Will the Stupak Amendment make any real difference?

Personally I think this Stupak Amendment is a Stupid Amendment

I don't think abortion should be used like Birth Control, but I don't think Abortions should not be covered by health-insurance either.
 
Last edited:
It can and will be a medically nessecary procedure at times, there are women who will be at risk of death and serious disability due to complications (not a huge number but appreciable), so they will not have a procedure covered and have to pay huge bills,

Because of some bronze age mentality and magical thinking.
 
Stupak Abortion Amendment Apparently Did Nothing

In a rather odd interview with The Atlantic, Rep. Bart Stupak accused opponents of his controversial amendment to ban all abortion coverage of distorting what his amendment does and repeatedly said that the amendment didn't actually change anything at all.

Referring to the Hyde Amendment, a law passed in 1976 that prohibits federal money from being used to pay for abortions under any circumstances, Stupak said over and over again that his amendment merely maintained that current law.

<see site for Stupak quote>

But this leads to a rather obvious question: Then why was it necessary to pass the amendment in the first place? If federal law already prevented the health care reform bill from funding abortion and the amendment changed absolutely nothing, as Stupak repeatedly insists, then why was he so adamant that he would not vote for the bill unless it contained this admittedly repetitive and superfluous amendment? Inquiring minds want to know.
Click to expand...
I feel dumber than a Palin right now, because I thought that the Hyde Amendment had been repealed or withdrawn some time ago (during the Clinton Administration? I guess not) and Stupak was trying to push it back in. I didn't realize that the nation's poorest and/or disabled women, who are on Medicaid, and who may have other health issues, are already denied comprehensive reproductive health coverage. Sigh.
 
Merko said:
I'm not quite sure what a 'rider' is, but my understanding is that it would not be possible for insurers participating in the exchange system to provide abortion coverage, even as an extra. There were some proposals in the house to demand merely that abortion coverage would have to be accounted for separately (to avoid taxpayer money covering abortions) but apparently that was not enough for some democrats.
Click to expand...

This isn't true. The ammendment is that people who object to abortion have mannaged to prevent any tax money from going to it, becuase they disapprove of it(I wish I could get some of that banning things I don't like from federal money). So they will not let any federal money from going to any plan that covers abortion. Insurance companies can still have them, provided they have a similar plan with out it. And you can only get the plan with out it if you get any tax break or such thing to get your insurance.
 
Dancing David said:
It can and will be a medically nessecary procedure at times, there are women who will be at risk of death and serious disability due to complications (not a huge number but appreciable), so they will not have a procedure covered and have to pay huge bills,

Because of some bronze age mentality and magical thinking.
Click to expand...

What is wrong with a little vicarious cruelty?

I like the situations were a fetus is known to be nonviable, now women will have no choice unless it can be shown to be a direct threat to their life but to carry it to term, then let it die on its own.
 
EverLastingGodStopper said:
Stupak Abortion Amendment Apparently Did Nothing

I feel dumber than a Palin right now, because I thought that the Hyde Amendment had been repealed or withdrawn some time ago (during the Clinton Administration? I guess not) and Stupak was trying to push it back in. I didn't realize that the nation's poorest and/or disabled women, who are on Medicaid, and who may have other health issues, are already denied comprehensive reproductive health coverage. Sigh.
Click to expand...
It still makes it worse. As I understand it, a whole range of health care plans that will fall under the exhange, will get subsidies and will consequently be prohibited from offering abortion coverage. Which isn't the case at the moment.
 
Peephole said:
It still makes it worse. As I understand it, a whole range of health care plans that will fall under the exhange, will get subsidies and will consequently be prohibited from offering abortion coverage. Which isn't the case at the moment.
Click to expand...

Thanks, I feel a little less Palinesque... and a lot more scared about the women's rights and the separation of church and state.
 
EverLastingGodStopper said:
Thanks, I feel a little less Palinesque... and a lot more scared about the women's rights and the separation of church and state.
Click to expand...


The abortion issue is not the only defect that I see in that lout Stupak. He does not belong in congress. He is part of a whackadoodle religious cult with plans to overturn constitutional law.

Servants of the Harlot of Revelations, the lot of them, and they need to be run out of the halls of government. Stupak will quite probably be the first Democrat thrown under the bus by his own party in the next cycle. It would almost be worth running the risk of a seat going to a Republican, as long as the Republican believes in separation of church and state.

Stupak is as classy as a ham and cheese sandwich at a Bar Mitzvah, and I hope he gets treated that way back home. I'm tired of his kind. He and that sleaze ball cult should all be investigated for tax fraud.
 
I read in the news today that President Obama said he would veto any version of the health care bill that contains the Stupak language.
 
Idiot boy Stupak thinks he has enough votes to stop all house action on the bill if it does not come out exactly as he wants it written.

Time for that moron to go away.

Maybe someone should call for an ethics probe on him and the rest of the C Street trash now, while we still have a country ruled by mundane laws, rather than the ranting of the superstitious whackjobs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom