Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

States moving quickly to ban abortion coverage because the health care bill lets them.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 07:37 PM
Original message
States moving quickly to ban abortion coverage because the health care bill lets them.
Edited on Fri Apr-16-10 07:38 PM by madfloridian
From RH Reality Check:

States Banning Coverage for Abortion Care

A funny thing happened on the way to healthcare reform. Not only did a woman's right to choose get thrown under the bus in an effort to woo anti-choice democrats to vote yay, but a funny little loophole showed up in the final bill.


Wonder how that happened?

Abortion opponents are not satisfied with the restrictions on abortion already in the measure, particularly those on abortion coverage in private plans that will be sold in the new marketplaces known as health "exchanges." So they are pushing one particular aspect of the new law. It lets states ban all abortion coverage in the exchanges.

Charmaine Yoest, president and CEO of anti-abortion group Americans United for Life, said her group wasted no time drawing up a model state law to that effect. They sent it out the day after Congress approved the health bill.

"It was a part of the legislation that states could opt out, and so we had a heads-up that this would be a window for us," she said. "So we moved right in to make sure that we could equip states with the tools that they need to have the most effective opt-out possible."


More on this topic from NPR:

Health Law Rolls Back Abortion Rights, Groups Say

Treading On Complicated Waters

A full ban would seem to undermine the uneasy truce between abortion rights supporters and opponents that was in place as the new law was being written; that it should neither expand nor contract existing abortion policy. Federal abortion funding is currently allowed in cases of rape, incest or when the life of the women would be endangered by carrying the pregnancy to term.

But where that got complicated was in those new health insurance exchanges, because that's where the federal government would subsidize many people's private policies.

Even if states dont ban abortion coverage in the exchanges completely, abortion rights advocates say the new federal health law is likely to make abortion less available for many women.

That's because, says Lichtman, until now, "it has been the norm that private health plans provide abortion coverage." But while the new law does allow health plans in the exchange to offer abortion coverage, "it does so in a way that creates serious disincentives to providing the coverage and very serious disincentives for people buying it."


When the president recently signed an executive order banning the use of government funds for abortion, he did it rather quietly. There was a picture however.



It made me very upset, and it reminded me of the words of Barry Goldwater about the religious right.

They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent.

""There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God's name on one's behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both. I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in 'A,' 'B,' 'C,' and 'D.' Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of 'conservatism.' " (1909-1998) US Senator (R-Arizona) Source: Congressional Record, September 16, 1981


Apparently the health care reform bill gave them an inch, and they are ending up taking a mile.

They are moving to ban abortion coverage at state level. Many states will go along.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
enlightenment Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 07:47 PM
Response to Original message
1. If this surprises anyone, they weren't paying attention.
This is part and parcel of what happens when people are led to believe that 'pass it now, fix it later' is a good idea.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NJmaverick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 08:47 PM
Response to Reply #1
9. People who actually pay attention bothered to read the links and learn
the title of this OP is false, inaccurate or wrong (take your pick)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 09:02 PM
Response to Reply #9
13. Link:
""It was a part of the legislation that states could opt out, and so we had a heads-up that this would be a window for us," she said. "So we moved right in to make sure that we could equip states with the tools that they need to have the most effective opt-out possible."

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=12...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-17-10 12:21 PM
Response to Reply #13
43. FACT: The HCR law does not change existing laws re: abortion. The OP is misleading.
Edited on Sat Apr-17-10 01:12 PM by ClarkUSA
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hell Hath No Fury Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 09:05 PM
Response to Reply #9
15. I read all the articles at the links --
And they point out anti-choice groups/legislators are planning on utilizing what they see to be an opening in the Bill to ban abortion coverage in teh exchanges, and list the States who are attempting to legislate such a ban.

Just as MadFloridian said.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NJmaverick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-17-10 12:58 PM
Response to Reply #15
55. "This provision actually does not give states any rights they didnt have before..."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-17-10 01:05 PM
Response to Reply #55
60. Maybe it doesn't change the law, but it will change what coverage poor people will be able to get.
"What will happen to states where opt-out bills become law? It will vary from state to state. Missouri, for example, already has a law barring nearly all abortion coverage in private insurance. So its unclear what an additional opt-out law would do, other than reiterate current law and stir up anti-abortion rights fervor. In Tennessee, though, which is set to vote on their opt-out bill later this week, they have less stringent laws on abortion coverage, meaning a new law could shape the plans sold on the Exchange."

This means someone will have to take the matter in front of the SC, once they lose their ability to have an abortion through private insurance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Luminous Animal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 07:51 PM
Response to Original message
2. Goddamnt!
Thanks to the "liberal" motherfuckers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uppityperson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 07:53 PM
Response to Original message
3. k&r
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hell Hath No Fury Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 08:07 PM
Response to Original message
4. Remember when many here were --
Edited on Fri Apr-16-10 08:08 PM by Hell Hath No Fury
chastised/ridiculed/dumped on when they said this bill was going to negatively impact a woman's access to abortion?

Well whodda thunk it. Lookie what happened!!! :eyes:

Where are you NOW, naysayers?? Huh?? :mad:

God this shit makes me sick.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
girl gone mad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 08:26 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. They got their "win"
Who cares how many people get hurt in the end?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 08:47 PM
Response to Reply #5
8. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
NJmaverick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 08:48 PM
Response to Reply #5
10. shame the facts don't support your claims
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 08:46 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 08:57 PM
Response to Reply #7
11. You are calling me a liar. Prove me wrong.
It is getting to where no matter what I post someone does this kind of thing.

It must be okay to do it.

But honesty demands you prove me wrong or back off.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 09:10 PM
Response to Reply #11
19. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 09:31 PM
Response to Reply #11
24. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Hell Hath No Fury Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 09:36 PM
Response to Reply #24
26. I am seeing it more and more.
Kind of scary, actually. :scared:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 09:44 PM
Response to Reply #26
30. Human nature, unfortunately
Some handle dissonace better than others and some consider every observation or policy in a "for us or agin' us" manner.

Rather like a high school football game.

Others are more interested in effective public policy -and what it will take to get it passed and implemented, so of course when that doesn't occur (for various reasons) we're none too happy about it.

Particularly when we or groups we work with have been trying to get it done and are either gratuitously insulted or backstabbed for our trouble.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laughingliberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-17-10 12:20 PM
Response to Reply #11
42. Surely, you jest. His pronouncement that anything he doesn't agree with (or want anyone to realize)
is perfectly sufficient rebuttal in his mind. "Proof" and substance are only required of the people he challenges.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NJmaverick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-17-10 12:59 PM
Response to Reply #11
56. "This provision actually does not give states any rights they didnt have before..."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
inna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-17-10 12:38 PM
Response to Reply #7
45. That is a completely ridiculous and false accusation.

The OP clearly has facts on her side; all you've got is ad hominems, personal attacks and completely unsupported and baseless claims.

:thumbsdown:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NJmaverick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 08:46 PM
Response to Original message
6. This is a false title as the bill does not give the states new rights to ban abortion coverage
it's a shame the lengths some people will go to push their agenda :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tkmorris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 09:09 PM
Response to Reply #6
18. Yes it is. A crying shame.
But I bet we aren't talking about the same group of people, you and I.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hell Hath No Fury Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 09:14 PM
Response to Reply #6
20. "it's a shame the lengths some people will go to push their agenda "
Edited on Fri Apr-16-10 09:17 PM by Hell Hath No Fury
You did NOT just say that! :D

OHMYFUCKINGGOD THAT DID NOT COME OUT OF YOUR MOUTH!

Now THAT is some pure comedy GOLD!!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:














Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberation Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-17-10 02:45 PM
Response to Reply #20
102. LOL Indeed, their projection is just so wonderfully delicious I think I just got a cavity...
No wonder the DLC and the GOP are so close ideologically, their MOs are almost indistinguishable... esp. their shared runaway projection.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Odin2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 09:51 PM
Response to Reply #6
33. Oh look, the pot calling the kettle black.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-17-10 12:15 PM
Response to Reply #6
39. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-17-10 01:30 PM
Response to Reply #6
72. True: "This provision actually does not give states any rights they didnt have before..."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-17-10 02:46 PM
Response to Reply #72
103. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 09:00 PM
Response to Original message
12. To those who say I am making stuff up: From the NPR link
""It was a part of the legislation that states could opt out, and so we had a heads-up that this would be a window for us," she said. "So we moved right in to make sure that we could equip states with the tools that they need to have the most effective opt-out possible."

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=12...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RainDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 09:04 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. sure looks like you're the one telling the truth here to me. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 09:06 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. I know DU is changing policies, but I thought it was still wrong...
to say someone is not telling the truth.

I thought that was against the rules.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Commie Pinko Dirtbag Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-17-10 12:50 PM
Response to Reply #16
51. It is. -nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 09:07 PM
Response to Reply #14
17. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-17-10 12:19 PM
Response to Reply #12
41. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-17-10 01:12 PM
Response to Reply #12
66. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-17-10 01:59 PM
Response to Reply #12
83. I didn't say that. What I am saying is your OP doesn't include all the facts and scapegoats HCR.
Edited on Sat Apr-17-10 02:01 PM by ClarkUSA
Ergo, HCR law does not change existing abortion laws. Thus, Republicans are exploiting existing laws, which is well within their purview. If you and others are so upset about it, do something about it offline in the affected states rather than scapegoat HCR here.

Newsweek: "This provision actually does not give states any rights they didnt have before..."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Emit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 09:24 PM
Response to Original message
21. "This provision actually does not give states any rights they didnt have before..."
From Newsweek:

~snip~

This provision actually does not give states any rights they didnt have before. As Nick Baumann over at Mother Jones recently, and astutely, pointed out, states have had the right to pass laws regulating insurance, including banning abortion for over six decades now. Five states (Idaho, Kentucky, Missouri, North Dakota, and Oklahoma) already do so, only allowing insurers to cover abortion if the life of the mother is endangered (the Oklahoma expectation is wider, allowing for coverage in cases of rape and incest).

This sentence in Section 1303 didnt change the existing lawbut in the world of abortion politics and policy it was important for two main reasons. First, it drew scrutiny to a relatively dormant area of the abortion debate: insurance coverage (remember that, up until this past November, even the Republican National Committees insurance policy covered abortion). Second, it restated the existing laws regarding insurance regulation in a way that homes in on abortion, giving those who oppose abortion rights a specific clause to attack.

Leading that charge is Americans United for Life, the countrys oldest, anti-abortion rights group. Every year, AUL publishes a set of state-level model legislation to restrict abortion rights (this years volume, Defending Life 2010, weighs in at 832 pages). Before Obama signed health care into law, AUL had begun distributing a model "federal abortion mandate opt-out act," tailored specifically to the provision mentioned above, which theyve added as an addendum to the 2010 collection.

Missouri and Tennessee already have versions of the AUL opt-out bill moving through their respective state legislatures. AUL says it has been in touch with either legislators or individual citizens in 35 other states, who have expressed interest in pursuing similar measures.

What will happen to states where opt-out bills become law? It will vary from state to state. Missouri, for example, already has a law barring nearly all abortion coverage in private insurance. So its unclear what an additional opt-out law would do, other than reiterate current law and stir up anti-abortion rights fervor. In Tennessee, though, which is set to vote on their opt-out bill later this week, they have less stringent laws on abortion coverage, meaning a new law could shape the plans sold on the Exchange.

~snip~
http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thegaggle/archive/2010/0...

It's still very problematic, though, as this article points out, in that it is going to motivate and mobilize anti-choice groups and legislators.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 09:29 PM
Response to Reply #21
23. "it restated the existing laws regarding insurance regulation in a way that homes in on abortion"
"This sentence in Section 1303 didnt change the existing lawbut in the world of abortion politics and policy it was important for two main reasons. First, it drew scrutiny to a relatively dormant area of the abortion debate: insurance coverage (remember that, up until this past November, even the Republican National Committees insurance policy covered abortion). Second, it restated the existing laws regarding insurance regulation in a way that homes in on abortion, giving those who oppose abortion rights a specific clause to attack.

Leading that charge is Americans United for Life, the countrys oldest, anti-abortion rights group. Every year, AUL publishes a set of state-level model legislation to restrict abortion rights (this years volume, Defending Life 2010, weighs in at 832 pages). Before Obama signed health care into law, AUL had begun distributing a model "federal abortion mandate opt-out act," tailored specifically to the provision mentioned above, which theyve added as an addendum to the 2010 collection."

That is exactly what I said...the health care bill allows them to ban it.

In fact it highlighted it so they could zero in on it.

I am telling the truth.

People can like it or not, but it is the truth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 09:34 PM
Response to Reply #21
25. If it "restates existing law"...then it permits states to ban it.
And that is exactly what I said, and what the RH Reality link said.

I am right, she is right.

When someone gets away with calling me a liar, then it is no longer a discussion.

Too much of that lately.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Emit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 09:42 PM
Response to Reply #25
29. madfloridian
I am not calling you a liar. I merely posted an article that clarified the fact that it restates existing law. I agree that this is problematic, as I noted above.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 09:46 PM
Response to Reply #29
32. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Nikki Stone1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 09:26 PM
Response to Original message
22. This whole law was putrid. We tried to tell you guys.
I hate fucking being right on this one. :grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-17-10 12:18 PM
Response to Reply #22
40. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
inna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-17-10 12:48 PM
Response to Reply #40
50. K&R, this really needs more exposure.
Edited on Sat Apr-17-10 12:51 PM by inna
Thank you, Madfloridian. :hug:

ETA: wrong spot, but whatever. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-17-10 12:58 PM
Response to Reply #40
54. When you get through reposting Emit's link...tell me where I said it changed things.
I said it allowed it. It emphasized it.

I said the health care bill "allows" it, and it most surely does. In fact it emphasizes the clause more than before.

And find another link as well to prove me wrong. Everything I posted is correct, and I don't think I said anywhere it is brand new. It is being highlighted in a way to give the right wing more power.

http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thegaggle/archive/2010/0...

"The fight comes courtesy of Section 1303 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (page 779 here), which reiterates states rights to regulate abortion coverage among their insurers. The key sentence: A state may elect to prohibit abortion coverage in qualified health plans offered through an Exchange in such State if such State enacts a law to provide for such a prohibition.

This provision actually does not give states any rights they didnt have before...... it restated the existing laws regarding insurance regulation in a way that homes in on abortion, giving those who oppose abortion rights a specific clause to attack."

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-04-14/abortion-fo...

"" That the health-care overhaul passed by Congress last month continues the ban on federal funding for abortions --expanded it, by some accounts -- isnt enough, either.

Using another provision in the new legislation, Republican lawmakers in six states are trying to prevent all private insurance plans in yet-to-be-formed exchanges from offering any kind of abortion coverage, the Wall Street Journal reported yesterday. Nor could women pay extra, with their own money, to buy abortion coverage."

http://blog.aul.org/2010/04/16/news-coverage-of-auls-st... /

"
"Leading that charge is Americans United for Life, the countrys oldest, anti-abortion rights group. Every year, AUL publishes a set of state-level model legislation to restrict abortion rights (this years volume, Defending Life 2010, weighs in at 832 pages). Before Obama signed health care into law, AUL had begun distributing a model federal abortion mandate opt-out act, tailored specifically to the provision mentioned above, which theyve added as an addendum to the 2010 collection."


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-17-10 01:01 PM
Response to Reply #54
58. Rationalizing the use of weasel words doesn't change the fact your OP is misleading & scapegoats HCR
As I said, the OP is misleading. Your lame attempts to explain it away only makes you look worse.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nikki Stone1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-17-10 02:02 PM
Response to Reply #58
85. "Loophole" is not a weasel word. It's the reality, and most of us knew that was coming
Edited on Sat Apr-17-10 02:02 PM by Nikki Stone1
The spirit of an entire law can be undone with a single loophole. This bill is the Swiss cheese of loopholes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-17-10 02:11 PM
Response to Reply #85
89. You're trying to move the goalpost now. I repeat: HCR does not change existing abortion laws.
Thus, the OP's attempt to scapegoat HCR for Republicans exploiting existing abortion laws is ridiculous.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nikki Stone1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-17-10 02:16 PM
Response to Reply #89
91. Nope. Talking exactly about the OP.
If you want to move goalposts, you can feel free to do that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-17-10 02:30 PM
Response to Reply #91
98. The misleading OP title scapegoats HCR (e.g., "because the health care bill lets them") falsely.
Edited on Sat Apr-17-10 02:34 PM by ClarkUSA
Funny how the OP didn't point out that pre-HCR existing abortion laws "lets them" and that since HCR does not change existing abortion law,
as many like me have always asserted -- correctly, I might add -- thus Republicans are exploiting laws that have been there for decades.

In fact, there is nothing to suggest that they wouldn't have done the same thing whether or not HCR had passed because it's not exactly as if the RNC hasn't used wedge issues before during an election year.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nikki Stone1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-17-10 02:40 PM
Response to Reply #98
101. I think it's mighty nice of you to continue to kick a thread whose OP you so strongly disagree with
It keeps it on the front page. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-17-10 02:50 PM
Response to Reply #101
104. I enjoy telling the whole truth, unlike those who support misleading OPs that falsely scapegoat HCR.
Edited on Sat Apr-17-10 02:51 PM by ClarkUSA
It's also rather satisfying to revisit my and others' correct assertion that HCR was never going to change existing abortion law, despite all the screeching on DU re: the Stupak amendment.

Schadenfreude is so pleasant at time like these. :smoke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-17-10 02:54 PM
Response to Reply #104
105. How many times have you referred to my "misleading OP that falsely scapegoats HCR"?
I have lost count of it.

I have proven my case over and over, and you keep saying the same thing over and over.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
riderinthestorm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-17-10 02:56 PM
Response to Reply #105
107. Catapulting the propaganda perhaps? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-17-10 02:57 PM
Response to Reply #105
108. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-17-10 03:01 PM
Response to Reply #105
109. Does the truth hurt? Republicans are exploiting existing abortion law which HCR didn't change. n/t
Edited on Sat Apr-17-10 03:04 PM by ClarkUSA
Your OP is definitely misleading and it does indeed scapegoat HCR. The truth always bears repeating. Just ask John Kerry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-17-10 01:14 PM
Response to Reply #22
68. No, those of us who always said the HCR law does not change existing abortion laws were right..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 09:36 PM
Response to Original message
27. It's infuriating to be told I am not telling the truth.
Discussions are deteriorating here now.

Insults rule the day.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hell Hath No Fury Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 09:45 PM
Response to Reply #27
31. For some --
rational thought is deteriorating. :(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-17-10 12:26 PM
Response to Reply #27
44. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-17-10 03:22 PM
Response to Reply #27
111. You are not telling the whole truth, which is HCR does not change existing abortion laws, thus...
Edited on Sat Apr-17-10 03:31 PM by ClarkUSA
... Republicans are exploiting abortion laws that predate HCR. Your OP is very misleading, as it conveniently neglects to add this legislative antecedent and instead implies that HCR is "letting" Republicans do that which wasn't possible before. It's wrong to try to scapegoat HCR for Republicans trying to do what they may have done even if HCR had not passed into law.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xchrom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 09:41 PM
Response to Original message
28. Recommend
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Odin2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 09:52 PM
Response to Original message
34. Once again, Women are thrown under the bus for a "win".
The cheerleaders should be ashamed of themselves for aiding and abetting the anti-choice misogynist agenda.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 11:04 PM
Response to Original message
35. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
pinto Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-17-10 10:30 AM
Response to Original message
36. Kick to reopen the discussion.
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-17-10 10:44 AM
Response to Original message
37. More sources on the topic.
Newsweek:

http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thegaggle/archive/2010/0 ...

"While the congressional fight over health-care reform has wrapped up and legislators moved on, a new, state-level battle over abortion coverage has just begun.

The fight comes courtesy of Section 1303 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (page 779 here), which reiterates states rights to regulate abortion coverage among their insurers. The key sentence: A state may elect to prohibit abortion coverage in qualified health plans offered through an Exchange in such State if such State enacts a law to provide for such a prohibition.

This provision actually does not give states any rights they didnt have before...... it restated the existing laws regarding insurance regulation in a way that homes in on abortion, giving those who oppose abortion rights a specific clause to attack."

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

From Businessweek:

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-04-14/abortion-fo ...

" That the health-care overhaul passed by Congress last month continues the ban on federal funding for abortions --expanded it, by some accounts -- isnt enough, either.

Using another provision in the new legislation, Republican lawmakers in six states are trying to prevent all private insurance plans in yet-to-be-formed exchanges from offering any kind of abortion coverage, the Wall Street Journal reported yesterday. Nor could women pay extra, with their own money, to buy abortion coverage."

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

From Americans United for Life..a group which is using the part about the states to push to stop state level coverage:

http://blog.aul.org/2010/04/16/news-coverage-of-auls-st ... /

"Leading that charge is Americans United for Life, the countrys oldest, anti-abortion rights group. Every year, AUL publishes a set of state-level model legislation to restrict abortion rights (this years volume, Defending Life 2010, weighs in at 832 pages). Before Obama signed health care into law, AUL had begun distributing a model federal abortion mandate opt-out act, tailored specifically to the provision mentioned above, which theyve added as an addendum to the 2010 collection."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-17-10 12:39 PM
Response to Reply #37
46. Correcting the links...they got broken in transit.
http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thegaggle/archive/2010/0...

"The fight comes courtesy of Section 1303 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (page 779 here), which reiterates states rights to regulate abortion coverage among their insurers. The key sentence: A state may elect to prohibit abortion coverage in qualified health plans offered through an Exchange in such State if such State enacts a law to provide for such a prohibition.

This provision actually does not give states any rights they didnt have before...... it restated the existing laws regarding insurance regulation in a way that homes in on abortion, giving those who oppose abortion rights a specific clause to attack."

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-04-14/abortion-fo...

"" That the health-care overhaul passed by Congress last month continues the ban on federal funding for abortions --expanded it, by some accounts -- isnt enough, either.

Using another provision in the new legislation, Republican lawmakers in six states are trying to prevent all private insurance plans in yet-to-be-formed exchanges from offering any kind of abortion coverage, the Wall Street Journal reported yesterday. Nor could women pay extra, with their own money, to buy abortion coverage."

http://blog.aul.org/2010/04/16/news-coverage-of-auls-st... /

"
"Leading that charge is Americans United for Life, the countrys oldest, anti-abortion rights group. Every year, AUL publishes a set of state-level model legislation to restrict abortion rights (this years volume, Defending Life 2010, weighs in at 832 pages). Before Obama signed health care into law, AUL had begun distributing a model federal abortion mandate opt-out act, tailored specifically to the provision mentioned above, which theyve added as an addendum to the 2010 collection."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-17-10 12:13 PM
Response to Original message
38. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-17-10 12:45 PM
Response to Reply #38
48. Perhaps you need to reread my OP.
I said the health care bill "allows" it, and it most surely does. In fact it emphasizes the clause more than before.

And find another link as well to prove me wrong. Everything I posted is correct, and I don't think I said anywhere it is brand new. It is being highlighted in a way to give the right wing more power.

http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thegaggle/archive/2010/0...

"The fight comes courtesy of Section 1303 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (page 779 here), which reiterates states rights to regulate abortion coverage among their insurers. The key sentence: A state may elect to prohibit abortion coverage in qualified health plans offered through an Exchange in such State if such State enacts a law to provide for such a prohibition.

This provision actually does not give states any rights they didnt have before...... it restated the existing laws regarding insurance regulation in a way that homes in on abortion, giving those who oppose abortion rights a specific clause to attack."

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-04-14/abortion-fo...

"" That the health-care overhaul passed by Congress last month continues the ban on federal funding for abortions --expanded it, by some accounts -- isnt enough, either.

Using another provision in the new legislation, Republican lawmakers in six states are trying to prevent all private insurance plans in yet-to-be-formed exchanges from offering any kind of abortion coverage, the Wall Street Journal reported yesterday. Nor could women pay extra, with their own money, to buy abortion coverage."

http://blog.aul.org/2010/04/16/news-coverage-of-auls-st... /

"
"Leading that charge is Americans United for Life, the countrys oldest, anti-abortion rights group. Every year, AUL publishes a set of state-level model legislation to restrict abortion rights (this years volume, Defending Life 2010, weighs in at 832 pages). Before Obama signed health care into law, AUL had begun distributing a model federal abortion mandate opt-out act, tailored specifically to the provision mentioned above, which theyve added as an addendum to the 2010 collection."


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-17-10 12:57 PM
Response to Reply #48
53. "I don't think I said anywhere it is brand new." Ergo, HCR does not change existing abortion laws.
Edited on Sat Apr-17-10 12:58 PM by ClarkUSA
As I said, the OP is deliberately misleading.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-17-10 12:59 PM
Response to Reply #53
57. I said it "allows them to ban it". It does. And that is the truth.
Edited on Sat Apr-17-10 12:59 PM by madfloridian
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-17-10 01:05 PM
Response to Reply #57
61. You didn't tell the whole truth: STATES HAD THE SAME POWER TO BAN ABORTION COVERAGE BEFORE HCR.
Edited on Sat Apr-17-10 01:08 PM by ClarkUSA
That kind of deliberate intellectual dishonesty and your lame attempts to defend your obviously misleading OP does not reflect well on you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-17-10 01:07 PM
Response to Reply #61
62. Why should I have done that? I was speaking of this bill...
and the way it allowed a ban on abortion coverage.

I did not go back to Hyde because it was not my purpose.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-17-10 01:09 PM
Response to Reply #62
64. Because that would have been the intellectually honest thing to do instead of misleading folks?
Edited on Sat Apr-17-10 01:10 PM by ClarkUSA
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-17-10 01:11 PM
Response to Reply #64
65. What in the world are you talking about? Women are still scapegoats...
and they were used as such to get the bill through the religious right Democrats.

That is just plain totally honest whether you like it or not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-17-10 01:17 PM
Response to Reply #65
69. FACT: HCR does not change existing abortion laws. The OP conveniently leaves out this information.
:sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
riderinthestorm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-17-10 01:08 PM
Response to Reply #53
63. Do you have a link regarding the Hyde Amendment
and how it's impacted with Obama's signing statement?

You appear convinced that "nothing's changed" but it's troubling to me that nobody seems to be able to answer definitively (lots of opinions but no legal opinions) if Obama's signing statement now overrides the need for annual affirmation of Hyde.

Since you and NJ Maverick seem convinced that nothing's changed, I'd really like to know whose your source (and read it myself) regarding the Hyde Amendment vis-a-vis Obama's signing statement.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-17-10 01:25 PM
Response to Reply #63
71. "This provision actually does not give states any rights they didnt have before..."
Edited on Sat Apr-17-10 01:28 PM by ClarkUSA
Source: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

madfloridian has already admitted this is the truth. She has also admitted that she saw no reason to include this information in her OP: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

I guess it's more fun to scapegoat HCR at DU than tell the whole truth about it.

:sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
riderinthestorm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-17-10 01:32 PM
Response to Reply #71
73. You still haven't given me any legal link to substantiate if Hyde is now permanent or
whether it still must be annually approved.

I'm not talking about "rights" - Hyde and Obama's signing statement are in agreement on stipulating the same "rights", I'm addressing your statement that nothing's changed in regards to the permanence of those rights. Annually re-affirming Hyde, (while it's always passed), at least kept that window open for pro-choice advocates to continue their fight on that front.

If that window's now closed, it's hugely significant. You appear certain that Hyde still must come up annually for review. I'd love to see that source.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-17-10 01:40 PM
Response to Reply #73
76. Why should I? That wasn't my original point. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
riderinthestorm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-17-10 01:42 PM
Response to Reply #76
77. Your original point was that "nothing's changed" but you can't definitively say that
until you can say if Hyde is now permanent because of Obama's signing statement.

It's not an insignificant point. You've made the point, I'm just asking for your source.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-17-10 01:47 PM
Response to Reply #77
80. Your red herring is amusing but I have no interest in playing games with you. My point stands. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
riderinthestorm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-17-10 01:52 PM
Response to Reply #80
81. I assure you Hyde is no "red herring". I'll take it you have no substantiation then
Edited on Sat Apr-17-10 01:57 PM by riderinthestorm
for your statements or your claims that it's "fact" that there's no changes to existing law.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-17-10 01:55 PM
Response to Reply #81
82. Why don't you write the author of the Newsweek article that makes the same point I am?
Edited on Sat Apr-17-10 02:02 PM by ClarkUSA
Since you are so very "concerned". :eyes:

Go for it:

"This provision actually does not give states any rights they didnt have before..."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
riderinthestorm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-17-10 02:01 PM
Response to Reply #82
84. You are the one making the point here. I HAVE written for answers.
Edited on Sat Apr-17-10 02:05 PM by riderinthestorm
and received none yet. Planned Parenthood and Naral are equally concerned on this point.

YOU however appear to have 110% certainty - so while nobody else seems to be absolute, you are. I'm asking you to put up more than a Newsweek article for the legal ramifications of this, a Newsweek article that really doesn't answer my question about Hyde vs. Obama's signing statement.

While Newsweek is a fine newsmag, it isn't a legal authority when it comes to matters of abortion politics. It's possible to even say that it can and does get shit wrong. Newsweek indicates that the rights are the same, while not addressing the permanence of those rights in regards to Obama's signing statement.

Hyde is too important to be wrong about.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-17-10 02:04 PM
Response to Reply #84
86. No, you're the one bringing up Hyde, not me. I have sourced my claim re: the OP credibly.
Edited on Sat Apr-17-10 02:05 PM by ClarkUSA
Now do your own homework about your own "concern" and stop throwing up red herrings 'cause I hate fish and fishy OPs.

:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
riderinthestorm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-17-10 02:08 PM
Response to Reply #86
88. Your Newsweek link isn't defniitive at all. Do YOUR homework before making
unsubstantiated claims.

You only make yourself look foolish by diminishing the importance of Hyde as a red herring in this debate. It indicates you absolutely do not understand abortion law, or abortion politics.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-17-10 02:13 PM
Response to Reply #88
90. Really? I should believe you? lol! Offer me something better, then. n/t
Edited on Sat Apr-17-10 02:14 PM by ClarkUSA
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-17-10 02:18 PM
Response to Reply #90
92. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-17-10 02:21 PM
Response to Reply #92
94. No, you originally replied to my reply to the OP with your red herring re: Hyde.
Edited on Sat Apr-17-10 02:25 PM by ClarkUSA
Proof: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

You replied to me first, not the other way around.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
riderinthestorm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-17-10 02:26 PM
Response to Reply #94
96. Over and out. You've exposed yourself better than I ever could.
I asked you a question which you answered with your opinion and a flawed Newsweek article.

Got it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-17-10 02:40 PM
Response to Reply #96
100. Yes, I've exposed myself as being allergic to misleading OPs that falsely scapegoat HCR. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
suffragette Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-17-10 01:37 PM
Response to Reply #71
75. There's a huge BUT in there
From the 2nd paragraph:
This sentence in Section 1303 didnt change the existing lawbut in the world of abortion politics and policy it was important for two main reasons. First, it drew scrutiny to a relatively dormant area of the abortion debate: insurance coverage (remember that, up until this past November, even the Republican National Committees insurance policy covered abortion). Second, it restated the existing laws regarding insurance regulation in a way that homes in on abortion, giving those who oppose abortion rights a specific clause to attack.


madfloridian's OP is focused on that section and I agree with her about that area needing to be highlighted and understood.
The anti-abortion zealots clearly view it that way, as the quote posted by MF made clear: "It was a part of the legislation that states could opt out, and so we had a heads-up that this would be a window for us," she said. "So we moved right in to make sure that we could equip states with the tools that they need to have the most effective opt-out possible." Since they view this as having a window open for a limited time, this is creating an impetus for them to move quickly in a concerted manner to get new legislation passed.

Absolutely valid, pertinent, truthful and important OP in my view.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-17-10 01:45 PM
Response to Reply #75
78. So what? Scapegoating HCR for Republicans exploiting existing abortion law is ridiculous. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
suffragette Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-17-10 02:05 PM
Response to Reply #78
87. If you bring up looking at the full effect of something,
then it seems to me you should be willing to discuss just that. You castigated the OP for not including the info you want to focus on, then "conveniently" skipped addressing the part she was addressing, even after you included a link that did that in the second paragraph.

What's wrong with looking at the full impact of legislation and reactions to it, particularly when that reaction will likely lead to a loss of medical procedures for women?

This isn't about scapegoating. This is about impact.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-17-10 02:19 PM
Response to Reply #87
93. No, the OP is plainly implying HCR is to blame when Republicans are exploiting existing abortion law
The "impact" of HCR is that Republicans are fighting mad and they need to rally their base. Frankly, they may have done this even if HCR had not passed.

:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-17-10 02:55 PM
Response to Reply #93
106. It does allow them to exploit the law. It makes women scapegoats.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-17-10 03:14 PM
Response to Reply #106
110. HCR doesn't change existing abortion laws thus Republicans are exploiting laws that predate HCR. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-17-10 03:27 PM
Response to Reply #110
112. And Democrats allowed those laws to stand. They did not stand for women.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-17-10 03:34 PM
Response to Reply #112
113. Are you really suggesting that Democrats should have tried to overturn the Hyde amendment?
Edited on Sat Apr-17-10 03:40 PM by ClarkUSA
And where would they have gotten the votes to do that?


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-17-10 03:49 PM
Response to Reply #113
114. Are you really asking that question?
We have a good majority. We should stand up for women's rights.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-17-10 04:06 PM
Response to Reply #114
116. Yes because I think that's a pipe dream given the present political calculus in Congress. n/t
Edited on Sat Apr-17-10 04:09 PM by ClarkUSA
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-17-10 04:09 PM
Response to Reply #116
118. So you think women's rights are goners. I agree.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-17-10 04:36 PM
Response to Reply #118
119. That is another false frame. It's just that political reality is something I always consider. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-17-10 04:38 PM
Response to Reply #119
120. Yes, the loss of women's rights IS political reality now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-17-10 02:22 PM
Response to Reply #87
95. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-17-10 01:14 PM
Response to Reply #53
67. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
riderinthestorm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-17-10 12:41 PM
Response to Original message
47. Does Obama's signing statement on HCR mean the Hyde Amendment is now permanent?
Edited on Sat Apr-17-10 12:50 PM by riderinthestorm
I've asked this before and nobody seems to know the answer.

If his signing statement makes the Hyde Amendment a permanent fixture, instead of being up for annual renewal, then the HCR bill IS a dramatic change in abortion law - for the worse.

There aren't any links or facts one way or the other, just opinions that "nothing's changed" but I'd love to see something hard and fast about the signing statement's implications for Hyde.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-17-10 12:45 PM
Response to Reply #47
49. I don't know the answer, wish I did.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
suffragette Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-17-10 01:19 PM
Response to Reply #47
70. Great point
I'd like the answer to that as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MountainLaurel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-17-10 12:51 PM
Response to Original message
52. Mine is one of them
Reich-wing fuckers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlancheSplanchnik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-17-10 01:04 PM
Response to Original message
59. well, REGARDLESS of how or who brought women's health rights to the low they're at
it would behoove pro-women's-lives groups to find a way to coordinate, organize and publicize in a unified way. Seems like the surest way to move forward.

(ha, pretty funny, calls to organization and follow through from me, a flaming ADD case who can't even plan a small dinner party..... )
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VMI Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-17-10 01:34 PM
Response to Original message
74. I see you have incurred the wrath of the centrists.
K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LWolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-17-10 01:46 PM
Response to Original message
79. K & R nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Karmadillo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-17-10 02:28 PM
Response to Original message
97. Only purists insist on fighting for choice and social security and real health care reform.
Conform or be irrelevant.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solly Mack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-17-10 02:34 PM
Response to Original message
99. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BzaDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-17-10 04:03 PM
Response to Original message
115. Actually, states could always ban abortion coverage on all individual market plans before HCR.
Edited on Sat Apr-17-10 04:04 PM by BzaDem
The phrase in the bill that lets states ban abortion coverage is there so that nothing in the bill "pre-empts" state law already on the books (or would be on the books in the future) that bans abortion coverage in the individual market.

Yes, the federal government can and should pass a law saying otherwise (and that would then pre-empt the law in question). But that is a different issue and can be addressed in a different bill. HCR doesn't let the states do anything they couldn't already do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-17-10 04:08 PM
Response to Reply #115
117. I never indicated otherwise. But it reiterates the states' right to ban coverage.
Even though Democrats are in the majority, they did not bother to bring us up out of the dark ages for women's rights.

I don't know if Obama's exec order makes Hyde permanent, still checking.

People jumped all over this to make it sound like the bill does not allow it .....it most certainly does.

I never claimed it was new.

Ah, the power of just seeing things as one chooses.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lazarus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-17-10 04:42 PM
Response to Original message
121. Locking
We're locking this.

Much of this thread has become a discussion about how topics are presented for comment.

The moderators have never been the truth police as far as any member's post goes. That's not our role. Nor can we verify each and every post for accuracy. We assume members can discuss and work it out within our posting guidelines.

Maintaining those guidelines for discussion is our role.

As always, we encourage members to alert specific personal accusations among members for our follow up.

Thanks all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Jul 10th 2014, 06:13 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
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