You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Reply #244: NOW is wrong [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
demwing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-11-09 12:40 AM
Response to Original message
244. NOW is wrong
Edited on Wed Nov-11-09 01:26 AM by demwing
Let's break this down in lay terms

"...OPTION TO OFFER SEPARATE SUPPLEMENTAL COVERAGE OR PLAN - Not withstanding section 303(b) nothing in this section shall restrict any nonfederal QHBP offering entity from offering separate supplemental coverage for abortions for which funding is prohibited under this section, or a plan that includes such abortions, so long as -- ...(3) any nonfederal QHBP offering entity that offers an Exchange-participating health benefits plan that includes coverage for abortions for which funding is prohibited under this section also offers an Exchange-participating health benefits plan that is identical in every respect except that it does not cover abortions for which funding is prohibited under this section."

1. nothing in this section shall restrict = THERE ARE NO RESTRICTIONS ON



4. from offering separate supplemental coverage = FROM OFFERING A RIDER THAT COVERS

5. for abortions for which funding is prohibited under this section = "ELECTIVE" ABORTIONS

6. or a plan that includes such abortions = OR A PLAN THAT COVERS "ELECTIVE" ABORTIONS

7. so long as = AS LONG AS

8. any nonfederal QHBP offering entity = SAID ORGANIZATION

9. that offers an Exchange-participating health benefits plan = OFFERING A PLAN ON THE EXHCHANGE

10. that includes coverage for abortions for which funding is prohibited under this section = THAT INCLUDES "ELECTIVE" ABORTIONS

11. also offers an Exchange-participating health benefits plan = ALSO OFFERS A PLAN IN THE EXCHANGE

12. that is identical in every respect = IDENTICAL TO THE FORMER PLAN

13. except that it does not cover abortions for which funding is prohibited under this section. = EXCEPT THAT IT DOES NOT COVER "ELECTIVE" ABORTIONS.

Now read the layman's version =

"There are no restrictions on any organization (other than the federal govt.) that offers a qualified health plan (as per title 1 of the bill) from offering a rider that covers "elective" abortions, or a plan that covers "elective" abortions, as long as said organization offering a plan on the exchange that includes "elective" abortions, also offers a plan in the exchange identical to the former plan, except that it does not cover "elective" abortions."

Can it get any more clear? How can this POSSIBLY be twisted to mean that you cannot offer a plan in the exchange that offers "elective" abortions? Read the line: "that offers an Exchange-participating health benefits plan that includes coverage for abortions for which funding is prohibited under this section"

AGAIN: "an Exchange-participating health benefits plan that includes coverage for abortions for which funding is prohibited under this section"

How can their be such a plan if such plans are banned by this amendment? There cannot! The amendment does not ban these plans from the exchange, and (barring any evidence to the contrary not presented here) anyone who says differently is incorrect.

I don't care how famous they are, or what TV show they star in, or what internet videos they produce, or what organization they represent. Call me any name you like, it doesn't change the reality of the words as they appear in the amendment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
  -NOW (National Organization for Women) releases statement on the House Health bill MarlaM  Nov-08-09 07:38 PM   #0 
  - K&R  PeaceNikki   Nov-08-09 07:40 PM   #1 
  - A few votes? How about 64 Dems? That's not a 'few.'  flpoljunkie   Nov-09-09 07:25 AM   #115 
     - 64 sounds like a big number, until we realize that 192 Dems. voted against it  MarlaM   Nov-09-09 08:39 AM   #125 
        - 64 is a big number, any way you slice it.  flpoljunkie   Nov-09-09 03:18 PM   #216 
  - K and R -- welcome to DU  grantcart   Nov-08-09 07:42 PM   #2 
  - These corporate Dino sell-outs should be having tea with our arch-nemesis Kucinich  Oregone   Nov-08-09 07:42 PM   #3 
  - our arch-nemesis Kucinich? K was my second choice for POTUS WAY ahead of Obama  Vincardog   Nov-08-09 07:44 PM   #4 
  - Figures. Shouldn't you be out protesting the Afghan war and undermining the Democratic admin?  Oregone   Nov-08-09 07:49 PM   # 
     - WTF are you going on about. Do you hate all liberals?  Vincardog   Nov-08-09 07:53 PM   #9 
        - Easy there  Oregone   Nov-08-09 07:56 PM   #13 
           - I hoped that was your intent  dflprincess   Nov-08-09 08:34 PM   #47 
           - I like sweater vests  crikkett   Nov-09-09 01:04 PM   #208 
  - Even Kucinich's awful hypothetical VP choice, Ron Paul, isn't my arch-nemesis  skipos   Nov-08-09 07:54 PM   #11 
     - DK would never, ever have picked Ron Paul for VP  Bluenorthwest   Nov-09-09 08:58 AM   #127 
        - Actually, I spoke to Dennis directly about this... and he DID say it.  PeaceNikki   Nov-09-09 09:19 AM   #135 
        - Can you tell me what you think of the audio here:  skipos   Nov-09-09 10:14 AM   #153 
  - Good I am glad they are speaking out on this.  Kdillard   Nov-08-09 07:49 PM   #5 
  - The Catholic bishops were in the room with Pelosi et al, not NOW. It is too  joeycola   Nov-09-09 09:04 AM   #128 
  - The bill pays for abortions where the mother's health is at risk or that were caused by rape/incest  ClarkUSA   Nov-08-09 07:50 PM   #6 
  - Wow. I feel like I just fell into Freeperville! nt  Diamonique   Nov-08-09 07:53 PM   #8 
  - Why? I am a liberal Obama supporter and have no problem with a woman's right to choose.  ClarkUSA   Nov-08-09 07:58 PM   #16 
  - Or contraception!  Hello_Kitty   Nov-08-09 08:00 PM   #19 
  - Why should taxpayers have to pay for contraception? nt  ClarkUSA   Nov-08-09 08:01 PM   #22 
  - Um, maybe because it's an important part of women's health care?  Hello_Kitty   Nov-08-09 08:05 PM   #26 
  - Do you believe that condoms are an important part of men's health care?  ClarkUSA   Nov-08-09 08:09 PM   #31 
  - Absolutely. They prevent STDs in men. I have no problem with them being covered. eom  Hello_Kitty   Nov-08-09 08:14 PM   #33 
  - Then shouldn't HCR cover alcohol hand rub since they prevent colds and flu?  ClarkUSA   Nov-08-09 08:18 PM   #35 
     - If those things prevented the spread of disease then yes.  Hello_Kitty   Nov-08-09 08:27 PM   #41 
     - You think HCR should cover cold weather clothing and alcohol hand rub? Oy vay. nt  ClarkUSA   Nov-08-09 08:33 PM   #46 
        - And you think it shouldn't cover birth control. Oy Gevalt. eom  Hello_Kitty   Nov-08-09 08:36 PM   #51 
           - No, I don't. But you still want HCR to pay for alcohol hand rub and everyone's winter clothing.  ClarkUSA   Nov-08-09 08:41 PM   #55 
              - If there's a sound medical reason for it, then yes.  Hello_Kitty   Nov-08-09 08:46 PM   #60 
                 - Good luck with including the Winter Clothing and Alcohol Hand Rub Amendment in conference, then. nt  ClarkUSA   Nov-08-09 08:53 PM   #63 
                    - Good luck persuading your fellow progressives that not covering contraception is a good idea  Hello_Kitty   Nov-08-09 08:59 PM   #66 
                       - I'm not interested in persuading anyone. People are entitled to their opinions.  ClarkUSA   Nov-08-09 09:15 PM   #71 
                          - No, a bill will pass.  Hello_Kitty   Nov-08-09 09:21 PM   #74 
                             - I don't know if it will but I'm sure if you had your way, HCR wouldn't stand a chance. nt  ClarkUSA   Nov-08-09 09:31 PM   #76 
                             - You don't know that at all.  Hello_Kitty   Nov-08-09 09:43 PM   #81 
                             - Uh huh. Sure. nt  ClarkUSA   Nov-08-09 09:52 PM   #83 
                             - If the PO will cover my condoms, I am thrilled  Garam_Masala   Nov-09-09 09:27 PM   #231 
                             - I don't think it will but it would be great if it did, huh?  Hello_Kitty   Nov-10-09 12:21 AM   #234 
     - OOooo, I've got one!!  PeaceNikki   Nov-08-09 08:31 PM   #45 
        - You're good at apples and oranges, aren't you? nt  ClarkUSA   Nov-08-09 08:34 PM   #49 
           - Serious question. What is the primary reason you object so vehemently to Contraception and/or  PeaceNikki   Nov-08-09 08:41 PM   #54 
           - It'll lead to health insurance being used to buy alcohol wipes and winter clothes for naked people.  Hello_Kitty   Nov-08-09 08:50 PM   #62 
           - Yeah, you're serious about making strawman arguments and casting aspersions.  ClarkUSA   Nov-08-09 08:56 PM   #64 
              - Why won't you answer that question?  PeaceNikki   Nov-08-09 08:59 PM   #65 
              - I am not "vehemently" opposed "to contraception and/or abortion being included in HCR".  ClarkUSA   Nov-08-09 09:08 PM   #68 
                 - OK, now... one more time.  PeaceNikki   Nov-09-09 09:42 AM   #142 
                    - its probably moral (ill take your bait)  mkultra   Nov-09-09 10:52 AM   #171 
                       - Perhaps.  PeaceNikki   Nov-09-09 11:01 AM   #174 
                       - as far as contraception  mkultra   Nov-09-09 11:16 AM   #177 
                       - A fetus may be human (I think we can all agree it's not bovine or canine),  kestrel91316   Nov-09-09 12:00 PM   #189 
                          - Natural born refers only to the President in the Constitution  karynnj   Nov-09-09 12:17 PM   #198 
                          - There is another reference in the 14th Amendment. Here:  CTyankee   Nov-11-09 11:00 AM   #250 
                          - i think your confusing "person" with "citizen"  mkultra   Nov-11-09 01:26 PM   #255 
                          - I get your point but I can see a problem with "born."  CTyankee   Nov-11-09 07:50 PM   #257 
                          - well, what im saying about persons in reference to the constitution  mkultra   Nov-11-09 08:04 PM   #258 
                          - sorry, that argument lacks merit  mkultra   Nov-09-09 12:28 PM   #204 
                          - Its considerably better than the idea that a blastula deserves constitutional protection.  D23MIURG23   Nov-09-09 04:02 PM   #218 
                          - You would be hard pressed to actually make that  mkultra   Nov-09-09 10:33 PM   #232 
                          - Your argument puts potential and actualization on equal footing.  D23MIURG23   Nov-10-09 02:13 PM   #237 
                          - i am saying that  mkultra   Nov-10-09 04:48 PM   #238 
                          - By definition the egg was life before it was fertilized.  D23MIURG23   Nov-10-09 07:50 PM   #239 
                          - the egg is life but not unique life  mkultra   Nov-10-09 10:13 PM   #240 
                          - Your uniqueness argument wouldn't extend to identical twins.  D23MIURG23   Nov-10-09 11:50 PM   #243 
                          - twins do not have the same DNA  mkultra   Nov-11-09 08:09 AM   #247 
                          - Re: the birth issue.  D23MIURG23   Nov-11-09 09:29 PM   #259 
                          - I think your definitions are FAR too subjective. Listen...  msallied   Nov-11-09 11:42 AM   #251 
                          - wow, I was trying to avoid that level of boldness  mkultra   Nov-11-09 01:22 PM   #254 
                          - Respectfully, your testimonial is completely subjective.  D23MIURG23   Nov-11-09 11:04 PM   #261 
              - Tell you what. When you can buy several years of birth control pills from the clothing store for $20  harry_pothead   Nov-08-09 11:21 PM   #93 
                 - Um, you missed the fact that I was being sarcastic. Maybe I should've used the sarcasm thingy. nt  ClarkUSA   Nov-09-09 08:14 AM   #122 
           - so says the man  druidity33   Nov-09-09 06:11 AM   #100 
           - It is beyond stupid, it is viciously, hatefully ignorant.  freddie mertz   Nov-09-09 06:31 AM   #104 
           - What "is beyond stupid" and "is viciously, hatefully ignorant" is your attempt at demonization. nt  ClarkUSA   Nov-09-09 08:10 AM   #121 
              - You could call it mockery.  freddie mertz   Nov-09-09 10:30 AM   #158 
           - No, I was replying to the DUer who insisted ANYTHING that prevents illness should be covered by HCR.  ClarkUSA   Nov-09-09 07:29 AM   #117 
              - you're the one who made the comparison  druidity33   Nov-09-09 09:37 AM   #140 
                 - No, I was being New Yorker sarcastic, though some took me seriously.  ClarkUSA   Nov-09-09 10:04 AM   #151 
                    - "Never mind! Just kidding!"  freddie mertz   Nov-09-09 10:32 AM   #159 
                       - I wasn't speaking to you, but bitter is as bitter does, I guess. nt  ClarkUSA   Nov-09-09 10:35 AM   #162 
                          - Gotcha then.  freddie mertz   Nov-09-09 10:37 AM   #165 
                             - Not at all, but I'm glad it makes you happy to think so. nt  ClarkUSA   Nov-09-09 10:58 AM   #173 
           - I'll tell you what - you get your fucking Stupak Amendment provided that  kestrel91316   Nov-09-09 11:57 AM   #186 
              - I'll tell you what - I believe the language will be removed in conference. See reply #181.  ClarkUSA   Nov-09-09 12:03 PM   #190 
  - Are you actually suggesting condoms should NOT be covered?  freddie mertz   Nov-09-09 06:29 AM   #102 
  - I know. It's like performance art, right?  PeaceNikki   Nov-09-09 06:31 AM   #103 
     - Do you think these posts are even serious?  freddie mertz   Nov-09-09 06:37 AM   #107 
        - Sadly, yes. I think he's dead serious.  PeaceNikki   Nov-09-09 06:40 AM   #108 
        - It's so weird.  freddie mertz   Nov-09-09 07:13 AM   #109 
        - "Controversies like this" bring out those who demonize anyone who doesn't walk in lockstep with NOW.  ClarkUSA   Nov-09-09 08:15 AM   #123 
           - Do you have a job or something?  freddie mertz   Nov-09-09 10:29 AM   #156 
        - Lately I have found the Ignore option to be invaluable. Saves lots of time trying to figure  BrklynLiberal   Nov-09-09 06:41 PM   #225 
        - As opposed to the majority of your posts on Pres. Obama since you arrived here?  ClarkUSA   Nov-09-09 08:18 AM   #124 
  - Yes they are  TheBigotBasher   Nov-09-09 07:56 PM   #230 
  - Contraception is an important part of women's AND men's health care.  harry_pothead   Nov-08-09 11:48 PM   #94 
  - Um, to prevent unwanted pregnancies?  flpoljunkie   Nov-09-09 07:21 AM   #112 
  - Um.... You seem to be totally confused.  PeaceNikki   Nov-08-09 08:05 PM   #27 
  - No goddamn alcohol or drug treatment, that's for sure.  Hello_Kitty   Nov-08-09 08:07 PM   #29 
  - No, I'm quite clearheaded on this issue, thank you. nt  ClarkUSA   Nov-08-09 08:13 PM   #32 
  - No you're not clear-headed on this issue at all.  Diamonique   Nov-09-09 06:24 AM   #101 
     - So says you.  ClarkUSA   Nov-09-09 08:05 AM   #119 
        - And this one speaks for me.  PeaceNikki   Nov-09-09 08:08 AM   #120 
           - Thanks for sharing. It's been nice to differ in opinion without you cursing my POV. Oh, wait...  ClarkUSA   Nov-09-09 09:15 AM   #132 
              - Anyone who puts abortion in the same category with "elective breast enhancements, face lifts and  PeaceNikki   Nov-09-09 09:35 AM   #139 
                 - That's ELECTIVE abortion, not all abortions. And they are not "in the same category".  ClarkUSA   Nov-09-09 09:50 AM   #144 
                    - Ha!!! You're calling ME an "Obama-hating DUer"?  PeaceNikki   Nov-09-09 09:52 AM   #145 
                       - I didn't say that about YOU. If you feel the label resonates, then that's your problem.  ClarkUSA   Nov-09-09 09:55 AM   #147 
                          - You just keep on keepin' on, ClarkUSA.  PeaceNikki   Nov-09-09 10:00 AM   #150 
                             - Nikki, you are just awesome.  freddie mertz   Nov-09-09 10:33 AM   #161 
                                - awww... thanks.  PeaceNikki   Nov-09-09 12:52 PM   #207 
  - Kinda like Senator Kyl saying he didn't think  waiting for hope   Nov-09-09 07:52 PM   #228 
  - Well, if you don't like the idea of paying for abortions  Sebastian Doyle   Nov-08-09 08:44 PM   #57 
  - Because so many of them don't want to pay for schools  havocmom   Nov-09-09 09:08 AM   #129 
  - Wow  Neecy   Nov-09-09 09:40 AM   #141 
  - No, they are not. I disagree with taxpayer-funded Viagra. nt  ClarkUSA   Nov-09-09 09:53 AM   #146 
     - Yeah, that one really causes me to lose sleep too. nt.  freddie mertz   Nov-09-09 10:36 AM   #164 
  - Why should taxpayers have to pay for Viagra?  kestrel91316   Nov-09-09 11:54 AM   #185 
  - They shouldn't. nt  ClarkUSA   Nov-09-09 12:11 PM   #193 
  - Why not throw men's right to have care for prostate cancer under the bus?  winyanstaz   Nov-09-09 05:54 PM   #224 
  - By your logic, taxpayers shouldn't pay for anything tied to personal choices  Lorien   Nov-10-09 10:54 PM   #242 
  - Nice, huh? This is the face of the DFLA.  PeaceNikki   Nov-08-09 08:01 PM   #23 
  - Bullshit. I'm pro-choice but I'm not sold on the necessity for HCR to pay for elective abortions or  ClarkUSA   Nov-08-09 08:06 PM   #28 
     - Okay, we'll let abortion go for a second.  Hello_Kitty   Nov-08-09 08:08 PM   #30 
        - See Reply #22 subthread. nt  ClarkUSA   Nov-08-09 08:15 PM   #34 
  - Does your insurance now pay for contraception?  karynnj   Nov-09-09 12:11 PM   #194 
     - Honey, they payed for my tubal ligation and I don't have any kids.  Hello_Kitty   Nov-09-09 02:22 PM   #212 
  - Why the hell should taxpayers then be forced to pay for treatment of  kestrel91316   Nov-09-09 11:53 AM   #184 
     - I agree with you. nt  ClarkUSA   Nov-09-09 12:22 PM   #202 
  - Truly. nt  Lorien   Nov-10-09 10:50 PM   #241 
  - what about the practice  CTLawGuy   Nov-08-09 07:54 PM   #10 
  - That's a good thing. nt  ClarkUSA   Nov-08-09 08:25 PM   #39 
  - Here is the kicker:  PeaceNikki   Nov-08-09 07:55 PM   #12 
  - Unless they purchase special rider  Hello_Kitty   Nov-08-09 07:59 PM   #17 
  - They can buy supplemental insurance. or go to Planned Parenthood like my friends did. nt  ClarkUSA   Nov-08-09 08:19 PM   #37 
  - Yay for your friends.  Hello_Kitty   Nov-08-09 08:34 PM   #48 
  - Name calling? Tsk tsk.  ClarkUSA   Nov-08-09 08:37 PM   #52 
  - Not everyone has a Planned Parenthood nearby  Neecy   Nov-09-09 09:47 AM   #143 
  - Life isn't perfect or fair and neither is the HCR House bill. But it's not the end product.  ClarkUSA   Nov-09-09 10:51 AM   #170 
  - They should go to Planned Parenthood where they can risk being stalked or bombed?????  kestrel91316   Nov-09-09 12:05 PM   #191 
     - You think that only happens at Planned Parenthood?  msallied   Nov-11-09 12:01 PM   #253 
  - It won't be much different than things stand now.  ClarkUSA   Nov-09-09 02:47 PM   #214 
  - Shorter ClarkUSA:  Hello_Kitty   Nov-08-09 07:57 PM   #15 
  - What a foolish deduction. Bet you got an F in Logic class at university...  ClarkUSA   Nov-08-09 08:00 PM   #20 
     - Dude, you've already revealed yourself here.  Hello_Kitty   Nov-08-09 08:02 PM   #24 
        - I don't think it's an HCR deal breaker if taxpayers aren't required to pay for elective abortions...  ClarkUSA   Nov-08-09 08:24 PM   #38 
           - Deleted message  Name removed   Nov-08-09 08:37 PM   #53 
              - Name calling from you, too? Tsk tsk. Gimme a fucking break.  ClarkUSA   Nov-08-09 08:44 PM   #58 
                 - Do any of your "women friends" have functioning ovaries anymore? -eom  Justitia   Nov-08-09 09:38 PM   #79 
                    - lol! Lemme ask them and get back to you later, okay?  ClarkUSA   Nov-08-09 09:55 PM   #85 
                       - You do that. If not, they have about as much stake in this as you do. -eom  Justitia   Nov-08-09 09:57 PM   #86 
                          - Only those with "functioning ovaries" need apply, eh? Better tell that to NOW's BoD. nt  ClarkUSA   Nov-08-09 10:06 PM   #89 
                             - YOU are the one that made your "women friends" a source on the issue.  Justitia   Nov-08-09 11:02 PM   #92 
                                - They are probably "imaginary" friends.  freddie mertz   Nov-09-09 06:34 AM   #105 
                                - Don't you have an Obama-hating OP that you forgot to K&R, Bitter One? nt  ClarkUSA   Nov-09-09 07:18 AM   #111 
                                   - Good morning officer!  freddie mertz   Nov-09-09 07:21 AM   #113 
                                - lol! That's right, I did, but you're the one who came up with the BS question re: their "ovaries"  ClarkUSA   Nov-09-09 07:14 AM   #110 
                                   - Typical "hysterical" feminists, eh officer?  freddie mertz   Nov-09-09 07:24 AM   #114 
                                      - Classy as always. I guess you're done reccing and kicking all the Obama-hating OPs?  ClarkUSA   Nov-09-09 07:40 AM   #118 
                                         - Well, I won't be kicking the anti-women's rights ones...  freddie mertz   Nov-09-09 09:57 AM   # 
                                            - I also hope you don't create ridiculously demonizing strawman arguments, either. Oops, too late!  ClarkUSA   Nov-09-09 10:24 AM   #154 
                                               - No strawman here.  freddie mertz   Nov-09-09 10:28 AM   #155 
                                                  - Bullshit. Provide links and precise quotes to prove your allegations, then. I'll be waiting. nt  ClarkUSA   Nov-09-09 10:33 AM   #160 
                                                  - Tell ya what Clarkie...  freddie mertz   Nov-09-09 10:35 AM   #163 
                                                  - lol! You have nothing, eh? Thought so. nt  ClarkUSA   Nov-09-09 10:39 AM   #167 
                                                  - No, I have read your posts against contraception coverage.nt.  freddie mertz   Nov-09-09 10:45 AM   #168 
                                                  - Wrong again. I just don't see it as a HCR deal breaker if men have to buy their own condoms.  ClarkUSA   Nov-09-09 10:55 AM   #172 
                                                  - I'd love to know what COULD be a "deal-breaker" for you  freddie mertz   Nov-09-09 11:15 AM   #176 
                                                  - Pre-existing conditions and caps would be deal breakers for me. The House HCR bill got rid of both.  ClarkUSA   Nov-09-09 11:35 AM   #180 
                                                  - Oh give it a rest.  freddie mertz   Nov-09-09 03:12 PM   #215 
                                                  - Are you even aware that birth control consists of a hell of a lot more than condoms???  kestrel91316   Nov-09-09 12:12 PM   #196 
                                                  - Patronize/demonize much? See reply #181. nt  ClarkUSA   Nov-09-09 12:19 PM   #199 
                                                  - Why WOULDN'T I demonize someone who doesn't want a major portion of  kestrel91316   Nov-09-09 12:22 PM   #201 
                                                  - You need to read my replies before (falsely) accusing me of being "suspiciously silent".  ClarkUSA   Nov-09-09 12:28 PM   #203 
  - "why does NOW feel it is necessary for taxpayers to pay for elective abortions"  Oregone   Nov-08-09 07:59 PM   #18 
  - Good answer.  PeaceNikki   Nov-08-09 08:00 PM   #21 
  - NOW if that were their reasoning, I could get behind it...  ClarkUSA   Nov-08-09 08:27 PM   #40 
  - Exactly, there is no change on the government's role in this question  treestar   Nov-08-09 08:31 PM   #44 
  - I agree. You summed it up succinctly. nt  ClarkUSA   Nov-08-09 08:48 PM   #61 
  - Deleted message  Name removed   Nov-08-09 08:35 PM   #50 
  - Thank you for a voice of sanity. As pro-choice as I am, I fail to see  SPedigrees   Nov-08-09 09:17 PM   #73 
  - I agree and understand what you're saying completely.  ClarkUSA   Nov-08-09 09:45 PM   #82 
  - Thanks for the agreement. Now let's hope that a decent plan passes the Senate  SPedigrees   Nov-08-09 09:54 PM   #84 
     - Definitely...  ClarkUSA   Nov-08-09 10:02 PM   #87 
  - So yours was covered when you needed it  Bluenorthwest   Nov-09-09 09:08 AM   #130 
     - That's not true. Women can buy supplemental insurance to cover abortion services. Link, quote -->  ClarkUSA   Nov-09-09 10:29 AM   #157 
  - Abortions are medical procedures that insurance should  lovelyrita   Nov-09-09 05:07 AM   #99 
  - Ms.goclark agrees with you  goclark   Nov-09-09 09:18 AM   #134 
  - Thanks for your support and your perspective, Ms. goclark.  ClarkUSA   Nov-09-09 11:09 AM   #175 
     - I would say it is not a tear jerker ~ it is profound Food For Thought  goclark   Nov-09-09 11:59 AM   #187 
        - Great. I'll be going this week, then.  ClarkUSA   Nov-09-09 12:06 PM   #192 
  - Guess over in Freeperville nobody has ever experienced a birth  kestrel91316   Nov-09-09 11:48 AM   #183 
  - Are you accusing me of being a freeper? nt  ClarkUSA   Nov-09-09 12:00 PM   #188 
     - WEll, let's just say your opinions on women's health are distinctly undemocratic.  kestrel91316   Nov-09-09 12:14 PM   #197 
        - dupe - self-delete nt  ClarkUSA   Nov-09-09 12:29 PM   #205 
        - Hmm. Are the folks who have agreed with me on this & other threads also "distinctly undemocratic"?  ClarkUSA   Nov-09-09 12:32 PM   #206 
  - Hell, why stop there?  snake in the grass   Nov-11-09 03:44 AM   #245 
  - it's a slippery slope downward  handmade34   Nov-08-09 07:51 PM   #7 
  - There's something I don't quite understand. I looked up Planned  napi21   Nov-08-09 07:57 PM   #14 
  - Planned Parenthood is a great resource for those seeking abortions and contraceptives. nt  ClarkUSA   Nov-08-09 08:31 PM   #43 
  - Not all states have a planned parenthood clinic that  cornermouse   Nov-09-09 04:07 AM   #98 
     - Bullshit. Give me an example where I've been "steadfastly opposing women's rights."  ClarkUSA   Nov-09-09 09:24 AM   #136 
        - This entire thread and several others that I've observed over the last couple of days.  cornermouse   Nov-09-09 04:03 PM   #219 
  - PP consists of different corporations. The corp that does surgical procedures does NOT receive fed  Justitia   Nov-08-09 09:13 PM   #69 
  - KNR...thank you and welcome to the DU....n/t  Hepburn   Nov-08-09 08:03 PM   #25 
  - K&R  me b zola   Nov-08-09 08:18 PM   #36 
  - The health care plan didn't exist before  treestar   Nov-08-09 08:30 PM   #42 
  - I believe this amendment goes further than existing law  dflprincess   Nov-08-09 08:42 PM   #56 
  - Thank you for that informative response which is not overemotional and attacking  treestar   Nov-08-09 08:44 PM   #59 
  - On, I can get pretty emotional about it -  dflprincess   Nov-08-09 09:04 PM   #67 
     - Yup. 90% of all health ins plans in the US cover abortion svcs. -eom  Justitia   Nov-08-09 09:15 PM   #72 
        - So does this amendment remove that possibility  treestar   Nov-08-09 09:37 PM   #78 
           - That is exactly correct. -eom  Justitia   Nov-08-09 09:39 PM   #80 
           - You're wrong. Women can buy supplemental insurance to cover abortion services. Link, quote -->  ClarkUSA   Nov-09-09 09:31 AM   #137 
              - IF they can afford it, and IF it is offered in their sate.  freddie mertz   Nov-09-09 10:39 AM   #166 
                 - IF Stupak amendment is taken out in conference, THEN you'll have to find another topic to rage about  ClarkUSA   Nov-09-09 11:20 AM   #178 
                    - The blue dogs and Repugs saw a perfect opening--that is what you refuse to get! This  joeycola   Nov-09-09 12:11 PM   #195 
                       - I "get" more than you think. See reply #181. nt  ClarkUSA   Nov-09-09 12:21 PM   #200 
                       - BTW-Obama agrees. The House language goes TOO far.  joeycola   Nov-09-09 05:51 PM   #222 
           - No it doesn't. Someone is fibbing to you or is ignorant of the facts. Link, quote -->  ClarkUSA   Nov-09-09 09:33 AM   #138 
           - goodie goodie. Women will have to pay extra for health care once again!!  joeycola   Nov-09-09 05:36 PM   #220 
              - "once again"? It's no different than what women have to do now.  ClarkUSA   Nov-09-09 07:50 PM   #227 
           - .  izzybeans   Nov-09-09 10:05 AM   #152 
  - I disagree, it does not go much further.  ClarkUSA   Nov-09-09 02:12 PM   #210 
  - No, this goes beyond Hyde  TheKentuckian   Nov-09-09 11:31 AM   #179 
     - Than you for putting my thoughts so eloquently.  PeaceNikki   Nov-09-09 11:46 AM   #182 
     - I disagree, it does not go much further.  ClarkUSA   Nov-09-09 02:12 PM   #209 
        - What about the women who pay full price either on their own or through their employers  TheKentuckian   Nov-09-09 02:20 PM   #211 
           - How is it going to be any different than things stand now? FYI, only 2% of women per year have one.  ClarkUSA   Nov-09-09 02:29 PM   #213 
  - *Prevent low-income women from accessing abortion entirely, in many cases.  Beacool   Nov-08-09 09:15 PM   #70 
  - K & R and welcome to Democratic Underground  Better Believe It   Nov-08-09 09:23 PM   #75 
  - It'll likely be taken out. n/t  jenmito   Nov-08-09 09:34 PM   #77 
  - Would there be grounds to challenge the Stupak Amendment in court?  nemo137   Nov-08-09 10:05 PM   #88 
  - I don't understand how it could possibly be constitutional both because of the gender discrimination  bluetrain   Nov-08-09 11:53 PM   #95 
  - Heath care reform by depriving women of their fundamental right to reproductive freedom.  wisteria   Nov-08-09 10:06 PM   #90 
  - K&R  Eyerish   Nov-08-09 10:13 PM   #91 
  - K&R  Mithreal   Nov-09-09 03:24 AM   #96 
  - K&R  Vidar   Nov-09-09 04:00 AM   #97 
  - Kicked and rec'd.  freddie mertz   Nov-09-09 06:35 AM   #106 
  - Everyone wants an all inclusive party. This is one of the downsides to it  Thrill   Nov-09-09 07:27 AM   #116 
  - A downside for those who feel compelled to play with them  Bluenorthwest   Nov-09-09 08:54 AM   #126 
     - If you want majorities in both houses this is how its going to be  Thrill   Nov-09-09 09:09 AM   #131 
        - What good is a majority to me?  Bluenorthwest   Nov-09-09 09:17 AM   #133 
  - The Pro Choice movement lost majority public support  Tom Rinaldo   Nov-09-09 09:57 AM   #148 
  - Is this the text of the amendment?  izzybeans   Nov-09-09 09:59 AM   #149 
  - yes /nt  demwing   Nov-11-09 06:14 AM   #246 
  - Republicans HATE WOMEN!  paparush   Nov-09-09 10:50 AM   #169 
  - They wanted to kill the bill's chances of ever going forward to conference. They failed.  ClarkUSA   Nov-09-09 11:45 AM   #181 
  - Those few votes were necessary, and sometimes tough choices have to be made. n/t  wisteria   Nov-09-09 03:20 PM   #217 
  - women will DIE because of those "tough choices". you are so happy to make.....  winyanstaz   Nov-09-09 05:52 PM   #223 
     - How is it going to be any different than things stand now? FYI, only 2% of women per year have one.  ClarkUSA   Nov-09-09 07:54 PM   #229 
     - and for dang good reason....  winyanstaz   Nov-10-09 12:05 AM   #233 
     - How many women will die if nothing is done?  Nicholas D Wolfwood   Nov-11-09 11:53 AM   #252 
  - We must stand up and be heard loud and clear on this.....  winyanstaz   Nov-09-09 05:45 PM   #221 
  - K&R  pleah   Nov-09-09 07:44 PM   #226 
  - ...  Kurt_and_Hunter   Nov-10-09 09:26 AM   #235 
  - ....  joeycola   Nov-10-09 09:32 AM   #236 
  - NOW is wrong  demwing   Nov-11-09 12:40 AM   #244 
     - you have put a lot of work into this  Kurt_and_Hunter   Nov-11-09 10:38 AM   #248 
     - The Haters/Whiners who are clueless re: Stupak should all read demwing's factual analysis.  ClarkUSA   Nov-11-09 10:50 AM   #249 
     - some people value the truth,  Dr Robert   Nov-11-09 01:30 PM   #256 
     - I don't know why - I guess it's because I believe we have the truth on our side  demwing   Nov-11-09 11:07 PM   #262 
     - Thank-You  RoadRage   Nov-11-09 09:44 PM   #260 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC