Find Your Valentine
Slog
News & ArtsTuesday, November 24, 2009
Health Cantwell Will Vote Against Any Health Insurance Reform Bill That Limits Abortion Funding
Posted by Eli Sanders on Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 9:44 AM
After an event in the International District yesterday afternoon intended to highlight her efforts to take Washington's Basic Health plan national, Sen. Maria Cantwell sat down with a few local reporters to talk about the overall health insurance reform effort.
The house passed its reform bill on Nov. 7. On Saturday the senate voted to begin debate on its measure. As we wait for that debate to begin (after the Thanksgiving recess), I asked Cantwell what her red lines are going to be.
For example: Will she vote against any senate bill that includes language similar to the house's Stupak Amendment, which would limit federal funding for abortions? (Cantwell said she would.) And will she vote against any senate bill that lacks a public option? (Cantwell left herself a lot of wiggle room on that one.)
Not on the video: a prediction from Cantwell that the senate will finish debating and vote on this slow-moving measure by Christmas.
1
I don't quite understand why abortion is such a deal-breaker on this. If Truman's health care plan had passed in 1948 I don't think it would have included abortions.
Look, we're fixing a mistake we've missed over and over since about WWII (Nixon had a health care plan that does more than this one).
Can't we have the abortion debate--and who pays for abortions--seperate from this and just get Democrats to get it passed?
Look, we're fixing a mistake we've missed over and over since about WWII (Nixon had a health care plan that does more than this one).
Can't we have the abortion debate--and who pays for abortions--seperate from this and just get Democrats to get it passed?
2
So we are giving up health care because we don't want to pay for abortions? Yeah, it sucks, but get real.
3
I'm with 1 and 2. I'm against the Stupak Amendment too, but what a mistake it will be to vote against health care reform just because of it.
4
Well, since abortion wasn't legalized country-wide until 1973, Truman's hypothetical plan of 1948 probably wouldn't have included it.
The abortion issue as dealt with in the Stupak amendment would be limiting poor women's access to healthcare, effectively making abortion an option only for women with money. It's not just a public health issue--it's a social and economic nightmare for poor children and their parents, and the infrastructure that would crumble under the weight of so many unwanted kids.
The abortion issue as dealt with in the Stupak amendment would be limiting poor women's access to healthcare, effectively making abortion an option only for women with money. It's not just a public health issue--it's a social and economic nightmare for poor children and their parents, and the infrastructure that would crumble under the weight of so many unwanted kids.
5
I love that she says these things, in fact it's kind of admirable but really, in a close vote along party lines, she'll go right along to get along.
Over the break she should talk to the Blue Dog Dems, or borderline Republican colleagues & explain her stance to them, maybe try to bring them over at least a bit, even horse trade for a future kind gesture on her part out of say, the finance committee.
Over the break she should talk to the Blue Dog Dems, or borderline Republican colleagues & explain her stance to them, maybe try to bring them over at least a bit, even horse trade for a future kind gesture on her part out of say, the finance committee.
6
So long as the final version continues this myth that anti-choice women don't use abortion services (they are the majority of people who use it) ....
7
Lily @4, I don't dispute the argument you make, but you don't remedy one injustice (our dysfunctional, expensive health insurance/care system) by demanding that it be a twofer with the remedy to another perceived injustice (the lack of federal funding for abortions).
If our focus really is on health reform and refighting the abortion war, then let's come up with legislation that doesn't substantially change the status quo when it comes to abortion access. Let that be a separate battle.
If our focus really is on health reform and refighting the abortion war, then let's come up with legislation that doesn't substantially change the status quo when it comes to abortion access. Let that be a separate battle.
8
I should have written @7: "If our focus really is on health reform and NOT refighting the abortion war..."
9
@4: Poor women can get abortions at clinics in the first trimester from $300 to $600 and many offer payment plans. That's not a hardship for women and is a cost that should be absorbed by the private sector and charities. That's about the same cost for an oil change, tune up, tire rotation, and new brake pads - yet no one goes crying to the government to help pay for that!
11
Cressona, I don't disagree at all that it should be a separate battle. (Well, I personally don't think it should be a battle at all...) But if this amendment passes with the bill--and can't it be stricken from the bill? I don't know if it can be dropped?--it will be a huge deal, in the worst sense.
My point is that it will affect many of the people who most needed the health reform in the first place. The senate bill isn't really a way to GET federal funding for abortion (if you read the bill, it says clearly that abortion wouldn't be covered under the public plan), it's a way to block or further restrict access to the healthcare women need.
My point is that it will affect many of the people who most needed the health reform in the first place. The senate bill isn't really a way to GET federal funding for abortion (if you read the bill, it says clearly that abortion wouldn't be covered under the public plan), it's a way to block or further restrict access to the healthcare women need.
12
real journalist video title: "interview with maria cantwell"
insecure fake blog journalist video title: "maria cantwell talks to eli sanders"
try not to make your amateurism so obvious bro
insecure fake blog journalist video title: "maria cantwell talks to eli sanders"
try not to make your amateurism so obvious bro
14
raindrop...
Of course $300-600 is a hardship for the poor. We're talking one to two full weeks of take-home pay here. Poor women don't have $500 just hanging around. Which is just one more reason they might choose to terminate a pregnancy in the first place (because ain't no way you can pay $1200/mo. for newborn care if you can't pay for the abortion).
I'd much rather my taxes go to an abortion, and then spent to take care of those who are already here, than to a lifetime of foster care payments or years in juvy.
Of course $300-600 is a hardship for the poor. We're talking one to two full weeks of take-home pay here. Poor women don't have $500 just hanging around. Which is just one more reason they might choose to terminate a pregnancy in the first place (because ain't no way you can pay $1200/mo. for newborn care if you can't pay for the abortion).
I'd much rather my taxes go to an abortion, and then spent to take care of those who are already here, than to a lifetime of foster care payments or years in juvy.
15
The problem is that HEALTHC CARE IS GOING TO FAIL WITH ABORTION IN IT. It's as simple as that. I agree that abortions should be part of the package, but the fact is, poor women will be infinitely better served by health care minus abortion than by no health care at all.
17
@14, don't you think cancer treatment or diabetes treatment or dialysis are a much, much bigger hardship for the poor than abortion? They cost a hell of a lot more, and they are needed by more people. You're throwing those away too.
18
The Stupak Amendment has a pretty slim chance of making it through reconciliation. Of course, it could still happen, but I think it was only there as a stinkbomb to sidetrack the house plan, and not salient or even possible per larger health care reform concerns.
19
Fnarf, of course. We need reform badly for all sorts of reasons. I never suggested that healthcare reform should NOT be passed--and in an ideal world, as I said to cressona earlier, these issues would not be interdependent.
I'd like to see the Stupak amendment stripped out, and then the bill passed--which is what Senator Cantwell suggested in the video.
What I would like to see less of are men saying that access to abortion is no big deal, that it's just a tangential health issue that it's just a few hundred dollars--when it's really not about the money but the poor women and their unwanted kids.
I'd like to see the Stupak amendment stripped out, and then the bill passed--which is what Senator Cantwell suggested in the video.
What I would like to see less of are men saying that access to abortion is no big deal, that it's just a tangential health issue that it's just a few hundred dollars--when it's really not about the money but the poor women and their unwanted kids.
20
Yet another example of the average American paying ZERO attention to what's going on.
Health care reform would NEVER have paid for abortions for fuck's sake. The Hyde amendment already bans that. What Stupak does is forbid any private health insurance plan purchased through the exchange from covering abortion; a decision that's currently left up to individual private insurance companies. Since insurance companies aren't going to bother with separating out plans on the exchange and plans offered without government involvement, this effectively bans all insurance companies from covering abortion ever again. Got it now? Or are you going to continue to play dumb?
If Truman's health care plan had passed in 1948 I don't think it would have included abortions.
Yet another example of the average American paying ZERO attention to what's going on.
Health care reform would NEVER have paid for abortions for fuck's sake. The Hyde amendment already bans that. What Stupak does is forbid any private health insurance plan purchased through the exchange from covering abortion; a decision that's currently left up to individual private insurance companies. Since insurance companies aren't going to bother with separating out plans on the exchange and plans offered without government involvement, this effectively bans all insurance companies from covering abortion ever again. Got it now? Or are you going to continue to play dumb?
21
Fnarf, of course. We need reform badly for all sorts of reasons. I never suggested that healthcare reform should NOT be passed--and in an ideal world, as I said to cressona earlier, these issues would not be interdependent.
I'd like to see the Stupak amendment stripped out, and then the bill passed--which is what Senator Cantwell suggested in the video.
What I would like to see less of are men saying that access to abortion is no big deal, that it's just a tangential health issue that it's just a few hundred dollars--when it's really not about the money but the poor women and their unwanted kids.
I'd like to see the Stupak amendment stripped out, and then the bill passed--which is what Senator Cantwell suggested in the video.
What I would like to see less of are men saying that access to abortion is no big deal, that it's just a tangential health issue that it's just a few hundred dollars--when it's really not about the money but the poor women and their unwanted kids.
22
lily @11:
OK, lily, how exactly will any of these bills block or further restrict access to abortion compared to what we have now?
My point is that it will affect many of the people who most needed the health reform in the first place. The senate bill isn't really a way to GET federal funding for abortion (if you read the bill, it says clearly that abortion wouldn't be covered under the public plan), it's a way to block or further restrict access to the healthcare women need.
OK, lily, how exactly will any of these bills block or further restrict access to abortion compared to what we have now?
23
@ raindrop, if you're paying $300 for an oil change, either you're being ripped way the hell off, or you own a car that costs six figures, in which case you're way too wealthy to know what's a hardship for the poor and what isn't.
24
@22, I should have said:
The senate bill isn't really a way to GET federal funding for abortion (if you read the bill, it says clearly that abortion wouldn't be covered under the public plan), *but the Stupak amendment* is a way to block or further restrict access to the healthcare women need.
Stupak's amendment would ban even private insurers from covering abortion services, if they wanted to participate in the insurance exchange. My insurance covers some terminations, and I could lose access to that.
The senate bill isn't really a way to GET federal funding for abortion (if you read the bill, it says clearly that abortion wouldn't be covered under the public plan), *but the Stupak amendment* is a way to block or further restrict access to the healthcare women need.
Stupak's amendment would ban even private insurers from covering abortion services, if they wanted to participate in the insurance exchange. My insurance covers some terminations, and I could lose access to that.
25
@15 Really? If the Stupak amendment makes it through to law, women who have an ectopic pregnancy will have to pay out of pocket to abort their dead baby because it does not allow ANY insurer, govt or private, to cover abortions. I don't feel safer or healthier.
@17 What do you mean by throwing away?
@17 What do you mean by throwing away?
26
@23: Matt from Denver: it's not just an oil change, re-read.
ALL expenses are a hardship on the poor, obviously. But we all make choices and sacrifices to overcome our obstacles. I can go for govt. funding in cases of rape, incest, and the life of the mother - but that's a tiny percentage - the rest is a happy accident.
ALL expenses are a hardship on the poor, obviously. But we all make choices and sacrifices to overcome our obstacles. I can go for govt. funding in cases of rape, incest, and the life of the mother - but that's a tiny percentage - the rest is a happy accident.
27
@6, by "throwing away" I (obviously) mean that you will throw away the chance to have health care at all. Cantwell is saying she'll VOTE AGAINST HEALTH CARE if the Stupak amendment stays. That's your choice: Stupak, or NO HEALTH CARE AT ALL.
Which hurts poor women more?
It's fun to pretend there are other options on the table here, but there aren't.
Which hurts poor women more?
It's fun to pretend there are other options on the table here, but there aren't.
28
this whole comment thread just reeks of fauxgressive.
you can't be a progressive and throw women (poor women!) under the bus.
I'm with 24 and 25.
women's rights are human rights, fuckwads. start caring!
you can't be a progressive and throw women (poor women!) under the bus.
I'm with 24 and 25.
women's rights are human rights, fuckwads. start caring!
29
Will--absolutely correct. The high-majority of women who seek abortion services are indeed anti-choice. I work here at PP in Seattle and overwhelmingly the number of women who enter our doors are poorer, non-city, non-Seattle, under-educated rural conservative types who come here usually with a very angry family member or friend that we have to deal with while their friend is recovering. There is no level of hypocrisy more evident than what i see daily.
30
@27 Any bill that puts partisan politics between a person and their doctor, that chooses ideology over legitimate health concerns, that undermines the largest users of health insurance, is NOT a bill I want to pass.
33
@ raindrop, you don't need to get all that done at once. You should have just said "30,000 mile service" if you meant that to be read as a package deal.
Nonetheless, the larger point - that you don't understand how this impacts the poor - stands. Poor people don't usually pay to have services like that done, as it doesn't take much mechanical skill to do the jobs you list on your own, something working class people generally possess.
And as someone else pointed out, it's an apples-to-bricks comparison. Health care is not at all comparable to auto maintenance.
Nonetheless, the larger point - that you don't understand how this impacts the poor - stands. Poor people don't usually pay to have services like that done, as it doesn't take much mechanical skill to do the jobs you list on your own, something working class people generally possess.
And as someone else pointed out, it's an apples-to-bricks comparison. Health care is not at all comparable to auto maintenance.
34
@28 I agree! This whole convo made me sick. As long as it doesn't affect them, liberal men can't be bothered to care.
35
I think the Stupak Amendment is about protecting health care women. The more abortions that can be stopped the better. It saves lives, not only for the baby but the mother from a life time of hurt and pain. Stop murdering our children!!!
36
@31 No, unfortunately it is not. It's also not like you can just leave the dead tissue in there, either.
Just another sad situation made worse by the blind moralizing of the anti-woman's reproductive freedom movement.
@34 While you've overgeneralized, I think the problem is that this continues to be framed as a limit on funding legal but voluntary procedure, while it is really a threat to health coverage for all women, minimally from the ovaries outward.
Just another sad situation made worse by the blind moralizing of the anti-woman's reproductive freedom movement.
@34 While you've overgeneralized, I think the problem is that this continues to be framed as a limit on funding legal but voluntary procedure, while it is really a threat to health coverage for all women, minimally from the ovaries outward.
37
Anti-woman’s reproductive freedom movement – What the hell is that. Women already have the freedom to reproduce. If a guy was part of some kind of made up movement like that. He would just stop having unprotected sex with liberal, baby murdering women.
38
OK, at the risk of sounding like a broken record, elective first-trimester abortion is not where the really sad shit is going to rain down. That stuff if cheap, and (don't look now!) practically do-it-yourself (and if you think I'm going to explain how on SLOG, you're nuts). Nope, the sad stuff is going to rain down on the really bad cases, the second-trimester ladies whose babies have horrible not-compatible-with-life birth defects, the ones with cancer who can't get chemo because the onc guys won't touch a pregnant woman, or the ones whose blood pressure is through the roof.... Those are the miserably expensive cases. Nothing clean about them---and now they won't be covered.
35% of American women have had an abortion by the time they're 40. So a legal medical procedure utilized by over one sixth of the population is not covered. How is that universal coverage?
35% of American women have had an abortion by the time they're 40. So a legal medical procedure utilized by over one sixth of the population is not covered. How is that universal coverage?
39
Healthcare reform is important and indeed, access to healthcare is a basic right. However doing away with a baby via elective abortion is not healthcare at all; it is murder.
Health care reform effort is trying to ensure that all Americans have some basic, rudimentary medcial insurance. By definition that means it will not cover elective procedures.
Considering that almost three-quarters of Americans oppose taxper-funded abortions, and that the reform is supposed to be about basic (i.e. without bells and whistles) medical insurance, the Stupak amendment has saved the bill.
You people are crazy! Killing an unborn baby IS murder! If you don’t want to be pregnant then don’t do what it takes to get pregnant. It’s just like any other lesson in life. If you don’t want to get burned then don’t touch the hot stove, if you don’t want to get soaked then don’t walk out in the rain. If you don’t want to be pregnant then don’t have sex! It’s as simple as that! In the Bible it says no person is a mistake, God wants that person here for a reason and that’s why people are born everyday, for a reason! Having an abortion because YOU slipped up is wrong. You made the so called “mistake” so live with it.
Health care reform effort is trying to ensure that all Americans have some basic, rudimentary medcial insurance. By definition that means it will not cover elective procedures.
Considering that almost three-quarters of Americans oppose taxper-funded abortions, and that the reform is supposed to be about basic (i.e. without bells and whistles) medical insurance, the Stupak amendment has saved the bill.
You people are crazy! Killing an unborn baby IS murder! If you don’t want to be pregnant then don’t do what it takes to get pregnant. It’s just like any other lesson in life. If you don’t want to get burned then don’t touch the hot stove, if you don’t want to get soaked then don’t walk out in the rain. If you don’t want to be pregnant then don’t have sex! It’s as simple as that! In the Bible it says no person is a mistake, God wants that person here for a reason and that’s why people are born everyday, for a reason! Having an abortion because YOU slipped up is wrong. You made the so called “mistake” so live with it.
40
Thank you Keshmeshi. The plain truth is that most of the commenters here don't understand the frightening repercussions of the Stupak-Pitts amendment if similar language is adopted in the final healthcare bill. Planned Parenthood is referring to this amendment internally as a legislated rollback of Roe v. Wade. And that's what it will be.
41
@25 – If you would take the time to education yourself on the issue (by actually reading the amendment). You would see that ectopic pregnancies would be covered.
Here’s a link – Educate yourself:
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/15284081/Stu…
Here’s a link – Educate yourself:
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/15284081/Stu…
42
@25 – If you would take the time to education yourself on the issue (by actually reading the amendment). You would see that ectopic pregnancies would be covered.
Here’s a link – Educate yourself:
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/15284081/Stu…
Here’s a link – Educate yourself:
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/15284081/Stu…
43
Umm, Save the Children, the Stupak amendment is not about taxpayer funding of abortion. It prevents most PRIVATE insurers from covering abortion in their plans.
Which, trust me, we all understand you're against, so you need not re-post your position.
Which, trust me, we all understand you're against, so you need not re-post your position.
44
Wow - there are some really stupid people out there - especially @39.
"If you don't want to be pregnant, then don't do what it takes to get pregnant."
Unwanted pregnancies are NOT the only reason for abortion. I can name 3 women right now in my circle of acquaintances who had abortions - all of them WANTED to have a baby, but due to various reasons, had an abortion so that their own life and health (both physical and mental) was protected.
Woman #1 - was diagnosed with Stage IV breast cancer 2 weeks after finding out she was pregnant. She could not begin chemo while pregnant, and since she was at Stage IV, she could not allow the pregnancy to progress and put off treatment without sacrificing both her life and the life of the fetus. She had a 3-year old and a husband to consider, so she opted for an abortion so she could begin chemo. Since the fetus itself did not threaten her life, this was considered an ELECTIVE abortion and would NOT be covered should the Stupak amendment be passed. (So, save the children - should she have sacrificed both her life and that of her fetus and left her 3 year old without a mom and her husband without a wife?) Her insurance covered her abortion.
Woman #2 - midway through her pregnancy, fetal movement stopped. Ultrasound revealed that the umbilical cord had wrapped itself around the fetus' neck and had been slowly strangling it. Massive brain damage. She had the choice of undergoing an abortion at 5 1/2 months or delivering a stillborn/baby that would die shortly after birth. She chose to have an abortion rather than go through the trauma of another 3 months of pregnancy and delivery of a dead/soon to be dead baby. Again, her life was not in danger because of the fetus, so this was considered an ELECTIVE abortion. Her insurance covered most of the abortion costs, which were higher because it was a late-term abortion. Evidently people like save the children think it would be better for her to go through the mental trauma of labor and delivery of a practically dead baby rather than have an abortion? How very Christian of you.
Woman #3 - ultrasound revealed fetus had anencephaly, which means the fetus had NO BRAIN. She got a second opinion and additional ultrasounds. Choices - go through the entire pregnancy and deliver a dead or soon-to-die baby or have an abortion. She chose abortion. Because she was in a Catholic hospital, she had to be transferred to another hospital to have the abortion. This was covered under her private insurance plan.
Should Stupak-Pitts go through, NONE of these cases would be covered under the federal plan or via private insurance.
Try reading this public policy brief from GWU and see how Stupak-Pitts would affect women who are on private plans.
http://www.gwumc.edu/sphhs/about/news.cf…
Also, just love the men who are willing to throw women's rights under the bus.
More...
"If you don't want to be pregnant, then don't do what it takes to get pregnant."
Unwanted pregnancies are NOT the only reason for abortion. I can name 3 women right now in my circle of acquaintances who had abortions - all of them WANTED to have a baby, but due to various reasons, had an abortion so that their own life and health (both physical and mental) was protected.
Woman #1 - was diagnosed with Stage IV breast cancer 2 weeks after finding out she was pregnant. She could not begin chemo while pregnant, and since she was at Stage IV, she could not allow the pregnancy to progress and put off treatment without sacrificing both her life and the life of the fetus. She had a 3-year old and a husband to consider, so she opted for an abortion so she could begin chemo. Since the fetus itself did not threaten her life, this was considered an ELECTIVE abortion and would NOT be covered should the Stupak amendment be passed. (So, save the children - should she have sacrificed both her life and that of her fetus and left her 3 year old without a mom and her husband without a wife?) Her insurance covered her abortion.
Woman #2 - midway through her pregnancy, fetal movement stopped. Ultrasound revealed that the umbilical cord had wrapped itself around the fetus' neck and had been slowly strangling it. Massive brain damage. She had the choice of undergoing an abortion at 5 1/2 months or delivering a stillborn/baby that would die shortly after birth. She chose to have an abortion rather than go through the trauma of another 3 months of pregnancy and delivery of a dead/soon to be dead baby. Again, her life was not in danger because of the fetus, so this was considered an ELECTIVE abortion. Her insurance covered most of the abortion costs, which were higher because it was a late-term abortion. Evidently people like save the children think it would be better for her to go through the mental trauma of labor and delivery of a practically dead baby rather than have an abortion? How very Christian of you.
Woman #3 - ultrasound revealed fetus had anencephaly, which means the fetus had NO BRAIN. She got a second opinion and additional ultrasounds. Choices - go through the entire pregnancy and deliver a dead or soon-to-die baby or have an abortion. She chose abortion. Because she was in a Catholic hospital, she had to be transferred to another hospital to have the abortion. This was covered under her private insurance plan.
Should Stupak-Pitts go through, NONE of these cases would be covered under the federal plan or via private insurance.
Try reading this public policy brief from GWU and see how Stupak-Pitts would affect women who are on private plans.
http://www.gwumc.edu/sphhs/about/news.cf…
Also, just love the men who are willing to throw women's rights under the bus.
45
Women who will be hurt the most by the Stupak Pitts amendment are women with serious health problems caused by being pregnant. No woman should have to go on dialysis or lose her vision because Stupak Pitts will mean she has to come up with thousands of dollars for an abortion because her health plan cancelled coverage. (Abortions in these cases are not always done early on and will not be covered under Stupak Pitts) The idea that these women should be sacrificed for the group is sick. It is bad enough that the Hyde Amendment excludes poor women from coverage but expanding it to women who have been paying into the insurance pool, some for decades, is appalling. Groups that expect seriously ill pregnant women to be thrown under the bus are not worth much and its men folk should learn to grow old alone, without any descendents. To those who disagree, sacrafice yourself and give up a kidney. Someone needs it.
46
Stuck in Utah - What's also twisted about these scenarios is the house reform bill will force women, most of whom potentially face these scenarios, to buy insurance that does not properly cover them. They will have to pay for others, but their money does not pay for them. It needs to be pointed out to some of the posters here; why the hell are women supposed to make these kinds of sacrifices for "poor women" anyway? To absolve stranger reading hipster dudes of their white guilt? There is no valid reason. Really the dudes should man up and come up with government mandated sacrifices that really hurt them before they go barking at the women folk about making sacrifices for “poor women”.
48
@44 – You should be ashamed of the scare tactics you’re using. But since you are, let me see if I can clear this up for you.
The bill clearly states in Sec. 265 line 6: If a woman suffers from a physical disorder, Physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself, or unless the pregnancy is the result of an act or rape or incest.
Woman #1 Covered – Life-endangering physical condition.
Woman #2 & 3 Covered – The point of the bill is to save human life. If the baby is already dead or will be, I agree, should be covered and I think is. It’s not the act of the abortion I’m against … it’s the result and if the results are the same then it should be covered. I’m not a lawyer but the language in the bill allows for this.
But as a labor & delivery nurse I have encountered mothers who expressed dismay that their miscarriage was technically called an "abortion" on their chart.
But the terminologies are indeed different. There was more written on the chart to specifically describe what happened.
"Induced abortion" is the purposeful abortion of a baby who is alive when the procedure begins, what pro-lifers battle. "Spontaneous abortion" is the term for miscarriage, when a baby dies and is expelled naturally.
A "missed abortion" or "incomplete abortion" are terms for natural prenatal deaths where the baby is not expelled at all or incompletely. See definitions here:
http://medical-dictionary.thefreediction…
You are correct that the same surgery (usually D&C) is performed for induced abortion as well as missed or incomplete abortions. But a D&C is called "abortion" for induced abortions and "D&C" when removing a baby who has previously died. Again, see the definitions I linked to.
The Stupak/Pitts amendment speaks to induced abortions. It uses the same verbiage as the Hyde Amendment, which has never been confused to exclude D&Cs for missed/incomplete abortions. Read the bill and you'll see it is impossible to determine otherwise: http://docs.house.gov/rules/3962/Stupak3…
…And this isn’t a women’s rights issue that men shouldn’t have a say in, it’s a right to life issue. And the last I check just as many baby boys are being killed as baby girls.
More...
The bill clearly states in Sec. 265 line 6: If a woman suffers from a physical disorder, Physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself, or unless the pregnancy is the result of an act or rape or incest.
Woman #1 Covered – Life-endangering physical condition.
Woman #2 & 3 Covered – The point of the bill is to save human life. If the baby is already dead or will be, I agree, should be covered and I think is. It’s not the act of the abortion I’m against … it’s the result and if the results are the same then it should be covered. I’m not a lawyer but the language in the bill allows for this.
But as a labor & delivery nurse I have encountered mothers who expressed dismay that their miscarriage was technically called an "abortion" on their chart.
But the terminologies are indeed different. There was more written on the chart to specifically describe what happened.
"Induced abortion" is the purposeful abortion of a baby who is alive when the procedure begins, what pro-lifers battle. "Spontaneous abortion" is the term for miscarriage, when a baby dies and is expelled naturally.
A "missed abortion" or "incomplete abortion" are terms for natural prenatal deaths where the baby is not expelled at all or incompletely. See definitions here:
http://medical-dictionary.thefreediction…
You are correct that the same surgery (usually D&C) is performed for induced abortion as well as missed or incomplete abortions. But a D&C is called "abortion" for induced abortions and "D&C" when removing a baby who has previously died. Again, see the definitions I linked to.
The Stupak/Pitts amendment speaks to induced abortions. It uses the same verbiage as the Hyde Amendment, which has never been confused to exclude D&Cs for missed/incomplete abortions. Read the bill and you'll see it is impossible to determine otherwise: http://docs.house.gov/rules/3962/Stupak3…
…And this isn’t a women’s rights issue that men shouldn’t have a say in, it’s a right to life issue. And the last I check just as many baby boys are being killed as baby girls.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
SL Letter of the Day: Pill The Homos! by Dan Savage
-
Dear Huffington Post... by Dan Savage
-
The Rick Santorum Rally in Tacoma Probably Could Have Gone Better by Paul Constant
-
Because Guns Make Us More Safer by Goldy
-
Slog Bible Study: Deuteronomy 21:10-14 by Goldy
-
Because Guns Make Us Safer by Goldy
-
Gay Kids Are Still Killing Themselves by Dan Savage
-
Prospecting Science by Charles Mudede
-
Google Briefly Acknowledges the Existence of Gay Couples—and Princess/Frog Couples—on Valentine's Day by Dan Savage
-
Gregoire: "This is signed!" by Eli Sanders
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (48) RSS