Last night, the House of Representatives of the U.S. Congress passed their health care bill. 220 representatives, including 1 Republican (Cao of Louisiana), decided that the bill they had before them was what they wanted to contribute to health care reform in this country. The vote was made after a long day of debate (if you can call it that - by the evening it was a lot of Boehner lying about what was in the Reublican alternative and showing off his purty graph and Cantor talking like Mr. Bottomtooth from Family Guy) and three other votes - one for the Republican alternative, one for postponing the main vote (one final attempt by Republicans at drawing out the debate since the "where on the desk are the copies? can you come show me? I don't think I got a copy of the amendment" didn't work - yes, a rep actually stood up and did this), and then a vote for a compromised amendment brought up by Stupak of Michigan.
The Democrat introduced an amendment to prevent federal funds from going to abortion procedures. It has been explained as being a compromise for pro-life Democrats in order to ensure passage of the underlying bill. Many women are not happy about the amendment passing, and I have to admit that I feel it was entirely unnecessary and a bit of a dig at women, reminding us that in this land of freedom, the uterus is still under state control. But what is the actual impact of this amendment?
Well, first of all, the House bill isn't the final word on health care reform. the Senate still has yet to pass their version and then they have to come up with a compromise version that both will agree on. Second, there are already laws about federal funding of abortion, with exceptions. It still doesn't make it ok though - it's a legal procedure, so it should be treated equal to other procedures. If Medicare can cover Viagra for a guy, why can't a woman on a goverment paid plan make reproductive choices, too? A legal, and necessary in many ways, procedure or medication should not be stigmatized by the bureacracy.
The most obvious Stupak effect will be that women receiving federal subsidies for health insurance (if such a program is instituted) will not be able to purchase an insurance plan that includes abortion coverage, limiting what women receiving subsidies can purchase. Sure, they can buy an additional rider with their own funds, but the women most at need for federal subsidies will be the poor, the same subpopulation with the greatest need for prenatal care and potentially the one most affected by the lack of abortion coverage. Whether you agree with abortion or not, you have to admit that there are many poor women who simply cannot afford another child, or who are involved with drugs, physical abuse, and other maladies that would prevent a successful pregnancy (successful defined as a healthy, or even live, child being born). Will we begin to see the back alley and cheap abortions increase among the poor? Not likely since federal funding for abortions is already not allowed.
So although I think the Stupak amendment was an unnecessary dig at women's reproductive rights, I'm not so sure it will have a tangible effect on health care and where federal funds go. Sure, it makes the pro-lifers feel better, and it provides a semblance of stigma to a legal medical procedure, but the care will still be available. Only time will tell if health insurance providers benefit and women suffer from women being limited in their choices.
By the way, the argument that women can just purchase an additional rider is such insane nonsense. Abortions can't be planned for - it is a medical procedure for unplanned circumstances. So any woman purchasing a rider is just putting money into the pockets of an insurance company to protect against unforeseeable circumstances. The procedure (if performed chemically, i.e. with a two pill protocol) is only $300-500 anyway, so the coverage would likely cost more than it covers. And the concept is not helpful to the majority of women who seek abortions, the poor, but that was probably the point of the amendment - not fiscal responsibility, but to ensure that abortions are not obtained by those who need them. A judgment call by those who are not actually faced by the choice.
If you want to know how your representative voted, the roll call is here.
Legal abortion statistics are published by the Guttmacher Institute and annually by the CDC
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Dr. Evan Levine
Oryoki Bowl
Fay Paxton
lorianne
Mary Ann Sorrentino
Jane Brogan
Salon.com
Comments
The risk factors of the woman and whether she'd choose an abortion are known by her, not the insurance company. Few women who conscientiously prevent pregnancy or who would not choose an abortion would pay for the additional coverage, leaving the insurance company paying for a large percentage of the covered, hence requiring a price not worth the benefit.
So I have no problem with the health package, if only they would eliminate the viagra subsidy.
The other part about this that is contradictory is cost containment. The cost of an abortion for a woman who cannot afford it is far less than 18 years of federal and state assistance for an unwanted child.
He Said: Sure you can...make application to the ____committee for an abortion and we'll all testify for you that you weren't and still aren't quite in your right mind. (one of the few medical grounds for abortion in those late 1960 days)
Writing this I just feel my gut roil at the memory of it. Needless to say I was one happy young woman when my menses finally began TWO WEEKS LATE!! Want to even think what mental agony I actually was in?
So I'm sorry guys, I think it is diffucult for you to appreciate how tough this is. Interestingly enough, there is a rider I'd like to see attached to the bill. That every guy involved in creating a pregnancy is held accountable for child support; cannot get student loans if he does not provide child support; cannot get a mortgage if he does not pay child support. Tough? So is no choice over your uterus!
http://open.salon.com/blog/rguillory/2009/11/08/representative_cao_is_not_a_hero_1
Jehovah's Witnesses oppose a legal procedure (blood transfusions) on supposedly moral grounds. JW suddenly succeed in making blood transfusions--still a legal procedure--unobtainable by the rest of society who needs them (and Keith Richards, who just wants to be a vampire). They succeed. What would be the politics of that? Sound ridiculous? Substitute the word "abortion" for "blood transfusion." The right-wing nightmare of girls who just want to have abortions for fun don't actually exist, so there's unfortunately no substitution in this equation for Keith Richards.
These are the very people that the right wing is trying to attack. They want them to be punished for all these things, and they think that a lifetime of poverty raising a bastard child on the street with no help from the government is perfect punishment.
Or even better, since abortion is safer than pregnancy, some of these women will die. Women having sex? A capital offense!
The reason men are never mentioned in these arguments is that they aren't a part of the rhetorical equation. The right wing sees pregnancy as a woman's fault. Can't afford birth control? No way, she should have kept her legs together. Men have the right to unlimited sex, and lazy, wanton women are to blame for tempting them.
The only time you see men brought up is to make use of the "irresponsible black fathers" meme. The assumption behind the whole argument is that making it impossible for women to have abortions will result in more of them being punished for their sins.
Impeach or recall Stupak.
Stupak should not be allowed to call himself a Democrat.
Anyone who votes against a bill that would help the uninsured should be held up as a traitor to this country as this would be a vote for the death of men, women, and children in this country.
It may be elective but that is not the point. Hip replacements are elective and they are still covered. Cosmetic surgeries are excluded. Abortions are not like cosmetic surgery. The choice of having one or not should be the choice of the woman and any persuasion one way or another should be that churches and ministers and moralists should do a better job of counselling these women rather than domonizing them and that choice and condemning them as murderers.
That's like telling your child "Of course you can have a pet unicorn!"
Plus, even if these riders existed and women realized that hmm, one out of three women get an abortion at some point - it's likely that could happen to me, it's making women pay more for health care than men. Women make less money than men (71 cents to the dollar, I believe), and now more of that is going to have to go to health care.
This amendment is a hot mess, any way you look at it. I'm pissed.
A lot of people don't know the importance of their vote but the extremists do and they're motivated.
Money doesn't decide elections; voting does. Constituents need to make this clear to their elected leaders and let them know how they plan to vote.
Women are victims in so many ways and should learn the truth about their candidates before voting. It's a life or death matter.
If Jesus actually is the Son of God…and if he has any pull with his Old Man at all…this hypocritical scum will have a special place in Hell reserved for them…just below the bottom level envisioned by Dante!
"it is not necessarily a bad idea to keep that issue as separate as possible from then present issue about insurance reform. at least then these pro-life dems have a fig-leaf to cover their support."
It is a very bad idea. This bill should have been voted down, before the amendment. It does not get close to making health care affordable and is a bonanza for insurance companies, who are given 20 million or so new, forced customers. And the drug companies will not have to negotiate due to the deal worked out between them and Obama.
What is even more disgusting than the bill is that the amendment passed by a larger margin than the bill itself. The men took another opportunity to control the lives of women. Yes, the 17 R women voted for the bill, but they are auxiliary men. Two D women voted for it of the 59 D women in the House.
Digby: 97% of the Democrats who voted for the Stupak amendment were male. 90% of the Republicans were male.
"I don't want to pay for anyone's abortions, Viagra, cosmetic surgery, or for that matter mental health, which is an open-ended drain on resources."
As opposed to the "open-ended drain on resources" that are the wars this country endlessly fights? This whole "I don't want to pay for government spending I don't like" trope is nonsense. But, if we did that, we would have been out of the wars long ago. We would have single payer, universal health care long ago.
I don't want to pay the salaries of the health-industrial complex's CEOs. So what? We're all doing it and this bill will just expands their profits.
"If placating these fucking hypocrites and pretend Christians by doing this abortion exclusion is necessary to get this bill passed…go with it."
There is no reason to placate these assholes. They're going to get punished in the afterlife? Tell that to a woman who can't get an abortion, or anyone whose co-pay is unaffordable, as many of them will be for middle-class Americans.
The problem : the amendment is the result of.. unthinking people, and has been proposed for unthinking people.
And... most of the comments here are from unthinking people too.
So... at some point in time what is REALLY essential is not the abortion issue itself, but the thinking problem.
When rational thought goes out the window, what are we left with ?
We're seeing it all over.