Sunday, November 15, 2009

Action Alert: Send Pro Stupak DINOs a Coat Hanger

I found an interesting article about the practical effects of the Stupak-Pitts amendment.

Hypocrite Like most anti-choice efforts we've seen come out of Congress and state legislatures in the past 30+ years since abortion was legalized, Stupak's Coathanger amendment is another attack on the practical side of the issue: on access. Rather than going for Roe and actually proposing something that could result in it's being overturned, he's going the practical route of making it more difficult to obtain by stretching the limits of the Hyde amendment beyond the breaking point.

The Stupak amendment does not literally say that plans on the exchange can’t include abortion coverage, it just makes it completely impossible that a plan could for several reasons. To pretend that a reading of the Stupak amendment could not easily be used to stop the sale of plans covering abortion on the exchange is absurd. That is like claiming a law making it illegal to sell tubes capable of having a bullet pass through at high speeds would not be a ban on firearms. Nita Lowey is correct that this amendment could easily put new restrictions on a woman’s ability to buy an insurance plan that does include abortion coverage from a private insurance company, even with her own money.

Once the dust settles on the legal issues of what this bill does, you have to look at the practical results. Even if insurers participating in the exchange can find the needle to thread to offer abortion coverage, would they? No, says one industry expert.

"I really think it would be impractical," says Robert Laszewski, a health insurance industry consultant....

Laszewski says the problem is that by all estimates, the vast majority of people who will be shopping in the new exchanges will be getting subsidies, so they won't be allowed to get abortion coverage. Thus, if a health insurer did offer a separate plan with abortion coverage, it would only be available to a small universe of buyers, and it simply wouldn't make much business sense.

"It's not an ideological issue, it's not about abortion or not abortion," Laszewski says. "It's about what is administratively simpler, easier to administer. It just adds a level of complexity they will likely avoid."

Sara Rosenbaum, a health lawyer and professor at George Washington University, agrees that it's impractical to expect health insurance plans to cover abortion in the exchanges, even for people paying the full premiums without federal help.

"If you speak to insurers in the industry, they will tell you that they simply can't operate under these circumstances," Rosenbaum says. "They need to be able to offer standard products that get administered in a standard way for everybody."

For insurers, it's about the bottom line, and the bottom line is easier to maintain through standardized, streamlined processes. That means offering a standard product, in this case one that excludes abortion... [emphasis added]

Inserted from <Daily Kos>

In my last article on this subject, I said essentially the same thing, but did I did not reason it out as clearly as this does.  This is a Republican attempt to kill health care reform and a DINO attempt to win points with the theocon set.  Nothing we can do will influence the Republicans in Congress.  The only solution for them is to vote them out of office, but we should pressure the DINOs in every way possible.  I received a petition from Credo Mobile that I found most appropriate:

coat hanger Sign this petition and send a coat hanger to the 20 formerly pro-choice Democrats -- all men -- who voted to pass the Stupak Amendment.

"We know what happens when women are denied access to reproductive health care including abortion. And we can't go back to an era of coat hangers and back alley abortions. Reconsider your vote on the Stupak Amendment. Tell House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid that the final health care bill that emerges from the conference committee can't turn the clock back on women's rights."

To send a DINO a coat hanger, Click Here.

13 comments:

the walking man said...

I really liked this protest action when i got it in my inbox. Stupak is a major ass from the conservative side of the state. His ilk is most likely going to be running MI next year.

Sue said...

WHAT?? I made the list?? WOW!!

Tom, I got this in my inbox too. It makes me ill thinking of the consequences of turning back the clock on womans rights. Its frightening and deadly.

TomCat said...

That's a frightening thought, Mark. He's running for Governor there, right?

Sure did, Sue!! :-) I agree, Sue. That's why I feqatured this action.

Mauigirl said...

TomCat, thanks for this post. This is a serious problem and we need to stop the erosion of abortion rights that has been taking place over the past decade or so.

BTW, I quoted you in my latest post-loved what you said about the 9/11 trial.

Holte Ender said...

TomCat - Well done bringing this up, you can't blink on rights for women or they will turn the clock back as far as they can. Watch out voting rights.

libhom said...

Stupak is running for governor?????

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!

Dave Dubya said...

What would ya expect form a "C" Street(Politics of Jesus/Christian Capitalism) Cult member?

Such hypocrites. Bet his mistress had an abortion.

Michigan is so pathetic this guy would be the progressive candidate for governer.

The DeVoss(Amway)/Erik Prince (Blackwater) Cult has been wanting power for a long time.

TRUTH 101 said...

While I share your concern about women's control over their own bodies TomCat, I do question the sincerity of the right on the matter of abortion.

I've done several posts on this over the years. I've alwaysd contended that despite their moral rhetoric, the right has no interest in actually outlawing abortion. It's too important an issue that keeps their zealot religious base in the fold. If our side allows this to become the focus instead of making sure health insurance is affordable we and the American People will once again lose to the selfish interests of the right.


I don't want to make light of abortion. I think most people believe abortion as a means of birth control is wrong. My support of abortion rights has more to do with allowing others to mind their own business.

Vigilante said...

Driving home from the beach, there was a discussion on my Liberation radio (KCLU) about the Stupac Amendment. (Now, I've been inbibbing a little here, so take that into account when considering what I am about to say.) Some asshole Bishop was saying that he was going to deny any Catholic legislator Communion (if that's what that shit is called), if he voted against the Stupax Amendment. Well the commentator on the radio said, that sets American diversity back to before JFK. Remember? The non-Catholic Catholic candidate for President?

So, I'll take it one step further. That guy whose name I can't think of who's been the presidential advisor to Clinton and Bush I was saying 'now, now, let's not get nasty'. And the other guy was sayin' (and I was shouting) why should we ever again bother voting for Catholic candidates again? I mean if the Pope's giving them this kind of Papal instruction? WTF!!!!????

TomCat said...

You're welcome, Maui, and thank you. I'll be over to check it out.

Holte, the Republicans hate our freedom. They want cogs for crony capitalist plutocracy.

Libhom,I don't blame you.

Dave, I hope they don't get it.

Truth, I question the sincerity of the right about everything.

Vig, in my opinion the diocese that Bishop represents should lose their tax exempt status, because that is a clear breech of establishment clause in the First Amendment.

Vigilante said...

Absolutely!

Distributorcap said...

we have entered the slippery slope - the anti choicers have found the back door they wanted....

and watch obama do nothing about it because he wants his bill

TomCat said...

Amen, Vig.

DC, I fear you might be right, if it went that far, but I don't think the Stupak language will get into the Senate version or be added back in in conference.