March 5, 2010

"Pelosi annoyed on abortion."

Headlines Politico. 
"I will not have it turned into a debate on (abortion)... Let me say it clearly: we all agree on the three following things. … One is there is no federal funding for abortion. That is the law of the land. It is not changed in this bill. There is no change in the access to abortion. No more or no less: It is abortion neutral in terms of access or diminution of access. And, third, we want to pass a health care bill."
You can tell how annoyed she is by the way she says there are "three... things," then lists them as: "one," a somehow implicit two, and — switching to the ordinal — "third."

I wonder if her expressive annoyance pushes her antagonists more in line or if it fires them up. I know when I read "Pelosi annoyed on abortion," my first reflex was something along the lines of: and millions of fetuses really pissed off. And I support access to abortion.

AND: Here's another example of headline deafness. Over at TIME, Amy Sullivan writes "Is This An Abortion Whip Count?" and one of the first comments is: "Thanks for your post, Amy, but what does an abortion whip look like? (please don't say a coat hangar [sic]…)."


Sullivan — who may not have written her own headline (do MSM bloggers write their headings?) —has some good substance:
... Pelosi has got to do a better job of hiding her exasperation with her pro-life colleagues. When asked about Stupak's concerns, she has on three separate occasions in the past week flatly dismissed them as unfounded. "There is no federal funding of abortion," says Pelosi. By that she means two things: 1) the Hyde Amendment prohibits the use of federal funds, with some exceptions, to pay for abortions; and 2) she does not interpret the Senate's version of health reform as allowing federal funding of abortion.

As it happens, a lot of people — including a number of pro-life politicians and religious leaders — share Pelosi's interpretation. But some don't, and it's not as if they're suddenly going to smack themselves in the forehead and say, "By golly, she's right! I hadn't looked closely enough at the bill, but now that the Speaker points that out, I see that it doesn't fund abortions at all!" It wouldn't kill her--and it just might help negotiations with some wavering Democrats — if Pelosi would try saying something more like: "I understand that's how some of my colleagues interpret the language of the Senate bill. I see it differently, but I do respect their concerns."
How do you look closely enough at something that's over 2,000 pages long? I think if you genuinely want to exclude abortion, you have to have an express provision that takes precedence over anything else that might be in the bill. You can't rely on some earlier statute (the Hyde Amendment) along with the whole text of the new statute (and what's not in it). There's no reason why people who really care about abortion should accept Pelosi's assurances. I take it that she's mainly saying, put aside your pet issue and help us finish this big project.

67 comments:

AllenS said...

Not only that, here's number 3: "...we want to pass a health care bill."

#3 doesn't have anything to do with abortion.

traditionalguy said...

She is doing a shuck and jive act as she well knows, but wants the abortion loving media to carry her story without mentioning the "Rest of the story". All she is fighting is a reasonable request to put the promise in writing. The Stupak amendment does that, but she wants a convenient memory hole for reversing the verbal promise she just made the next day after it becomes law. Pelosi lies!

rdkraus said...

I'm annoyed that Obama has just told the "progressive" Dems that this is just a starting point, a foot in the door, and later we'll add the public option and/or go to single payer.

So we're both annoyed.

I'm happy Pelosi is annoyed.

I hope we can annoy Obama too.

The Drill SGT said...

I am in favor of some level of reasonable pro-choice public policy.

However, mandating abortion coverage in all public exchange policies or an explict abortion surcharge isn't "choice"

master cylinder said...

If a woman wants an abortion, she should be able to get one. The end.

traditionalguy said...

Drill Sgt is correct. The freedom to murder inconvenient human life under the Article called The Right to Privacy emanating above the written Constitution is one thing. It is another thing entirely to make all other Americans into accomplices by paying who pay the assassins blood money and also reinstate the draft for medical personnel against their will into paid government death squads. We are not Communist China yet.

Pogo said...

She's annoyed because the eventual mechanism for funding is just one soldier hiding in this Trojan horse of a bill.

And if you all would just shut the hell up about the strange things you see hiding inside their wonderful gift -it's a gift, dammit!- and vote yes then you'll see how right she is.

You goddam proles, just sign it. Sign it, dammit!.

sunsong said...

I think if you genuinely want to exclude abortion, you have to have an express provision that takes precedence over anything else that might be in the bill. You can't rely on some earlier statute (the Hyde Amendment) along with the whole text of the new statute (and what's not in it). There's no reason why people who really care about abortion should accept Pelosi's assurances.

That's the issue as I understand it. Unless there is specific writing in the actual bill - individual judges will grant funding for abortion.

I am pro-choice - adamantly so - but I don't think tax payers should fund it. I am so conflicted right now :-) How ironic that I am hoping a stubborn group of pro-lifers (probably 99% male) will derail this healthcare monstrosity.

If they do - I will be forever grateful.

Peter V. Bella said...

2700 plus pages. I do not think even Pelosi knows what the bill(s) contain or do not contain. The object is to pass something, not care about the content.

Paul Zrimsek said...

(A) IN GENERAL- Notwithstanding any other provision of this title (or any amendment made by this title), and subject to subparagraphs (C) and (D)--

(i) nothing in this title (or any amendment made by this title), shall be construed to require a qualified health plan to provide coverage of services described in subparagraph (B)(i) or (B)(ii) as part of its essential health benefits for any plan year; and

(ii) the issuer of a qualified health plan shall determine whether or not the plan provides coverage of services described in subparagraph (B)(i) or (B)(ii) as part of such benefits for the plan year.

(B) ABORTION SERVICES-

(i) ABORTIONS FOR WHICH PUBLIC FUNDING IS PROHIBITED- The services described in this clause are abortions for which the expenditure of Federal funds appropriated for the Department of Health and Human Services is not permitted, based on the law as in effect as of the date that is 6 months before the beginning of the plan year involved.

(ii) ABORTIONS FOR WHICH PUBLIC FUNDING IS ALLOWED- The services described in this clause are abortions for which the expenditure of Federal funds appropriated for the Department of Health and Human Services is permitted, based on the law as in effect as of the date that is 6 months before the beginning of the plan year involved.

Seems specific enough to me.

garage mahal said...

Stupak's hissy fit has nothing to do with what's in the Senate bill or what isn't. He knows it contains nothing that allows the government to pay for abortions. He just wants pro-lifers to be NOTICED. We won't be forgotten! That's "principle", as the media all nod in agreement. It has to be right? He's a Christian! Meanwhile tens of thousands of actual people die each year waiting for Stupak and his fellow fetus crusaders precious ego to be massaged. Love the fetus, hate the baby.

From Inwood said...

Meanwhile tens of thousands of actual people die each year waiting for Stupak and his fellow fetus crusaders precious ego to be massaged.

What? The provisions of the bill don't take effect 'til 2013 & that means a couple of "tens of thousands" dying?

Nevermind.

Joan said...

Charmaine Yoest in the WSJ gets to the heart of the matter, here:

Without specific language prohibiting the practice, history has shown that the courts or administrative agencies end up directing government dollars to pay for abortions.

Pelosi doesn't have a leg to stand on.

From Inwood said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Montagne Montaigne said...

"How do you look closely enough at something that's over 2,000 pages long?"

Oh I don't know... fucking read it? Is there a page count above which you are not able to read? Start reading, keep reading until you are done. Am I missing something?

Aridog said...

I wonder, is Nancy P using the "royal we" there? My take on her is that she considers Obama as a mere place holder for the obvious leader of the nation.

Pogo said...

Pelosi: There is no escape. Don't make me destroy you.
[pauses]
Pelosi: You have only begun to discover your power. Join me, and I will complete your training. With our combined strength, we can end this destructive conflict and bring order to the nation.
Stupak: I'll never join you!
Pelosi: If you only knew the power of the Dark Side. Obama-Wan never told you what happened to your mother.
Stupak: He told me enough! He told me *you* killed her!
Pelosi: No. *I* am your mother.
Stupak: No. No. That's not true. That's impossible!
DPelosi: Search your feelings, you *know* it to be true!
Stupak: [anguished] No! No!

Pogo said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
From Inwood said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Aridog said...

Montagne Montaigne...you are aware that 2000 pages of legislation is not even the half of it, right? What follows are geometrically expanding pages of "regulations"..e.g. 2000 to the nth degree.

Now if you have read those 2000 pages and understand them all with total and absolute clarity...patent it, bottled it, and sell it to become fabulously wealthy.

I am not trying to be snarky here. But I am an ex-"Fed" and I can guarantee you that 2000 pages of law engenders a warehouse packed to the ceiling full of regulation pages written by people who've never even driven by a Law School. What some politician says and what happens are as different as night v day.

Kansas City said...

Watching Pelosi, it is apparent that she is a politician and a person who relies upon memorized talking points to answer questions and make statements. It is a personality/psychological type - her brain is a file cabinet with answers to various questions that she needs to pull up.

One actually can see Polosi straining to remember the right talking point answer when she talks. If she is asked a question or encounters a situation on which she does not have a programmed answer, she literally has nothing to say and falls back on a talking point that does not apply.

Some people need to have a programmed answer. Others, such as Bill Clinton, can answer any question and make it up as they go along. Obama actually is closer to Polosi (with his use of teleprompters and reliance on talking points), but he obviously is much smarter than Polosi and does fairly well in an unscripted environment. But his preferred methd of communication is scripted.

TMink said...

How does a person really care about abortion?

What a horid thought.

I think the American and world decline is a judgment on us.

Trey

Sloanasaurus said...

If Pelosi thinks the Pro-Life bloc is being so uncompromising then why doesn't Pelosi have the house pass the Stupak amendment as a separate law. Then the Senate can pass the separate Stupak amendment and eveyone can be happy about it? Surely there are 20 Democratic Senators willing to vote on such a bill??? It seems so simple doesn't it?

virgil xenophon said...

Pogo is on fire and on tgt today. For once we have met the enemy and it isn't "us."--unless one happens to live in Nancy baby's Dist., that is...

From Inwood said...

KC

How about this: Nancy has three problems: not (yet) enough votes, no credibility, & inarticulateness.

She may solve the first problem, but two & three are beyond her powers.

The Drill SGT said...

From Inwood said...
KC

How about this: Nancy has three problems: not (yet) enough votes, no credibility, & inarticulateness.

She may solve the first problem, but two & three are beyond her powers.


she has more than 3 problems.

1. Her power is based on threats.

2. the Dems are going to lose the House. everybody thinks that. Thus she loses most of her power to threaten

3. when that happens, the Dems will dump her. Her interests and Hoyer, who will likely replace her, are not in synch. She will therefore lose the rest of her power and end up as the ranking Dem on some tree hugging sub committee.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

The Democrats are playing with semantics.

Abortion IS funded by tax payer dollars because the MANDATORY insurance coverage will also cover abortion.

It is a back door method of funding something that even people (like myself) who support the idea of access to abortion will object to if the coverage was in the light of day.

I don't approve of abortion, but also very very strongly don't feel that I should be FUNDING abortion through my taxes.

By providing subsidies to lower income people and FREE coverage to welfare level people the government WILL be funding abortion. Especially since those demographics are the ones most likely to use the coverage.

Actually, I'm surprised that Obama is supporting this idea since it is defacto racist. That was the original purpose of family planning, you know......EUGENICS

Peter V. Bella said...

garage,
You are bitterly clinging to your ideology and your dishonesty.

Tens of thousands are not dying as you say. Just like there are not 30 million people without health insurance. The numbers are all fabricated so people like you have something to be pissed off about and stay pissed off.

Ann Althouse said...

"Oh I don't know... fucking read it? Is there a page count above which you are not able to read? Start reading, keep reading until you are done. Am I missing something?"

There's a page count above which I cannot look closely. No one has a wide enough angle view to look at 2,000+ pages closely. You can maybe look at a page at a time and remember a few pages in detail sufficiently well to relate them to each other. But you cannot retain thousands of pages of legal code language in a way that gets you to full comprehension. And even assuming you could, you cannot rely on others to reach the same understanding.

I teach courses where students have a semester to read about 500 pages of legal material. They study it under great pressure to understand, and I know from reading exams for a quarter of a century that people are not able to retain an understanding of that much reading such that they can with facility relate the different parts to each other properly.

Even when texts are short, there are disagreements. I teach a course where we spend 30 class hours (and presumably 90 out-of-class study hours) trying to understand 16 words of the text of the Constitution. We try, but we can never succeed, and the Supreme Court has never succeeded, because it is quite impossible ever to resolve the meaning to the point where people can agree.

So just fucking read it doesn't work on me. It is a statement that can arise only from ignorance or disingenuousness or some blend of the 2.

Daniel said...

I know when I read "Pelosi annoyed on abortion," my first reflex was something along the lines of: and millions of fetuses really pissed off. And I support access to abortion.

You have a reactionary first reflex? I guess that's understandable (or even definitional), but maybe you should try to fix it by being less reactionary.

Der Hahn said...

'just fucking read it' doesn't work on me.

Hear, hear. Because when you get down to it he doesn't want us to just -anything- read it, he wants to swallow the spin, the lies, and the talking points.

traditionalguy said...

The Professor reminds me that our law School course called Commercial Law was an intense effort to crack the meaning behind a short Statute called the Uniform commercial Code (UCC). The pain and suffering in the class was obvious and many just gave up. The other professors did not understand it either. The One Professor who had written the Legal Commentary on the subject was the teacher, and he was frustrated by our refusal to digest such a simple ( to him ) subject easily. The Code sections are always referring back to another code section or two and learning to play it like the Prof could was like learning to play concert piano. It takes time.

edutcher said...

Pelosi Galore knows that many Congressmen will be history if they let this through, but, since she comes from the freak show of Northern California, where abortion is not only accepted, it's required, she's safe and is willing to sacrifice a few dozen pawns in the name of the Glorious World Socialist Workers Revolution. That's what Barry meant when he indicated this was the camel's nose under the tent.

master cylinder said...

If a woman wants an abortion, she should be able to get one. The end.

Only for you.

There is a thing called the First Amendment that guarantees people they cannot be compelled to do anything contrary to their religion. I know that doesn't apply in your glorious Red China, where women have children aborted against their will, but this is America, much as you hate it, and we still have some law here.

traditionalguy said...

Drill Sgt is correct. The freedom to murder inconvenient human life under the Article called The Right to Privacy emanating above the written Constitution is one thing...

There is no Right to Privacy, Louis Brandeis manufactured something called that out of whole cloth. If you notice, that right changes every time the Lefties wnat it to mean something different - it's a perfect illustration of Woody Wilson's concept of the Constitution as a "living document." When you want a Privacy Right, write one with its provisions fully enumerated.

We do have a right to be secure in our persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable search and seizure in the Fourth Amendment, but no Right to Privacy.

Montagne Montaigne said...

"It's too long" is just one of the weaker reasons to "scrap the bill" and "start over with a blank page" and similar BS. Hey, there's been no reform in our craptacular health care system for 50 years. Of course the bill will be long. "It's too long" was not a protest lobbed at No Child Left Behind, as I recall.

It's big and complicated because our health care system is big and complicated. And we've had a YEAR to look into its details. You can read 2,000 pages in a YEAR.

The truth is, no matter how short or long the bill, it would be opposed. Because if reform passes then "Obama reformed the health care system."

Health care reform was the number 1 issue of the campaign. For a year Clinton and Obama debated various aspects of reform during the primaries. Then in the general Obama and McCain both talked about reform.

Obama won and democrats, whose #1 issue is health care reform, won majorities. It's what I personally voted for. And they are doing it.

Now here is health care reform. If you don't like it, there's the ballot box next time.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Even when texts are short, there are disagreements. I teach a course where we spend 30 class hours (and presumably 90 out-of-class study hours) trying to understand 16 words of the text of the Constitution. We try, but we can never succeed, and the Supreme Court has never succeeded, because it is quite impossible ever to resolve the meaning to the point where people can agree.

So just fucking read it doesn't work on me. It is a statement that can arise only from ignorance or disingenuousness or some blend of the 2.


I agree. I have to read prospectuses (currently one for a non publicly traded international REIT) that are as thick as a large city telephone book; that are full of financial data and legalese and it is impossible to retain everything. Nevertheless, I am held to the standard of understanding the contents and conveying it to my clients/constituents if you will.

HOWEVER....isn't this a good reason to make the bills and other legal documents cranked out by Congress and the SEC, less complex. Less comprehensive. Less full of complete bullshit and obfuscation.

The excuse that it is too big to read or even ATTEMPT to read and understand is complete crap and a cop out for someone who doesn't WANT to take the time or even try.

This argument that the bill is too many pages to read and too difficult to understand is also an argument for doing what most people would consider common sense.......

Make the changes small and incremental so we can read and understand the legislation.

Make the changes small and incremental so we can assess over time what the effectiveness or lack of effectiveness is in each step.

Instead of a sweeping abortion of a bill that is an irrevocable change to our economy and our lives.....how about a little moderation and common sense?

Naaaahh. I forgot...we are talking about liberal progressives who are desperate to make over the country, no matter what the consequences.

TMink said...

"If a woman wants an abortion, she should be able to get one. The end.

Only for you."

Well, and the precious child who will never live. Not that the child counts for much today.

Trey

Ann Althouse said...

"It's big and complicated because our health care system is big and complicated. And we've had a YEAR to look into its details. You can read 2,000 pages in a YEAR."

1. The text hasn't been stable for a year. It keeps changing. So you're still either ignorant/disingenuous.

2. The complexity of the health care system doesn't for me say that there should be a big complicated bill reforming it. It says that legislators should be prudent and incremental as they undertake reform.

Scott M said...

You can read 2,000 pages in a YEAR.

That's a pretty low-angled view. If memory serves, when they thought they could ram this thing through last year, they gave time counted in hours and days (very few days) to go over this monstrosity. They would have done it, as it was, if they could have pulled it off. The only reason we're even still talking about this has everything to do with recent special elections.

As far as excusing the size of the bill do to the length of time since reform, that's a pretty weak argument. Our system was not designed for huge, sweeping changes. It was designed for small, incremental changes. A lot of politicos just don't seem to understand that.

Montagne Montaigne said...

I see, I see. So the problem was never with the substance of the bill, just its size. So if the bill is broken up into 100 bills, the Republicans won't filibuster any of them. Has anyone told Pelosi this? It's so simple.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

So if the bill is broken up into 100 bills, the Republicans won't filibuster any of them. Has anyone told Pelosi this? It's so simple.

Actually......yes.

They have suggested that the package be broken up into incremental bills. They have basically been told to shove it by the Dems.

However, they haven't promised not to fillibuster. You can't make a promise about something you haven't seen yet. This is part of the issue with the big fat 2000 page bill. It keeps changing and no one has really seen it in its entirety.

You should really try to keep up on things before you shoot off at the keyboard.

Scott M said...

I see, I see. So the problem was never with the substance of the bill, just its size. So if the bill is broken up into 100 bills, the Republicans won't filibuster any of them. Has anyone told Pelosi this? It's so simple.

You're certainly being more glib than usual today. Did garage somehow get a hold of your login?

The above statement doesn't change the fact that the Dem leadership made specific promises to put bills online, even going so far as to give a specific amount of time those bills would be available. They failed.

Making a strident claim that the bill should be completely understood because it's been out for a full year completely misses the point of the opposition.

If it were broken into 100 little bills would it survive Republican opposition? Probably not. That had nothing to do with your point, though.

Mary Martha said...

If Pelosi holds that the present bill doesn't cover abortion and this is all a question of semantics... Then why no include the Stupak amendment in the Senate bill?

Because there is a difference. Stupak will ensure that abortion is not paid for by tax dollars, but the Senate bill does not provide the same protections.

Pelosi and the President seem to think that those of us who are pro-life are stupid and if they just repeat the same line "This will not cover abortion" we will believe them.

There are pro-life legislators, and lawyers and average Jane citizens like myself who have read the portions of the law that cover this and looked at precedent of abortion constantly expanding. We are not going to be pacified on this issue with some political promises.

I am a woman who is pro-life and I would disagree with the earlier assertion that the pro-life movement is '99% male'. In my experience it seems to be 60/40 female to male. Pro-life people are not just the politicians who you see on the news.

Montagne Montaigne said...

THE BILLS. ARE ONLINE. YOU CAN READ THEM.

Just admit it-- you don't care what's in the bills. The idea of "reform" itself is in question for you. The length of the bills is a complete red herring.

traditionalguy said...

Monty...That's it. break the bill up into parts that help things work better by controling and even lowering costs, and the other parts parts that are a deadly poison mixed into an IV that the collectivist death panelists are determined to administer to us as their final solution to the offense of Americans having control of their own money. George Soros has spoken...let it be written by his puppet President and his wholey owned Democrat Party. Seriously, the good parts could have been done to fix the system 20 years ago, but the Crisis atmosphere from 20 years of letting things get worse is the long anticipated Feast prepared for the collectivist death panelists, with free abortions for everyone as their chef's special.

Scott M said...

THE BILLS. ARE ONLINE. YOU CAN READ THEM.

They.Weren't.Posted.As.Promised.When.They.Were.Originally.Released.

The fact that they are now is beyond the point. Again, the Dems would be done with this and on to wrecking the economy further with Cap-N-Tax if they would have been successful last year. There would have been no need to have them online now other than as records of something already enacted.

traditionalguy said...

Monty...The word Reform is the oldest smokescreen for a power grap used in politics. When a Politician wants to change one thing in a body of law that will enrich his friends when changed, he ALWAYS pushes a Reform of the entire area of law or government regulatory powers to "bring it into the modern era". They will also change ten other little things that are meaningless as a filibuster for discussions to hide the target they are after all along. This Reform measure is targeted to Death Panels and free abortions. Sorry, Palin exposed this game 8 months ago. Can't you read a facebook post in 8 months time?

Sloanasaurus said...

Another point lost in all this debate is the lack of trust members of Congress has (and the Pulbic) for Obama and Congressional leaders. Obama/Pelosi have been so duplicitious in their dealings, why would any house member trust them when they say they will fix the bill after it passes. The most likley outcome if the bill passes the house is Obama screwing the House members who "compromised" and signing it as soon as possible.

This is the result of a year of consistant lying by Obama and consistent statements from the White House and Pelosi that they will do what ever it takes to pass the bill (including Reconciliation).

Bruce Hayden said...

I don't think that I can remember Ann being so heated. The rest of us, sure. But her? Rarely. (And having graduated from law school, I agree with her 100%).

William said...

Can anyone here claim with absolute certainty that this 2000 page bill does not cover transgender operations for illegal aliens?

c3 said...

MM;
Obama won and democrats, whose #1 issue is health care reform, won majorities. It's what I personally voted for. And they are doing it.

Now here is health care reform. If you don't like it, there's the ballot box next time.


-Point of correction, they're calling it Health Insurance Reform (that's so the public know's what "bad guy" this bill is meant to defeat)

-So this is to fulfill a public wish. So should I assume that when the public says "Ok, but we don't want THIS bill" said elected officials will once again follow the public will?

-Having said that, Monty, you are correct, officials were elected and they are acting on their constituents wishes.

Unfortunately, not every Democratic House Rep has the same constituents, let along the same wishes.

And when all is said and done this is something Speaker Pelosi will need to work out with her caucus. As was said before, she might consider hiding her pique a bit better.

madawaskan said...

Yep.

The senate bill did some "creative" double billing process for insurance, one for regular insurance, and one payment for abortion coverage, that I kid you not- men would have to buy.

One of the arguments during the process was that the double billing would stigmatize abortion and the pro-abortion side tried to fight that. The other argument from the pro-abortion side was that people would not like the double billing.

The go around for that was because it would be most likely done by automatic withdrawal most people would not even notice that there would be two separate fees.

madawaskan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
madawaskan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
madawaskan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Scott said...

Mad,

Looks like Stupak & co. have come through for us...

Dust Bunny Queen said...

WTF What next, do we cut off public highway funds because they may be used for a woman to travel for an abortion?

This is a stupid argument...even for you.

What part of "people do not want tax payer funds to pay for abortion" do you not get.

When our/my money goes to subsidize free health care that includes abortion or to pay for insurance coverage of abortion....it is the same thing as funding abortion directly.

The answer would be to not FORCE the insurance companies to cover abortion in the core policy. If people want to insure themselves for abortion, they can buy a rider for that coverage.

If the 'poor' people can't afford to buy a rider......start a fucking charity and buy it for them. Just keep out of my pocket for that purpose.

garage mahal said...

When our/my money goes to subsidize free health care that includes abortion or to pay for insurance coverage of abortion....it is the same thing as funding abortion directly.

Abortion insurance. How lovely. Either there is no such thing as indirect funding, or everything receives indirect funding. You can't have it both ways. If you don't like a provider offering abortions services, you would be free to choose a provider that doesn't in the exchanges.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

If you don't like a provider offering abortions services, you would be free to choose a provider that doesn't in the exchanges.

Wrong.

The insurance coverage will be MANDATED by the government and the coverage for abortion is MANDATED in the current bill.

This is the source of the problem.

It is also going to be MANDATED that not only will we be FORCED to buy coverage......we will be FORCED to buy coverage for things we don't want or need.

And you are missing the point by a mile. Either you are deliberately being obtuse or you are dumber than you seem.

The issue is subsidizing, with tax payer dollars, insurance policies that cover abortion.

Period.

garage mahal said...

The insurance coverage will be MANDATED by the government and the coverage for abortion is MANDATED in the current bill.

Wrong Wrong Wrong. Under the Senate bill, every insurance exchange must offer at least one abortion-free health plan. But you don't care of course, just keep throwing up that cloud of dust.

Michael said...

Montagne/Garage: The bill is a perfect replica of Democrat thinking and for that we should all be grateful. If it passes we will have further evidence of their clear thinking on matters economic. As to abortion, I am all for it. I recommend it, in fact, to that great swarm of fat asses I see waddling through the airports with their guts hanging out and their tattoos on display. We will be paying for the fat rushing through their shrinking arteries. In fact, I think we should offer a freaking bonus to people who want abortions and can demonstrate they are democrats. Like the old time scalpers in the west. Abort abort abort. Main thing on the dem platform. Just ahead of giving free medical help to the teeming fat, to the disgusting blobs that are breeding and breeding and breeding. I think I am coming over to the dark side on this.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Wrong Wrong Wrong. Under the Senate bill, every insurance exchange must offer at least one abortion-free health plan. But you don't care of course, just keep throwing up that cloud of dust

I don't give a shit how many times you try to hide it.

Even ONE subsidized health plan that offers abortion is violiting the law that public money will not be used to finance abortion.

EVEN ONE!!!

Elmer Stoup said...

I guess Speaker Pelosi thinks we're stupid. The Senate bill uses accounting gimmicks to provide federal abortion funding.

Joe said...

For those who care, I actually found the house bill and cut and paste some of the language on abortion. I'm not sure what the exception in 4B currently entails, if anything (possibly funds that indirectly pay for abortions, such as grants to hospitals?)

(This took me all of ten minutes. You think Pelosi could have done the same?)

(e) ABORTION COVERAGE PROHIBITED AS PART OF MINIMUM BENEFITS PACKAGE.—
(1) PROHIBITION OF REQUIRED COVERAGE.—
The Health Benefits Advisory Committee may not recommend under section 223(b), and the Secretary
may not adopt in standards under section 224(b), the services described in paragraph (4)(A) or (4)(B) as part of the essential benefits package and the Commissioner may not require such services for qualified health benefits plans to participate in the Health Insurance Exchange.

(2) VOLUNTARY CHOICE OF COVERAGE BY
PLAN.—In the case of a qualified health benefits plan, the plan is not required (or prohibited) under
this Act from providing coverage of services described in paragraph (4)(A) or (4)(B) and the QHBP offering entity shall determine whether such coverage is provided.

(3) COVERAGE UNDER PUBLIC HEALTH INSURANCE OPTION.—The public health insurance option shall provide coverage for services described in paragraph (4)(B). Nothing in this Act shall be construed as preventing the public health insurance option from providing for or prohibiting coverage of services described in paragraph (4)(A).

4) ABORTION SERVICES.—
(A) ABORTIONS FOR WHICH PUBLIC FUNDING IS PROHIBITED.—The services described in this subparagraph are abortions for which the expenditure of Federal funds appropriated for the Department of Health and Human Services is not permitted, based on the law as in effect as of the date that is 6 months before the beginning of the plan year involved.

(B) ABORTIONS FOR WHICH PUBLIC FUNDING IS ALLOWED.—The services described in this subparagraph are abortions for which the expenditure of Federal funds appropriated for the Department of Health and Human Services is permitted, based on the law as in effect as of the date that is 6 months before the beginning of the plan year involved.

Joe said...

(To be clear; I support unlimited abortion before 10 weeks of pregnancy and full criminalization afterward except to save the life of the mother. I'm also for parental notification--if my daughter has to get my permission to even have any other doctor just see her, she damn well has to get my permission for anything more dramatic.)

Revenant said...

tens of thousands of actual people die each year waiting for Stupak

Annual deaths per 1000 population:

European Union 10.28
Japan 9.54
United States 8.38

Revenant said...

Obama won and democrats, whose #1 issue is health care reform, won majorities. It's what I personally voted for.

Hm, looking at Google I see that you posted in a half-dozen Obama threads here back in 2008. You didn't mention health care in any of them. Come to think of it, you didn't mention any reason to vote for Obama; you just spent the time bashing Republicans.

Kind of amusing. :)

Revenant said...

Even ONE subsidized health plan that offers abortion is violiting the law that public money will not be used to finance abortion

Yeah, that sums it up. Under this bill, insurance companies will be allowed to offer plans that (a) fund abortion and (b) qualify for government subsidies for qualified purchasers. Ergo, under this bill the government will pay for abortions. QED. Anyone who says otherwise is either lying or hasn't read the bill.