- ‹ previous
- 75 of 2794
- next ›
Abortion Politics
Ann Friedman quotes Pilgrim Soul on the passage last night of Bart Stupak's appalling amendment to prevent anyone receiving a federal subsidy from buying a health insurance plan that covers abortions:
Charmingly I expect that in the next few days all your liberal dude friends will be trying to explain to you that this is really no big deal, look, they had to get the Republicans/"Democrats" onboard SOMEHOW, this is just a battle but we won the war, etc etc.
God knows we liberal dudes can be clueless sometimes, but are any of us really saying that this is no big deal? That's hard to believe. What I can imagine us saying is that Bart Stupak had the votes and we didn't. That's a huge problem. But not a big deal? Hardly.
On a related note, I wonder what the insurance industry thinks of this? I know that if I were an insurance company, I'd sure rather cover an abortion (cost = $500 or so) than a pregnancy carried to term (cost = $10,000 or so). But they're probably too scared to speak up.
Ann Friedman is an divisive
Ann Friedman is an divisive gender warrior. What would you expect but cheap shots and illogical bullying?
In the meantime, read why Dennis Kucinich voted no.
http://kucinich.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=153995
"After voting against H.R. 3962 - Affordable Health Care for America Act, Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) today made the following statement:
“We have been led to believe that we must make our health care choices only within the current structure of a predatory, for-profit insurance system which makes money not providing health care. We cannot fault the insurance companies for being what they are. But we can fault legislation in which the government incentivizes the perpetuation, indeed the strengthening, of the for-profit health insurance industry, the very source of the problem. When health insurance companies deny care or raise premiums, co-pays and deductibles they are simply trying to make a profit. That is our system.
“Clearly, the insurance companies are the problem, not the solution. They are driving up the cost of health care. Because their massive bureaucracy avoids paying bills so effectively, they force hospitals and doctors to hire their own bureaucracy to fight the insurance companies to avoid getting stuck with an unfair share of the bills. The result is that since 1970, the number of physicians has increased by less than 200% while the number of administrators has increased by 3000%. It is no wonder that 31 cents of every health care dollar goes to administrative costs, not toward providing care. Even those with insurance are at risk. The single biggest cause of bankruptcies in the U.S. is health insurance policies that do not cover you when you get sick.
“But instead of working toward the elimination of for-profit insurance, H.R. 3962 would put the government in the role of accelerating the privatization of health care. In H.R. 3962, the government is requiring at least 21 million Americans to buy private health insurance from the very industry that causes costs to be so high, which will result in at least $70 billion in new annual revenue, much of which is coming from taxpayers. This inevitably will lead to even more costs, more subsidies, and higher profits for insurance companies — a bailout under a blue cross.
...
"
Is it to flip to suggest
Is it to flip to suggest that if you're pro-choice, you think abortion is an elective procedure?
What is the point of having insurance cover $500 elective procedures?
Aside from making the political point, that is.
"What is the point of having
"What is the point of having insurance cover $500 elective procedures?"
Insurance is the wrong word to use since everyone will have to have it, since it will cover all sorts of elective/routine medical treatments.
What's the point of having insurance cover an annual physical?
Answer: it's not insurance, it's a pre-paid medical plan.
it's not always $500
The price goes way up after the first trimester.
Abortion Only Insurance Policies
Excellent point Kevin. Insurance companies nearly always cover abortion. About 90% of them do. When there is a policy that does not cover abortions, it is nearly always providing a policy to an entity which has a religious objection to abortion.
What I don't understand, is why Behemoth National Insurance would not offer special add on coverage to woman who they already cover for a live birth. One would think that it could be offered at a cost of about a penny per year since it would save them so much money.
So I wonder whether the Stupek amendment might prohibit offering an add on policy and if so how that prohibition might be enforced.
It's not always policies
It's not always policies offered to groups with religious objections. By statute, insurance for federal workers does not cover abortions (proof that Congressmen don't always vote in their own interests, since this means they have to pay out of pocket for the abortions when they knock up their secretaries and staff members!) However, it would be fascinating to see what would happen if companies on the exchange did decide to offer an abortion rider for an actuarily sound price, which as you note, would probably be about a dollar a year.
no problem
I have no problem with it. The nation is nearly split on the legitimacy of abortion, with those against it considering it murder. Under no circumstances can you use their tax money to fund abortions, period. If the country was wider on this opinion, maybe you'd have something, but the country really isn't, so wake up.
I agree.
I agree.
The nation is more than
The nation is more than split on the Iraq/Afghan wars. Should we prohibit tax dollars from being spent on that (more than fine by me!)
50% against abortion: their tax dollars will not be used
Since abortions won't make up 50% of the tax revenues brought in on any year, I think it's safe to state that none of those "conscientious objectors'" tax monies are used to fund abortions.
There. Happy?
no problem
I have no problem with it. The nation is nearly split on the legitimacy of abortion, with those against it considering it murder. Under no circumstances can you use their tax money to fund abortions, period. If the country was wider on this opinion, maybe you'd have something, but the country really isn't, so wake up.
JS, how come you don't agree
JS, how come you don't agree with this comment? It's equally stupid, you should be in agreement.
Anonymous, in my mind what
Anonymous, in my mind what is stupid is to not recognize electoral realities. Especially for a community that calls itself "reality based".
This was the only way this bill could pass. It may still not make it through the Senate. Adding federally-funded abortions to it would only hasten its demise.
If you will only settle for all or nothing, chances are you will get the latter.
Why stop there?
If we are going to prevent anyone receiving a federal subsidy from buying a health insurance plan that covers abortions, why not also prevent anyone receiving federal unemployment benefits from from buying a health insurance plan that covers abortions?
Etc.
Relax
Quiddity who can't etc >"...why not also prevent anyone receiving federal unemployment benefits from from buying a health insurance plan that covers abortions?..."
You are just ahead of the game. Wait a few years and that will come to be. The writing is on the wall.
Fools
"For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill" - Sun Tzu
Bart Stupak had the votes and we didn't. That's a huge problem.
Kevin, you say:
God knows we liberal dudes can be clueless sometimes, but are any of us really saying that this is no big deal? That's hard to believe. What I can imagine us saying is that Bart Stupak had the votes and we didn't. That's a huge problem. But not a big deal? Hardly.
Let me explain something:
Women were used as pawns to pass health care last night. We are not pawns and we are angry about this. If you believe it to be hugely problematic that progressives couldn't pass a health care bill without exploiting women's health, perhaps instead of faulting us for our anger, you could spend some time and energy explaining to other progressives how to change that. How do we protect sexual health rights and how do we teach men the importance of freedom for all people's health care?
Also, I've already heard from a few liberal dudes who have told me this ain't no thang, so PLEASE, the faster you can start spreading the message, the better. Thanks.
Women were not used as
Women were not used as pawns, unborn humans were used as pawns.
Until you can understand that the pro-life side isn't using women as pawns to control women to control sexuality, but have deeply held and somewhat understandable beliefs towards human life, then you're going to get raped on this issue time after time after time.
Such a shame
Anonymous 4:17pm>"...beliefs towards human life..."
That is total bull sh*t and you know it. All those pseudo pro-life individuals HATE life, otherwise they would make sure that no one suffered hunger or wanted for health care. Their faux concern for "life" ends at the moment of birth as history shows time and time again.
Phoneys is what they are, and chickensh*t ones at that.
"The first lesson of democracy is not to hold the public in contempt." - Ronnie Earle
Pro-ignorance is more like it
I shouldn't be surprised that someone who doesn't understand what the word "rape" means would also fail to understand that the "pro-life" crowd is also against birth control and in reality have zero concern for the health and well being of women.
Wake me when any of the leaders of the "pro-life" movement can get pregnant.
Women's sexuality scares
Women's sexuality scares you, and you will use clumps of replicating flesh to justify using state police power to prevent them women from fucking.
Lie about being "pro-life" much?
If the "pro-life" community was really "pro-life" instead of just anti-abortion then you'd expect them to give a rat's ass about, oh, say, pre-natal care. As a movement they don't. You'd expect them to care about infant mortality. As a movement they don't. You'd expect them to care about stillbirth. As a movement they don't. You'd expect them to care about maternal mortality. As a movement they don't.
And since miscarriage "stops a beating heart" roughly as often as abortion (about one in four first pregnancies, about one in ten later pregnancies) you'd expect them to care about that too. As a movement, as individuals, as caregivers, and as "crisis-pregancy" advisors they just don't.
And youw about you? Have you ever given an instant of thought about any of the above? Has anyone you know? My pro-choice partner and I got a good look at it when our planned, wanted first pregnancy turned into a miscarriage and the best we got from "pro-life" caregivers we turned to while it was still on-going and presumably still rescuable was a chipper "oh well, just keep trying, I'm sure she'll be pregnant again in no time." Gee, doesn't get any more "pro-life" than that, does it?
And, clue? Until you understand that, really, the "pro-life" movement doesn't actually care about *life* at all you're going to keep imagining it's cute to say crap like "you're going to get raped on this issue."
figleaf
The right is absolutely using women as pawns
While I concede that a few of the members of the anti-abortion right are acting on deeply held beliefs, it is ridiculous to argue that the issue in general is anything but a political posture with a big chunk of misogyny thrown in. The rape/incest exception proves this. There is no logically consistent ethical argument for allowing abortions in the case of rape and incest. On the few occasions some interviewer has had the nerve to bring this up to a pro-choice lawmaker, they ususally mumble some excuse about it not being the woman's choice to be pregnant - but what does that have to do with whether the fetus is a human being, the ostensible reason for prohibiting abortion? But it sounds so much nicer than their real position, which is any woman who has sex volutarily for any reason other than to get pregnant is a slut or a whore, and deserves to get knocked up and stay that way.
Not quite logically sound ...
Similarly bad logic:
You know, people get pulled over for speeding down the street and they get fined. The law says its about public safety. But a guy speeding down the street to take his kid to the emergency room doesn't just get away with it: he gets a police escort. Doesn't this prove that the real reason for speed limits is to stop us from having fun?
While I completely agree that the vast majority of the leadership of the "pro-life" movement is driven far more by a need to control youth (and women, but I think the focus is shifting towards youth in general), the exceptions above are completely internally consistent. The general lack of funding for abortions does dissuade folks from getting abortions, and, more generally, from getting pregnant (Conservative Social Principle #1: if you fund something, you encourage it). The exemptions target specific circumstances beyond the kids' control, thus don't undermine the effect of the law.
What destroys all credulity with the "pro-life" argument is that they choose to "protect the unborn" at the least effective control point (trying to make kids who have sex not get themselves pregnant), and not only ignore the more effective control points (providing better adoptive options, more support for young and unwed parents) but also countermand the one control point they are trying to hold (by also making it difficult for those same kids to have safe sex). *That* is what makes it clear that their goal is not to save the unborn, but to stop those who don't want kids from having sex.
sorry, no go. Do they want
sorry, no go. Do they want to stop married couples from having sex iunless they are trying for a pregnancy? By your ligic, only the people who they are trying to stop from having sex should be forbidden to have abortions - they should be legal for married couples, since presumably having sex is ok for them.
Saying they "had the votes",
Saying they "had the votes", while true, is a little besides the point- Democratic leadership could have not brought up the amendment and then forced a confrontation with the Republican enablers. The majority of the Democratic caucus did not support this measure- why did leadership cave? it was a craven attempt at trying to buy off people that are hostile to the Democratic agenda, but are members of the party for convenience- it offers them more opportunities to extort money and promote the radical Republican agenda than if they were actual Republicans.
Unprincipled "compromises" like this one are the number one reason why the Democratic party is consistently viewed as weak and unprincipled.
Viewed as
The party may be "viewed as" weak and unprincipled, but in fact it is weak since there are blue dogs who act like Republicans on many issues where Dems seek to be principled. At least we have some politicians who can cut deals to get us a little further down the road toward the goals.
I wonder what kind of horrible deals had to be cut to get the Voting Rights Act or the Civil Rights act. And don't forget it required a massive disaster called the Great Depression to get Social Security. Maybe we should thank Bush for giving us this Dem majority and chance to finish getting the healthcare reforms.
Weird how things work, isn't it?
Okay, so now Planned
Okay, so now Planned Parenthood really will be just about the only place poor and middle-class women will be able to obtain a perfectly legal, sometimes necessary medical procedure. Pro-choice liberals who support excluding abortion from the health care bill are filling out their donation checks as we speak, right?
What percentage of insurers
What percentage of insurers cover abortions NOW? I was under the impression that the vast majority did not so that, while disappointing at best, the Stupak amendment is enforcing a status quo rather than rolling back coverage that already exists.
Yes, a bill without that amendment would be better from a progressive standpoint but I think we're seriously overreacting if we think this will have a lasting impact. Assuming a healthcare bill passes, it will be easy to amend down the line as people become used to the system and opinions on abortion further liberalize.
Unfortunately polls are
Unfortunately polls are finding that public opinion on abortion is becoming less, rather than more, liberal. See here for example. Which is why the politics of this is getting tougher.
A question for OmerosPeanut ...
Can you get pregnant? I'm not open to listening to your opinions on trading away women's needs for House votes unless the answer is yes. And even if yes, I think you are very short-sighted. There are too many guys who trade us away whenever they find it convenient -- it's no skin off their backs.
Can it happen here?
You are wrong, the majority
You are wrong, the majority of insurers cover abortions now.
Did anyone point out to
Did anyone point out to Stupak and the Catholic Bishops that the current laws making health insurance costs tax deductible already subsidize abortion for most American women? After all, most insurance plans cover abortion, and most insurance plans are subsidized through the employer tax deduction.
It's really bizarre in American politics that tax expenditures are not regarded as expenditures at all. A direct subsidy of whatever size to allow a woman to purchase health insurance that cover abortion is regarded as totally different from current tax law which subsidizes such purchases as a matter of course.
Current Extent of Abortion Coverage
According to: http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/newsroom/press-releases/aborti...
Currently, the majority of plans already cover basic reproductive health care, including abortion care. A Guttmacher Institute survey found that 86.5 percent of employment-based health plans cover medical abortion and 86.9 percent of employment-based health plans cover surgical abortion.
It's just a brilliant
It's just a brilliant maneuver for the GOP to undermine the bill this way, to make the Dems publicly dance to their tune.
Does anyone believe that no GOP voters, their sisters, their daughters, nieces, etc. ever, ever, ever get abortions?
The GOP's anti-abortion stance is purely political and they make excellent use of it.
This had nothing to do with
This had nothing to do with the GOP. The compromise was done to get enough Democrats to vote for the bill. Here is what the NY Times says about Pelosi's efforts:
A lot of these people are in districts that are very anti-abortion. They didn't think they had a chance to get re-elected without the last amendment. Pelosi did all that she could.
"a pregnancy carried to term
"a pregnancy carried to term (cost = $10,000 or so)"
$10,000 is very optimistic.
The bill for our recent SF Bay Area pregnancy & birth by scheduled C-section came to about $45,000. No serious complications, and a 4 day hospital stay.
Thankfully insurance will pay all but a couple thousand of it.
"An abortion costs
"An abortion costs X"
"Carrying a pregnancy to term costs Y"
Ah, there's nothing like the dickering of socialist technocrats.
"find it morally repugnant that my tax money is used to torture people and bomb innocent civilians in Afghanistan, yet no one is offering me - or the people who feel like me - another option."
Not a very apt comparison, but what do you expect? The military does not knowingly and willingly target civilians. A woman performing an abortion targets the unborn child.
So far, the U.S. has tortured between three and six terrorists. By most counts, over a million babies are aborted in the U.S. annually.
Nice job trying to portray the military as a bunch of bloodthirsty cold-blooded killers.
Why do you hate the military?
How dark is your soul,
How dark is your soul, MacGruber?
Abortion, gun control, death penalty
The Dems gave ground on those three issues in order to get a majority. I don't like it, but that's the way it is. If they hadn't, we wouldn't even be talking about health reform.
Argh. I dream of a day when
Argh. I dream of a day when 1/2 of the energy that was spent arguing about abortion was instead spent on fixing how screwed up health care and child care is for women and families in general. I'm pro-choice but would love it if the issue of abortion took a big ol' backseat to all of the other larger pressing issues-- like how much more expensive health insurance is for women based on the idea that they can get pregnant. I'm a small business owner and have an individual policy. I had to choose between a montly premium of $180 or $450-- that is the difference between having a policy that covers anything related to being pregnant or giving birth and one that will not pay a cent towards anything that has to do with reproduction.
Frankly, I'd love to see the "pro-lifers" get behind 100% universal coverage for pre-natal care, pregnancy and childbirth. Where is the republican plan for that? Or generous paid maternity leave? What about policies that actually support women who'd like to have (more) children but find that our society puts up an awful lot of roadblocks to make it difficult to do so. Focus less on abortion, make it easier for women and their partners to have and raise children, make birth control easily accessible, and much of the abortion issue will take care of itself.
Take care of itself? I don't know . . .
"Focus less on abortion, make it easier for women and their partners to have and raise children, make birth control easily accessible, and much of the abortion issue will take care of itself."
Christina Page (Alternet interview):
"[When I was researching this book [How the Pro-Choice Movement Saved America: Freedom, Politics, and the War on Sex,] I was happy to make distinctions and say, Well, we do have evidence that there's a wing of the pro-life movement that supports child care. But [what I found is that] there is no wing . . . Not only do they want to take away legal and safe abortion, they want to stop people from having access to contraception. Coupling with that, they want to strip people of opportunities to put their children -- whether they wanted them or not or can afford them or not -- into child care.
What is the point of this? . . .The only conclusion that this path leads to is one: The modern family is deeply offensive to the Christian right. The family structures in which we are living today, in which both parents are equal and they both bring home a living, they get to choose the number of children they have to what they can support and want -- that is offensive to the pro-life establishment. The whole reason why none of their programs are leading to fewer abortions is because that's simply not the point. The point isn't about abortion, it's about the family. It's about what the family looks like, it's about who's in it, who's leading it, who has the power, and who's the spiritual head."
in other words
It's about power and re-exerting the power males once had in days gone by to force women to don the burka (sp) of second-class citizenship and subservience. The American Taliban...
It's galling as hell, but
It's galling as hell, but the salient point was also mentioned in the article - an abortion only costs around $500. This just isn't the most important aspect of health care reform, and we can't let it be held hostage to the culture wars. Just swallow and let them have their way on this one. Most people can come up with the 500 on their own, and activists can develop ways to help those who can't. We need HCR because of the big ticket items: cancer, heart attacks, major accidents, kidney failures, etc. Abortion just isn't a big consideration. Don't sweat the small stuff.
Not small stuff
"Most people can come up with the 500 on their own, and activists can develop ways to help those who can't."
Let me guess. YOU can come up with $500 on your own, should you or any of your relatives need it. That's great. But don't assume everyone else can. Isn't the point of health care reform to extend coverage to those people who can't come up with the cost of medical care and procedures on their own? The people who need health reform most are people who can't pay for abortions on their own.
And if you think abortion isn't a big ticket item, just ask any woman who has ever needed one. It may not be a big deal for you, but then, I'm guessing you've never had an abortion and expect you'll never need one. The viewpoints and experiences of people who will never need a medical procedure - or the money for it - should not dictate whether that medical procedure is available to the people who DO need it.
Publicly financing the
Publicly financing the health care of Catholic priests should be outlawed.
"How dark is your soul,
"How dark is your soul, MacGruber?"
What do you really care? If you're an atheist, then any discussion of a soul is moot.
I do, however, sleep well at night knowing that I don't support the extermination of a young innocent life because that child might inconvenience the mother.
And I sleep very badly at
And I sleep very badly at night that evil people like you exist and be allowed to demagogue...
It's always those without any conscience that sleep best.
Take it a step further
Start taxing any religious entity which expresses/drives opinions concerning politics/legislation. If they want to play in that arena then tax them as such.
As for the $500 abortion versus the $10,000 delivery costs, let's not forget that some percentage of the people who didn't want to deliver a child may not be able to financially provide for it and will require additional social programs to assist with the upbringing of the child. Social programs which the GOP would love to end.
As stated time and time again, abortion is legal in the US and should not be a negotiable point when writing newer legislation or policies.
Unfortunately for your
Unfortunately for your defense of liberal dudes, Kevin, a significant chunk of your commentariat is just confirming Ann's point. Many liberal dudes seem to agree this isn't a big deal, and any feminist that doesn't like it is a "divisive gender warrior."
Great idea, Kevin, let's formalize it
"On a related note, I wonder what the insurance industry thinks of this? I know that if I were an insurance company, I'd sure rather cover an abortion (cost = $500 or so) than a pregnancy carried to term (cost = $10,000 or so)."
Or $30,000 for a complicated c-section. Or north of $100,000 when a woman with preeclampsia has a stroke.
At the moment insurers can think "no problem, pregnancy's a pre-existing condition -- coverage declined!" I believe one of the conditions of the reform bill is that they can no longer do this. Thus the costs pass straight through to both private insurers and any public alternatives.
So! How 'bout we press, hard, to get a friendly Senator or Representative to request for the CBO to score the consequences of amendment? At the very least it'll put "blue dogs" on the spot, and at best it'll be a perfectly valid reason to drop it in Conference.
Speaking of conference committees, Yglesias makes the point that we should not leave it to chance who's assigned to the committee or what the rules are going into it.
figleaf