BREAKING: Democratic Party is now Anti-Women and run by the Pope!!! :sarcasm:

[Aramchek]

This is the tripe we are being assaulted with.

This is how the opponents of the Healthcare Reform Bill have decided to try and stop it.

With Lies. Just like Republicans.

They will not succeed in these efforts. Healthcare reform will be signed into law by President Obama.
But they sure are causing a lot of unnecessary grief.

Damn sad if you ask me.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[villager]

2. because the anti-choice compromise was so progressive and "pro-woman?"

:shrug:

[Aramchek]

6. there are currently no subsidies for abortion, there will be none in the bill

nothing has changed.

[villager]

8. horseshit! It prohibits insurance companies from offering coverate they *already* offer!

Quit your mealy-mouthed apologies for this rightwing women-hating amendment!

[Aramchek]

10. do you have text from the amendment supporting that?

[villager]

13. Since you can't be bothered yourself:

One of the biggest problems with the bill the House voted on this weekend is that it includes the Stupak-Pitts amendment, one that, according to a Planned Parenthood press release, would:

Prohibit individuals who receive the affordability tax credits from purchasing a private insurance plan that covers abortion, despite the fact that a majority of health insurance plans currently cover abortion.

Result in a de facto ban on private insurance companies providing abortion coverage in the health insurance exchange, since the vast majority of participants would receive affordability tax credits.

Prohibit the public option from providing abortion care, despite the fact that it would be funded through private premium dollars.

This means that the Stupak-Pitts amendment is actually an amendment that outlaws federal funding for a legal and sometimes medically necessary procedure, abortion.

Rachel Maddow, on Meet The Press this weekend, said, " is the biggest restriction on abortion funding since the Hyde amendment. It's the biggest restriction on abortion access in a generation."

<snip>

You're free to argue with NARAL, et al...

http://www.campusprogress.org/page/community/post/kaysteiger/C2c7

(one of hundreds and hundreds of sources on this -- for those who bother...)

[Aramchek]

21. this is not text from the Amendment, it is a distorted description of it.

"that outlaws federal funding for a legal and sometimes medically necessary procedure, abortion."

Hyde has always outlawed this. It is nothing new.

Stupak does not outlaw buying Abortion Insurance.
It just states that you have to pay for that insurance on your own.

If you have a plan that is being subsidized, it cannot cover abortion.
You have to get a supplemental plan.

Naral is upset because they want abortion covered in the subsidized plan.

[villager]

22. Ah, Aramcheck prounounces Planned Parenthood a "distortion"

Who can argue with one so all-knowing and wise? And so full of apologies for bad laws?

[Aramchek]

27. can you provide real evidence for this from the text of the amendment?

or do you always let other people do your thinking for you?

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Aramchek]

40. so you cannot provide evidence, but you still believe it. amazing!

[villager]

58. Whereas I provide links to sources, you provide none! Amazing!

We are to believe Aramchek's own hot air on this issue!

[Aramchek]

64. I provided a link to to Amendment text in the OP, and a cut n paste of the text further down.

Try reading, it might help you.

[ClarkUSA]

16. How is it going to be any different than things stand now?

Before the HCR bill and the Stupak-Pitts amendment, if a woman relied on Medicaid or Medicare for her primary health insurance,
and wanted an elective abortion, she would either have to have additional private insurance to cover it, look for state funding (if
she lived in such a state that allowed and financed the procedure) or pay for the procedure out of pocket.

Nothing has changed. No new laws, no new restrictions.

Women already have to pay extra for abortion insurance. Nothing has changed.

[villager]

17. You're also free to "bother," and read the Planned Parenthood release

excerpted above...

[ClarkUSA]

23. That's not answering my question. The press release is full of overheated rhetoric. nt

[villager]

24. And ClarkUSA calls Planned Parenthood and NARAL "overheated!"

Well, they're "just a bunch of women," anyway, right?

[ClarkUSA]

36. You're being dishonest and trying to distract from my salient points which debunk your rhetoric.

That's all you have, isn't it? Facts don't matter.

[Aramchek]

43. "Facts don't matter" The new rallying cry of HCR opposition

[ClarkUSA]

46. A few can discuss issues maturely without rancor or vitriol; most resort to vitriolic obfuscation.

But you knew that already, right? :)

[villager]

49. I'm waitng to see if you're one of them....

Care to address, specifically, how it is those "hysterical women" you lambast so easily are wrong in their analysis?

[ClarkUSA]

55. I have been. You've been dishonest in your statements and refuse to offer facts from the Amendment.

<<Care to address, specifically, how it is those "hysterical women" you lambast so easily are wrong in their analysis?>>

One more time: Why are you putting quotes around a phrase that no one but you has used on this entire thread?
Your strawman argument is completely without merit and why are you falsely attributing the quoted phrase to me
when I said it? You really are shamelessly dishonest.

[villager]

56. Nor can you offer "facts" from the amendment rebutting the analyses

Which, as previously noted, come from sources vastly more reliable than you

[ClarkUSA]

61. You really cannot answer my original question, can you? Because there is no difference.

[villager]

63. Okay -- for going round and round and *offering nothing of substance*

it's ignore list time....

[Aramchek]

66. you are proven wrong, and you choose to ignore it. that doesn't speak highly of you.

[villager]

68. as you already know:

"The amendment restricts private insurers participating in the exchange from offering abortion coverage as part of their policies. They can still offer add-on abortion-only coverage, but the subsidies that the health care bill provides couldn't be tapped:

That's a summation of what is in the bill. If you say that an anti-choicer like Stupak's amendment is designed to do anything different -- and you have absolutely no language to prove otherwise -- you are, for the upteenth time, proven wrong on your craven assertions this can be ignored (except, I guess, by all those hysterical, fervide "overheated" women!)

http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/11/the_war_within_democrats_and_the_stupak_language.php

Specifically rebut how the amendent *doesn't* do this.

specifically.

Specifically.

[Aramchek]

73. but for some odd reason, you cannot point to the text of the Amendment that states this

Why is that?

Look again.

(b) OPTION TO PURCHASE SUPPLEMENTAL COVERAGE OR PLAN - Nothing in this section shall be construed as prohibiting any nonfederal entity (including an individual or a State or local government) form purchasing separate or supplemental coverage for abortions for which funding is prohibited under this section, or a plan that includes such abortions, so long as-
(1) Such coverage or plan is paid for entirely using funds not authorized or appropriated by this Act; and
(2) Such coverage or plan is not purchased using-
(A) individual premium payments required for an Exchange-participating health benefits pan towards which an affordability credit is applied; or
(B) other nonfederal funds required to receive a federal payment, including State's or locality's contribution of Medicaid matching funds.

[Name removed]

67. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Aramchek]

81. that's one of our biggest problems. Age says nothing about how 'Adult' you are.

We are virtually arguing with Children,
and plenty of them are willing to hold their breath to get what they want.

[ClarkUSA]

85. It's an eternal human problem but here the bitter Failers usually fall in that category.

On the upside, I think she's put us both on ignore. ;)

[ClarkUSA]

83. You offer only strawman arguments and false assertions instead of the facts we've asked for.

But then again, you're not interested in an adult and honest debate, are you? Not when you can put people on ignore
for calling you on your falsehoods.

[T Wolf]

20. But under this bill, IF they want to buy that separate policy, they will be penalized in

obtaining anything through the bill.

And insurance corps will not offer the coverage because they then cannot participate in the plan.

It effectively outlaws women's reproductive health coverage. Period.

[Aramchek]

28. got text? or did someone else tell you this?

[villager]

31. Got text proving all these "hysterical women's" groups wrong?

Or do you always try to win arguments with relentless bullying devoid of any actual discussion of the issue?

[ClarkUSA]

42. Why are you putting quotes around a comment that was never said by anyone on this thread except you?

You're the one being the bully around here. You can't prove any of your rhetoric, so you're attacking those who ask for the facts.
It's a nice tactic that Republicans would recognize well.

[villager]

47. Let's just say I trust NARAL and Planned Parenthood and women in general far far more

that I will ever trust the likes of you on this issue....

[Aramchek]

50. or even your own eyes, eh?

[villager]

57. One more time before the ignore list: Offer language that rebuts the analsyses

of groups who've been at this for years, and not just clogging up the internets on an idle afternoon...

Specifically, where and how are they wrong?

Specifically?

[ClarkUSA]

65. The "analyses" you mention does not provide a shred of data to back up its rhetoric. nt

[Aramchek]

80. I gave a direct quote from the Amendment, that wasn't good enough for this person

they haven't even read the Amendment.

another uninformed reactionary...

[ClarkUSA]

54. You never answer questions, do you? Gee, I wonder why. nt

[villager]

59. No, you don't. Nary a link, Gee, I wonder why.

n/t

[ClarkUSA]

70. Your "analyses" is a series of statements without a shred of data to back them up.

And you're asking me to prove them wrong? Yeah, that makes sense. :eyes:

[Aramchek]

48. I provided a link to the full text of the amendment in my OP

but just to make you happy,
here you go:

(b) OPTION TO PURCHASE SUPPLEMENTAL COVERAGE OR PLAN - Nothing in this section shall be construed as prohibiting any nonfederal entity (including an individual or a State or local government) form purchasing separate or supplemental coverage for abortions for which funding is prohibited under this section, or a plan that includes such abortions, so long as-
(1) Such coverage or plan is paid for entirely using funds not authorized or appropriated by this Act; and
(2) Such coverage or plan is not purchased using-
(A) individual premium payments required for an Exchange-participating health benefits pan towards which an affordability credit is applied; or
(B) other nonfederal funds required to receive a federal payment, including State's or locality's contribution of Medicaid matching funds.

http://documents.nytimes.com/the-stupak-amendment#p=3

No Federal funds can be used to buy a plan that covers abortion, but there is nothing stopping anyone from buying a supplemental plan which does cover abortion.

[villager]

60. well, you skillfully excerpted, sure

But that does nothing to disprove this is a new restriction on insurance companies, which didn't previously exist...

[Aramchek]

69. holy crap, your head is rock hard. I didn't 'excerpt skilfully'. I provided the exact text.

If you would rather believe what you have been told, than the evidence provided directly to you,
then you, my friend, are hopeless.

[villager]

72. It's a five page amendment. Sheesh.

And for you, ignore list time!

[Aramchek]

76. yes, 5 whole pages. Is that just too much for you to read?

[villager]

74. And you didn't reproduce the section that comes before this!

The one that carries the anti-abortion language!

Good god, you're vastly more dishonest than I realized!

Buh-bye!


(Section a, by the way -- this is section b...)

[Aramchek]

78. section (a) restricts the use of federal subsidies for abortion coverage,

section (b) states supplemental coverage is allowed.

you just aren't that bright, are you?

[ClarkUSA]

32. Again, how is that qualitatively different from what happens now?

Women already have to pay extra for abortion insurance.

[T Wolf]

41. Point is it will become unavailable becasue the insurance corps will not offer it in order

to be able to stay "in the plan."

Look for special "niche" insurers that will write a policy for womens' reproductive health coverage, but at incredibly high premiums with large co-pays, etc.

Kind of like abortion is still "legal" but if there are no providers in your county or state, it is effectively illegal.

[ClarkUSA]

45. Do you have any data to back up your statements? I'd be interested in seeing it.

I understand what you're saying, but I'm not convinced that's the way it would shake out. Besides, I believe, as
Debbie Wasserman-Schultz does, that the Stupak-Pitt Amendment's language will be removed in conference.
In other words, it was a means to an end to move the bill forward.

Thanks for discussing this controversial issue in a mature and non-vitriolic way. I appreciate it.

[villager]

62. exactly so, T Wolf....

n/t

[Cha]

75. Facts? ..

they don't need no stinkin' facts!

[ClarkUSA]

79. Yeah, it's always the bitter Failers that are the most dishonest.

Hey, isn't it great that our girl Nancy successfully got her caucus to pass HCR and move it forward into conference? :toast:

Of course, the McCain buddy Ron Fournier's AP came out with a story 5 minutes later dissing the chances of HCR
ever passing the Senate but we've heard THAT tune before, eh? ;)

[Cha]

84. Yeah, a lot of people I respect

think it's a good start.

And, I want to thank you trying to keep a semblance of sanity on DU when hysteria is the popular form of communication.

President Obama has the corporatemediaswhores, the rw fear brigade(but, I repeat myself), and the dennis faction working against him but he can handle.

To Nancy:toast:

[jefferson_dem]

3. Um...

Whatever.

Seems sanity has left the building.

[Aramchek]

4. you have seen the barrage of posts around here lately, haven't you?

[jefferson_dem]

7. I've seen bunches...

Maybe I missed the ones about the Democratic Party being the anti-woman party. Which ones are you referring to, in particular?

EDIT: I may have misread your post and missed the sarcasm. If so, please disregard my post above. :hi:

RE-EDIT: Nevermind. I see what you mean. Wow. Some folks seriously need a return to reality. Litmus tests suck, especially phony ones.

[Aramchek]

14. I just can't believe all the dishonesty in pursuit of their aims.

It spreads so virulently.

[villager]

33. and yet, your dishonesty nearly trumps them all...

n/t

[ClarkUSA]

77. Is Baghdad Bob a hero of yours? nt

[Aramchek]

82. I have provided proof for everything I say. You have provided nothing but vitriol.

[Beacool]

5. At least you're a man.

If you were a woman your post would be even more sad.

x(

[Aramchek]

9. wow. are you not ashamed at this attempt to turn women against HCR?

[texastoast]

18. I'm ashamed of a backdoor slap down the back alley

And I'm thinking I see one in this bill. I'm still reading, though, and trying to understand this unduly tangled web that has been woven.

[Aramchek]

30. read the amendment before you believe the conclusions some have jumped to

[Beacool]

I'm more ashamed of the Democratic party compromising on women's rights

for the sake of a poorly drafted bill.

:shrug:

[ClarkUSA]

51. Funny... Debbie Wasserman-Schultz isn't "ashamed" she helped move the bill forward by voting "Aye".

But then again, bitter Failers/Obama haters wouldn't support the concept of moving legislation forward into conference
(where Rep. Wasserman-Schultz says it is "very likely" that the Stupak Amendment language will be removed) in order
to get a final bill.

[ClarkUSA]

19. How sexist of you. nt

[Beacool]

34. Shoo.........

:eyes:

[dionysus]

44. i'm not even going near this aspect of the bill...

:hi:


you know, every time i google images to find banky, it always links to my prior posts... try it!

[Beacool]

52. A banky for me?

Thank you, I had a long day and I'm tired.

:pals:

I'll check on the banky search later.

[ClarkUSA]

53. Yes, the truth about your hypocrisy is inconvenient. Chris Matthews has company! nt

[stevenleser]

11. Sorry, saw the sarc tag late

nevermind

[geek tragedy]

12. Half this site hates Obama, hates every Democrat not named

Dennis Kucinich, and wants both Congress and Obama to fail utterly and collapse.

This site is overrun with Naderites.

[Forkboy]

26. LOL

:crazy:

[Aramchek]

35. according to my rec thread from yesterday, they represent about 25% of DU

But they account for 99% of the screaming.

[Starry Messenger]

71. hoo boy

[Odin2005]

15. So throwing women under the bus is OK with you?

[Aramchek]

37. that is not what happened. if you read the amendment yourself, you would see that.

[jefferson_dem]

39. Nobody's being thrown under any bus.

Please...let's not start tossing around that overused metaphor.

[Jennicut]

25. Most of the Dems are actually very pro-woman. How do people fail to realize

that all the bluedogs do not make up the entire party. However, as a voting bloc, they have the ability to cause problems with getting an overall bill passed. What would some of you do? Vote against the bill or for it? Tough choice. Read some articles at how hard it was for some Dems to make that choice...Rosa DeLauro was extremely upset but refused to end health care reform that would take years to bring up again.

[Aramchek]

38. Rosa did the right thing.