Find Your Valentine
Slog
News & ArtsMonday, November 9, 2009
Health The Abortion Amendment
Posted by Eli Sanders on Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 11:20 AM
What's the deal with that last-minute abortion amendment that was added to the House health insurance reform bill? Ezra Klein explains:
Rep. Bart Stupak's amendment did not make abortion illegal. And it did not block the federal government from subsidizing abortion. All it did was block it from subsidizing abortion for poorer women.Stupak's amendment stated that the public option cannot provide abortion coverage, and that no insurer participating on the exchange can provide abortion coverage to anyone receiving subsidies.
Which is no small thing.
Nancy Pelosi allowed this amendment to go through—despite fury from pro-choice advocates in the Democratic caucus—in order to keep conservative Democrats happy and prevent the entire bill from collapsing. It was a wrenching decision, but it did lead to an historic achievement in the House.
What would you have done if you were Nancy Pelosi—or, say, a representative from Washington State?
Well? Would you have voted "yes" or "no" on the health insurance reform bill given its limits on abortion funding?
2
If this is just for elective procedures, I think it was a reasonable concession to get the bill passed. If this is also for emergency situations where the life of the mother is at risk--more push back was needed.
3
HEY! Re-do this poll with a breakdown of whether or not the person voting in it is a man or woman. I'm a man and I said I'd do it, but I kinda feel like my opinion is less important on this one.
4
I've been thinking about this over the weekend. I think Pelosi did the right thing. It could be possible to fix the abortion loophole while the bill is in the Senate, or to fix it later. Abortions will continue to be available through Planned Parenthood, and it may be that hospitals set up special funds to cover them for those who are underinsured, as is done already with other hardship cases.
It is an unfortunate concession, but it meant that the bill passed the Congress. What a greater shame would it have been if the bill had failed because of this small thing?
It is an unfortunate concession, but it meant that the bill passed the Congress. What a greater shame would it have been if the bill had failed because of this small thing?
5
Weird. I think this is the first time a rep from the U.P. has ever had his name attached to anything of note.
6
This bill, if it survives in its present form (which is highly doubtful) would be a de facto nullification of Roe v. Wade. I'm sorry, I just can't support that.
7
whwat a dumb question. if you are pelosi you have to do this OR ELSE NO HEALTH CARE REFORM.
Jeez get a grip on reality. we have tons of congresspeople from conservademn places and until we, the pro choice side, actually starts convincing real life people of our cause you can't blame conservadems for representing their districts.
but if you are rep. from washington state of course you vote no to take the pro choice position, knowing full well the amendment will pas and that's necessary for reform.
N.B. "troll" accusers: get back to us when you have figured out how to win the underlying argument with voters. the pro choice side has lost ten points in the last ten years and hasn't come up with any good response to that to move the basic numbers.
Jeez get a grip on reality. we have tons of congresspeople from conservademn places and until we, the pro choice side, actually starts convincing real life people of our cause you can't blame conservadems for representing their districts.
but if you are rep. from washington state of course you vote no to take the pro choice position, knowing full well the amendment will pas and that's necessary for reform.
N.B. "troll" accusers: get back to us when you have figured out how to win the underlying argument with voters. the pro choice side has lost ten points in the last ten years and hasn't come up with any good response to that to move the basic numbers.
8
I thought there were already charities out there that made free abortions possible. Has making abortions accessible to the poor and uninsured been one of the pressing concerns for reforming health care this round?
9
As far as I know this amendment does not include cases of rape or any situation where the life of the mother is at risk, so this is such a none issue to me. I totally agree with @ 2.
We have a real battle in the senate, this is not over yet and it seems to me unproductive to be discussing this at this time when we should be focusing on getting this through the senate and into the President's desk.
This abortion thing is just the type of thing the the repubics want us to get bogged down in until they can figure a way of killing this bill. We should not let them.
10
I really don't think it will matter, in the end, because things have become so convoluted in the Democrats' ridiculous quest to placate everyone and their mother that it is doubtful to me we will see any change in our healthcare system other than more paperwork and a rise in costs (which drug companies and insurers will certainly impose on us, regardless of whether or not it reflects actual expenses).
It's nice that they're trying and all, but I shouldn't have to accept "good intentions" from my government in lieu of medical care.
It's nice that they're trying and all, but I shouldn't have to accept "good intentions" from my government in lieu of medical care.
11
the Stupak amendment will prohibit abortion coverage only for government-*subsidized* medical insurance policies. In other words, abortion access has remain unchanged with this provision: this is the status quo.
Currently, most women who buy insurance out of pocket don't usually get elective abortion coverage anyway (and it varies widely for women who get their insurance through their employers--more common in these parts than in the South, for instance). For all women, poor or not, lower-cost and even free abortions are available from operations such as Planned Parenthood and other clinics in most (though not all) states. Middle and upper-class women have the same access as before; poor women have the same (low) access as before.
Currently, most women who buy insurance out of pocket don't usually get elective abortion coverage anyway (and it varies widely for women who get their insurance through their employers--more common in these parts than in the South, for instance). For all women, poor or not, lower-cost and even free abortions are available from operations such as Planned Parenthood and other clinics in most (though not all) states. Middle and upper-class women have the same access as before; poor women have the same (low) access as before.
12
What if I spontaneously abort and need a D&C to clean me out so the dead fetus doesn't become septic and kill me? Is that covered?
I don't know still how I feel about this bill: it may be a step in the right direction, but it also appears that it's a turd that accomplishes nothing but a nominal "win" for Obama.
On top of it all, though, I'm so angered that womens' basic health care is still considered a bargaining point. Can we negotiate whether Viagra should be allowed? How about insulin for obese people? Knee surgery for athletes? None of those issues are even being discussed, yet my uterus is considered fair game and via it my health is considered unimportant.
I don't know still how I feel about this bill: it may be a step in the right direction, but it also appears that it's a turd that accomplishes nothing but a nominal "win" for Obama.
On top of it all, though, I'm so angered that womens' basic health care is still considered a bargaining point. Can we negotiate whether Viagra should be allowed? How about insulin for obese people? Knee surgery for athletes? None of those issues are even being discussed, yet my uterus is considered fair game and via it my health is considered unimportant.
13
@6: "a de facto nullification of Roe v. Wade" WTF? So now you don't have a right unless the government pays for you to exercise it? I guess we've never really had freedom of the press, since the government never bought people printing presses.
14
Is Ezra Klein correct, or is it misleading to say "no insurer participating on the exchange can provide abortion coverage to anyone receiving subsidies"? That makes it sound as if insurers cannot provide abortions to subsidized patients, period, regardless of whether the patient opts to pay for it themselves, etc. I assume this can't be the case.
15
The health care bill expands Medicaid, bars discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation in insurance coverage, covers early HIV treatment, and funds proper sex ed.
Pass it today, and fight the abortion issue tomorrow. Don't hold up these reforms because of one point of failure.
Pass it today, and fight the abortion issue tomorrow. Don't hold up these reforms because of one point of failure.
16
ELI: Are you British? Or do you pronounce "historic" with a silent 'h' for some other reason? A HISTORIC ACHIEVEMENT IN THE HOUSE. AAAAAA HISTORIC. Unless you pronounce "historic" with a silent 'h.' This is one my biggest pet peeves, along with bureaucratic conservative jerks thinking they are so important they should be allowed to shape and destroy the lives of poor women by making abortions even more possible to attain.
17
@1: yep.
@3: yep.
@12: the D&C should be covered. Yes, it's still stupid. However, as a woman, I need other kinds of health care, too. At least I get some and, as #1 pointed out, we'll be fixing this with a lawsuit.
In Washington State, at least, Planned Parenthood will fund "elective" abortions. We're pretty lucky. Sucks to live in the South/Midwest, yet again.
@3: yep.
@12: the D&C should be covered. Yes, it's still stupid. However, as a woman, I need other kinds of health care, too. At least I get some and, as #1 pointed out, we'll be fixing this with a lawsuit.
In Washington State, at least, Planned Parenthood will fund "elective" abortions. We're pretty lucky. Sucks to live in the South/Midwest, yet again.
18
I'd rather have some insurance than no insurance. Yes it is unfair and sexist to leave out abortion coverage, but I'd rather they pass the bill and work out the kinks later.
19
Strip it out in the final.
Which gets voted on as an up or down 50 votes, so the neocons can lament in their caves.
Which gets voted on as an up or down 50 votes, so the neocons can lament in their caves.
20
@3, yeah, because men have no important interest in getting health care passed.
Look, the abortion clause may suck, but it got the bill passed. As Simac points out, the post-bill abortion climate isn't any different than it is now, EXCEPT THAT WE WILL HAVE HEALTH CARE (pending the Senate, of course).
Health care is more important than abortion, full stop. Even for women. ESPECIALLY for poor women.
Look, the abortion clause may suck, but it got the bill passed. As Simac points out, the post-bill abortion climate isn't any different than it is now, EXCEPT THAT WE WILL HAVE HEALTH CARE (pending the Senate, of course).
Health care is more important than abortion, full stop. Even for women. ESPECIALLY for poor women.
21
#17, 18, and 20, does this bill GET you other kinds of/access to health care? I'm not sure it does. It seems to get health insurance companies more paying customers, and not much more for everyone else.
22
I am so fucking sick of men deciding what women should do with their bodies. How about a women-only Slog poll, since we should be the only people deciding what the fuck happens to our bodies? (Not that busy-body men wouldn't vote in that poll either, but I would LOVE to know what the results would be, if the people who this bill actually affected had any fucking say in it.)
"yes, it's unfair and sexist, BUT..."
The story of our friggin lives...
"yes, it's unfair and sexist, BUT..."
The story of our friggin lives...
23
FDR had to leave "domestic workers" (AKA black southern poor people) out of Social Security for the first go-through in order to get the votes. They fixed it later.
The Democrats--after a 40 year GOP dominance--are now the "big tent". It's going to suck a lot.
The Democrats--after a 40 year GOP dominance--are now the "big tent". It's going to suck a lot.
25
Planned Parenthood does not provide free abortions.
Abortions can run anywhere from $300 to a couple grand depending on the clinic, the procedure, and how far along the patient is. Most patients pay out of pocket, although Washington State does offer medical coupons to pregnant women that cover abortion services as well as prenatal and delivery care.
I realize this is tangential to the conversation, but too many people think that abortion coverage is just a frivolous benefit since "Planned Parenthood will do it for free" and that's just patently untrue for 90% of patients.
Abortions can run anywhere from $300 to a couple grand depending on the clinic, the procedure, and how far along the patient is. Most patients pay out of pocket, although Washington State does offer medical coupons to pregnant women that cover abortion services as well as prenatal and delivery care.
I realize this is tangential to the conversation, but too many people think that abortion coverage is just a frivolous benefit since "Planned Parenthood will do it for free" and that's just patently untrue for 90% of patients.
26
Personally no, I already have coverage (which does not cover my birth control but does cover viagra), but I damned well rather have some coverage than no coverage. Maybe the bill doesn't cover abortions, but is does cover cancer, diabetes, injuries and the such. I think it very selfish for anyone to hold back care of all these other conditions when they no the conservatives would rather not give any coverage. You win some you lose some, pass it now and amend it to have more coverage later.
27
@ 22 As a woman, I agree with you on your point. I answered NO to this poll but am still glad the bill has passed this far, at least.
As we all have learned this last year that change will take time. Luckily for now there are still agencies such as PP that are available for low income women. Sucks, you know if men get covered for free meds cause they can't get their cock hard or whatever unique needs they have, why can't women get benefits for their own unique needs? Time will tell if this bill will allow us the rights we deserve. Just like you said..."story of our friggin lives..."
As we all have learned this last year that change will take time. Luckily for now there are still agencies such as PP that are available for low income women. Sucks, you know if men get covered for free meds cause they can't get their cock hard or whatever unique needs they have, why can't women get benefits for their own unique needs? Time will tell if this bill will allow us the rights we deserve. Just like you said..."story of our friggin lives..."
28
@ 25 PP can refer patients to sliding scale clinics. My girlfriend had one done at a clinic that she was referred to through PP. It cost her about 120$ and that was in 1998.
30
I'm bettin' this provision gets watered down into nothingness in the conference committee -- and that Pelosi consulted Reed to make sure this would be case before she let it play out on the floor as it did.
Let FOX have it's pyrrhic victory on teevee; it placated the spineless mid-western tools into submission and that was the real goal.
In the back halls of power--where the real laws are actually enacted--the progressive agenda continues to move inextricably forward.
Let FOX have it's pyrrhic victory on teevee; it placated the spineless mid-western tools into submission and that was the real goal.
In the back halls of power--where the real laws are actually enacted--the progressive agenda continues to move inextricably forward.
31
@29, you are too stupid to live. Dems just got a health care bill passed. Every Republican but one VOTED AGAINST IT. If you can't see a difference there you should take your Nader poster and jump off the Aurora Bridge.
32
Women are so used to be treated as liabilities and making sacrifices for the good of the group that they'll just roll over and accept this as "It sucks but at least we all got health care reform." And, it's true: It is good we all got health care reform.
You're welcome, men. You fucking owe us one.
You're welcome, men. You fucking owe us one.
33
"Can we negotiate whether Viagra should be allowed? How about insulin for obese people? Knee surgery for athletes?"
The trouble is that there are a lot of anti-abortion women out there. There's not that many diabetics lobbying to not get insulin, or athletes insisting that they not have their knee surgery covered.
(Viagra, on the other hand, probably will come up as some sort of stupid GOP non-issue, given their hang up about sex, and desperate grasping of straws. The logic will be why should taxpayers subsidize a poor man's erectile problems?)
Don't get me wrong: I am resolutely pro-choice, but I'm also a man. The most passionate and articulate abortions opponents I know are women, and they generally get a sympathetic ear in society, based partly on their gender. Of course, a lot of that has to do with the absolute abysmal way the pro-choice side has let the right-wing control the issue, but that is a whole other topic.
As for the survey, I would have voted for it, even with the limits on abortion, because I think that this legislation is nothing more than a foot in the door. If it starts us down the road towards universal health care, it's worth it. But I do have some serious reservations about whether this legislation actually does that.
The trouble is that there are a lot of anti-abortion women out there. There's not that many diabetics lobbying to not get insulin, or athletes insisting that they not have their knee surgery covered.
(Viagra, on the other hand, probably will come up as some sort of stupid GOP non-issue, given their hang up about sex, and desperate grasping of straws. The logic will be why should taxpayers subsidize a poor man's erectile problems?)
Don't get me wrong: I am resolutely pro-choice, but I'm also a man. The most passionate and articulate abortions opponents I know are women, and they generally get a sympathetic ear in society, based partly on their gender. Of course, a lot of that has to do with the absolute abysmal way the pro-choice side has let the right-wing control the issue, but that is a whole other topic.
As for the survey, I would have voted for it, even with the limits on abortion, because I think that this legislation is nothing more than a foot in the door. If it starts us down the road towards universal health care, it's worth it. But I do have some serious reservations about whether this legislation actually does that.
34
@14: If you pay for a procedure yourself, your insurer is not providing it. The insurer is just a bill-payer. (There may be some wierdness for organizations like Group Health, where the insurer is the provider, but astoundingly few people are covered by such organizations; Group Health is really a bit of western washington exceptionalism.)
36
@33- The GOP will never go after Viagra. Remember Rush got caught with a bottle of it (with someone else's name on the bottle, against the rules) coming back from someplace you can buy underage girls? They'll never say anything bad about their favorite pill.
37
"I am so fucking sick of men deciding what women should do with their bodies. How about a women-only Slog poll, since we should be the only people deciding what the fuck happens to our bodies?"
The amendment in question doesn't tell you what you should do with your body. It tells you whether you'll get federal funds for doing it. Please don't pretend the two are exactly the same.
It sucks. It should be fought. But not at the cost of losing everything else here, which will also benefit women greatly. So, yes, fine - we owe you one.
The amendment in question doesn't tell you what you should do with your body. It tells you whether you'll get federal funds for doing it. Please don't pretend the two are exactly the same.
It sucks. It should be fought. But not at the cost of losing everything else here, which will also benefit women greatly. So, yes, fine - we owe you one.
38
As long as the Hyde amendment is still on the books, Stupak-Pitts is somewhat irrelavent. Government funding of abortion is ALREADY prohibited.
39
Federal law banned federal funds paying for abortions a long time ago, and that was when poor women lost the right to an abortion. What this bill does is make the standard insurance package not include abortion. For insurance companies, it may be easier to to make this the default for all individual coverage than to try to figure out who is subsidized and who is not. Women are not going to pay for separate extra insurance coverage because people don't *expect* to have an abortion. What this bill essentially does is make abortion an out of pocket expense for all women without employer coverage. Considering how many conservative Democrats are in the Senate, there's no reason to think this won't get added to the Senate bill as well. And consolidation doesn't do any good because the House won't vote for a bill without this amendment.
40
I think @22 is right, but only if Charles Mudede designs the poll and posts it with appropriate imagery.
41
@39 - so you say, yet all polls show that the American people want you busybodies to get out of the way between us and our doctors and not imposing your "morals" on us.
42
Are some of you seriously suggesting that the already contentious health care bill fight also drag the abortion foes in too? Really? Do you want to get anything else done in the rest of the term or would you rather spend all of the political capital now and sit around with an impotent government leading an even more divided nation until 2012?
Forest for the trees, lose the battle/win the war, etc. folks.
Forest for the trees, lose the battle/win the war, etc. folks.
43
As a male, I voted Yes.
Yeah, the amendment sucks, and I would've voted No on that, but there's a lot of good in the bill, and we cannot let perfection become the enemy of the moderate improvement.
I'd rather have something that helps passed than have it lose while sticking to principle.
That said, I would've offered up an amendment forbidding the government covering erectile dysfunction.
Yeah, the amendment sucks, and I would've voted No on that, but there's a lot of good in the bill, and we cannot let perfection become the enemy of the moderate improvement.
I'd rather have something that helps passed than have it lose while sticking to principle.
That said, I would've offered up an amendment forbidding the government covering erectile dysfunction.
44
Outrageous! the last thing I want is more gangbangers, chollos and trailer trash. THere should not only be Federal funding, but I support creating a new agency, FedAbort, with clinics in every poor neighborhood in the US. Offer free Playstations and rims to any unwed pregnant woman without a college education. SEriously, I tired of dealing with their fucked up offspring.
In fact, I am so pro-choice, I hope FedAbort offers home service, so baby mamas don't even have to leave their couch during American Idol to be taken care of.
In fact, I am so pro-choice, I hope FedAbort offers home service, so baby mamas don't even have to leave their couch during American Idol to be taken care of.
45
OK, yup, I agree. It's expediency and all. I voted yes, and I DO the damned procedure!
38, in many states, the Hyde amendment does not come into play, because the state (e.g, Washington, Oregon, California) picks up the tab.
Here's my question: what if this bill stuck it to gay men, like not covering HIV treatment, because some right-wing whackjob thought HIV coverage endorsed "the gay lifestyle and agenda," and Pelosi was telling YOU to take one for the team. How would it fall for you then?
Because (believe me!) they'll be thinking that next. Or saying that birth control shouldn't be covered. Or (insert some everyday right that you and I take for granted and treasure) should be excluded.
Yes, I get it. We can't let this issue derail the bill. But it feels shitty to know that every accused murderer in the country gets a free lawyer, and pregnant women just have to shift for themselves.
38, in many states, the Hyde amendment does not come into play, because the state (e.g, Washington, Oregon, California) picks up the tab.
Here's my question: what if this bill stuck it to gay men, like not covering HIV treatment, because some right-wing whackjob thought HIV coverage endorsed "the gay lifestyle and agenda," and Pelosi was telling YOU to take one for the team. How would it fall for you then?
Because (believe me!) they'll be thinking that next. Or saying that birth control shouldn't be covered. Or (insert some everyday right that you and I take for granted and treasure) should be excluded.
Yes, I get it. We can't let this issue derail the bill. But it feels shitty to know that every accused murderer in the country gets a free lawyer, and pregnant women just have to shift for themselves.
47
@20/fnarf... Your biting sarcasm feels a bit like excessive force. Yes, I am an uninsured unemployed po' boy and therefore condemned to death by preventable illness under the current system so I have a stake in this, but then I've never had to haul my pregnant 14 year old ass across the border wilderness to a potentially hostile country to abort the unviable monstrosity that is slowly killing me. The bill isn't going to be that horribly bad (more of the shitty status quo really), but it validates the views of the holy mob. I can understand a lady not wanting to give them an inch.
50
The Stupak amendment was written on behalf of the Catholic Bishops and it was not written to keep the government from funding abortions. The Capps amendment took care of that. It is obvious that the intent of the amendment is to take abortion coverage away from women who are currently covered through their insurance plans. The Bishops know this. They are full of shit. All they want to do is keep women from having abortions.
As for sucking up to them; it is plain wrong to throw women under the bus whenever we need to get something done. For any guy who thinks it's OK; you walk around with a dying fetus in your uterus and try to find a way to pay for its removal before your midsection turns septic. And while I'm at it; use your hand from now on. For any gal who thinks it's OK; start a savings account and don't rely on the charity of other women to help you out if you need it. And if you have a serious medical emergency with a pregnancy gone wrong that you need to terminate, you will not be covered. This effects more women than you think.
The Stupak amendment needs to be defeated in the Senate. Then the Hyde Amendment needs to be overturned. Abortion is not wrong and to have one is a responsible decision. If many of the women who have had one did not our country would be much worse off than it is now. It is time for folks to stop treating women who have abortions like dirt and cough up the money. These women are going to pay for or already are paying others for things they object to. They should be paid for in return.
As for sucking up to them; it is plain wrong to throw women under the bus whenever we need to get something done. For any guy who thinks it's OK; you walk around with a dying fetus in your uterus and try to find a way to pay for its removal before your midsection turns septic. And while I'm at it; use your hand from now on. For any gal who thinks it's OK; start a savings account and don't rely on the charity of other women to help you out if you need it. And if you have a serious medical emergency with a pregnancy gone wrong that you need to terminate, you will not be covered. This effects more women than you think.
The Stupak amendment needs to be defeated in the Senate. Then the Hyde Amendment needs to be overturned. Abortion is not wrong and to have one is a responsible decision. If many of the women who have had one did not our country would be much worse off than it is now. It is time for folks to stop treating women who have abortions like dirt and cough up the money. These women are going to pay for or already are paying others for things they object to. They should be paid for in return.
51
Earlier some guy said health care is more important than abortion, even for women. For women who want babies maybe, however, women die all over the world inducing their own abortions with the knowledge that it could kill them. Women, rich and poor, are willing to die to not have a babies. I would guess for many women abortion is at least as important as health care.
52
Read up on the amendment--sounds pretty bad. Looks like it didn't even win the votes it was supposedly going to deliver.
53
"For any guy who thinks it's OK; you walk around with a dying fetus in your uterus and try to find a way to pay for its removal before your midsection turns septic"
That's not the abortions I wanna fund....it's the 99% in baby mamas. All the Juantitas, De'Lashawns and Mary Joe Slept-with-my-brothers....spare us more ghetto and trailer trash and give them free, on-demand in home abortions.
That's not the abortions I wanna fund....it's the 99% in baby mamas. All the Juantitas, De'Lashawns and Mary Joe Slept-with-my-brothers....spare us more ghetto and trailer trash and give them free, on-demand in home abortions.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
SL Letter of the Day: Daddy Loves Who? by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Life Sentence by Dan Savage
-
Crowdsourcing Uncut Police Video from the Dec. 12 Occupy Protest at the Port of Seattle by Eli Sanders
-
Slog Bible Study: Deuteronomy 21:10-14 by Goldy
-
The AP Is Reporting That Whitney Houston Is Dead by Paul Constant
-
The Onion Is on a Roll: "Iran Worried U.S. Might Be Building 8,500th Nuclear Weapon" by Charles Mudede
-
Announcing The Stranger's Tournament of Dunces! Who's the Dumbest Representative in the State House? by Christopher Frizzelle
-
Survey Says: Cyclists Would Rather Give Up Sex Than Their Bikes by Bethany Jean Clement
-
Stranger Tournament of Dunces, Match 3: Rep. Mark Hargrove vs. Rep. Norma Smith by Eli Sanders
-
Rachel Maddow Uncovered the Secret Ron Paul Strategy by Paul Constant
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (55) RSS