Actual Text of the Stupak Amendment...shall we discuss?

Could someone please point out where purchase of supplemental abortion coverage with private funds is disallowed?

or where Insurance plans with abortion coverage are disallowed from the Exchange?

These are the 2 big complaints I have seen from NARAL and others, but I can find no language in the amendment to support them.

Newsflash: Women don't plan their abortions.

This is an insult.

that is the status quo.

The only plans that exist today with Abortion coverage are paid for with private funds.

What does the amendment change?

Senator McCaskill took your position yesterday morning and revised it by 8:00 pm last night.

show me where it states the things many are claiming.

doesn't make it right or ok or acceptable in any way.

Do you think abortion is an industry and that it is subsidized?

:puke:

Rather than going through the hassle of maintaining separate plans if they want to participate in exchanges or the public option.

Why was the Stupak Amendment necessary if it doesn't change anything? They had already agreed to retain Hyde restrictions in the main text of the bill. Federal money was never going to be going directly to abortions.

and again, nowhere in the text of the amendment does it say that abortion coverage is disallowed in the Exchange. It just has to be paid for privately.

With this bill, these people can lose this coverage because these plans will now be subsidized. Hence the status quo is changed

Obama promised with his reform that if you are happy with your current coverage, you can keep it.

what will change?

is it just that the plan gives more people access to subsidies than at present, so the amendment would affect more people than the current status quo?

how would you solve this?
do you think subsidies should be allowed to apply to abortion coverage?

Any legislative victory they get brings them one step closer to their goal of banning abortion AND contraception. Mark my words, if Stupak stays in this bill they will use it to go after birth control coverage too.

Healthcare Reform will pass, but it will not subsidize abortion.

If you make under a certain income level, the federal government will provide you a subsidy to help you purchase insurance.

Many insurance plans have higher deductibles than that!

If you have severely deformed fetus, for example. Which is not covered under the exceptions that Stupak permits.

Wait, What?


edit:typo

No one plans an illness either, but knows there is a risk. Anyone who knows they could get pregnant and realizes birth control is not 100% effective could sign up. What would be wrong with that?

Besides, everyone is going on about how the abortions are covered by private insurance now. So women have signed up for that.

Okay, I'm not clear on a lot of things. Private insurance would then be allowed to provide payment for abortions. However, women who are using subsidies to purchase private insurance wouldn't be able to have their abortion covered? <----me thinks this might be the ultimate issue.

However, in the case of a person buying insurance without subsidies they are fine, right?! I have no problems understanding the PO. Medicaid does not provide payment for abortions unless it's rape, incest or life of the mother.


All in all abortions are still allowed, but I think the first one might be a problem. That's a good number of women who are excluded from abortion coverage. They should be allowed to be covered if their States allow insurances to have service and if the insurance has that service generally.

Especially since many of them haven't even read it.

"However, women who are using subsidies to purchase private insurance wouldn't be able to have their abortion covered?"

Women who are using subsidies to pay for their main plan would have to buy supplemental coverage for abortion with their own money.

There is a stigma against abortion both from insurance companies offering it and women who want to get it. It is one more obstacle for a woman's right to choose.

How do women on Medicare pay for abortions currently?

Answer: With private funds

who will be dropped coverage because the government will be subsidizing the insurance. There are alternative ways you could use to make sure that federal funding doesn't go to abortion without forcing women to buy separate abortion insurance.

I disagree with the policy of people on medicare but that is a different discussion.

How do you do it all in one plan without subsidizing abortion?

So, these people on Private Insurance who have abortion coverage are not currently receiving a subsidy.
Why would they not be able to apply the money they will save on their normal plan with the subsidy to purchase supplemental coverage for abortion?

Or they could decline the subsidy, which they didn't get before, and keep the plan as it currently exists.

You can show how much it costs to offer abortion coverage and make sure that portion of the funding comes from private funds. Most of the funding for the insurance is going to be privately funded anyways.

And they can still offer supplemental coverage to people technically, but there will be a stigma attached to it which would make people avoid it and insurance companies less likely to offer it. It would be like offering separate coverage for STD's. It would be associated with immoral and reckless behavior so people are more likely to avoid obtaining it even if they are at risk.

then what is the difference in having a separate plan for your abortion coverage?

It's like having 6 in one hand and a half-dozen in the other.

So basically, your opposition to a supplemental plan is due to a potential for stigma?
why would insurance companies not offer it if millions of women needed it?
You would think it would be profitable for them since most of the women will never use the coverage.

without forcing women to buy an optional abortion insurance.

The only reason why they want to change it is because they want to turn a medical issue into a political issue. No other medical procedure is going to have to be subject to some ridiculous policy for insurance.

The people who are proposing this amendment know what they are doing and know that it is going to result in less people getting coverage for abortions. There is a stigma against abortion from a big portion of the population, and it is going to affect the behavior of the companies offering insurance and the people purchasing it. It will be making politics an issue for buying insurance instead of a medical one.

Medicaid in several states does pay for abortions in more circumstances that what you listed. Secondly, in many cases people will be paying for the PO entirely out of pocket and still won't be able to get abortion coverage. That is a total 180 from the way medicaid works now with the states which decide to provide Medicaid.

I was told that due to the fact Medicaid gets funded by the Fed they are thrown under the Hyde Amendment which means they cannot giving money for other abortion services besides the ones mentioned. If they do, can you point me to which states do this?

So this law prohibits the PO from supplementing abortion even though it's out of pocket? That doesn't make sense, considering the law seems to be for federally funded insitutions. Or to expand, meaning that subsidies that are provided by the government cannot be used for abortion services?

three examples would be New York, Mass, and California.

"Secondly, in many cases people will be paying for the PO entirely out of pocket and still won't be able to get abortion coverage."

It outright bans the public option from providing abortion benefits. As to how many women will be in that position, admittedly that is conjecture. But the public option is geared toward those who can't get insurance elsewhere due to cost which leads to individual purchasers who are going to tend to be on the younger side but might have pre existing conditions and the like.

legal information from a variety of sources. They are well-summed up in this article. The devil's in the details.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/11/9/802519/-What-the-Stupak-Pitts-Coathanger-Amendment-Does

If you can't comprehend that women trust those sources to give them the genuine article, then you have no empathy nor knowledge of women. If you are indeed male, you've never had a doc shut you down in midsentence while discussing your health via birth control because you were in a 'catholic' facility and one could not speak there. Their fucking 'GOD" is more important than me and my health and my children's wellbeing.

The goal is not abortion, it is birth control. Fuck Hyde, fuck Roe, they're going for Grisholm.

On edit. Read all the articles. This would damage women's rights to terminate physically and mentally debilitating pregnancy like in case of deadly chromosonal and physical defects to the fetus. Their is no mention of mother or infant HEALTH here, there is merely the mention of her death, which thay are allowed to prevent if possible.

Point out where it does what that page claims in the text.

That page doesn't provide a single line from the amendment to support its claims.
It just expects you to take what it says as fact.

Which means that private insurance that gets any subsidy cannot be used to abort a severely deformed fetus. You either carry that anencephalic baby to term or pay for a much more expensive (since it's likely to be done later in the pregnancy) procedure out of your own pocket.

It also means that a pregnancy that threatens a woman's health but not necessarily her life cannot be covered. Again, another possibility of a much more expensive surgical procedure not covered by the insurance that women are MANDATED to have.

That is from the text of the amendment. Not just my opinion.

anyone getting subsidies has to buy supplemental abortion coverage,
unless the conditions you stated above are met.

This is the status quo.

If you want to expand subsidies to cover abortion, that should be done in a separate Bill,
not via the Healthcare reform Bill

State Funding for Abortion under Medicaid


Funding under Hyde Amendment Only: Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Wyoming.

Hyde Amendment and Additional Health Circumstances: Indiana (physical health), Iowa (fetal abnormality), Mississippi (fetal abnormality), Utah (physical health and fetal abnormality), Virginia (fetal abnormality), and Wisconsin (physical health).

All or Most Health Circumstances: Alaska, Arizona, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Vermont, Washington, and West Virginia.

Noncompliant with the Hyde Amendment: South Dakota (life endangerment only).


http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/facts/public_funding.html

Danger to the life of the mother and rape or incest only. It's right there in the language.

somehow, I don't think you would be satisfied if the amendment left that up to the states.

is this really your sole reason for opposing the amendment,
or would you actually prefer for abortions to be subsidized?

It's called "health care", Dr. Uses-Medicare-And-Medicaid-Interchangeably.

Repeal Stupak and repeal Hyde.

How many times will we allow Abortion to be used as a wedge issue to kill Democratic progress?

Abortion should be addressed on its own. Not as part of every other Bill that comes up for debate.

If they didn't get to restrict abortion rights.

And the constant strawman (fuck, I've come to HATE that word because of it's excessive overuse on DU) that we who oppose Stupak are willing to kill it is really old. I guess people forget who threatened to "torpedo the bill" if they didn't get their way.

access.

That's what this is all about. Further restrictions. If they cared about "life" and women's health they would have mandated coverage of contraception while they excluded abortion. But, it's not about money and it's not about REDUCING the need for abortions. It's about pushing a religious agenda, controlling women and restricting access.

I also have no problem with policies paid for with private funds covering the procedure.

HCR is not designed to be an expansion nor a restriction of Abortion Rights.

"I also have no problem with policies paid for with private funds covering the procedure. "

Neither does the Stupak Amendment. See sections B and C

how can we have an honest discussion?

every time a claim about the amendment is disproven, you just change what you say is wrong with it.

First, it didn't allow supplemental coverage with private funds. That wasn't true.
Then, it didn't allow abortion plans in the exchange. That wasn't true.
Then, it was a Tax on Women. Not anymore than at present.

Now, your sticking point is that it doesn't cover abnormal fetuses if the plan is subsidized.
I am willing to bet that if they put specific language in addressing abnormal fetuses,
you would just move right along to your next reason.

It really seems like some expected to get Abortion subsidies with this HCR Bill.

It's not about the money. It's far less expensive to cover the procedure than prenatal care and delivery.

But we all know that fight will be a knock down, drag out.
We cannot win it and HCR at the same time.

Would you really sacrifice HCR just to subsidize abortion?

Ever. And you don't have to, either.

Remember that it was the fucking DFLA who threatened to kill it. Not the Dems who oppose Stupak.

There are a good number of Dems who voted against Stupak and for the bill. THAT is the proper Democratic action.

The DFLA can FOADIAF.

I don't really see why it was necessary, since there was already language in the Bill to maintain the status quo.
Stupak just solidified that and gave conservatives something to wave around when they're asked about abortion. (It's alot easier to show a 5 page amendment than say "Go look at the HCR Bill Section x Line z".)
That's likely why Stupak was willing to vote for the Bill even if the amendment failed. He knew it didn't really do anything.

If they weren't and this was a regurgitation of Hyde, then why, oh WHY did ANY Dems vote against it?

Oh right... because it *IS* adding more restrictions and they all knew that and speak out about it. It also, unlike Hyde, would be permanent.

Do you have any evidence to dispute this?

I don't know if you're just being disingenuous, but on the off chance that you're not - and for the benefit of those who haven't seen this in any of the other gajillion threads...

The first, and main, problem is not in the amendment language, but rather in the effect that the amendment has on the underlying bill. Granted, I suspect that none of us has actually read the underlying bill, so we're relying on descriptions of its provisions from a variety of sources. That said, the problem, the "expansion" is here:

No funds authorized or appropriated by the Act (or amendment made by this Act) may be used to ... cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion

In plain English, this means that no plan covering abortion can be purchased by an individual receiving any subsidy. Straightforward enough. But it becomes a problem when you look at the effect of this on the bill. Any plan offered in the exchange has to be available to any purchaser - the "guaranteed issue" provision. (This is, in general, a good thing. It's the provision that prevents insurers from rejecting an applicant due to a pre-existing condition.) But, in conjunction with the Stupak amendment's barring of subsidized individuals from purchasing plans that include abortion coverage, it means NO plan in the exchange can cover abortion, because they have to be available to all potential purchasers. So, even if you're purchasing a policy entirely with your own money, you can't buy one that has abortion coverage, because there won't *be* any that cover abortion.

For the second problem, look at those "potential purchasers." It not only includes individuals, who can certainly look for coverage elsewhere, it also includes employers, who again, would be buying into the exchange with private funds. Starting with small businesses of 25 or fewer employers, but eventually expanding access to virtually all employers. This generally is not the individual's decision. The employer says "In lieu of private insurance, we've bought into the exchange - go find a plan you like on it." Suddenly, none of the employees will have abortion coverage available, and it was NOT THEIR DECISION. And in years down the road, this could be a significant percentage of employees who now have employer-provided insurance.

The third problem is with Section c) OPTION TO OFFER SUPPLEMENTAL COVERAGE OR PLAN, that offers the "option" of so-called "supplemental insurance or riders" or a duplicate insurance policies that cover abortion. No such products exist now, and nothing in the amendment mandates that they be created. Maybe they will, maybe they won't. The "option" is there... but if such "riders" or duplicate insurance plans aren't available (and I don't believe they will be) any woman shopping the exchange, either by employer decree or by choice, has NO OPTION that includes abortion coverage. It doesn't exist now, and there's nothing to guarantee that it will exist in the future. It's an empty option. Nothing there. Means nothing.

to include any plan within the exchange under the faulty logic that since federal funds would be used to set the system up that any plan that covered the procedure would by definition be disallowed and hence the need for the supplemental that I assume it creates out of thin air but I'm not a woman so I don't know if such coverage previously/currently exists to be honest.

So it's not some insurance (or some insurance plans) or subsidies or what not. That means if the insurance companies, or at least some of them provided abortion services before. Because they are now all under this plan, it prohibits them from providing abortion services, point blank...correct?! If that's the case it clears up a lot more and makes this case even more problematic. One of the ways it was explained didn't note that ALL would be affected and the way most of the rest of the amendment reads it would be the subsidies that woul affect this. But the first line is really here the whole problem lies----and although the rest of the amendment reads like a remake of Hyde, the first lines sets up the trap (ie the theft of women's rights)----the rest mask it.

(1) Such coverage or plan is paid for entirely using funds not authorized or appropriated by this Act; and

(1) premiums for such separate supplemental coverage or plan are paid for entirele with funds not authorized or appropriated by this Act;

I see these lines, but they only refer to how the plan is being paid for.
I don't see where it says the Exchange itself is a subsidy, or how it could be construed that the Exchange is somehow a payment.

at least you agree that a supplemental abortion plan can be purchased.
Many are convinced that has been a outlawed.

Its not a secret. I have no desire to detract from the bill but I'm not going to pretend away the stated intent of the bill. Just go through some simple logic exercises and it is clear why the language in the underlying bill which had already so strongly supported Hyde that many women were upset was not satisfactory.

Believe what you will but don't pretend no one said anything once the horse is out of the barn.

to survive. Shall we discuss?

On sunny, cloudless days, the sky tends to be blue. Shall we discuss?

As has been noted in this thread and countless others (HT to Kentuckian), merely choosing a section does not address the larger effect of this amendment.

Picking and choosing sections to focus on without addressing the entire bill is pointless.

Starting yet another thread on the topic to inadvertently show one's lack of ability to do the merest modicum of research on the topic is pointless at best, obfuscation at worst.

shall we discuss, or are you not finished obfuscating?

This is the first thread that actually has the text of the Stupak amendment.
So many seem to know all about what it will do, but they haven't even bothered to read it.

The purpose of this thread is not to analyze the whole HCR bill, just the Amendment that has people up in arms.



obfuscate n. to act like an ass rather than providing any evidence backing up your stated beliefs

and how it will affect people overall, using a tremendous amount of information from those who have been part of the larger process.

To bring up the wording of the amendment as a separate piece to focus upon without addressing clearly the relationship of said amendment on the larger bill is asshattery at its finest.

To respond to folks who post information that you don't wish to inform yourself of the information they provide--something done repeatedly throughout the thread is akin to sticking one's fingers in one's ears and making child-like noises.

The adult, responsible thing to have done is to actually read the information provided in relation to the amendment for oneself.

Alas, the choice earlier on has been to be difficult, to be contrary, to play a game of semantics mixed with stubbornness that would make a donkey blush--in other words to detract from the real issues at hand. To muddle...to confuse....bewilder...stupefy...oh, what's that word. Ah, yes. To obfuscate. (Dictionaries are not the enemy to discourse. Dithering is)

but the amendment is what went in the Bill. Not any of the opinion pieces I have seen posted repeatedly.

How can you discuss the amendment, without discussing its wording?

If you can provide anything to back up any of your claims, then please do so.

But in the end, I think it is you who refuses to inform yourself with the information provided.
You prefer to ignore the amendment itself because it doesn't fit in the picture you want to paint.

dithering, eh?
am I talking to Dick Cheney?

Right there in the text and you pooh-poohed it.

I think you would just find another reason to oppose it,
because in the end, what you actually want is subsidized abortion.

But, you clearly are deliberately missing that point.

Hyde doesn't cover mental health nearly enough.

Personally, I'm fine with federal subsidies for abortions, it's not like it's a procedure people would look forward to having for fun, or out of boredom, etc.... We have enough of an over-population problem already.

As far as "adding" restrictions, they're adding them to something that doesn't exist yet... hence, the status quo argument, where the bill possibly would have *reduced* restrictions, and thus they're "adding" them back in, to keep things the same.

:rofl:

There may have to be slight adjustments to the amendment concerning abnormal fetuses and the health of the mother.
But for the most part, this amendment is the status quo,
not the massive restriction of abortion rights some have painted it as.

Yes, I proofread for fun. :D

as you can tell, I do the ol' hunt and peck.

typed that up for the House.

I know how processes work...slowly, regardless of the direction they take. I don't think this will pass Senate muster, I don't even know it it's Constitutional, that's above my paygrade. What I DO know, is that plenty of women are pissed off about this, and I don't blame them one bit. However, since I don't think it's going to pass Senate muster, to help make sure, I urge everyone to take a minute away form DU and contact your Senators and let them know how you feel by letters, calls and e-mail.

I'd be surprised, no shocked, if they came here to DU to get viewpoints. Direct contact is necessary if people are serious about this, (judging by the # of threads, I'd say people are pretty damn serious).

Work on them, that is the next course of action. I've sent my thoughts to my 2 Senators, Nelson and Johanns, even though I know where they stand. I want them to know where I stand.

Stop, right now, and ship out an e-mail, let's go to those who need to hear about his...otherwise, we are little more than sparrow farts in a tornado.

:)