It's OK to throw women's rights out now, we need widdle teeny steps to start

[mullard12ax7]

Then, at a magically later time when the democrats have a majority (LOL) then we can include silly little idealist things like health care people are guaranteed to have and equal rights.

[sandnsea]

1. The Hyde Amendment is still the law

Just like it was 6 hours ago.

[Sparkly]

This reaches into private health insurance.

This goes beyond the Hyde amendment.

[emulatorloo]

13. Sounds like it is ripe for being thrown out in conference then,

[sandnsea]

16. It prevents abortion from being included in the exchange plans

Fixing this would be as simple as creating ryders that are directly funded by people who want the additional coverage.

[Sparkly]

18. It prevents subsidies to private companies that provide abortions.

In other words, it pushes private insurance companies to drop abortion coverage entirely.

[sandnsea]

22. Which could be fixed with a ryder

$1-$5 a month ryder that is put into a separate fund by the insurance companies, check it off on a box of the selected plan. No big deal.

[Sparkly]

23. "No big deal?"

From NARAL:

Keenan said anti-choice members of Congress and their allies distorted key elements of the Stupak-Pitts amendment to make the proposal appear less extreme. Here are rebuttals to these distortions, including the myth of an abortion "rider" that they say women could purchase in addition to their insurance plan:

The Stupak-Pitts amendment forbids any plan offering abortion coverage in the new system from accepting even one subsidized customer. Since more than 80 percent of the participants in the exchange will be subsidized, it seems certain that all health plans will seek and accept these individuals. In other words, the Stupak-Pitts amendment forces plans in the exchange to make a difficult choice: either offer their product to 80 percent of consumers in the marketplace or offer abortion services in their benefits package. It seems clear which choice they will make.

Stupak-Pitts supporters claim that women who require subsidies to help pay for their insurance plan will have abortion access through the option of purchasing a "rider," but this is a false promise. According to the respected National Women's Law Center, the five states that require a separate rider for abortion coverage, there is no evidence that plans offer these riders. In fact, in North Dakota, which has this policy, the private plan that holds the state's overwhelming share of the health-insurance market (91 percent) does not offer such a rider. Furthermore, the state insurance department has no record of abortion riders from any of the five leading individual insurance plans from at least the past decade. Nothing in this amendment would ensure that rider policies are available or affordable to the more than 80 percent of individuals who will receive federal subsidies in order to help purchase coverage in the new exchange.

http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/news/press-releases/200...

[sandnsea]

30. Thus the word "fixed"

We need to FIX the legislation with an amendment that includes a ryder on all exchange plans. Yes, that is simple.

[Sparkly]

40. Did you read what I posted? It doesn't matter.

First, anti-choicers call such measures "accounting tricks."Give a woman or a provider $1 in subsidies for flu shots, and if she spends another $1 on such a "rider," they consider it a trick that actually funds this dreaded legal medical procedure...

Second, their goal is to get private insurers to drop all coverage of abortion procedures. It's not really about "who pays" at all.

Third, even IF such a "fix" were to pass, as pointed out, there is no reason to believe insurers would offer these "riders."

[sandnsea]

46. If they're required to offer the riders

Then they'll have to offer the riders. Again, the word "FIX".

Stupak has already pointed to riders available in some states, so he has already stated his acceptance of them.

I think sometimes people are more interested in wallowing in the negativity so they can "speak truth to power", than to actually work to solve problems.

[Atticus]

25. Again I ask:

If all Stupak did was restate the Hyde Amendment, why was it necessary?

[sandnsea]

35. All abortion would have been covered

Without Stupak, Hyde would basically be overturned. Including abortion coverage in the exchange and public option would have meant all women would have covered abortion, unless they were on Medicaid. They said considering the subsidies taxpayer funding under Hyde was ridiculous. It was too complicated to separate out who had a subsidy and who paid for the insurance themselves. They were trying to get abortion coverage in this bill. That's fine with me, but hey, they lost. Let's not kid.

[uppityperson]

2. Once wasn't enough?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

[valerief]

3. Maybe when they rewrite the Bible, abortion will become sacred and get a Jeebus Seal of Approval. nt

[debbierlus]

4. If they were talking about any other medical procedure, there would be outrage

However, it has become the norm to just accept that womens bodies and choice are bargaining chips in the political arena.

It is disgusting.

[mullard12ax7]

17. It is as if it's 1860 and it's outrageous to even discuss equal rights

Of course it doesn't surprise me that people who won't hold war criminals accountable will toss women right out the window too.

[saracat]

28. it is as if it is 1860 here.

[saltpoint]

5. What about a movie where they have like, you know, women who are

soldiers, but they live in this castle that is haunted, except only a few of the women know it's haunted and nobody else does.

But then things start to happen and more and more of the women start to say it's a haunted castle, and then they start to find out what's going on.

[emulatorloo]

6. How many of these hyperbolic threads do you have going? n/t

[countingbluecars]

9. This is #6 at least. n/t

[emulatorloo]

14. I think this one may be the least overheated n/t

[chimpymustgo]

48. There cannot be ENOUGH theads about this outrage.

[1]

7. exactly. all or fucking nothing...

and since we'll never get "all" in one fell swoop, then we should get used to nothing as opposed to change in the right direction.

i'm with you!

[Sparkly]

8. Yup.

Amazing.

[NYC_SKP]

10. Leading up to a GBCW thread?

I see a pattern tonight.

[uppityperson]

11. Did you know you can reply and add more to your own threads? Don't HAVE to keep starting new ones?

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

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

[uppityperson]

26. I think you do not understand what those words mean.

"Do you know you can reply to your own thread" is not a personal attack. "you are an asshole" is a personal attack but is not what I wrote.

My name is a "trollish name"? "troll" is also a personal attack but you are the one that wrote that.

[Unvanguard]

12. It's okay to compromise when necessary for a bill to make things better

rather than to wait forever for a chance to make things perfect.

[dflprincess]

21. Let's compromise by throwing men's health care out of the bill

that would keep costs down.

Males may still seek coverage but only for conditions or diseases that all humans may suffer from. Conditions or diseases that are exclusive to males will not be covered.

[Unvanguard]

24. If allowing a vote on that were necessary to get passage, it would be fine with me.

Nobody and nothing gets covered by a bill that fails.

[dflprincess]

27. Easy to say when you know it won't happen

I'm tired of women's rights being considered unimportant and something to be used as a bargaining chip.

[Unvanguard]

31. Preferring nothing to something harms women too.

I'm not particularly pleased that there are so many anti-choice Democrats in the House, but that's the reality.

[1]

34. so women's health care = abortion? really? is that all you see a doctor for?

[dflprincess]

36. Reproductive rights are a very important part of women's health care

And, when I was young, my annual visits to the doctor had more to do with those issues than anything else.

It is the fear of women, not love of the fetus, that causes these men to decide they can control women by trying to limit our right to make decisions about our own health.

I do not understand why so many on this board are always willing to throw someone else's rights out the window.

[1]

42. no one is "throwing someone else's rights out the window." this bill does not effect your rights...

this bill in no way effects your right to an abortion. in no way. hyde already prohibited federal payments.

so stop with the over the top histrionics...

[dflprincess]

43. Why should a woman have to pay for a medical procedure out of pocket

when she's paying for coverage that is suppose to provide her with care?

[1]

44. what "rights" did you lose here? none. you lost no rights. stop saying that.

[dflprincess]

45. If I'm paying for health care, I expect all my medical needs to be covered

and this amendment will make it illegal for even private insurers to offer abortion coverage.

What other medical procedures/services are being treated this way?

[1]

47. you lost no rights. no one is throwing your rights out the window...

you were the one with the overly dramatic posts about your rights being thrown out the window.

no. you are wrong. your rights are secure.

do you get that about your rights? that nothing has changed?

you are pissed that your already existing rights, that have not changed at all, will not be monetarily covered by this new bill (as they never have been in the past.) big fucking difference, don't you agree? having a right taken away (as you originally portrayed this) as opposed to not getting reimbursed as you have never been?

that is your only argument? a payment for a single procedure that was never covered in the past, will not be covered now?

that is "your rights being thrown out the window?"

[saracat]

37. I won't ever need one but that isn't the point. Which medical procedures of males or children are

we going to decide are immoral or not to cover? Women have to pay the mandate too. They just don't get complete coverage.

[saltpoint]

15. I bet you remember Xena. Was that her name? How about if they put

her on a cooking show?

Now that would be something.

[Odin2005]

20. I'm as pissed of about the Stupak POS Amendment, but...

This bill needs to go through.

[saracat]

29. I'll bet if it were necessary to repeal women's right to vote to

pass HCR for the Admin to have a "win" folks would support it.What do ya think?

[CaliforniaPeggy]

32. That would be no...nt

[Jamastiene]

39. They probably would.

It certainly seems that way. Anything to chalk up a "win" even if it means more corporate welfare, no equal rights, whatever - you name it.

[Sparkly]

41. Good point. nt

[saltpoint]

33. That durn amendment would never have happened if there were any

women in the Congress!

Someone should do something about that immediately!

[saltpoint]

38. If my 7th grade algebra teacher were still alive by god I'd sure like to

throw her under the bus.

Any bus.