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

Can anyone list 3 big differences between the Stupak and the Hyde amendments? [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
uponit7771 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 06:33 AM
Original message
Can anyone list 3 big differences between the Stupak and the Hyde amendments?
Advertisements [?]
Edited on Tue Nov-10-09 07:09 AM by uponit7771
Just 3, I've been looking all morning and I don't see what the huge differences are in the bills vs what is happening right now in current law.

You can't use federal funds to pay for abortions, I don't see Stupak expanding on this any from what I understand the amendment to be.

Refresh | 0 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
  -Can anyone list 3 big differences between the Stupak and the Hyde amendments? uponit7771  Nov-10-09 06:33 AM   #0 
  - 1) It doesn't have to be renewed every year (it's permanent)  PeaceNikki   Nov-10-09 06:38 AM   #1 
  - For 2, what is the restriction? and for 3 wouldn't the Hyde amendment outlaw any federal funds...  uponit7771   Nov-10-09 06:57 AM   #6 
     - You clearly don't WANT to see the differences.  PeaceNikki   Nov-10-09 06:58 AM   #7 
        - I'm asking question for answers truthful strait forward answers not spin  uponit7771   Nov-10-09 06:59 AM   #9 
           - I gave them to you.  PeaceNikki   Nov-10-09 07:00 AM   #12 
           - Your statement was false, the person can buy a rider and the Hyde Amenmend ALREADY outlaws  uponit7771   Nov-10-09 07:05 AM   #18 
              - You only wanted people to list the differences so you could argue them?  PeaceNikki   Nov-10-09 07:08 AM   #24 
              - How bout answering the questions more than calling names, I got thick skin but I like constructive  uponit7771   Nov-10-09 07:10 AM   #27 
                 - Who did I call what name?  PeaceNikki   Nov-10-09 07:10 AM   #28 
              - One last thing. If it's "redundant" and no more restricting than Hyde,  PeaceNikki   Nov-10-09 08:11 AM   #53 
              - It is discriminatory for women to have to buy extra coverage for their healthcare.  Lars39   Nov-10-09 12:16 PM   #98 
           - more like you're trying to spin it as if there's no problem with it.  LaydeeBug   Nov-10-09 07:01 AM   #13 
              - No, just tryin to get truthful, stright foward and accurate answers. Right now you cant use federal  uponit7771   Nov-10-09 07:08 AM   #25 
                 - Holy shit, really?  PeaceNikki   Nov-10-09 07:22 AM   #42 
                    - LInk and quote....TIA  uponit7771   Nov-10-09 07:23 AM   #44 
                       - Ya know what....  PeaceNikki   Nov-10-09 07:24 AM   #45 
                          - Nikki, please don't take the request as personal I just want to read it for myself. I did not see...  uponit7771   Nov-10-09 07:28 AM   #47 
                             - I said good day.  PeaceNikki   Nov-10-09 07:43 AM   #50 
  - We don't need three. That's like saying, "well three fifths of a person is only two fifths off,  LaydeeBug   Nov-10-09 06:47 AM   #2 
  - What poster #1 said, and to clarify even more  Ineeda   Nov-10-09 06:50 AM   #3 
  - This is false, she can by the 1 said.  uponit7771   Nov-10-09 06:55 AM   #4 
     - I also said it's "discriminatory and illogical".  PeaceNikki   Nov-10-09 06:56 AM   #5 
     - No, I miss the part where federal funds can be used for abortions being made legal...  uponit7771   Nov-10-09 06:58 AM   #8 
     - See here:  PeaceNikki   Nov-10-09 07:06 AM   #20 
     - Big deal whether it's a rider or not  treestar   Nov-10-09 10:50 AM   #92 
     - Deliberate obtusity....  Ineeda   Nov-10-09 07:05 AM   #17 
     - My understanding is ALL insurance companys will HAVE to offer the rider. THey can't opt out of it  uponit7771   Nov-10-09 07:06 AM   #22 
        - Only you are talking about a rider  Ineeda   Nov-10-09 07:13 AM   #32 
        - I agree but it's law today and now that I know about Hyde I'll support those who want to get rid of  uponit7771   Nov-10-09 07:15 AM   #34 
           - You obviously don't want to see, as it's been explained repeatedly. n/t  Ineeda   Nov-10-09 07:18 AM   #37 
              - The statement about the rider is false, Stupak does NOT prevent a person paying for an abortion wit  uponit7771   Nov-10-09 07:20 AM   #41 
        - That's not true at all  sandnsea   Nov-10-09 10:05 AM   #76 
        - that is a bald faced lie  dsc   Nov-11-09 09:16 AM   #103 
     - A supplemental plan is not a rider  sandnsea   Nov-10-09 10:04 AM   #75 
     - This "rider" or "supplemental plan"  TicketyBoo   Nov-10-09 09:40 PM   #100 
  - The major difference is that the Stupak amendment prevents you  fasttense   Nov-10-09 06:59 AM   #10 
  - Taking the face of the bill you can buy an insurance rider for abortions can't you?  uponit7771   Nov-10-09 07:02 AM   #14 
  - Should men be be required to buy a "rider" for constitutionally protected legal health care services  PeaceNikki   Nov-10-09 07:05 AM   #16 
  - Only If I can't use federal funds or anything related to federal funds to pay for the procedure  uponit7771   Nov-10-09 07:07 AM   #23 
  - So... what health care services for men have been excluded?  PeaceNikki   Nov-10-09 07:08 AM   #26 
     - The ones that currently prevent federal funds used to pay for them? TIA  uponit7771   Nov-10-09 07:18 AM   #36 
        - Which are....?  PeaceNikki   Nov-10-09 07:20 AM   #40 
           - The ones that are currently under law. Look, I don't like the Hyde amendement either it's stupid...  uponit7771   Nov-10-09 07:23 AM   #43 
              - Right now, many insurance companies and states will pay for it  PVnRT   Nov-10-09 09:39 AM   #65 
                 - Please link and quote Stupak PREVENTING states from payin with their OWN FUNDs as they do today...  uponit7771   Nov-10-09 10:12 AM   #78 
  - Nikki, I'm intersted in constructive conversation with accurate information not name calling  uponit7771   Nov-10-09 07:11 AM   #30 
  - Who did I call what name?  PeaceNikki   Nov-10-09 07:11 AM   #31 
     - Here  uponit7771   Nov-10-09 07:17 AM   #35 
        - Your POST is dishonest  PeaceNikki   Nov-10-09 07:19 AM   #39 
           - Well, maybe you should have spelled it out  TicketyBoo   Nov-10-09 09:53 PM   #102 
  - I don't know, you tell us. It's your taxes.  lumberjack_jeff   Nov-10-09 09:45 AM   #69 
     - I think excluding care based on moral convictions is wrong.  PeaceNikki   Nov-10-09 10:04 AM   #74 
        - Then that is the argument you should be making.  lumberjack_jeff   Nov-10-09 10:14 AM   #79 
           - Follow along.  PeaceNikki   Nov-10-09 10:30 AM   #83 
              - I have found one tangible non status quo difference and that is in congressional procedure to ...  uponit7771   Nov-10-09 10:36 AM   #84 
                 - I have never advocated killing the bill over Stupak, but I will *NOT* defend it as "OK".  PeaceNikki   Nov-10-09 10:39 AM   #85 
                    - Agreed, Hyde is not OK either IMHO. I'm thinking one benefit from Stupak right now is it will expose  uponit7771   Nov-10-09 10:44 AM   #89 
                       - Indeed. Hyde is in and of itself a violation of Roe v Wade.  PeaceNikki   Nov-10-09 10:49 AM   #91 
  - NO, NO, NO  fasttense   Nov-10-09 07:06 AM   #21 
     - Link and quote the private earnings part if you don't mind, TIA. A person can CURENTLY pay for  uponit7771   Nov-10-09 07:26 AM   #46 
     - read the amendment again. particularly parts B and C  Aramchek   Nov-10-09 10:40 AM   #87 
  - Thank you fasttense, telling it like it is is like a tonic to these bullshitters. nt  LaydeeBug   Nov-10-09 07:03 AM   #15 
  - Again, Stupak allows for purchase of a rider but not with federal funds how is that different from  uponit7771   Nov-10-09 07:18 AM   #38 
  - no it doesn't. look at parts B and C of the amendment  Aramchek   Nov-10-09 10:39 AM   #86 
  - Of course,  TicketyBoo   Nov-10-09 09:48 PM   #101 
  - three? As if making in permanant is not enough?  Bluenorthwest   Nov-10-09 07:00 AM   #11 
  - People can name 300, I wanted just 3  uponit7771   Nov-10-09 07:06 AM   #19 
     - You could not buy an abortion rider on your insurance policy unless you made more  fasttense   Nov-10-09 07:10 AM   #29 
     - Unnn, can you link and quote that. That's not what I heard or read my understanding is you can buy  uponit7771   Nov-10-09 07:13 AM   #33 
     - Unnn - you've been asked multiple times BUT WON"T ANSWER  Ineeda   Nov-10-09 07:41 AM   #49 
     - Again, having anybody buy extra coverage for HC is stupid and that doesn't change current law. Hyde  uponit7771   Nov-10-09 08:51 AM   #54 
     - You are wrong.  fasttense   Nov-10-09 07:55 AM   #51 
        - I did NOT say the can't do it with THEIR OWN MONEY like Hyde says now. I've read that part and it...  uponit7771   Nov-10-09 08:54 AM   #55 
     - The very fact that women are being asked to PAY EXTRA for a rider  joeycola   Nov-10-09 07:30 AM   #48 
        - My question is how is that different from today!?!? I agree it's stupid but it doesnt change any law  uponit7771   Nov-10-09 08:55 AM   #56 
     - What?  Bluenorthwest   Nov-10-09 07:59 AM   #52 
        - My point was anyone can come up with an infinate number of reasons good or bad I just wanted the  uponit7771   Nov-10-09 08:58 AM   #58 
  - Abortion rights are fundamental rights  IndianaGreen   Nov-10-09 08:57 AM   #57 
  - I agree, my question is how does Stupak add to any restrictions Hyde has already  uponit7771   Nov-10-09 09:01 AM   #59 
     - Stupak prevents insurance companies from offering abortion coverage  IndianaGreen   Nov-10-09 09:30 AM   #60 
        - Link and quote this FROM THE AMENDEMNTS not from some blog. The amendments DO NOT say this  uponit7771   Nov-10-09 09:36 AM   #63 
           - If the insurance companies want to belong to the exchange...  madfloridian   Nov-10-09 11:15 AM   #95 
              - Again, that's NOT what the amendement says and that's not what anyone has posted and from what  uponit7771   Nov-10-09 11:22 AM   #96 
                 - And you don't think requiring a special rider is discrimination?  madfloridian   Nov-10-09 12:05 PM   #97 
                    - The OP didn't say he supported the amendment.  msallied   Nov-10-09 12:57 PM   #99 
  - Wow...the OP is bigtime deliberately obtuse.  Zodiak   Nov-10-09 09:33 AM   #61 
  - Link and quote FROM THE AMENDMENTS then the difference between Sec 236 of Stupak  uponit7771   Nov-10-09 09:38 AM   #64 
     - I have seen constructive answers on this thread which you ignored  Zodiak   Nov-10-09 09:46 AM   #70 
     - ANOTHER person refuses to state the difference between the sections. Is this DU or FR?!?!  uponit7771   Nov-10-09 09:55 AM   #71 
        - Ummm...I never said I would  Zodiak   Nov-10-09 10:01 AM   #73 
           - I'm interested in an accurate answer from the amendments, someone did point out that Stupak doesn't  uponit7771   Nov-10-09 10:07 AM   #77 
     - why don't you find the amendment yourself and read it?  noiretextatique   Nov-11-09 05:42 PM   #106 
  - How is it going to be any different than things stand now? FYI, only 2% of women per year have one.  ClarkUSA   Nov-10-09 09:36 AM   #62 
  - It's not IMHO, Sec 236 of Stupak is almost word for word of Sec 507 of Hyde, some are grasping on to  uponit7771   Nov-10-09 09:39 AM   #66 
  - You're right. But no matter, the language will be removed in conference. nt  ClarkUSA   Nov-10-09 09:43 AM   #68 
  - Yep, you are right, but I think a lot of people don't understand  tonysam   Nov-11-09 12:11 PM   #104 
  - Now on the other hand it does take away the religious rights opposition to HCR. I've listened to  uponit7771   Nov-10-09 09:41 AM   #67 
  - With the Stupak amendment, you have to buy seperate abortion insurance  gravity   Nov-10-09 09:59 AM   #72 
  - nicely said. but some think it is OK that women have to pay extra!!  joeycola   Nov-10-09 10:16 AM   #80 
  - My question was in regards to changes from what is done now with federal dollars. As of now...  uponit7771   Nov-10-09 10:29 AM   #82 
  - They said it also affects indirect money from the feds  marlakay   Nov-10-09 10:54 AM   #93 
  - My issue is with the restrictions placed on insurance companies  gravity   Nov-10-09 11:08 AM   #94 
  - they have to pay extra now as well  Aramchek   Nov-10-09 10:41 AM   #88 
  - hx, this give me a section I have to read because what I heard on NPR yesterday was the HCI's HAVE  uponit7771   Nov-10-09 10:27 AM   #81 
  - Watch the Degette video. It will open your eyes.  madfloridian   Nov-10-09 10:48 AM   #90 
  - By the way, the Carly Fiorina campaign is advertising on this thread  rockymountaindem   Nov-11-09 12:12 PM   #105 

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