If federal money is already barred from going towards supporting abortions, and the Stupak Amendment bars those insurance plans recieving a federal boost from allowing insurance on abortions, isn’t the bill redundant and therefore no big deal?

Why the uproar over the Stupak Amendment?

Maybe that is a poor generalization of the Stupak Amendment, but that is how CSPAN described it Saturday night and it is impossible to get a straight answer from the news programs. They often don’t lie, but they rarely tell the entire story, just the facts that make their narritive fit and leave out the facts that would bust their commentary.

Hope and Change in Flames…

•13 men and women are slaughtered at Ft. Hood and mounting evidence shows a PC U.S. Army aided and abetted al Qaeda.

•Americans are so broke they fear spending $1.2 trillion for health reform will cripple their great grand kids, grand babies.

•Speaker Pelosi has just un-muzzled Rachel Maddow’s millions of pro-abortion lefties to leash 40 yappy pro-life blue dogs.

•Unemployment is a serial killer blackmailing for more stimulus money and promising to slash wing-tipped political throats.

•Democrats act giddy after losing two big state governors and narrowly winning NY23, but not against any real republican.

•Blue state Independents are fleeing liberal rule in historic numbers and trampling town hall’s everywhere blood red.

•The current president is trapped in a sticky web of unmasked illusions and inescapable lies unspun by his oily alter ego.

•In 2010 and 2012 the GOP may rise again from the ranks of W’s rotting undead to bury Obama’s Id.

I think that sums up the pathetic state of state affairs, but feel free to add your own.

The issue with the Stupak amendment is that it actually will put the government between a doctor and patient by telling the doctor, “We don’t pay for that.” Not on scientific grounds or medical grounds, but on personal beliefs by the authors. It shows zero regard for a doctor’s prescribed course of treatment when weighed against Queen Nancy’s political expediency.

The irony – Pelosi sold out her own words to get the bill passed. She has now finally proven to be as worthless as the other 534 members of Congress. Liars and hypocrites.

Note to Bulletinizer – sometimes facts are sort of helpful.

@Keeva

So if that is true, then by passing the HCR bill it would be retracting another law stating no Federal money will go towards abortions.

This isn’t about the issue of abortion itself but the HCR bill acting as a trojan to retract the prior law when the country is essentially split on the issue of abortion (47/45 10.2.09 Pew Research Center poll). Otherwise the Stupak amendment wouldn’t be needed.

This is my number one opposition to the idea of government run healthcare… I don’t want the government between me and my Dr. I don’t want it if they’re Democrats, and I don’t want it if they’re Republicans.

I’ve said from the beginning of this debate to all the Liberals who were so excited to have the government in charge… “What happens when the Republicans are in power again? Will you be excited then?” But, unable to see tomorrow from today, they couldn’t look into the future, and were unable to respond.

This is the future, folks. Your healthcare will now become a political issue to be used in campaigns. “Bob will promise you faster service… but Tom will promise your better treatment…” and the blather will go on, nothing will change, and the system will break down even further. It’s not hard to see it, if you’re willing to look past ideology and idealism.

The reality is that with the exception of rape/incest/life-threatening cases this is still recognized as an elective proceedure. I have tried to explain to some who state this is about telling women what to do with their bodies they should look into the government-run plans in Britain where many of the most effective breast cancer drugs are being denied. In The States we are currently saying “We won’t pay for it”, meaning you can still get it done but on your own bill. That is still better than Britain telling you “No” outright.

An exception is rape. Unfortunately, most rapes are not reported, mostly out of fear of both the perpetrator and the continuing of the horror by police and medical professionals. What documentation would a woman need to provide to prove that she was entitled to an abortion because of rape? What protections would be offered to her that she remains safe and that this information remains confidential? It seems non-workable by this legislation.

What if the abortion is medically necessary because of the death or sever disability of the fetus? That is, there is no hope that the fetus would survive given the birth defects. What about if the placenta’s placement is medically probable to cause fetal death or maternal death?

The best solution is to let the medical professionals with the best knowledge of the specific situaton and the woman, with spiritual advise if she wishes, make these decisions. Government has no role in this.

The Stupak amendment is too simplistic. All of these issues need to be decided by competent medical professionals in consultation with the sensibilities of the mother. The church or government are not appropriate parties to these decisions.

celdd says:
November 10, 2009 at 10:04 pm

It is my understand that one of the exclusions contained in the Stupak Amendment is of the life of the mother.

Additionally, I believe “rape” can be determined by other signs of physical trauma, and or an police arrest.

But I mostly agree, decisions should be between a doctor and a patient. That’s why I don’t want the government involved in my healthcare at all!

ImNotBlue:

“This is my number one opposition to the idea of government run healthcare… I don’t want the government between me and my Dr. I don’t want it if they’re Democrats, and I don’t want it if they’re Republicans.”

Hear, hear!