Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

STUPAK and his cronies are warning to defeat the bill if his amd is removed in conf, women rights ??

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
ind_thinker2 Donating Member (259 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-08-09 12:20 AM
Original message
STUPAK and his cronies are warning to defeat the bill if his amd is removed in conf, women rights ??
Edited on Sun Nov-08-09 12:26 AM by ind_thinker2
This guy is a crap, I am so pissed.

Its on cspan right now.

Are we going to crush women rights?, guys this is 2009 not 1909...

Refresh | +2 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
saracat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-08-09 12:23 AM
Response to Original message
1. he has nothing to worry about. I would be stunned if they remove it. We can always hope though
That is why we must put the pressure on NOW.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
bluestateguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-08-09 12:25 AM
Response to Reply #1
6. Indeed
Harry Reid is anti-abortion, and keeping the amendment is another carrot they can throw toward Ben Nelson, though it still may not be enough.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
saracat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-08-09 12:31 AM
Response to Reply #6
10. On another thread people mocked me for daring to say the Senate was more
conservative than the house and the chances for Stupak surviving conference were actually good. I hope to God I am wrong. But we need to kick up a fuss NOW!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Kdillard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-08-09 12:23 AM
Response to Original message
2. Me too. I am hoping that at least the language will be changed again
if it is not removed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
vaberella Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-08-09 12:24 AM
Response to Original message
3. I heard. He can cry me a river.
I want that removed...I'll be harassing Rangel, Schumer, and all my peeps up the wazoo.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Jennicut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-08-09 12:24 AM
Response to Original message
4. Someone should warn him about defeat in his next election.
Though I bet he has a more conservative district.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
ind_thinker2 Donating Member (259 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-08-09 12:28 AM
Response to Reply #4
8. yes he is used to win by landslide
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
NRaleighLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-08-09 12:24 AM
Response to Original message
5. If I hear "pro life Democrat" one more time, I am going to hurl.
So what are we who are pro-women's rights Democrats? Pro Death Dems?

Terminology has to change.

Let's call these people single issue, ideological DINOs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
saracat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-08-09 12:28 AM
Response to Reply #5
7.  I will never forgive Rahm for recruiting many of these folks. this is blowback
These are evil bastards and they are not Democrats no matter who wants to call them that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
RBInMaine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-08-09 12:28 AM
Response to Original message
9. Which is EXACTLY why they will not remove it. It is a very sensible compromise in this situation.
Abortion is virtually dissallowed anyway. This just clarifies the language to asuage these people. So what. This is about an advance for general healthcare, not paying for abortions. There are other programs for that. I am pro-choice and very much for prevention programs, birth control, education, and funding for all that. But not for performing abortions with tax dollars except for rape, incest, or extreme health needs for the mother. There are private pro-choice programs that can fund it, or pay for it out of pocket. We need the BIGGER PICTURE here !
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
saracat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-08-09 12:35 AM
Response to Reply #9
11. Figures your from Maine.Stupak does more than that .It makes Hyde "permanent'
and bann "private " insurers who particiapte in the exchange from covering abortions. This will allow all other insurers to drop abortion from coverage as well. And most of the programs you mention are broke and poor folks can't just pay for it on their own.it will again be the poor women who suffer. Those who can afford it will always have access.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
ind_thinker2 Donating Member (259 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-08-09 12:38 AM
Response to Reply #11
13. Precisely,
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-08-09 12:37 AM
Response to Reply #9
12. I'm for a very cheap abortion ryder
Funded completely through premiums. I don't see why that would be such a terrible way to handle the Hyde Amendment and still provide coverage through an exchange insurance policy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
backscatter712 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-08-09 12:49 AM
Response to Reply #12
17. I think Stupak's amendment allows that.
Don't get me wrong - I'm 100% pro choice, and think the Stupak Amendment's a crock of shit.

But it does allow the scenario where a person gets a subsidized insurance plan, plus a supplemental insurance plan, funded by premiums, just to pay for abortions.

If done right, an abortion supplemental plan could be decently cheap.

If done right...
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-08-09 12:52 AM
Response to Reply #17
18. Not really a supplemental plan, just a ryder
As easy to include as checking a box, available to men too. For their partners or even their daughters. And have the extra money go into a pool to cover it. I just don't see why it's that big of a deal if it means all women will finally have abortion coverage if they want it, and the wingnuts will stfu.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
boppers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-08-09 01:10 AM
Response to Reply #18
20. No, a rider would be part of an insurance plan.
Plans that cover abortion aren't acceptable in the exchange, regardless of how that coverage is chosen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-08-09 01:20 AM
Response to Reply #20
21. Not if it was funded separately
That was Stupak's complaint, they didn't separate out abortion funding.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
boppers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-08-09 03:26 AM
Response to Reply #21
25. He wanted to separate it out so federal funds didn't support it. Ever.
If a plan is listed on the exchange that has abortion available, that's "support", via a federal mechanism.

So, what would be required for a rider would be:
1. Sign up to a plan on the exchange that says squat about support.
2. Contact an insurance company, and ask if they have a additional plan, one *not available* on the exchange, that would cover female reproductive health.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
treestar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-08-09 10:46 PM
Response to Reply #17
27. If that's true, it wouldn't be bad
It would have to be pretty cheap, since abortions are not often needed. And they are not expensive as medical procedures go.

People have insurance in case they get really sick and need really expensive treatment. If not for that possibility, people could just pay as they go.

I don't know - I got through all childbearing years without ever needing an abortion. So it seems like a rare thing to me. I don't know anyone who got one either. But maybe that's from middle class privilege of always having access to birth control.

http://www.guttmacher.org/in-the-know/cost.html

Interesting statistics on that page. The cost is around $468 and 74% pay with their own money, 13% get medicaid (and presumably those fall into the woman's life is endangered category) and 13% are paid by private insurance. So it does not seem earth shattering change either.

Though I still don't get why a Democratic Congress has an issue with this and am surprised Stupak is a Democrat.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Sparkly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-08-09 12:40 AM
Response to Reply #9
15. "General healthcare" -- the health of the woman is NOT considered. How is this "general healthcare?"
This is a legal medical procedure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
DarthDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-08-09 12:39 AM
Response to Original message
14. It Will Be Removed

Many of the yeas for that amendment will still vote for the finished product, even without it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Clio the Leo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-08-09 12:42 AM
Response to Reply #14
16. Yeah, tonight was their demonstration to the folks back home....
that "they tried."
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
saracat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-08-09 12:59 AM
Response to Reply #16
19. Funny, none of my pals in the red districts who were in real jeopardy voted for Stupak
They had the priciples to stand up to the blackmailers, not like these cretins.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Odin2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-08-09 01:43 AM
Response to Original message
22. Stupak is part of the C-Street Family of Christo-Facists. He is an anti-woman scumbag.
He needs to be thrown out of the Democratic Party.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
LovinLife Donating Member (366 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-08-09 01:53 AM
Response to Original message
23. How much does an abortion cost? I can understand making someone pay for it themselves. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
niyad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-08-09 02:43 AM
Response to Reply #23
24. as you are male, you aren't likely to need one. are YOU going to pay for an abortion if
you get a woman pregnant who doesn't want to be?

you know, in cvilized countries, they have universal health care, and abortions are not subject to the hysteria of the christofascists.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
boppers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-08-09 05:46 PM
Response to Reply #23
26. Cost varies by area, clinic, methods, etc.
"First trimester procedures run about $500-1000. Second trimester procedures cost $600-10,000."... from http://www.fwhc.org/abortion/flyer.htm

"In 2001, the average charge for a surgical abortion at 10 weeks gestation was $468; but since most abortions in the United States are performed at low-cost clinics, women on average paid $372 for the procedure.
How much does a medical abortion cost? In 2001, the average charge for a medical abortion was $487.
Who pays for abortions?
Some 74% of women pay for abortions with their own money; 13% of abortions are covered by Medicaid, and 13% are billed directly to private insurance. Some women who pay for the procedure themselves may receive insurance reimbursement later. "... from http://www.guttmacher.org/in-the-know/cost.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
treestar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-08-09 10:49 PM
Response to Reply #26
28. Statistics on Birth Control as a matter of interest
http://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1RNCN_enUS335US341&a...

It looks like that is rarely covered by private insurance plans either.

Yet having babies is, I'll bet!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | 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 Sat Oct 20th 2018, 06:38 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) 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