Dr. Nancy on Stupak Amendment: This is About One More Burden for Women Navigating the Health Care System
By Heather Monday Nov 09, 2009 5:30pm
Dr. Nancy Snyderman sums up how a lot of us feel about this absolutely horrid Stupak amendment. No, it's not fair and it is outrageous. It's bad enough we've got one party that wants to keep women living in the 1950's. We don't need two. And we don't need the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops writing legislation for Democrats.
Snyderman: Kelly I must admit this one caught me by surprise because I thought the public option was going to be the real rallying cry for Saturday. Because the Hyde amendment was in place over the summer we kept saying no federal money spent on abortions, and then the Stupak came in, really tightening the chance for a woman’s right to choose. Clarify for me.
O’Donnell: Yes, this issue has been bubbling under the surface for quite a while now and those who have strong views about abortion rights have been paying attention but you’re right, more generally we’ve been focused on the public option. What this would do is restrict the ability to have insurance coverage pay for abortion services. Now looking at the House plan it would create a public option and a market place that they call the exchange which would basically be a menu of insurance plans that people could choose from and if any of those plans take federal money or if as an individual you receive federal subsidies you would not be able to get abortion coverage. One alternative is to be able to purchase what they call a rider, an extra sort of mini-insurance plan specifically targeted for covering abortion services. But women, especially on the progressive side really stood up against that and said that would really require women to anticipate someday having the need for an abortion and they really strongly oppose that. But this amendment passed.
Why? Well certainly it had Republican support because you have a stronger abortion opposition on the Republicans side, but among Democrats there is a group that really feels strongly about abortion rights as well and they wanted to make very clear that no federal money could in any way be traced to abortion services and they had a lot of pressure from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops who wanted to see health care pass but wanted to be certain that no federal money would be in any way connected with to the potential for abortion services. So this really became a hot-button issue over the weekend and as you mentioned the Hyde amendment which goes back thirty years, which prohibits federal money being used for abortion with the exception of rape, incest or life of the mother, this now brings it into the issue of insurance coverage and even private plans if people get help from the government to pay for that insurance, they would be subject to this new rule.
Snyderman: Kelly, you know what I find so infuriating about this? I mean, absolutely infuriating? And this isn't about being pro-choice or pro-abortion or any of the hot button lingo. We know women pay more for insurance than men. We know women are restricted in the states. And now it's basically, if you're a 50 year old woman and you're in a monogamous relationship you suddenly find yourself pregnant, you better know that have an abortion rider in order to access health care that you thought you had? It is one more pressure on women. I mean, I'm surprised that frankly there isn't more outrage over the fact that ...this isn't fair!
O'Donnell: What you're voicing is what woman after woman on the Democrat side, the progressive side of the party, said on the House floor. They came out one after another, speaking in very strong terms against this amendment. The amendment did pass despite their objections. And they really said it puts, as you describe it so pressure on women to anticipate a need for something that is a very difficult personal experience—there are a lot moral implications. It's not an easy situation for any woman and to now ask them to plan ahead for the potential and to buy an extra policy, those who oppose this amendment say that is simply too much. Nancy.
Snyderman: A white man deciding a woman's…… a woman's responsibility in her own procreation. I mean I ... I find it infuriating. I mean, I really think it doesn't matter what side of the abortion issue or pro-choice issue you're on, the fact that they are now making health care harder and harder for women to navigate the system. I think it's outrageous—just outrageous. Kelly O'Donnell, thank you so much.
And folks it's not about abortion. It really is about one more burden for women navigating the health care system. Before I blow my top, time to turn to Monica Novotny at the news desk. Monica, get me out of here.
Login or Register to post comments.
...this is not about being pro-choice or pro-life. This is about women having to jump a hurdle because they are women. If your doctor determines at any point that your pregnancy is unhealthy, you have to have purchased an abortion rider to have it covered by the policy you pay for anyway? Really.
It is unfair. I don't get it. Why there is always someone willing to make someone else miserable, or cause someone else hardship just for a few dollars. It takes all types but I guess but this is beyond the pale. It is as stupid as the slavery and racial stuff that has gone on.
republicanism/conservatism is a mental illness that is killing America.
If these bozo male legislators had to be the ones delivering babies and carrying and delivering them, this would be a non issue.
What I ask anyone who I find so rabidly anti-choice, How many abortions have you had, your children which includes daughter in laws. Brothers and sisters. Any family members. Close friends. It will be more than one. Guaranteed.
So, tell them of yoour anger and horror at what they did. See how long they stay your friends.
MIND YOUR OWN F@#$ING BUSINESS.
It is none of MY business what my children do with their bodies. And any other woman in the world.
Too bad Rep. Stupak can't be forced to deliver a baby that HE doesn't want
Icesailor
Same-sex marriages don't affect them either. I have no idea how they juggle the ideas of Get Government Out Of Our Lives with Get Government Into Other Peoples' Lives.
Repugnants are not normal people. They must enjoy hurting others. I tell you if we do not get a decent health care reform with a strong public option without this stupid abortion amendment, I will vote against Dems. I will vote for none of the above. I will not vote. Whatever. Dems are being weak, WEAK, WEAK!@!!!!
....Last of the Mohigans the chief said, 'Do not try to make them understand you, they are a different people. Do not try to understand them'. It'll wreck your mind.
Hello, Good Morning. Glad to see you here. Yes, the mental illness is called Sociopathy and is incurable, unmedicatable, too. They have to die for it to 'go away' and since it has a genetic link, they reproduce themselves, and further infect the gen. population. They opened up the doors of the Lunny bins (not 'profitable') and spewed out the LUNIES to contaminate, (yes, comicable) the gen. population. Thanks a lot LUNIES
Since Snynderman continually sells out child safety for pharmica products
This affect her rights personally, so of course she'll screech.
Since I came back from EU after 4.5 months, she seems very intelligent and does not push pharma but common sense. I leave that one to the republicans and Joe Lieberman.
While in Eu. I did go to the hospital to have a check XRay on my foot. the cost was 80 Euros in Belgium. While 3 years ago I found myself in the hospital for a 9 days for blood on the brain and the cost was over over $16000. If you have more than $7000.00 in the bank or 401K, they will charge you %. if it is less it will be no charge. I had lost my job because the company had lost a big account and I could not afford the insurance after unemployment had run out. And the problem was that I was too old to find a job and not yet 65 to be covered.
Washington Post: Abortion an obstacle to health-care bill
Letter from DeGette to Pelosi here.
It's a right-wing meme to buy into the idea that any one "pro-choice" is "anti-life". There is no "anti-life" or "pro-abortion" movements.
It's about choice and anti-choice...period.
Why do we always let the right-wing frame the arguements?
but the "choice" determines a life correct?
No, the 'choice' does not always determine a life. A woman could choose to go through a pregnancy and not give birth to a life.
And why does your comment read like the life of the woman is somehow subordinate to the fetus?
.............why reinforce their Propaganda?????? Why let them frame the issue?? They can try to use their propaganda word, but that will not stop the apple from falling to the ground. They are ANTI-CHOICE!!!!!! Only that and NOTHING more!
She says it pretty well - this is about men making decisions for women that they have no right to make. Abortion is a legal right for women in this country - as such - as a medical procedure - it should be allowed via any public health insurance program.
What legal right do men have that women are trying to take away from them? This is outrageous.
*
Now the wingnuts want capital punishment for any woman caught having an abortion, and for the abortionist. I told two of them that I'd like that bill accompanied by an amendment requiring life imprisonment for non-support, and both were appalled by the idea of actually supporting a live-born child.
No pretense of pro-life about them, now. It's all about men--their right to have children to support them in their old age, without having to support the child. Or maybe it's pedophiles wanting a surplus of babies, so they will be allowed to adopt.
Every health department in the country gives away birth control on request, and Plan B has been nearly de-regulated, so any woman actually requiring an abortion is probably too damned stupid to be allowed to breed. Stupidity, though, is not a capital crime, and should not be made one.
Less than 1/100th of a percent of people will ever have to deal with an abortion and 0% of the men will. Not enough people having abortions to fight for them.
can you provide a reference for that statistic?
/
err...except for soldiers. We can pay to kill them. Oh, and Iraqi and Afghani civilians. They can be killed too, we'll pick up the bill for that. Gimme a break. How much more of this crap do we have to hear? How much more garbage are they going to include into this bill? It is watered down so much now that I don't see the point in continuing the debate.
I think that'll be an acceptable bone to throw to the people.
/snark.
We could make the babies that aren't sure take out policies that will cover them in anticipation that they might become gay someday.
... to the injury of the underlying bill. It's also a lightning rod, but it is hardly the only bad thing about this bill.
A bad bill is worse than no bill.
Shut it down and start over.
did not give subsidies or assistance to women seeking contraception?
Sex education?
Does it pay for or assist men in getting vasectomies?
Does it teach young men about STDs?
Teach men about the expense and emotional problems of being a father?
Free medical care for pregnant women?
Financial assistance for childbirth?
Medical treatment for children born without a brain, or vital organs, or other dreadful problems? Does the bill create nursing homes for these children?
Does it help fund Head Start?
Child care centers?
Children's school lunches?
Child abuse detecting & prevention?
School funding?
... that prohibits my tax dollars being spent on illegal wars? on nuclear arms? on "faith based" initiatives? on warrantless wiretapping? on bank and insurance company bailouts? on torture?
... didn't think so.
keep reading and seeing this as "The Stupid Amendment"?
It must be a sign.
... of lysdexia?
FCUK you!
;)
;)
men (or their compadres across the aisle), telling me what to do if I fall pregnant.
But in light of the 30 GOP male senator vote against the Franken amendment, I can without any reservations whatsoever, channel Kayne West and say, old white Republican men don't care about women. So I expect they will do everything in their power to tell me and my peers what to do if we fall pregnant, even if we were raped, and even if carrying the fetus is dangerous to us and/or the fetus...
OBAMA: "I think that there are strong feelings on both sides. And what that tells me is that there needs to be some more work before we get to the point where we're not changing the status quo. And that's the goal."
Nice goal.....you worthless, gutless, foolish sellout.
I was watching the show this a.m. when Dr. Nancy suddenly displayed such an honest real moment of feeling. Ranks up there with Cronkite reporting the JFK assasination and the moon landing. You go, girl...and that is from a white retired male. I am sure my wife, daughters, and grandaughter could be more eloquent, but there it is.
are a bunch of dress-wearing, idiot, voodoo-inspired pedophiles that need to shut the phuck up. What do they know about having babies---or the "art" involved----anywho?
WARNING: The abortion amendment is really just a Stupak C-Street concoction!!!
WARNING: This is the most Stupak amendment ever!
http://www.atheistnexus.org/forum/topics/the-...
senate are not encourageing sound like the dems are going to cave again.
and Obama. I guess he didn't really want to serve two terms.
Abortion is one of the most common surgical procedures in the United States. America is pro-choice by action and belief. The Catholic Bishops Conference hates this and is attempting to manipulate health care reform to make it difficult for women to have abortions. They know what they are doing. This is not about public money and abortion. It is about further limiting access for women who currently have it.
The dems just threw women under the bus to appease an ethically bankrupt minority of males who believe themselves to be the moral agents of women. None of these politicians and moral scolds are worth women’s respect and should be treated in kind. Perhaps if they didn’t spend so much time admiring their halos they might be able to understand this.
Or just the graft and bribery laden U.S.?
Kelly O, there isn't a story she won't give a rightwing spin.
I'm an anti-abortion democrat who believes abortion should be legal but think it is regrettable when they are performed when the life of the mother is not in jeopardy.
Birth control is cheap and plentiful. Sometimes it fails but lots of things happen in life that we can't control and we have to deal with it.
As a man, I guess I have no right to even state these notions. But as a man who's wife is pregnant, I can't fathom how crushed I would be if we lost our baby. We've tried to get pregnant for a long time and considered adoption but it seemed to expensive -- then we got pregnant.
I don't understand all the implications of the implication of the Stupak Amendment but I think I understand how it could pass.
Okay, who's going to be the first to call me a troll or some other nasty name?
you both are pregnant? congrats on your upcoming fatherhood.
you are aware that you generalize from your personal family to all of the country and then to women's health care being circumscribed by abortion. if you read the current proposal, much is taken away that would be considered well woman care. your personal experience and or opinion is not enough to deprive women of health care and choices which they currently can receive (when insured) and to deprive others of having extended in what will be a shabby health insurance plan anyway.
btw: if you are secure in your anti-choice beliefs why does it sound like you want validation?
I never said I was secure in my anti-abortion beliefs. I am ambivalent but I don't need validation.
I admit that I may be ignorant about what this amendment does - I'm asking for clarity. I don't think that abortions are covered in most health insurance plans. How does this change what is currently the status quo?
It seems like this is just an excuse for unrealistically ideological left-leaning wingnuts to call for an end of health care reform.
--but still you assume a lot. you could research this yourself instead of fomenting a debate based on talk-show type nearly fact-free opining of what is easily researched.
Here, read this re insurance policies (and how states' politics try to intercede in women's health choices) http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/s......
--you really need to do your own work/research... regardless, you'll set an example for that little indie...and can go to the congressional site and look up the pending legislation yourself, if you really care to.
somehow, your posits seem trawlish in the light of your talk-show format quizzy-ness. and you appear to be hijacking the thread. we must take responsibility for our own actions so i'll not be responding to any future indie posts.
Your dream pregnancy turned out to be a nightmare, like if the baby has only arms/legs, no brain, mouth, ??????? In our toxic environment, we absorb many, cancer-causing, birth-defect causing, chemicals that were only intended to make$$$$$$$$$ NOT protect the population. Sure hope you aren't military, because they are the worst poluters on the planet, live near a military installation?, a nuclear power plant?, downstream from any of the above? What if you knew this dream pregnancy would deliver a monster AND kill your wife?????
... but "concern troll" really captures your essence a bit better. Don't you think?
Unless, of course, you're one of a new breed of trolls, you know, those that think outside of the box?
But, no.
It's just the same old, same old .... Oh well.
Thanks for just signing up. Can we call you "CT" for short? "indiethinker" seems so, um, inappropriate.
I don't have any "nasty" names for you. Why would you want one?
Oh, well; not my problem.
I'm sure you're qualified to evaluate any woman's health care decision. I mean hey, you've conceived a child. Like about a half a billion other people this month.
Don't tell anybody: but nobody wants to abort your baby. That isn't what this is about. It is, however, about keeping busybodies like yourself out of a woman's health care.
I've read so many posts on this topic -- just like yours -- that are so totally counterproductive.
I never suggested that anyone wanted to abort my baby. However, I did suggest that there are many people who want to adopt and that it is very difficult to do that.
You don't have any nasty names for me but I'm a "busy body" -- I said that abortion should be legal -- how am I a busy body. I simply said that it was regrettable when the life of the mother is not in jeopardy.
I think it will be very sad if extremists kill health care reform -- they are the busy bodies we should be concerned about.
Needed "busybody" (you can contract it to one word if you'd like to - spellcheck does) to latch onto so you could play victim.
"I want women to justify to my satisfaction why they should be able to receive this procedure.... and How Dare You Call Me a Busybody!"
Yawn. Same old concern troll, different hat.
It must feel great to have the power to nullify other people through name calling (at least in your own mind).
I asked (nicely) for clarity on this issue but you obviously aren't capable of providing that.
Who's the victim -- it seems like you are
And why, if you are not trolling for victimhood, are you crying over nothing but a definitional description of your "concerns"?
Try some facts, troll. What do you have? Difficult to adopt? Link please. All you'll get is how difficult it is to adopt a white baby.
How is it, BTW, that you just happen to have the perfect personal circumstances for your GlennBeckmakemewannacry argument? Curious.
But mostly, saying "I think abortion should be legal" then proceeding to make the same predictable anti-choice arguments is, um, what would you call it?
As I said: concern troll.
Now I know how a moderate republican probably feels in the age of the tea party.
I'm a life long democrat. I campaigned and contributed to Obama, Kerry, Gore, and Clinton.
You have yet to make any cogent arguement.
But, of course, yours is the kind of response I was expecting. I was simply stating my opinion -- isn't that what this forum is for?
Is it difficult to adopt? Not if you're rich... at a minimum it cost $15,000 to adopt. I might still try to adopt but that's a lot of money.
Stop complaining and respond to (or make) a point.
Understand, I'm very close to not being nice any more. It's kind of my "indie" nature.
...........instead of trying to control SOMEONE ELSE'S body, our beneovelent gov. wanted to take your sperm, and sterilize you????? Would that be invasive enough to get your attention???? What the phuck is anyone doing making 'decisions' much less laws on MY BODY!!!!¡?¡¡¡¡¡¡
Must I apply for a permit to breath, defacate, exist??? Maybe you misygonists should get a life, if all you can do is meddle in someone else's business. Sonny, you got way too much time on your hands!!! You rightwinger's are totally off the board, CRAZY!!!
I'm happy for you. In fact, I was a surprise conception myself; my parents tried for years but eventually gave up when nothing was happening and adoption was out of their financial league. I wish you and your wife all the best, and of course the two of you are well within your rights to make the best decisions for your child.
*However, you don't and shouldn't have the right to tell me or another woman you'll never know exists what we should do in the face of an unplanned pregnancy.*
I will tell you right now, that hypothetically speaking, if I were to march into my doctor's office right now and discover that was pregnant, I would abort. It's not because I wouldn't love or want my child. On the contrary. The reason I would is because I would not be able to support that child, and because I would have to go off of vitally needed medication for 9 months to carry the pregnancy to term. The choice there is to abort, to risk my child's health by continuing my medication regimen during the pregnancy, or risk my health by discontinuing the medication. If the health issues weren't there, I could consider adoption. But I am a multiracial woman of color. Chances are that my baby would be more likely to suffer through the foster care system than to be adopted. Well-off families are more likely to adopt children of color from other countries than they are to give an American child of color a home and family.
**You have no more right to force me to bring my child into a world where they could be born with serious birth defects, or a mess of a mother who couldn't care for them, or to suffer in foster care. You have no more right to tell me to do that than I do to tell your wife what to do with her pregnancy**
Not to mention, the very repugs you're supporting here do not rest in their quest to make it impossible for women to even get birth control, which you seem to think will fix everything...
As I said in my initial post -- I think abortion should be legal, I simply said it is regrettable when the life of the mother is not in jeapardy.
Furthermore, if you don't want to have a child -- great, use birth control -- it is very effective and we're all very fortunate to live in this era when it is so readily available.
Just because I'm anti-abortion doesn't mean I support republicans.
Even birth control that is 99% effective results in 10,000 pregnancies per one million copulations.
How many copulations do you think we have every night?
Now there's an interesting question.
My guess is that there are 350 million copulations every night.
How many of these copulations involve any form of birth control? How many occur when the woman is ovulating? What is the rate of unwanted pregnacy when a condom and a second form of birth control is used? These are all factors that would have to be considered to get an accurate number of unwanted pregnancies.
I guess I always believed that pregnacy was always an outcome that was possible with having sex and that adults should deal with that responsibly.
... be a legal option.
But now you want to argue that there should be these, uh, tests. For esample: Did you use TWO forms of birth control? (Two forms now? WTF, troll?)
If not, then what? What's your next hoop to jump through? You know, you being a male and all, it's really important that everyone respects what you think about his pregnancy involving people you've never met.
No, I never said there should be tests. I said abortion should be legal but that it is regrettable when the life of the mother is not in jeapardy.
I get what you're saying -- since I'm male I should have NO opinion about pregnacy. Let's imagine a world like that.... Hmmm... doesn't seem like the kind of place I want to live.
If you were female, your opinions on health care involving people you've never met (let alone your amazingly arrogant VETO of their decisions) would be just as irrelevant.
What part of "mind your own business" don't you get?
Who ever said there was no such thing as a left-wing authoritarian? You are a perfect example. You would deny everyone an opinion on an issue as difficult as abortion.
From the start I said abortion should be legal -- I don't want to deny any woman the right to control her own body. In my mind, that is minding my own business. I question whether public money should subsidize abortion -- that too is minding my own business.
... you said abortion should be legal, and then you immediately proceeded to your "concerns."
That is the essence of concern trolling. All of your arguments are based squarely in anti-choice rhetoric, yet because you've stated that you are "pro-choice" you expect credibility and, moreover, ignorance of your obvious hypocrisy?
Um, no.
The very first thing I said was that I was "anti-abortion". I also said that women should have the right to choose but it is regretable when they choose abortion when life is not at risk.
My opinion is nuanced, not hypocritical. Ambivalence is actually a very realistic perspective -- moreso than the "black or white" thinking you espouse.
... except when indiethinker believes it may be regrettable.
That's not nuance; that's arrogance. And it's very black and white: your terms matter; not hers.
I know a number of women who have confided in me about their regrets about having an abortion. Regret is a very common experience with abortion.
That's not arrogance, that's reality.
I try not to judge people (unlike you) but I do believe that some choices are better and others are worse.
Captain Irony!
... it is your place to judge these choices. Yet, at the same time you believe you deserve some sort of credit for saying it's the woman's choice - then immediately arguing the opposite.
Have a nice night.
bah humbug
I required my husband to have a vasectomy before I would marry him.
And then, I used birth control anyway, to make sure.
Any questions?
for stiffie pills, but not Birth Control. We live in a country where 'abstinence' education (which has been proven to be ineffective) is funded by the govt, but sex education (proven to be very effective) is taboo. We live in a country where pharmacists can refuse to provide Plan B for women who got caught out, whose partner's rubber broke, or worse, because it 'goes against their own personal beliefs. That's like someone who works in a liquor store who refuses to sell booze, because the thought of people drinking is offensive to them...
If a man has sex in this country, "Thumbs up! Ya scored, stud! Phoarrrrr!" If a woman does, it's "Suffer the consequences, slut."
You're absolutely correct is saying it is ridiculus to pay for Viagra and not birth control pills.
Abstinence education is a joke -- I'm glad a grew up in a time and place where they were wise enough to pass out condoms liberally.
Both men and women should be responsible for unwanted pregnancies. We live in an age of DNA test and jail time for dead-beat dads though.
I am speaking about an individual's right to make a personal decision about medical care, privately, with that individual's doctor. To be responsible in their own way, and not a way prescribed by a load of holier-than-thou nosy parkers.
You said:
If a man has sex in this country, "Thumbs up! Ya scored, stud! Phoarrrrr!" If a woman does, it's "Suffer the consequences, slut
I said:
Both men and women should be responsible for unwanted pregnancies
That doesn't mean I think abortion should be illegal. I think it is regrettable when the life of the mother isn't threatened but people live with regret for all kinds of things. If the woman chooses abortion, that is her choice, but she and her lover should pay for the cost of that abortion, not the tax payer.
private health insurance plans that would cover abortion if that woman is receiving a supplement to help pay for that private insurance. And it would still apply even if the woman is paying most of her premiums anyway.
If a person's opinion is that they're against abortion, then they shouldn't have one. Simple as that. But they have no right to dictate to people who will they never know or know their circumstances what they should do in their individual situations.
you seem to be intent on turning into something else.
The reality is women are punished for having sex in this country, men are rewarded. I know how it SHOULD be; I don't appreciate your condescension. I think it must spring from you not getting it.
how can I be condescending?
Doubtful. But, hey, let's pretend you really care about your tax dollars.
First off, it's nice to meet you, Mr. Gates, because otherwise you probably don't pay nearly enough in taxes to account for squat. Oh, you're not Mr. Gates? Then tell me why your beef about taxes going for abortion is better than my beef about taxes going for torture?
Also, please tell me how less of your tax dollars are spent with a full term delivery (and life afterward) as opposed to an abortion.
You think that Bill Gates pays enough in taxes -- not me.
I also don't think tax money should fund torture.
I do think that a child brought to full term can live a productive life that makes a difference. He or she might write a novel, discover the cure for cancer, teach a child, compose a masterful symphony, or many other wonderful things.
I am happy to spend my money on developing children (and I actually contribute a good portion of my own money toward education -- outside of my taxes).
Masterful symphony? Which pro-life talking points are you working from?
But you believe it's the woman's choice, right? Even over Beetoven?
I call BS. I'm done with you. [after I briefly address your bs above.]
feh
under threat. The Stupak Amendment lets Repugs get their foot in the door by limiting access to abortion, but they'd really like to chip away at our access to birth control too, which is already one way insurance companies discriminate against women.
Saying "use birth control" is not helpful in any way.
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/healthwellness/143810/house_will_take_up-or-down_vote_on_stupak_amendment,_threatening_women's_rights/
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=91538
I will read these.
I do want to be informed and I believe that women should have the final say about their own health and their bodies.
Pro-choice people should consider the experience of people who struggle to have children though. My opinions about abortion has changed because of this experience.
The first article is very detailed and does point out how Stupek goes too far. Frankly, I am anti-abortion but I don't think women should lose any rights that they currently have. The first article points out that 90% of private health insurance has abortion coverage. Although this statistic isn't very specific, it does seem like the Stupek amendment is tring to change the landscape of insurance for women's health.
From the very beginning, I admitted I was somewhat ignorant on this issue and asked for some clarity.
Thanks Annaleigh.
I'm happy that you're going to have a child. Otherwise, you're just a stupid penis voicing your ego. You have no right to foist your medieval point of view on others. A person who finds themselves pregnant through accident is going to handle the situation as they see fit. It is a controllable situation when a person finds themselves pregnant and ready to abort.
IT'S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.
Not a troll, but your experience is coloring your view. You want a child, you waited a long time before conceiving, for you pregnancy is a good thing.
But it is not for everyone - and birth control is not perfect - and sometimes passion overcomes good sense. And sometimes it's just the wrong time to carry a pregnancy to term for a million different personal reasons.
The point is choice - a woman's choice of what she wants to do with her body - each individual woman makes that choice in light of her values, beliefs and circumstances. It is not the job of government to tell her how and what to do with her body. And remember, abortion is a legal medical procedure - the anti-abortion crowd has not been able to change that for 37 years; this is a sneaky backdoor attempt to do what they can't get done otherwise.
so, let's talk hypocrisy--and I'm not taking sides.
she wants the right to choose--that pregnancy is totally the woman's issue. Okay. Pregnancy is THE main factor in higher rates for women. Okay, so now you want everyone to share in the cost. which one is it? or do men just suck, period?
how does this post attract so many male bashers?
you are getting owned once again by the Corporations and the Rethugs. They are baiting the wingnuts on both sides by throwing in this issue, and then the bigger picture loses. Not everything is about friggin abortion. It still is a right in this country. Go to theray and work out your daddy issues there.
Tweety's been crapping himself day in and day out for weeks, thrilling his legs just thinking about how abortion politics could totally upset the healthcare apple cart.
Only one freakin' Republican voted for the Bill. With the odious amendment.
One hates to imagine what the amendments would contain that might have gotten, oh, five or six Republican votes?
While it may be men in power who are the ones making this decision, they are still doing so with the support and blessing of many women, as well. Let's not forget that there are anti-choice extremists who are women. I know lots of them, most are my own relatives. So it's not just "Oh, the bad men are making this decision for us, how DARE they?" No. These bad men have more than likely been contacted and supported by these bad women who are just as anti-choice.
Dr. Nancy is just trying too hard to be offended in the most strictly black and white fashion imaginable and it's quite tiresome.
.
I'm not too happy with Dr. Nancy after she was all thrilled about the government recommending that all baby boys get circumcised. She was really pushing her views instead of reporting the news. She was proud to tell the world that her son is circumcised.
It's sad that the congressmen and women from the poorest states are voting against the health care bill. They don't care about their people. They can rot for all they care.
I bet most of those Tea-baggers could use some health care coverage. Their protesting against their better interest. How sad!!
It seems to me that as long as women face the possibility of having to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term, they have only one choice: no sex for any man who supports the Stupak amendment.
Call it the "Lysistrata treatment," after Aristophanes' play. The message would be simple: "if I can't have an abortion, you can't have me. Buy a sheep, call Larry Craig, ask Rosy Palm, do whatever you want ... but no more p*ssy for you."
That should get this matter straightened out fast. And in the meantime, the suffering salons can pass legislation to start taxing the churches. The proceeds from that alone would more than pay for a health care bill with a public option.
No, hit these jerks where it hurts. No more insurance coverage for Viagra. Think of all the unwanted children conceived by old men on Viagra. Those supporting the Stupid amendment wouldn't dare not vote for eliminating V. Think of how this would play out in the Senate where V is probably the drug of choice.
... the Catholic Church is the organization of people who don't have sex making all the rules for the people who do have sex. How fucked up can you get.
The catholic church operatates on two platforms:
1. Create a system of laws that carry "sins" with the consequence of spending eternity in "hell".
2. Create a system of rituals like Sunday mass, baptism, holy communion... etc. to get the flock to actively participate in an accepted form of worshiping an inegmatic being that has never been seen or validated.
Religion organizations are the largest brain washing institutions on the planet... the military a far second.
The money and edifices we create to worship a pie in the ski "higher being" is just testimony to mankind's fear of death and our vast irrational stupidity.
about controlling others and about MONEY!
Kelly O'Donnell needs to go back and study 6th grade English. She said "Democrat side" which makes no sense in English. I assume she meant "Democratic side".
because i'm just a simple soul , but men should not have a G/D thing to say about what a woman does with her unborn .
My little sister is the charge nurse at a childrens hospital ( she been there for 25 yrs ) let one of these macho m/f do her job for one day , let them deal with aids , crack , herion , and deformed prematures and then tell us how tough they are .
Dr Nancy is 100% correct. How can you let a low life cretin like Stupak tell a women what they can do with their body. Its about fucking time Obama cracks some skulls in his own party (yeah right). The democrats bent when they didn’t have to because Stupak could not bring the promised votes to help pass healthcare while still getting no republican votes. Do you think the republicans are scared about explaining their votes in their conservative districts? Of course not, only the democrats are scared like always
If she's "100% correct", what was the point in bringing race into the discussion? Why is the fact that Stupak is white in any way a pertinent issue here?
Personally, it seems as if Nancy is just racist as well as sexist.
When the fuck will this hideous restriction on funding for reproductive services be repealed? I know, I'm in lala land right now, what with all this Stupak shit and all going on now, and the fact the Obama/Rahm administration has yet to keep its changey-hopey campaign promises. The Hyde Amendment needs to go next. Access to reproductive services is already severely restricted for women dependent on federally funded health care, such as the Indian Health Services. Also, there are many providers with IHS who are conservative christian and do NOT believe in offering or discussing birth control options for their patients. Native American women can only get these services if they happen to also have state medicaid and can get services that way. But they usually can't unless they live near a city in a blue state - many NAs who use IHS live in remote areas in red states with already restricted abortion access, and the IHS facility is the only place they can go for health care. And, not to mention all the millions of other poor women in the US who can't afford to pay Planned Parenthood for abortion services.
fucktards controlling women's access to reproductive health care to spend time with me in clinic and in hospital with women who must have a termination, or whose fetus dies in utero, or is discovered to have anomalies incompatable with life, and to go through the process with them, and tell them their anti abortion, "pro-life" arguments. I can just spit nails and blood at the injustice of it all. When will women's lives and bodies cease to be non essential, non human, incapable of exercise of free will and personal autonomy? Not just in the US but globally. Screw patriarchy.
and their bodies have always been a political and economic battleground.
I marched in Washington, DC in January of 1973 to help usher in the women's reproductive rights (Roe v. Wade) that white men and religionists have been attacking ever since.
I'm now 60 years old and cannot believe we're having the same battles again.
I'm sad to say it, but the United States is a rather backward country and it's getting more hillbilly everyday.
Login or Register to post comments.