dangerblond.org

Comments»

1. liprap - November 9, 2009

Well, there ya go.

2. Cousin Pat from Georgia - November 9, 2009

Still. Not. A. Change.

Women who cannot currently afford their own private plan do not currently get federal subsidies for elective pregnancy termination. Women who cannot afford their own private plan will not be able to acquire federal subsidies for elective pregnancy termination under the proposed changes.

Federal subsidy of elective pregnancy termination was never a part of the reform bill in the first place. It is not a part of the system now, it is not a part of the proposed changes. It does not have the legislative support to become policy.

But it does have the power to divide anyone thinking of health care reform into two (or more camps) along a line that cannot be reconciled. Some author on Slate called this weeks ago (I’ll look for the link).

I’d reckon this now makes health care reform DOA for this Congress, and Dems are going to lose seats in 2010.

Stupak could be the progressive Gettysburg or Waterloo. Just watch.

3. dangerblond - November 9, 2009

I’m not willing to forgo health care for 36 million uninsured Americans over this, but it is a serious issue. It codifies discrimination against women, and it puts legislators in between women and their doctors when it comes to a difficult decision like whether or not to terminate a pregnancy. But I guess we’re all used to that, so we shouldn’t complain, right?

You say there is no change, but everything will change. We will have a new government health care program which will cover everything for 96% of Americans - except for one thing: a procedure which is only undertaken by women.

And it’s only pregnancy where they do things like this. Where else does the government stick its nose into health care decisions? It will discourage health care plans which participate in the government program from providing coverage for what you term elective abortions.

What do you mean by that, anyway? If a woman learns that her child has a serious congenital defect and decides to terminate, don’t you realize that’s elective? You could always give birth to the baby (which is more dangerous for the woman than an abortion) and watch it die a few days later.

Also, I don’t know if you realize how much money we are talking about. An early term abortion for a healthy woman is only a few hundred dollars, but with any of the complications that cause women to choose abortion for tragic reasons, it can run into the thousands. Why should women be the only people in this country who have to go into debt because of health care?

Like I said, I am not willing to go against the President because of this, but that doesn’t mean it’s not an uncalled-for intrusion into the reproductive health of women. I’ve been around long enough to know that what’s done can be undone later, I just hope it doesn’t take a tragedy.

4. Cousin Pat from Georgia - November 9, 2009

Unfortunately, almost every vested interest is willing to forgo health care to 36 million women (who currently have zero federal subsidies for -any- medical proceedures, including elective pregnancy terminations). Now that all the interests (and I’m including the pro-choice organizations) have a stake in stopping this bill, it will fail. It didn’t really have that much of a chance anyway.

And the bill takes over healthcare for 96% of Americans? Not the bill I read. The bill I read extends health care to 96% of Americans, with a majority still using private insurance with no government dollars involved.

No federal dollar was ever going to cover an elective pregnancy termination. It does not have the votes. I doubt it ever will.

And I didn’t call them “elective abortions,” I called them “elective pregnancy terminations” because I try not to use the frame of the anti-choice movement when I discuss medical proceedures. I try to use the cold, calculating language of someone removing emotion out of an emotional issue. (All medical proceedures taken while the patient is concious are “elective” by nature.)

More over in my hood. With links. (IE: I realize exactly how much money we’re talking about. That figure you’re thinking about should be around $57 million per year. But you gotta go read my links to see where I get that number.)

5. Adrastos - November 11, 2009

It’s definitely a change from current law. It broadens the funding ban beyond the old Hyde Amendment. That’s what I thought it was at first blush. It’s a setback.

6. Cousin Pat from Georgia - November 12, 2009

Broadens the funding ban from what? Does the government currently subsidize any pregnancy terminations not related to medical health of the mother, rape or incest? If it does, then how and under whose health plan?