Mandatory Abortion Rider

[sandnsea]

Honestly.

Do you know how to fight FOR something?

The reason the Stupak Amendment won is because they were focused and organized.

There isn't going to be full abortion coverage in any of these bills. Get Real.

We need a rider that men and women can voluntarily choose and that is managed independently by the insurance companies.

Can people fight FOR something that is achievable??

[PeaceNikki]

1. Here you go

"Such an ‘abortion rider,’ whereby abortion care could only be covered by a single-service plan in the exchange, is discriminatory and illogical. Women do not plan to have unintended pregnancies or medically complicated pregnancies that require ending the pregnancy. In fact, about half of all pregnancies in the U.S. are unintended, and abortion is not something that women plan to insure against. As a result, an ‘abortion rider’ policy is unworkable. Proposing a separate ‘abortion rider’ represents exactly the type of government interference in the health care marketplace that conservatives purport to vehemently oppose."

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/newsroom/press-releases/planned-parenthood-statement-opposing-stupak-pitts-amendment-30818.htm

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

4. +1

[sandnsea]

5. Bull. Shit.

It is as workable as birth control when a woman doesn't plan to have sex. This is irresponsible of planned parenthood and the reason we're in this mess. They were hoping to put full coverage in this bill and overturn the Hyde Amendment at the same time. It's POLITICS.

[PeaceNikki]

6. You blame Planned Parenthood for WHAT mess?

:\

[sandnsea]

7. I blame many women's groups for the legislative mess

They were trying to overturn the Hyde Amendment. Do you deny that?

Putting full abortion coverage in the public option and exchange would have done that, correct?

[PeaceNikki]

8. I APPLAUD them for trying to stop the government from restricting access.

I blame the Catholic bishops, the DFLA and some Republicans in Democratic clothing for the "legislative mess".

[sandnsea]

9. They were trying to overturn the Hyde Amendment, correct? n/t

[PeaceNikki]

10. Um... no. They were trying to keep Stupak out of HCR.

Which is far above and beyond Hyde.

"The Stupak/Pitts amendment would result in a new restriction on women’s access to abortion coverage in the private health insurance market, undermining the ability of women to purchase private health plans that cover abortion care, even if they pay for most of the premium with their own money."

[sandnsea]

11. Without Stupak, Hyde is overturned, correct? n/t

[PeaceNikki]

13. Not true. Stupak extends to private insurance.

It's further restricting access.

[sandnsea]

16. Without Stupak. WITHOUT. NO STUPAK.

If there were no Stupak Amendment - Hyde is overturned, correct?

[PeaceNikki]

19. I don't think so.

As much as it ought be. But that's a separate battle.

[sandnsea]

22. Yes, it does. That IS the battle right now

Don't you get it?

[Solly Mack]

12. You do know that the Hyde amendment has to be renewed every year don't you?

That it isn't a case of overturning the Hyde amendment but of simply not renewing it. The amendment, actually a rider, is attached to a yearly appropriations bill. Said appropriations bill being for the Departments of Labor, Health, Education, and Welfare (at the time), what we now call the Department of Health and Human Services.

But Congress could have chosen not to renew the Hyde amendment for years now.

Earlier this year, Democrats voted down an an attempt made by Orrin Hatch to codify the Hyde amendment.


Stupak would do the same thing Hatch tried to do....to codify, meaning make into law, the Hyde rider.


This is what Democrats said about Hatch's attempts


"The Senate Finance Committee rejected an amendment to its health care bill Wednesday that would have required women to purchase a separate, supplemental insurance plan to cover abortion services."

"Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) described Hatch's amendment as "insulting" to women."

"It's discriminating against women," said committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.), who authored the bill."


and this what Snowe (R) had to say about it:

"pro-abortion-rights Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe (Maine) rejected Hatch's argument, saying it would be unfair to require women to purchase separate insurance coverage for abortion services. Such a requirement, Snowe said, would raise privacy issues by asking women to anticipate their need for abortion coverage."

[sandnsea]

18. "simply not renewing it" - IS overturning it

A rider, not an additional supplemental policy, just a rider, is a perfectly acceptable compromise.

[Solly Mack]

25. You're talking about mandating a supplement

Legislatively, a rider is an additional provision annexed to a bill.

Are you talking about legislating a rider to the health bill requiring insurance companies to offer up a supplement to the health exchange to cover abortions? If so, you're talking about a supplement. Even if you call it a rider...since insurance riders supplement existing policies.

For insurance, a rider is a provision in an insurance policy allowing for amendments/changes to its terms/coverage. Riders usually add or exclude coverage for specific conditions or procedures.

Riders supplement an insurance policy.

So, to suggest a mandatory abortion rider is to suggest a supplement.

You're asking women to buy additional - or supplemental - insurance that only covers abortion.

[sandnsea]

28. An insurance rider is attached to a policy

It is not a separate supplemental policy, like AFLACK or a Medicare supplement.

It's right there IN the policy itself. Usually nothing more than a paragraph and a check box. Men and women should be able to use the benefit.

The mandate should be in the Health Care Reform Act, mandating EVERY policy, EVERY SINGLE POLICY, have an abortion rider.

[Hepburn]

15. +1

[noamnety]

2. I love how you include "men" in there. Spare us.

Hello_Kitty summed that piece of shit up well when she referred to it as something like the "in-case--I'm-an_irresponsible-slut" insurance option.

Women aren't going to go to their employers to sign up for that, get real.

[sandnsea]

3. This has NOTHING to do with employers, this is the exchange

And yes, women AND men, many MARRIED WOMEN AND MEN, will check that box readily. Especially if it covers daughters too.

[noamnety]

14. pffft.

Men will not get a rider for abortions because it's not a procedure that's done on them.

The rider is for women specifically, regardless of whether a man opts to pay it for her.

If women had to pay extra to go to a stadium football game - because it costs a stadium more to build extra restrooms because women have to sit to pee - nobody would try to frame it as a men's and women's issue. Not EVEN if most women's tickets to games are purchased by husbands or boyfriends.

[sandnsea]

20. I bet a lot of men would get a rider

Where do you think the women go when they need the money for the abortion?

And please do not even compare this to a fucking football stadium.

[noamnety]

23. How about I compare it to vasectomies?

Let's say an insurance rider was required to get a vasectomy. It's a relatively cheap elective surgery (but of course it's for MEN, so it won't require an extra rider).

The rider would be an option for men, they'd have a right to be pissed off if the government demanded they pay a surcharge for pissing God off by refusing to reproduce. (That's what the abortion rider is about, after all).

It would be insulting if someone justified that by saying it was fair because some women would foot the bill for the surcharge.

It would be a discriminatory practice against men, even IF some women helped bear the cost of it.

As for abortion riders, the decision should be the woman's decision, and putting it into men's insurance policies is insulting. Just as women aren't a decision maker in whether their partner gets a vasectomy, women shouldn't be at the mercy of their partner to grant permission to use "his" insurance to cover "her" health care needs.

[sandnsea]

24. *sigh* Vasectomy = tubal ligation

Honestly, abortion is an issue unto itself at the current time. People have really got to stop throwing in all these ridiculous non-analagies.

As to men paying into the abortion rider - maybe the woman didn't, see? Then the man's policy would kick in. Get it?

And we're supposed to be the thinking party. :eyes:

[noamnety]

26. Why should women's health care be determined by

whether or not she had the good luck to have sex with a guy who has an insurance policy on HER body?

Why should I support a requirement to have an insurance policy that violates my right to privacy?

I work in a place where the line-by-line budget is public domain information, including my salary, my benefits, my insurance costs. Why the fuck should I have to make it public knowledge that "I am sexually active and think I might get pregnant and get an abortion" in order to get health care? Why not just cut out the middle man and send the pro-lifers my home address and paint a target on my door right now?

The reason I can't find an appropriate metaphor that passes your smell test is because - you are exactly right, there IS none, because men aren't required to put their sexual experiences and genitals up for a public exam and morality test to see if they are sluts.

They aren't expected to have to state if they were raped in order to get medical care for a condition that arose from being sexually active. They don't have to pass the whore/madonna test before getting health care.

Women are not chattel. They're entitled to the same level of health care as anyone else. It's creepy to be advocating a health care solution for women that's wrapped up in the notion of men taking out special insurance riders for a women's uterus.

[sandnsea]

27. She should take responsibility and check the box herself

If she doesn't, she's an idiot that I just can't muster any sympathy for.

However - men should pay into the pool too, which will help reduce the rider premium for women. And maybe have coverage for that stupid woman who didn't take responsibility for herself.

I simply cannot justify NO health insurance assistance because of this, especially when there is such a simple solution. I just can't.

[noamnety]

29. and there we have it.

"stupid woman who didn't take responsibility for herself"

[Lars39]

30. Just a matter of time, wasn't it.

[sandnsea]

32. The horror of making men be responsible too

when women aren't.

What a bunch of psychos.

[Lars39]

38. Of course you're going to let your HR personnel know details

from your medical records, right? Like whether you intend to get Viagra or a vasectomy? Maybe a penile implant?

[sandnsea]

40. Yes, people had to fight to get ALL that coverage

in policies. Real live employees specifically sit down and look at policies and make sure they cover those things, and if they have a choice of different policies, they choose the one that covers Viagra or sterilization or what have you. Yes, they do have to do that now.

But this is about the exchange, not employer based coverage.

[sandnsea]

31. If given the opportunity to add abortion coverage

and she didn't - yes, she's stupid.

[noamnety]

33. you can't think of ANY other reasons

a woman might not go on record as stating she expects she might get pregnant (and would want an abortion if she did)?

That's rather impressive in its own way.

[sandnsea]

34. Same as using birth control, exact same excuse

It doesn't wash.

[noamnety]

35. No, it's not the same

because you can do those with your constitutionally protected privacy.

I can get the pill without it becoming public information because the care I get through my insurance policy is private, but the terms of the policy are public. I would not be able to pay for an extra abortion rider to an existing insurance policy through my employer without it becoming public knowledge and making me a target for right wing extremists, making it something that would affect my ability to run for office, etc.

A woman with a controlling aggressive partner can't necessarily hide the extra pay deductions for her paycheck. It's the sort of thing that could get her a good beating or two - but, yeah, I know, she's a "stupid idiot" to be a victim of domestic violence, so she kinda deserves to have to bear a kid as punishment.

A teenage girl isn't necessarily going to go to her parents to ask for a rider (Hey mom and dad, let's get that insurance policy in case I get knocked up now!), and the parents aren't necessarily going to assume their daughter is sexually active. But yeah, teens are stupid - so they deserve to have their health care options restricted, too.

If you think forced pregnancy is an appropriate punishment for "women acting stupid and irresponsible" that's messed up.

And there is the ever popular "women in poverty chose to live in poverty" argument. Cause hey, everyone could have extra money lying around for hypothetical what-ifs if they just prioritized their lives better.

As for men paying their share of the burden - that's why it needs to be in the basic plan. We're specifically saying it shouldn't be a special financial burden on women. I don't understand why you're trying to misrepresent that position as "You think only women should have to pay for it." It should be a shared insurance risk in the same way that health concerns specific to men's bodies are a shared insurance risk.

[sandnsea]

36. Single women using birth control are sluts

That's the exact same thing that was said about women choosing a policy that offered birth control. Not all policies do, you know. You have to buy one that does. Do you think anybody pays attention to the policy single women buy at work? No. And they won't pay attention to who checks the box for abortion coverage either.

It's a great idea for everybody to pay for abortion coverage, fine idea. It's Not Going To Happen.

It's Not Going To Happen.

Again.

It's Not Going To Happen.

So what is the next best solution? A rider that EVERYBODY can include in their policy, single, married, men, women, grandmas, everybody can include it.

If you can't figure out how to convince people that abortion is not a religious issue, then this is the only solution that is feasible NOW.

[noamnety]

37. Bull.

If there was a public list of which women paid for abortion riders, you can be damned sure the prolifers would publish that list on their website along with their addresses, so as to "help counsel" them.

As I said before, the insurance options I select ARE a matter of public record because of where I work. And you know, none of the fundie male supremacists are employers that hold women's futures pay, bonuses and employment in their hands. (Well, apparently not - it seems we've elected all of them to Congress.)


For the record, your "it'll be fair if we just allow men to buy insurance on women's bodies" isn't going to happen either.

I know from your other posts that you disregard women's medical privacy as an issue, including the right to an abortion without having to identify the people she had sex with. Fortunately there are SOME privacy laws still in place.

Second, all it would take is for 1 helpful women's rights advocate to sign up for the spewed sperm rider, and he could use that policy to claim paternity for any woman in need. One guy, one policy, could cover all the abortions in a region. You see the problem?

-------

But kudos on the complete dismissing of women's safety and privacy when they are in abusive relationships. That was awesome.

[sandnsea]

39. That complete post is just, wow.

If fundies could get access to women's medical records, they already would have. Like they've tried to do in Kansas. That is where that fight comes in. And if somebody is going to prevent someone from getting a raise because of an abortion rider, they'd do the same thing if a single woman bought the policy with birth control coverage. It's the same argument, it's been made for decades, maybe you didn't know that.

And how in the world would this hurt a woman in an abusive relationship? She can't get coverage AT ALL, now. Having coverage available would help her, not hurt her.

When you're left with nothing but fantastical nightmare scenarios, you've lost.

The solution is an abortion rider for everybody to have access to and pay into.

[noamnety]

41. It's hardly a "fantastical nightmare scenario"

to think that a woman would be in potential danger if her abusive partner found out she was planning to get an abortion if she got pregnant. The act of paying for a rider could put her in danger even if she never ends up having to use the coverage.

You live a sheltered life if you think that's "fantastical." It's just the reality of many abusive relationships.

[sandnsea]

42. She has NOTHING now

What is wrong with you.

A woman in an abusive relationship knows how to LIE and just say it's in case she gets raped and doesn't want to tell anybody.

I'm actually NOT the one that has lived the sheltered life. I actually have LIVED all this stuff the experts on DU think they know something about, you know, from going to college.

Women in abusive relationships have no option now. None. Zip. Zero. Adding this option, along with health care for the first time many of them will even have it, is a HUGE benefit. Doctors to treat them like valuable citizens. Oh my god. A lot of women have never had that.

And mental health coverage so they can seek counseling.

Talk about "sheleterd life". Anybody who would deprive women from health care over this Stupak Amendment is a FOOL and doesn't know shit about how the bottom 50% live.

[noamnety]

43. Top Ten Signs Your Proposal May Be Flawed

I'm pretty sure this belongs on the list:

You find yourself reassuring the critics that this won't endanger abused women at all - unless they are too stupid to lie about it.

[sandnsea]

44. You are not an advocate for women

Don't kid yourself into thinking you are. You know nothing about what women in the real world need.

A woman in an abusive relationship knows how to lie to protect herself. I don't think she's too stupid to do that, YOU do. Because you're clueless.

[Hepburn]

17. Woooooot....

....I love you and Hello_Kitty! You two are soooooo right on in these discussions!

:thumbsup:

[sandnsea]

21. No, they're really completely useless

and have so much misinformation it's disgusting.