Study: Stupak Amendment Will Eliminate Abortion Coverage 'Over Time For All Women'

I just L-O-V-E studies that tell us what we already know. This was the obvious intent in the first place.

Not to worry. This amendment has ZERO chance of not being stripped out before this is all over.

Of course.

Stupak-Pitts is a carefully crafted poison pill, a two-fer that exposes the core of the wingnut-bidness coalition, played strategically for maximum damage, and heralded only by Chris Matthews' weeks and weeks of howling that it was coming.

Stupak is the worst kind of tool.

I'm 61; I know women who died and whose unwanted pregnancies utterly ruined their lives. I'm appalled at the moral and social retardation of our Congress as a whole, and I am not optimistic that that filthy metastasis of the hatred of women's sexuality will be cut from the final legislative product.

The amendment was an act of hatred, of regression, and of elimination of female equality and opportunity.

If coverage is ended, people may end up using self-help methods. And every insurance company will find itself forced to pay for all the hospital care of women from botched, do-it-yourself abortions!

I predict that ultimately the insurance companies will find it far cheaper to provide access to safe abortions. And the legislators, like puppets, will fall into line.

I think that the regrettable thing about this debate is that it is generating much more heat than light, and that goes for both sides of the debate.

On my side (the anti-abortion side), I hear blowhards talking about protecting the conscience-rights of those who oppose abortion by preventing their tax monies from going to subsidize the procedure. Setting aside Mans Best Friend's point above that this amendment goes much farther than this, it is not at all clear to me why my conscience is worthy of such tender protections. I am also against the Iraq War, but I do not remember Rep Stupak (who was also against the war) or any other Congressman insisting that my tax monies not go to support this unconscionable war. Indeed, to take such a position about protecting individual consciences would simply paralyze the federal government. I doubt that there is any government spending that is not morally objectionable to somebody. Mere common sense dictates that conscientious objections of a minority to government action cannot be allowed to constitute a basis for preventing the majority from moving forward.

On the other side (the pro-abortion side), however, one might imagine from the outrage that this will effectively outlaw abortion. Certainly that is the sentiment that appears in (for instance) TheraP's breathless fret that if "coverage is ended, people may end up using self-help methods." One might easily forget, in the midst of this hysteria, that "just 13% of abortions nationwide are billed to private insurance, according to a 2001 study by the Guttmacher Institute." Meanwhile "more than 90% of abortions take place in the first trimester, at an average cost of $413." In other words, the number of people who would have otherwise gotten an abortion, but for the loss of insurance coverage is quite, quite small. As restrictions go, this one is almost non-existent.

Of course, if the restriction is so negligible and the motivation behind it (protection of conscience) is so transparently bogus, why is it even in there? Sadly, I can see no explanation that does not reflect very badly on the Democrats behind this amendment. They are playing right into the hands of Republican obstructionists, while gaining nothing of any real substance for the anti-abortionists whom they are supposedly championing.

Nobody gains; everybody loses from this amendment, except for the RNC and their ilk.

Here is your poll:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/11/18/abortion.poll/index.html?iref=24hours
The question:
"Generally speaking, are you in favor of using public funds for abortions when the woman cannot afford it, or are you opposed to that?"

61% opposed, 37% favor.

(It took less time to find this poll than it did for you to type your reply.)

I said that the up-side of this would be the death of the tort-reform agenda, since the right wing would create a lawsuit machine against the provision of any abortion to anyone anywhere at anytime.

Meanwhile, as a middle-aged, straight, white guy, let me say: Why the hell are men allowed to have any say in this? We can't create life, we have no equivalent process. We have NO idea what this is about. We should just STFU.

Finally, to bend the cost curve, I want the tissue of every aborted fetus gene-tested so that the father can be identified, and billed for 50% of the cost. Fair's fair, but the Stupid-Piss Amendment is anything but.

Meanwhile, as a middle-aged, straight, white guy, let me say: Why the hell are men allowed to have any say in this? We can't create life, we have no equivalent process. We have NO idea what this is about. We should just STFU.

Fair enough, but please do not expect that the dynamics of the debate would change at all if men were excluded. There is no statistically significant difference between women's views on abortion and men's.

It really gets annoying.... makes you wonder how some people are in office

At least we now know who those bureaucrats that are sitting between us and our healthcare are. Stupak and Pitts are the first members of the death panels!