The Straw that Breaks the Camel's Back (Stupak-Pitts)

by nikkid, Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 06:38:45 PM EST

As a pro-choice woman who has voted and supported candidates who are pro-choice for decades, the Stupak-Pitts amendment that just passed through the house in the HCR bill is unacceptable and will be the straw that breaks the camel's back for me regarding my votes and support of the Democratic party in the future should it come to pass.

If Barack Obama actually SIGNED this into legislation, I would leave the party for good and never look back.

The Stupak-Pitts amendment sets a woman's right to choose back decades. There is no healthcare reform worth passing that sets back someone's legal, civil rights. More than half the democratic party is made up of women. Most of those women are pro-choice. If we cannot depend on our own elected law makers, who said they were pro-choice to back us, then who are we to trust? It is the equivalent of saying "If you are a pregnant woman, this plan cannot pay for your medical treatment". Huh? Why? Being pregnant isn't illegal. And neither is abortion. What is the purpose of choosing to discriminate against this segment of the population? It is SEXIST and it's unbelievable and disheartening that it was introduced by a "Democrat", no less.

mcjoan at Daily Kos posted an excellent diary outlining exactly what women would loose should Stupak-Pitt pass:

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

I cannot support "healthcare reform" (if you can really call it that) which will take women back into the alleys with coathangers. We fought too long and too hard for this and to think it could be a DEMOCRAT that forces us back into the dark ages is unthinkable to me.

Stupak-Pitts reeks of sexism. If they truly were concerned about fetuses, then they would have also written into the amendment that viagra and all erectile dysfunction medication cannot be covered either. If they really did not want abortions to occur they could have written into the amendment that contraception should be free. Or vasectomies are free. Or that sex education should be implemented. But - no - they went right for the jugular, and it is only women who will suffer should this pass.

I am pleased to see that at least 41 house democrats (mostly women) have vowed to vote against any HCR that puts access to abortion for women in jeopardy.

http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/health -care/obtained-in-letter-to-pelosi-41-ho use-dems-pledge-to-vote-against-bill-wit h-abortion-amendment/

Tags: abortion, Congress, Health care, obama, Pelosi, pro choice, reform, Senate, stupak pitts (all tags)

Comments

62 Comments

Sort by

permalink

Stupak-Pitts

and just as I hit submit, I see Charles posts "The Stupak bomb". Yes, folks - this is a bomb and it may take a day or two to sink in, but when liberal women realize they've just been sold down the river I believe THAT will be the "hell to pay".

by nikkid 2009-11-12 06:43PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Stupak-Pitts

My suggestion to Stupak is to have his bill as a separate piece of legislation rather than as an amendment to HCR.

It has nothing to do with Health Care or Health Care Reform, no need for it to be in a HCR bill.

by vecky 2009-11-12 07:33PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Stupak-Pitts

It didn't hit me until today what a mess this really is. It is a complete affront to values of the Democratic Party.

by Charles Lemos 2009-11-12 09:46PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Stupak-Pitts

As I said to Natasha Chart over at Openleft, welcome under the bus with us gays! High fives!

But seriously, they assume you have no other place to go and will vote for them regardless. This view, like many in DC, resists evidence like the outcome in Virginia where the base did not show up.

by bruh3 2009-11-13 06:20AM | 0 recs

4a2fab88-ed3b-47a4-8f14-3ec8a24504ac_normal

permalink

Re: Stupak-Pitts

I made a comment over on dkos, first one in months about it... amazing how in the span of a month, with abandoning gay equality, inserting anti-abortion language into the healthcare bill, and a surge of troops in afghanistan... the democrats will have pushed under the bus the base of GLBT, single-women, and anti-war urban progressives. I know there's a couple other significant parts of the '08 coalition, but that's a disaster, as '09 shows.

by Jerome Armstrong 2009-11-14 04:28PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Stupak-Pitts

As I've pointed out before, shit like this is the legacy of Rowe. The Progressive's Pottage.

by SuperCameron 2009-11-13 05:04PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: The Straw that Breaks

Based on recent comments by Clyborn I don't suspect the Stupak Amendment language will be in the final bill.

By the way, can we please make sure Stupak loses in 2010. At least we'll know what we are dealing with if a Republicans wins.

by RichardFlatts 2009-11-13 06:53AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: The Straw that Breaks

No chance on the second part. Stupak's CD is not something up for challenge. Too isolated and entrenched. Maybe a Republican could win in '10 though.... but this is probably his way of defending that from happening-- yea, he could give a flip about other consequences.

As to whether his language makes it in, who knows, too early to guess, its gonna be a power play.

by Jerome Armstrong 2009-11-14 04:23PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: The Straw that Breaks the Camel's Back

I understand where you're coming from. It's a horrible amendment. But with 50 thousand people a year dying for lack of health care I would probably support getting the bill passed and then finding another way to fund abortions. Maybe we would pledge to place any donations we would have made to Democrats into such a fund.

by Drummond 2009-11-13 09:25AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: The Straw that Breaks the Camel's Back

the problem with this thinking is that we are talking about a civil rights issue. an issue that is a core value of the democratic party and that is women's rights and healthcare. It is equal to, let's say, a small group of white people writing an amendment that stated "african americans with sickle-cell anemia will not be covered under this plan". One could argue "oh well - not that many AA's have sickle cell anemia - so for the good of all and covering more people, let's just give in". Why would this be okay? there's nothing illegal about having sickle cell anemia so - why would anyone agree to legislation that singles out a group of people? The Stupak-Pitts amendment takes AWAY a civil right that belongs to women.

Furthermore, you have to realize that the vast majority of progressive women (keeping in mind women are the majority of the dem party and most of those are pro-choice) would be so angry at the democrats for this betrayal, they would not re-elect them and certainly would not support Obama's re-election. Is THAT worth having a truly crappy health care bill?

by nikkid 2009-11-13 09:35AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: The Straw that Breaks the Camel's Back

You misunderstood Drummond's comment. Let me paraphrase: " I am willing to throw you under the bus." The rest is window dressing.

by bruh3 2009-11-13 10:39AM | 0 recs

permalink

You do yourself no favors

with comments like this.

by JJE 2009-11-13 01:15PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: You do yourself no favors

I have no illusions about the people who post here anymore.

by bruh3 2009-11-13 03:20PM | 0 recs

permalink

okaaay

weirdness aside, whether this odious amendment is enough to merit opposition to a bill that is otherwise an improvement on the status quo is a question on which reasonable pro-choice people can disagree, and caricatures like "omg join us under the bus" don't contribute much. Also "under the bus" is a cliche that should be avoided like the plague.

by JJE 2009-11-13 04:55PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: okaaay

You know. This is kind of the problem . Who do you think you are going to convince with these arguments?

I am not even particularly interested in the abortion issue, and I am not buying your argument because it is not compelling or emotionally convincing. There are other options. But you set up these false choices, and what? No one is suppose to notice that the other options are being excluded or how quickly people go there in terms of saying " I am willing to sacrifice you"?

A lot of women take the position of going pro choice extremely seriously. Without having one study to prove your claim, you have decided that a lot of them will accept your argument. And if they don't? Well those are the unreasonable ones.

You know what- It does not matter if you think they unreasonable. If they don't show up to vote, donate money or organize, you still lose.

by bruh3 2009-11-13 05:16PM | 0 recs

permalink

I see the problem

Drummond and I are concerned with whether the bill, despite its major flaws, is nonetheless better than the status quo. You are more interested in whether it's politically popular and emotionally satisfying. Two different things.

by JJE 2009-11-13 05:22PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: I see the problem

Incorrect. I think the bill will pass without this odious amendment. Indeed, I am pretty certain it will since it requires 60 votes to be added to the Senate bill.

What this conversation demonstrates is not my concern over the over a bill. It reflects the mindset of being willing to sacrifice others that is a real problem.

Rather than sticking up for core values, while also passing the House bill- what do you do? You are willing to entertain the choice of compromise where it is not necessary. That in a nutshell sums up the first year of the Obama administration perfectly.

by bruh3 2009-11-13 06:17PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: I see the problem

I am sorry. I just can't handle it anymore.

YES. This amendment is an affront to Progressive Values. Hell, it is an affront to Democratic values. And YES, I think you are right that this ammendment will ultimately find its way to the trash heap on which it belongs. All of these things are true. Now, I am going to tell you something else that is true- not everything that passes is going to be perfect and for every major piece of legislation that passes somebody is going to get a raw deal. It is the reality of politics. I am as pissed about this as you are but I am so tired of the superiority complex and the demands for purity. If you think you can do it so much better. If you think you could traverse the legislature and make the tough decisions then run for public office and take your shot. Otherwise stop pretending it is always as simple as you seem to think it is.

by JDF 2009-11-14 05:33AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: I see the problem

You don't get it, and you never will.

You are not going to get voters to vote for you by telling them they are purity trolls. You need our votes. So you just get on playing those games, and see what happens.

by bruh3 2009-11-14 06:52AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: I see the problem

Better yet, maybe we should just stop arguing about a hypothetical we all agree is unlikely to become reality, and cross the bridge only in the extreme unlikelihood that we have to.

For my part, it's not about throwing anyone under the bus. If the bill passed with the amendment I would be more than happy to donate anything I might have donated to Democratic candidates to a fund for women who would be without abortion coverage. And I once health care is passed, I would make it my personal priority to repeal not only Stupac, but Hyde - something long overdue anyway.

by Drummond 2009-11-15 02:22PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: I see the problem

And the way, JDF, like many who post here you seem confused. I am a voter. It is not my job to be responsive to politicians. It is their job to be responsive to me. This is not my issue so I will not vote based on it. However, I imagine Democratic women voters for whom this issue is important that they will vote, organize and donate money based on similar things that they care about. I also imagine that they are not quite a stupid as some of the posters take them to be regarding the options that were available to the Democrats. So, you just keep on trying to spin. First, it does not matter because honestly I doubt this will pass. Second, if it does pass, no amount of you trying to demonize those who disagree with the decision will convince them to vote, organize or give money to you. That's the reality that is the basis for why what you say here is problematic. If this is truly the mindset of the Democratic leadership, they won't be in power for very long.

by bruh3 2009-11-14 06:58AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: It is their job to be responsive to me.

Actually it's a tiny fraction of their job to be responsive to any individual voter. In the cas of the President, it's about 1/50,000,000th of his job.

by QTG 2009-11-14 09:17AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: It is their job to be responsive to me.

the point I am making is pretty plain. Don't bitch when voters are made at you for not giving them what you promised to give them. If you say you are pro choice, don't call them purity trolls and/or say you are willing to throw them under a bus without fighting becaue "there are other more important things" etc. a) This does not seem to be Obama's position and b) those who make it hear really seem confused again about who is suppose to be responsive to whom. Voters are not obligated to vote for Democrats. It is as simple as that. All these name calling etc seems to confuse what democracies are about.

by bruh3 2009-11-14 09:50AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: It is their job to be responsive to me.

I don't argue that we are all free to vote or not for whomever we please, including write-ins. I was merely pointing out how mathematically insignificant each individual vote is.

I stipulate that we are each free to vote as we please.

by QTG 2009-11-14 09:58AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: It is their job to be responsive to me.

I don't know how many there are. I just think it is stupid to piss of your base for something that is avoidable. Certainly, the lecturing to that base about how they should get over it is not the smartest political analysis I have seen.

by bruh3 2009-11-14 11:08AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: It is their job to be responsive to me.

Pro-choice women are approximately one quarter of the electorate or about half of the democratic voters. This is no small minority group. Add in men who agree with pro-choice. Figure it out! Piss off this group at your peril.

by Marjoriest 2009-11-15 01:12PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: I see the problem

Bruh - the notion that this is not your problem is part of the problem. The whole point of movements and coalitions is that in order to go forward, they accept that problems of others in fact also become problems of theirs. The 2008 party platform identified the issues which all Democrats agreed would be problem of all of theirs, and Stupak is inconsistent with that platform.

by Christy1947 2009-11-14 05:28PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: I see the problem

My point is that I do not feel the emotional connection to it, which is simply true.

by bruh3 2009-11-14 05:43PM | 0 recs

permalink

Yep

Bart Stupak is willing to sacrifice others. The rest of your comment is irrelevant moral posturing with no bearing on reality.

by JJE 2009-11-15 11:41AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Yep

I will repeat: You seem confused about who needs to be responsive to whom.

by bruh3 2009-11-15 01:01PM | 0 recs

permalink

I will repeat

you seem incapable of writing a responsive comment.

by JJE 2009-11-15 03:41PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: I will repeat

I am not stupid enough like most Democrats to someone to falsely define the terms of the debate. The relevant issue is not what you are saying, but what you are saying in the context of the greater universe around it.

Perhaps, that's the problem. You expect someone to just accept whatever rules you create, and ignore the bigger picture of what you are saying. That's not going to happen with me. So you post as many tree level points as you like, and I will continue to see the forrest.

The forrest here is you are denigrating the base, and thinking this is somehow a smart strategy either for passing good policy or electorally. In both cases, you are wrong.

by bruh3 2009-11-15 03:56PM | 0 recs

permalink

I never said anything

about electoral strategy. Or that this was a good policy. You are incapable of thinking about anything except your personal obsessions, which is why your posts are so rarely productive or persuasive.

by JJE 2009-11-15 04:14PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: I see the problem

Another thing to consider is that the majority of women whose coverage would be impacted by the amendment don't have coverage now. I imagine those women would rather have coverage without abortion coverage than no coverage at all. So it's a fair question as to whom is being thrown under the bus.

by Drummond 2009-11-15 02:25PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: I see the problem

Fact check:

"I really think it would be impractical," says Robert Laszewski, a health insurance industry consultant....

Laszewski says the problem is that by all estimates, the vast majority of people who will be shopping in the new exchanges will be getting subsidies, so they won't be allowed to get abortion coverage. Thus, if a health insurer did offer a separate plan with abortion coverage, it would only be available to a small universe of buyers, and it simply wouldn't make much business sense.

"It's not an ideological issue, it's not about abortion or not abortion," Laszewski says. "It's about what is administratively simpler, easier to administer. It just adds a level of complexity they will likely avoid."

Sara Rosenbaum, a health lawyer and professor at George Washington University, agrees that it's impractical to expect health insurance plans to cover abortion in the exchanges, even for people paying the full premiums without federal help.

"If you speak to insurers in the industry, they will tell you that they simply can't operate under these circumstances," Rosenbaum says. "They need to be able to offer standard products that get administered in a standard way for everybody."

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/ statements/2009/nov/09/nita-lowey/lowey- says-stupak-amendment-restricts-abortion -cov/

by bruh3 2009-11-15 04:01PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: The Straw that Breaks the Camel's Back

Well, if you want to play that game, I guess I can interpret your stance as "I am willing to throw 50 thousand poor people under the bus."

But where does that get us?

by Drummond 2009-11-13 01:30PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: The Straw that Breaks the Camel's Back

I am going to go out on a limb to say that those are not the only two options available to us.

by bruh3 2009-11-13 03:22PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: The Straw that Breaks the Camel's Back

I agree. But I'm encountering pro-choice advocates who are saying they would sink health care reform over the issue. I'm not ready to go there.

I think Stupac will get burned in conference and the other votes scared into shape. I hope so anyway.

by Drummond 2009-11-13 03:30PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: The Straw that Breaks the Camel's Back

The better response is that Stupak will fail rather than "screw you, get under the bus!" But ,that's just my view, and I could be making myself look bad by pointing that out to you.

by bruh3 2009-11-13 03:39PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: The Straw that Breaks the Camel's Back

If the amendment is stripped out in conference, and no replacement compromise is reached, Stupak will be the one screaming he's "been thrown under the Bus".

by vecky 2009-11-13 07:31PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: The Straw that Breaks the Camel's Back

Since his views are not the party platform, it would be extremely difficult for him to make that argument.

by bruh3 2009-11-14 07:07AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: The Straw that Breaks the Camel's Back

I don't think logic and reasoned argument matter very much. He's not about to take his licks and go quietly, why should he....

by vecky 2009-11-14 09:18AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: The Straw that Breaks the Camel's Back

That's fine if that's the option. I think and hope it will be.

by Drummond 2009-11-13 11:49PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: The Straw that Breaks the Camel's Back

I think it will be. I think one of the issue is the tendency to go "oh well, that's it. That's the best we gonna get. Let's compromise now because that's all we going to get." it becomes a self determining outcome. It is one of the reasons I am so against the pre-compromise approach to negotiation. Perhaps, you will end up with less regardless of what you do, but you should not assume it, and then proceed to burn the base as a result of what is essentially speculation.

by bruh3 2009-11-14 11:10AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: The Straw that Breaks the Camel's Back

I haven't seen that tendency here. However, on other forums I have seen people attacking the Democrats who voted for the House Bill on the basis that they should have sunk the bill because of the amendment. I hope we both agree that it was necessary to get the bill passed and into conference.

by Drummond 2009-11-15 02:28PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: The Straw that Breaks the Camel's Back

Of course I didn't say that.

by Drummond 2009-11-15 02:26PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: The Straw that Breaks the Camel's Back

By the way, just to be 100 percent clear- the construction of the choices is the problem.

by bruh3 2009-11-13 03:26PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: The Straw that Breaks the Camel's Back

Louise Slaughter, the co-chair of the Pro-Choice Caucus in the House, basically said the same thing about why she and others supported the bill even with the ugly amendment included.

"We'll live to fight that battle. It took a hundred years to do health care. Nothing can dim that."

That doesn't mean we should stop fighting on this, but it's not unconscionable to support the bill at this point. It's worth remembering that the original Social Security bill that was passed left a LOT of people behind in order to appease racist members of Congress. I imagine we would have been having much the same debates back then.

by Steve M 2009-11-13 01:24PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: The Straw that Breaks the Camel's Back

Whoever has this history of who was thrown under in that year on a racist platform, and what was said should post it.

by Christy1947 2009-11-14 05:31PM | 0 recs

permalink

Most of the New Deal

left out minorities to please the racists.

In order to pass Social Security, Democrats had to agree to leave domestic servants, almost all of whom were black...those were the demands of Deep South Democrats, many of whom voted against Social Security anyway, but it did win enough support to pass.

Unions banned black members in the 1930's. This came at a time when blacks were still voting Republican, they had flipped to the Democrats DURING this time.

by ND22 2009-11-14 07:46PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Most of the New Deal

When that happened it was not a regressive act, but enforcing the status quo. To compare a bill that would regressively take away rights to policies that were never given in the first place is to not understand what is occurring.

by bruh3 2009-11-15 04:02AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: The Straw that Breaks the Camel's Back

If there's a good public option in the bill, it's certainly worth losing elections over.

I think the women who would be affected should be consulted - asked, "would you prefer to have coverage with no abortion covered, or would you prefer to have no coverage at all?"

It's easy to take a principled stand if you already have coverage.

That's just my view. Eventually I'd like to see the Stupac amendment and the Hyde amendment together in the dustbin. But there are enough Americans, many Democrats, who don't want to pay for abortion that this amendment has become politically feasible.

I hope the final bill is free of this thing. But were I in Congress, I wouldn't sink the whole thing for a principled stand which is going to hurt the very women we're fighting for. Get the programs into place then fight like hell to fix them.

by Drummond 2009-11-13 01:36PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: The Straw that Breaks the Camel's Back

If there is a public option which excludes reproductive care (abortion) and the Democrats lose control of Congress, are you not concerned that a new Congress would gut the legislation or otherwise water it down? This would be particularly easy before the law goes into effect. Then where would we be? I wouldn't be so cavalier about losing the congress.

Also, I find your disdain for principles troubling. This is a problem we encounter with the bourgeoisie- because they have never had to fight for anything, they have no respect for the importance of standing by your principles. This is what was very effective for the republicans- they might be crazy, but you know where they stand and they will fight to the death. We need that attitude in the Democratic party.

I don't know if you fall into the bourgeoisie, but your views reflect this class.

by orestes 2009-11-14 10:20AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: The Straw that Breaks the Camel's Back

Whoever came up with the theory that the best way to ensure base enthusiasm is to attack that base seems to be double downing. I expect a lot of whining about how purist the base is over the next few years as this strategy starts to harm electoral outcomes. Rather than realizing that the base are not obligated to donate money, provide their vote or organize for the party, the opposite conclusion has been reached: Why should we give into them. They need us. This position is confused because the reality is that whether that is true or not, they almost certainly need us to stay in power.

by bruh3 2009-11-15 01:07PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: The Straw that Breaks the Camel's Back

I don't know if you fall into the bourgeoisie, but your views reflect this class.

I don't know either. I don't think those terms have a lot of meaning in the 21st century. My father was a union carpenter and my mother was a teacher. I am a professional, but I had to work jobs through school and between all semesters to get through. I know what it's like to be without a job, and what it's like to be without health coverage. Even now I can only afford very crappy coverage for my kids, my wife, and myself. But I prefer microbrew to Budweiser, I do like to drink lattes, and I do put arugula on my sandwiches, so maybe I'm bourgeois.

But let me take a crack at the concept. There are currently tens of millions of women who cannot afford coverage. If those women were faced with the choice of coverage sans abortion coverage and no coverage at all, which do you think they would take? I'm pretty sure they would take the latter. Most working class people would.

by Drummond 2009-11-15 02:38PM | 0 recs

permalink

when someone starts ranting

about the bourgeoisie, it's best to just let them get back to the bong.

by JJE 2009-11-15 04:13PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: The Straw that Breaks the Camel's Back

With no disrespect intended to you, nikkid.

I spent a decade working in high schools, in the richest areas and in the poorest ones. In the rich areas, there are very few kids having kids. It's not because they're having less sex or using more protection; it's because they have doctors and parents with money and 3/4 of them who become pregnant just get an abortion.

At the poor schools, it's not that way. They don't get regular doctor visits, their parent's don't have money. 3/4 of them carry to term. That's how it is now.

That's exactly how it will continue to be under Health Care Reform. Abortions cost money, but for a "middle class" family, even paying out of pocket is more than possible. Even if HCR passes with Stupak, that's millions of poor young moms who can see a doctor. It's working poor parents who won't have to choose (like I did) between paying the heat and paying the $150 bill for their child to see a surgeon (he wound up not needing the surgery, thankfully).

I realize the right of insurance companies to sell overpriced abortion coverage feels like dirt in the face, but that's all it is--dirt in the face. Abortion will stay as it is: a convenience for the well-off. Not perfect, but no different. Please rethink your perspective.

by SuperCameron 2009-11-13 05:17PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: The Straw that Breaks the Camel's Back

I totally agree with you. I have no illusions who can right now afford and not afford abortions and how even right now their access is restricted - but - that's not the point. The point is that these 2 males (stupak-pitts) from the C-Stree Family (all men - read here)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fellows hip_%28Christian_organization%29

have somehow been allowed to come to our party and pass an amendment that goes against the core values of the party which is a platform to protect and stand with pro-choice women's rights. If a republican offered this - would anyone even flinch? no. These are DEMOCRATS who know damn well what the platform is. So in a political manuever to pass HCR - the democrats were willing to set back women's rights.

If we cannot trust the lawmakers whom we elected to protect us, then who can we trust?

by nikkid 2009-11-14 05:28AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: The Straw that Breaks the Camel's Back

Much worse than dirt. It's not only the poor girls who populated these posts who are affected, as if being poor made it more acceptable. it's the notion that the purpose of HCR is to make care more available and affordable for all, not including those poor girls, and it is precisely the most vulnerable, those poor girls, who will be worst affected. Also all the middle class women who may be called upon to consider the issue when their pregnancy goes off and there is no health of the mother exception, and no insurance coverage available. They may not find that out until they are in hospital and after trying everything else, their doctor says the A word, and they say they have no money for it and they are escorted out of the hospital.

Being abstract, how can you take the position that women should be happy for men who get unqualified coverage without exclusions, and seniors who don't need the service, at the cost of their being required by law to buy a policy which has absolute exclusions for something which may well happen to them. Because they are women. And because only women in fact get pregnant. A permanently, legislated, second class position which is bound to expand as the definition of 'abortion' expands to cover anything affecting a zygote, the current conservative position, and then what flows out of that. For a program which says it doesn't want insurance companies between patient and doctor, except for them, where the government has taken the position formerly occupied by the insurance company. Your decision that this loss by women is minor essentially reflects the determination that it does not matter to you and therefore you feel free to dump on those who disagree as 'selfish.' You are not the one being turned away at the hospital or clinic door. You are not the one giving up the rent, or going to the low cost back alley. You are not the one being stereotyped by this statute as a ho for the crime of being young and female and pregnant.

This country in this matter is the last home of the belief in the general experience of the immaculate conception, with all other participants excused without penalty. And you are prepared to have that enacted into law if that's what it takes to get what you want paid for with taxpayer money.

by Christy1947 2009-11-14 05:44PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: The Straw that Breaks the Camel's Back

The whole point of HCR is to make universally available acceptable and affordable health care. Poor women have been mentioned here, but they are not to get such care, although they are the ones most in need of it, excluded from it because of a condition which only affects women, who are the only ones that can become pregnant. In no small part because of the notion that poor women are hos, immoral and such, and should be punished for that, but in a way which picks up and punishes all poor women, and creates a permanent second class status for all women of child bearing age, people whose only available policy intentionally excludes a natural condition, and which exclusion will be expanded as conservatives push for the definition of abortion to include anything that can affect a zygote, and the additional consequences that spin off from that expansion. It will also pick up those you may not wish to include, middle class married women whose pregnancies go off the rails and for whom all treatments other than the A one mahy be covered, no help when their doctor mentions the word and they are escorted out of the hospital because they cannot pay cash for it, as there is no exception for the health of any mother, not just the allegedly ho'ish poor women and girls whose need for punishment for their status is the basic prejudice driving this.

And this nation is also the home of the peculiar notion of the general experience of the immaculate conception, the notion that no one other than the pregnant woman should be punished for the existence of the pregnancy or the need for an abortion procedure, all others being excused out without comment.

You wouldn't take a second class policy for you. You get a free ride on this one. Why should the rest of us accept this because you think you're not involved and therefore want what you want, no matter what the cost to others.

by Christy1947 2009-11-14 05:53PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: The Straw that Breaks the Camel's Back

I have a second class policy now. Actually, it doesn't even rate second class. But I would take it over no coverage at all.

by Drummond 2009-11-15 02:39PM | 0 recs

permalink

Very Well Said

Christy1947.

by nikkid 2009-11-15 08:28AM | 0 recs