Back in August I wrote about the totally dishonest attempt by congressional representatives to discriminate against reproductive-age women by singling out the medical procedure of abortion as the only medical procedure banned from any "health exchange" insurance policies coming out of the Obama-led health care reform legislation.
Last night, the following House Democrats joined with GOP women's-rights bashers voting to forbid abortion coverage, and abortion coverage only, from all federally subsidized health insurance policies…..
OH-1,… Driehaus, Steve; OH-6,…. Wilson, Charles; OH-9,… Kaptur, Marcy; OH-16,… Boccieri, John; OH-17,…. Ryan, Timothy;…. OH-18 Space, Zachary.
Before last night's vote took place, Digby had this to say…
I suspect that the leadership decided that abortion was the least important thing they could throw to the slavering Blue Dogs to take home as a victory over the liberals in this debate. And they had to find a hippie to punch to make the thing acceptable to the villagers, so they decided to punch the desperate pregnant girl. She's used to it.
Since the Republicans have made themselves irrelevant with their obstructionism the Democrats have decided that in order to further the president's edict to change the tone and further bipartisanship they will just have to compromise with themselves.
Democrats everywhere will now be able to brag about furthering the Godly cause of forced pregnancy, while having also voted to pass health care.
Exactly.
Last night's House vote approving health care reform legislation passed by 220-215…just barely. And that was after a woman's legal right to a medical abortion was isolated as the only medical procedure unworthy of coverage by a subsidized national health care plan.
Those, you know, hyper-liberal Democrats in the House, approved by a 240-194 margin, Bart Stupak's (D-MI) amendment, which will….
"…..explicitly bar the public plan from covering the procedure. The amendment, approved 240 to 194, with 64 Democrats in favor, also would prohibit people who received insurance subsidies from purchasing private plans that covered abortion."
But wait…there's more…..
"The amendment would bar the new government insurance plan from covering abortions, except in cases of rape, incest, or where the life of the mother is in danger. The Democrats' original legislation would have allowed the government plan to cover abortions, if the Health and Human Services secretary decided it should."
See?….If a female was forced against her will to have sex, or was dominated to have sex by a family member,…..then government money will be permitted to be used to cover an abortion, should that female become pregnant. Or if the female might die as a result of pregnancy. But, by god, if the female consented to the sex, you know, enjoyed it….then, no way can tax dollars subsidizing health care exchanges be used to pay for an abortion.
This is as clear a case of anti-female, anti-sex, discrimination as we've seen since the dreadful Hyde Amendment.
The American forced pregnancy lobby now has a clear path forward. Having successfully restricted government subsidy money from paying for health insurance which includes specific medical procedures for women…and only those procedures……it seems obvious that a new floodgate of hateful discrimination will follow.
If it's the case that tax dollars cannot go to pay for health care insurance, either public or private, unless the American woman impregnated did not enjoy the sex….then wouldn't it also follow that any tax dollars….ANY TAX DOLLARS….could not be used to pay for an abortion, or health insurance which included coverage for abortion?
Wouldn't that mean that all federal employees, and independent contractors working for the federal government, could not pay for an abortion with their tax-payer-paid wages? Still tax dollars..right?Furthermore….wouldn't it also follow that all federal employees and independent contractors, you know, whose wages are paid with tax dollars, would also be prohibited from spending those tax-payer-paid wages on health insurance which included coverage for abortions?
Shouldn't a woman who got pregnant, and, you know, enjoyed the sex….who also happened to work for the federal government…and who wanted to exercise her legal right to choose…..shouldn't she have to document where the money will come from to pay for an abortion? Her wages come from the federal government…..that means that she only receives tax dollars….and as we now see, tax dollars CAN NEVER be used to pay for abortion AND tax dollars can never be used to pay for health insurance that includes abortion procedures (unless the sex was forced.)
Finally, as long as the Stupak amendment voters are being ridiculous….why not go all the way? Cash money is printed by the federal government and is processed by banks regulated by that same federal government. Since the federal government cannot, in any way, be involved in any aspect of payment for an abortion or insurance that might cover abortion…..doesn't the blindingly stupid Stupak amendment set the precedent that abortion can no longer be paid for…at all (unless the sex was forced)?
Perhaps women who wish to exercise their legal right in America will have to resort to bartering with their reproductive doctors,….perhaps baked-goods, or seamstress work…..in order to pay for their right to choose.
That's if…you know….they enjoyed the sex.
{ 29 comments… read them below or add one }
Abortion is far from the only medical procedure that won't be covered. There are many others.
And women can still get abortions. It's just that federal funds won't be used for them, just like now.
Demogogue.
The title should be: Attention Women The Government Will Not Pay For You To Murder Your Baby Or Get Breast Implants These Are Both Voluntary Procedures.
Does the bill cover birth control pills? If so Rev you have nothing to complain about.
Rev, if the only sex you actually enjoy is one the time your lady gets pregnant you are doing it wrong.
This has nothing to do with me.
Anyone want to rebut my points? Anyone? Buehler?
Look at King's first sentence again, Reverend. It's a pretty concrete rebuttal of your original post's first point. Maybe you should explain why King is wrong then we could move on to your next point.
When King supports his assertion by showing us what similar procedures are being excluded from any subsidy-supported policies…..that's when that issue will be engaged further.
And this…
"And women can still get abortions. It's just that federal funds won't be used for them, just like now."
..is not true. What's different now with the House bill is that federal funds can't subsidize health insurance which includes abortion coverage. That's breaking new ground. And so I asked you in the post, to tell me why in the hell, then, won't restricting all federal employees from using the tax-dollar salaries they receive from using that money to pay for an abortion, or even to purchase health care insurance that includes abortion coverage? Aren't federal employees paid with tax dollars……..or am I mistaken?
You didn't say anything about "similar" procedures in your claim that abortion would be banned from coverage, Reverend. Nothing at all. What procedures would be considered similar to abortion? Liposuction maybe? Is that covered with federal funding?
Let's tie this up then we can move on to Point Two.
I do hope they put something in that they will not pay for men to get Viagra or any other medication used for same purpose.
Watch what you wish for Andrea.
Woman use the argument that they alone have the right to decide on issues concerning their bodies. It is hard to argue the premise that woman are responsible for their own bodies. If they chose to get an abortion it is their decision and theirs alone. Fine, but dont tell me that I have to pay for your choice.
If a woman uses birth control properly there is a very small chance of getting pregnant. Birth control I don't mind paying for but I don't want to pay for a woman being careless. Many a child (or abortion) came about because someone partied too much and forgot their pill, failed to read the medication warning to use alternative forms of birth control while taking said medication, etc.
There are many things i wish my tax dollars would not be used for and this is a major one.
By the way I am a female and a Democrat.
After futher thought it is a waste of energy to even argue the point. We all know that in a short time the abortion prohibitions in the health care scam will be quickly and quitely forgotten or overturned. If it manages to survive the final bill legislation effectively overturning the ban will shortly follow. As most points our representatives argue about tis will quickly be forgotten when the spotlight moves on.
Rev says, "When King supports his assertion by showing us what similar procedures are being excluded from any subsidy-supported policies…..that's when that issue will be engaged further."
The House health care bill cuts $472.8 billion from Medicare. You don't get there unless you exclude coverage, no matter what the Obamaists say. The Senate bill penalizes doctors for ordering too many tests, which will eliminate medical procedures. Medicare already limits coverage for certain conditions, and Medicare doesn't cover dental, experimental treatments, many cosmetic surgeries, some podiatric treatments, etc.
Reverand,
Why the outrage? You have advocated for a government takeover of the health care system. Why are you now surprised that politicians would dictate the scope of covered procedures?
There is, of course, another solution if pro-choice Democrats wish to keep abortion coverage in private insurance policies: oppose the government takeover of the health care system.
great point quid about the rev's outrage
Because the left leaners are never happy….
They aren't going to cover gastric bypass surgery for fat people. Does that outrage the left?
There are no more high end services like breast enhancment or other plastic surgeries.. You can pay for these services out of your pocket and be taxed to high heaven for the services. Does that outrage the left?
What about the reduced care for the union people who have fought to be given these golden healthcare plans? Is Obama et al letting down those constituents?
Ulitimately there will be many procedures not covered that our current system provides. You can't cut costs and increase services….
It's about time the govt stopped endorsing this holocaust. To pay to murder it's private citizens is wrong. That is truely communist.
Maybe if a woman wants to continue the cycle of "be a ho and get pregnant and kill a baby" she can buy a supplemental plan. Are the abortion doctors that are paid to kill these kids going to receive some sort of govt aid since their services will be needed less and the ho's and ho master's will be forced to be more careful.Of course the responsibility will remain on the woman. Will their cry be "Thanks Obama for forcing us to be responsible for ourselves and the well being of our unborn children." At least we know the condem makers will see a bump in revenue.
Wow.
Well…moving on to the point of singling out abortion in health care reform. King references vague testings and procedures but fails to point to any specific medical procedure, other than abortion, that's singled out and prohibited from being covered in the House's health care bill. That fact remains, whatever one wants to make of it.
The Medicare savings come from getting for-profit insurance parasites off the Medicare host as we have now with Medicare Advantage. Just like with the Medicare Plan D giveaway…..there's no reason to attach a for-profit, Wall Street driven parasite to such a large government program. They can't be trusted. They've proven that. And they add no value, provide no service and offer no product. Obama, rightly, is removing the parasite.
Sharon…appreciate the comment. Let me see if I'm clear. Do you make a distinction between federal dollars going to pay for abortion directly…and…federal dollars going to fund an insurance policy which includes abortion coverage?
This too..
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/11/9/802519/-What-the-Stupak-Pitts-Coathanger-Amendment-Does
Good points Quid and Joe.
I'm still a little taken aback by the title of the blog. I am familiar with fore-play. I didn't realize abortion was part of the sex act – post-play?
Sharon why should we pay for lung cancer treatment for smokers ? They did it to themselves in fact I can think of lots of things we should not pay for to save money when people screw up . Unfortunately the man who impregnated the women usually walks away and she's left to take care of things on her own.
Andrea…..obviously, from the Stupak amendment, men still control everything.
bzzzp…you would be……taken aback by the title, that is.
About the outrage: I think it's fitting when Congress is planning on limiting women's freedoms and openly discriminating aginst them in new health refrom legislation…..to be outraged. I realize it's only women who must concern themselves with this issue, and for the most part, conservative men don't care too much about women's rights or freedoms. But either abortion is legal in the U.S or it's not. Since it is legal, legislators have no right to single it out as the only medical procedure to be prohibited from being covered.
If the Stupak amendment survives the process….Democrats can proudly boast of having, singlehandedly, limited women's freedoms by openly discriminating against women. I expect that from Republicans, they are not ashamed of their second-class treatment of women…..but Democrats know better.
I hate to break it to you, Reverend, but abortions aren't covered for men, either. That's a sarcastic remark, but a potential father does face a possible lifetime worth of expenses if his/her girlfriend/one night stand can't get an abortion. Maybe the two could scrape up a couple hundred bucks and pay for their careless mistake themselves?
Abortion is not the only medical procedure to be prohibited from coverage, either. Folks have listed several others for you, so why keep repeating that falsehood?
To Reverand – Dennis Kucinich voted against health care reform ? these are the ones who voted against
Scott Murphy (NY-20)
Bobby Bright (AL-2)
Frank Kratovil Jr. (MD-1)
Walt Minnick (ID-1)
Eric Massa (NY-29)
Parker Griffith (AL-5)
John Adler (NJ-3)
Glenn Nye (VA-2)
Chet Edwards (TX-17)
Travis Childers (MS-1)
John Boccieri (OH-16)
Larry Kissell (NC-8)
Jason Altmire (PA-4)
Harry Teague (NM-2)
Betsy Markey (CO-4)
Jim Marshall (GA-8)
Suzanne Kosmas (FL-24)
Dennis J. Kucinich (OH-10)
Lincoln Davis (TN-4)
Allen Boyd (FL-2)
Heath Shuler (NC-11)
Tim Holden (PA-17)
Michael E. McMahon (NY-13)
Brian Baird (WA-3)
Jim Matheson (UT-2)
Ben Chandler (KY-6)
Ike Skelton (MT-4)
John Barrow (GA-12)
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (SD)
Mike McIntyre (NC-7)
Dan Boren (OK-2)
Collin C. Peterson (MN-7)
Bart Gordon (TN-6)
Gene Taylor (MS-4)
Mike Ross (AR-4)
Rick Boucher (VA-9)
Artur Davis (AL-7)
Charlie Melancon (LA-3)
John Tanner (TN-8)
Of course Kucinich vote against it, andrea. Love him or hate him, he does have a certain personal integrity.
I'm sure that some liberals voted against it because the bill is too conservative.
And it is….too conservative.
Rev says, "King references vague testings and procedures but fails to point to any specific medical procedure"
I didn't realize my citing of dentistry, cosmetic surgery, and other procedures was "vague." I thought they were pretty definitive. Would you be happier if I said root canals, fillings, orthodontia, face lifts, tummy tucks, boob jobs, experimental cancer drugs, eyewear, gastric bypass surgery, etc, etc ?
I knew you wouldn't deal with what I said honestly. You seldom do. Your latest post is proof positive of that.
As i said…..abortion is a specific medical procedure. And….as I said…it is the only specific medical procedure singled out for coverage-prohibition. You didn't point to any other specific procedure singled out in the legislative language….and that was the point.
Can you no longer see the words right in front of your face ?
I can still see them….but thanks for your concern.
Obviously not, because I proved you wrong twice, and you are still pretending I didn't.