And, it only took letting Bart Stupak slap women's health around for a few months and then having a Democratic President sign an executive order that basically reaffirms the odious Hyde Amendment.
QUESTONS:
1. Now, with even Kathy Dahlkemper (D-PA) on board, does this make Jason Altmire the loneliest Democrat in all of PA? (That would be a yes.)
2. Now that Stupak is satisfied, are the Catholic Bishops? (That would be a big, fat NO).
3. Does Lil Ricky Santorum's special knowledge about the state of Stupak's soul extend to anyone else? (Never underestimate the power of Santorum.)
.
Showing posts with label Stupak Amendment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Stupak Amendment. Show all posts
March 21, 2010
March 19, 2010
Jason Altmire says he'll vote NO on health care reform
You pay for my family's health insurance.
Suckers!
From the web site of Rep. Jason Altmire (
"I ran for Congress in large part because I believe we need to find a way to bring down the cost of health care. I also ran for Congress with a simple promise: I would do my best to represent my district and to give western Pennsylvania a voice in Washington, not the other way around.He voted against HCR -- and for Stupak -- last time around.
"I regret that this year-long process of debating health care reform has resulted in a final product that I cannot support. The cost of inaction on health care is great, but it would be an even bigger mistake to pass a bill that could compound the problem of skyrocketing health care costs.
"Simply moving money around within the existing system, rather than enacting real delivery system reform, might change who pays the bill, but it does not improve the quality of care or reduce costs for families, small businesses, or the federal government. It creates a system of winners and losers, rather than reforming the system in a way that lets everyone win. It is estimated that after passage of this bill, federal health care expenditures would likely increase above what they would under current law.
"It has become clear that the vast majority of my constituents want me to oppose this bill. Particularly hard hit would be western Pennsylvania’s Medicare beneficiaries, which many experts believe would experience dramatic premium increases with enactment of this bill.
"I am acutely aware that my decision to vote against the health care bill will disappoint some of my constituents and alienate supporters of the bill. The politically easy vote would have been to vote with my party. But I was not sent to Congress to take the easy way out or to vote the way they want me to vote in Washington. I was elected to represent my district and give western Pennsylvania a voice in Congress. I strongly believe that a vote in opposition to the health care bill is consistent with the views of the district I represent, and is the correct vote based on the impact of the bill on my constituents and the overall health care system."
.
March 11, 2010
December 7, 2009
By "bipartisan support" I assume he means Church and State
From Politico:
.
Nelson said that the amendment’s language was not finished, and that groups opposed to abortion — notably the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops — needed more time to review it. Additional time, he added, might lead to greater bipartisan support.
.
Stop Stupak
Emily's List has a petition to stop a Stupak-like bill in the Senate here:
http://action.stopstupak.com/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=385&tag=KEG_HPost_20091117
.
http://action.stopstupak.com/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=385&tag=KEG_HPost_20091117
.
November 20, 2009
Help Lois Herr Against Joe Pitts (Stupak-Pitts Amendment)
We've referred many times on this blog to the Stupak Amendment, but actually it's the Stupak-Pitts Amendment and the "Pitts" is one Joe Pitts: a Republican in PA's 16th Congressional District.
Pitts has a challenger:
Lois Herr is no Blue Dog and she can use your help -- especially tomorrow -- at this rally:
http://www.herr2010.com
.
Pitts has a challenger:
Lois Herr is no Blue Dog and she can use your help -- especially tomorrow -- at this rally:
A rally against the Stupak-Pitts Amendment to the U.S. House Healthcare reform bill is being held on Saturday, Nov. 21 at 10:30 AM in West Chester.Pitts is rallying his troops against Herr and they plan to protest her at the rally:
The rally, to be held this Saturday, is co-sponsored by the National Organization for Women (NOW) and Planned Parenthood Pennsylvania Advocates. Lois will be a featured speaker at the rally.
[snip]
The Nov 21st Rally will be held at the Chester County Courthouse, 2 North High St., in West Chester, PA beginning at 10:30 AM.
Subject: Protest SaturdayIf you're anywhere near West Chester tomorrow, please try to attend: both in support of Herr and against Stupak-Pitts.
I received a call from Joe Pitts campaign office today asking if we can get some people at the CC Courthouse (on High St.) on Sat. at 10:30 a.m. Lois Herr, (not related to the Herr Family) is running against Joe Pitts next year. She is all about abortion and is in lock step with all the dems in congress. She will be pushing for abortion in health care. We need people there with signs supporting the Pitts-Stupak Amendment as well , as other pro-life signs.
Please pass this message on to any and all you think might be available to come. Also if you are able to be there, please let Jerri Lynn Wier know, so they will have an idea of how many people might be there. It is a given that the Daily Local will probably be there, and it would be good to have a good pro-life showing. Her e-mail address is: gwier@zoominternet. net.
Pitts-Stupak Amendment: The prohibition of the "public option" from paying for abortion, except to save the life of the mother, or in cases of rape or incest; and by permanently prohibiting the use of the new federal premium subsidies to purchase private insurance plans that cover abortion.
.
November 14, 2009
A priest, the chairman of Pittsburgh's GOP and a pro choice blogger walk into a bar...
Actually we -- Bob Hillen, Rev. Frank Almade and I -- walked onto PCNC's NightTalk set last night along with the show's host P.J. Maloney. Abortion, LGBT issues ,and the role of women in the Catholic Church were discussed (along with some local issues).
I think that I could have made far more specific points if I didn't need to spend so much of my time trying to correct the spin that the Stupak Amendment merely banned the use of federal funds from paying for elective abortions.
That seems to be all I do these days.
[sigh]
Still, it was fun and as a former Catholic I did have a "Holy Shit!" moment when I saw that I'd be discussing abortion with a priest. I could not resist in the Green Room introducing myself to Father Almade by saying, "Hi, I guess we know why we're both here. I'm a pro choice feminist blogger." I'm guessing that he doesn't hear that a lot.
The conversation was all very civil, but I did have to resist doing a spit-take when Almade said that the Church considers men and women to be equal and I was compelled to rejoin with "some are more equal than others."
Sadly, I did not get across the point that there is a problem with tax-exempt churches using church resources for political purposes (such as issuing letters to Mass participants about the Stupak Amendment) and how the Catholic Church seems to only target Democratic pro choice Catholic politicians vs. their Republican, uh, brethren (think Kerry vs. Giuliani). Thankfully someone was able to make the tax-exempt point recently on MSNBC:
O'Neill: You know that's the first thing that I said. I don't know wherethe Internal Revenue Service is, but I hope they're paying attention.
There does seem to be an awful lot of politicking going on by the Catholic Church lately what with them dictating amendment language to Congress, issuing an ultimatum to end social service programs if they have to follow the law, and contributing hundreds of thousands of dollars to the successful effort to prevent legalization of gay marriage in Maine.
.
I think that I could have made far more specific points if I didn't need to spend so much of my time trying to correct the spin that the Stupak Amendment merely banned the use of federal funds from paying for elective abortions.
That seems to be all I do these days.
[sigh]
Still, it was fun and as a former Catholic I did have a "Holy Shit!" moment when I saw that I'd be discussing abortion with a priest. I could not resist in the Green Room introducing myself to Father Almade by saying, "Hi, I guess we know why we're both here. I'm a pro choice feminist blogger." I'm guessing that he doesn't hear that a lot.
The conversation was all very civil, but I did have to resist doing a spit-take when Almade said that the Church considers men and women to be equal and I was compelled to rejoin with "some are more equal than others."
Sadly, I did not get across the point that there is a problem with tax-exempt churches using church resources for political purposes (such as issuing letters to Mass participants about the Stupak Amendment) and how the Catholic Church seems to only target Democratic pro choice Catholic politicians vs. their Republican, uh, brethren (think Kerry vs. Giuliani). Thankfully someone was able to make the tax-exempt point recently on MSNBC:
O'Neill: You know that's the first thing that I said. I don't know where
There does seem to be an awful lot of politicking going on by the Catholic Church lately what with them dictating amendment language to Congress, issuing an ultimatum to end social service programs if they have to follow the law, and contributing hundreds of thousands of dollars to the successful effort to prevent legalization of gay marriage in Maine.
.
November 10, 2009
More On Stupak's Amendment
From Talkingpointsmemo:
Over on MSNBC, Dr Nancy Snyderman had some choice words about the amendment:
Thanks, guys.
The letter of the amendment itself suggests that women who want to buy an insurance plan that covers abortion must not also be receiving government subsidies, provided for in the bill, to help cover their premiums. However, the overwhelming majority of women in the health insurance exchanges will be receiving subsidies from the government, and if any of them decide they want abortion coverage, under the terms of the Stupak amendment, they'd have to buy a supplemental plan paid for out of pocket.But that's not all:
But in an interview with TPMDC, [the Director of the Women's Health and Rights Program at the Center for American Progress, Jessica] Arons suggests it may be even more complicated than that. One of the pillars of reform legislation is a provision called "guaranteed issue," which holds, basically, that insurers in the exchange must sell consumers whichever insurance policies they choose. However, the Stupak amendment would explicitly forbid people who are provided government subsidies from buying policies that cover abortion--and that contradiction could run afoul of the promise of guaranteed issue from day one.There's more from Arons at the Wonk Room - including something the OPJ has already posted:
"It's a somewhat open question about how those two provisions would interact," Arons says.
For the two measures to work in tandem, she says, either every plan in the exchange would have to be prevented from offering abortion coverage, or the guaranteed issue provision would have to be modified. "I would think there would have to be some sort of specific exemption to the guaranteed issue provision," Arons says.
The claim that it only bars federal funding for abortions is simply false.Arons then describes what the Amendment actually does, including:
It effectively bans coverage for most abortions from all public and private health plans in the Exchange. In addition to prohibiting direct government funding for abortion, it also prohibits public money from being spent on any plan that covers abortion even if paid for entirely with private premiums. Therefore, no plan that covers abortion services can operate in the Exchange unless its subscribers can afford to pay 100% of their premiums with no assistance from government “affordability credits.” As the vast majority of Americans in the Exchange will need to use some of these credits, it is highly unlikely any plan will want to offer abortion coverage.And:
It allows for a useless abortion “rider”: Stupak and his allies claim his Amendment doesn’t ban abortion from the Exchange because it allows plans to offer and women to purchase extra, stand-alone insurance known as a rider to cover abortion services. Hopefully the irony of this is immediately apparent: Stupak wants women to plan for a completely unexpected event.Moron.
Over on MSNBC, Dr Nancy Snyderman had some choice words about the amendment:
[Y]ou know what I find so infuriating about this? I mean, absolutely infuriating? And this isn't about being pro-choice or pro-abortion or any of the hot button lingo. We know women pay more for insurance than men. We know women are restricted in the states. And now it's basically, if you're a 50 year old woman and you're in a monogamous relationship you suddenly find yourself pregnant, you better know that have an abortion rider in order to access health care that you thought you had? It is one more pressure on women. I mean, I'm surprised that frankly there isn't more outrage over the fact that ...this isn't fair!And she sums it up:
A white man deciding a woman's…… a woman's responsibility in her own procreation. I mean I ... I find it infuriating. I mean, I really think it doesn't matter what side of the abortion issue or pro-choice issue you're on, the fact that they are now making health care harder and harder for women to navigate the system. I think it's outrageous—just outrageous. Kelly O'Donnell, thank you so much.And our Congressional friends Mike Doyle and Jason Altmire both voted for the Amendment.
And folks it's not about abortion. It really is about one more burden for women navigating the health care system.
Thanks, guys.
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:
.
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.Got it now?
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.
.
"Stupak" makes it in to the Urban Dictionary
Does "stupak" mean:
Personally, I'm torn between the first two defintions, but for this post, I want to remind everyone that here in Western PA we have three very stupak Democrats:
Mike Doyle, Jason Altmire and John Murtha all voted for the Stupak Amendment.
.
"A medical condition (subset of sepsis) resulting from unsafe - unnecessarily so - back alley abortions as a result of the "Stupak Amendment" to the 2009 Health Care Reform Bill."Or is it:
adj: imposing religious beliefs of one group on another, especially through legislation or financial pressure.How about:
To do something ridiculous, silly, moronic, stupid, asinine, idiotic, etc.You can vote up your favorite definition here.
Personally, I'm torn between the first two defintions, but for this post, I want to remind everyone that here in Western PA we have three very stupak Democrats:
Mike Doyle, Jason Altmire and John Murtha all voted for the Stupak Amendment.
.
November 8, 2009
HA!
I just got a fundraising call from the DSCC -- I think -- they were asking for money to elect more Democratic Senators.
I made sure the telefundraiser knew that I would not give any money to elect any Blue Dogs. No money unless I know it would go to Senators who would/will reject the Stupak/Pitts Amendment.
I probably should apologize to the guy who called because I nearly bit his head off and I have been where he's at, but then again, he seemed to have never heard of the Stupak Amendment so screw him.
.
I made sure the telefundraiser knew that I would not give any money to elect any Blue Dogs. No money unless I know it would go to Senators who would/will reject the Stupak/Pitts Amendment.
I probably should apologize to the guy who called because I nearly bit his head off and I have been where he's at, but then again, he seemed to have never heard of the Stupak Amendment so screw him.
.
Sunday Not So Funnies, Altmire Edition
Former Health Care Industry Lobbyist and Congressman Jason Altmire continues to bite the hand that feeds him.
UPDATE: From the Comments section (Hope it was worth it, Jason because I'm guessing there's a lot of folks like GeneW):
At 10:43 AM, GeneW said...
I worked hard for almost six months making phone calls and knocking on doors for him three years ago in part because he told me and my wife to our faces that he was going to fight to reform healthcare. We no longer live in his district but if I did, I'd certainly vote against him and if he has a primary challenger, I'll definitely send him/her support.
.
Who's going to run against Jason Altmire? (In the primary I mean)
November 7, 2009
Health Care Reform Bill Passes in the House -- Blue Dogs, Republicans and Spineless Dems Throw Women Under the Bus
The Stupak Amendment to the Health Care Reform bill in the House of Representatives passed with 240 yeas, 194 nays and 1 present vote.
What does that mean?
It means that women have been singled out to be the only class of people to actually lose coverage under the HCR bill.
While Rep. Bart Stupak (D, He-Man-Women-Haters-Club) claimed that the his amendment would just ensure that no federal funds would pay for abortion, that is just a BIG FAT LIE. There is already the Hyde Amendment which says no Federal funds can be used to pay for abortions except in the case of rape, incest, or life of the woman.
What the Stupak Amendment does is ensure that no insurance will cover abortions in a regular plan -- even if the woman pays for the insurance totally with her own personal funds. (Currently about 85% of private-insurance plans cover abortion services.) With the passed Stupak Amendment, an insurer who participates in the Public Option Exchange cannot cover abortions except in the case of rape, incest, or life of the woman.
And, how did we get to a place where women actually will lose current coverage?
You can thank the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. Apparently our Congress needed their seal of approval before they could pass HCR legislation.
How fitting that an institution which has an all male leadership has the most important voice in deciding which legal medical procedures can be covered for women. It's so peachy fucking keen. It's also swell that so many of our representatives have decided that we are all Catholic now. Perhaps the bill can also be amended to include "Magdalene laundries": virtual slave labor camps set up by the Catholic Church in Ireland for women of "low character". I'm betting Rep. Michele Bachmann would go for it.
Hell, maybe even Pittsburgh's own Rep. Mike Doyle the "point man to help strike a last-minute compromise on abortion language in the House of Representatives' health care bill" would like the laundries established here too seeing as how he lives in the "C Street" House with Stupak which is run by the ultra secretive and ultra creepy religious group know as "The Family." You know, the group who thinks that its members are destined to rule and aren't bound by conventional moral codes that the rest of us are supposed to follow (which is how they justify to themselves covering up their members' adulterous sexual affairs).
But, it's all OK. If a woman wants insurance that will cover abortion, she can apparently buy supplemental insurance -- because it makes perfect sense to buy extra insurance ahead of time to cover a pregnancy that was unplanned to begin with. Kind of like how everyone should be forced to get supplemental insurance for cancer just in case they get it some day and want to be covered. (And, speaking of cancer, Texas Republican Pete Sessions compared being a woman to being a smoker as to why it's perfectly fine for women to pay more for insurance than men. Better quit that uterus now, girls!)
As I'm writing this the HCR reform bill just passed. I can't even begin to tell you how happy I am that we have a bill which forces women to buy insurance that prohibits coverage of a legal medical procedure at the behest of men who wear dresses (and not in a good way) and can't have sex with women or men -- well, not unless they're very, very young -- and whose leader is in the midst of conducting a witch hunt against his own nuns in the US.
And, while it's true that we really have Blue Dog Dems to thank for this travesty, House Rethuglicans have their own special ways of sticking it to the lil woman. This happened this morning and wasn't even about abortion, but the HCR bill in general:
What a great day for the women of this country (because it's always good to know exactly where you stand -- below men).
Woo-fucking-hoo
.
What does that mean?
It means that women have been singled out to be the only class of people to actually lose coverage under the HCR bill.
While Rep. Bart Stupak (D, He-Man-Women-Haters-Club) claimed that the his amendment would just ensure that no federal funds would pay for abortion, that is just a BIG FAT LIE. There is already the Hyde Amendment which says no Federal funds can be used to pay for abortions except in the case of rape, incest, or life of the woman.
What the Stupak Amendment does is ensure that no insurance will cover abortions in a regular plan -- even if the woman pays for the insurance totally with her own personal funds. (Currently about 85% of private-insurance plans cover abortion services.) With the passed Stupak Amendment, an insurer who participates in the Public Option Exchange cannot cover abortions except in the case of rape, incest, or life of the woman.
And, how did we get to a place where women actually will lose current coverage?
You can thank the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. Apparently our Congress needed their seal of approval before they could pass HCR legislation.
How fitting that an institution which has an all male leadership has the most important voice in deciding which legal medical procedures can be covered for women. It's so peachy fucking keen. It's also swell that so many of our representatives have decided that we are all Catholic now. Perhaps the bill can also be amended to include "Magdalene laundries": virtual slave labor camps set up by the Catholic Church in Ireland for women of "low character". I'm betting Rep. Michele Bachmann would go for it.
Hell, maybe even Pittsburgh's own Rep. Mike Doyle the "point man to help strike a last-minute compromise on abortion language in the House of Representatives' health care bill" would like the laundries established here too seeing as how he lives in the "C Street" House with Stupak which is run by the ultra secretive and ultra creepy religious group know as "The Family." You know, the group who thinks that its members are destined to rule and aren't bound by conventional moral codes that the rest of us are supposed to follow (which is how they justify to themselves covering up their members' adulterous sexual affairs).
But, it's all OK. If a woman wants insurance that will cover abortion, she can apparently buy supplemental insurance -- because it makes perfect sense to buy extra insurance ahead of time to cover a pregnancy that was unplanned to begin with. Kind of like how everyone should be forced to get supplemental insurance for cancer just in case they get it some day and want to be covered. (And, speaking of cancer, Texas Republican Pete Sessions compared being a woman to being a smoker as to why it's perfectly fine for women to pay more for insurance than men. Better quit that uterus now, girls!)
As I'm writing this the HCR reform bill just passed. I can't even begin to tell you how happy I am that we have a bill which forces women to buy insurance that prohibits coverage of a legal medical procedure at the behest of men who wear dresses (and not in a good way) and can't have sex with women or men -- well, not unless they're very, very young -- and whose leader is in the midst of conducting a witch hunt against his own nuns in the US.
And, while it's true that we really have Blue Dog Dems to thank for this travesty, House Rethuglicans have their own special ways of sticking it to the lil woman. This happened this morning and wasn't even about abortion, but the HCR bill in general:
As the Democratic Women’s Caucus took to the microphone on the House floor to offer their arguments for how the bill would benefit women, House Republicans — led by Rep. Tom Price (R-GA) — repeatedly talked over, screamed, and shouted objections. “I object, I object, I object, I object, I object,” Price interjected as Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA) tried to hold the floor.
What a great day for the women of this country (because it's always good to know exactly where you stand -- below men).
Woo-fucking-hoo
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)