Why Stupak matters to ALL women, not just poor ones

(I posted most of this as a response to another thread, but I thought it deserved it's own thread. Time (and recs) will tell me if I was right on that. ;-))

Many people have likened the Stupak Amendment the Hyde amendment, and saying that Stupak doesn't change anything.

That's not true. It's not like the Hyde Amendment. Hyde prevents the federal government from PAYING for an abortion. The Stupak amendment prevents you from buying insurance that includes abortion coverage with YOUR OWN MONEY because some moralizing prick thinks abortion is wrong.

The closest analogy I can think of is, it's like the government saying that no insurance policy in the exchange can cover lung cancer caused by smoking, because some people find smoking repugnant.

EXCEPT - the coverage they banned is ONLY used by women, and generally in what is, at least for them, an emergency. I can't think of any similar health concern that only applies to men.

And this restriction on what policies in the exchange can cover matters to every woman, because over the years, more and more employers will be able to access the exchange, too. At the start, it's only a few of the smallest employers that can offer the exchange in lieu of private insurance. Each year, a larger group of employers will be given access to the exchange.

Sure, now it's just poor women who couldn't afford to pay for an abortion that are affected. But what about when the exchange opens up to YOUR employer? If your employer elects to offer access to the exchange in lieu of private insurance, this restriction will affect the coverage YOU can buy, too.

And, on top of that, it's an issue of principle. The Stupak Amendment, and the Democratic Leadership who allowed it to come up for a vote, have endorsed the idea that a few moralizing pricks get to decide what rights women have. No, it's not taking away the right to an abortion. But it IS taking away our right to spend our own money on a product - insurance with abortion coverage - that we want.

http://www.now.org/issues/health/110909stupak.html

For a little more clarity.

Thanks for bringing this up!

Even if it were valid, saying "hey, it doesn't make anything worse than the Hyde amendment" is setting the bar pretty goddamned low. That's the best our brave new Democratic majority can do?

Fuck that.

I just figured out how this needs to be framed. If women need to purchase a policy based on her gender for a condition that she cannot possibly foresee if she will need to ever use, it is a tax.

to restrict women's access to abortion. That's what plays to their base. But this is the most serious Federal restriction on access to abortion, more restrictive than the Hyde Amendment, and it was done by the Democrats.

It is an outrageous betrayal.

It is also a dangerous precedent to say that your medical coverage can be restricted to appease someone else's moral objections. It is a precedent that could be applied to life-saving treatments developed through stem-cell research, to treatment of STDs, or to treatment of AIDS.

It normalizes discrimination as part of the health care system. Yes, so did Hyde, but this expands that discrimination, and it is being done by Democrats.

Wouldn't women still be allowed to have abortions paid by insurance if they buy their own?(Not that that's OK, but still...) I'm thinking I see people saying just the opposite here.:shrug:

The amendment does not forbid anyone from buying private insurance plans that include abortion coverage, as long as federal funds are not used for this purpose. Also, those with federal subsidies may purchase, with their own funds, separate coverage in the form of private insurance policies with abortion coverage to supplement their insurance needs. This obliges insurance companies to offer both versions of insurance -with and without abortion coverage.

http://www.examiner.com/x-9052-Orlando-Roman-Catholic-Examiner~y2009m11d8-Pro-Life-victory-the-Stupak-amendment-passed

You see, the way the exchange is structured (as of now) any policy in the exchange may be purchased by those using subsidies. Therefore no policy in the exchange can offer abortion coverage.

if I use the exchange to purchase my medical insurance, but still want abortion coverage, I can't buy it privately simply because I'm also using the exchange system? That doesn't seem to be what the referenced article is saying. Thanks for your help, 'cause I'm more confused than usual.:hi:

In reality though, I don't expect insurance companies to offer it. The pool would be small - after all, no woman expects to need an abortion, because they are a response to an UNexpected event - and the premiums would probably be too expensive for the neediest to afford (on top of the portion of the premiums, deductibles and co-pays that they'll already have to pay). And don't forget women and daughters who are covered under their husband's/parents' policy.

And on the larger principle, again, why should women be singled out as having to pay extra for a procedure that is legally comparable to any other medical procedure, just because a few people find it morally objectionable?

That's why...certainly not because it's right. This isn't a new way to handle things...just a different way to do the same old thing. Women don't have much voice in what is done to them or for them. Not yet, anyway. Maybe the HCR arguments will unite us into a loud speaking voice that will have to be heard.

Right??

That's what hurts so much about this bill. I'd expect something of the sort from a Republican-controlled congress.

Tell me what's the point of a woman voting for Democrats if they do the same damn thing? How is this better??

(Yes, I know, rhetorical question - a publican controlled congress wouldn't HAVE an insurance reform bill. Still, I'm not feeling any warm fuzzies for the Dems today, either.)

**edit to close tag!**

who are suffering, it will be ignored.

Like everything else having to do with poor folk.

just like they waited for the vote, still wait for the ERA and equal pay for equal for work. Isn't that always the way it is. Self righteous men shove something into a bill that effects women without the consent of women. I do have to thank all the women I heard during the debate who spoke against it. Oh well, I guess a new generation of women will discover why some of us were called screaming, raging bitches in the 70s when all we wanted to have control over our own lives without being trapped behind walls. The Stupak Amendment basically says that reproductive women's bodies belong to the government.

Stupak Amendment


The federal government can do whatever it wants regarding limiting payment for abortions; it is legal. Period.

reform in it's tracks? My answer is no. Believe me, I wish the Dem senate/congressman had more spine but they don't.

I'm pretty firm in my commitment that the Stupak Amendment will stop my active support of Democrats, should it be included in the final bill.

DEFENDED by people here on du because: oh, it just reinforces the hyde amendment, or relax, it will be stripped out, or gee, some people really do find abortion objectionable, or women, just shut up, because you aren't really important.

that kind of crap I expect from repukes. it sickens me to see it on what is supposed to be a board of democrats. to all of you who in any way support this bill, or justify it, or pretend it isn't important, I say F*** You.

:applause: