We are the 99%

November 9, 2009

Y'all gon' make me lose my mind...

...Up in here, up in here


I expect when I watch Morning Joe for their zoo crew to mischaracterize the Stupak Amendment as merely barring federal funding for abortion and that the Stupak opponents are seeking a "new entitlement."

I expect our resident Right Wing commenter to mischaracterize the Stupak Amendment to be the "Government not paying for abortions."

But, for the Post-Gazette's Early Returns blog to post "the Stupak amendment, which barred federal funding for abortion services" -- et tu, Brute?

You're all driving me crazy.

And, you're WRONG.

Let me repeat for the fourth or fifth time (in one version or another) in the last couple of days:
The Hyde Amendment already barred federal funding for abortion services.

The Stupak Amendment actually rolls back private insurance coverage for reproductive rights.

Stupak is really about getting PRIVATE insurance plans to drop abortion coverage -- which 85% cover now.

Insurance companies will want to participate in the Public Exchange because it gives them a crack at tens of millions of new customers.

However, with Stupak, if you participate in the exchange -- and uninsured folks will be mandated to do so -- you will not be able to purchase a plan that covers abortions EVEN IF YOU PAY FOR THE PLAN ENTIRELY WITH YOUR OWN PERSONAL FUNDS.

So, again, we're not talking about government paid abortions -- that's already illegal -- we're talking about disallowing coverage of abortions from non government funded insurance plans.
Got it now?
.

3 comments:

Clyde Wynant said...

Maria -

Thank you. I was only moderately paying attention to all this...and I appreciate your clarification -- especially 'cause it's not being done elsewhere...and the difference is HUGE!

I really can't express my lack disappointment with the Democrats. I'm beginning to think that they couldn't get anything done even if they had utter control of a Monarchy!

Reminds me of an old joke in the "creative" world; "How many Creative Directors does it take to screw in a light bulb? I don't know, what do you think?"

Matthew said...

This better be ditched in conference...

...and although the line-item veto was a bad idea overall (plus unconstitutional), it's times like this when you wish we had it.

Terry said...

Can someone ask Bart Stupak and the other representatives who voted for this amendment who they have as an insurance carrier? Since they are all part of the Federal Employees Health Program and pick from that network (a network that likely includes insurance plans that cover abortion services), I would guess that they are all using federal funding to pay for their insurance that covers abortion. How do you spell hypocrisy? And, while we are showing how hypocritical this all is, will some reporter please ask where employees of Catholic Hospitals and other Church employers get their insurance? And do Catholic Hospitals not accept payments from all of these same insurance plans?