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 #29: New York Times editorial today: Stupak amendment "reached far beyond Hyde" [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
SacramentoBlue Donating Member (11 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 11:08 AM
Response to Original message
29. New York Times editorial today: Stupak amendment "reached far beyond Hyde"
Edited on Tue Nov-10-09 11:10 AM by SacramentoBlue

The restrictions would fall on women eligible to buy coverage on new health insurance exchanges. They are a sharp departure from current practice, an infringement of a womans right to get a legal medical procedure and an unjustified intrusion by Congress into decisions best made by patients and doctors.

The anti-abortion Democrats behind this coup insisted that they were simply adhering to the so-called Hyde Amendment, which bans the use of federal dollars to pay for almost all abortions in a number of government programs. In fact, they reached far beyond Hyde and made it largely impossible to use a policyholders own dollars to pay for abortion coverage
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
  -At this point the Stupak=Hyde people are just lying. Kurt_and_Hunter  Nov-10-09 09:13 AM   #0 
  - It's similar to Hyde, but in no way equals Hyde. I haven't seen a person say that though.  vaberella   Nov-10-09 09:17 AM   #1 
  - I don't see Stupak adding any restrictions that are stupidly in place now. The sections of the laws  uponit7771   Nov-10-09 09:20 AM   #4 
     - Will read into it more.  vaberella   Nov-10-09 11:18 AM   #35 
  - Stupak sec 236 and Hyde 507 read damn near the same word for word  uponit7771   Nov-10-09 09:18 AM   #2 
  - I will humor you once... WHY DOES OBAMA SUGGEST STUPAK IS NOT THE STATUS QUO???  Kurt_and_Hunter   Nov-10-09 09:20 AM   #3 
  - I did not hear or read of any suggestion, please link and quote where Obama said HYDE was not status  uponit7771   Nov-10-09 09:21 AM   #5 
  - Edited to replace ambiguous "it" with "Stupak"  Kurt_and_Hunter   Nov-10-09 09:24 AM   #7 
     - Sec, I'm reading Obama's statments on Stupak but I would thiink it 's because it's redundant  uponit7771   Nov-10-09 09:33 AM   #14 
     - I read it, it's because it was injected despite Hyde being in force which prohibits federal funds...  uponit7771   Nov-10-09 10:01 AM   #22 
  - Because it's permanent. That's it. NOW TELL US WHAT'S "THE BABY-KILLING INDUSTRY" IN YOUR OP.  ClarkUSA   Nov-10-09 10:05 AM   #23 
  - RIGHT!! Hyde allows for yearly votes were Stupak doesn't  uponit7771   Nov-10-09 10:08 AM   #24 
  - he didn't, he just said that whatever the language, the status quo should be maintained  Dr Robert   Nov-10-09 05:05 PM   #80 
  - The wording is more strict in the Stupak admendment  gravity   Nov-10-09 09:44 AM   #20 
     - You have to purchase a rider in which HCI's HAVE to offer in the pool if they're not ...  uponit7771   Nov-10-09 09:59 AM   #21 
        - that is baldly inaccurate  dsc   Nov-10-09 03:11 PM   #74 
  - poor little fella. obama being in office sure does give you the vapors.  dionysus   Nov-10-09 09:24 AM   #6 
  - I don't understand their angst, sec 236 of Stupak=Sec 507 of Hyde almost word for word  uponit7771   Nov-10-09 09:25 AM   #8 
     - hey, the ammendment sucks, but people are talking it up like it overturns roe v wade.  dionysus   Nov-10-09 09:32 AM   #12 
        - YEAP!! If Hyde is in force than Stupak is redundant!!  uponit7771   Nov-10-09 09:33 AM   #15 
        - Keep saying it. It is not only not true..  freddie mertz   Nov-10-09 11:08 AM   #28 
        - The president has stated that it goes too far.  freddie mertz   Nov-10-09 11:05 AM   #27 
        - weak attempt to put words in my mouth.  dionysus   Nov-10-09 11:11 AM   #30 
           - Did you or did you not argue that there was nothing new in the amendment?  freddie mertz   Nov-10-09 11:13 AM   #32 
              - you tried to argue that i support the ammendment. i don't. but nor do i think the sky is falling.  dionysus   Nov-10-09 11:24 AM   #36 
                 - So you didn't CARE about it one way or another?  freddie mertz   Nov-10-09 11:30 AM   #38 
        - The only people being disingenuous are the people supporting Stupak  me b zola   Nov-10-09 03:01 PM   #73 
  - Now it's ANTI-OBAMA people pushing that lie.  geek tragedy   Nov-10-09 09:26 AM   #9 
  - Could the whole mess  nykym   Nov-10-09 09:29 AM   #10 
  - I think its good that it has because abortion was the reason why the regligious right wouldnt suppor  uponit7771   Nov-10-09 09:35 AM   #16 
     - since abortion was never part of this "health care reform" that thinking is disingenuous, to say the  niyad   Nov-10-09 09:39 AM   #18 
        - I agree, the religous RIGHT though was excusing themselves from the debate of taking care of the ...  uponit7771   Nov-10-09 09:43 AM   #19 
  - "the baby-killing industry"??? whatever point you were trying to make ended right there.  niyad   Nov-10-09 09:30 AM   #11 
  - i just noticed that, wtf is up with THAT?  dionysus   Nov-10-09 09:32 AM   #13 
  - That's where I stopped reading. nt  Truth2Tell   Nov-11-09 12:38 AM   #93 
  - I must have misunderstood your previous OP on this subject.  izzybeans   Nov-10-09 09:39 AM   #17 
  - yet you provide nothing from the amendment to support your claims  Aramchek   Nov-10-09 10:43 AM   #25 
  - I'm not sure about lying but they are twisting themselves in knots to buy BS  TheKentuckian   Nov-10-09 11:02 AM   #26 
  - New York Times editorial today: Stupak amendment "reached far beyond Hyde"  SacramentoBlue   Nov-10-09 11:08 AM   #29 
  - Stop making sense!!  freddie mertz   Nov-10-09 11:11 AM   #31 
  - I support the passage of the health care bill but thought the amendment was crap  Jennicut   Nov-10-09 11:15 AM   #33 
     - That is a defensible position as you describe it.  freddie mertz   Nov-10-09 11:18 AM   #34 
  - They're wrong. Women can buy supplemental insurance to cover abortion services. Link, quote -->  ClarkUSA   Nov-10-09 11:29 AM   #37 
     - The NYT editorial in question called these riders "meaningless" for the following reason  SacramentoBlue   Nov-10-09 11:35 AM   #39 
        - Bullshit. Women have to do the same damned thing now. Is flood/fire insurance "meaningless" too?  ClarkUSA   Nov-10-09 11:47 AM   #41 
           - Equally, and the Huffington Post call these riders "nonsense" and "useless" in that order  SacramentoBlue   Nov-10-09 11:51 AM   #42 
              - They're wrong, too. Repeat 3x: Women have to buy supplemental abortion insurance now.  ClarkUSA   Nov-10-09 11:56 AM   #44 
                 - Keep trying. It just gets more and more ridiculous. nt.  freddie mertz   Nov-10-09 12:04 PM   #48 
                 - It is ridiculous when people can't acknowledge/don't know the facts, isn't it? nt  ClarkUSA   Nov-10-09 12:42 PM   #70 
                 - Deleted message  Name removed   Nov-10-09 03:16 PM   #75 
                    - You're wrong. e.g. All the under-45 female members of my family have abortion insurance. nt  ClarkUSA   Nov-10-09 05:16 PM   #81 
                       - Do they have it in the form of a "rider"?  SacramentoBlue   Nov-10-09 05:34 PM   #84 
                          - They carry supplemental insurance. nt  ClarkUSA   Nov-10-09 07:24 PM   #87 
  - This is all very chilling  Prism   Nov-10-09 11:45 AM   #40 
  - Not really. Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz said that the language will be removed in conference.  ClarkUSA   Nov-10-09 11:53 AM   #43 
  - And it was a mistake to defend it.  freddie mertz   Nov-10-09 12:15 PM   #53 
     - Says you. But it got the job done of moving the bill forward. Your stance would've killed the bill.  ClarkUSA   Nov-11-09 08:56 AM   #96 
  - Yes. I too have noticed the one-man fanaticism.  freddie mertz   Nov-10-09 11:57 AM   #45 
     - Yeah, all the one-man Hater/Failer fanatics are so very bitter while ignoring the facts. nt  ClarkUSA   Nov-10-09 11:59 AM   #46 
     - Actually, I am enjoying watching you guys try to rewrite history...  freddie mertz   Nov-10-09 12:03 PM   #47 
        - lol! Team Obama is writing history, Bitter One. But if your delusions keep you happy, go for it.  ClarkUSA   Nov-10-09 12:10 PM   #51 
           - Blah blah. Everyone who is honest here knows what has happened.  freddie mertz   Nov-10-09 12:15 PM   #52 
              - That would leave out you. And they do know. And why do you keep bringing up Gen. Clark?  ClarkUSA   Nov-10-09 12:33 PM   #63 
              - Why?  freddie mertz   Nov-10-09 12:35 PM   #65 
                 - So what? nt  ClarkUSA   Nov-10-09 12:40 PM   #67 
              - So you're a flaming noobstick and C2k4 isn't.  sudopod   Nov-10-09 04:43 PM   #78 
     - That's what got me  Prism   Nov-10-09 12:05 PM   #49 
     - Right! They have been caught with their pants down...  freddie mertz   Nov-10-09 12:10 PM   #50 
     - You nailed it  Prism   Nov-10-09 12:15 PM   #54 
     - Wow, what bullshit. Guess you can't admit that Dems did what they could to move the bill forward.  ClarkUSA   Nov-10-09 12:19 PM   #57 
        - You are just jealous...nt  freddie mertz   Nov-10-09 12:25 PM   #58 
           - Nah, I'm glad that I didn't join DU just to bash President Obama while posting the occasional CYA OP  ClarkUSA   Nov-10-09 12:26 PM   #60 
              - You are obsessed. But you still got it wrong. nt.  freddie mertz   Nov-10-09 12:41 PM   #69 
                 - No, I'm pleased that the HCR bill is moving forward by any means necessary despite the loud whiners  ClarkUSA   Nov-10-09 12:57 PM   #71 
                    - "By ANY means necessary"? Including gutting the bill and tossing  freddie mertz   Nov-10-09 05:32 PM   #83 
                       - Yes, Failer/Bitter One. Your hyperbolic outrage nonsense babble is amusing. nt  ClarkUSA   Nov-10-09 07:40 PM   #91 
     - What "assumption that the President would be ok with the anti-choice amendment"?  ClarkUSA   Nov-10-09 12:15 PM   #55 
        - I don't see the point in arguing it  Prism   Nov-10-09 12:18 PM   #56 
           - Yeah, because you're making up shit in order to pat yourself on the back. nt  ClarkUSA   Nov-10-09 12:25 PM   #59 
              - Update: Clark still not winning 2004 primary.  freddie mertz   Nov-10-09 12:27 PM   #61 
                 - I'm over it, Bitter One.  ClarkUSA   Nov-10-09 12:31 PM   #62 
                    - Unlike you, I agree with the president's characterization of the Stupak bill.  freddie mertz   Nov-10-09 12:34 PM   #64 
                       - That'd be the only time you've ever expressed approval for the President since you arrived here. nt  ClarkUSA   Nov-10-09 12:37 PM   #66 
                          - Well there was that time in the PA primary....  freddie mertz   Nov-10-09 12:40 PM   #68 
                             - hmmmm.....does sound familiar....  blm   Nov-10-09 03:44 PM   #77 
                                - Yep. I was proud to support and vote for the man.  freddie mertz   Nov-10-09 05:31 PM   #82 
                                   - Sure...that's why you've been trashing the Prez since you got here minus the CYA OP today. nt  ClarkUSA   Nov-10-09 07:43 PM   #92 
     - Sez freddie the clown who is always overplaying her hand.  Cha   Nov-10-09 07:25 PM   #88 
  - We need to get the C Street cultists out of our government  LatteLibertine   Nov-10-09 01:03 PM   #72 
  - Hilarious  Teaser   Nov-10-09 03:41 PM   #76 
  - It effectively bans coverage of elective abortions. This is BS and unconstitutional.  Odin2005   Nov-10-09 04:56 PM   #79 
  - It doesn't ban coverage of abortions.  boppers   Nov-10-09 06:11 PM   #86 
  - Willful ignorance.  PeaceNikki   Nov-10-09 05:35 PM   #85 
  - Get off your fucking high horse..I've seen your blatantly  Cha   Nov-10-09 07:27 PM   #89 
  - Are there any lawyers here that could offer their analysis?  Hippo_Tron   Nov-10-09 07:32 PM   #90 
  - Let's break this down in lay terms  demwing   Nov-11-09 12:38 AM   #94 
     - Sweet post  Egnever   Nov-11-09 12:57 AM   #95 
     - That's right. Your excellent lawyerly analysis = NARAL, NOW, etc. are full of shit. nt  ClarkUSA   Nov-11-09 09:05 AM   #97 

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