So much for the genius of Pelosi on letting this stupid amendment come on to the floor and kicking the single payer amendment to the curb.

Now she's alienated her own folks. Be nice if the rest of the dems stepped up and signed the letter. 41 will not do much good. Hopefully they aren't bluffing.

This is sickening. it appears women's rights have taken a giant step backwards.

I'm okay with it not covering abortion. I'm very pro-choice, just think the issue is too contentious and not worth fucking this up over. There will always be charities that can help fund abortions for those who can't afford them.

What I'm more concerned about is the rumors I hear that Sen. Kerry (D-ouche) teamed up with Orrin Hatch to sneak a proviso in that forces insurance companies (and the government, under the public option) to pay for prayer treatments, as requested by the hypocritical fuckwits of Christian 'Science'.

I hope he get's lots of nasty phone calls from women who'll inform this dick that not only will they not vote for him again but, if their husbands do, their wives will shut down the nooky! Vote for this man and you'll become intimately familiar with Suzie Palmer and Her 5 sisters. You know, giving themselves a hand job!

Actually, 40 is enough to kill the entire bill! According to an article on crooks and liars right now, it was the Catholic Bishops who wanted this added before they could support it. Isn't there something about separation of church in the Constitution? Also, where do the Bishops stand on molestation of young boys? Let's just hope it's not directly behind them! Sorry but, I'm an agnostic!

I too am pro choice but, this amendment goes far beyond the Hyde Amendment. You should check out the provisions on the dailykos. This bill would likely force private insurers who want to participate in the Exchanges to basically drop coverage altogether. I don't think it's going to make it into the final bill and remember that once this bill gets to conference it can still be stripped out there and final passage will only require 50 votes plus Biden. I'm starting to think that it's Stupak and the rest of the "conservadems who got played". Now, they can go back home and tell their womb chaser constitutency that they "tried".

That's Church and State! Church in state?

I posted this under the "Weiner" topic but posting here again because more apropos.....

I'm worried the bill will only pass the Senate with the Stupak Amendment intact.

Here's something NO ONE has mentioned on this blog and this worries me GREATLY--The Stupak Amendment tells insurers that they can decide to cover or not cover abortions. AND all abortions are NOT for an "oops I had unprotected sex". Tens of thousands of women lose children during pregnancy. The fetuses' heartbeat can stop at any point and when it does, the woman's body doesn't always go into "miscarriage mode". IE, the woman's body doesn't always expel the fetus and other tissues. When this happens, the woman is in increasing danger that gets worse as time passes.

The woman can "wait" and see if her body chooses to miscarriage (in the old days a lot of women simply died from infection because this never happened), or she can take a "chemical" to force miscarriage (go through your normal life while bleeding profusely, cramping and passing large clots of tissue--"hi it's so nice to be at work feeling this horrible!") OR she can have a D&C and be better within 24 hours and back at work.

Hmmmmm....what's the humane thing here? Should be a no brainer, right?

In this case the abortion is "optional"....but the options aren't good and it always insurance covered. I will bet you every last penny I have that if this amendment stays, insurance companies will stop covering D&C's like this. More women will be at risk. Rich women will be able to pay for the privilege of the quick and easy D&C. Poor women will either be at risk of infection and potentially death (or they'll just wait until she is at this state of risk or in "crisis" before allowing the D&C--doesn't mean much for prevention does it?) OR she will have to "bleed it out" missing more days of work (that they can little afford to miss in the first place.)

I was in the position only about a month ago. I had FMLA to cover me at work....but I was very close to be 'unpaid' time off and I'm the only source of income for my family right now.

Sorry to be so graphic, but, in general, men are clueless in regards to this kind of thing. And if it helps you to understand what this law means to women, then I will paint the city red if I have to.

So pass HRC, but we damn well better challenge that Amendment afterwards....

@ILLogicaL: The LA Dog Trainer had an article last week that said the prayer treatment language was inserted by Sens. Hatch, Kerry, and Kennedy; it'll probably be on the website. I can't wait to hear the impassioned cries of outrage from Orrin Hatch when the Scientologists start billing for their particular brand of lunacy.

@Irish Girl: Yes, this.

@ILLogicaL: Abortions are extremely difficult to obtain as it is. Many counties don't have doctors who can or will perform them. So it's not just a question of getting money for the actual procedure (which is also very difficult, since a lot of "counseling" services are fronts for faith-based organizations that convince you not terminate, but work against the very gov't systems that would enable you to raised the baby once born). Many women have to travel quite a ways to even have a chance of finding someone willing to perform the procedure. That's gas money, a car, time off work (not just for the abortion, but for required pre- and post- visits)--that is a whole lot of out of pocket cost that many, many people cannot afford.

Ezra Klein explains why the Stupak Amendment is even worse than we thought.

Irish Girl:
I'm no advocate of the Stupak Amendment, but it does provide an exception for cases where the mother's life is in danger, for rape and incest.

Of course, that's no reason to keep it. The amendment has to go.

@Nano: True, but I think Irish Girl's point is that in cases where the fetus is no longer viable, the mother's life is not technically in danger, but she may still wish to have an abortion rather than waiting to have it pass "naturally." In those cases, this amendment seems to imply that procedure would not be covered.

I don't know how my representative (Donnelly D/IN) would have voted if the Stupak amendment hadn't passed, but he was on the fence until the last minute, voted in favor of the Stupak amendment, then voted for passage of the bill.

Like it or not (and I don't) one interpretation of that is that he's one Conservadem who was won over.

I understand J. The amendment has to removed in conference.

Apparently, Stupak's office is freaking the f out at people calling about the amendment. http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/11/9/802571/-Stupaks-office-is-losing-it

Irish Girl, I'm certainly no expert, but I'd be shocked if a D&C is considered to fall under the same category as abortion. When my wife was pregnant and the doctor heard no heartbeat at 3 months and determined the fetus had died, he scheduled us for a D&C right away, didn't ask if it was covered by insurance or anything, he just explained he had to take everything out.

Considering how common miscarriages are, I just couldn't believe it wouldn't be covered. There's no killing of a fetus involved, even the dumbest conservative should understand that. I know pro-life women who have had miscarriages, I'm sure they aren't advocating for D&Cs to be dropped from insurance plans.

@eljefejeff Actually the D&C is THE procedure called abortion.....regardless of the status of the fetus.

@J Thanks for the support, you're right. We can't wait until a woman's life is in danger for such D&C's.

Also, what if the fetus is alive but horribly deformed? I know an older couple who were doing the "homeopathic", "natural" birth thing. They didn't get screened for genetic anomalies, they didn't have enough ultrasounds, etc. Well, the baby was born premature and had only half a brain, part of her stomach, etc. The baby lived five days in ICU.

This is a situation where prevention was needed (also admitted ignorance on the couple's part) and an abortion was necessary. I think the couple would have taken that option had they seen the genetic results. Under the Stupak Amendment, that kind of D&C where the mother's life was not in danger, may not be paid for. That's a problem too. A couple should have this option. Not that they have to choose to abort but they should have the option.

Irish Girl, this bill is not yet a law and there is time to get the kinks hammered out. It's definitely worth finding out for sure if it is covered, but no matter what was written in the Sestak amendment, I'm positive the president will not sign a bill into law that doesn't cover D&Cs for miscarriages.

You are right, el jefe, that it's early. But the kind of abortions Irish Girl is talking about are exactly the kind that Dr. Tiller performed. They are precisely what the people putting forth this amendment want to stop. I certainly hope that the president wouldn't sign a bill that did that. But considering this amendment is being pitched as a necessary compromise up until this point (and Sen. Nelson has already demanded it exist in the Senate bill), I think the kind of vigilance and outrage that Irish Girl is showing is exactly what's needed.

Remember, we're living in a country where barely a year ago the Republican candidate for president referred to women's health as if it were a joke. Without serious, constant pressure (remember, we're up against the Vatican here, basically), I have no trouble envisioning this amendment not only making it into the bill the president signs, but being spun to make it seem not so bad--just like every other abortion restriction that has been passed since Roe v. Wade.

I think any time a member of congress votes for an amendment then votes against the bill it's attached to should then have their amendment-yea removed and the amendment count re-applied without those votes.

After the crap the R's pulled on the stimulus, adding costly amendments and then voting against the stimulus altogether was BS. Same with the Stupak-Pitts crap.

Jennifer