While I agree it puts Women in a tough position to pay for an elective abortion, I do agree with the fact that the government shouldn’t have to front the costs for a women getting pregnant on her own accord. The government shouldn’t be held accountable for a women not using protection.

I’m not even going to pwn you Ben. I’ll just wait for Jess.

@Charlie It’s okay, Ben and I went to high school together.

@Ben Your argument, if we can call it that, ignores socioeconomic issues. It posits that all women have access to protection, which of course, is not always the case. And if your insurance company doesn’t cover birth control, then you’re even less likely to have access to it. Without proper access to protection, a whole slew of problems can be instigated– higher birth rates among lower-income families that don’t have the capital to support their children, not to mention–without condoms–the quicker spread of STI’s.

The other problem is that this amendment limits women from purchasing insurance plans with their own money that cover abortions. I expect that many people won’t agree with some of my assertions here, but I think even Conservatives will concede that limiting what health care women can spend their own money on is a serious affront to personal freedoms.

To your second point, about not being able to purchase plans that cover abortion, I agree it is unfair. I’t not arguing for the bill as a whole but on one point.

Condoms cost a few bucks, so I don’t really understand the capital argument. If you don’t have the money to have sex safely, that doesn’t mean the government should front that. Whether you all agree with me or not is irrelevant. There is no fact here, only opinions.

Charlie, speak for yourself. Stand up for what you believe.

O an keep in mind I fully support the bill and I am a democrat. There are varying degrees to which someone affiliates themselves with a party. You can’t expect one person to be has “liberal” (i hate that term) as yourselves.

And furthermore, I don’t understand why Charlie has to take an aggressive approach by talking about “pwning” me. This is where political discourse in America falter, when people try to insult or degrade a persons argument. I really think that the internet has spawned this behavior the most… Ugh…

Condoms cost a few bucks, so I don’t really understand the capital argument. If you don’t have the money to have sex safely, that doesn’t mean the government should front that.

So the inevitable pregnancy and child is, what, just retribution for a lack of prudence? Please. What other medical conditions should be left out of comprehensive health care coverage because the patients were asking for it?

Having a child, after not being protected, is a lack of not only prudence but common sense. Are we seriously having this argument. Whatever happened to accountability?

Accountability shouldn’t have anything to do with who gets medical treatment. Are we going to withhold chemo from people who smoked cigarettes too?

Having unprotected sex, getting pregnant, and then asking the government to pay for your abortion is like me getting fired from my job for being an idiot, going on welfare and then asking the government to find me a job. Its unrealistic.

So the preferable alternative is demanding that women who can’t cover the cost of abortion on their own go through nine months of unwanted pregnancy followed by the birth of an unwanted child, who will go on to have an awesome life due to the circumstances into which he was born. Cool!

Ben, I suspect the reason you feel this way is because there is no situation in a man’s life that would be at all equivalent to a women getting accidentally pregnant, and so your lack of empathy is really showing in your reasoning.

I would not compare getting fired from your job for being an idiot to getting accidentally pregnant (hey, condoms break/ birth control pills fail because of people not taking them correctly). Your analogy is incorrect because it assumes that a woman who becomes accidentally pregnant is at a same place as a person who just got fired from their job “for being an idiot.” They are not. I don’t know how you can even come up with that.

You also seem to assume that every single woman who gets accidentally pregnant is going around asking men to spray a load in them. Maybe that is true, but I can promise you that in this day and age, when I use the words “accidentally pregnant,” I am not referring to the girl who got pregnant because she – oopsies – forgot about protection in the heat of the moment; I am referring to the women whose birth control pills fail, or who had partners whose condoms broke. They deserve to have an unwanted child because of… accountability? (your use of that word is also flawed.)

Does that mean that those women who have unprotected sex and get pregnant deserve it? Well, they certainly should have expected it… but their “lack of prudence and common sense” should not be used against women who do use birth control.

Btw, no one’s mentioned it yet, but I found that Viagra fact APPALLING. Is that true?? Also, this really makes me sad because I currently don’t have health insurance and I use double protection (might be overkill, but y’know, I don’t know wanna be seen as stupid and as having no common sense… oh and also, I DON”T WANNA FUCKING GET PREGNANT) and the prices for the pills (which I have been paying for out of pocket) have been steadily going up month-by-month. I contemplated giving up on those, but decided against it – I’ll just spent less money on food and alcohol.

*spend

OK, OK, I’ll jump into this.

@ Ben: Ned has already pointed out how faulty your “accountability” argument is. You responded to his comment about withholding chemo from cigarette smokers with…restating your argument.

Going further, why should the government fund pre-natal care, childbirth, etc.? By your logic, if a woman gets pregnant by having unprotected sex than she should have to bear the costs of her decision.

Also, since you seem to be making an economic argument, not a moral one, it should be noted that the net cost to the taxpayers by restricting abortion is much higher! As the California Supreme Court noted in Committee to Defend Reproductive Rights v. Myers, “any money saved by refusing to fund abortions would be spent on maternity care and childbirth expenses and on supporting the children of indigent mothers.” (http://www.jstor.org/pss/3480229 – gated, but available through Bobst online).

I like what Ann at Feministing had to say: “On some level, I don’t care about the nitty-gritty details of this amendment. This isn’t just about how the money is allocated or what workarounds exist. This has me so incredibly infuriated because it further segregates abortion as something different, off the menu of regular health care. It is a huge backward step in the battle to convey — not just politically, but to women in their everyday lives — that reproductive health care is normal and necessary, and must be there if (or, more accurately, when) you need it.”

And it goes beyond the “public option.” As Jess pointed out, many women may be unable to purchase insurance plans with their own money. See this: “The Stupak-Pitts amendment forbids any plan offering abortion coverage in the new system from accepting even one subsidized customer. Since more than 80 percent of the participants in the exchange will be subsidized, it seems certain that all health plans will seek and accept these individuals. In other words, the Stupak-Pitts amendment forces plans in the exchange to make a difficult choice: either offer their product to 80 percent of consumers in the marketplace or offer abortion services in their benefits package. It seems clear which choice they will make.”

Finally, Ben, I’m not trying to “insult or degrade” your argument. I just think it’s easily pwnable. I’m not attacking you personally. Jess vouches for you so I’m sure you’re a cool guy. So, please, take it easy.

Someone please help me out; I don’t understand this tax credit for private health insurance plans. What exactly does the tax credit cover? All private, non-employee based insurance plans purchased by an individual? I know that employers aren’t taxed on health insurance they provide for their employees, so is this the exact same thing for consumers? Also, is everyone given this benefit or is it restricted by income?

By the way, I’m also curious where the “accountability” argument leaves men. We’re responsible for using contraception wisely too, obviously. It’s just that if we don’t, the consequences, on a basic medical/biological level, are nowhere near as extreme. Unless there’s some way for Ben to compensate that, then it seems like his idea of accountability is pretty skewed.

Ned, that’s what I kept thinking when Ben said accountability. I got kinda angry while I was reading his arguments.

Also, yea, what Charlie said.

I agree it’s a nasty thing that government funded abortions are still banned, but I disagree that it is at all an offense to “reproductive rights.” Abortions are still entirely legal and constitutional in the US, and whether the government decides to spend money on them is not a question of rights. There are plenty of things the government decides not to spend money on, but that doesn’t mean we don’t have the right to them.

Also– you misconstrued both the Stupak and Hyde Amendments. They say that federal funding is not allowed except in the cases of “physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness” and “rape or incest.” While I agree these terms are too limiting–please don’t misrepresent them.

@Max Yes, I didn’t mean to misrepresent that. Everyone should read Max’s above comment– government money can be allocated in cases of rape, incest or physical illness.

I just don’t personally agree that that coverage is comprehensive enough.

@Max Oh, I’d also like to point out that I fundamentally disagree with this not being a reproductive rights issue. Just because abortions are legal, doesn’t mean that all women have access to them, or the capital to pay for them. Further still, even if you do have private capital to afford them, this law limits how you can spend that capital. If you don’t have access or have severely restricted access, what’s the point of having the right in the first place?

As Ann at Feministing said:

This also sets apart women’s rights from the Democratic/progressive/whatever agenda. As something expendable. But fundamental rights for women are not peripheral. They are core. And not just because of so-called “progressive” values.

Also see this article in WaPo:

“The amendment goes beyond long-standing prohibitions against public funding for abortions, limiting abortion coverage even for women paying for it without government subsidies.”

If that’s not a limitation of reproductive and abortion rights, I don’t know what is.

@David [PDF] Here is the text of the Stupak Amendment.

A clearer explanation of the “tax credits” thing comes from Planned Parenthood’s website:

“Simply put, the Stupak/Pitts amendment would restrict women’s access to abortion coverage in the private health insurance market, undermining the ability of women to purchase private health plans that cover abortion, even if they pay for most of the premiums with their own money. This amendment reaches much further than the Hyde Amendment, which has prohibited public funding of abortion in most instances since 1977…

“The Stupak/Pitts amendment violates the spirit of health care reform, which is meant to guarantee quality, affordable health care coverage for all. In fact, this amendment would create a two-tiered system that would punish women, particularly those with low and middle incomes, the very people this bill is intended to assist. The majority of private health insurance plans currently offer abortion coverage, and the Stupak/Pitts amendment would result in the elimination of private abortion coverage in the ‘exchange,’ the new insurance market created under health care reform, as well as in the public option, if one is created.

“The Stupak/Pitts amendment would purportedly allow women who want comprehensive reproductive health care coverage to purchase a separate, single-service rider to cover abortion. But such abortion riders do not exist because women do not plan to have unintended pregnancies or medically complicated pregnancies that require ending the pregnancy. These so-called ‘abortion riders,’ which would be the only insurance policy through which abortion care could be covered in the ‘exchange,’ are discriminatory and illogical. Proposing a separate ‘abortion rider’ or ‘single-service plan’ is tantamount to banning abortion coverage since no insurance company would offer such a policy.”

It kinda sucks when government gets involved in health-care, huh?

@Chris – I’m sure everyone who benefits from Medicare and the VHA agrees. That kind of government run health care is just horrible, right? Which is why Republicans campaign on getting rid of them both… except, not.

[...] Stupid Stupak By Jess See my reaction to the passage of the Stupak Amendment here. [...]

lol, that’s right, money grows on trees and the United States isn’t ~~going~~ broke because of programs like Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security. What a wonderful world!

I was merely pointing out that women are gonna find it harder to fund their “reproductive rights” expressly because of government involvement in health-care. I’m not saying the system didn’t need some change. I’m just saying this is what we get when we ask the government to provide the health-care solution.

argh, I was trying to do a “strike-through” on “going”. Didn’t seem to work.

Sadly the Stupak Amendment isn’t the only sexist thing about health care and health care reform:

[...] her impassioned post yesterday lamenting the Stupak Amendment’s thorny presence in the House health care bill, [...]

@ Jessica Is that video factual? Is domestic abuse really a pre-existing condition in some states? A C-section?? I’m raging.

@Kristina

Yep. Check this out too.