19 House Dems ready to throw women and girls under the bus

[ehrnst]

alternately, they're willing to throw the rest of Americans who need affordable health care under the bus for their "Pro-life" contributors:

http://www.nationaljournal.com/congressdaily/hbp_20090630_2217.php

<snip>

Nineteen House Democrats have told Speaker Pelosi they will not vote for healthcare legislation "unless it explicitly excludes abortion funding from the scope of any government-defined or subsidized health insurance plan." In a letter to Pelosi, the lawmakers said they want to ensure that the Health Benefits Advisory Committee cannot recommend that abortion services be included as part of a benefits package. "Without an explicit exclusion, abortion could be included in a government-subsidized healthcare plan under general health care," the letter states.</snip>

[lindisfarne]

Let them exclude abortion coverage. I am about as pro-choice as can be, but this is a Rep. move to

kill health-care reform. No federal money currently can be used for abortion except in very limited health-related cases.

With the money that is saved, we can all fund Planned Parenthood.

Don't let the right-wing win over this issue.

[ehrnst]

2. As if PP will get any more funding...

Reproductive health care is a basic need.

No, I don't want to derail health care, but the majority of those who need timely abortions will be the ones on a federal plan.

[lindisfarne]

6. Health care is a basic need. If you have lower health care costs after reform, donate to PP.

Then, work to include abortion coverage in public plan.

[ehrnst]

7. I do, and I will. However, PP is losing money at state levels

Due to the work of such assholes as the ones signing this letter.

THEY are the ones ready to derail affordable health care, not me.

[lindisfarne]

10. Being right about who is ultimately derailing reform won't help those without health care if reform

doesn't pass, as a result.

This is unwin-able, given that health care reform is going to be a tough battle without the abortion issue. You might as well support a republican if you're going to insist on abortion being included - that's their goal: to take support away from reform and create doubt in the minds of those who are just barely on the side of supporting it.

[ehrnst]

13. I don't think that contacting those politicians and telling them that they will lose their jobs

over this will be what kills health reform.

[lindisfarne]

18. Contact them. Just don't insist on abortion coverage being included or you're going to lose public

support. That's the key issue.

[lindisfarne]

16. "PP is losing money at state levels". That should emphasize to you that you're going to lose support

from the public if you insist on including general abortion coverage in public option.

Planned Parenthood depends on voluntary donations, so your statement indicates the public is supporting their mission less. (DU-ers could increase their donations!)
(I haven't seen the stats so don't know if it's actually true that PP is getting less money, nor whether it's primarily a recent thing due to the economy).

[ehrnst]

23. PP receives Title X funding - and that's not going to increase anytime soon

and neither is private funding - both due to the economy.

[lindisfarne]

24. Title X funding does not pay (directly) for abortion. The topic is abortion.n/t

[ehrnst]

29. The topic was funding of Planned Parenthood...

[lindisfarne]

30. No - the topic was abortion (see your OP). I mentioned people could increase their contributions to

PP out of the savings they realize from health care reform as a way to increase abortion availability, since insisting on abortion in the public option is going to cause it to lose a great deal of public support.
Increasing Title X funds will not increase availability of abortion under current law (but you can work to change that).

[GreenPartyVoter]

1. This is such a friggin outrage! Unfortunately, the RW religious nuts still have enough clout to

take major control of issues even when they are just a minority group.

[sinkingfeeling]

Most insurance companies do cover abortion, why shouldn't the public option?

[lindisfarne]

5. You're right. But this will kill the public option if we insist on it. Pass health care reform, then

work to improve it.

[CrispyQ]

3. And why shouldn't it be included? It's a LEGAL procedure, you assholes.

:grr:

snip...

The letter was signed by Reps. Dan Boren of Oklahoma; Bart Stupak of Michigan; Tim Holden, John Murtha, Kathleen Dahlkemper and Paul Kanjorski of Pennsylvania; Collin Peterson and James Oberstar of Minnesota; Travis Childers and Gene Taylor of Mississippi; Lincoln Davis of Tennessee; Solomon Ortiz of Texas; Mike McIntyre and Heath Shuler of North Carolina; Jerry Costello of Illinois; Bobby Bright of Alabama; Steve Driehaus and Marcy Kaptur of Ohio; and Charlie Melancon of Louisiana.

[jwirr]

19. It should be included but there will be no funding for anything under

a public option if it is included. That is a shame but I think it is reality. Many Democratic legislators, especially from southern areas, will lose their seats if they even dare to push this. There is so much riding on this. As it stands I do not think that government health care plans are paying for abortions now. They have never been able to get it passed in congress.

[madfloridian]

4. Here are their names. Remember the party recruited 12 anti-choice dems in 08

"The letter was signed by Reps. Dan Boren of Oklahoma; Bart Stupak of Michigan; Tim Holden, John Murtha, Kathleen Dahlkemper and Paul Kanjorski of Pennsylvania; Collin Peterson and James Oberstar of Minnesota; Travis Childers and Gene Taylor of Mississippi; Lincoln Davis of Tennessee; Solomon Ortiz of Texas; Mike McIntyre and Heath Shuler of North Carolina; Jerry Costello of Illinois; Bobby Bright of Alabama; Steve Driehaus and Marcy Kaptur of Ohio; and Charlie Melancon of Louisiana."

Remember the party actively worked to recruit 12 democrats whom they knew to be anti-choice.

[Gman]

8. Does private medical insurance cover abortions now?

I really don't know. If it's medically necessary, I would think private insurers cover it and the public option should include it.

[lindisfarne]

11. It can. Depends on the state. (WA uses state public funds to cover abortions). n/t

[ehrnst]

12. Federal/military employees don't have it covered.

However, they would not be seeking the public option anyhow. On another note - miliary can get plastic surgery and breast implants on the gov't dime, but not emergency contraception.

Many private insurers charge much higher premiums to include it.

Public options should abide by medical recommedations, not political.

In any case, the signers of this letter should ABSOLUTELY know what it will cost them in terms of their mainstream constituents.

If you live in one of those states, get on the horn...

[dgibby]

9. This is no different from the military health care system.

Government bans abortions in military hospitals.

[ehrnst]

20. But will the public option cover plastic surgery, like the military health system does?

http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2004/07/26/040726ta_talk_schaler

[PassingTimeHere]

40. Enlisted physicians need to learn their specialties

They're also expected to do so many procedures a year. You can't get good at something if you don't practice, and many of these doctors will move to the civilian world. Furthermore, you can't get every procedure at every military hospital, and there's sometimes a long waiting list. It's not like signing up to get the local paper. :)

That's what a (military) family member told me.

[ellenfl]

14. why do their votes matter? aren't there still enough votes

in the house without these dem votes?

ellen fl

[lindisfarne]

17. Good point. But the real issue is how much Public support for a public option will be lost as a

result of including it - it's going to be difficult enough.

Pass the reform, then pass subsequent laws adding abortion coverage. (If you think this approach is impossible, why do you think passing it the first time WITH abortion coverage is going to be possible?)

Also, including it could endanger more Dem seats in 2010.

[LynneSin]

15. I'm torn on this

First this is about providing healthcare and I'd hate to see this thing falter because of something like this ESPECIALLY since Abortion would be a tougher vote in the Senate.

HOWEVER, we have a 58+ lead in the house. We'll survive without 19.

[xchrom]

21. and this is why i don't support 'pro-life' dems

any more than i would support a republick party person.

[HowHasItComeToThis]

27. THEY ARE NOT PROLIFE, THEY ARE ANTI CHOICE

[lindisfarne]

31. In fact, they're anti-life: carrying a pregnancy full term is 20 times as likely to cause death

than is abortion in the US.

http://family.jrank.org/pages/4/Abortion-Risks-Abortion.html
By the early 1990s in the United States, the risk of death in early abortion was less than 1 death per 1 million procedures, and for later abortion, about 1 death per 100,000 procedures (Koonin et al. 1992). The overall risk of death in abortion was about 0.4 deaths per 100,000 procedures compared with a maternal mortality rate (exclusive of abortion) of about 9.1 deaths per 100,000 live births

[xchrom]

33. what ever. nt

[midnight]

35. That's right.

[LiberalFighter]

22. Why should their wish be considered? Division of the House is 257-178

A margin of 79. That gives the Democrats a cushion of 60 votes.

[lindisfarne]

25. do you think this will remain isolated to the House & not become an issue in the senate as well?

Losing senators in next election cycle is not a good plan.

[EC]

26. wouldn't that be rationing?

which most are against in the plan? will planned parenthood continue to be funded?

[lindisfarne]

28. Planned Parenthood receives no federal funds for abortion./nt

[ejpoeta]

32. so they want to add provisions to provide assistance to women who will end up having

kids because we want to legislate our religious beliefs??? then lets not provide coverage of erection meds either... bullshit. lets go down that road, shall we. there are so many things so many different people could object to... government shouldn't be involved in decisions between a doctor and patient... even abortion services. this is a legal course of action, and we should not be legislating our religious beliefs!! i don't want to have to pay for wars.... but i don't have a choice in that!! i don't want my tax dollars going to religious organizations, but i don't have a say in that either. this is bullshit!

[iverglas]

34. This issue was used to defeat public payer in California

It is a difficult one. The right wing does everything it can to use its ugly wedge issues to defeat anything not in its interests.

The proposal in California was a ballot proposition. This is different. This isn't the right wing rallying its vicious troops to get out and vote, or siphoning off fence-sitters.

These are your elected representatives. Their behaviour is unconscionable. I wish you well from across the border in doing whatever it takes to get them to do their jobs.

[ehrnst]

36. Treatment for sepsis from coathanger DIY abortions will be covered

So I guess we have no room to complain...:sarcasm:

[Triana]

37. From NARAL - tell your Senators NOT to support banning reproductive health services from HC reform!

Unless we act now, the Senate could ban reproductive-health services from being covered in the new health-care system.

Millions of women could lose coverage for abortion care -- even if their private health insurance already covers it!

I just sent my senators a note asking that they stand up against this divisive anti-choice attack.

Will you send a note too? Just click the link below:

https://secure.prochoiceamerica.org/site/Advocacy?id=3835&pagename=homepage

If we lose and a ban is introduced as part of health-care reform, there's little chance of getting it removed later. A Senate committee is finalizing the the bill before the holiday weekend, so there's not much time.

Please send your message now:

https://secure.prochoiceamerica.org/site/Advocacy?id=3835&pagename=homepage

Thanks for helping out.

[Azalea]

38. So while we wait for free abortions

babies, infants, toddlers, children, adolescents, young adults, middle aged adults, older adults, senior citizens and centurians with little money wither away without acces to defibrilators, insulin, HIV meds and the like.

We can donate to ensure women who need abortions can get them, we can't help for all the other life threatening conditions that will THRIVE without federal funds to have access to medical treatment fgor those ailments. You can't possibly justify DEATH OR TORTUROUS SUFFERING ON INNOCENT PEOPLE for the sake for ensuring free abortions.

[ehrnst]

39. I think that you forget that a self-inflicted abortion is a life-threatening condition, too.

I'm sorry, it's not just about "free abortions," it's about basic reproductive health care.

Childbirth and abortion both require medical attention.

THEY are making this about abortion care vs ALL OTHER HEALTH.

If we let them, they will win. The majority of people in this country are pro-choice. If we remind our elected officials that the forced childbearing crowd is a minority, albeit far more noisy than the rest of the country, they may listen.

[YewNork]

41. This is an attempt to divide and conquer.

They don't want health reform that simply excludes abortion. They want to derail the health reform. Period.

Don't allow the opponents to scuttle the bill by causing these divisions