Picture this: You've recently been through exhausting rounds of chemotherapy and radiation, you've been puking your guts up and your doctor warns you this is a particularly malignant cancer.

Then you find out through some miracle (or bizarre irony) that you're pregnant.

Your doctor warns you the chemo and radiation has put the fetus at risk. She also says the pregnancy could make it harder to effectively treat the cancer. You have a hard decision ahead of you.

Hah hah, only kidding! That decision's already been made for you:

Women's health and rights advocacy groups responded immediately to yesterday's announcement that President Obama would exclude abortion coverage from the Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan (the temporary high-risk insurance pools created by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to transition us into the new health care plan). Obama has decided that women in these pools simply don't need insurance coverage of abortion care even though there is nothing in the new law that dictates this.From the ACLU press release on this:

Even using their own private funds, individuals would not be able to buy policies that cover abortion in these pools. The only exemptions would reportedly be for women who have been raped, who are the victims of incest or who will likely die if they carry the pregnancy to term.

What is perhaps most perplexing about this is that this plan was created to offer temporary insurance coverage to those who cannot afford coverage due to particulary serious health conditions. Women with serious health conditions may be some of the most affected by a pregnancy - the pregnancy may not cause her death but is a woman's life of so little consequence that it matters not to President Obama if a pregnancy bears an immense burden on her already ill body? As NARAL Pro-Choice America's Nancy Keenan puts it, "This policy means that women who are part of these pools because they have significant health problems, such as diabetes or cancer, will not be able to access abortion care, even if their health is at further risk."

Planned Parenthood's press release calls the rule "harmful to women":

“The very women who need to purchase private health insurance in the new high-risk pools are likely to be more vulnerable to medically complicated pregnancies. It is truly harmful to these women that the administration may impose limits on how they use their own private dollars, limiting their health care options at a time when they need them most. This decision has no basis in the law and flies in the face of the intent of the high-risk pools that were meant to meet the medical needs of some of the most vulnerable women in this country."

The Center for Reproductive Rights notes:

"Contrary to assertions by the White House, there's no current legal basis for the policy. The executive order issued by the President on abortion only addressed rules for segregating funds for abortion coverage in the healthcare exchanges and limits on community health centers. The Federal Employee Health Benefit Plan policy similarly furnishes no legal basis for exclusions in the new high risk pools."The proposal would not even permit policyholders to use their own private dollars to purchase coverage, as the Nelson compromise allows, and instead applies a Stupak-type ban like the one rejected by Congress. Healthcare reform was a tightly bargained piece of legislation - and with this, the White House is threatening to renege on a fundamental part of its bargain with American women and families who truly need coverage. Excluding abortion coverage from the high-risk insurance pools was not part of the negotiations during healthcare reform, and nothing in the bill compels this result."

[...] NARAL Pro-Choice America has started a letter writing campaign to urge President Obama not to exclude abortion coverage from the high-risk pools.

Please donate here to send Bart Stupak a message!

Stupak has put his personal opinion on women's rights ahead of everything else in the fight to reform health care and it's sickening to me. I understand that we all have a certain belief system, but he was undermining HCR way before the Senate even released their bill and that told me that he cared more for a single religious issue over the health of real working class families in America. He relished the role of representing the party of the Catholic Bishops instead of being a Democratic politician.

Bart Stupak, a representative from Michigan, proudly states that Catholic bishops worked closely with him to help him and Joe Pitts, a Republican from Pennsylvania, draft an amendment proposing tight restrictions that prevent any insurance plan purchased with government subsidies from covering abortion. Lisa Miller of Newsweek reports in the March 15 issue that Stupak told her that the "bishops were very, very, very engaged" in framing the amendment. He went on to say that the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops "was working with my staff" and that "we had to coordinate forces" with the bishops and that he told the bishops, "I'm not moving forward until you know what I'm doing.

I've had it and I'm glad Connie is running against Stupak as a primary challenger no matter what happens.

Howie Klein:

It's better not to let your emotions get in the way of real life political decisions. But yesterday when I read that former Charlevoix County commissioner Connie Saltonstall had jumped into the primary race against anti-Choice fanatic Bart Stupak, I was on the phone to her within minutes. Pro-choice and pro-healthcare reform, hardheaded and hardworking, we were happy to get her right up on the Blue America Sending Democrats A Message page. And I was also happy pulling out my credit card and making a donation to the very tough campaign she's taking on.

Stupak has successfully painted himself as a Democratic populist and justifies his anti-Choice mania with a veneer of sanctimonious moralism. His overall voting record isn't nearly as populist or progressive as he attempts to portray it. According to Progressive Punch he's been with the Democrats only 66.15% of the time on the tough closely contested votes where he's been most needed. Since Obama was elected he's been the 159th most progressive Democrat, a pretty mediocre record but one that the district has been satisfied with. Connie has a great deal of sympathy in the district when she says that although Stupak "has a right to his personal, religious views... to deprive his constituents of needed health care reform because of those views is reprehensible."

"As a realist I know that defeating an incumbent is difficult," Saltonstall told CNN. "But I also know that there are many past supporters who have told me they have voted for Bart in every single election and they'll never vote for him again. It will be a lot of hard work, it will be a serious challenge, but we're going to try because the voters of this district deserve a choice."

Please, help us send the Democrats-- and conservatives-- a message, in this case, that their religious beliefs should not be imposed on the general public.

Do it here at ActBlue.

Listening to the TV talking heads discuss Stupak and Ben Nelson's opinion on a women's right to choose is very upsetting. They talk as if a women's right to choose is some icky-worthless issue and there comes a point when enough is enough.

Richard Trumka's not making an idle threat here. Union supporters don't have much to cheer about in this healthcare bill, and I don't think he's exaggerating the impact on the midterm elections. It's just that, for whatever reason, Obama's a lot more interested in the welfare of bankers than he is in workers:

President Obama sought on Monday evening to assuage organized labor's misgivings about the health-care overhaul, even as several key union leaders warned that the bill's final outlines could severely dampen their enthusiasm for the Democratic ticket in this year's elections.

Obama invited 10 labor leaders to the White House to discuss the negotiations aimed at reconciling the Senate and House bills, which are not heading in organized labor's direction in the three areas that it had identified as priorities. The final bill will not include the House's government-run insurance plan, or "public option"; it will probably include the Senate's new tax on high-cost health plans that could affect many union members; and its penalties for employers who do not provide insurance coverage will probably be closer to the more lenient terms in the Senate bill.

Three hours earlier, AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka said in a hard-edged speech at the National Press Club that discontent with the final bill, when combined with a general perception that Obama and Congress have been insufficiently populist in responding to the recession and financial crisis, could demoralize his members. The risk, he said, was a replay of the Democratic blowout in the 1994 elections, when, after the passage of NAFTA and other disappointments to unions, "there was no way to persuade enough working Americans to go to the polls when they couldn't tell the difference between the two parties."

"Now, more than ever, we need the boldness and the clarity we saw in our president during the campaign in 2008," he said.

Trumka stopped short of his September threat that the AFL-CIO might not support the final bill -- after all, he said, labor has been seeking health-care reform for decades. But individual members could sit on their hands. "A bad bill could have that kind of effect," he told reporters. "People could stay home. It could suppress votes."

Now the final phase begins, where we see what House liberals can achieve within the confines of a broken system that gives a handful of senators from sparsely populated states a disproportionate power to shape legislation:

Democrats are already outlining a strategy to achieve a final compromise that can satisfy the more liberal House without upsetting the painstakingly assembled coalition of 60 Senate Democrats and independents.

Central to those talks, House leaders said, will be the search for an acceptable substitute for a government-run insurance plan that those without medical coverage could purchase, a provision the House designed to compete with private insurers and force them to rein in costs. While the Senate has decisively rejected the "public option," House leaders say they will demand other concessions to ensure that Americans can afford the insurance they will be required to buy if the bill becomes law.

[...] House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has signaled approval for the Senate's solution: the creation of at least two nationwide insurance plans run by private companies but overseen by the Office of Personnel Management, the same federal agency that handles health insurance for members of Congress. In a conference call Wednesday, Pelosi also assured rank-and-file Democrats that they would not be asked to rubber-stamp the Senate bill and began soliciting ideas to improve it.

Among the options under discussion: pressing the Senate to increase the federal subsidies that would be offered to low- and middle-income people who do not have access to affordable coverage through an employer; having a single national marketplace for people buying insurance, rather than 50 state-based exchanges, as the Senate prefers; and moving up the launch date of those marketplaces and subsidies to 2013, one year earlier than under the Senate bill.

DOWNLOADS: (1235)

PLAYS: (1361)

Embed

MarketWatch:

A health-care overhaul proposed by Senate Democrats will cost $849 billion over 10 years, The Wall Street Journal reported Wednesday, and slash the deficit by $127 billion over the next decade.

The price tag is just under President Barack Obama's target of $900 billion over 10 years.

The estimates, from the Congressional Budget Office, also showed that the bill would reduce the number of uninsured Americans by 31 million people, said the Journal, citing a senior Senate leadership aide.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has been anxiously awaiting the CBO's price tag for the bill before moving to debate on the Senate floor. The first procedural vote could come later this week on the bill. Obama wants to sign a health-care reform bill before the end of the year.

Like a bill that passed the House on Nov. 7, the Senate's bill aims to cover most Americans, bar insurers from denying coverage to sick people, set up insurance "exchanges" where people can shop for coverage and fine those who don't get insurance. It also sets up a government-run insurance plan, expected to enroll about 6 million people.

But Reid faces a number of hurdles in getting a bill through the Senate, including concerns about the measure's cost. Sens. Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark., and Ben Nelson, D-Neb., are among two of Reid's fellow Democrats who have openly worried about the cost of health-care reform.

Per what I've been told from Senate leadership offices, the Senate health care bill will:

• cut the budget deficit by $127 billion over 10 years
• cut the budget deficit by $650 billion in the second decade
• extend guaranteed coverage to more than 9% of Americans -- including a 31 million person reduction in the uninsured

Reid will probably file cloture on the motion to proceed tomorrow. The CBO's report should go up on the Senate Democrats site shortly.

So Harry Reid's holding firm - for now. And you just can't argue with Sherrod Brown: What concessions have the ConservaDems made?

The Senate majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, met on Monday night with a group of liberal Senate Democrats who urged Mr. Reid not to back down from his decision to put a government-run insurance plan, or public option, in the major health care legislation that he is working to finalize.

[...] “I don’t think in the end, anybody here in our caucus wants to be on the wrong side of history, wants to kill on a procedural motion, something as important as this,” Mr. Brown said. “It’s the most important thing they ever will have voted on except perhaps the Iraq war.”

Mr. Brown, who is a member of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, which included a public plan in its version of the health care legislation, said that liberals had already given a lot of ground, starting with their willingness to give up a fully government-run single-payer system, which many favor.

“A large number of people in this country including many, many doctors wanted Medicare for all,” he said. “That didn’t happen. Then we wanted a strong public option tied to Medicare rates. Then we wanted a public option building the Medicare network. That didn’t happen. Now we are saying public option coming out of the HELP Committee. And now we’re saying public option with the state opt-out. Where was the compromise coming from their side?”

The Revealer: The “A” section of the December 7 edition of the Los Angeles Times featured five articles on the intriguing intersection of religion, sex and politics. Unfortunately, none of the reporters or editors involved in the stories seemed to make the connection -- or grasp the import.

LiberalOasis: Senator Ron Wyden has proposed a universal health insurance plan. It's a critical issue concerning something we haven't heard much about for the past six years: The Common Good

Empire Burlesque: Presidential tyranny untamed by election defeat (h/t House of the Rising sons)

TalkLeft: Can congress end the war in Iraq?

Lean Left: The Bible against itself

OFF THE BEATEN PATH: HillCountryGal...Arkansas Times Blogs...Truly Equal...Senate 2008 Guru: Following the Races