Call Blue Dog Congressmen ASAP - Stupak Abortion Amendment to Get Vote

Why was there anything in this bill even addressing abortion? (0.00 / 0)

I understand that reproductive rights are incredibly important for many in this country, but why even inject this issue into what was already going to be an extremely difficult bill to pass?  Why not maintain the status quo as it relates to abortion coverage by federally subsidized insurance and essentially agree to decide on coverage for elective abortion in a separate bill at a later date?  I believe we are due for a legislative debate on how to pay for and how to regulate abortion services in the United States but I believe providing universal coverage and a public option are a lot more important right now.

---

by: bluebearcat @ Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 10:57:02 AM CST

Why inject abortion? (0.00 / 0)

Because they can.  The Republicans hope it will kill health care reform outright, because their Politics of NO tactics haven't worked, and the Blue Dogs are just being obtuse and hoping to garner Republican votes next year -- faint hope.  But they'll sure as heck lose Democratic votes if health care fails.

Work harder and work smarter!

---

by: mooncat @ Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 11:11:41 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Certainly the Republicans are hoping this will kill health care reform... (0.00 / 0)

but I wouldn't have expected anything less from the party of no.  My issue is why some Democrats felt compelled to include provisions that allowed for indirect (originally, direct) public financing for abortion services outside the scope of what had previously been allowed.  The issue of the insurance exchanges is a complicated one and Ellsworth's compromise sounded pretty reasonable to me.  But - even if I was staunchly pro-choice as Nancy Pelosi is - I would still believe that pro-life Democrats ought to have the chance to have an up-or-down vote on the Stupak amendment.  Feelings about this issue cut too deeply on both sides to not allow people to be heard and to vote.  This is not just about the Blue Dogs bought and paid for by the insurance lobby; it's a about otherwise progressive Rust Belt Dems who are also devout Catholics.  

There is nothing in the Stupak amendment preventing people from purchasing insurance for elective abortions outside of the insurance exchanges.  And congress could take up the issue of allowing insurance covering elective abortions to be sold through the exchanges (which, to be fair, won't even exist for another couple of years) at a later date.  Perhaps abortion providers like Planned Parenthood could offer to reduce their fees for those in need in the meantime?  They spend an awful lot on public advocacy but their services do not come cheap.

---

by: bluebearcat @ Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 12:09:00 PM CST

[ Parent ]

That's not my experience (4.00 / 1)

Perhaps abortion providers like Planned Parenthood could offer to reduce their fees for those in need in the meantime?  They spend an awful lot on public advocacy but their services do not come cheap.

For over a decade, I used Planned Parenthood for regular exams including pap smears and purchased birth control pills from them.

The exams were less than half of what an OB/GYN charged patients without insurance.  And the pills were $8/month compared to $20/month at the pharmacy.

I don't know about abortion costs because I never went "shopping" for that, but I do know that - in the past at least - Planned Parenthood was the only affordable option for low income and uninsured women.

And note that the health care bill was INTENDED to leave the status quo in place and change nothing.  But we're dealing with people determined to derail reform at any cost - ONLY because they think it's the best way to wound the Democratic Party.

And that doesn't come from just me.  GOP leaders have admitted that health insurance reform could hand the country to Democratic control "for a generation."

Thus, they've been willing to bully, lie, and cause whatever ruckus is necessary to prevent that.

It's not about health care or socialism or anything ideological.  It's about political power and women's health care is getting caught in the middle.

I'm not short.  I'm fun size!!

---

by: countrycat @ Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 16:02:15 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Let's call the Stoopid Bill what is. (4.00 / 1)

It's a ban on abortions for poor women.  The majority of poor women are minorities. Rich, white and minority women will be the only ones who can afford to have a safe, legal abortion.  

These are the same people who are anti welfare, anti access to quality healthcare and anti public education.  You know, the pro life crowd. Snark.

Call it what it is.

The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives and the dreams shall never die.~Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D. MA)

---

by: Redeye @ Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 20:31:28 PM CST

[ Parent ]

That's the thing... (4.00 / 1)

Why not maintain the status quo as it relates to abortion coverage...?

What they have in the bill right now IS the status quo.  Private insurers can and do currently cover abortions, and basically, the current bill states that they can still do that but that they may not use federal funding to do it. That's what they're doing now, only now that they'd be offering affordability credits to some families to help purchase insurance, they wanted to make sure that it wasn't going to lead to federal funding of abortion.  The exception would be in cases of rape or incest or danger to a woman's health-- the same as it currently is for Medicaid.  So there would be no changes to the current system.

That 's what these opponents aren't mentioning.  This isn't a change to the way we handle abortion coverage.  They're opposed becuase it ISN'T a change to the abortion coverage.  What they're pushing for is an outright ban on coverage under any circumstances-- whether that coverage comes from federal dollars or private dollars.

---

by: Almoderate @ Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 20:33:58 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Contact information for other Congressmen ... (0.00 / 0)

Contact info for representatives here.

Here's a handy tool for making calls.

Hat tip Daily Kos. 

Work harder and work smarter!

---

by: mooncat @ Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 10:58:57 AM CST

Nice job. (0.00 / 0)

Keep up the great work!

---

by: FDL Action @ Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 11:00:54 AM CST

Artur should not get a pass on HCR (4.00 / 2)

If Jim Cooper agrees to vote yes - then nobody should get a pass

I will vote yes on H.R. 3962. My vote is not an endorsement of all the provisions of the bill because I find much of the bill to be deeply flawed. There is little chance that H.R. 3962 will become law due to the long legislative process. My reason for voting yes is to advance the cause of health care reform by forcing the Senate to act. Without passage of this House bill, the Senate could delay reform indefinitely. That would be the worst possible outcome because our current health-care system is not sustainable. Congress needs to pass good health legislation in the next few months for the good of the country.

I don't see how Davis can be supported by Dems if he doesn't come around and vote for the bill.  

---

by: gradyw @ Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 12:41:34 PM CST

Excuse me? (0.00 / 0)

Jim Cooper is a longtime Congressman who represents TN-05, which has a partisan voting index of D+3.  In 2006 he defeated his Republican opponent by 41 points.  Wikipedia says "Given the 5th's heavy Democratic tilt, it is very unlikely that Cooper will face substantive Republican opposition in the foreseeable future."  A "YES" vote on health care doesn't endanger his seat.

Work harder and work smarter!

---

by: mooncat @ Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 19:29:10 PM CST

[ Parent ]

well regardless Cooper is doing the right thing (4.00 / 1)

Davis is not.

Where is the political courage here?

It's okay because Davis is running for Gov? He wasn't elected in 2008 to run for Governor. If he doesn't want to do the right thing simply for political posturing in the Gov's race then he shouldn't have run for Congress in 2008.

Davis voting against this bill will not help him with people that won't vote for him anyways. But it will endanger his standing with his base.

I generally like Artur and have stomached some of his votes such as  for BAPCPA (Bankruptcy Reform) and  against Hate Crimes.  However, I never expected him to actually vote against health care reform.

---

by: gradyw @ Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 19:48:10 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Davis' seat is much more Democratic than Cooper's, Mooncat... (4.00 / 1)

Your implicit argument is that it's OK for him to sell out his congressional constituents because it gives him a better shot to become governor.  That's bullshit.

---

by: bluebearcat @ Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 22:00:44 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Artur deserves to get hammered on this vote (0.00 / 0)

---

by: gradyw @ Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 22:12:04 PM CST

[ Parent ]

The entire Alabama delegation deserves to get hammered, (4.00 / 1)

and I mean hammered hard.

The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives and the dreams shall never die.~Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D. MA)

---

by: Redeye @ Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 22:15:04 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Here is a rather obvious point that I haven't seen here... (0.00 / 0)

If Artur wanted to run for Governor badly enough to abandon his District 7 constituents, he should have resigned his seat to run.  That way a Progressive could be representing the progressives in his district and he would be free to show his true colors as a candidate. He has chosen not to do that, and he will suffer the consequences of his votes. 

As others have said, there are not enough Progressives to control this God-forsaken state, but caving in to the troglodytes has never been a successful strategy and won't be now.

A small group of thoughtful people could change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has.
Margaret Mead  

---

by: piggieheart @ Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 09:48:54 AM CST