One thing I think has received not enough attention is that this would not only impact persons with individual coverage, but also persons who work at small businesses, since small businesses in the exchange will also be eligible for insurance credits.

This is interesting to me because although people buying insurance as individuals could avoid the Stupak amendment by simply not accepting the federal subsidies (assuming anyone in a position to qualify for the subsidies is in a place to make such a decision), persons working at small businesses may not be given a choice as to whether their employer accepts the poisoned subsidies or not.

I also wonder whether the conditions attached to the federal help might discourage some small businesses from participating in the subsidy/credit program altogether, creating a situation where the government is literally bribing some small businesses to not offer abortion insurance coverage to their employees.

Does the ammendment provide for any exceptions? So a woman insured via the exchange is told by her doctor that continuing her pregnancy will very likely result in her death. Or the baby is so severely malformed that it will die immediately upon birth. And this woman would have to pay for her own abortion?? ...her own MEDICAL treatment? Lovely.

Democrats should make certain this hateful creep is primaried and defeated no matter what.

I think there is definitely a viable challenge under Casey to this if it passes, but to tank the bill because of this is ludicrous.

People who don't have insurance now won't lose something they don't already have, but will gain tremendously in other aspects of their life.

Until I see something that tells me that this bill will leave people worse off financially (in which case it should be tanked), I can't agree that excluding a relative inexpensive medical procedure is reasons to deny everyone the benefits of it.

It's a craven, backstabbing amendment by Stupak. It's an insult to women, but I believe this was done at this time to get the eye off the public option and create a typical intra-Dem pie fight. And it's working.

First: employer plans don't typically cover abortion.

Second: Sixty-four Democrats voted for Stupak. Sixty-four. If you're prepared to kill health care in exchange for choice, fine. But, the better solution is to pass health care and address the separate need that pro-choice folks feel is necessary at some later point in the session.

And, frankly, I don't think that the pro-lifers have the votes for the amendment in the Senate. So, if Reid is smart, his proposed bill would NOT include the Stupak bill. Then it would take 60 votes (if my understanding of senate rules is accurate) to add Stupak.

Sigh.....

Please try and keep the facts straight - the bill extends Medicaid to ALL persons earning less than 150% of FPL, so this entire population will NOT be in the "Exchange."

Persons between 150-400 of FPL will, on a sliding scale, be eligible for subsidies. That does not mean they will automatically be participating in the Exchange - in fact, in the first few years, only the unemployed, self-employed and certain persons employed by firms under 100 employees will be eligible for the Exchange. At this point, you have already narrowed down the number of persons even affected by the Stupak Amendment drastically.

For those that are affected, all this speculation about whether or not they will have abortion coverage in their plans is just that - speculation. First of all, many of these women will be those who do not currently have any coverage at all - even if their plans don't cover abortion, are they better off without coverage?

And as someone pointed out, elective abortions are not the most expensive surgical procedures in the world, certainly not compared to pre-natal care, so the companies participating in the Exchange will have an incentive to offer plans covering abortions and/or supplemental riders to cover abortion for low cost.

Really concerned about ensuring that any women in this country can get an elective abortion whenever and whereever she wants? Support health reform and give money to your local abortion providing clinic, where most women receive this service as it is.

How much does an abortion cost? I'm sure the question is complicated, but what range are we talking about, for a normal abortion, 1st trimester, no complications procedure?

I think the Stupak amendment is a poison pill designed to kill health care reform. It's not a matter of 'we're so close to HCR that it's OK to undermine woman's health care.' It was inserted to stop the progress of reform. It needs to be removed, that's all.

This at least kills the entire 'tort reform' movement. The Christian right will create a tornado of civil suits at every level of government, at at every point of insurance or of actual service, implying that somehow federal Health Insurance funds were involved, either directly, indirectly in person (support frees up personal funds for separate policy) or indirectly at the insurance company level (rates are based on government-mandated clients steered by the federal law.)

Oh, it'll be grand. Almost all abortions, even private ones by the incredibly wealthy, will become functionally illegal, and have to be done out of sight, not of the law, but of the lawyers.

PS: Why does the Catholic Church continue to provide small boys to buggerers, but not protect women? Is it a misogyny thing, or what?

First what is wrong with the already Hyde Amendment that is already enforce. I do not understand why we have to have a separate amendment in the HRC bill for this just include the Hyde Amendment and be done with it. And by the way while you are at maybe we should start taxing churches if they have a voice in our legislation. Whatever happended to separation of state and church?