TPMDC
Nelson Crafting Abortion Amendment 'Nearly Identical' To Stupak's
Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE)
Share
Send to a friend!
If it seemed like the congressional row over abortion coverage in health care reform had ebbed, it was probably just an artifact of Thanksgiving recess. Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) is charging ahead, and plans to introduce an amendment to the Senate health care bill in the spirit, if not the precise letter, of the controversial Stupak amendment.
"It's as identical to Stupak as it can be," Nelson told CongressDaily.
Senate experts will be unsurprised to hear that it will likely have the support of Pennsylvania Democrat Bob Casey.
"I think it's likely to be one of the amendments we'll vote on," Casey said.
But it's unlikely that such an amendment can pass without 60 votes, and without the support of more than a trivial number of Democrats, it's hard to see how it can reach that threshold. Particularly if Maine Sens. Olympia Snowe and/or Susan Collins vote against it.
Comments (131) | Join the Conversation!
Leave a comment
Follow us!
Most Popular
TPM Stories Now Surging on Digg.com
TPM Top News
© 2010 TPM Media LLC. All Rights Reserved.
mcc
December 1, 2009 3:49 PM
Weirdly in this case the "you need 60 votes to do anything" rule will probably actually protect us.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
libdevil
December 1, 2009 7:30 PM in reply to mcc
Not so much. If the good guys filibuster the amendment, the whole bill stalls.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Powkat
December 1, 2009 3:59 PM
Every one of these clowns should read Nicolas Kristof today. While they play power games and do the bidding of their corporate and/or religious masters, people are dying - on average 123 per day - because they can't afford or have been denied insurance coverage.
Hey, Sen. Nelson - when you are okay with people dying while you block reform, you lose the right to call yourself 'pro-life'.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Rich in NJ
December 1, 2009 4:03 PM
Sounds like a deal, if in return he will vote for Medicare for All.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Chris
December 1, 2009 4:06 PM
Who needs an opposition party when we have our own?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rbeats
December 1, 2009 4:10 PM
More 1st century ideology in a 21st century world.
How sad.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
December 1, 2009 4:49 PM in reply to rbeats
Indeed, but there's another problem:
20th century ideology in a 21st century world.
The new low-dose oral contraceptives (hello, 21st century!) are highly effective, and have very few side effects (in fact, they have some very positive side effects, including shorter and less painful menses.) Per the UN, many of the lo-dose oc's can be used as "morning after" pills for up to five days after the possibility of an accidental conception for women who are not already using them consistently.
I think it's possible that the lower numbers of public support for abortion don't necessarily represent what the pro-choice side insists it does.
Rather, it may highlight the proportion of a younger generation of women who see that the legal and pharmaceutical landscape may allow both sides to elide this wasteful and pointless argument in the first place.
Most of the women I know who are most vociferously anti-Stupak are far beyond child-bearing years, and their experiences with early versions of the pill were understandably not good experiences. There were a lot of unpleasant side effects until about ten years ago.
Like the Hillary supporters, they also experienced a very different academic and professional environment than younger women did. They are essentially still living in the 20th century.
It's important to remember that neither the Hyde amendment nor the Stupak amendment affect the legality of the procedure. Merely federal funding for coverage of the procedure.
If Planned Parenthood can do some fundraising off of this, I'm all for it, PP is a great organization. But let's not delude ourselves about what Stupak entails.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Minne sconsin
December 1, 2009 4:53 PM in reply to again
Maybe because they came of age in a world where abortion was scarce and they had friends who had back-alley abortions. Or died of them.
Just sayin'.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
December 1, 2009 4:57 PM in reply to Minne sconsin
I completely agree that is where they're coming from.
But that is not the legal or technological landscape today.
It has long since been time for us to move into a more responsible, more realistic, and less emotional discussion of the matter at hand.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
caseynm
December 1, 2009 5:32 PM in reply to again
Um, no. The issue is not technological (as you imply it is--birth control fails), and those who get pregnant accidentally are more often than not responsible in terms of birth control use.
Finally, those who get abortions are quite often doing the responsible thing by refusing to bring an unwanted child into the world--there is no need to concede the moral high-ground to those who wish to deny abortions to women in need of them.
We can haggle about whether there is a point in pregnancy where abortion becomes morally problematic (viability?), but apart from that, there is nothing morally to concede in terms of responsibility.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
December 1, 2009 5:41 PM in reply to caseynm
The new lo-dose OC's have a VERY LOW failure rate in clinical studies.
Combine that with the reality that women are not exactly rabbits and most conceptions don't make it past 8 weeks?
I think it's time to stop the self-fulfilling prophecy that women are too incompetent to manage their own fertility.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
caseynm
December 1, 2009 5:48 PM in reply to again
No, it's time to stop moralizing at women about how wrong abortion is. A failure rate is a failure rate, and as long as there is need for abortions they should be available on any insurance policy offered. If the moralizing religious people don't like an insurer who offers coverage for abortions, then those moralizing religious people don't have to buy from that insurer. This is a secular state. keep your religion to yourself where it belongs.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
December 1, 2009 5:51 PM in reply to caseynm
Your assumption is that I'm religious, which would be news within my family of atheists and agnostics.
I don't know that I have an ethical problem with abortion (I do have deep ethical questions about prevention IN GENERAL, of which abortion is only one minor aspect), but I do think that people who are against abortion should not be expected to fund it with their tax dollars.
Not if we want to preserve Roe V. Wade.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
caseynm
December 1, 2009 5:54 PM in reply to again
Then you don't understand Stupak's amendment. the amendment bans the sale of abortion coverage--including through private insurers--on the mandatory government insurance exchange. How is that spending your precious money on abortions, pray tell?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
caseynm
December 1, 2009 5:57 PM in reply to again
And no, my assumption is that you think it's ok to push your moral beliefs on people who may well not agree with you, whether you're religious or not. One form of moral imposition is as bad as the other.
There is nothing wrong with abortion.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
runfastandwin
December 1, 2009 8:29 PM in reply to again
Well I have a real ethical and moral problem with any of my money spent on paying salaries for Republican legislators, but I don't have a choice. How is this any different? By the way my moral and ethical objection to paying Republicans is every bit as valid as a moral or ethical objection to abortion,if not more so, since I do feel deeply passionate about it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
December 1, 2009 8:44 PM in reply to runfastandwin
I get your point, but I'm pretty sure that if you took a general vote across the country, they probably wouldn't take your position, even with the GOP in its current shockingly dismal state. I know they've always been bad, but this is insane.
I certainly didn't grow up with the idea that abortion was in any way "wrong" but I do accept that is not how the entire rest of the country views the procedure, and unfortunately, "mouthbreathers" though they may be (as they have been described here), we still need to work with them.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
runfastandwin
December 1, 2009 8:50 PM in reply to again
Maybe but until we actually try to get this thing passed without the Stupak amendment we will never know. I believe if Speaker Pelosi had held firm and left the vote open infinitely until she got the result she wanted, it would have eventually passed without it. Even though 15 minutes is traditional it's not written in the Constitution, the House could leave the vote open for days if it chooses to do so. Much like the Senate could force an actual filibuster. If ever there was legislation to pull out all the stops, this is it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
December 1, 2009 8:58 PM in reply to runfastandwin
Well, I think the technology allows us to do an end-run around this C-Street business, but I'm clearly in the minority here.
And for me, even though I'm of child-bearing age, there are bigger issues.
Especially since I actually think that we could see an increase in access for poor women (the most vulnerable!) to abortion through expanded Medicaid rolls.
Like I said, it could be a win-win in many ways.
The lose-lose is that the HCR package as a whole is so weak. And that to me is more important than issues of coverage for abortion because a low-income woman is far more unlikely to be able to pay for her own cancer treatment than a simple $300-$500 abortion.
But the thing is that the whole issue is so emotional that I think it's hard to see what's actually going on. Part of the obfuscation is coming from our side, too, for fundraising purposes.
I'm giving money to PP anyway, I don't need them to trump up what Stupak is actually about.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
oakgrovemac
December 2, 2009 12:41 AM in reply to again
sorry again, no i'm not sorry casue it is necessary, after reading your numerous comments i have come to the conclusion you did a good job of hijacking the over all meme of this thread. your numerous attempts to paint yourself as being prochoice and a middle of the road democrat hasnt sold me ...i think you are as a$$clown of the highest order.
finally, your argument that people with religious and moral principles against abortions should not be expected to pay into a system that would offer choice is just so much bullshit. personally, i detest war and empire building yet i'm not given the choice of not funding this part of the budget when i pay taxes. let me say this as clearly as i can ... i dont trust you, i dont respect you and if given the opportunity i would flush you down the toilet.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
December 2, 2009 12:56 PM in reply to oakgrovemac
Well, with that last comment, you've made a stronger statement about yourself than about me or anything I've written here.
Thanks for the foul language and the emotionalism. It rather proves my point that there's a hysteria surrounding this issue that occludes actual discussion.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ema
December 1, 2009 7:13 PM in reply to again
Do you understand the difference between perfect-use and typical-use failure rates?
Do you know what percentage of women who experience an unintended pregnancy are using contraception?
Are you aware that the birth control pill--low-dose brands included--is a second tier contraceptive method in terms of efficacy? [Implants and IUDs are far superior.]
Last, but not least, let's assume we live in Perfect and contraceptive methods are 100% effective, without any side-effects and contraindications. Could you please explain why* tax dollars shouldn't be used to fund a legal, safe, and effective medical procedure?
*I think "because some people are against abortion for whatever reason" is a perfectly good explanation. As long as you list all the other medical procedures that shouldn't be funded with tax dollars just because one group or another is against the procedure (no C/S, transplants, transfusions, prescription drugs, etc., etc, yes?).
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
December 1, 2009 7:26 PM in reply to ema
Ema, these are good questions.
I actually think that the numbers are skewed because women misrepresent how they are using contraceptives. In part, I think that stems from a failure to reckon with their own fertility, which is a problem we should address because it's part of a larger problem of patient cluelessness! It's the kind of mentality that's given us an epidemic of childhood obesity, and middle-aged heart disease - both entirely preventable.
And no, I don't think IUD's are particularly safe, which is why I don't promote their use. But if you call low-dose contraceptives "second-tier" and they have a 98% plus efficacy rate, well, that's one hell of a second tier!
"Last, but not least, let's assume we live in Perfect and contraceptive methods are 100% effective, without any side-effects and contraindications. Could you please explain why* tax dollars shouldn't be used to fund a legal, safe, and effective medical procedure?"
Because it continues to be a stumbling and dividing block in providing even more essential services to women. See Phillip B. Levine's article in The New York Times, which I provided a link for.
"*I think "because some people are against abortion for whatever reason" is a perfectly good explanation. As long as you list all the other medical procedures that shouldn't be funded with tax dollars just because one group or another is against the procedure (no C/S, transplants, transfusions, prescription drugs, etc., etc, yes?)."
There is a long list of unnecessary procedures that I don't want covered. Abortion isn't one of them, but it has provided an unnecessary stumbling block to preventing necessary services.
But if you have time to write to me, do me a favor and send a check to Planned Parenthood. They could use it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ema
December 1, 2009 11:27 PM in reply to again
I actually think that the numbers are skewed because women misrepresent how they are using contraceptives. In part, I think that stems from a failure to reckon with their own fertility, which is a problem we should address because it's part of a larger problem of patient cluelessness!
I'm going to assume this is not some kind of meta-snark and respond as such. Failure rates are derived from studies with established methodology (including study limitations and methodological pitfalls).
That you think that these rates are incorrect is irrelevant. Not because what you think doesn't matter, rather because "I have a funny feeling in my tummy that women misrepresent how they use contraception" is not a valid study criticism.
You can argue that the accepted contraceptive failure rates are not reliable; all you need to do is provide some evidence.
And no, I don't think IUD's are particularly safe, which is why I don't promote their use. But if you call low-dose contraceptives "second-tier" and they have a 98% plus efficacy rate, well, that's one hell of a second tier!
Once again, what you think about IUDs is irrelevant as far as the actual safety (and efficacy) of IUDs is concerned. (The IUD is one of the safest methods available. Briefly, chance of death/yr: per continuing pregnancy 1:10,000; 1st trim. [legal] abortion 1:263,000; IUD use 1:10 million.*)
And yes, an 8% (typical-use) failure rate is second-tier vs. a 0.8% (copper T)/0.1% (Mirena) one. Not only that, but when it comes to ease of use, compliance, continuation rates, etc. the IUD is far superior to the Pill.
[Tax dollars shouldn't be used to fund a legal, safe and effective medical procedure] [b]ecause it continues to be a stumbling and dividing block in providing even more essential services to women.
And the evidence for this assertion is what? Also, "even more essential services" than a procedure that significantly reduces morbidity and mortality, seriously?
But if you have time to write to me, do me a favor and send a check to Planned Parenthood. They could use it.
Oh, like totally touché! So I get to send a check to PP to meet with your approval and you get to take care of patients and risk being shot in the head or thrown in jail (once abortion becomes illegal) to meet with mine, yes?
*Williams 21ed, p 1518
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
December 1, 2009 11:40 PM in reply to ema
Ema,
I'm afraid you're wrong on the safety of IUD's, which can only be inserted and removed by a physician.
That means a woman needs to have regular contact with a physician, which is not always possible in our compromised medical system.
Bacterial infection is no minor issue with IUD's. So you are wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong when you say they are safe. And prescribing antibiotics to women on a regular basis is not exactly healthy for them.
There is actually a long list of complications and side effects associated with IUDs.
The pill, however, is much easier to dispense, and if a woman needs to stop it, she does not have to go in to see her physician.
However, if you experience a uterine perforation from an IUD, you better get in to see the doctor.
I will list the other side effects sometime later tonight, but please don't presume to tell us that IUD's are safe. You clearly don't know what you're talking about.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ema
December 3, 2009 8:12 PM in reply to again
Your repeated declarative sentences about IUDs are an unfortunate combination of lack of familiarity with the basics and confusion. It's troubling that you don't realize you are spreading misinformation.
Briefly. First, you are confused about method safety vs. user rates/access.
Second, from ACOG [S]tudies have shown that the risk of pelvic inflammatory disease is negligible and limited to the first month after insertion. (emphasis mine)
Again briefly: The findings of the analyses were that the incidence rate of PIDs in the first 20 days following the insertion of the IUD corresponded to 9.7 per 1000 woman-years and that the rate thereafter was flat at 1.4 per 1000 woman-years. (small increase in the first 20 days; no increase thereafter; rate ~similar with population baseline)
Third, routine antibiotic prophylaxis is, you know, not indicated.
Fourth, just like with pregnancy and OCPs, there are side effects and complications associated with IUD use. This fact tells us nothing about the respective safety of pregnancy, OCP, and IUD use.
Fifth, the confusion, it hurts! The fact that getting pregnant is easy or that dispensing the Pill is much easier to dispense or discontinue has no bearing on the morbidity risk of either pregnancy or Pill use.
You know what else is irrelevant to a method's safety? The fact that one should see the doctor if one experiences complications like, say, a uterine perforation (a very rare occurrence at 0.1 to 0.3% of IUD insertions).
I will list the other side effects sometime later tonight, but please don't presume to tell us that IUD's are safe. You clearly don't know what you're talking about.
Let's make this easy. Not only will I presume to tell you that IUDs are *very* safe, I'll also provide you with one, insert it, and be ready to face the consequences if I don't know what I'm talking about/doing. [Fingers crossed you're not a guy or I'll really have some explaining to do.]
Bottom line: The certainty of ignorance is a thing to behold.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mans_best_friend
December 1, 2009 5:32 PM in reply to again
Horsefeathers.
Morning-after pills are fine in cases of rape or the unplanned one-night stand (actually, they're not even adequate for those cases, but I'll leave that for someone else to hammer you on). The majority of unwanted pregnancies don't fit into those categories. The majority are discovered long after a morning-after pill is effective. There is some failure rate in oral contraceptives which, while low in percentages, winds up resulting in many thousands of unplanned pregnancies every year. Then there are the women who, for one reason or another, can't use oral contraceptives and have to resort to less reliable means. For these women there are no safe alternatives to surgical abortion.
"It's important to remember that neither the Hyde amendment nor the Stupak amendment affect the legality of the procedure. Merely federal funding for coverage of the procedure." [emphasis added]
No, it's not about that either. The Hyde amendment more than adequately addresses the issue of use of federal funding and it was in the original bill. This goes well beyond that. What it is about is trying make it as difficult as possible for women to get access to a legal medical procedure.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
TheRealFish
December 1, 2009 6:33 PM in reply to rbeats
And brought to you directly from (ta da!) the Family. Since both Bart Stupak and Ben Nelson are members of this "super secret" sect (thanks to Jeff Sharlet this is no longer true...), those amendments were probably directly penned by current cult leader David Coe.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
eric the red
December 1, 2009 4:13 PM
How did this guy end up in my political party? Or maybe I should be asking, how did *I* end up in this guys party? Something's got to give.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Walter Mitty
December 1, 2009 4:19 PM
And it won't pass and he'll use it as his excuse not to vote for HCR...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CT Voter
December 1, 2009 4:34 PM in reply to Walter Mitty
Probably. He'll stand piously in front of the cameras and explain how he couldn't, in good conscience, vote for HCR without the abortion prohibition.
Who needs Republicans any more?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Minne sconsin
December 1, 2009 4:35 PM
The problem with the Stupak/Nelson amendment is that it might become the standard package for all. It's likely that whatever minimum benefit package is allowed under HCR becomes the new "floor" for all of the rest of us who are lucky enough to still have employer-subsidized health care.
This is where the anti-abortion folks are going. Defund the hospitals, make sure that medical schools don't teach the techniques, remove reimbursement for the procedure, and then for good measure threaten and harass those few brave souls are still providing abortion services. The result? Sure, abortions are legal... but just try to find anyone providing one. Even if you have the money.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cool Blue Reason
December 1, 2009 5:30 PM in reply to Minne sconsin
Isn't that where things are already?
How many abortion procedures are actually reimbursed by insurance today?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jmsjbf
December 1, 2009 4:35 PM
What's with all these #%@$# men telling women what they can and cannot do regarding their personal health!? It's none of their damn business!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rbeats
December 1, 2009 4:52 PM in reply to jmsjbf
Maybe you should ask why these men get guidance on their decision making from pedophiles who misinterpret the words written by misogynistic, scientifically illiterate sheep herders?
If your spiritial guidance is rooted in misogyny, what else do you expect from these good Ol' Sunday school boys?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cool Blue Reason
December 1, 2009 5:20 PM in reply to rbeats
+1. You're not going to win us any allies with that spiel, but +1.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ttarleton
December 1, 2009 4:37 PM
Is there an official "Senate Majority Oaf" position? If not, I nominate Ben 'Bozo' Nelson as unofficial Majority Oaf.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
December 1, 2009 4:39 PM
Economist Phillip B. Levine on Stupak from The New York Times.
"The amendment quickly led to a burst of rhetoric and lobbying on both sides of the abortion debate. But this public battle exaggerates the extent to which the Stupak amendment would really change things for women seeking abortions. And, at the same time, it obscures the other benefits that expanded health insurance coverage could bring to women’s reproductive health. Ultimately, providing greater access to family planning could significantly reduce the total number of unintended pregnancies."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/25/opinion/25levine.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1259703413-AFQhNrHTUmp/ML8d0MwZ2g
My note: It's time for zealots on both sides of the abortion debate to concede that the new technology of oral contraceptives allows both sides to have their cake and eat it, too.
But too many groups on both sides have established cottage industries by loudly announcing their position on abortion.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Minne sconsin
December 1, 2009 4:50 PM in reply to again
The failure rate for the pill is 1-3%. Over a 15 year period, this is equal to a 15 - 45% chance for a woman to get pregnant.
And we're not even talking about date rape. Oh, I'm sorry - did the woman choose to have a baby when she drank too much?
Thank you for coming in here and straightening out all us zealots.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
December 1, 2009 5:02 PM in reply to Minne sconsin
No, the failure rate for the pill is lower than 1-3%.
Further, your extrapolation over a 15-year period demands not only that your original number was correct, but that said woman would be consistently sexually active throughout that 15-year period, which we know is not consistent with the data.
Stupak, for all its mal intent, does not address the legality of the procedure.
You know that, and I know that; stop playing.
As for the "date rape" which you brought up - that would still be covered by insurance under Stupak.
Let's have this discussion in 2009, with an understanding of the legal and pharmaceutical landscape as it now stands. Not how it was in 1965 or 1985.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CT Voter
December 1, 2009 5:10 PM in reply to again
If the Stupak amendment ultimately makes abortion unavailable, for all practical purposes, then the fact that it doesn't address legality is beside the point.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
December 1, 2009 5:17 PM in reply to CT Voter
Please demonstrate how the Stupak amendment would "ultimately make abortion unavailable, for all practical purposes."
Did the Hyde amendment do that? Is the annual number of abortions performed in this country higher or lower than before the Hyde Amendment?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CT Voter
December 1, 2009 5:23 PM in reply to again
If your insurance carrier no longer covers abortions, then women may not be able to afford them. It's already the case in certain states (e.g. Mississippi and South Dakota, to name two) that there is only one abortion provider in that state. This forces women to travel across state lines to obtain a legal procedure.
For some income groups, this represents an insurmountable cost.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
December 1, 2009 5:39 PM in reply to CT Voter
CT voter:
What is the approximate cost of a first-trimester abortion? (Answer: $350-$500.)
How many abortions are already paid for (not covered, but paid for) by private insurance?
(Answer: very few.) We don't have information that explains why, but I can imagine this is because many women would prefer to pay the fee out of pocket rather than have the information "handled" by an untrustworthy insurance company. Also bear in mind that many plans have a high deductible - and $500 doesn't nearly approach a great number of deductibles.
The women we're most concerned about are women who would need an abortion and who are currently funded by Medicaid or are just above the income level to qualify for Medicaid. As the current bills allow for an expansion of medicaid rolls, we may actually see an increase in state-funded abortions. (Not federally funded abortions, which Hyde has prevented since 1975.)
That potential for an increase in state-funded abortions through the expansion of the Medicaid rolls is in direct contrast to your claim that "For some income groups, this represents an insurmountable cost."
(For the record, I have lived in quite a few low-income neighborhoods, and in none of those places was it impossible for women to put together the money for an abortion in the event their BC method (or lack of BC method) resulted in an unintended pregnancy. But then again, I didn't exactly make a scientific study of my neighbors - I'm simply pointing out that low-income women are not as incompetent as some people think.)
This statement of yours didn't quite add up:
"It's already the case in certain states (e.g. Mississippi and South Dakota, to name two) that there is only one abortion provider in that state. This forces women to travel across state lines to obtain a legal procedure."
That would make sense if you claimed that there are NO abortion providers in MS or SD, but not as you have written it.
Bear in mid, CT Voter, that it is very easy to get access to oral contraceptives at this time, and that those oral contraceptives are very effective.
At some point, we need to concede that the patient does bear a portion of responsibility for prevention. In the case of unintended pregnancies, this has never been easier. OC's are where we should be focused insofar as no one is trying to disrupt Roe V. Wade.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
caseynm
December 1, 2009 6:00 PM in reply to again
Nope. Your argument presumes that abortion is wrong, no matter how much you deny it. Else why be so concerned about "who's responsible"?
Just own up and admit you are adopting an anti-choice position.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
December 1, 2009 6:15 PM in reply to caseynm
You clearly didn't read anything I wrote - you merely injected your own preconceived notions about me into the discussion.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
caseynm
December 1, 2009 7:08 PM in reply to again
No, you are clearly a troll lying her way through this thread.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
December 1, 2009 7:11 PM in reply to caseynm
Thank goodness not everyone thinks so.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
chimpale
December 1, 2009 10:47 PM in reply to again
I think so.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
caseynm
December 1, 2009 6:03 PM in reply to again
Also--you misrepresent Stupak's amendment. It radically expands Hyde.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Powkat
December 1, 2009 6:01 PM in reply to again
Get pregnant when your birth control fails - then talk about failure rates. Oh, wait, you'll be calling the clinic to make an appointment.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
December 1, 2009 6:20 PM in reply to Powkat
Powkat, why are you assuming that I'm anti-choice? Why do you think there is only one "correct" way to protect Roe V. Wade?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Walter Mitty
December 1, 2009 5:06 PM in reply to Minne sconsin
What is the failure rate of the pill combined with a condom? Or does nobody wear rubbers anymore? And if you're in a committed relationship and thus decide there is no need for condoms, then you are accepting the 1-3% failure risk.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mans_best_friend
December 1, 2009 5:35 PM in reply to Walter Mitty
The failure rate for condoms is far higher than for oral contraceptives.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cool Blue Reason
December 1, 2009 5:40 PM in reply to mans_best_friend
He's suggesting doubling up.
Also, the failure rates commonly cited take into account human error and idiocy at the population level. Condoms do not "fail" unless they break or fall off. Neither of which will happen if you know what you're doing.
Yet another factor in dysgenics, I suppose.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mans_best_friend
December 1, 2009 5:44 PM in reply to Cool Blue Reason
I've had a few break on me, and I'm pretty sure I know what I'm doing. And no, I'm not boasting. ;-)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
December 1, 2009 5:46 PM in reply to mans_best_friend
That's the reminder, ladies, that men like Goofy here, are not to be trusted to handle something as simple as a condom.
Double up, please.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
caseynm
December 1, 2009 5:44 PM in reply to Walter Mitty
There is nothing wrong with abortion. This whole discussion incited by 'again' assumes there is a problem, and there isn't. Stupak's bullshit poison pill attempts to ban private money from paying for abortions. It's one thing (maybe ) to ban abortion in the public option (which Hyde effectively does already, so why put in more limitations?), but it's a whole other issue to ban Mary Jane from getting abortion services through her private insurer.
The burden in on you to explain why Stupak's amendment is either acceptable or necessary. I expect you can't.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
December 1, 2009 5:48 PM in reply to caseynm
My argument, counterintuitive and heretical as it may sound, is actually that, by not forcing a bunch of religious zealots who are our fellow citizens to fund someone's abortion, Roe V. Wade will remain protected and sacrosanct, as it should be.
I can't give you proof.
But I can tell you that the Hyde Amendment, which Stupak mimics, did not exactly ban abortion in this country.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mans_best_friend
December 1, 2009 6:04 PM in reply to again
Why do you continually equate the Hyde amendment with Stupak? The original House bill contained the restrictions of the Hyde amendment. If they were the same there would be no need for Stupak. The current Senate bill also incorporates the Hyde amendment. Exchanges must offer plans both with and without abortion coverage and the costs of abortion coverage in the latter plan must be strictly segregated to ensure that no federal funds are used to pay for abortions.
Stupak IS NOT the same as Hyde. Stupak goes well beyond Hyde in preventing women from buying insurance that covers abortions WITH THEIR OWN MONEY if they buy the insurance on the exchange.
Either you know this and you're being deliberately dishonest, or you don't know what you're talking about. Which is it?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
caseynm
December 1, 2009 6:16 PM in reply to mans_best_friend
She's being deliberately dishonest. she refuses to address this, and I have hounded her through the thread.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cool Blue Reason
December 1, 2009 6:18 PM in reply to mans_best_friend
You're assuming our opponents respond to rational argument. You and I understand that the act of buying insurance from the exchange will not in itself constitute a subsidy. For example, we should be begging illegal immigrants to buy insurance for themselves, rather than barring them from the exchange. But this assumes a rational rather than emotional take.
What Again is pointing out, I think, is that if Stupak neutralizes the "gubmint sponsored ABOORSHUNS ON DEMAAAHND" thinking on the part of low-information religious conservatives, it may be worth the trade-off to the extent that it innoculates the reformed healthcare system against that kind of emotional vitriol. This is especially true if very few elective abortions are currently reimbursed through insurance.
I wouldn't want it to be this way, either, but unfortunately these mouth-breathers share the franchise with us -- and they use it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
December 1, 2009 7:01 PM in reply to Cool Blue Reason
Thank you.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
December 1, 2009 6:18 PM in reply to mans_best_friend
Please show me where, exactly, in the Stupak amendment, women are barred from buying abortion riders with their own money?
That directly contradicts reporting in The Washington Post (Lori Montgomery.)
It also contradicts reports on NPR.
I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm asking you to show me where it says that in Stupak.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
December 2, 2009 2:28 AM in reply to again
Nobody is going to offer "abortion riders," and it's not likely anyone would buy them even if they were offered.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
December 2, 2009 12:54 PM in reply to slb
That wasn't my question, and you're avoiding no small number of relevant factors.
My question was:
"Please show me where, exactly, in the Stupak amendment, women are barred from buying abortion riders with their own money? That directly contradicts reporting in The Washington Post (Lori Montgomery.) It also contradicts reports on NPR. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm asking you to show me where it says that in Stupak."
Your response was:
"Nobody is going to offer "abortion riders," and it's not likely anyone would buy them even if they were offered."
You not only weren't able to answer the question (have you even read Stupak?) but you provided no proof whatsoever that ""Nobody is going to offer "abortion riders," and it's not likely anyone would buy them even if they were offered."
Further, you neatly elided the fact that a very small proportion of abortions are actually paid for by insurance. This is not because abortion is not covered by many plans, but because women, for whatever reason, SEEM TO prefer to pay out of pocket. Guttmacher has questioned its own estimate of 13%, but the organization hasn't done the work to show that it's higher.
You also avoided addressing the significant likelihood that the most vulnerable women WILL have greater access to publicly funded abortion through expanded Medicaid rolls.
Meanwhile, getting more women into Medicaid means we can do more screening for cervical cancer, etc.
As I've written before, it's a potential win-win, but only if you can pull your head out of the orthodoxy for long enough to consider it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cool Blue Reason
December 1, 2009 6:08 PM in reply to again
Yes -- Hyde has acted as a firewall / pressure relief valve. The anti-abortion political mobilization in the past few decades could actually have been far worse.
If you have trouble believing this or accepting the notion of a political safety valve, imagine for a moment what would have happened if fundamentalist whackjobs weren't allowed to home-school their children. Or if racist whites were not effectively able to opt out of school integration. I think we would have seen either a complete dismantling of the public education system as we know it, and/or widespread regional co-option and takeover by religious activists. More so than we do today.
We're not anywhere close to where we should be in terms of "winning" on these issues, but we should not fail to recognize the depths to which our brethren would be prepared to drag us, given the political opportunity.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
chimpale
December 1, 2009 10:29 PM in reply to Cool Blue Reason
So, if you keep throwing raw meat to the alligator, it won't eat you. Great idea. What happens when you run out of meat?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
caseynm
December 1, 2009 6:10 PM in reply to again
But you misrepresent Stupak. It is a radical expansion of Hyde. Defend this radical expansion without deflecting to prevention that doesn't always work.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
December 1, 2009 6:23 PM in reply to caseynm
Please, Casey, instead of angrily "hounding" (your words) me for not buying your line, PLEASE show me where in Stupak it says that.
I think what you consistently ignore is the potential for more publicly funded abortions (state funding, not federal) because we're allowing more women onto the Medicaid rolls.
It's a win-win if you would only think beyond your orthodoxy for one moment.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
caseynm
December 1, 2009 7:10 PM in reply to again
I'll find it, but f*** your holier than thou crap.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
December 1, 2009 7:12 PM in reply to caseynm
wow... you've got problems bigger than me.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cube3u
December 1, 2009 5:30 PM in reply to again
Any reason you're leaving out couples who conceive and have all of the new tests to identify a Down's child, etc, and then want an abortion instead of continuing the pregnancy?
This is choice, 21st century style. It takes advantage of advances in contraception as well as advances in prenatal testing. (Not everyone decides as Sarah Palin did....)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
December 1, 2009 5:45 PM in reply to cube3u
I'm not sure I understand your question? (I think it's a good one, but can you rephrase it?) Sorry.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ema
December 1, 2009 9:03 PM in reply to again
Ultimately, providing greater access to family planning could significantly reduce the total number of unintended pregnancies."
First, could you, or the source you cite, point to the section in the proposed legislation where greater access to family planning is provided?
Second, could you, or your source, produce the data to support the assertion that this alleged greater access to family planning provided in the proposed bill could significantly reduce the total number of unintended pregnancies?
Third, could you explain why women who do not or cannot use birth control, or women with planned pregnancies who, for whatever reason decide to terminate, should not have access to a safe and effective medical procedure?
It's time for zealots on both sides of the abortion debate to concede that the new technology of oral contraceptives allows both sides to have their cake and eat it, too.
If by the new technology of oral contraceptives you mean the low-dose (and, I'm assuming, the very-low-dose) brands can you support your assertion that this new technology has had a significant impact on the rate of unintended pregnancy with, you know, any data?
No, the failure rate for the pill is lower than 1-3%.
Your unfamiliarity with the basics about OCPs might explain your unfounded assertions about low-dose brands. The typical-failure rate for COCs is 8%.
As for the "date rape" which you brought up - that would still be covered by insurance under Stupak.
Why should physical assault be a prerequisite for insurance coverage of a safe and effective medical procedure?
Did the Hyde amendment do that [make abortion unavailable]? Is the annual number of abortions performed in this country higher or lower than before the Hyde Amendment?
First, you'd have to know what year abortion was legalized and what year the Hyde Amendment was enacted in order to realize the problem with your question.
Second, the Hyde Amendment prohibits the use of some federal funds (those allocated by the annual appropriations bill for Health and Human Services) to pay for abortions *and* it comes up for renewal periodically. The Stupak amendment eliminates the renewal requirement and prohibits the use of federal (and private) funds for all plans under discussion, period.
At some point, we need to concede that the patient does bear a portion of responsibility for prevention.
On behalf of all women of reproductive age allow me to concede that the patient does bear responsibility for prevention--the prevention of the increased risk of morbidity and mortality associated with carrying a pregnancy to term. So, free elective abortions for everybody, yes?
In the case of unintended pregnancies, this has never been easier. OC's are where we should be focused....
You do realize that just saying something doesn't make it true; what data do you have to support this assertion?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
chimpale
December 1, 2009 4:43 PM
Good one, Ben. You never can have too many ways to obstruct health care reform.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Kuyleh
December 1, 2009 5:07 PM
Someone answer me this please. Abortion is legal. It's been legal for...years. The date escapes me. But it's not the point.
Why do these people even think this is debatable? What gives them the idea that having an abortion is different than, say, an X-Ray? They are both legal medical procedures. In some cases, they can both save lives. So why do they think they have a leg to stand on to begin with?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
December 1, 2009 5:14 PM in reply to Kuyleh
Kuyleh,
Stupak does not address the legality.
It merely limits, in the same way that the Hyde Amendment has, (since, what 1975?) federal funding for abortion.
Ironically, the Hyde Amendment may have done more to protect Roe V. Wade than anything else.
But as you no doubt are aware, the overall goal of health care reform is to provide a BASIC level of health care to EVERYONE.
This will require greater participation and maturity on the part of American patients to PREVENT unnecessary procedures.
Insisting that women do not have the capability to prevent a pregnancy is as short-sighted as saying that our largely overweight nation does not have the capability to prevent heart disease and Type II Diabetes.
Patients have to play their part in accepting a BASIC level of responsibility.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CT Voter
December 1, 2009 5:25 PM in reply to again
Abortion is an unnecessary procedure?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cool Blue Reason
December 1, 2009 5:37 PM in reply to CT Voter
I think he's saying it's largely preventable, in the sense that kidney dialysis resulting from Type II diabetes is largely preventable. And that we should be emphasizing prevention and avoidance of "unnecessary" procedures in both cases.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
December 2, 2009 2:36 AM in reply to Cool Blue Reason
But nobody is saying that if you have Type II diabetes and develop kidney disease that your dialysis won't be paid for.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
December 2, 2009 12:22 PM in reply to slb
I would say that we should be making an all-out effort to GET people to prevent Type II Diabetes because it is killing our budget and because people are needlessly suffering merely because we live in a culture that hands power not to the patient (where the power for preventable illness should reside) but to the medical industrial complex.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
caseynm
December 1, 2009 5:51 PM in reply to again
Get your religion out of my government, please. Abortion is a perfectly morally acceptable procedure. You presume it's not. Why?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
December 1, 2009 5:58 PM in reply to caseynm
Why do you keep addressing my "religion"? I'm not religious!
Is it inconceivable to you that someone might imagine there are more than one ways to preserve a woman's right to choose?
Does it not matter to you that Hyde may actually have saved Roe V. Wade?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cool Blue Reason
December 1, 2009 6:23 PM in reply to again
I think Casey prefers to argue with a cardboard cutout of a right-wing, fundamentalist reactionary -- even when none are around.
Which is understandable -- it's much easier and more emotionally satisfying.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
December 2, 2009 2:40 AM in reply to again
If it's not a moral argument with you, then why do you keep harping on "responsibility"? That's a moral argument, that women who become pregnant unintentionally don't deserve to have abortion covered because they have not toed someone else's moral line.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
December 2, 2009 12:43 PM in reply to slb
"If it's not a moral argument with you, then why do you keep harping on "responsibility"? That's a moral argument, that women who become pregnant unintentionally don't deserve to have abortion covered because they have not toed someone else's moral line."
Clearly, you've neither read my posts, nor worked in health care.
Patient responsibility extends far beyond family planning. More urgently, patient responsibility is the missing component in some of our most costly preventable diseases. Patient responsibility delivers a better quality of life for the patient (and lower fees for the doctor.)
In a money-driven health care system, we've tossed patient responsibility to the side of the road, if you will, because it is far more profitable to convince the patient that he/she is helpless and, say, requires a stent. This despite the fact that we have clinical studies showing that non-invasive procedures that include changes in diet and exercise are far more effective than invasive procedures like stents.
In the same way, physical therapy delivers better results than most of the knee surgeries provided in this country.
No, you can't just hand power back to the patient. You need a massive government program to educate people about 1) their power and 2) their responsibility to contribute to their own health.
Have you seen the stats on T2 Diabetes and heart disease? Does patient responsibility mean nothing?
Please answer three questions:
1) Are you incapable of gauging the difference in price between procedures like abortion to treat preventable conditions and treatment for serious diseases that cannot be prevented by the patient? 2) What is the difference in price between a first-trimester abortion and early-stage cancer treatment?
3) Why is your priority on federal funding for abortion - while countless women (and men) die annually because they are unable to get care for treatable cancers?
Yes, we can do things to prevent cancer. But there are really a wide range of factors in cancer that we may not be able to control. But we can control pregnancy. We have the tools. And those tools deliver additional benefits.
It's time to accept some responsibility as patients - and not just with regard to family planning.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Kuyleh
December 1, 2009 6:17 PM in reply to again
I realize the legality isn't up for debate here. I'm just asking what gives them any idea at all that it should be restricted in the first place. It's not like we're asking them to fund the back alley, dangerous kind.
I never denied that women can prevent pregnancies in roughly 98% or so of the situation where they occur. And I'm not saying we shouldn't be responsible for doing so, either. I'm very thankful for mine. I just want to know where these people get the idea that this one procedure is such a devil.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
December 1, 2009 6:31 PM in reply to Kuyleh
I can't agree with you more. I mean, I was raised by an MD who worked as an abortion provider for some time. Legal abortion shouldn't be an issue. But it is, in the same way school prayer is.
But I think it is important to remember that there is a significant silver lining - we could put our energy into more availability of the new lo-dose OCs.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
libdevil
December 1, 2009 7:42 PM in reply to again
So, what you're saying is that we should voluntarily curtail our own freedom to avoid riling up a bunch of religious fundamentalist terrorists? Yeah, that sounds like a great plan.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
December 1, 2009 7:51 PM in reply to libdevil
Well, if you've read my posts, I think there is overall good cause to get patients more involved in preventive care to reduce the number of unnecessary procedures.
This goes beyond pregnancy and abortion - it extends to T2 Diabetes and heart disease.
I think a lot of people don't "get" that this is essential - not just to make HCR affordable - but because it's good to get people involved in their own care.
Did you read the Phillip B. Levine article that I posted a link to? It's worthwhile, whether you agree with me or not.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JohnMK
December 1, 2009 5:24 PM in reply to Kuyleh
Hi Kuyleh,
I think it's reasonable, for something as controversial as ending the life of something that some believe to be alive, that abortion be privately, and not publicly, funded. Pay for that abortion with your own money. Buy abortion insurance. But don't ask the Federal government to pay for it. That's the idea behind Hyde Amendment(which has been around for many decades), and it's the idea behind Stupak's.
I don't think comparing abortion to an x-ray is realistic at all, by the way.
Re: "again": Excellent posts.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
chimpale
December 1, 2009 5:43 PM in reply to JohnMK
By the way, how is it "publicly funded" if the insurance is provided by a private company and premiums are paid by the insured?
Tax dollars would not be paying for abortions. And this is nothing more than attempt to hold health care reform hostage to an anti-abortion agenda.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
caseynm
December 1, 2009 6:06 PM in reply to chimpale
again won't address his/her misrepresentation of Stupak's amendment as a radical expansion of Hyde.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
KeithL
December 1, 2009 5:57 PM in reply to JohnMK
JohnMK,
I agree wholeheartedly! And, since I'm totally against the million plus lives already lost in the, as yet unconcluded, PNAC, Middle Eastern Campaign against history and wit. These guys are raking in the billions, fair and square! They should pay!
Mr. or Ms. Generalisimo, you may not fund your wars with MY money. Kindly privatize your war funding.
Of course, there's always David Obey and his War Tax.
Mmmmmm! excessive profits tax on KBR, Haliburton, GE, Xe and the rest of the alphabet!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Kuyleh
December 1, 2009 6:11 PM in reply to JohnMK
Allow me to see if I understand your explanation. Because a percentage of the population of this country that I don't agree with and mostly will never even share oxygen with believe that it's wrong, THAT is why it should be controversial? THAT is why it should be treated differently than any other legal medical procedure?
Lots of people, including ones who believe abortion is wrong, believe the same of vaccines. Where is the outcry against federal funding for those? Nowhere. If that's really the point, they should be trying to deny funding for those as well.
And if you really want to continue that road, there are certain people that believe going to a doctor at all is wrong. See above comments for the rest.
So, again, why? Why is this even debatable? And if that really is the only answer, why the hypocrisy?
As to the X-Ray/abortion comparison, my only point was that they are both legal medical procedures. In that context, it is in no way wrong. Anything else you care to argue with, you read into it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
December 1, 2009 6:39 PM in reply to Kuyleh
Kuyleh,
The weird thing about your X-ray/abortion analogy is this -
We just have too many unnecessary procedures that we can prevent!
Half of my job in HC was sending people to X-ray CT or MRI. Why? Because we made money that way! To hell with the fact that it was excessive radiation for the benefits gained in most cases!
But there's a difference. No one's making money off abortion, abortion providers (full disclosure, one of my parents worked in an abortion clinic) are in it because they are true believers and they are providing an essential service.
I'm just saying two things:
1) we should be doing everything we can to get American patients involved with their own preventive health program. Type II Diabetes is an epidemic among US children. It's as preventable as heart disease. Getting patients to plan is CRITICAL to being able to afford health care for all
2) Hyde (and I suspect Stupak) has served to preserve Roe V. Wade. And I believe the numbers of abortions have increased since Hyde (1975.) In the meantime, we might make massive gains for women's overall health by expanding the medicaid rolls - and ironically, that may mean even greater access to abortion for low-income women.
A possible win-win.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cawleybo
December 1, 2009 8:24 PM in reply to again
"And I believe the numbers of abortions have increased since Hyde (1975.)"
Absolute numbers or per capita? US population has increased by nearly 40% since 1975 (215MM to 303MM). The abortion rate could fall by nearly 30% and your statement that the "numbers" of abortions increased would still be true.
If Stupak does not change the status quo, why are they so insistent on it? (Possible answer: They don't really care about Stupak, per se, its just a convenient tool to block HCR. That may apply to some but certainly not all.)
Seriously, once they've succeeded in banning Federal money from paying for abortions (Hyde) and private money from paying for abortions (Stupak), how long do you think it will take them to go after State money paying for abortions (Medicaid)?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
December 1, 2009 8:41 PM in reply to cawleybo
Cawley - that's only partly true... abortion increased between 1973 and 1981, then began to drop - in part this can be contributed to increased access to OC's as noted by Planned Parenthood.
That lesser need for abortion may also explain the decrease in providers, but we should also note that the decrease in providers is also due to restrictions.
Here's one version of real story from the BBC on the anniversary of Roe V. Wade:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2661155.stm
Abortion rates in the United States have hit their lowest level since 1974, a new study has found.
The availability of emergency contraception - the so-called "morning after pill" - played a key role in the decline, according to research by the Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI), a sexual health research organisation.
The fall in abortion rates could also be explained by more restrictive state laws and lack of access to abortion providers.
The results were published a week before the 30th anniversary of the decision that legalised abortion in the country.
Good news/bad news
The director general of the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) said the study was "on balance good news".
"A combination of access to emergency contraception and a significant decline in unwanted pregnancies has reduced demand [for abortions], which is very good news," Steven Sinding of IPPF told BBC News Online.
US abortion facts
1.31million abortions in 2000, down from 1.61million in 1990
21.3 abortions per 1,000 women nationwide
Number of providers fell from 2,042 in 1996 to 1,819 in 2000
"But the rate of abortion among poor women has increased substantially, which is very bad news," he added.
The US abortion rate rose sharply after legalisation in 1973, but has declined steadily since 1981."
(Is this due to improved OC's or restrictions? But the rise in abortion between 1975 (Hyde) and 1981 suggests that Hyde was not effective in curbing abortions. Then again, we have to consider that Hyde has not been applied consistently, to my knowledge. Supposedly, it changes from year to year, so the drop after 1981 may have been due to a new administration that was more restrictive.)
"It fell to 21.3 per 1,000 women in 2000, the year on which AGI report is based.
It found that the number of abortion providers has been falling steadily as well, from 2,042 in 1996 to 1,819 in 2000.
Limited access
"One third of American women [of childbearing age] now live in counties with no source of abortion services," AGI found.
A quarter of women having abortions had to travel more than 50 miles, and 8% had to travel more than 100 miles, the study showed.
The District of Columbia - home of Washington, DC - had the highest rate of abortion, at 68.1 per 1,000 women.
Rural Wyoming was at the bottom of the table with one per 1,000 women.
Emergency contraception plays a role
"The United States has one of the highest rates of abortion among industrialised countries outside of eastern Europe, in large part because we have high levels of unintended pregnancy," said Sara Seims, president of AGI, an affiliate of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.
Abortion is one of the most divisive issues in US politics. It was legalised in 1973 by the Supreme Court's Roe v Wade decision.
The nine-member court ruled that a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy was protected by the right to liberty enshrined in the 14th amendment of the US Constitution.
AGI's findings were based on a survey "of all known abortion providers in the United States".
The institute has been collecting abortion rate data since 1973. Its last comprehensive survey was in 1996.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cawleybo
December 1, 2009 7:56 PM in reply to Kuyleh
"Lots of people, including ones who believe abortion is wrong, believe the same of vaccines. Where is the outcry against federal funding for those?"
What makes you think its not coming?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Powkat
December 1, 2009 6:04 PM in reply to Kuyleh
January, 1973.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
December 1, 2009 5:19 PM
Hilarious. Nice Strategy Reid.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
UTMark
December 1, 2009 5:24 PM
"as identical to Stupid as it can be" sounds like a great slogan for Nelson.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rbe1
December 1, 2009 5:25 PM
God, what a fantastic front page layout: Stupak, Nelson, Lieberman, three of the most ignorant looking doofuses a person could ever lay eyes on, and all in view at the top of the page. Wow, now I'm beginning to understand why the average IQ of the democrats has been headed for the sixties. Are these folks picked to look photographically stupid, or are they specially trained ? They look like dimwits. Maybe it's not so difficult to understand why they vote the way they do, after all.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cool Blue Reason
December 1, 2009 5:27 PM
This may be ill-advised, but I'm going to ask a serious question here, in hopes of getting a serious answer: How many abortions are actually covered by health insurance, currently?
They cost something like $500, right? Am I right in imagining that "wealthy" people will tend not to claim it on their insurance (if they actually need the abortion), and "poor" people are likely not to have insurance anyway? So Stupak would more or less preserve the status quo to the extent that the "poor" do become insured?
Do abortion-related insurance claims constitute a significant income stream for Planned Parenthood, for instance?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mans_best_friend
December 1, 2009 5:43 PM in reply to Cool Blue Reason
If only there were some kind of information superhighway were one could search out such information. ;-)
http://www.guttmacher.org/media/inthenews/2009/07/22/index.html
Key quote:
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cool Blue Reason
December 1, 2009 5:57 PM in reply to mans_best_friend
Thanks for the Google-assist. :)
So, do you think my above attempt at broadly characterizing the situation holds? Does this primarily come down to concerns about potential disruptions to state-level Medicaid reimbursements, or perhaps frustration that "we" should be getting something better than the current abortion status-quo via HCR, given "our" 60-vote majority? (I use the scare quotes simply to emphasize the sorry state of "our" caucus on this issue, which should be obvious given Nelson's mug at the top of the page).
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mans_best_friend
December 1, 2009 6:26 PM in reply to Cool Blue Reason
For wealthy women the cost of an abortion is not an issue. Poor women are covered by Medicaid in states that cover it (state money is being used, not federal). This is an assault on access to abortion for middle class women. The first victims will be middle class women who are currently uninsured and who buy their insurance on the exchange. They won't be able to buy abortion coverage, so in the narrowest sense, it maintains the status quo. However, look beyond the surface:
First, who's claiming the right to prevent women from purchasing insurance that covers abortion WITH THEIR OWN MONEY? That's what this boils down to. If they can do that, the next step is to try to prevent anyone else from buying insurance that covers abortion.
Second, as Minnesconsin has pointed out above, this also has the effect of removing abortion from the minimum benefits package that all insurers will be required to offer. If they can't offer it on the exchange, where most people who don't have employer-provided healthcare will buy their coverage, where are they going to offer it? It will quickly disappear from privately purchased insurance.
Third, small businesses will also be able buy insurance coverage for their employees on the exchange, and many will do so because it will be cheaper. That means no abortion coverage for those employees, and if they had it before, that's a significant regression from the status quo.
If this were preserving the status quo they wouldn't be fighting this hard for it. This is another backdoor attempt to make it more difficult for women to get access to a legal medical procedure.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
December 1, 2009 6:56 PM in reply to mans_best_friend
I have to be honest with you, Goofy - I don't think that anyone understands what Stupak actually does because of the obfuscatory way in which it is written - which has provided a boon for both sides in terms of fundraising.
I've been looking for a trustworthy legal analysis of the Amendment. I originally went with basic reporting from NPR and Lori Montgomery in the WaPo which directly contradict the notion you present (and not just you, but others) which is that Stupak would "prevent women from purchasing insurance that covers abortion WITH THEIR OWN MONEY"
It's also not clear that Stupak "has the effect of removing abortion from the minimum benefits package that all insurers will be required to offer. If they can't offer it on the exchange, where most people who don't have employer-provided healthcare will buy their coverage, where are they going to offer it? It will quickly disappear from privately purchased insurance."
But there are two things that I think you're ignoring. The first is that Guttmacher had used the 13% number without qualification for some time. (Most of my friends didn't even know that abortion was covered by their insurance plans when we first learned of the Stupak amendment.) It's not really on the radar of a lot of women. So I think that 13% is probably fairly close.
Having said that, does it not matter to you that abortion access for the neediest women would actually increase, as you yourself point out? They are the most vulnerable.
I think there are two fallacies in your position: the first is that it's some kind of crisis that middle class women will pay for their own abortions - that is largely what is ALREADY happening.
The second is that it matters SO much how this will or will not affect private plans because even Guttmacher, which is pro-choice, is stating that the number of women on private plans (we can assume a large number of middle class women in that group) are already paying for it themselves.
Lastly, I think it would be really interesting to see what sort of hysteria the Hyde amendment generated when it first came out. I bet it sounded really similar.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Knothead Jake
December 1, 2009 5:29 PM
It's amazing that given the fact that this bill will go nowhere, this guy has the gargantuan nads to just go before the cameras and essentially say "Feast your eyes on the incredible dick, that is ME. What is the upside of this little show?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
barnacle
December 1, 2009 5:32 PM in reply to Knothead Jake
We get to see his nads?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
merlot
December 1, 2009 5:40 PM in reply to barnacle
You will need a microscope to see them if they are there at all.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
chimpale
December 1, 2009 5:32 PM
A broad generalization based on assumptions is not a valid argument. The bottom line here, whether you like it or not, is that we're talking about individuals--women and sometimes girls--who are in the unique position of having to decide what to do about a life that is developing inside of their own life. You don't get to decide for them. Nobody does. And you don't have the luxury of making some kind of a blanket determination over all women as to whether or not, in each and every instance, their situation was preventable.
Try showing as much concern for all of the babies--that would be 'post-natal' babies--who are killed by artillery and bombs that are paid for by your tax dollars. I think there's a pretty strong argument to be made about those deaths being preventable. And, yes, they DO count as human lives even if they're dark-skinned, from Muslim families, and they reside in another country far away.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cool Blue Reason
December 1, 2009 5:50 PM in reply to chimpale
chimpale, I think you have to acknowledge that you're debating with another pro-choice person whose main point is that prevention (specifically oral contraception) should be given greater emphasis. And that this is preferable for reasons ranging from the moral and political to the practical and fiscal.
Reflexively retreating to your "fetal position" -- that is, coiled in righteous indignation against anti-choice, bigoted, warmongering reactionaries (who are not actually here) -- doesn't really advance the discussion in this context.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
chimpale
December 1, 2009 10:11 PM in reply to Cool Blue Reason
Defending the Stupak amendment by promoting oral contraception as an alternative to abortion sounds pretty disingenuous. It also sounds like someone who doesn't understand the circumstances that lead to abortion, regardless of how many times other posters here have tried to explain it to him/her. Or maybe doesn't care.
"Again" repeatedly steers clear of addressing the argument that the public option would not lead to public funding of abortions. The insurance providers would be private and the premiums would be paid by the insured. How many times does he/she need to be told before finally acknowledging that?
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, that that somehow made sense to you when you typed it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
December 1, 2009 7:07 PM in reply to chimpale
"A broad generalization based on assumptions is not a valid argument."
Can't disagree with that, but no doubt you haven't spent a lot of time in health care.
"You don't get to decide for them. Nobody does. And you don't have the luxury of making some kind of a blanket determination over all women as to whether or not, in each and every instance, their situation was preventable."
I don't want to decide for them, however, if you're talking about a teenager, I certainly hope she's considering an abortion. But I'd prefer to work from the preventive angle - it's better all around.
"Try showing as much concern for all of the babies--that would be 'post-natal' babies--who are killed by artillery and bombs that are paid for by your tax dollars. I think there's a pretty strong argument to be made about those deaths being preventable. And, yes, they DO count as human lives even if they're dark-skinned, from Muslim families, and they reside in another country far away."
As an anti-war child or a war refugee who is not white, I don't know how to thank you for your presumptions about me! And clearly you haven't read my anti-war comments with regard to Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam, etc.
Why are you so knee-jerk against someone who doesn't take your exact line on everything but has the same goals?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
December 1, 2009 7:10 PM in reply to again
sorry, that's "anti-war child OF a war refugee who is not white"
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
chimpale
December 1, 2009 9:49 PM in reply to again
At the time that I replied you hadn't elaborated on your stance to the point that you were coming across as anything more than someone who was comfortable with broad-brushing all abortions as being preventable. If your point is that prevention is to be encouraged, that's great. Go back and read your first dozen or so posts to see why your message was coming across as "prevention is the solution."
Your dogged repetition of that theme, that virtually all abortion is preventable and that the number that aren't is negligible, suggests a cavalier attitude about the need for abortion to remain legal and affordable.
I'm sorry. I didn't realize that you were initially misrepresenting yourself.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
December 2, 2009 1:07 PM in reply to chimpale
I wasn't misrepresenting myself in the least.
You were jumping to conclusions not just about my position on choice, but my ideas about "brown" people and my position on the war.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Zulia
December 1, 2009 5:49 PM
Another member of the Family (at C Street) gunning to take away access to a legal medical procedure. He and Stupak probably compared notes over their cornflakes while discussing how moral rules and religious strictures are fine for the masses but don't really apply to Family members-- who are extra special.
It wouldn't shock me to find out one of them got an abortion for a mistress.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
December 1, 2009 5:54 PM in reply to Zulia
Of course they would. They're completely venal.
The question is, what, exactly, would Stupak's amendment do, and how does that fit into the current legal and tech landscape in which we live.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Powkat
December 1, 2009 6:10 PM in reply to Zulia
I'll bet $500 more than one of them did. When St. Ronnie was first elected I bet this idiot woman I worked with $10.00 that one or both of his daughters had had an abortion in the past. She was shocked - then Patti, god bless her wrote that nasty book! The woman never paid up tho.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Bleacher Creature
December 1, 2009 5:51 PM
Fine. If Nelson wants to re-open 30 years of established precedent on abortion funding restrictions, someone should offer an amendment cutting back on the Hyde Amendment language.
Of course, no "liberal" in the Senate would have the spine to try it. . .
Sigh.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Ethan
December 1, 2009 6:06 PM
If (and when) his amendment is voted down, will he STFU about abortion?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Rick
December 1, 2009 6:57 PM
Two words: fifth column.
Nelson will pull out all the tricks to try to derail health care reform.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
runfastandwin
December 1, 2009 8:46 PM
I guess when you're a douchebag you learn to hate women.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
December 1, 2009 8:53 PM in reply to runfastandwin
More like when you're a venal politician you learn to pander to particular constituencies under the cover of power-worshipping groups like "The Family."
Totally independent of feelings of misogyny or misanthropy. Love of power trumps all for these guys.
I strongly recommend Jeff Sharlet's work - there's a great interview with him from last week on NPR.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
barefooted
December 2, 2009 12:19 AM
OT - What's wrong with the TPM Cafe Reader Posts?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DownriverDem
December 2, 2009 8:35 AM
The right is still calling the shots. It totally disgusts me on all levels.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
sydluna
December 2, 2009 8:55 AM
I demand an amendment banning funding for vasectomies. Every sperm is sacred!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tosh
June 6, 2010 6:21 AM
I think it's reasonable, for something as controversial as ending the life of something that some believe to be alive, that abortion be privately, and not publicly, funded. Pay for that abortion with your own money. Buy abortion insurance. But don't ask the Federal government to pay for it. That's the idea behind Hyde Amendment(which has been around for many decades), and it's the idea behind Stupak's.
I don't think comparing abortion to an x-ray is realistic at all, by the way.
m65 kamagra
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?