Pro-Choice Groups Plan Campaign To Get Senate To Reject Abortion Amendment In House Bill

Isn't it great having a small group of celibate men crafting reproductive rights policy for the whole nation?

Rachel Maddow with Jeff Sharlett reported last night that it's not principally the Catholics who are behind the Stupak-Pitts amendment but that secretive C-Street cult, The Family, whose influence and membership in the Democratic Party is widening.

I'm sorry, but where does it say that women have a fundamental right to free abortions?

No one is saying that you cannot have an abortion. They're saying you cannot use the health care subsidies you receive to fund an elective abortion. I think that is the right approach. Abortion's not health care.

Why are Catholic bishops being allowed to meet with the Democratic leadership of the House? Why are they being allowed to lobby the Senate over abortion? Isn't there a law that separates church and state. Couldn't the Catholic Church lose their tax status by meddling in a legislative matter? I am not Catholic and I deeply resent their expecting me to live by their tenets.

Catholics are repressive and opposed to women's rights. I will listen to catholics on public policy when they come out of the closet and force criminal actions against their own child molesters who hide under the cloth. They have no moral high ground in regards to public policy.

Hypothetical: Would you accept a strong version of health reform--a robust public option at Medicare +5 rates--if in order to do so you would have to allow Stupak to pass? (Note that Stupak does not remove the right of individual women to purchase abortion riders above the basic health care package offered by the public option or any of the private competitors)

Would you be willing *not* to have health care reform so as to defeat Stupak?

Addendum to the hypothetical: Suppose Stupak were altered to *require* a rider for purchase on both the public option and the private alternatives, what then?

Powkat thinks that saving tens of thousands of lives is not enough to warrant the passage of Stupak? I say that cost-benefit analysis suggests otherwise.

Also, note that you have passed a bill in the House once. You know you have the votes for that bill. Are you sure that you will have the votes once that bill changes to remove Stupak?

Isn't it time that we Taxed these superstitious cretins out of power and out of existance?

I for one am so very effing tired of having busybodies, ignoramuses, and grassroots crazies digging around in my private life or affairs. Give these sons of bitches a voice and they act like Atilla the Hun.

I find it interesting that no one seems to mind federal funds being used to purchase landmines and airstrikes on Afghan villages but not abortions.

Way to go brewmn61. Way to take the debate to the lowest level. That comment was uncalled for and pretty disgusting.

agio, suppose you have two options:

1. The House bill as stands
2. A much weaker Senate bill that removes Stupak.

Which do you choose and why?

Sorry - I understand that health care for all is a good thing; but I draw the line at making women pay such a high price for it. I don't know your gender or how old you are, but I'm female and old enough to remember when abortion was illegal; I remember all too well what women went through - I won't list horror stories here, but please do some research and you may understand why those of us who fought to make abortion legal are so passionate about not giving up what we won.

I agree with agio here. A House bill with Stupak will in all likelihood be stronger than a reconciled Senate bill without Stupak, especially because that reconciled Senate bill is likely to include triggers or co-opts when all is said and done.

I am, of course, similarly incensed that Weiner's single-payer amendment could not come up for a vote in the House.

When are women going to take to the streets and demand that men not be allowed to make health decisions about women's bodies. This should be an issue left to women.

Bart Stupak's ( D-MI) the perpetrator of the restrictive and unconstitutional amendment severely prohibiting funding for LEGAL abortions lost his son , BJ to suicide in 2000.

He blamed the drug Accutane for directly altering his behavior and contributing to that tragic event.

He spent the next 6 years fighting successfully to create an implement much more explicit and dire warnings on the use of Accutane including the iPledge program --all of which should be applauded.

What if Stupak lost a daughter to an illegal abortion? Would he let the Catholic bishops impose their will on US Governmental law? Would he blur the line of his religious beliefs with his role as a member of the US Congress. ( What has happened to the separation of church and state?)

For Democrats to support this amendment was a terrible disappointment to the women of this country. How many women have to DIE because they cannot afford a safe and legal procedure?

They are mobilizing those supporters, many who were outraged to hear the amendment passed, and raising money for ad campaigns.

"Raising money for ad campaigns"? Are they going to support primary challenges? Work to defeat supporters of the amendment?

Pro-choice organizations have no clout because there is no downside to dissing them. All they'll do at election time is produce a ratings list, and hell, if you're an incumbent like Lieberman and your overall record isn't too bad, there's nothing you can do that will take you off the list.

Unless they go all-out against those who dare to defy them like the NRA, "raising money for ad campaigns" really means using bad news to raise money for the organization -- again. Local Planned Parenthood organizations do good work on the ground, but as national political forces, these groups have long since abandoned effectiveness for fundraising.

Abortion debates are completely predictable.

I am this wife-beater-wearing male pig pounding my hairy chest and screaming at you to submit to my view that women are, by nature, inferior, submissive and have no right to control their bodies. Hardly.

Until I had my own kids, I was pretty much pro-choice. And, I don't identify with the pro-life crowd that uses this one issue to claim that they are "pro-life," even as they elect those who invade sovereign nations, kill hundreds of thousands of people by air attacks, advocate for and support the death penalty, believe that gays should be quarantined, and etc.

Yet, in every instance, a human being was once a fetus. And a fetus isn't just a group of cells; it's got human qualities such as DNA right out of the gate and a heartbeat at like 3 weeks.

In nearly every instance, a couple can prevent a pregnancy. Not only are there condoms and birth control pills, but there are IUDs and noninvasive birth control methods that are readily available and highly effective. Don't say that Democrats sold out women when they supported this amendment. Democrats didn't ban coverage of the pill or other birth control methods. Women (and men) have plenty of methods to prevent a pregnancy and they're lawful and they're readily available today.

With respect to this issue of whether abortion coverage should be included in the overall health care bill, I know this: in legislation, there is horse trading at all times. How important is it to insure the 50,000,000 without insurance? It's very important to me. I see this as a moral issue. Too many people die without insurance. Too many folks get cancer and have no access to high-quality treatment methods. And, when they are treated, they spend too much on the treatment because they don't get the large member discounts that many insureds receive. The end result is, often, bankruptcy.

So, if the choice is to cover the 50,000,000 without insurance and restrict abortion access OR liberalize abortion access but don't cover the 50,000,000 without insurance, I'll take covering the 50,000,000 without insurance. With two votes to spare, I would say that the House went in the right direction.

My legal approach to the treatment of a fetus formed by rape and/or incest is inconsistent because I believe the victim should have access to an abortion in these instances. The victim's interest outweighs that protection the fetus should have. Likewise, in instances where the health of the mother is in issue, I favor a more liberal approach to abortion.

I don't think anyone sold out women; some merely recognized that federal money -- whether in the form of premiums or tax dollars -- should not be used to cover abortions. But, they also recognized the importance of covering the 50,000,000 uninsured and this is a step forward.

1) ...I am not sure I see what that has to do with whether that pregnant woman can voluntarily destroy a human fetus. Placentas don't grow up to be human beings; fetuses do.

First, voluntarily destroy a human fetus. As opposed to what, while in a coma, unable to consent to a procedure involving a non-human fetus? We're having a discussion of medical matters here so let's keep dog-whistles out of it, shall we?

Second, according to you, v.1, since everybody was a fetus at some point, the fetus is special so the pregnancy shouldn't be terminated. I merely pointed out that, by the same logic, the pregnant woman is special so she shouldn't be forced to carry a pregnancy to term.

And your v.2, since the fetus has DNA and a heartbeat, the fetus is special. Again, I merely pointed out that based on your criteria the placenta is extra, super-duper special. Not only does it have DNA, but it, unlike the fetus, can breath, circulate, excrete, etc.. You know, human qualities and all that.

2.) It appears I wasn't clear as your reply has something to do with typical-use rates of individual methods.

According to you, [i]n nearly every instance, a couple can prevent a pregnancy. That's incorrect. Of the total number of unintended pregnancies/yr ~ 48% result from contraceptive failure. In other words, even under the best of circumstances (contraceptive use), in a high proportion of instances a couple cannot prevent a pregnancy.

3) Mandated coverage that excludes essential procedures/care is inadequate. [Currently, people aren't forced to purchase coverage.]

And, there are several states that explicitly prohibit insurers from covering abortions today. That should suggest, at least, that society is uneasy about this procedure as a medical procedure.

Or, rather, it should suggest that those opposed to female patients of repro age making their own medical decisions are politically effective.

You're operating under the assumption that abortion is a form of birth control. I disagree with that assumption.

You do realize that making odd, baseless assertions (I operate under the assumption that abortion is a form of birth control; oh, the humanity!) hinders coherent discussion, yes?