If you think Democrats are incapable of coordination, let me forward you my email inbox for today. In it, you will find no less than 18 Democratic members of Congress sending the exact same message – in list-building petitions and recaps of multiple press conferences and advisories of additional press conferences and guidance for reporters and press aides – about attacks on women’s health by the House GOP.
This is a no-brainer, and has the benefit of being true. The House GOP is planning multiple pieces of legislation that would restrict women’s health in a series of ways. First you have the “No Taxpayer Funds for Abortion Act,” HR 3, which would in carrying the Hyde Amendment into statutory law expand its restrictions to essentially end the possibility of insurance coverage for the legal medical procedure of abortion. Because small business subsidies and exchanges and employer incentives for insurance all come from the federal treasury, it would be impossible for an insurer to deliver reproductive choice coverage. Despite changing the language on “forcible rape,” under HR 3, states would actually not be required to provide abortions to Medicaid subscribers in the event of rape, incest, or the life of the mother. In a separate bill, HR 358, which some have called the “Let them Die” Act, hospitals would be relieved of the requirement to provide emergency care on pregnant women who need life-saving treatment, overriding the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act. A third bill, HR 217, would restrict Title X to end all federal funding for Planned Parenthood, which provides many essential health services other than abortions with that funding.
And so off they go in the House and Senate. House Judiciary Committee Democrats and the Pro-Choice Caucus revealed their outrage in briefings. Members of the Senate joined them. Richard Blumenthal became the first man to write an email for EMILYs List on the issue. Kirsten Gillibrand said that “Republicans claim that they want to keep government out of people’s lives, but they insist on asserting their authority in the lives of women.” Barbara Boxer adds, “We want the women and families of America to know that we will continue to defend women’s health and, with a bipartisan effort, we will stop an agenda that would do them harm.” Frank Lautenberg, with particular aplomb, added, “Once again, we are seeing a male-o-garchy trying to turn the clock back on women’s health.” Al Franken concluded “This is simply unacceptable.”
Strong words from all of them, in the House and the Senate. They all come from people who voted in (or in Blumenthal’s case, supported) the greatest restrictions on the women’s right to choose since the Hyde Amendment, right in the health care law. Ultimately, the bill includes the Nelson Amendment, which forces the segregation of funds and allows a state opt-out, to exclude the exchanges providing abortion coverage on their exchanges. This state-based version of the Stupak Amendment has already played out in several states, so everyone in the individual market will have no opportunity at insurance covering abortion services. In addition, the bill had as a side agreement an executive order reaffirming Hyde, which while light on content but heavy on the message that it was OK to negotiate health care on the backs of women. Down the road, the Administration applied the abortion coverage ban to high-risk pools, a signal that they could do the same to the exchanges they end up running. They did this even though that was not required by the executive order, which proved far less “worthless” than at first surmised.
I appreciate House and Senate Democrats rallying for women’s health, but their first stab at this does not suggest they would be willing to hold out completely. And HR 3 would represent a massive rollback of women’s rights. Clearly the President is willing to sign things that chip away at the armor of the right to choose. Democrats are ultimately willing to vote for them.
Forgive me if I don’t report on the press briefings. Let’s see action.




39 Comments

Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
David, long before the act passed, states have been able to ban abortion coverage in all private insurance policies. This was not changed at all by the act. The provision in the bill (allowing “state stupak amendments”) is legally meaningless, because they could ALREADY have state stupak amendments. In fact, many already did. States have plenary authority to regulate their own insurance industry.
It was put in there to make Nelson look like he was extracting a pound of flesh, when he really wasn’t. The “state stupak” provision in the bill does not hurt abortion rights at all (relative to the previous status quo).
I have never believed that Obama believed women should be able to make their own decisions about their reproductive health care.
Remember when he said that such decisions were between a woman, her husband and her pastor? To me that sounds like two against one, in most cases.
Whatever happened to “Trust Women?” Killed, I guess.
Never rely on Democrats to follow through on anything except what the extreme right wants them to. This is going to take massive public demonstrations, the kind that shut whole capitols down.
Actually it is huge and this is yet another reason for Obamacare to be completely thown out. By making it a federal granting authority to states rather than recognizing that states have their own authority, it is expanding the federal governmnent’s powers. This law is saying that states don’t have plenary authority.
That is completely false. There is no “federal granting authority.” The federal government unambiguously has the power to declare that nothing in its laws pre-empts a pre-existing state authority (and does so in thousands of bills).
KarenM. You know me as the nice lady at PUAC, Demi. But, when I read this kind of shit I get really uppity. Yes I do. That’s a P*ssy talking. To say that? We know what he’s made of.
A pox on all their f’n houses.
Exactly.
For once in your lives, show me some good action instead of some good press releases, please.
At times like this I’m glad I’m not a woman. I’m pissed off as it is, I’m afraid my lack of discipline would lead me over the deep end into those “other” remedies some on the right were talking about if I were a woman and these assholes kept trying this shit.
What is so hard to understand about a woman is every bit a human being as a man is??? I swear these assholes really do believe women are somehow… less than human???
Assholes.
All of ‘em.
Well, duh.
Forget the pastor bs for the moment. And forget that I reject the premise of the entire sentence.
However, why should a woman not consult with the father of her fetus, over its disposition. I have not been in the actual circumstance of explaining to my son’s father why I wanted an abortion, as I didn’t. (Had I wanted one, I would have done it without telling him.) But I have always been curious what the intellectual argument is that the father should not have a say. Why should the sperm donor not get equal say? Other than the woman CAN have control over the choice?
Maybe … 3/5s a human?
These are the same douchebags, two centuries later.
The fact that they think they have any right to weigh in on a decision so private and life altering is disgusting.
I’m with you. The man, in most cases, should have an opinion. But the ultimate choice lies with the woman in question.
Laugh if you like, but when the doubters staunchly maintain that this country could not become a Theocracy, Margaret Attwood (and I) always answer the same: “Wanna bet?”
It doesn’t have to come in a sweeping change, but law by law on Cat’s Paws; think of Obama’s funding religious ‘charitable’ organizations with federal dollars on the grounds of ‘prgmatism’, i.e., that infrastructures are already in place to help the poor, la la la…
Look at the Supreme Court. Look at the massive number of Christianists who actually followed the orders of their mega-church masters and got on school boards, and town boards, and county commissions…and elected to state governments.
My husband went baqck to Nebraska recently when his mother died; many of his Christianist relatives were carrying Glenn Beck’s current book with them, I swear. He swears.
Let’s hear from the pastor as he reads from the Good Book.
Genesis 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
Eph.5:22-24 “Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.”
1 Pet.3:1 “Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands.”
Ecclesiastes 25:22 “Of the woman came the beginning of sin, and through her we all die.”
Ecclesiasticus 22:3 “….and the birth of ANY daughter is a loss”
I’ve always worked with the assumption that if I want a say in things, I make sure I wear a condom, otherwise I stfu since that moment was the point where I had control – best advice my father ever gave me.
so much for separation of church and state.
But why? Not being obstreperous, just looking for a way of outlouding it, particularly to peeps who are on the other side.
Suspect it has to do with the distant future. I.E., male sez: “I want to father this infant,” after which he abandons his responsibilities in totality.
But are there any data? Any evidence?
I’ve always operated the same way. Did a LOT of stupid shit as a kid, but didn’t have unprotected sex (i.e. sex without a condom) until I was with my wife. After that, she was on birth control, we had both been tested prior to getting married, and everything was groovy.
I tell every young man in my life the same thing your father told you – wrap your pecker, idiot.
Have asked the same Q on the Islam lessons channel of FDL. Have been advised I MUST await when they finally get around to the topic of gender laughingly-referred-to-as equality.
Well, you can start by looking into the statistics of single mothers v. single fathers in the US. The responsibility of being a single parent falls largely on the mother.
The physical toll of pregnancy and the immense emotional attachment that go along with bearing a child also factor into it, IMHO. The man doesn’t have to have morning sickness, horrible back pain, discomfort, body-image problems, etc. I feel that the relationship between a mother and child, in most cases, is far more automatic than that between a father and child.
The mother is on the hook for a lot more, near and long term.
I don’t agree with abortion, personally. I would never be okay with it if my life with my partner came to that choice. However, I’ll never disparage a woman her personal right to do with her body what she wishes. It’s none of my business.
Not wear a condom on your pecker is the best explanation for why a male should NEVER have a say after sex is the best explanation.
*Slapping forehead.* If a male doesn’t take ‘control’ when he can, he deserves no further vote.
Simpler explanation is in dakineo1′s 15, and my stoopid inability to figure it out before tonight.
Off to dinner. BBL.
For me the reason why the two don’t have an equal say is because the burden isn’t equal.
Men don’t bear the nine months of burden women do, ergo, ultimately, women should have the final say. If men had that burden, or some burden far, far greater, then I’d say men should. If the burden were somewhat equal, then perhaps the choice should be.
But providing sperm and going through nine months of labor aren’t even close to equal, particularly when for one the “burden” is pleasurable and for the other it’s… not.
It is you who said this:
“The provision in the bill (allowing ‘state stupak amendments’) is legally meaningless, because they could ALREADY have state stupak amendments.”It is you who said the feds were allowing the states to make Stupak amendments and now you are saying what you said previously is “completely false.”
I notice folks blink when I ask why woman should not have control over their own end-of-life decisions. Why? The woman is the only one that risks death in the event something goes wrong during the pregnancy or delivery; not the man. Men never have to take this risk or even have to think about making this kind of decision. As a matter of fact, they draw their life from the fact that a women was willing to do so. So, I find it very hard to *not* think that people who put forth such codified law of the land as we are discussing in this thread, don’t simply hate all that is female. In that case, they need to be removed from any position from which they can harm the good of other human beings as they have forgotten how to be human beings or didn’t learn how in the first place. There’s hope for them but it requires special kinds of people to work with them and they must be willing to work on themselves. Otherwise, you might as well consider them categorically socio-psychopathic.
my thought of these assholes is: NO UTERUS-NO OPINION THAT MATTERS…
Jim White is upstairs!
Egypt Update: Renewed Crowds, Sit-in at Parliament Begins
I’ll try this again. The provision in the ACA that David basically says that nothing in the ACA should be read to prohibit states from executing their plenary regulation over insurance companies to ban abortion.
Imagine a bill that stated “nothing in this bill should be read to ban states from having police forces.” That isn’t a grant of power to states, because states already had the power to have police forces. If the bill says the sun now has the power to come up, that doesn’t add any power, since the sun already comes up.
Before the ACA passed, there were several states that banned abortion coverage from insurance policies in the state. The ACA changed nothing in this regard.
Perhaps I am ready the summary incorrectly (I have not read the bill), but I am not following this discussion.
Once health reform takes effect, the only abortion coverage will be via state insurance department approved supplemental riders or policies that are not sold on the exchange, that that provide abortion coverage, as the exchange policies will all be eligible for subsidy which means they will be unable to provide coverage of abortion in just about any way. And indeed States can now ban policies or riders that have coverage of abortions.
What changes under HR3 is that the Hyde Amendment banning federal funding of abortions will no longer need to be reauthorized each year to stay in effect – it is law “forever”.
Also HR 3 adds new restrictions – calling a the current tax deduction or credit for that medical rider or policy that is added to your exchange policy so as to provide abortion coverage an expense that can not be defined as a medical expense for the purpose of your taxes.
HR3 further adds new limits on paying for abortions where a woman may face injury or even permanent disability.
For comparisons, A 2009 version of the Hyde Amendment allows federal funds to be used for abortions in cases where:
“…a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself, that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed.”
HR 3 changes that provision so that federal funds could only be used to pay for abortions in life threatening cases -
A womens health is not important to the GOP – protection of womens health is just a “loophole” in the abortion ban.
Why should the sperm donor not get equal say?
OK – how about “it is not his body or life in danger”
Let the women listen to all – but only she gets the decision – there should not be “equal say” – in my opinion, of course.
On topic, why do I NOT believe this was an accident?
It may have been, but this sounds like exactly the kind of “accident” the right wing would love to make miles out of.
We need to keep abortion legal and safe so something bad never happens.
http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2011/01/19/philly-doctor-facing-8-counts-of-murder/
You realize that PA has one of the strictest abortion laws in the nation right? That is basically what happens in Latin America – women end up dead.
Try and google the “pro choice caucus” – there is no website that I can find. That is why you are seeing no coordination. This congressional organization has co-chairs but no website or email address, in 2011. They don’t seem to take it that seriously themselves.
In the Bible’s first creation, man and woman are created in the image of God = equal. But after that while the Old Testament laws were “liberal” in that a relative’s crimes does not mean the whole family is killed – and judgments and punishments are in full public view with the judges known to all – it is indeed true women are indeed on the short end (but putting them there was a view not all that religious – the Romans build the Coliseum with seating by status and women having the status just below slaves”
But in the New Testament we find:
Galatians 3:28 – “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus”
The apostle Peter, who when he was challenged by the Jerusalem church because he had eaten with Gentiles said, “The Holy Spirit fell upon them just as he did upon us at the beginning. So,who was I that I could withstand God?” This means that if God is gifting a woman to teach, or to lead, then who am I or you to stand in God’s way?
Unlike the rabbis who taught that only a man could sue for a divorce, Jesus gave implicit permission for women to dissolve their marriage bonds. To protect women from the rabbinic (Hillelite) school, which permitted men to divorce their wives for such minor infractions as burning their supper, Jesus underlined the permanence of marriage saying, “I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife except for marital unfaithfulness and marries another woman commits adultery.”
The first news of the incarnation went to a woman. The first miracle was performed for a woman. The first Samaritan convert was a woman.The first person clearly told by Jesus that he was Messiah was a woman and a Samaritan woman as well. The first Gentile convert was a woman. The first resurrection teaching was given to a woman. The first to witness the resurrection was a woman.
It is the appropriate social roles that will result in the promotion or hindrance of the gospel that is the basis for some “anti-women” quotes. In 1 Peter; wives are to act in a certain way so as to win their non-Christian husbands.In Titus, Paul commands older women to train “younger women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, “so that no one will malign the Word of God.” Again in Titus, Paul teaches young men to be self-controlled and Timothy to set an example for them “so that those who oppose you may be ashamed because they have nothing bad to say about us.” Finally, Paul teaches slaves to be subject to their masters, to try to please them, to not talk back to them, and not to steal from them, but to show that they can be fully trusted, “so that in every way they will make the teaching about God our Savior attractive.” Indeed it is the context of what is socially appropriate in that society so as to not stop the spread of the Gospel that is the basis of the discussions of hair and clothing. Paul saw the Gospel as wanting desired equality, and he was “flexible” in different cultural settings, having coworkers who were women (Priscilla in Romans 16:3) and he let women teach men in different contexts(Acts 18:25-26), He often mentioned that women were of great value to him in spreading the gospel(Philippians 4:2-3), and women apparently exercised leadership in some of Paul’s churches (Acts 18:2, 18-19, 26; Romans 16:3; 1 Corinthians 16:19; 2 Timothy 4:19), Junia (Romans 16:7),Tryphena and Tryphosa (Romans 16:12), Apphia (Philemon 2)). So 1 Timothy 2:8-15 must be read in context.
In the current social context, a women fighting for abortion rights does not bring shame to the Gospels – and that is the only test that Paul was interested in.
“Once health reform takes effect, the only abortion coverage will be via state insurance department approved supplemental riders or policies that are not sold on the exchange, that that provide abortion coverage, as the exchange policies will all be eligible for subsidy which means they will be unable to provide coverage of abortion in just about any way. And indeed States can now ban policies or riders that have coverage of abortions.”
Papau, under the healthcare bill that passed, that is incorrect. What you are describing is the Stupak amendment, but the Stupak amendment didn’t pass. Instead, the Nelson amendment passed. The Nelson amendment allows policies on the exchange that cover abortion, and be subsidized — it just involves two credit card charges instead of one to pay the bill (so the tiny “abortion component” of the insurance isn’t subsidized). So the healthcare bill as passed does not have the effect you describe of forcing policies that cover abortion off the exchange.
On the other hand, states can ban abortions on the exchange — in fact, they can ban abortion in all private policies sold within the state. And many have done so, long before the healthcare bill passed. The bill doesn’t change that at all — states have plenary authority to regulate their own insurance markets.
Now, what you are describing WOULD be true if HR3 passed. But HR3 is not going to pass, so it is moot.
Thanks for the correction – you are correct that what I described was officially Stupak – not Nelson. However I may also have drunk the Koolaid from Obama that his signing statement meant the Nelson was “Stupak like” – or in fact – I may believe the result is “stupak” despite Nelso being the version passed. So to repeat “Once health reform takes effect, the only abortion coverage will be via state insurance department approved supplemental riders or policies that are not sold on the exchange, that that provide abortion coverage, as the exchange policies will all be eligible for subsidy which means they will be unable to provide coverage of abortion in just about any way. And indeed States can now ban policies or riders that have coverage of abortions.” And I stand by that as being how I believe Health reform will work.
In any case the rules on getting onto the exchange are an HHS project – and I am not sure Obama will let HHS include abortion riders or policies – but as you noted – the states may not not allow those riders – but Nelson by itself will not stop the issue of abortion coverage.
But pressure on the ins co’s could also stop them from being available. Indeed I can not recall a “dread disease” policy that was issued with less than a 70% overhead priced in – this will make the insurance option abortion policy something that is priced out of reach of all. If issued as a rider we may only have a 50% overhead – and either option – with the 80% loss ratio rule – means these policies will not be on the exchanges. And if we get passed the math of current pricing policy, the PR of being the company that issues such riders will be tough.
So while you are correct as to coverage of abortion being allowed under Nelson, I do not believe, based on the world of insurance rules, that there is a chance in H_ll of there ever being coverage sold on the exchanges without state laws mandating that such coverage must be available – meaning it will be available in Mass and Vt and no where else.
Yeah, let’s make the actions of one corrupt physician, after making it more difficult for women to receive abortions safely, highlight the drive to make it more difficult for women to receive abortions (and other reproductive health care) safely. There’s no paradox there at all