Anti-abortion Democrats in Congress vow to oppose health care packages that don't exclude procedure

[AnOhioan]

Source: Cleveland Plain Dealer

WASHINGTON -- Abortion is emerging as a flashpoint in the congressional debate over health care reform.

Even though none of the reform proposals grinding through congressional committees refer to abortion, a group of anti-abortion Democrats in Congress say they're worried the controversial procedure will be covered under the legislation even if it's not specifically mentioned.

Ninteen of them, including Ohio's Marcy Kaptur and Steve Driehaus, sent a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi that vowed opposition to any health care reform package that spends tax dollars on abortion.



Read more: http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2009/07/antiabortion_democrats_in_cong.html

[Kerrytravelers]

1. So, when working on health care reform that brings doctors closer to their patients...

... these fools want to make medical decisions for women. Wonderful.

[BlueCaliDem]

2. How are these clowns Democrat pols again? n/t

[pnwmom]

23. Unlike the Rethugs, we're not a one issue party. n/t

[Lorien]

31. Yeah, women's rights-who needs 'em?

let those nutty greens take up that crazy cause!

Sometimes I wonder if I have a party worth fighting for anymore, because they sure ain't fighting for us!(Except for Kucinich and a few rare moments by other members).

[femrap]

33. Right, who cares if women

can't control their destiny and have to have unwanted children who are probably going to require lots of federal money down the road.

So let's reduce abortions by tying dicks in knots....you get 2 kids, don't provide for them and the knot is tied. I like it.

It's fair. Women's bodies are controlled so let's do likewise with the boyz. That's some Justice!

[ProudDad]

59. Yes you are

You're the other pro-corporate wing of the Big Business party along with the republicans...

[Zhade]

63. Women's rights are an important issue, dim-bulb.

NT!

[safeinOhio]

3. I could go along with single payer,

abortion as elective, not banned, trade. 3 years ago family planning charged $400.. Now that's negotiating.

[Liberty Belle]

4. This is why the Dem Party should not support any candidate who is not pro choice!

I withheld donations from the DCCC and told them I was disgusted that they supported candidates who are anti-choice; with "choices" like that women will be back to the dark ages!

Dems would never dream of supporting candidates who are racist. So how dare the party back candidates who are anti-women?

This makes my blood boil. Speaking as someone once diagnosed with a tubal pregnancy. Thankfully the diagnosis proved wrong on further testing. But a tubal pregnancy, if not aborted in the early stages, can result in death of the mother and will never result in delivery of a baby, because the tube will simply burst. How DARE anyone say that federal funds should not be used to save a mother's live in such a circumstance? These are NOT rare. Do your homework. Democrats who would deny all funds for abortions are murderers just like the GOP. They should be thrown out of office!

[katandmoon]

5. If you're a federal employee, your govt. health insurance already does NOT cover abortion

After Bush I ended, Clinton restored it.
Bush II removed it.
Obama has not restored it.

[xchrom]

6. i can not support active pro life dems -- can't do it. nt

[tritsofme]

15. In 1998 IIRC, for IL governor we had to choose between a pro-choice Republican and pro-life Democrat

I ended up voting for the pro-choice Republican. He ended up winning the state, in large measure I might imagine, due to his stance on that issue.

In unrelated news, that pro-choice Republican governor now sits in a federal prison, and the Democrat has shown himself through the years as a genuinely good guy. Funny how things work sometimes.

[RainDog]

40. I might vote for a pro-choice republican over an anti-choice democrat

because, honestly, they all suck corporate dick.

[pattmarty]

7. I thought Kaptur was liberal? Maybe on everything BUT abortion.

The Republicans won't have to do shit to block "reform", just let the Dems in the House & Senate do it for them.

[Freddie Stubbs]

22. Just like Dennis Kucinich before he ran for President

[No Elephants]

46. Baloney.

[Alexander]

48. Actually Freddie's right. Kucinich was pro-life before 2003

and voted several times against federal funding for abortions.

[Zhade]

64. And he came to his senses. SHOCK! It happens.

NT!

[Freddie Stubbs]

51. Here is some proof to back up the 'Baloney':

Ohio presidential hopeful pivots over to pro-choice camp

Ex-abortion foe Kucinich defends move

Marc Sandalow, Washington Bureau Chief
Sunday, February 23, 2003

(02-23) 04:00 PDT Washington -- Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich, a recent entrant to the Democratic presidential sweepstakes, is in many ways a perfect match for Northern California. He opposes war with Iraq. He advocates universal health care, workers' rights and a holistic world view. He introduced legislation to create a cabinet-level Department of Peace. He is not just a vegetarian, he is a vegan.

But Kucinich also possesses one of the most anti-abortion voting records of any Democrat in Congress.

During his eight years in the House, Kucinich voted with abortion-rights advocates barely 10 percent of the time. Twice in the past three years, the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League, now known as NARAL Pro-Choice America, gave him a rating of "zero."

On the stump this past week, and in an interview with The Chronicle, Kucinich now describes himself as "pro-choice." He said he has undergone a slow evolution that has led him to the conclusion that legal abortions are not only constitutionally sound, but also fundamental to a woman's equality.

more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/02/23/MN119613.DTL

[femrap]

34. I'm surprised by Kaptur as well....

ho hum. Repugnants, Demolites. Same Shit, Different Pile.

[earcandle]

8. That is why these guys can't be real Americans. They have no tolerance for differences.

[customerserviceguy]

9. It was forseeable that this would be one of the things that would come up

if we ever got a serious discussion about national health care. Mental issues would be another area, as well. And forget about sex reassignment surgery, that's just not going to happen.

[bluestateguy]

10. They have to promise to vote for the bill if we give them what they want

I can't help but think that if we give them what they want, they'll just find something else to bitch about and vote no anyway. If they are going to do that then you might as well just cover abortion anyway.

[tomm2thumbs]

18. it'll be medical marijuana, right to die Shiavo stuff, right to refuse chemo for children, etc

You are right - they are already lining up their list of 'nots' in an effort to derail it. They don't give a damn about health, just their ideology.

[caraher]

11. For f***'s sake...

Can't we work one issue at a time here?

Worse, I smell a cowardly way of caving to the insurers... *say* you'd love to reform health care and use the abortion issue as a smokescreen, a cloud of pious incense masking the stench of insurance lobby dollars. Too perfect. :puke:

[DaLittle Kitty]

13. These Are Just SHILLS FOR CORPORATE AMERICA! Muswt BE Opposed, Exposed and Defeated!

They are there to block any and all populist candidates and are funded by the very same corporate lobbyists as STRAIGHT UP REPUBS! They are Fucking Repubs w/ a little d after their name... :think:

[avaistheone1]

21. Women of America dawn your burkas the good Democrats are coming to save us from ourselves.

Let them decide for us what is best in the most private parts of our lives.

:sarcasm:

[Lorien]

32. I think you nailed it

we have a super majority-now Dems have to find SOME WAY to epically fail those who voted for them in favor of their sugar daddy's interests, yet not look too craven while doing so.

[Moochy]

12. Is this tent too big?

Three cheers for paternalist centrist Democrats!

[IndianaGreen]

14. Frak the whole lot of them!

It is no coincidence that these RW Democrats also hate LGBTs.

[AlphaCentauri]

16. Abortion may be like plastic surgery a choice

but if the doctor prescribed then everything change.

[femrap]

36. That's one of the

most willfully ignorant comments I've heard regarding the decision to have an abortion.

Oh gee, think I'll get some botox and an abortion on the same day!

[colinmom71]

53. I think the above point was simply clumsily stated...

Unfortunately brevity did not suit their purposes well here.

I think they were trying to say that abortion by choice isn't usually covered by many health insurers because it isn't considered to have a medical cause to be treated. Plastic surgery often is similar, in that it's not covered by insurance due to the lack of a medical problem needing to be addressed.

However, there cases where plastic surgery CAN be considered medically justified, as in being needed to treat a physical ailment and prescribed by a physician to alleviate that issue, such as a breast reduction to address back pain/strain or an abdominoplasty ("tummy tuck") to repair muscular damage from childbearing or C-section complications. In another example, while breast implant surgery is not covered when it is an elective and chosen procedure by the patient, it IS covered when it is a medically reconstructive effort after a mastectomy/breast cancer.

The same reasoning applies to abortion with a goodly number of health insurers. They tend to only cover abortions where a medical problem has arisen with the pregnancy and where termination of the pregnancy is justified to address that problem (say, a D&C for an incomplete miscarriage, second trimester abortion due to a maternal health threat, fetal demise, etc.). While the physician does need to submit a form to the insurer to show medical cause for the procedure, it is in essence a legal "prescription" for medical care... And it is that prescription that makes all the difference in whether the procedure will be covered or not.

[femrap]

54. But insurance companies

pay for viagra. Don't the insurance companies realize what viagra can lead to? An unintended pregnancy. But that's just too bad for the women.

It's not right. Women have lost health benefits they once had in the 1970's and 1980's.

We're back to 2nd class citizens...oops, I mean consumers.

And I still don't like the analogy...getting a nose job vs. having an unintended pregnancy. The later can be absolutely life-changing. The nose job, not much.

[Robb]

55. To be fair, the doc prescribes viagra.

He also prescribes oral contraceptives. Both are covered by our health insurance, interestingly enough.

I agree however the analogy is clumsy at best.

[colinmom71]

61. Well, not to seem like I'm parsing words here...

Because in general principle, I do agree with you. But a lot of health insurance companies separate medical coverage from prescription drug coverage, except when drugs are prescribed during a hospital stay through the hospital pharmacy (medical insurance does cover that when separate plans are involved). So when this is the scenario (sep. med. and drug coverage), the parallels between Viagra coverage and abortion coverage become invalid since we're dealing with two separately functioning insurance companies with differing policies for coverage. (Were there a universal coverage system that covered all medically relevant procedures and medications, this policy difference between companies would be non-issue, as it should be.)

But as for my previous post, it's not that I'm comparing the life impact of a cosmetic procedure to an abortion. But rather, I was pointing out that health insurers require presentation and acknowledgement by the physician of a medical problem in which the prescribed procedure is designed to cure or alleviate symptoms. With your mention above of nose jobs, sometimes even those may be prescribed to alleviate a medical problem and can be covered by insurance should it be found that the surgery would help with a disorder that would likely worsen and impair life function in the future (i.e. - a severely deviated septum that causes sleep apnea for instance). But as we know, most rhinoplasties are chosen for purely cosmetic reasons (absent medical cause) and are thus not covered.

Personally I find there to be a more compelling argument in favor of covering all abortions regardless of medical cause. And that would be the stated goal to protect women's health by ensuing that abortions are only performed by a licensed medical professional, in a safe manner according to contemporary medical professional standards, and done so in order to avoid the complications that would otherwise cause serious injury and costly medical bills to fix after the fact should non-professionals resort to performing abortions for lower income women due to lack of funding. It would likely cost far less to cover birth control and first trimester abortions (medical and surgical) than to have to cover all the traumatic injuries that would happen due to botched abortions. Not to mention the vastly greater sum for pre-natal and delivery costs to sustain a pregnancy that was not wanted and not affordable for the expectant parent(s) to begin with...

Hope this explains my stance above more accurately...

[femrap]

62. There is someone on my IGNORE LIST

commenting in between us....I don't know what I'd do without the Ignore Button.

It appears we agree. I've worked for Corporate America many years....Investment and Insurance Industries. I found them to be void of morals.

As far as I'm concerned...any woman who wants an abortion can have one and $$$$ should not stand in her way.

I see unwanted children everyday. The prisons are full of them. I'm so tired of dealing with people with don't get this...the willfully ignorant. The willfully ignorant are making our planet unlivable.

Maybe there should be a 'SPERM TAX!' Every time a dude ejaculates, he must pay so there will be funds for those women who can't afford a $500 abortion (applies to only single dudes or dudes cheating on their wives). I could put a LOL...but with today's Big Brother tech, I could be on to something. This is now a patented and trademarked idea!!!!

[tomm2thumbs]

17. then they'll start adding a Terri Schiavo clause - health care should be between doctor/patient.

When this issue comes up, they should state 'that is an issue between a doctor and patient we will not allow the Federal Government to undermine states rights on these issues...' That oughta shut the F*cking control freaks who want it both ways. Hey, if we are going to go there, let's not have government funding of Viagra because if God wants your penis to turn off, it should remain off. Half of Congress would be running to stock up on blue pills.

These idiots are trying anything to subvert health care and they'll throw the baby AND the bathwater into the fire to have their way.

[imdjh]

19. So get them to sign a paper saying they will support single payer if it excludes abortion.

It's like a car deal- they are saying that THIS is their objection, so you don't argue the objection, you respond ,
"So if I exclude abortion will you sign this paper agreeing to single payer?"

If they won't? They're window shopping (ie grand standing).

[avaistheone1]

20. If these Democrats want to serve the Pope or his fundamentalist equivalent they don't belong

in the legislature. Instead they should get a job working for their respective churches and stay out of government. If these Democrats want to live in a theocracy they should move to Iraq or Saudi Arabia. Women in this country don't want these so called Democrats running our lives, and having us wear the burka and living the burka lifestyle.

For heavens sakes as Flo Kennedy once said - if men could get an abortion it would then be considered a sacrament, and of course fully paid for by insurance I might add.

[bc3000]

24. 19? that doesn't seem like much of an opposition.

are 19 votes in the House really meaningful with the large Democratic majority?

[Vinca]

25. Those opposing need to imagine their wife or daughter

facing certain death if a pregnancy continues. Oh . . . wait . . . I forgot. They've got solid gold health insurance that covers everything. It's the peons who will be expected to sacrifice their family members.

[Zynx]

26. This is potentially so politically damaging it's not worth the fight.

If we destroy our own healthcare package the public will boot us out in 2010 and 2012.

[cap]

27. Here are the 19 congressmen -- courtesy of the family research council

Dan Boren (Okla.), Bobby Bright (Ala.), Travis Childers (Miss.), Jerry Costello (Ill.), Kathy Dahlkemper (Penn.), Lincoln Davis (Tenn.), Steve Driehaus (Ohio), Tim Holden (Penn.), Paul Kanjorski (Penn.), Marcy Kaptur (Ohio), Mike McIntyre (N.C.), Charlie Melancon (La.), John Murtha (Penn.), Jim Oberstar (Minn.), Solomon Ortiz (Texas), Collin Peterson (Minn.), Heath Shuler (N.C.), Bart Stupak (Mich.), and Gene Taylor (Miss)

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=WU09F21&f=PG07J01

[No Elephants]

47. Illinois, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Minnesota and Bible belt states.

John Murtha? Wow.

[Justyce]

28. Since when are elective abortions covered by insurance anyway?

Aren't they only covered when medically necessary? Or are those Dems trying to get them excluded even when medically necessary?!

[AlphaCentauri]

30. neither boobs or nose jobs n/t

[redqueen]

37. Good question.

If it's the former, then these are grandstanding morons. If the latter, then they really need to be educated by their constituents.

[femrap]

38. Do you think ALL

women are rich? Do you realize that the cheapest BC pills today are $40/month....and that was a year ago.

Do you realize that abortions cost around $500?

I totally understand why W was elected....willfully ignorant people flourish in this nation. No analysis, no questions.....just OPINIONS that the stupid person thinks are FACTS.

Do you look at population studies at all? Dwindling resources? More people, less resources, more war....get it?

I give up.

[Justyce]

39. I'm not saying they *shouldn't* be covered, I'm simply

pointing out that elective ABs *aren't* covered currently & medical ABS are, and I'm questioning what these Dems are trying to prove.

And by the way, yes, I think they should be covered. If insurance can cover penile prostheses, Viagra, etc., then they should have to cover birth control pills and abortions as well.

[rebecca_herman]

41. sometimes they are sometimes they aren't

I used to have a rather (weird imo) medical plan that would cover elective abortions, but not birth control pills. Still trying to figure that one out....

[femrap]

44. During Raygun's administration,

insurance companies stopped covering ALL abortions. Aetna covered the cost of mine. In fact, fed $ used to help pay for poor women's abortions.

FYI, the 'medical' abortions are now mainly referred to as 'partial birth abortions.' After 3 months, horrific diseases or malformities become apparent and require an abortion...I mean a partial birth abortion.

And do you have any idea how few doctors help women with these 'medical' abortions? One of them was just assassinated.

Regarding covering the cost of reproductive health for women....right and call your Senator and Rep DAILY! Maybe they'll get the message.

Just watch, women's health, then children's health needs are thrown under the bus....because women are second class.

[colinmom71]

52. It depends on the insurance policy...

The majority of private health insurers cover abortions only when medically indicated (threatened maternal health, fetal demise, severe fetal health problem, etc.). But then, they also cover most procedures of any sort only when considered medically justified by their company standards.

Though there are some who do cover abortions "by choice" regardless of medical necessity. My husband's employer happens to offer a health insurance plan that has this type coverage, along with covering other women's care options that a lot of insurers also do not provide, such as infertility treatments and the meds those require.

Either way, this panel of self-appointed Democratic "pro-lifers" are attempting to deny women coverage for a legal and medically safe procedure because some people may not agree with her choice. The problem with their professed logic of wanting to be for the "protection and preservation of families" (from their letter to Pelosi) is that it's also an argument that can be used against birth control. Couples who use birth control are not having families, so should coverage be denied these couples to achieve that stated goal to preserve the family unit? Believe me, there is a quite vocal minority out there who would be quite happy to use this twisted line of logic to that end!

[crim son]

29. Those who would allow the living to suffer

to "save" the unborn haven't got their heads screwed on right.

[redqueen]

35. They need to hear from their constituents on this.

Let's hope they bother to call and write... nobody else's voice will matter one bit to these anti-choice assholes.

[Dark]

42. Driehaus is my rep. Believe me, he's the best we could do.

n/t

[MisterP]

43. hmm, we DO have 39 House seats to spare... n/t

[slackmaster]

45. Face-palm

[malletgirl02]

49. Anti-Abortion Democrats

Why do I get the feeling that these "Democrats" want to make sure we never get a healthcare bill passed?

[No Elephants]

50. Pelosi needs to smack them down before the RW is emboldened and get more reps to join them.

[Freddie Stubbs]

56. What specific actions whould the Speaker take to "smack down" these Congressmen?

:shrug:

[ProudDad]

58. Easy

"You want to get SHIT for YOUR district, want to get your earmarks?"

"Then STFU about abortion and the health care bill..."

That's how it's done in the halls of Congress...

on edit:

The same way Lyndon Johnson passed Medicare and Medicaid...

The same way Obama should be working the phones for MEANINGFUL health care...if he knew how...

[Freddie Stubbs]

66. The problem is that she would face a revolt from the Blue Dogs

And she cannot pass legislation without them.

[ProudDad]

69. Yes, she can

there aren't that many and they are MONDO vulnerable. The MOST vulnerable and easiest to keep in line for the most important issues.

No Dem Money and they go home for good!

But the Dem "leadership" from Obama to Pelosi to Reid all have Rolls Royce Health Care and/or as in the case of Pelosi, filthy rich...so "What, me worry?"

[ProudDad]

57. F*ck 'em

Still enough votes to pass without those fascist religionists...

[Freddie Stubbs]

65. Marcy Kaptur votes with the Democratic Caucus over 95% of the time:

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/111/house/party-voters/

Sounds like she is a solid Democrat to me.

[ProudDad]

70. And for 8 years

the Dem Caucus voted with bush on the most important issues of war and human needs...

Big Whoop...

I want to know how she voted on bush/Obama's wars...

I want to know where she is on health care generally -- is she for Single-payer? A STRONG viable "public option" that could lead to single payer.

I doubt it...

How about the economy...is she one of those die-hard capitalists?

Probably...

Her religulous position on a Woman's Right to Choose would say she's not very friendly to post-born humans...

[New Dawn]

60. DINOs

[colinmom71]

67. Another DU'er posted the contents of this letter here -

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8516422

And you can see my response to that letter in that thread here - http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8516422#8516617

[rocktivity]

68. But is it what their CONSITITUTENTS want?

:eyes:
rocktivity