Stupak and his 40 Dems want to stop even private insurance from paying for abortions.

[madfloridian]

It is about more than just stopping federal funds from paying for abortion...it is about stopping even private insurance from paying for it. I am not okay with 40 in my own party using their religious beliefs to affect medical treatment.

From RH Reality Blog:

What's The Truth About Abortion and 'Unresolved Issues' In House Health Reform Legislation?

Is anyone else as confused and irritated as I am about the obfuscation of the facts regarding abortion care coverage in health care reform legislation? According to CQ Politics yesterday, a "showdown" is shaping up over abortion services, among Democrats in the House. Anti-choice Democrats are demanding that the bill "explicitly ban abortion funding." But why?

The Hyde Amendment bans federal funds from going towards abortion care. This means that government subsidy programs like Medicaid cannot cover the cost of a woman's abortion though, of course, each state is free to pass their own laws governing how state taxpayer money can or cannot be used. This means that for women who do not have health insurance that covers abortion care or for women who have no health insurance, abortion is only an option if you cannot afford to pay out-of-pocket or if you are lucky enough to be the recipient of financial assistance from an abortion fund.

The Hyde Amendment is not going anywhere under health care reform. Nor does the current version of The Affordable Healthcare for America Act mandate federal funding for abortion coverage. But anti-choice Democrats in the House, led by Rep. Bart Stupak, want assurances:

"The anti-abortion Democrats want to win language that would essentially extend the existing abortion funding ban known as the “Hyde amendment” to the new and expanded programs that would be created by the health care overhaul."

It would cover private insurance plans in some cases.

Banning abortion coverage in private insurance as well.

Anti-choice legislators and advocates will not accept that since some private insurers (well, most) cover abortion care for women, if we have a government-funded/government-run, public option of some kind, some Americans will need to rely on a combination of both private insurance and public insurance to meet their health care coverage needs. So, for instance, if a woman who receives federal tax dollars to assist her health coverage is also a part of the private insurance pool which covers abortion, this is essentially the same as the federal government paying for abortion services.

Stupak has threatened to work with Republicans to stop a bill going through unless it is very specifically opposed to abortion being funded.

From The Hill:

Rep. Stupak threatens to work with Republicans to kill healthcare bill

Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) on Tuesday threatened that he may work with Republicans to torpedo healthcare reform unless he gets a vote to strip abortion-related provisions out of the House bill.

Stupak wants a floor vote on a measure that would prohibit taxpayer funds from being used for abortions. And in an interview on C-SPAN on Tuesday, he suggested if Democratic leaders don’t give him the vote, he’ll work with Republicans.

Stupak said one way or the other, there will be a vote on the abortion language, either “though a rule, or on the floor, or on a motion to recommit.”

A motion to recommit is a parliamentary tool used by the minority in the House to kill legislation. While some Democrats occasionally vote for motions to recommit, it is unusual for Democrats to strategize with Republicans on how best to use the procedural motion.

Stupak says he will not be backing down. "I’m comfortable with where I’m at. This is who I am. It’s reflective of my district. If it costs me my seat, so be it.”

Will women once again be asked to accept the inevitable, being told once again the votes are not there?

And even more according to The Nation, there appear to be no requirements in the new health care bills that insurers cover birth control.

Where's the Birth Control?

None of the bills emerging from the House and Senate require insurers to cover all the elements of a standard gynecological "well visit," leaving essential care such as pelvic exams, domestic violence screening, counseling about sexually transmitted diseases, and, perhaps most startlingly, the provision of birth control off the list of basic benefits all insurers must cover. Nor are these services protected from "cost sharing," which means that, depending on what's in the bill that emerges from the Senate, and, later, the contents of a final bill, women could wind up having to pay for some of these services out of their own pockets. So far, mammograms and Pap tests are covered in every version of the legislation.

Although I am hearing that Medicare might cut payments for mammograms.

The fault for the initial omission can be laid at the feet of Democrats, who shied away from the issue, not wanting to invite controversy, according to women's health advocates who tried unsuccessfully to get women's preventive health care included in the basic benefits package. Some of the concern had to do with cost. Adding any required service to the basic benefits package would mean the Congressional Budget Office would give the bill a higher score, or price tag, leaving it more vulnerable to attack by budget hawks. But another part of the problem clearly stems from the fact that women's bodies have become political lightening rods, even when abortion is not the issue.

Yes, I have noticed that the first two groups who are the victims of compromise and bipartisanship...are women and gays.

The Democrats have been saying it is not a good time for them to become issues....and finally we are just shoved aside altogether.

[Lars39]

1. Keep on Democrats.

One of these days you'll find yourself in a world of hurt when all the pro-choice women and men desert your corporate party and either don't vote at all or establish a pro-choice third party.

[madfloridian]

2. I want a list of the 40 Democrats

who would kill health care reform over women's rights.

[KharmaTrain]

3. Yep...Let The Rushpublicans Back In Power

That'll show us!

And you think there's a third party that would do better? I hear a lot of rushpublicans saying the same thing.

[Lars39]

10. You're defending a portion of our party that actively works to deny

people their rights.

[KharmaTrain]

12. And I'm Defending How???

Just stating political reality. So which third party is this you propose and who will they be working for? Don't be so naive...a third party or schism of the Democratic party is what would lead to rushpublicans coming back to power. And this would be better for the country? I heard these same rants in the 70s and see how well it worked that time.

[Lars39]

13. Calling me a Republican for starters.

Uncalled for.

[KharmaTrain]

16. Grow Some Skin...

Sheesh...I didn't say you. I don't know who you are nor care. Point being I'm hearing a lot of rushpublicans who are ready to bolt their party...form a third party that is sure to lead to a long, hard fight for whatever "soul" of the party remains. I saw the Democrats beat up on each in the 70s and in 2000 and the results were Raygun and boooosh. That's the point.

There's a lot of pissing and moaning around here with little constructive being offered as to how change can happen within the framework of our current political system. Want to complain and think people are calling you names? Knock yourself out.

Peace...

[Kaleva]

4. Stupak is in no danger of losing his seat. He wins in landslide proportions

ever since he first ran back in '92.

[madfloridian]

6. We are saving so much money.

Maybe it's a good thing to have this reality check that having a majority really is not that big a deal. :shrug:

[debbierlus]

5. It is because we are ENABLERS....forever making excuses for them instead of reaming them

A new you-know-what everytime they betray what are supposed to be party principles.

This is our own fault.

We need to get angry and let them know it.

[madrchsod]

7. the republicans would rather have a baby grow up without a mother

the life of a mother means nothing to them......

[Raspberry]

9. Most anti-choice legislation

does contain "life of the mother" exceptions.

Just sayin'.

[WinkyDink]

26. In that case, the entire pretense of "murdering a child" is exposed. Just sayin'.

Anti-choice is about the male control of women's bodies. No different from the Taliaban.

[Hepburn]

8. Someone needs to abort Stupak...

...geeeeeeeeez, I am soooooo sick of the bullshit from the forced birthers.

[Capn Sunshine]

11. Come ON! You must know the rules by now

Sex = EVIL
Punishment = Death or derailment
Damn it, when will women learn?

[madfloridian]

14. Hi there, Capn. Astute as always.

Haven't seen you around. :hi:

[Vidar]

15. Stupak is another traitor cut from Lieberman's cloth.

[Nikki Stone1]

17. Combine this with Virginia's law ordering insurance companies to stop covering domestic partners

Why are private companies supposed to be private and left alone until it comes to the RW moralist agenda?

[madfloridian]

43. Very good point.

:hi:

[Nikki Stone1]

18. Every single loyal DUer should K & R this.

:kick:

[Laelth]

19. We need a viable liberal party.

The current Democratic Party is no better than the Republican Party of the 1960s.

:dem:

-Laelth

[Mithreal]

20. K&R

[Kaleva]

21. Stupak is a devout Catholic who votes his beliefs.

He opposes the death penalty and opposed NAFTA and invading Iraq. His record on the environment is stellar and he is pro-union. He is generally well liked in his district and no Republican or liberal has much of a chance against him.

[WinkyDink]

27. Better he should vote as a devout American.

I speak as a Catholic.

[madfloridian]

31. Well super for Stupak. Glad he is beloved. He is imposing

the views of his district on all of us.

But as I say, our credit cards are in super duper shape now....no need to donate anymore to those who allow women to be sold out.

[semillama]

49. Stupak has some good points

but he's seriously in the wrong on this one.

Speaking as a former constituent of his, I'm pretty ashamed of his stance, but totally understand that he probably isn't getting a lot of heat from his constituents on this (although he's definitely getting some - not all Yoopers are anti-choice!).

[Odin2005]

22. WTF?

:wtf:

[ThisThreadIsSatire]

23. Private Insurers will NEVER go along...

they could care less about life -- born or unborn -- they care about dollars and cents. Abortions cost much less than pre-natal and maternity care, period. Two-thirds of private insurers at least partially cover abortions for that reason. Additionally, when the insurance companies 'inform' our dear conservative friends that not covering abortions will result in increased premiums, many of them will cave... they care more about money than life anyway...

[avaistheone1]

24. These 40 Dems need to get out of politics and go into religion full-time.

I thought America stood for freedom of thought, and the right to privacy.

It's time to dump these 40 impersonators.

[Solly Mack]

25. K&R

[bertman]

28. Recommended. We cannot let our guard down. These people are relentless in their quest

to make us live under christian sharia law.

[madfloridian]

38. They do not let up for a second. They stand for what they believe...

and our party instead of standing up for womens' rights easily gives up the fight.

[aejlaw]

29. Bart Stupak is from the Michigan Upper Peninsular a very

conservative district. He was targeted by the RNC and the NRA a few years ago and he kicked their asses pretty good, but he is not in a position to just write off PRO LIFE voters. He supported some bill during Clinton's administration that brought down the rage of the NRA even though he had always been Pro Gun. (Everyone in the Michigan UP is born with a 30/30 in their "warm live hands") I have watched some of the latest RW Religious propaganda and they are going all out to kill Health Care Reform using the abortion issue as their rallying cry. Maybe Stupak is trying to cut them off at the pass. In any event I see no reason why a Democrat shouldn't cater to the pro lifers in his district if that what is necessary to get re-elected. Why loose an entire congressional district to the Repubs because of issues like abortion or gun control? Stupak for the most part is one of us.

[madfloridian]

30. Then we will become a Republican lite party because of Stupak.

I am having trouble thinking of any more excuses lately.

But I am so happy that his district is so happy because he is imposing his religious beliefs on ALL of us.

[aejlaw]

41. I hear you. I was watching the tube this morning and

caught the tail end of a show called the Coral Ridge Ministries. They claim to be tied up with the Presbyterian Church but I got my doubts. They had a petition they wanted their viewers to sign asking Congress to scrap all the current health care bills and start over again. They used the abortion issue as the reason for this action. It seemed strange that they didn't propose an amendment similar to the one you are complaining about, which would bring an end to funding of abortions. Instead they sought to kill all the bills completely which shows their true colors. They are more concerned about killing health care than not killing babies. They are located in your state. Why not file a complaint with the IRS. Fill out form 3949 to take away their tax exempt status. As a whistle blower you will receive up to 30% of the taxes collected, if it is determined they acted illegally. If enough of us complained the IRS would have to do something. Maybe we should name the Presbyterian Church as well, since Coral Ridge claims to be a part of it.

[madfloridian]

42. Southern Baptists often join up with Coral Ridge ministries.

More about Reverend Richard Land, Southern Baptist leader, speaking at Coral Ridge ministries.

They are deadly serious about our becoming a theocracy.

Justice Moore's monument is in this church in Florida.

"The 5,200-pound slab of granite bearing a replica of the Ten Commandments rests in isolated splendor, set off by red and blue nylon sheets, on a flatbed truck parked on the front lawn of a church. It's not just any church, either. Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church is a signature evangelical congregation in southern Florida — its gleaming white, 303-foot steeple visible for miles around. Justice Moore's monument is something of a piece de resistance in the renewed effort by Christians and others of faith to preserve the place of the Almighty in the public square."

SNIP.."In such a "God-blessed America," he says, streets and schools would be safe, divorce and illegitimate children would be rare, and the elderly would live with their families and not in nursing homes.

In an American society that preaches Judeo-Christian values, rooted in biblical theology, not all will be Christian, but they can at least live according to values," Mr. Land concludes.
The conference, designed to energize Christian activists, is the work of the Center for Reclaiming America (CRA), an eight-year-old public-policy group founded by Coral Ridge."

More about Coral Ridge:

From The Washington Times, which, yes, I realize is a right wing newspaper. But this piece shows their fierce determination to turn us into a theocracy.

Believers aim to 'reclaim' America

The Strategic Institute, with a staff of five analysts, expects to enter the debate on pornography, homosexual activism, the creation-evolution divide and "life" issues such as abortion and stem-cell research. First to sign on is Kelly Hollowell, 40, a Virginia Beach patent attorney who taught bioethics at the University of Richmond and Regent University in Virginia Beach. The National Grassroots Alliance began in 2001 as a lobby for Senate confirmation of John Ashcroft as President Bush's first attorney general. It now has an e-mail list of 400,000 names. Over two days in late February, 107,000 of them appeared on an online petition appealing for Florida Gov. Jeb Bush to save the life of Terri Schiavo, the brain-damaged Florida woman who would die of starvation March 31 after her husband successfully sought to have her feeding tube removed.

R. Albert Mohler Jr. is doing his part from Louisville, Ky., as a leading American evangelical and president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. In the past three years, Mr. Mohler dramatically increased his output of Internet and radio commentaries and newspaper op-ed pieces on topics such as stem-cell research, same-sex "marriage," human cloning and the definition of the family.

"There was an entire constellation of issues that demanded attention," Mr. Mohler, 45, says in an interview. "I wanted to mobilize Christians to become intellectually engaged and politically aware."

Across the country, evangelicals are forming a potent alliance, says Diane Knippers, president of the Institute on Religion and Democracy, a watchdog group in Washington that monitors the religious left.

"Not just evangelicals, but Catholics, too, have some political clout and are getting respect," Mrs. Knippers says. "Some people in the Democratic Party are having to pay attention to us. They've realized they've overlooked an important constituency. A lot of people think it's wrong to have an entirely secularized society, with no room for acknowledging God.

"There's a quiet determination to draw the line," she says. "The religious left is all smoke and mirrors. In terms of the religious landscape right now, the initiative is ours."

Your suggestions are fine for one to become a whistleblower. But what good does it do with both parties are in on it?

[Beacho]

32. Well you know what?

I don't want to pay for any hip replacements for old racists farts. Insert your own objection of what you don't want to pay for here.

It's a legal and often medically necessary procedure. It be time for some primary challenges. The Hyde Amendment needs to be shit canned not extended.

[l8nitedave]

33. There should be restrictions

There should be restrictions on elective procedures. The life of the mother should always be the first consideration as it is in all non-elective procedures. However, the fact that the abortion procedure is a contentions political issue does not give it any more or any less weight than considerations in any other procedure.

A better way to think about this would be: How will freedom from the specter of financial ruin and assured health care for a child affect a woman's decision to have children? The government should not directly nor indirectly play a role in that decision either way by funding abortion when it's elective or not funding it when it is not. Complete health care for the mother and child should be the only consideration.

[madfloridian]

35. Do you think Stupak is right to try to stop private insurance coverage?

I hate to tell you but the life of the mother is NOT the first consideration. In some religious views saving the baby takes precedent.

I believe that birth control and abortion are wedge issues used by the religious right to gain power.

With the help of good Christians like Bart and his 40 Dem buddies, who are apparently nameless so far...they are gaining great power.

I am amazed that it is no longer assumed that women have rights equal to men in medical decisions.

And it is our party pushing this now.

Women are now officially irrelevant to the Democratic party.

[bullwinkle428]

34. Nothing but political grandstanding on Stupak's part - I can guarantee

you, that VERY few health insurance policies pay for abortion, with the exception being the life of the mother in danger, although I'm not guessing the coverage is automatic even in those cases.

The fucker just wants to stand up and beat his chest about how anti-abortion he is!

[Lars39]

36. The majority of health insurance plans covers abortion:

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/newsroom/press-releases/abortion-care-coverage-health-care-reform-getting-facts-straight-29733.htm

[madfloridian]

37. Last I heard MOST private insurance covers abortion.

But then there are Democrats like Kendrick Meek of Florida who oppose the issue to keep the GOP from making a big deal out of it.

Though proposed legislation does not mention abortion, some Republicans argue that the proposed overhaul of the healthcare system could open the door to federal funding of the procedure. Democrats counter that abortion opponents are trying to cook up controversy in an effort to topple the broader reform effort. In a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi Tuesday, Meek joined four others Democrats in proposing a ``common ground solution'' that would maintain the status quo on abortion policy. Specifically, the government would continue to allow insurers to decide whether to offer abortion coverage -- most do -- and keep federal tax dollars out of it.

"I think it's important that we not let Republicans use this issue to make some sort of political statement and confuse Americans,'' Meek said Wednesday. ``We don't want to find ourselves in a situation where we jeopardize access for women."

So very religiously oriented politicians get to decide for women because of their religously inclined constituents. Why? Because the other Democrats are too afraid of making waves to stand up for us.

Like I say, hubby and I are saving heaps of money in donations.

[madfloridian]

39. Can't find the 40 Dems, but here are the 19 who signed Stupak's letter to Pelosi.

From Down With Tyranny:

http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2009/10/can-democratic-anti-choice-fanatic-bart.html

"Nevertheless CNSNews reported on Friday-- more out of faith than fact-- that Stupak has 40 Democrats to vote to kill health care reform. The original 19 Democrats (not 40 Democrats) who signed onto Stupak's threatening anti-choice letter to Pelosi were: Dan Boren (Blue Dog-OK); Bart Stupak (D-MI); Colin Peterson (Blue Dog-MN); Tim Holden (Blue Dog-PA); Travis Childers (Blue Dog-MS); Lincoln Davis (Blue Dog-TN); Heath Shuler (Blue Dog-NC) Solomon Ortiz (D-TX); Mike McIntyre (Blue Dog-NC); Jerry Costello (D-IL); Gene Taylor (Blue Dog-MS); James Oberstar (D-MN); Bobby Bright (Blue Dog-AL); Steve Driehaus (D-OH); Marcy Kaptur (D-OH); Charlie Melancon (Blue Dog-LA); John Murtha (D-PA); Paul Kanjorski (D-PA); and Kathleen Dahlkemper (Blue Dog-PA).

Under Stupak’s plan, the approximately 40 Democrats in his camp would join with all House Republicans in voting to defeat the special House “rule” that would set the terms for debating and amending the health-care bill on the House floor when it is brought up for a final vote. If a majority of the House does not first vote to approve this rule, the health-care bill itself cannot be brought to the floor.

“We will try to-- we, there’s about 40 likeminded Democrats like myself-- we’ll try to take down the rule,” Stupak told CNSNews.com. “If all 40 of us vote in a bloc against the rule-- because we think the Republicans will join us-- we can defeat the rule. The magic number is 218. If we can have 218 votes against the rule, we win.”

[Maraya1969]

40. Send them this - from NeoconsSuck. Right above this thread.

They want the kids birthed but don't care if they live!





Hospitalized Children Without Insurance Are More Likely to Die, a Study Finds


Uninsured children who wind up in the hospital are much more likely to die than children covered by either private or government insurance plans, according to one of the first studies to assess the impact of insurance coverage on hospitalized children.

Researchers at Johns Hopkins Children’s Center analyzed data from more than 23 million children’s hospitalizations in 37 states from 1988 to 2005. Compared with insured children, uninsured children faced a 60 percent increased risk of dying, the researchers found.

The authors estimated that at least 1,000 hospitalized children died each year simply because they lacked insurance, accounting for 16,787 of some 38,649 children’s deaths nationwide during the period analyzed.

“If you take two kids from the same demographic background — the same race, same gender, same neighborhood income level and same number of co-morbidities or other illnesses — the kid without insurance is 60 percent more likely to die in the hospital than the kid in the bed right next to him or her who is insured,” said David C. Chang, co-director of the pediatric surgery outcomes group at the children’s center and an author of the study, which appeared today in The Journal of Public Health.

Although the research was not set up to identify why uninsured children were more likely to die, it found that they were more likely to gain access to care through the emergency room, suggesting they might have more advanced disease by the time they were hospitalized.

In addition, uninsured children were in the hospital, on average, for less than a day when they died, compared with a full day for insured children. Children without insurance incurred lower hospital charges — $8,058 on average, compared with $20,951 for insured children.

In children who survived hospitalization, the length of stay and charges did not vary with insurance status.

The paper’s lead author, Dr. Fizan Abdullah, assistant professor of surgery at Johns Hopkins, dismissed the possibility that providers gave less care or denied procedures to the uninsured. “The children who were uninsured literally died before the hospital could provide them more care,” Dr. Abdullah said.

Furthermore, Dr. Abdullah said, indications are that the uninsured children “are further along in their course of illness.”







http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/30/lacking-insurance-hospitalized-children-more-likely-to-die/?hpw

[madfloridian]

44. Stupak doesn't want plans that cover abortion to be part of the exchange.

"Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) wants to offer an amendment that prevents plans that cover abortion from being part of the “exchanges” set up in the bill, where people could buy subsidized insurance. Abortion-rights supporters said people shouldn’t be prevented from buying private insurance that covers abortion."

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/65635-rep-miller-no-amendments-likely-on-healthcare-bill

Gotta make sure to keep women in their place.

[Liberty Belle]

45. Mail this post to the DCCC or DNC, preferably in its next fundraising envelope.

Every time they've called me (and also the Senate campaign committee, too) in the past year I've told them I will not give to them again until the Party formally agrees NOT to recruit or support any more anti-choice Dems. Women's lives are at stake. A friend of mine nearly died from a tubal pregnancy. This is outrageous and must stop.

[madfloridian]

46. When we try to explain they need to stand up for us....they seem stunned.

When the party calls, whatever committee, they seem to think they are standing up for us. They don't understand us.

[HughMoran]

47. They should be terminated n/t

[tekisui]

48. With Democrats like these, who needs repukes?

[soarsboard2]

50. Actually, abortions are cheaper

for insurance companies - they will fight this.