Progressive Failure: The Cost Of "Health Care Reform" To Women

Natasha Chart:

Under the Senate [health bill,] which makes abortion part of the initial purchasing decision, a woman's employer, male partner or parents can all potentially prevent her getting insurance coverage for it, whereas now, it usually doesn't come up because most private plans just cover it. Now, of the one in three women likely to need an abortion in her life, millions of women never have to have that conversation. Under the current wording of the health bill, that second check is the federal spousal and parental notification law that never managed to pass.

[. . .] If you still want to pass this health insurance reform bill, and I understand why so many people do, understand the cost. Somewhere, right now, he's taking her lunch money, and this bill will let him force her into motherhood, too.

This is the price of the exchanges. There was another way.

Speaking for me only

< Acknowledging Progressive Failure On The Health Bills | Progressive Failure: Ezra Klein Says "The Blue Dogs Won" The Health Bills Negotiation >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Obama (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 08:38:20 AM EST
    truly has a conservative view of women. We're supposed to be continually submissive and "take one for the team." Tell me again, why anybody should show up in November?

    Frankly, IMO, if it were just (5.00 / 4) (#4)
    by dk on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 08:51:14 AM EST
    Obama, it wouldn't be as pernicious.  He's gone in a maximum of 6+ years.  The entire leadership of the Democratic party is on the hook for this.  Pass the bill or don't pass the bill, but there is no denying now that the both major parties are anti-choice.  It will be interesting to see how this development effects the gender gap among voters.  

    Oh, (none / 0) (#5)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 08:56:31 AM EST
    I agree but the fish rots from the head down IMO and the fact that they won't stand up to Obama on this issue shows where they are too.

    Sure, but even if Obama were gone (none / 0) (#7)
    by dk on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 09:03:58 AM EST
    tomorrow you would probably have the same result.  By and large, Obama is a symptom, not the disease.  The leadership of the party in general is anti-choice.  That they knew Obama wouldn't mind signing anti-choice legislation is probably among the reasons they chose and backed him to run.

    64 House Democrats (none / 0) (#48)
    by cawaltz on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 04:41:57 PM EST
    that's almost 1/4 of the coalition, voted for Stupak.

    We were a little better in the Senate except the majority leader there is pro life so even though Nelson's amendment FAILED they rewrote the crap and included restrictions in the health bill.


    The Dems are that dead rat behind the wall (none / 0) (#55)
    by lambert on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 06:34:25 PM EST
    We can either wait for the stink to fade, or tear down the wall.

    It's not the Dem leadership, it's the entire party apparatus, root and branch, top to bottom. FAIL.


    November? (none / 0) (#59)
    by norris morris on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 06:21:43 PM EST
    I'm a woman who's aware of Obama's contempt for our hard won rights as he's shown no compunction about destroying settled law like RoevWade.  And our elected women representatives
    who got their jobs because they were supposedly pro-choice are too ashamed to vote, and the scheme hatched to protect their cave in is  a contemptible act.  Everyone's hiding.

    Since we've been deemed irrelevant by denying  our rights to equal protection and choice, we women just can't  vote for these callous cowards who've given us the shiv.

    After fighting for women's struggles for reproductive freedom,privacy & equal protection
    for decades it is hard for me to realize that
    this last end run on Roe destroys decades of progress. By Democrats.

    Obama calculates that we have no place else to go, and he doesn't need us anyway.  We'll see.


    The subtext of the (5.00 / 5) (#3)
    by observed on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 08:50:02 AM EST
    people who want to pass the bill so that those poor, poor women will get SOME health care is that icky nasty abortions are NOT health care.
    It's just an ignorant view.
    I don't have a uterus and I know better than that.

    Case in point (5.00 / 4) (#36)
    by Spamlet on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 12:21:48 PM EST
    This comment from yesterday:

    Seems to me lots of relatively rich people are fighting over the uteruses of poor women. Seems that most of them could care less about the rest of their bodies, which are currently uninsured.

    Such comments also ignore types of health care that are not abortion but do involve procedures that the ignorant might confuse with abortion (for example, a D & C to remove a dead early-term fetus).

    I'm continually amazed (but shouldn't be) by how some "progressives" never tire of using "the poor" as a reason for telling middle-class women to sit down and STFU.


    Abortion (none / 0) (#60)
    by norris morris on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 06:59:56 PM EST
     The subtext on this HCR that affects millions of women is cruelty.

    The known statistics are that 3 million abortions occur each year. Probably more.

    So we really should send every member of the White House, The Cabinet, The House, and the Senate a coathanger.


    On the plus side (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by DancingOpossum on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 09:11:43 AM EST
    Remember how we're always told to shut up and be good little women and vote for the Democrat, no matter how lousy, because otherwise ROE will be overturned???

    Guess that one won't fly anymore.

    Justice Stevens is retiring probably (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by magster on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 09:28:23 AM EST
    the Supreme Court argument is still a good one.

    The problem is this. (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by dk on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 09:31:48 AM EST
    Democrats will continue the argument, and will probably continue to appoint justices who would not overturn Roe v. Wade in its entirety.  However, they will also probably continue to enact anti-choice legislation (for example, this health care bill) that will continue to erode Roe v. Wade, and Casey, until those decisions are rendered completely meaningless on a practical level.

    sort of (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by CST on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 09:39:26 AM EST
    as I see it, it's not that Roe v Wade is gone entirely.  It just becomes a blue state vs red state thing.  Blue states will always have access, but if you live in a red state you will be up the creek.  There is no federal right to an abortion.  But it will remain in some states.

    But that's the whole point of (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by dk on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 09:41:23 AM EST
    Roe v. Wade...i.e. creating a federal right to equality.  Saying it's a Blue State vs. a Red State thing is the same thing as saying that Roe and other pro-equality precendents have been gutted.

    yea (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by CST on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 10:05:08 AM EST
    the sad thing is, we're kind of there already.  

    What I was trying to say is, it may not be illegal, but there is no access, which essentially accomplishes the same thing.


    And now the Democrats are (5.00 / 5) (#22)
    by dk on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 10:08:53 AM EST
    further codifying this concept through the health care bill.  Thus my point about how we now have two anti-choice parties.

    Your Problem (none / 0) (#61)
    by norris morris on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 07:09:29 PM EST
    is that the Democrats will probably?  Probably? Do what?
    They haven't the spine or the will to have demanded a public option and put up a fight that matches the rhetoric they use to get elected.

    Obama and the rest compromised it all away in the backrooms from Obama all down to the halls of congress, and you expect these cowards, these jackals to fight for women AFTER TAKING AWAY the rights already given them in settled law?

    This is totally naive wishful thinking and a limp excuse for destroying many rights already constitutionally given to women regarding equal protection, the right to privacy and choice.

    Giving cover to these weaklings [both men and women in congress] is unsupportable on the basis of: It's ok to take away women's rights because ya know we'll probably. Do What?

    The only thing to do to these two faced faux liberals is to vote them out.


    Both Parties Are Anti-Choice (none / 0) (#67)
    by norris morris on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 09:05:59 PM EST
    Women's rights got closed down by Democrats who were too weak to fight for PO and other issues they claim as dear.

    They have disgraced themselves as has Team Obama
    in allowing settled constitutional law to erode RoevWade and the message is that they don't care.

    We have been used as political pawns because it's a hot button issue that caving on gives this pack of weaklings the strength they lack.

    Make no mistake, many women will die. Unwanted children will be born. Rape and incest will be harder to make a case for. Illegal abortion, self abortion, infections and death will be as they were when I fought for RoevWade.  Before Roe women were even denied contraception in many states.  In fact Obama thinks our bodies belong to the State.

    I thought slavery was over in America.  But our Conservadem President has joined with the right of the DNC, and his appointment of DNC Chair is a conservative Democrat who is anti-choice.

    So it took Democrats to abolish the progress made from decades of fighting,protesting,donating,organizing,launching legal efforts,lobbying.

    It won't be easy to get back.  It will take years, if ever.

    So Obama has finally become truly bi-partisan. Both parties are anti-choice and deny women equal protection, self determination and privacy, and the right to choose.


    Not really (5.00 / 5) (#15)
    by DancingOpossum on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 09:34:13 AM EST
    The Democrats voted to confirm Roberts and Alito. So no, the SCOTUS argument doesn't work anymore either. The Dems won't protect women's rights, as anyone should have foreseen when Obama made a pro-lifer the head of the DNC.

    Maybe - Maybe not. (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 10:54:44 AM EST
    I don't think we have any idea where Sotomayer stands on the question of abortion.  Frankly, I'm not sure that I believe that Obama holds the right to women's health services particularly high on his agenda.

    A worry I saw early-on (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by KeysDan on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 12:33:30 PM EST
    was the apparent realignment of the Democratic coalition soon after the election.  The president's efforts to resuscitate the then Republican corpse and to ignore key parties of the alliance was troubling. The  tactic of keeping progressive components of the coalition at bay was in tune with a tactic of cautious roll-out, especially to avoid abrupt decreases in fund raising and premature increases in noise. God, guns, gays, and abortion were apparently seen as the banes of the Democratic party and its prospects for enlarging the party so as to grab independents and the old fashioned Republicans.  The new Republican party would be the left over wingers.  The cavalier treatment of women's heath care in health insurance reform fits into this "new party" vision, in my view.  And, as BTD and Greenwald point out, they feel it is a "like it or lump it" matter, a little counterintuitive in the maintenance of a coalition, and worse, implemented with the assumption that other members of the coalition not directly affected will join in with the false hope that they will not be treated the same in way and the coalition will remain strong.

    Obama;s Democrats (1.00 / 1) (#66)
    by norris morris on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 08:48:02 PM EST
    Will be the new conservative middle right party. He is remaking the party in very obvious ways that cater to corporate power, financially entrenched power, and compromise on almost all core principles that Democrats have coveted.

    Everything he has done is not quite enough. Now he is demagogue in chief as he fires up the rhetoric without giving a single detail or a single truth.  His positions are and will be Democrat Lite.  He has capitulated and joined the most regressive group in the party.

    here is little difference between Drmocrat Lite and Republicanism.

    Obama and Rham's disdain of liberals has been loud and clear. Rham wants nothing to do with them
    and the rest of the opportunists from Daly's Chicago Political mob want a new imprint for the party.

    This is not how Obama was sold, and it's not what he says. He doesn't do as he says. Basically his vagueness and aloofness are a matter of style with no substance, but he is being led by Oprah Group Think with a dash of Axelrod and Jarrett, all former Daly followers who worked in  Chicago politics, as did Michelle  who worked in City Planning.

    So screw the liberals, the progressives. Where else can they go and they have no real money or power.

    Unfortunately we will be seeing more of the New Democratic  Party


    DUH! (none / 0) (#62)
    by norris morris on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 07:14:16 PM EST
    Anyone having any respect for women's rights and who purports to being liberal let alone progressive that allowed this to happen is an enemy of women and their rights to self determination.

    We have been treated like irrelevants by NOW, Planned Parenthood, POTUS, and  the entire Democratic Party.

    It's indefensible.


    No (none / 0) (#16)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 09:37:12 AM EST
    at this point it makes no difference if they put another pro choicer on the bench. They still won't have the votes to uphold Roe v. Wade.

    It's going to end up going back to the states and they are going to have to battle it out.


    The votes are there (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by magster on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 09:49:07 AM EST
    Kennedy, Stevens (or Obama's replacement), Sotomayor, Ginsberg and Breyer.

    As long as Kennedy hasn't switched, Roe is safe until 2013. If there is a surprise retirement in the Scalia block, than it's another vote. (Tangent: if Thomas knew his wife might personally profit from Citizens United ruling before the ruling, would that be scandalous enough for impeachment?)


    your tangent is not so tangential (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by noholib on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 10:19:48 AM EST
    Magster, I think what you raise as a "tangent" is actually a very important and central point.  Thomas must have known that the Citizens United ruling would benefit his wife 's outfit.  Is there an effective way to run with this on the national political scene?

    I hope CREW is looking at that (none / 0) (#27)
    by magster on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 10:26:12 AM EST
    CREW - good idea (none / 0) (#58)
    by noholib on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 11:28:24 PM EST
    Why don't you send your comment on to them?

    You assume (none / 0) (#23)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 10:09:08 AM EST
    Obama will be around until 2013 and he won't have a Republican Senate to contend with.

    I (none / 0) (#26)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 10:25:57 AM EST
    don't count Kennedy. I wouldn't be surprised if he voted to overturn it. I don't trust him one bit to not put forth a partisan vote after Bush v. Gore.

    It's possible but he joined the opinion (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by magster on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 10:29:01 AM EST
    specifically upholding Roe in the Casey decision.  He won't renounce his own position though he'd much more likely uphold further restrictions on Roe.

    Baloney Conjecture (none / 0) (#63)
    by norris morris on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 07:25:17 PM EST
    Stevens is leaving and considering Obama's appointment to Nat'l Committee, this is just prattle.

    Kennedy is an entirely unreliable as he is NOT a liberal. There is no way that this will for sure go the court now, and if so it will take years if it is heard at all. If Republicans win the WH or Congress you better believe there will as little sympathy shown woman as did Obama.

    We have just removed serious health and life issues from millions of women,and this was done by democrats spinelessly.

    By the time this ever might get to the Supreme Court in whatever administration, and by what group....millions of women will suffer and many will die of illegal abortions, self inflicted abortions, or no abortion when a woman's mental health and physical healtha re at stake.

    This will cause immediate damage to women's health, and produce profound mental,physical, and economic damage to millions. The poorest among us will suffer the most.

    Planned Parenthood, NOW, and other groups have backed down and done nothing and their support should be  non existent.  November can't come soon enough.


    The comments (5.00 / 4) (#20)
    by lilburro on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 10:03:22 AM EST
    on Natasha's post got sh*tty real fast.

    So here is what I want to know from the people who claim the abortion restrictions will "mostly affect the middle class" -

    The whole point of the insurance reform is to push people into the exchanges.  People who couldn't afford insurance (read:  POOR).  What makes people assume that people in the exchanges are going to be able to afford an out of pocket abortion when they need it?  I do not understand.  Are women now supposed to have a little abortion piggy-bank so that if they need one they can miraculously procure the hundreds of dollars necessary?

    But women who (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 10:44:17 AM EST
    won't be able to afford it under this bill aren't able to afford it now, either!

    In any case, as someone pointed out above, the problem with access to abortion isn't the cost, it's the availability of the service.  That's a far, far, far bigger barrier than the few hundred dollars the procedure costs.


    It is both. (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 10:50:33 AM EST

    Why shrink the middle class even more (5.00 / 3) (#40)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 02:43:02 PM EST
    -- and make women more of those who will drop out of the middle class?

    The cost of an abortion is not just the cost of an abortion in many states, even in my so-called Blue State.  For all but those of us living in the one corner left of the state with a few clinics (vs. 16 clinics across the state before the fundies came from around the country by the thousands and closed them), the cost has to cover several days of travel, housing to wait through the 24-hour rule, lost work days, possibly followup medical care, etc.

    The cost thus can go well over $1,000 and higher.  And for those having a hard time hanging onto being in the middle class these days -- and again in my state, for example, it is the third-hardest state hit in this economy, so that's a lot of people -- this could push a lot of women out of the middle class and into poverty levels.

    Then, at least, their rights -- and mine -- would matter?

    To argue that this matters only to the poor is is not a Progressive argument.  This is not even a Dem argument -- at least back in the day when everyone mattered, and every woman mattered, and everyone's and every woman's rights mattered.  

    And as the above discussion would suggest, I hope, this is not even a logical argument -- to argue for creating more poor.

    But thanks for giving me even more reason to not be one of a Dem today.    


    again though (none / 0) (#41)
    by CST on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 02:55:53 PM EST
    you highlight the fact that the real problem is access, not insurance.

    Even if it is covered under your insurance plan, you would still need to pay travel costs.

    I don't think anyone is arguing that this matters only to the poor.  I think what people are saying is that the anger and focus is on the wrong side of the issue.  That federal funding for insurance coverage is the wrong battle.  Not because it's not on the right side of the issue, but because  it doesn't actually affect the real problem - lack of access.


    Actually, the real problem with it (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 03:07:35 PM EST
    is a violation of women's rights.

    Yes, I used the problem of access to point out how high the costs can go.  But even in an area with better access, and even with a "free" or low-cost abortion at a clinic with a sliding scale, there can be additional costs, of course.

    Again, though, real Progressives and Dems would not be arguing costs or even access.  They would be fighting for women's rights -- as they claim to do in the Dem platform.

    Therefore, I can only conclude that anyone who claims to be a Dem but argues costs rather than rights is dishonest.  A liar.  


    Many "real problems" (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by huzzlewhat on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 04:00:59 PM EST
    Actually, the real problem with it is a violation of women's rights.

    The way I see it, there's no one real problem -- all the problems are intertwined and inextricable. Yes, lack of access, rather than legality, is probably the biggest challenge being faced by choice advocates these days, but... practically speaking, it's nearly impossible to increase access without being willing to tackle the other questions about the legality and rights of women. Because once you cave on the rights issue and make compromises, you then have ceded a whole bunch of ground that makes it nearly impossible to push back on the access issues.

    Any progress that is to be made towards greater choice for women must start from a bargaining position that takes women's rights and autonomy as a given. Just as all progress that has been made towards whittling away the ability of women to make choices has stemmed first and foremost from implanting doubt of that as a given in the public mind. The biggest step forward that the anti-choice movement has made is convincing people that a woman's right to make her own medical decisions isn't absolute.  


    True -- but on a law blog (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 04:53:24 PM EST
    one might hope that the legal argument would be deemed a real and even very significant problem.

    Apparently not so.


    I'm not really sure I understand this (none / 0) (#44)
    by CST on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 03:35:10 PM EST
    "Again, though, real Progressives and Dems would not be arguing costs or even access.  They would be fighting for women's rights"

    What exactly is the right?  The right to "in theory" have an abortion?  Because there is nothing in this bill that says you can't get one.  Or is it the right to actually be able to go out and get one if you need it?  Because then it's entirely about cost and access.  I am not really sure how you can seperate those things.  


    See Roe v. Wade (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 03:43:30 PM EST
    as I hear that it is the law of the land.

    Real Progressives, real Dems, would be working to see it made possible -- to expand access, in your terms -- rather than working to put abortion out of reach of even more women.

    Or look at it this way:  Access is your issue (and one of mine).  Access means more than making sure that clinics exist, that women can get to them and into them (past the fundie freeks).

    This proposed bill thus further limits access.  

    So oppose it.


    because on a practical level (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by CST on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 04:25:25 PM EST
    I don't see how it changes a d@mn thing.

    I ought to add that the #1 liar (3.66 / 3) (#43)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 03:08:52 PM EST
    in this is, of course, the #1 Dem.

    And all the campaign promises violated by this bill will come back to bite him.


    This affects everyone (none / 0) (#68)
    by norris morris on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 09:13:36 PM EST
    Yes, this is not a middle class or class war on the poor. This is war on the weakest among us:
    Women and children.

    All American women will be affected by this, and many unwanted children will be born. One may not pay for an abortion with one's own funds if a woman works for or receives Federal funds of any kind.

    This is a class war but it's war on The Second Sex.  All women. Even well off connected women are not thrilled with the illegal and immoral connotations [now law] of this backward, way backward step. And many well off women have feelings for their sisters in this.

    Obama has finally accomplished bi-partisanship as both parties now are anti-choice.


    Well (none / 0) (#33)
    by lilburro on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 11:06:48 AM EST
    this is true.  However, that callousness (not saying you're callous personally) is rarely stated honestly.  "We didn't help you before and we're not helping you now."  [This complaint is less about abortion access than the way so-called progressives are supporting the bill - acknowledge, as BTD is doing in this post, that on one of your main priorities you more or less failed.]

    Michelle Goldberg:

    Needless to say, uninsured women already lack abortion coverage. So the burdens of the abortion restrictions in health-care reform will fall mainly on the middle class. To say this is not to suggest that the concerns of middle-class women aren't important. Throughout his campaign and his presidency, Obama has promised that no one will lose the coverage they have right now. Given that most insurance plans now cover abortion, health-care reform is poised to break this promise.

    Keep in mind that the exchanges are supposed to expand over time.  And also that those entering the exchange are mandated to spend money doing so, and on top of this cost, separately pay out of pocket for an abortion or pay extra for an abortion rider, if offered.  Abortion becomes less affordable.

    But you are right, there's a lot of problems with abortion access in this country, many of which have little to do with this bill.


    Hey, don't (5.00 / 4) (#34)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 11:50:13 AM EST
    stick me with this: ""We didn't help you before and we're not helping you now."

    I'm totally opposed to restrictions on federal funding.  I'm with Martha Coakley, who said (before she melted away) that if the SC says it's legal, there shouldn't be restrictions on funding it.

    But I'm a realist, too. This is not going to change in our lifetimes.  If we really care about the problem of poor women unable to afford an abortion, then we need to work around it and start raising money to help them pay for it, seems to me.

    I'm also violently allergic to wild overstatements and distortions, whether they come from or side or the bad guys.

    This bill has zero practical effect on abortion, as far as I can tell.  In fact, one could argue that the expansion of Medicaid will make it more possible for low-income women to scrape up the cash for an abortion if they need one since they'll be getting more health care for themselves and any children they have for free or very little cost.

    I'm seeing very little rational discussion of this whole issue, just a lot of non-fact-based yelling and arm-waving on both sides.


    Ah, the Progressive bargaining position (5.00 / 3) (#51)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 04:56:53 PM EST
    that it's not going to change, not in our lifetimes, so why even try to effect change -- even if only for future generations, etc. . . .

    Thank heavens that this country didn't have such so-called Progressives around for a long time, or the Constitution would be a lot shorter without all those amendments expanding rights to the rest of us.


    It certainly isn't going to change in our lifetime (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by cawaltz on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 06:30:32 PM EST
    if no one is willing to argue for reproductive choice. You've got the right arguing anyone having an abortion is doing so as a means of birth control and at the same time undermining actual birth control and you've got the left going along with it for the most part.

    Most of the attempts at arguing women are best left to make decisions like choice have been lame and largely unsupported by the upper Democratic infrastructure who are more worried about being portrayed as baby killers then of fighting for women's choice.


    And you don't have to "start" (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 09:25:41 PM EST
    fundraising to make abortions and other health care for poor women more affordable.  

    Margaret Higgins Sanger started doing so almost a century ago, went to jail for it, had to flee the country for it, returned to keep fighting for it -- and for better birth control within women's control -- for decades and decades and decades. . . .

    So give to her organization, while you ponder how well that effort for almost a century has worked for us.  Bless her, but women doing the heavy lifting on such efforts on our own has let the parties off the hook, while we kept voting for the guys in those parties who put promises to us in party platforms but don't even deliver on those.

    Let the guys raise most of the funds for Sanger's organization for a change to keep women healthy.  But you can send a check, too -- to Planned Parenthood.


    I'm not sure it has (none / 0) (#39)
    by lilburro on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 01:58:25 PM EST
    zero practical effect on abortion.  For ex., say I have an individual plan now that covers abortion.  I could buy a cheaper plan on the exchange, but then I'd have to buy an abortion rider.  Which brings what Natasha is saying into play:

    a woman's employer, male partner or parents can all potentially prevent her getting insurance coverage for it, whereas now, it usually doesn't come up because most private plans just cover it.

    so what do I do?  I guess this is the middle-class problem.  

    Possible problems include non-exchange private plans dropping abortion, or the exchanges expanding without changing abortion-related regulations.

    You may be right about Medicaid and affording an abortion.

    The major problem IMO with the making of this bill  vis a vis abortion was that the validity of the Hyde Amendment was never discussed.  I would like to see it re-evaluated, but that's going to require its own massive effort.  Liberals want public healthcare and pro-choice policy, but currently getting both of those is impossible.  If  we could turn the clock back to Jan 2009, I would have wanted to see more discussion about this conflict.


    Ding Ding Ding (none / 0) (#50)
    by cawaltz on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 04:53:45 PM EST
    Not a single Democrat took the position that Hyde was allowing special treatment. There was no discussion on why this particular procedure deserved the special status it has. The bargaining started from the middle premise that Hyde was reasonable.

    Gyrfalcon, You Wrote (none / 0) (#52)
    by daring grace on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 06:02:45 PM EST
    I'm also violently allergic to wild overstatements and distortions, whether they come from or side or the bad guys.

    Thank you.


    Bill Prohibits Women For Paying Themselves (none / 0) (#64)
    by norris morris on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 07:29:35 PM EST
    The bill prohibits a woman from paying for an abortion with her own money id she receives or is connected with a group that receive federal funds.  Nice??

    Most Insurance Co's won't even offer abortion coverage.

    None of you realize what a stealth blow this is to women.


    Thank you for this post, BTD (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by Spamlet on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 12:05:42 PM EST
    It addresses the ignorance that was on supercilious display yesterday in some of the comments here.

    But, but (none / 0) (#2)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 08:39:20 AM EST
    We keep being told that we just need to pass this NOW!  and the bad stuff will all get fixed.

    Why is Natasha so hateful?  Doesn't she want to save Obama's presidency?

    So (none / 0) (#6)
    by lilburro on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 09:00:45 AM EST
    why then do you support passage of the Senate bill?  Esp. if the exchanges are designed to expand in the future.

    Because I believe (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 09:06:23 AM EST
    the exchanges will fail.

    Ok, suppose you're right. (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by observed on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 09:18:56 AM EST
    When HCR is revisited, do you expect any restrictions on abortion funding to be lifted?
    If the exchanges are replaced, then they'll need to be replaced by something with a mechanism to keep women from getting abortion coverage.
    Giving up the battle today makes it harder to win the  next battle tomorrow, IMO.

    Personally (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by lilburro on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 09:25:06 AM EST
    I sort of disagree with that.  The big problem is that abortion was never anything more than a concession to make to anti-choicers in this debate.  There was no dialogue on the Hyde Amendment, on women's rights - there was no pro-choice dialogue urging us to reconsider how abortion is handled in health care.  Abortion reform was never considered.  So abortion was not even a player in this round of debate.

    Sure it was a player, just not (none / 0) (#13)
    by dk on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 09:29:51 AM EST
    in the way that you or I wanted it to be.

    When HCR is revisited (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 10:09:34 AM EST
    This is a theme that is very troubling. If congress is willing to sell the public short on this bill, why do we trust that future visits will be to improve the availability of healthcare for all in this country? They are showing little-to-no concern for the people, and I see no reason to trust that to change in the future.

    Congress does not serve at the pleasure of the POTUS; they serve at the pleasure of the voting population. If Obama doesn't want to sign a bill that is good for that voting population, congress needs to set aside the bill and work on jobs and the economy so we can all afford to continue the insurance/health arrangement we now have.


    No (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 10:37:43 AM EST
    Restrictions on federal $$ going to abortions will not be lifted in our lifetimes.  This is the "compromise" widely agreed to around the country, not just in Congress.  The public is actually less pro-choice today than it was a few years ago, according to polls, and overwhelmingly believes federal money should not support abortion.  Gay marriage will become acceptable around the country before taxpayer funding of abortion will.

    I keep saying and I'll say it again, all the energy going into raging against Stupak/Nelson, etc., needs to go into establishing private non-profit funds to help low-income women pay for it.  Abortions are not expensive, so it really should not be all that hard to do.


    Uh I'm calling BS to that statement (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by cawaltz on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 06:33:51 PM EST

    This contradicts your statement.


    link (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by cawaltz on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 06:36:39 PM EST
    Evidently using the link didn't work so I'll have to do a direct link.



    Losing What We Had (none / 0) (#65)
    by norris morris on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 07:45:17 PM EST
    After decades of struggle, imprisonment, demonstrations, legal action, millions of dollars and dozens of legal attempts over decades more, and creating organizations  to help us...we finally after bloody struggles got the right to choose.

    So you fools think it'll come back so easily? We have been traitored out and our rights rescinded. It will take lifetimes to get these rights back if ever.

    Especially with crappy democrats like this it won't happen. We are dealing with losers and you've watched it happen and still defend it and think we can back decades of fighting just like that?  And are you also fools enough to think
    that the Democrats will risk votes and grow spines, or that the Republicans will be in the Forest forever?


    Mechanism (none / 0) (#38)
    by waldenpond on Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 12:36:33 PM EST
    Just curious.. how do you see that happening?  They are abandoned as they fail to reduce cost?