Much better:

Oppose Stupak.Don’t think we should change current law which is no public $ for abortions,but amndmt goes too far limitng private funds too

( – promoted by Clark)

Here are the FDL Action health care reform highlights for Monday, November 9.

1. Jon Walker summarizes the passage of health care reform (HR 3962) as “a truly historic moment…[that] will help millions of Americans,” but also “at best bittersweet” from a progressive perspective. In the end, this bill “will at least provide progressives the tools they can use build with.” It certainly “will not be the end of health care reform.” In other words, we all could be working on this issue for a looong time to come.

2. Jon Walker asks “the 37 House Democrats who voted against health care reform because it is too liberal, why are you even Democrats?”  Walker adds, “I’m not big on party purity tests, but there are some things that are so essential that they are at the heart of what it should mean to be a Democrat.” Things like providing high-quality, affordable health care to all Americans.

3. Jane Hamsher writes about her appearance this morning on “Democracy Now” with Dennis Kucinich talking about the House of Representatives’ Saturday night health care vote. Among other things, Hamsher points out that “[w]ith the exception of Kucinich and Massa, all of the House progressives abandoned their July 30 pledge to vote against any bill that didn’t have a public option with rates tied to Medicare.” Apparently, a pledge ain’t what it used to be on Capitol Hill.

4. Jon Walker argues that there are two reasons to use “reconciliation” to pass health care reform: 1) to “save the public option;” and 2) to “kill the Stupak amendment.” In the final analysis, Walker concludes, “if a bill is passed under regular order that does not contain a real public option but contains the Stupak amendment, it is because Harry Reid refused to use reconciliation.”  I’ve posed this question many times before, but I still don’t understand how Republicans were able to force through their agenda from 2001 to  2006 with a bare majority in Congress, yet it’s so hard for Democrats with large majorities in both chambers. Any theories?

5. Jon Walker writes that in “three hours on Saturday,” he managed to do what “women’s organizations failed [to do] in legislative and media battle on the issue” of women’s reproductive rights; namely, “coming up with a…strategic counter-proposal or attack to undercut Stupak.”  Maybe it’s time for pro-choice organizations to hire Jon Walker? Ha.

6. Michael Whitney says that now is the time “to refocus our efforts to secure a public option in the final bill that’s signed by President Obama.” In addition, we need to be “nailing down enough Members of Congress to stop triggers or state-opt outs from appearing in the conference report bill.” Something tells me this is going to be an intense next few weeks.

7. Yours truly blogs about Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA) comparing health care reform to the 9/11 attacks. Sadly, this type of insane rhetoric is becoming typical of Republicans these days.

8. Jane Hamsher asks whether Planned Parenthood and NARAL will “score” the Stupak amendment, which “[s]ome are calling…the worst assault on a woman’s right to choose since the passage of Roe v. Wade.” If it’s that bad, pro-choice groups should “score” it, right?  Seems pretty obvious.

9. Jon Walker writes sarcastically, “Surprise! Ben Nelson Demands The Stupak Amendment!”  Yes, what a huge surprise that was. Not.

Crossposted with permission from debcoop at Open Left. The original post can be found here.

Senator McCaskill is sadly wrong on what the Stupak-Pitts amendment prohibits.  Even if she were right, it would still be a wound to the rights of women in this country. Even if the original Stupak amendment passed which only included the public option,  not the entire exchanges,  that would still have been the biggest blow for women since the original Hyde amendment.  Which has always been a vindictive piece of legislation aimed at the most vulnerable among us.  

The Hyde amendment is now a festering sore that has suppurated which will deprive American women of all kinds from the poor to middle and even upper class women, access to an essential reproductive rights.  

But the Senator’s understanding is a misunderstanding of great proportions.  She is wrong.  The prohibition is not on individuals in the exchanges who buy plans but on the plans which GET subsidies.

Senator McCaskill said via the Huffington Post

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…

“But we are talking about whether or not people that get public money can buy an insurance policy that has a coverage for abortion. And that is not the majority of America. The majority of America is not going to be getting subsidies from the government….”

The majority of America now gets coverage from their employers who will be allowed to purchase on the exchanges.  

But she is very, very wrong on the mechanism for prohibiting abortion coverage.. She has it backwards.  Her misunderstanding is convenient perhaps because it allows her to proceed under the assumption that few people will be affected. Maybe that makes it better in her mind.

She is wrong.  Millions of women –now without insurance and even those now with it in the private market will be affected.  In a few years all women will be affected as employers are allowed to enter the exchanges.  No abortion coverage for anyone at all.

See David Dayen at Firedoglake:

http://news.firedoglake.com/20…

The federal subsidies affect the plan, not just the individuals in the plan.  It is not just the individual who has subsides that can’t get abortion coverage.  It is that any subsidy from anyone taints the entire plan. So any plan that gets subsidies from anyone at all can not offer abortion coverage.

Any woman who now is getting some form of individual coverage – I am unsure of how the Cobra coverage would be classified – will not be able to get a plan that has abortion coverage. Anyone who is self employed – from attorneys, to real estate agents to consultants to a vast number of people who now HAVE coverage will have to go to the exchanges and lose the abortion coverage they have now.  It is not just the 47 million uninsured but the additional millions of people who have private coverage now.

Can you buy a plan separately without abortion coverage? The anti choice people say that. Not so.  It is a chimera. You won’t be able to in the real world.  Why? Simple.

1. It is ridiculous to say that women plan ahead for unplanned pregnancies

2. In the exchange,  a plan supposedly may offer abortion coverage, but since they now have to take anyone who wants to buy it –irony of ironies — they can NOT turn people down who have subsidies so they won’t be able to offer abortion coverage.  It won’t take them more than a minute to realize this so they won’t offer them in the exchanges.

3. There will exist only 2 marketplaces – employer based plans or union plans are one and the exchanges are the other.  So they would have to create a plan outside of the exchanges and outside of employer based markets.  How and in what market can insurers sell plans that cover abortion?  There will no no such marketplace. Insurers don’t put plans together that have no market —that’s capitalism.  

Only employer based plans that have no federal subsides can offer abortion coverage now.

The “Compassion” Exceptions are a Farce

As to the “compassion” of allowing coverage for “rape, incest, life of the mother”,  note that HEALTH is not included.  So a large number of abortions for terrible late term conditions —abortions that are horribly expensive, 10’s of thousands of dollars –will NOT be covered.  Abortion where the mother’s future fertility is at stake.  abortions for horrible fetal anomalies like anencephaly or hydrocephaly will not be covered for fetuses who will die moments from birth. In addition the life of the mother has been defined,  not a potential future death,  but an immediate death which will happen within hours or minutes as now defined by the Supreme Court.

D&C’s for Incomplete Miscarriages are ABORTIONS.

Often when a miscarriage occurs, it is incomplete. The fetus and placenta are not fully expelled.  A D&C would then need to be performed by a doctor.  Medically that is classified as an abortion.  If these fetal remains are not removed by this “abortion”,  then the women will develop an infection, which can either cause death, illness or destroy her future abilty to carry a child to term.  This coverage will now also be prohibited by Stupak-Pitts.

On a personal note my first 2 pregnancies were miscarriages with incomplete expulsion of fetal remains.  They required hospital stays and my insurance covered it.  My last pregancy did not go to term because the fetus had died in utero.  It was unplanned for despite using birth control, in the real world that happens, but nevertheless I was very happy about it. A sonogram showed ther was no heartbeat, but I was not miscarrying at all. I would need a D&C abortion.  I had a low grade fever for a week which was the toxemia caused by the fetal remains.  If I had not had the D&C, which again, medically is an abortion – I could have become ill or died.  In the last hour 2 other women have told me they too have had just such heartbreaking and potentially dangerous events.  Most women have been shamed into not sharing them with the world. That’s one reason we can do this so blithely…We think it’s other people’s lives and sorrows, not our lives  or sorrows or anyone we know and love.

 

cheap London hotel

ebags coupons

overnight prints coupons

quicken coupons

medifast coupons

topographical postcards

old canada postcards

old european postcards

old US postcards

old oceania postcards