Via John Cole, here comes Stupak:

An aide to Rep. Bart Stupak (D. Mich.) coordinated opposition to a Senate compromise on the place of abortion in health care legislation this morning with the Republican Senate leadership, the Conference Catholic Bishops, and other anti-abortion groups, according to a chain of frantic emails obtained this morning by POLITICO. The emails show that Stupak who has so far remained silent on language accepted by Senator Ben Nelson (D. Neb.) and faces intense pressure from the White House to accept it is already working behind the scenes to oppose the compromise.

While John goes apoplectic, I am not surprised. In a sense, Stupak is being principled. He wants to ban abortions being offered in the Exchanges. Nelson's "compromise" does not do that. We'll see what happens.

speaking for me only

< Cost Containment | Saturday Night Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    NOW STATEMENT VS BILL (5.00 / 5) (#10)
    by azhealer on Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 01:21:01 PM EST
    NOW President Condems Compromised Health Care Bill;
    Women's Access to Abortion Care Traded Away

    Statement of Terry O'Neill, NOW President

    December 19, 2009

    The so-called health care reform bill now before the Senate, with the addition of Majority Leader Harry Reid's Manager's Amendment, amounts to a health insurance bill for half the population and a sweeping anti-abortion law for the rest of us. And by the way, it's the rest of us who voted the current leadership into both houses of Congress.

    The National Organization for Women is outraged that Senate leadership would cave in to Sen. Ben Nelson, offering a compromise that amounts to a Stupak-like ban on insurance coverage for abortion care. Right-wing ideologues like Nelson and the Catholic Bishops may not understand this, but abortion is health care. And health care reform is not true reform if it denies women coverage for the full range of reproductive health services.

    We call on all senators who consider themselves friends of women's rights to reject the Manager's Amendment, and if it remains, to defeat this cruelly over-compromised legislation.


    I'm with her. (5.00 / 4) (#18)
    by dk on Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 02:16:25 PM EST
    I'm with you and her -- and NYS (5.00 / 5) (#20)
    by Cream City on Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 02:28:29 PM EST
    which is not happy with some of our best girlfriends in the Senate on this.

    It's not a small club (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by cawaltz on Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 03:11:59 PM EST
    I guess the Senate is feeling lucky. It figures it will be able to hold onto women's votes dispite treating them like second class citizens.

    As much as I appreciate (none / 0) (#24)
    by dk on Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 03:19:20 PM EST
    the good things Barbarba Boxer has done in the past, if she votes for this she should be unseated in 2010.  It's a shame that at the end of her career she would be participating in this backward step for women's rights and the rightward movement of the Democratic party. It's going to be a very shameful end to her career.

    This should put the nail into the coffin (5.00 / 4) (#25)
    by cawaltz on Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 03:24:00 PM EST
    of the idea that the Democratic party is anymore pro woman then their Republican counterparts.

    This is far from the first nail (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by Cream City on Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 03:28:13 PM EST
    in that coffin.  I count many, many more in the Dems hammering down on women.

    From AP (none / 0) (#27)
    by dk on Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 03:30:17 PM EST
    States would be permitted to ban insurance coverage of abortions in policies sold in the exchange, except in cases of rape, incest or when the life of the mother is in jeopardy. In states where such coverage is permitted, consumers must notify their insurance company they want it, and pay for it separately.

    So, the Democratic party is going will be single-handedly responsible for enacting a bill into law stating that poor women either effectively can't have control over their bodies at all (in states that deny them insurance) or will have to go begging to insurance companies to let them have full insurance.  


    and pay extra? (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by nycstray on Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 03:33:02 PM EST
    No provision for health (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by MO Blue on Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 03:37:34 PM EST
    of the mother. So if it just has long term negative effects on a woman's health, it is A-O.K.

    No room for HEALTH of mother in HEALTH bill (none / 0) (#59)
    by Ellie on Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 06:21:37 PM EST
    There's more horrifying stuff pretty much every time I look, but this is still the hallmark of everything that's wrong in the other gazillion pages.

    The failure of this POS to change that, or even the Dems to bargain that change from Stupak / Nelson et al, is more than enough proof for me that the DINOsaur view of women as 2nd class citizens (barely people, at that) is the official view of Obama's Dems.

    The fact that they're not even batting an eye about that but scurrying to swarm anyone not rushing to wrap this cr@p in a bow and call it a gift to "poor people" disgusts me.

    And in passing, I wonder what kind of actual pain fmr Prez "I Feel Your Pain" Clinton, who's cheerleading this POS, would feel if his heart health depended on the garbage he's trying to jam down on others.


    and what about the life of the baby? (none / 0) (#29)
    by nycstray on Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 03:34:54 PM EST
    Are states (none / 0) (#34)
    by Steve M on Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 03:56:16 PM EST
    not permitted to pass such legislation under current law?

    Not sure how this is relevant (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by dk on Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 03:58:14 PM EST
    to my comment.  Even if that's true (I don't know if if is or not), just because some backward state did it doesn't justify the national Democratic party doing it too.

    Doing what, though? (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Steve M on Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 04:04:11 PM EST
    Permitting states to pass laws that they're already permitted to pass?

    First of all, the existence of (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by dk on Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 04:06:32 PM EST
    a federal law as opposed to just state law could have impact on future potential court decisions on the subject, as I'm sure you know.

    Forgetting that, my point was that the national democratic party, through enactment of a federal law, has now thrown its support behind the anti-choice policies that may exist in certain states.  No denying that if this bill is passed.


    Okay (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by Steve M on Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 04:10:20 PM EST
    as long as we're in agreement that the status quo is not being changed, I have absolutely no problem with your criticisms of the status quo.  I'm not happy with the status quo on women's rights either.

    The political status quo (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by dk on Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 04:12:37 PM EST
    is most certainly changing.  The Democratic party on the national level will now be on record as being more anti-choice and anti-woman than it was before this bill is passed.  Further, it is probably more likely that more courts will produce anti-woman decisions than before.

    Why are we surprised... we only have to recall (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by suzieg on Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 11:22:43 PM EST
    his hollow words after the primaries:

    According to Rep. Yvette Clarke, D-N.Y., Obama then said, "However, I need to make a decision in the next few months as to how I manage that since I'm running against John McCain, which takes a lot of time. If women take a moment to realize that on every issue important to women, John McCain is not in their corner, that would help them get over it.


    boxer (none / 0) (#102)
    by jedimom on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 06:51:53 AM EST
    not only will she VOTE for this, she helped CRAFT this

    see her stmt in Politico PRAISING the abortion 'compromise; today

    As reproductive rights groups blast the abortion compromise, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) is standing by the deal.

    "We respectfully disagree with their assessment of this compromise," spokeswoman Natalie Ravitz said in a statement to POLITICO. "As Senators Boxer and Murray said in their statement, this compromise ensures there is a firewall between private and public funds, and does not prohibit women from using their own private funds for their legal reproductive health care."

    Boxer's affirmation of the deal, which she personally approved Friday night, suggests abortion rights supporters in the Senate are also likely stay on board, even as every group from Planned Parenthood to NARAL announces opposition.

    Meanwhile, back at the ranch... (5.00 / 5) (#47)
    by Anne on Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 05:12:38 PM EST
    I mean, the White House, there has been no statement or comment or anything has there?  No unqualified support of health care for women, no chastising of attempts to do an end-run around Roe v. Wade...nothing.

    I can't help but think that if NOW had not been so quick to support Obama in the first place, if it had thrown its support behind the candidate who really supports women, maybe they would have had a president who thought women had an unqualified right to the health care they need; we'll never know, I guess.  But let's also remember that these were the same people who backed Lieberman.

    But that's all in the past, so all NOW can do, um, now, is issue statements.  Ooooh...as if that's going to make a difference.

    Marry in haste, repent in leisure.  Live and learn.


    I want EVERY group with members for/against Obama (none / 0) (#67)
    by Ellie on Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 06:55:04 PM EST
    ... to be scolded for supporting Obama and being betrayed before yet another women's group is slagged for the double-plus suckage of continuing to be trashed after the two year attack on feminists.

    I hope there's a moratorium on this, at the very least, until the same level of scorn is heaped on anti-racism groups, other HRW groups, environmental groups, collective bargaining groups and onwards.

    The routine, gratuitous attacks on anything with b00bs that moves is becoming as bad as the Smack a Liberal Dunk Tank that became all the rage during the Bush / Cheney Right is Might era.

    NOW did nothing wrong that any other group the Dems wrangled to bring Teh One to power.


    Logical conclusion of caving (none / 0) (#94)
    by sallywally on Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 10:47:18 PM EST
    into every demand of the right wing and of standing behind no promises or for anything.

    The right wing has outfoxed them once again and boxed them into a corner they can't get out of, in an area of significance, politically and historically.

    Now what does someone do who just wants to be everyone's Rorschach blot?

    I'd love to be a fly on that other Dem candidate's wall about now....


    Lindsey Graham: (5.00 / 4) (#17)
    by andgarden on Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 01:43:45 PM EST
    "I dont always agree with the Catholic church, I'm with them on the right to life but I don't agree with them on the death penalty."

    Uhhhh. . .

    Oh, come on, you know how this works... (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Anne on Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 05:21:07 PM EST
    it's the whole "innocent life" - the unborn - vs. "evil," which makes killing criminals okay.  

    Also applies to terrorists.


    hahahahaha! (none / 0) (#45)
    by Salo on Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 04:55:00 PM EST
    what a construct.

    There's a lot about Lindsey that is (5.00 / 0) (#48)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 05:16:13 PM EST
    a construct.

    Well Justice Scalia sez the Chirch doesn't really (none / 0) (#63)
    by DFLer on Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 06:35:32 PM EST
    mean it re the death penalty prohibition.

    No dog in this fight, but this mangy mad dog (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Ellie on Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 02:51:37 PM EST
    ... that they keep trying to pass off as the adorable puppy Obama promised in the ObamaCare brochure wouldn't inspire Michael Vicks.

    Surely NO ONE's surprised at the Stupak - Pitts - Nelson - Casey Jr. media medley to kill women, their pre-natal slut fetuses (and post-partum slutty kids).

    Sperm/Egg hardline lifer Casey Jr. will go from abortion rights to targeting contraception and springboard to sexual health-related pharm (like AIDS-related care).

    uh oh they better not do that (5.00 / 4) (#23)
    by cawaltz on Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 03:14:01 PM EST
    it might cause some of the progressive bloggers to send them a sternly worded letter(because after all voting for their opposition would make them a republican mole-or so I hear)

    Dems' Bitter Half already got finger-wagged (5.00 / 4) (#39)
    by Ellie on Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 04:08:33 PM EST
    ... on that count by many of the same self-appointed offda-bus-tossers who sped up the Obama Express by using Racist-Feminist-Lady-Detector Wands.

    I absolved myself of all responsibility for the 200-Million Dollar clunker that still can't move out of the parking lot. But then, I liked the the wheezing old partisan / issues way of holding various feet to the fire BEFORE election day.

    This savvy, crack multi-tasking team of activists that haughtily lectures the under-bus'd who won't push, while emphatically sending off of a sternly-worked letter is a far better example of how the Dems roll.


    What are called? (5.00 / 4) (#32)
    by Florida Resident on Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 03:38:14 PM EST
    Blue dog democrats??
     I remember all the sh*t I got for saying that these so called moderate democrats are just as bad as the republicans during the primaries.  I was told that we needed more senators with D's behind their name so we could get the 60 votes to stop filibustering by the republicans.  Well.......

    So, all men are created equal... (5.00 / 7) (#43)
    by goldberry on Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 04:43:08 PM EST
    ...but only some women are, depending on their socio-economic status and geographic location.  
    Is that right?  
    Just want to get it straight so I can steer my two daughters from living in those states.

    Nebraska (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by jedimom on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 06:54:58 AM EST
    hey I hear NE has great Medicaid starting in 2017 wiht no state costs!, maybe MEN can move there and all women will wind up in NY...

    NARAL threw us all unda da bus when they endorsed O over HRC, we knew then our concerns meant nothing


    Now this (5.00 / 3) (#51)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 05:32:25 PM EST
    How can I actually even attempt to be forced to entertain the opinions of others to this degree when I am the one who has to be utterly and completely responsible for every child I give birth to and they can just walk away with absolutely no legal or moral responsibilities whatsoever to any child they force to be born?  I'm so sick of this I could just puke.

    They have their Stupak, (none / 0) (#1)
    by andgarden on Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 12:50:46 PM EST
    but I'll bet you Bob Casey is going to whip this hard in the PA delegation. I don't think there are many House Dems who will really walk away with Stupak. And there are a few "no" votes from the last round left to be caught.

    Here's the bigger issue with Stupak (none / 0) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 12:50:57 PM EST
    Can he REALLY kill the bill in the House? Unlike the Senate's phony 60 votes mantra, the House REALLY does require 218 votes.

    I assume Stupak is a firm no (none / 0) (#3)
    by andgarden on Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 12:55:21 PM EST
    and Cao probably goes with him. But who else? I am sure that House leadership can flip Artur Davis from no to yes (he thinks he can be Governor of Alabama. . .)

    Looking at the list, there are Dems who can be cajoled.


    I have no idea (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 12:57:20 PM EST
    I'm glad I do not have to do the vote counting.

    With no public option?

    Not an easy sell.

    If I was a Progeressive Blocker, I would say if I have to swallow Stupak, I need a public option. Back to reconciliation.


    The Progressive Block is wet newspaper (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by andgarden on Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 12:58:36 PM EST
    Please, sir, can I have S'mores? (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by Ellie on Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 04:12:33 PM EST
    Donald, please ... I won't dis your pineapples if you leave innocent marshmallows out of this.

    I can barely look at them as is.


    At this point.. (none / 0) (#6)
    by TheRealFrank on Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 01:11:31 PM EST
    I believe that enough Democrats have a feeling of "let's pass this thing and get on with it" that Stupak can grandstand all he wants, but won't get enough support.

    The Republicans today do seem to think that harping on abortion is their last chance to kill it, since they have been all abortion all the time today.

    We'll see (none / 0) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 01:13:54 PM EST
    Looks like the bishops are ready to start excommunicating folks.

    Excommunication, schmexcommunication (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by goldberry on Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 02:22:55 PM EST
    Martin Luther said it was no big deal way back in the 16th century.  
    It's hard to believe this threat still works. If the Church were really rigorous about enforcing it's own proscriptions against BC and abortion, half the parishioners it has would be excommunicated.  

    Bob Casey, Jr. is a certain yes (none / 0) (#8)
    by andgarden on Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 01:17:41 PM EST
    I agree with Frank: this is probably unstoppable now.

    220-215 (none / 0) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 01:20:29 PM EST
    You lose Stupak and Cao off the bat.

    You guys are way too sanguine considering the PO is already out.

    This loses votes from two different groups.


    I hope the conference committee (none / 0) (#11)
    by andgarden on Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 01:22:36 PM EST
    takes that threat seriously. IMO, they're going to get this through come hell or high water.

    Explain to me how (none / 0) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 01:24:21 PM EST
    I think you are probably right but I would like to hear about the path.

    I think the House has a bag of procedural (none / 0) (#13)
    by andgarden on Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 01:27:55 PM EST
    tricks for just such a situation. I expect, if needed, a Potpourri of self-executing amendments, messages, and divided questions.

    If I were still a Catholic, you'd be (none / 0) (#100)
    by oldpro on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 12:18:09 AM EST
    speaking for me, Donald.  Even so...well done.

    The Republican news conference earlier (none / 0) (#14)
    by andgarden on Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 01:33:42 PM EST
    was a hoot. Saxby sez: "Roe v. Wade was very clear on taxpayer funding of abortion."

    Heh (none / 0) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 01:36:13 PM EST
    I admit that I'm not sure I understand (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by andgarden on Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 01:42:14 PM EST
    their objection. They keep saying that there's federal money for abortions, but I don't understand how they arrive at that. I think they object to allowing the framework to facilitate the sale of abortion coverage. In other words, they want to "gag" the exchange, and it doesn't have anything to do with money at all.

    I've only (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by Emma on Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 05:22:14 PM EST
    been saying this for weeks.  Every time I brought it up, it was pooh-poohed.  But, hey, I guess it's your idea now.

    I wonder (none / 0) (#52)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 05:43:46 PM EST
    Is there a way to start a private foundation that pays for abortions?  Is there such a thing that exists right now?

    I think (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Emma on Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 05:45:43 PM EST
    it's called Planned Parenthood.

    I'm not aware of Planned Parenthood (none / 0) (#56)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 05:56:48 PM EST
    providing free abortions.

    Doesn't PP (none / 0) (#60)
    by Emma on Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 06:27:35 PM EST
    provide subsidized health care?  

    Yes, subsidized by contributions (none / 0) (#62)
    by Cream City on Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 06:35:30 PM EST
    depending upon need.  MT, pls see comment above, rather than me repeating it and blogclogging. :-)

    Planned Parenthood stinks. I tried helping a (none / 0) (#97)
    by suzieg on Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 11:32:22 PM EST
    friend's daughter who had been living on the streets, prostituting herself for drugs.  

    I took her to planned parenthood for a gynecologic exam and was charged over $400 + parking even though she had no money to pay for it and wouldn't see her unless I paid up. Since then, I've stopped supporting them!


    Margaret Sanger thanks you (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Cream City on Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 05:46:01 PM EST
    and welcomes your contributions to the organization that she founded, Planned Parenthood.

    What is so sad is that so little has changed since she founded it almost a century ago.


    And Planned Parenthood speaks (5.00 / 3) (#55)
    by Cream City on Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 05:54:17 PM EST
    to point out just some of the problems with the Nelson and Stupak Amendments.  To which I would add that the separate abortion coverage means that credit card companies, and every one with access to those records -- which is everyone these days -- will know that a woman has taken out the separate rider specifically for abortion.  Employers, husbands, family members, stalkers. . . .


        "Planned Parenthood strongly opposes the new abortion language offered by Senator Ben Nelson in the manager's amendment. Last week, the Senate rejected harsh restrictions on abortion coverage, and it is a sad day when women's health is traded away for one vote.

        "The Nelson language is essentially an abortion rider. It creates an unworkable system whereby individuals are required to write two separate checks each month, one for abortion care and one for everything else. There is no sound policy reason to require women to pay separately for their abortion coverage other than to try to shame them and draw attention to the abortion coverage. Moreover, it is highly unlikely that insurance companies will be willing to follow such an administratively cumbersome system, leaving tens of millions of women without abortion coverage.

        "After the passage of the Stupak amendment in the House, we heard loud and clear from women across the country that they will not stand for the undermining of their rights and their access to benefits. This Nelson abortion check provision will no doubt create the same outrage, as women learn that they are being made second-class citizens when it comes to health care coverage.

        "As many members of Congress and the president believe, Planned Parenthood does not think that health care reform is the forum to litigate abortion policy. Unfortunately, opponents continue to use abortion as a political wedge at every step of the reform process.

        "There is no policy reason for this action, it is simply a political maneuver.  We understand that leaders in the Senate and the White House want to move the process forward, but given this provision, we have no choice but to oppose the Senate bill.  Planned Parenthood will now work with leaders to fix the abortion coverage language in conference."


    Last I heard, Planned Parenthood (none / 0) (#57)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 06:02:58 PM EST
    provides the lion's share of abortions in this country.  But they aren't free.  The last one I heard details about was first trimester and it was before RU486 was legal in the U.S.  Since RU486 does not bring on abortion in all cases and a D&C must be preformed, the cost of that must be getting very large.  Planned Parenthood isn't free though when it comes to abortion.

    And, what does a dose of RU486 cost (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 06:05:42 PM EST
    at Planned Parenthood and isn't it time that nobody had to come up with money out of pocket?  Isn't it time that whenever anyone walked into Planned Parenthood......it could all be free?

    Reid's Plan B isn't the one in Casey Jr's sights (none / 0) (#88)
    by Ellie on Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 08:35:22 PM EST
    Reid's, (previously oulined here) in the Health "Coverage" boondogle, isn't what Casey Jr will target once Nelson hands over the baton in the "pro"-life relay race to doubly penalize women for having female plumbing.

    I thought PP was sliding scale. (none / 0) (#93)
    by oculus on Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 10:08:25 PM EST
    They even charge full price for birth control (none / 0) (#98)
    by suzieg on Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 11:36:08 PM EST
    pills, no discounts  for anything - this is not an organization that poor women can afford to go if they have no money.

    Not in my city (none / 0) (#99)
    by Cream City on Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 11:42:12 PM EST
    so I'm sorry that yours is not the same.  Get involved with it and change it.

    Correction (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Cream City on Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 06:34:33 PM EST
    Of course, it's not free to all.  It uses a sliding scale based on income -- or lack of it -- and other assets.  So it's free for some, it's more for more, and it's full cost for others.

    But keep in mind that as a nonprofit, full cost at Planned Parenthood still is less than elsewhere, at least at the rare for-profit medical centers that perform this operation.  Most, of course, do not do so -- and thus the need for women to have to go to these separate clinics without the safety and security of hospitals.

    If men had to go to -- and go through gauntlets to -- separate clinics for their operations, having their pictures taken when they did so (perhaps under the sign saying "Penile Problems Here!"), imagine the outcry.  Of course, it just never would happen, because our society is what it is toward women.


    I do keep in mind that Planned Parenthood (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 06:45:16 PM EST
    is a nonprofit.  I also do not consider a hospital procedure to provide more safety and security than a Planned Parenthood procedure does.  If you want me to incorporate a to the door limo services for women arriving and leaving I could work on that :)  Planned Parenthood....because it is nonprofit and is literally in the trenches fighting every day, really has cost control down too.  I won't be pushed up against the wall though by people like Stupak and friends.  If they get this legislation through in this day and age I think some of us should begin to work to remove all cost anxieties that those who seek abortion face.  There should be consequences for Stupak actions.......we have enough people with enough wealth concerned about this, that with the cost control that Planned Parenthood provides we should be able to come up with a foundation that pays these bills!  If Stupak gets this, abortions should be made easier to get in the United States for women.  I would work for this.

    I wonder what other services we could (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 06:51:01 PM EST
    throw in if we really wanted to.  How about quality vetted childcare for women during procedures?  This would provide more women with anonymity within possibly hostile community too.

    Some of us do day care (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by Cream City on Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 07:02:34 PM EST
    and it definitely can be done -- as it has been before.  MT, you would enjoy (it's a weird verb choice, but empowerment is enjoyable:-) the book Jane about the famous clinic by that name in Chicago that housewives and college students ran until Roe v. Wade.  I'm hanging on to my copy, you can bet, in case we need that blueprint again to run our own underground clinics, the way things are going in this country.  And under the Dems, yet.  There is so little hope for women with either party.

    Definately something I need to (none / 0) (#73)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 07:29:58 PM EST
    find and buy for myself!

    A genius idea (none / 0) (#69)
    by katiebird on Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 06:57:13 PM EST
    I would work with you on this.

    If we get stuck with this (none / 0) (#76)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 07:46:12 PM EST
    and it gets shoved down our throats, we have something to do then.  I'll hunt you down on the net....you hunt me down, and we can go from there in a direction to enable some of the things we'd like to see happen.  I just found this article on Slate, and it comes from the intent to  save health-care reform and that isn't where I am coming from, but someone has traveled this mental road.  I'm coming from an intent that there needs to be Stupak consequences.

    Okay, just for point one (none / 0) (#70)
    by Cream City on Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 06:59:20 PM EST
    hospitals definitely provide more safety and security.  They have their own security forces, they often have facilities built for or equipped with security locks and the like (while PP clinics often are just former storefronts) -- and believe me, from defending clinics, they do not have the support of local police that hospitals do if they have problems.  Can you even imagine a hospital being effectively shut down by hundreds of protesters waving signs and harassing women and their defenders, us, while police just stood by?  That's what happened in my city to clinics.  It would not be allowed to happen at hospitals.

    This, separate stand-alone clinics, is just some of what Margaret Sanger had to concede to get what she got for us at all. . . .


    I don't fear such people (none / 0) (#74)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 07:39:29 PM EST
    They may annoy, but they will not stop me.  You've never met Dr. Hern at the Boulder clinic have you?  I met him in person when I was 20 years old.  He was one of the most empowering people for young women to get a lecture from that I have met in my lifetime....whew.  And when he has a few young women who appear to listen he doesn't waste the opportunity.  At his clinic though I did not feel that any of us were in danger even though we had protesters there.  He told us stories of good days and bad days, but how many hospitals won't provide abortion services because of the extra dangers involved?  I think it could at times be easier to provide security when everyone on the field is in the same game and we know we could have something dangerous take place.  At a hospital you have many people coming and going for many procedures.  It may be hard to know who is having an abortion but if someone is intent on harm I don't know if a hospital is safer.

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Steve M on Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 07:45:04 PM EST
    imagine the scenario of a woman who has suffered a miscarriage and needs a D&C, having to push through a mob of screaming protesters outside the local women's clinic because the hospitals don't perform that procedure.  Not a great situation.

    How would that be handled (none / 0) (#77)
    by nycstray on Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 08:06:08 PM EST
    in states that prohibit abortion coverage in the exchange? Does a woman have to wait until her life is threatened by infection? Will these states even have reasonable availability of services?

    Well (none / 0) (#80)
    by Steve M on Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 08:09:22 PM EST
    I don't think a D&C is illegal anywhere if the fetus is not alive.  It's more a question of access, given that so few doctors are trained to do the procedure any more.

    Perhaps not illegal (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by nycstray on Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 08:20:45 PM EST
    but covered?

    lack of access and trained Drs is and will be a prob.


    Dunno (none / 0) (#85)
    by Steve M on Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 08:27:09 PM EST
    might depend on policy language, but my gut says probably covered in most cases.

    Such miscarriages though (none / 0) (#78)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 08:06:52 PM EST
    are not a Planned Parenthood service that I am aware of.  They are emergency situations.  Trust me, I had a horrible one at 18 weeks.  That is a medical emergency room situation in every hospital in this country.  It can be very very dangerous.  Mine was, I was hemmorhaging terrible, I could have died if I had been any later getting there.  I was treated in an E.R. by an emergency on call ob gyn who was wonderful enough to hold me after I came out of a mild anesthesia while he did the D&C that ended the hemmorhaging.  Not fun, but adequate because pregnancy always poses risks and I did later have Joshua and his problems are not due to anything I previously experienced.

    It depends (none / 0) (#79)
    by Steve M on Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 08:08:14 PM EST
    not every miscarriage is an emergency situation...

    Based on what? (none / 0) (#81)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 08:14:19 PM EST
    When my daughter was spotting at 8 weeks her doctor sent us right to the emergency room.  She went twice before the spotting stopped and the pregnancy seemed less fragile.

    My niece's wasn't (none / 0) (#82)
    by nycstray on Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 08:19:28 PM EST
    They discovered lack of heartbeat and then scheduled her for a D&C.

    She currently just did 2 hospital runs last week for spotting (she's due end of Jan). One she was sent home on bed rest, the other was an overnight with a monitor and drugs. She's back home and as mom says just fine, she's walking the dog :)


    Both times with my daughter they (none / 0) (#86)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 08:30:02 PM EST
    first checked for heartbeat, once that was confirmed they did some other testing.  She went to the emergency room to establish heartbeat though and if it wasn't confirmed I'm sure she would have been scheduled for a D&C if after being seen by a doctor she was deemed not an emergency.  But what doctor sends their patient to an abortion clinic when they suspect a miscarriage is occuring or for their D&C when they are in the midst of miscarraige?

    Based on our own experience (none / 0) (#84)
    by Steve M on Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 08:25:45 PM EST
    You were sent to an abortion clinic (none / 0) (#87)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 08:31:01 PM EST
    for miscarriage services?  I would get a different doctor immediately.

    I don't understand (none / 0) (#89)
    by Steve M on Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 09:24:05 PM EST
    are you giving medical advice?? there was no bleeding, the fetus was dead, we were presented with options.  this is really not what I wanted to talk about tonight.

    I have never heard of anyone (none / 0) (#90)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 09:37:27 PM EST
    having to receive the kinds of services that that requires at an abortion clinic.  Those things in my experienced have been handled by the ob gyn's who were onboard for the pregnancy.  And if someone needs emergency miscarriage care, I don't think abortion clinics are prepared to deliver such care and I have never heard of anyone being encouraged to go to such a place to receive such care.  I have played a part, though not in the administering of medical services portion, of quite a few abortion procedures.  I was always pro choice....since high school, and you could always rely on me to be there, drive you, spend the day with you if I could.  Every abortion clinic I've been in provides abortion services but did not provide emergency care services to those they weren't preforming abortions for.  In Billings once, one patient...though not who I was with, ended up being transferred to the local hospital that day due to complications.  It scared other patients because abortion is relatively safe, but of course isn't always 100% safe.  It is all very scheduled and planned though in a clinic, or at least all those that I have been to.  I have been to four separate clinics, none in the South though.  I guess I'm too old to have many friends who need such services now.

    They are women's health clinics (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by Cream City on Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 10:48:45 PM EST
    and not all PP clinics even perform abortions.  Plus, the rightwingers like to call them all abortion clinics, so let's not do so.

    Many offer the full range of women's health services, and their ob-gyns can handle miscarriages and much more.


    I suppose I'm disappointed (none / 0) (#101)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 05:45:57 AM EST
    in any doctor who would send a miscarrying patient to a clinic facing abortion protesters.  I personally may still choose to attend such a clinic because I can deal such things fine, but obviously this is an extremely emotionally damaging experience for some.  I will not say that people can't protest though.

    MT, these are not necessarily (none / 0) (#104)
    by Cream City on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 10:49:54 AM EST
    women and girls who have doctors.  They get sent to clinics by ERs, or they come on their own, or . . . the complexities of their lives would clog a blog.

    I'm sure that they would (none / 0) (#105)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 11:23:01 AM EST
    I had a face to face with my first abortion protester though when I was seventeen years old.  That was 27 years ago and the protesters aren't going any place if anybody hasn't noticed. So either we all toughen up, because it isn't like we aren't all wise to the facts of the American life we lead......or we don't force people to have to seek services for miscarriage at clinics that provide abortion services.

    Okay (none / 0) (#91)
    by Steve M on Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 09:40:53 PM EST
    Like I said, it wasn't an emergency.  It's been 4 years, I'm pretty sure everything is going to be okay.  Let's talk about something else.

    As far as I can tell (none / 0) (#65)
    by Steve M on Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 06:48:36 PM EST
    abortion riders are pretty much mythical anyway.  Very few people think in advance "hey, I might need an abortion, I better look into getting insurance for it!" and thus insurance companies don't offer it due to lack of demand.

    So of course, these provisions are ridiculous and demeaning, but in practice it doesn't mean a stalker will know that you have an abortion rider.  In practice it means none of these new insurance policies will cover abortion.


    There are those problems with it (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Cream City on Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 06:55:58 PM EST
    too, but please don't tell me that you think identity theft -- stolen records for credit cards, banks, insurance companies, hospitals -- is not a problem!  I know several people who have had such records hacked.  And in one case, it was by a stalker (and you can find, as I have, other cases).

    Of course it is (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Steve M on Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 07:06:28 PM EST
    I'm just saying if this "separate payments" thing never happens in reality, because insurance companies never actually offer abortion riders, then no one is going to find out about the separate payments.  That of course doesn't mean the lack of insurance coverage is a good thing, of course!

    Thank you. (none / 0) (#92)
    by oculus on Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 10:06:05 PM EST
    P.S.  I think Stupak is a great name for Stupak.