Healthcare Bill used to limit abortion.

[Soliloquy]

Now, I might as well start out by saying that I don't, and never have, supported Abortion, except in cases where the life of the mother is at risk.

But this kind of thing honestly goes to show why I was worried about such a huge health care bill that pretty much no one has read all the way through: stupid stuff like this.

An obscure part of the law allows states to restrict abortion coverage by private plans operating in new insurance markets. Capitalizing on that language, abortion foes have succeeded in passing bans that, in some cases, go beyond federal statutes.

So pretty much, state governments are now able to prevent private insurance from providing coverage for abortions. Arizona and Tennessee have already done so, and Florida, Mississippi and Missouri have passed laws that are awaiting approval by their governors.

"You're Paranoid," they said. "The size of the bill doesn't matter," they said. Well, there's bound to be other dumb sections like this hidden in the bill that are just waiting to be exploited.

I feel rather vindicated.

 

[Chibibar]

So basically, if a person pay for their own insurance (I know the original federal bill did not want to cover abortion with tax payers' money) they can't use it for abortion?

That is like saying, sorry, you can't spend money on your own choice.

 

[Dave]

They are limiting coverage to a LEGAL MEDICAL PROCEDURE, regardless of what that procedure is. I have a feeling this is going to be stricken down by the Supreme Court.

 

[Krisken]

They are limiting coverage to a LEGAL MEDICAL PROCEDURE, regardless of what that procedure is. I have a feeling this is going to be stricken down by the Supreme Court.

I think you, sir, underestimate Samuel Alito

 

[Chibibar]

They are limiting coverage to a LEGAL MEDICAL PROCEDURE, regardless of what that procedure is. I have a feeling this is going to be stricken down by the Supreme Court.

heh. I like your way of saying it better. Yea. That is kinda mess up. I hope these new laws get struck down.

I am not trying to advocate to other forumite of the moral of abortion. You can believe anything you want to.

 

[Dave]

Look at it this way. What if we let the religious zealots have their way with everything in the bills. Now I know this is taking things to extremes, but this is still limiting a legal, medical procedure on nothing more than religious objections (no matter what makare says).

So the Catholics get their way. Say goodbye to birth control and prenatal care. Watch the pregnancy rate and STD rate skyrocket.
The Muslims have their say. Now hospital menus are free of all pork and beef (since cattle are usually killed through blunt force trauma).
Other fringe groups have their say. Now we can no longer give immunizations, women get less care than men and doctors have to first try homeopathic medicines because they are "natural". Oh, and children with disabilities and minorities might as well go someplace else. Depression meds? Quackery! No such thing as depression. Just ask Tom Cruise! You just have to suck it up, you pussy!

And let's not even get into the over-the-top insanity that could be if someone were to start a religion that thinks things like pain medication is wrong.

Yes, a lot of what I said is exaggeration, but it is based in actual beliefs of this group or that group and is an example as to WHY we should not allow religious groups to make policy.

 

[Espy]

I agree with you in general Dave, but I have an issue with you referring to people who have problems with what is probably the most controversial medical procedure in history (at least recent history) as "fringe" or "religious zealots" (especially considering that most polls show a pretty even split on abortion, hardly "fringe"). Just because something is legal it doesn't make those who have issues with it "nutjobs".

I think the debate/discussion on abortion in general would be much more successful and genteel if everyone stopped throwing around such extreme terms when talking about the other side.

 

[Dave]

You're right. Zealots would be killing people over the issue.


Oh, wait...


Believe what you want, but it's the religious who lobbied hard for the exclusion of (again) a legal medical procedure. And our "representatives" are allowing these special interest groups to make policy and it's wrong. Anti-abortion people have never been "genteel" about their beliefs. They are unswerving and immovable. They form lines on major streets, bringing (indoctrinating?) children who have no clue what the hell they are holding signs up for. They kill doctors. They harass doctors, nurses and other medical professionals. They harangue and scoff at women who are already making a very difficult decision. They do everything in their power to make sure that women can not get this done, whether it hurts the woman or not. And once the baby is born, they could care less.

Screw genteel. When you drive down the street with your kids and a van with a bloody fetus picture on the side drives by with these people who must not have jobs I want to see how genteel you think your side is being.

How many pro-choice people have murdered people over the issue? How many people have pro-choice activists harassed? But that doesn't matter. Your God has to tell women what they have to do. So let's make policy out of that!

Religion + policy = theocratic idiocy

 

[Chibibar]

Dave has a point. I am pro-choice. I believe the woman has a right to do what she want. It is between her belief, her god, and her body. I am no place to judge another person. (which I thought it was in the Bible) sure I would love to have people follow in my belief, but I'm not going to force anyone doing so.

I personally had to take two of my little "sisters" to get the procedure done cause it was harmful to their body (per their doctor) and their loser ex-bf didn't have the guts to walk pass these picket lines. Am I evil? probably to many of the "zealots" but that is between me and my God when I die and be judge.

 

[Espy]

That fine guys, I won't try and change your minds but I don't see how painting millions of people with extreme generalizations and insults is productive.

 

[Dave]

Okay, I'll be nice to you and dial it down a bit.

But what did I say that was wrong?

 

[Espy]

I already told you, I don't disagree with your assessment of how religion interacts with the government, I don't think it's good for religion to try and enforce it's morality on government one bit, but I find the venom and the lack of understanding for anyone who doesn't agree with one's point of view to be a pretty big symptom of why our country is at the point where any debate becomes a screaming match. Abortion is, whether anyone likes it or not, in the end a discussion between people who believe it is MURDER and those who believe it is A WOMAN'S RIGHT.

Those are huge issues. HUGE. Thats why I don't think we can paint either side as vile or evil or stupid is. It's just not that black and white of an issue. I can look at both sides and see that if one truly believed what they believe then its understandable why they would be so voracious in their defense/offense. If you believed a humans rights were being trampled or that a human was being murdered you would want the government to do something about it, right? I don't think it's an issue then of religion trying to push it's morality on government (which I am against), but rather an issue of people trying to defend what they see as life. So I get that, just like I get that if it's from the other side it's the defense of a woman's right to choice. Both come from very valid places in my view, which is why this is a uniquely difficult issue.
Does that make sense? I actually agree with you, but I think the debate in general could benefit from a more discussion oriented tone based around understanding where the other side is coming from rather than the usual screaming match.

And to be clear, I don't condone anything illegal be it murder, picketing outside of legal zones, etc.


But to get back on topic, did anyone know about this before the bill passed or is it really coming out of the blue?

 

[Covar]

How many pro-choice people have murdered people over the issue?

Based on the premise of pro-life, many.

 

[Soliloquy]

Dang it, I should have known this would have become an abortion debate. Oh well...

But to get back on topic, did anyone know about this before the bill passed or is it really coming out of the blue?

Well, somebody had to know about it... they did write it into the bill, after all.

They are limiting coverage to a LEGAL MEDICAL PROCEDURE, regardless of what that procedure is. I have a feeling this is going to be stricken down by the Supreme Court.

The question here is: can the supreme court strike down a portion of the law, or do they have to strike down the entire 2000+ page law along with it?

 

[Dave]

Dude, the word abortion is in the thread title!!

And I really don't know about what they can do. I thought they had an all or nothing thing.

 

[Dubyamn]

The question here is: can the supreme court strike down a portion of the law, or do they have to strike down the entire 2000+ page law along with it?

Actually yeah, they can just say that the interpretation of the law that says the states can limit the rights of private insurance companies on policies not paid for by the federal government is wrong and put forth another interpretation.

 

[Norris]

That fine guys, I won't try and change your minds but I don't see how painting millions of people with extreme generalizations and insults is productive.

Well, no offense, but when one side's opening words tend to be "baby-killers" and choose a name that implies anyone who disagrees with them the DC Comics God of Evil (in favor of Anti-Life), I'd say they started it.

 

[Chibibar]

That fine guys, I won't try and change your minds but I don't see how painting millions of people with extreme generalizations and insults is productive.

Well, no offense, but when one side's opening words tend to be "baby-killers" and choose a name that implies anyone who disagrees with them the DC Comics God of Evil (in favor of Anti-Life), I'd say they started it.[/QUOTE]

now Now we can be better and move on in terms of "who did who first."

I still say that since it is a LEGAL procedure in the U.S. a PRIVATE insurance company not funded by the government should be able to cover abortion.

 

[Espy]

That fine guys, I won't try and change your minds but I don't see how painting millions of people with extreme generalizations and insults is productive.

Well, no offense, but when one side's opening words tend to be "baby-killers" and choose a name that implies anyone who disagrees with them the DC Comics God of Evil (in favor of Anti-Life), I'd say they started it.[/QUOTE]

I'm not offended, I'm just not interested in discussing a big issue like this when people use that kind of extreme and/or insulting rhetoric . It's just the flip side of the same coin and it's counter productive to actual discussion of any issue. If people refuse to try and understand the issue and why and how each sides develops its views on it and instead just paint one side as baby killers and the other as women haters its just a bunch of masturbatory bullshit. It's pointless.

 

[drifter]

After going through the article, I would just like to mention a couple things:

-States already were able to limit private insurance with regards to abortion coverage before the health care bill. While it may make such laws easier to pass, it's not like it's allowing something heretofore impossible.

-Women already mostly pay for abortions out of pocket; so while it is theoretically abhorrent (if you're pro-choice), looking at it pragmatically it may not have a big impact. Of course the poor, as usual, are fucked.

-If I am reading the article correctly, federal law says the private plans can cover abortions provided they collect a separate premium to be held aside from public funding. So how exactly does the new health care bill allow for states to ban coverage? Am I missing something?