How Anti-Abortionists Are Screwing Healthcare Reform


The problem with an amendment strategy [for Medicare +5% and single-payer] is that the House leadership will likely not allow many, if any, amendments to be offered on the House floor. The reason is because of Bart Stupak, who is trying to defeat the entire bill by rounding up 40 House Democrats to demand that none of the insurance plans receiving subsidies in the exchange are allowed to cover abortions. If such an amendment passes--and the leadership believes that it would if offered on the floor--then the entire bill goes down to defeat, since it will lose the votes of dozens of pro-choice Democrats. As such, the leadership is going not going to allow any amendments, and make Stupak's only move to try and prevent the bill from going to the floor at all. It is unlikely he will succeed.

Thanks for nothing, asshole.

More like this

Democratic (!!) representative Bart Stupak, apparently concerned that the Senate health care bill is insufficiently misogynistic, might be willing to try to kill health care reform unless the anti-abortion language is strengthened: Stupak's continued opposition to the Senate plan, despite those…
I just got the press release from the Union of Concerned Scientists: Yesterday, the House of Representatives passed a whistleblower bill (H.R. 985; PDF) that lays out explicit protections for scientists in government who expose abuses. The UCS release (for which I do not have a link) notes some…
From Union of Concerned Scientists: WASHINGTON (March 14, 2007) - The House of Representatives today overwhelmingly passed the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act, which would, for the first time, grant federal scientists and contractors the right to expose political interference in their…

What italics?


By Pierce R. Butler (not verified) on 30 Oct 2009 #permalink

ugh. Don't get me started.


Where the mother's health is threatened, I have not a single argument against abortion... yet, where the mother's health would be restored after a live delivery, I find no good argument for abortion.

As it stands now - it seems to be the mother's choice whether a baby delivered or aborted late term survives. That is, IMHO, wrong. If the baby can take a breath on its own, I think that gives it the right to life. Perhaps I misunderstand abortion laws (and I would welcome information to help me understand.)


Donna B.: The fact that you even ask why abortion needs to be treated differently then birth control demonstrates that you don't understand jack shit about a) medicine b)personal autonomy c)woman's rights d) reproductive rights. If you can think of one SINGLE case where an abortion is medically necessary then you should see why this fuckwit Stupak requires a resection to keep his head out of his ass. I can't think of a single reason a condom would be a medical necessity. I do however know that there are a number of ways a pregnancy can become non-viable making an abortion the safest option.

As for your "I am unwilling to support a universal health care plan, as currently presented, I am willing to support a universal health care plan for premature babies born alive." please gdiaf you psychopathic asshat. You are either a Poe, or you exemplify the inherent fuckheadedness of the pro-life movement. Jesus loves the little zygotes indeed.

By Robert S. (not verified) on 31 Oct 2009 #permalink

Donna: It isn't the pregnant woman's choice* whether to late term abort or not. Late term abortions are only done when it would be dangerous for the mother to carry the foetus to term, or when the foetus isn't viable (abortion is safer than delivery, and often a lot less horrible for the woman). From what I understand of the processes in the US anyway (I'm not an American). There are stories from the late Dr Tiller where he said he denied late-term abortions to women who wanted one when it wasn't medically indicated.

*I suppose it is the pregnant woman's choice in that if she would prefer to carry to term despite all this, she can.

So please, stop with the "oh the poor little premmies!" arguments.

By Katherine (not verified) on 01 Nov 2009 #permalink

As a Canadian mother of 42, who has also resided in one of the southern states during the early years of the 1980's, I have been able to learn and comprehend an "outsiders" comment regarding some of these issues. Canada has had abortions legally permitted and as I do know of today, first..our National Country did not truly implement our so-called "universal Health care" or "Socialist Health Care" until the mid- 1980's. Many costs were still paid out of the patient's pocket. In 1967, Montreal, my parents had to "pay" just like everyone else to give birth to me and receive the care at the hospital. I often see many compare our health care it is currently , that is, in 2009, a policy that really has just recently maintained this more "fully -comprehensive" coverage. Our stance on the abortion and state paid issue is ironically still a somewhat "hush-hush" issue. As Canada has a significant history with the Catholic Church, there is often the " Catholic" citizen..who still holds the often strong belief that our country should not be paying for an abortion. However, there are still obstacles, and if one is trying to acquire the "right" doctor who does "quietly" perform certainly is still quite difficult in many parts of our country. The urban areas are fine, yet Canada, the geographically largest Country in the world, with our 30 million or so citizens...residing across a large span of regions which do not possess the endless supply of wants the 6 or so truly urban cities do possess. Therefore, a woman in Toronto or Montreal may be able to be quickly able to access a doctor who will perform an abortion, and indeed, the costs of such, are sometimes done at what is a semi-private clinic, with out of pocket costs, which our Universal System does not pay. I think you guys are not set up for a health system similar to other Western Countries. I think that you need to implement slow, baby steps as the health reform of your nation appears to be probably best met through small ,not very invasive policies. It took us over 20 years to be here...and it is still being re-invented. Perhaps focus on more preventive medicine, as I think you guys are a blessed nation of so many creative, independent , innovative citizens. I am quite ill, as i have undergone a brain tumor and at 42 am considered disabled from a bone disease and another brain growth. To be honest...In our world today, one can learn about health and issues dealing with it, without, at least in my case, running to the doctor all the time, Yes, we have those who abuse the system..however, it is not a significant issue with the health care ... who really loves hanging out in the ER? Do not copy us...I do not believe the U.S. is made of the same kind of citizens with the same ideology a small group began to alter our system in the 1950's. One of your states has the entire population of Canada in it, 30 million here, and 300 + million in your country. You are a unique, democratic republic...keep your liberties and freedom to speak..which you are not shy to do so, as you can still be the beacon for the world!