Comments on: Stupak Amendment, Redux: Recorded Vote Live Blog

By: oisin

oisin — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 08:44:36 +0000

I share LindaR’s question above, “why isn’t this unconstitutional?” Planned Parenthod v. Casey is the operative Supreme Court decision. The plurality opinion in that case struck down any governmental provision that places an “undue burden” on a woman seeking an abortion An “undue burden” is defined as any statute that has “the purpose or effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus.” Surely a federal law that has the effect of making it extremely difficult for a woman to get coverage for abortion is an “undue burden” by this definition.

By: sporkovat

sporkovat — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 07:57:09 +0000

Dear fellow – my position on ‘more and better (D)’s’ is one of merciless mockery.

the unrequited infatuation with the Democratic Party on the part of ‘progressives’ is a major factor in the accelerating rightward drift the USA has been on for 40 years.

And with the brazen disses and betrayals from the party that controls congress and the WH, there is truly no excuse anymore – and the comments are full of folks offering renunciations of voting for, donating, or working for (D)’s again.

By: letsgetitdone

letsgetitdone — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 04:38:20 +0000

Or if she’s of child-bearing age, she could emigrate to Canada and fugeddaboudit all this BS.

By: fuckno

fuckno — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 04:14:52 +0000

more and better Democrats has always been the progressives mantra – it doesn’t work, Norske or not.

By: cinnamonape

cinnamonape — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 04:11:37 +0000

Pretty much so…it will have to be purchased “out of pocket”.

By: cinnamonape

cinnamonape — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 04:10:46 +0000

That’s a tough question as many of the families and women using a corporate plan may receive subsidies on the basis of their income. Given that they cannot use that money for a PLAN that contains abortion services I’d say that women, even off the exchange, are screwed over TOO.

By: cinnamonape

cinnamonape — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 04:04:49 +0000

Yes…no abortions can be funded through a public option plan…nor from plans on any “exchange”. Thus if a comapny shifts their insurance to an exchange employees could LOSE their coverage for abortions.

By: mocha

mocha — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 04:03:47 +0000

That violates Rowe v Wade, doesn’t it? Tell me we didn’t just take a 40 year step backwards in reproductive rights where only rich women can have abortions?

By: Kelly Canfield

Kelly Canfield — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 04:02:38 +0000

Hey all of you - come on upstairs to the next phase post

By: cinnamonape

cinnamonape — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 04:01:58 +0000

Because the current Federal law only deals with direct support for abortion procedures. This applies to every subsidy the government provides, and to the “administrative costs” of managing exchanges. So if a woman or family receives a subsidy to cover part of their health care that woman or family cannot receive an abortion using that health plan.

Furthermore a woman whose employer decides to shift the company-employee health care to the “exchange”…to get more competitive premium rates…would LOSE her coverage for abortions. She would have to seek insurance elsewhere…but with so few companies offering it she might have to pay exorbitant costs. Or she could try and buy a complete insurance…but as an independent buyer (rather than on an exchange) the prices would be sky high.