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

If Stupak amendment doesn't change, it would break one of Obama's campaign promises ( [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is locked.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
Teramis Donating Member (25 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-11-09 01:32 PM
Original message
If Stupak amendment doesn't change, it would break one of Obama's campaign promises (
Advertisements [?]
Edited on Wed Nov-11-09 01:36 PM by Teramis
Via the Pulitzer Prize-winning website (not related to, link at the end of this post) Candidate Obama told Planned Parenthood the following in a July, 2007 speech (video)

"In my mind, reproductive care is essential care. It is basic care, so it is at the center and at the heart of the plan that I propose. Essentially what we're doing is, were going to set up a public plan that all persons and all women can access if they dont have health insurance. It will be a plan that will provide all essential services, including reproductive services, as well as mental health services and disease management services, because part of our interest is to make sure that were putting more money into preventive care."

As you see in the excerpt above, we're told that "all women" would be provided with reproductive services in the public plan and people receiving subsidies from the government. So the debate over the amendment's effect on privately covered persons is irrelevant in this particular case.

Because of this, Politifact concludes:

The amendment's prohibition on providing abortion coverage to participants in the exchange who receive subsidized coverage or use the public option would clearly break Obama's promise. And while the Stupak-Pitts provision wouldn't establish an outright ban on abortion coverage for subsidized health exchange participants who buy private plans, it would add a significant logistical hurdle by forcing them to obtain a rider to obtain such coverage. Even unsubsidized health exchange participants -- whose ability to secure abortion coverage would not be directly restricted by the law -- might find themselves facing limited coverage choices if insurers take the path of least resistance and simply ignore the market for abortion-inclusive policies on the health exchange.

Read the entire analysis here: /

Refresh | 0 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
  -If Stupak amendment doesn't change, it would break one of Obama's campaign promises ( Teramis  Nov-11-09 01:32 PM   #0 
  - Meh... campaign promises are a game for children  Kurt_and_Hunter   Nov-11-09 01:35 PM   #1 
  - "I didn't believe much of what Obama said during the primaries. "  ProSense   Nov-11-09 01:36 PM   #2 
  - Or anyone else. But since Obama won we're not seeing posts about what other candidates promised  Kurt_and_Hunter   Nov-11-09 01:38 PM   #3 
  - On second thought,  ProSense   Nov-11-09 01:39 PM   #4 
     - He should be held to standards of right and good and wise, not "consistent"  Kurt_and_Hunter   Nov-11-09 01:44 PM   #6 
        - Tell us, Holier-Than-Thou One, what category does "the baby-killing industry" fall into?  ClarkUSA   Nov-11-09 02:04 PM   #17 
  - That's just because they're misinterpreting him.  hughee99   Nov-11-09 01:43 PM   #5 
  - That's right. Politifact is spinning what he said specifically into a generality. nt  ClarkUSA   Nov-11-09 01:55 PM   #11 
  - that's absurd and you know it  noiretextatique   Nov-11-09 01:59 PM   #15 
     - Of course that's an absurd argument, but that won't prevent some  hughee99   Nov-11-09 03:00 PM   #25 
  - Welcome back, joey!  jenmito   Nov-11-09 01:44 PM   #7 
  - It better the hell not be.  Cha   Nov-11-09 01:48 PM   #8 
  - It is...  jenmito   Nov-11-09 01:56 PM   #12 
  - How did I miss that?  ProSense   Nov-11-09 01:49 PM   #9 
  - Maybe your antennae weren't up.  jenmito   Nov-11-09 01:58 PM   #13 
  - I'm thinking masuki or snowdays... we'll see. n/t  firedupdem   Nov-11-09 02:29 PM   #23 
  - S/he's quick. I think s/he is hired to rile up discontent amongst Dems towards O & other Dems.  vaberella   Nov-11-09 03:37 PM   #26 
  - Goodbye again, joey!!!  JTFrog   Nov-11-09 04:08 PM   #33 
  - Obama didn't write the clause and he is lobbying against it.  Nicholas D Wolfwood   Nov-11-09 01:50 PM   #10 
  - Exactly. But this is how people work and note the amount of DUers who agree. n/t  vaberella   Nov-11-09 03:42 PM   #29 
  - Can I say "joeytrolla" now, or is it  geek tragedy   Nov-11-09 01:58 PM   #14 
  - does the happy dance.  mopinko   Nov-11-09 02:26 PM   #20 
  - A campaign promise should never be interpreted as anything but a  treestar   Nov-11-09 02:01 PM   #16 
  - He can LEAD on the issue  leftynyc   Nov-11-09 02:05 PM   #18 
  - Get a grip. n/t  Fire1   Nov-11-09 02:17 PM   #19 
  - Obviously Obama flip flopped on that promise just as he did with the war, the environment  earth mom   Nov-11-09 02:26 PM   #21 
  - You do realize you're agreeing with a well known troll that's been tombstoned for lies before. n/t  vaberella   Nov-11-09 03:39 PM   #27 
     - Of course. She is one of the biggest cheerleaders of the recently departed this board has. n/t  JTFrog   Nov-11-09 03:45 PM   #30 
        - I'll be sure to remember that. Why would they come here & donate but support liars & drama makers?  vaberella   Nov-11-09 03:47 PM   #31 
           - I don't get it either.  JTFrog   Nov-11-09 03:57 PM   #32 
  - nice hit and run  mopinko   Nov-11-09 02:26 PM   #22 
  - showed up to post this in an ever so familiar format. n/t  firedupdem   Nov-11-09 02:31 PM   #24 
  - Ignore it til it dies of starvation.  JTFrog   Nov-11-09 03:39 PM   #28 
  - Locking...  rasputin1952   Nov-11-09 04:26 PM   #34 

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