economic opportunities limited can become downright angry.
Me? I'm just a guy who likes to drink, drive long distances from home, and am a decent shot, either with my .38 or a rental car...
I don't like being threatened, especially by a punk congress critter who gets paid with the taxes I can barely afford to pay.
You and Unholy Joe can both go FUCK YOURSELVES! I've been without health care most of my life and can survive a little longer. At least Kucinich and Sanders are/will vote 'No' for the right reason. You and Joe are just self-absorbed, cock-sucking shills.
No insurance I've got to pay? Good; more money for shells.
FUCK YOU.
176 Republicans voted for the amendment.
As opposed to their usual support normally clocking in at around what?
None? It's quite something really how "helpful" they can be,how "bipartisan" and "selfless" when taking away the rights of women and chasing them back to the 1950s along with the "colored folk".
I think they are being exposed. More and more people seeing them for what they really are.
yes, they are creepy. But guess what? there are SO many right to lifers out there cheering right now. This is their only reason for voting.
"I don't say it as a threat..."
Sure sounds like a threat to me.
I'm not threatening you m-kay?
Just pass my amendment or I'll punch your face in.
for much of the last decade already? That cow has already sailed.
I love the mexed midaphors!
I wake up and smell the cat food...
sailed a cow in my pajamas.
How it got in my pajamas, I'll never know.
Sail on sailor!
and a star to steer it by.
Preferably Jake Gyllenhaal.
I prefer midasphors.
I hope he burns in hell.
his farewell address that a system of government based on politics was doomed to failure.
and he doesnt care one iota about the overall attempt to fix/improve healthcare for many Americans. clearly he is saying that everything else is secondary, nay really irrelevant, to his anti abortion amendment. sheesh, he clearly has failed before hes even started. why bother even trying sir?
"he doesnt care one iota"
Sad but true for many if not most politicians. Re-election is what IS the best for everybody from their point of view. So we have to vote the SOB's out. We have to get and groom challengers and train the DCCC what to do. They just will not go willingly in the direction of the people. We have to drag them with us.
Sounds like its time for a Primary challenger, one that doesn't think he/she works for the Catholic Bishops and one that does NOT allow their BIG Church nose being stuck into issues of the State.
And the others who voted for this POS amendment.
Throw this asshole the hell out in your Primary elections next year.
anyway, so the jerk can pull his support. If the bill does not pass then the dems can go back to the table and write a better bill. They can also point their finger at Mr. C Street Hooker House Stupak and say he held health care hostage with malnipulative lies to make it more difficult for women to get abortions. He could lose an election based on that. This could be a double victory for progressives.
THIS is what passes for news nowadays??
Fuck, no wonder people tune into Fux...
Time to kick this dickhead to the curb.
...I read your post in a very American History X kind of way. Ouch!
That statement made me want to cross my legs.
Not effing worth it.
A bill with Stupak in it should not be passed.
Why the hell are Catholic bishops involved in writing our laws?
Stupak thinks he's got 40 with him if it's stripped? The pro-choice coalition has *60* who won't vote for it if it stays in.
He needs to go. No matter what happens with health care, Stupak and his C-street cronies need to be removed from office.
I think you're thinking of the Senate...Stupak is a Rep.
"Stupak thinks he's got 40 with him if it's stripped?"
We only have a 38 count buffer in the house (I think?)
So maybe that is what is meant?
but the Dems hold a majority in the House which is 435 people. So, I'm sort of lost on the math here.
Total representatives in House 435
Democrats 257
Republicans 178
Here is the problem: There are 52 Blue Dog Democrats.
Subtract that number from the Dems and add it to the GOP and you get 205 Dem votes and 230 GOP votes. Rut Row!
Had to edit as I forgot NY-23 election.
He's one of them, and you will be shocked and amazed when you find out how many "associates" they have.
for all the good it does, it's some prime real estate that could be better used elsewhere than to house ultra religious congress critters who can't separate church and state.
Is that located in the C Section of Washington?
"Why the hell are Catholic bishops involved in writing our laws?"
Because they want to lose the tax exempt status?
Just sayin'
... It's C-Street.
You Democrats better know Stupak did NOT put you into office.
We Democrats did and we don't want a CATHOLIC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
SCREW BART STUPID.
The people who actually pack fudge like Hesrhey and other chocolate bar makers (and rocky road ice cream makers) might want heir respect too?
My moronic comment might have hurt.
But I can't help notice the anagram and the comment will freak out the owner, and he is the ONLY target of my meanness.
I kind of feel I have a right to rock his mental stability since I am female.
Every clown from C Street Christo-fascism are closeted and we all know it. Misogynist freaks.
You DO REALIZE THE CURRENT POPE IS A FASCIST TOO DON'T YOU? He was raised a HITLER YOUTH.
Wasn't Pope John Paul II also from the Hitler Youth?
But Pope Benedict XVI (Joseph Ratzinger), was the former head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the redubbed Inquisition (Sacred Congregation of the Universal Inquisition).
Joey Ratz. (from Jon Stewart; has a nicer ring to it.)
I always thought his name had a Damon Runyon right to it.
Joey the Rat was more than just a Hitler Youth. He fought in the German forces in every version of the story he has given about his background in that time period.
Also, let us not forget he was the author of the church policy to hide child rape from the authorities.
In the 60's everybody was worried Kennedy would be taking orders from the pope, now congress is doing exactly that and people aren't screaming about it?
AAARRRGGGHHH!
as well as the rest of the fundies, have become "closer".
Maybe JFK's death wasn't in vain after all...
See if you're dumbass can be elected as a GOP I highly doubt it. These stupid Dinos need to leave. A big tent is only good policy if things can get done.
Pro-Choice is a plank in the D platform (isn't it?)
I think not only pro-choice but available medical care is basic and necessary.
Nobody I've even known wanted to have an abortion. It is not a first choice in any world - it is a last resort. Historically women faced a 50/50 chance to even survive a full term pregnancy. It is a life threatening process - especially if the mother has trouble surviving on her own.
If they want to stop abortions they had better find a way to provide and care for the children living already today.
If only an expectant mother didn't have to worry about the cost of delivery, care and medical issues . . .
and access to birth control like condoms and pills, the need for abortion would greatly diminish.
Game over for health insurance reform in 2009. Let's try again in a few decades when the anti-abortion bigots die off and health insurance companies cause Depression 2.0 because of mass hospital-related bankruptcies because they wouldn't cover the operations. Maybe then, single-payer will have a chance at passing.
...lack of Health Care... TIMES 20... too many dead.
Or what, Stupak? You won't vote for any Bills sponsored by the Dems... hey wait... The GOPers haven't voted for one yet... and they've filibustered over 80 Bills since the beginning of the year... Um... so... This isn't a threat... just more of the same, you pseudo-Christina hypocrite C-Street freak.
And the leadership needs to keep that in mind regarding chair assignments and campaign money. And, with very small words so that Stupak can understand it, explain why he is getting neither.
Threaten Dem What?
That he'll hold his breath until he turns blue?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vD1_GikiTMU
a part of that christo fascist group...the family
jew hating, american hating....the fucker needs to go
"Signing statement".
It would be perfect!
This arrogant self-important piece of trash needs to stfu
The politicians in this country better figure out that the religious right is a MINORITY in this country.
With a Congress that is more than willing to accept money from the highest bidders, votes only mean so much. Incumbants are re-elected approximately 90% of the time even though Congress has been taken over by special interests and fails frequently to address the problems facing our nation. Majorities don't seem to matter as much when the electorate doesn't send a stronger message by voting them out of office.
Where does a member of the US Congress get off threatening his fellow members??? Isn't there a statute somewhere that can be used to censure him or remove him from office or prosecute him??
Who died and appointed Bart as GOD???? I'd think he might want to start his apologies first thing tomorrow....or get his "FAMILY" to stay real close by...
then let them suffer the consequences at the polls. I am so sick of being held hostage by people with religious aggendas. Let them have dominion over their own lives, but no one elses.
I doubt many people will read this but I have to say it's really nobody's business what anybody does, whether it's drug use or alcohol use or deciding whether to have or not have children. Isn't this keeping government out of our lives or government dictating what we can or cannot do, think, feel, act and simply live our lives in the freedom supposedly guaranteed by our Government?
How does one make a law, such as the Hyde law or Stupak amendment that makes it illegal to pay for a LEGAL medical procedure? Why don't these things fall down when challenged in court?
The one packed with GOP conservatives? That Court?
You can go read an excellent article of just what kind of minds we have sitting on court.
"The Late Great Supreme Court"
http://www.yuricareport.com/Law%20%26%20Legal...
No matter what religious affiliation many of the men of C-Street claim to be, they are cult members who should be called dominionists. While it may be true some Catholic groups are involved, it is also true many other denominations and groups are involved.
Meet the Dominionists -- biblical literalists who believe God has called them to take over the U.S. government. As the far-right wing of the evangelical movement, Dominionists are pressing an agenda that makes Newt Gingrich's Contract With America look like the Communist Manifesto. They want to rewrite schoolbooks to reflect a Christian version of American history, pack the nation's courts with judges who follow Old Testament law, post the Ten Commandments in every courthouse and make it a felony for gay men to have sex and women to have abortions. Their ultimate goal is to plant the seeds of a "faith-based" government that will endure far longer than Bush's faith based initiatives -- all the way until Jesus comes back.
Now, we see the Dominionists have been successful in recruiting Democrats into "The Family." The leader of this group has been quoted as saying their aim is "Jesus plus nothing". Men who understand how power should be wielded and people need to be directed to the cause.
Rep. Bart Stupak D-MI
Rep. Ike Skelton D-MO
Rep. Mike McIntyre D-NC
Rep. John Tanner D-TN
Rep. Lincoln Davis D-TN
Rep. Dan Boren D-OK
Rep. Heath Shuler D-NC
*All of these Democratic members need to be voted out of office. They are far more dangerous to our government and the Democratic Party than the Blue Dogs. Don't think they don't share Democratic closed meetings information with their Republican C-Street pals. Given what we know already about the kinds of acts that go on at C-Street and acts committed by some of its members, it would seem each of the democrats listed have dirt on them leaving them severely compromised.
I hate Dominionists
I prefer Papa Johnists.
yeah Dominionists are too greasy for my taste.
I did a cartoon of the Pizza Noid swearing and holding his belt, because his teenaged son was blasting rap music on his stereo, his pants were sagging, and his name was Flava Noid.
"Yo, yo, pop...Peace!"
The Cons don't seem to have a problem with abortion coverage when it comes to their bodies. Of course I always forget we're the ones who are supposed to live by their ideals.
Oh really?!? How could that be?
Asleep at the wheel, the GOP?
So I can't say I totally understand how this all works. It left the house and now it is in the Senate, right? Can't we just add another amendment (new) to the health care bill that basically voids Stupak's? He said he wouldn't support it if we *removed* the amendment he didn't say anything about adding a new one that null and voids it or makes it weaker, right? Just add a new amendment that offers abortion and birth control, etc... just worded differently. That's how repugs play the game.
Just my two cents for what it's worth. :)
definitely an angle to consider
Funny how Stupak sees fit to issue such a threat after having a Town Hall meeting. Go ahead and have another Town Hall meeting you coward.
Get out the vote groups and canvassing needs to be done in his Congressional district. Leaflets should be sent to every home in his district asking for people to put pressure on him.
Stupak’s office at 1-800-950-7371
There should be a large protest held outside of the C-Street House
Stupak is just another whiny schoolyard bully with a mental disease also known as 'religious faith'. (Sorry, I don't mean to offend the folks here who have religious faith but that's how I see it.)
The C-Street Christian-Taliban wannabes need to be neutralized politically (and socially). They're just a gang of hypocrites who say they want government out of our private lives yet constantly push for religion to intrude in our private lives. Fucking bullshit.
And yeah, Stoolpack, bring it on, you little punk. Enjoy your short time in Congress. Keep up that crap and you're gone in 2010.
Religion is creeping its way into politics in the US at a faster and faster rate. Religious belief and faith must not be allowed to continue to poison everything progressives are fighting for.
How do we stop the religious creep into politics and governance and turn it back? Voting them out of office is one way but what about the PACs and the FRC and the Heritage Foundation, etc, etc, as well as other shadow groups that finance and influence the regressive religious right-wingers? I don't know.
Religion is a mental disease.
Someone take this idiot and Holy Joe out to the woodshed and educate them some! The Democratic leadership need to bring these idiots back in line.
on the news the pundits have been saying how the Dems need people like Stupak so they have a "big tent". This is a total lie. Why do the democrats need a republican in thier midst to block their legislation and side with the republicans all the time. If they want to vote republican then become one. The democrats need real democrats in their party to vote with whats in the party platform. We need to get rid of the dinos. I'd rather see a seat go republican than have a back stabbing DINO in it.
Fuck them. The bill is a shit sandwich anyway. Half of his brethren (blue) dogs didn't vote for it anyway. He's a douchebag and a disgrace to his (my) state.
Been up there lately? My dad's parents were from Gladstone, which is where Stupak grew up (he was born in Wisconsin, though). I make it through there once every two years, minimum, and it's a different world up there.
Yep, because the Democrats are the same sheep as the Republicans and anyone who thinks for themselves is wrong. Of course, the Democrats are as big a sell-outs as the Republicans -- doesn't matter if this legislation passes or not -- it'll simply force people to buy expensive insurance policies w/o controlling costs and put people further in debt. Pelosi and Co. made these deals like the Stupid amendment just so they could pass something and pretend like they made an accomplishment.
I agree.
The so-called democratic leadership is nothing more than a corrupt, corporate fascist group of DLC lackey's, from Rahmabama all the way down.
It is no longer enough to defeat republicans. Now we also have to defeat bluedogs, and remove their republican-lite stench from our ranks.
I am sick to death of these rightwing religious morons who are perfectly content to let the foundations of our country collapse and burn, while they obsess about stupid shit like abortion.
If you don't like abortion - THEN DON'T GET ONE! Now STFU and sit down!
Exactly!
Two backseaters who aspire to be head of the Womb Police.
C-Street Creeps is all they truly are and all they'll ever be.
Remove Stupidick!!!
He kissed my ass because I pointed a loaded gun at his head.
How about winning something because it's the right thing to do?
How many men will never have an abortion? How many gays will never have one? How many seniors? They all - or most of them - pay taxes. I want to support a woman's right to choose with my taxes.
If this clown wants to ban abortions let him submit an 'anti-abortion bill' and we'll see if it flies.
But holding a gun to critically ill people and service men and women who will not have insurance because they were not in the military long enough to have retired should be a crime besides being morally corrupt.
Face it the Democratic party is one big cluster pluck , unless one decides to " waste " their vote we only have two choices , bad and worse . We need a strong and viable third party of Libs / Progressives but I doubt that will ever happen , not in my life time anyway . I wish Kucinich and or Sanders would establish a true liberal party . Until then we are "scaaaa-rude" .
There could be as many parties as there are Representatives and Senators, but when legislation is sitting in front of them the choices they have are to vote yea or nay, or abstain from voting altogether. Coalition-building would still be required.
As I read over at TP, on the RNC's health insurannce group policyh from Digna. In fact has "elective abortion" coverage. Since 1991 !
I wonder if the Representative Stupak in fact has a health care policy that includes "elective abortion" as well?
Good article overview
http://www.truthout.org/topstories/111209smg01
Q: Would the House restrictions apply to all insurance?
A: No. They'd apply only to policies sold to people who qualify for federal subsidies to purchase insurance through the exchanges. They wouldn't affect most job-based insurance, which is how the majority of insured Americans currently get their coverage.
Q: Who could buy through the health insurance exchanges?
A: Initially, the exchanges would be open to the uninsured, people who buy their own coverage and some small businesses. Two years after the exchanges open, Congress could decide whether to allow larger employers to purchase coverage there.
Q: Could consumers using the exchanges buy policies that offer abortion coverage if they use their own money, rather than federal subsidies?
A: Only if insurers decide to offer two types of policies in the exchange: ones made available to subsidy-eligible people that don't cover abortion, and another set, sold only to those who don't get federal subsidies, that would cover it. Insurers may have little incentive to offer both, as the vast majority of the exchange marketplace is expected to be people who are eligible for subsidies.
Q: Are there other options for people to get abortion coverage?
A: Yes. Insurers could opt to create "abortion riders," separate add-on coverage that consumers could purchase with their own money.
Q: Do such policies exist?
A: Five states — Idaho, Kentucky, Missouri, North Dakota and Oklahoma — prohibit insurers from covering abortions except to save women's lives or in cases of rape or incest, but allow them to sell abortion riders. Insurance departments in Idaho, Kentucky and Missouri say they don't track such riders, so it isn't clear whether any are offered. North Dakota and Oklahoma say insurers there don't offer abortion riders to individuals. In Oklahoma, however, one insurer has filed for a rider to offer abortion coverage to small groups. In Idaho, one of the state's major insurers offers abortion coverage to small groups if they pay additional premium charges.
Q: How many people currently have abortion coverage in their health plans?
A: A survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation in 2003 found that 46 percent of workers had insurance that covered abortion. (Kaiser Health News is part of the foundation.) Experts say most people pay for abortions themselves. According to the Guttmacher Institute, which studies reproductive issues, about 13 percent of abortions are billed directly to insurers.
Q: Are there other restrictions on federal funding of abortion coverage?
A: Yes. The 1976 Hyde Amendment bars the use of federal money to pay for abortions, except to save women's lives or in cases of rape or incest. Thirty-two state Medicaid programs, the joint federal-state programs for low-income people, limit abortion funding to those cases, according to the Guttmacher Institute. One, South Dakota, pays for Medicaid abortions only to save women's lives. Seventeen use state funds to offer abortions more widely through their Medicaid programs. Restrictions on payment for abortion coverage are also in place for federal employees, women serving overseas in the U.S. military and women in federal prisons.
Q: How much do abortions cost?
A: First-trimester abortions can cost $300 to $900, according to Planned Parenthood. Later-term abortions or abortions in which women may face higher risks of complications are more expensive, running several thousand dollars if hospital care is required.
Imagine you go in for your 20 week ultrasound to find out the sex of your much-wanted baby.
Imagine then being told that there is next to no amniotic fluid. That strong heartbeat you've heard through the Doppler? Still there, but there's only one cyst riddled kidney. Without amniotic fluid, the rest of the baby's organs will not form.
Imagine being told your baby has no chance for life. None.
Now, for the fun part: the lack of amniotic fluid means that the chance of infection is incredibly high. In the worst case, infection will kill the mother, too; in the best case, it might just strip her fertility and ability to ever have another child.
The safest choice is to end the pregnancy ASAP. There are several methods, although one of the safest, an intact extraction that would give an intact body to the parents to hold and bury is now illegal, thanks to Congress.
You can induce labor, a long painful procedure that has NO chance of producing a living baby, since without organs, a baby can'tlive.
You can D&C and vaccuum extract.
You can retain the pregnancy for months until the fetus dies and hope you go into labor to expel the body or until you go septic and they have to remove your uterus. The doctors will recommend total bedrest, preferably in the hospital, since this choice is incredibly risky to the mother's health.
What do you choose?
See, that's the real choice women have to make.
Can you see how different women would choose different options? That any one procedure isn't perfect for all women? That in this heartbreaking situation--real for my family--NO ONE BESIDES YOUR FAMILY AND YOUR DOCTOR SHOULD BE INVOLVED.
If insurance won't pay for abortions, then you or your wife will be stuck with praying that she doesn't become septic and die, or paying thousands of dollars out of pocket because your baby didn't form correctly. Just the type of unexpected situation that insurance is supposed to shield us from.
How does Stupak justify this travesty? Real women will be hurt because of this amendment. Real women who want to have babies will lose their fertility--if not their lives--b/c they don't have thousands of dollars to pay for a complicated, but failed, pregnancy.
And the scenario you present is indeed heartbreaking. But doesn't the amendment allow for abortion in this case? I just read the amendment, and it states that if a woman's life is in danger or if the pregnancy is a result of incest or rape, then the procedure is covered by government funded programs. So, it seems the scenario you describe is not possible. Here's a link to the part of the amendment I'm talking about:
http://documents.nytimes.com/the-stupak-amend...
Help me out here. I'm confused. What am I missing?
Not infertility.
Thanks. I'm still figuring this one out.
If we limit medical care to only those therapies where someone's life is in danger, then we've pretty much done away with the idea of health care and have reduced our system to health neglect until crisis stage.
Preventive medicine and screening, not anywhere near a life being in immediate danger. Antihypertensive medication, not necessary. Vaccinations, not necessary. Antibiotics, not until sepsis and high fever result. Statins, thrombolytics, or angioplasty, not needed, CABG can deal with "real" life threatening thrombosis. Chemotherapy? Not necessary and any real "life in danger" moment can be dealt with through surgery or depending on what body system is failing, dialysis or intubation or colostomy bag or what-have-you.
See how this plays out when people think it's ok to adopt a wait-and-see attitude with other people's health and lives? And not just adopt a wait-and-see attitude, but forbid safe and effective medical intervention in the meantime.
It seems rather discriminatory that pregnant women are singled out and reduced to only worthy of medical intervention when their life is at immediate risk.
When I read supposed progressives pointing to the "life in danger" exception as suggesting that's adequate or makes it "ok," they lose any credibility with me on any of their other claims to needing health care reform. If people are so content to attach this "when one's life is at stake" condition to pregnant women, then they should be perfectly happy with that limited conditional protection for themselves. I don't agree with them, but I will use their argument against them. So, we have emergency rooms that are required to provide such care. I thought this was one reason we needed health care reform, to avoid crises where people's lives are endangered, but apparently waiting until such a time as life is in danger is sufficient for pregnant women, so it should be sufficient for all of us in an egalitarian society.
It seems perhaps we need to first define what is meant by health care before we go forward with health care reform, because a lot of people are all to happy to start weaseling around the concept when it comes to women who are pregnant and want to terminate the pregnancy to prevent, stop, or mitigate pain, illness, suffering, and risk to life and limb.
Thank you for such a thoughtful and kind response. You've really helped me out immensely and given me pause for thought. I'm not sure that I agree that abortion can be put in the same class as preventive care, but you make an excellent argument for the rights of the individual. Ultimately, it comes down to a woman's right to determine her own future and control her own body. I'm ill-equipped to argue against that point. I simply don't think any argument trumps that. Although I understand the hesitancy of some to allow their tax dollars to fund abortion, I think the ultimate choice lies with the individual. And every individual has the moral obligation to struggle with this and make their own choice. And no law should infringe on the right of that individual choice, especially when it comes to health care.
Thanks again.
the Puritans vanished a few hundred years ago. My bad.
If you are going to act like that bart what good are you anyway. good riddance. We'll keep you all in mind come election time.
Pretending to be a Dem. and still NO threat to anybody.
I'm absolutely pro-choice, but don't see the reason that insurers should cover abortion except in cases of rape, incest or health of the mother. Otherwise it is basically an elective procedure. Insurance should cover treatment for injury and disease. There could be a separate arm to cover elective reproductive services.
that's why this nation needs universal healthcare so deciding what the patient needs is made on medical basis (between healthcare professionals and patient) ...
and not on what legislators (and corporate profiteers and their lackeys)-- or how people in the peanut gallery (public)-- imagine is necessary or elective and who design how it should be delivered by only building on the current failed healthcare delivery systems.
Are you content to disallow coverage for pregnancy and childbirth, or is pregnancy and childbirth an injury or disease? What other medical treatments or conditions do you want to disallow from insurance coverage? Vaccination (no disease or injury present), screening for primary prevention and without clinical symptoms (most people screened will have no injury or disease present, so only those who are found to have disease are covered?), infertility without clinical evidence of injury or disease, anesthesia (not used to treat injury or disease, merely makes treatment less uncomfortable and thus is a convenience), symptom management that doesn't treat underlying injury or disease (e.g., nitroglycerin for angina), prosthetics (don't treat injury or disease, they merely replace lost function), malnutrition (not an injury or disease but a "condition"), insomnia (not an injury or disease), constipation (not an injury or disease), migraine (not an injury or disease), depression (not an injury or disease), hearing loss not precipitated by injury or disease, hemophilia (not an injury or disease), etc.
Login or Register to post comments.