U.S. Health Care Bill passes - on the backs of women needing abortions

Yes, I'm delighted the U.S. Congress has passed a health care bill that includes a public option. But I'm VERY distressed that the 'deal maker' was removing abortion funding. Democracy Now asks a 'postcard of thanks' be sent to a Congressman.

I want to start a campaign of 'postcards of thanks' being sent to the organizations which will have to fund raise to support the women needing abortions. Any thoughts? What organizations would be savvy enough to use this in a publicty / education campaign, or to support the women suffering from the restrictions?

Comments

Submitted by Tigana on November 8, 2009 - 8:31pm.

Obama has been bought by big business - particulary big pharma. Obama appointed a Monsanto man to be the head of agriculture.

See the info for yourself here - in the comments link.

http://www.furiousseasons.com/archives/2009/11/the_house_dems_pres_obama...

Submitted by Pennywise on November 8, 2009 - 9:04pm.

I agree - and I'm suggesting a way to support the victims of his actions, rather than needing evidence - it exists, and has since he became president.

So what are your ideas about how to deal with this sacrificing of women's rights?

Submitted by Tigana on November 8, 2009 - 10:20pm.

No idea. What do you think?

Submitted by G. Muffin on November 9, 2009 - 12:39am.

Tigana wrote:

Obama has been bought by big business - particulary big pharma. Obama appointed a Monsanto man to be the head of agriculture.

See the info for yourself here - in the comments link.

http://www.furiousseasons.com/archives/2009/11/the_house_dems_pres_obama...

Couldn't find it. Searched page for "Monsanto" and got nothing.

Submitted by G. Muffin on November 9, 2009 - 12:47am.

Pennywise wrote:

Yes, I'm delighted the U.S. Congress has passed a health care bill that includes a public option. But I'm VERY distressed that the 'deal maker' was removing abortion funding.

That win was awfully slim. Like you, I wish abortion funding wasn't removed but I don't think it would have passed otherwise.

Submitted by remind on November 9, 2009 - 12:52am.

There is actually a thread here about that I believe GPie...or a part of one.

Submitted by Tigana on November 9, 2009 - 1:00am.

G. Pie wrote:

Couldn't find it. Searched page for "Monsanto" and got nothing.

Sorry, G. Pie, should have added this re Monsanto man Vilsick and a lot more here

http://gmfoodwatch.tribe.net/thread/78999f60-b0a6-4f52-957d-74d0bf240d96

Submitted by G. Muffin on November 9, 2009 - 2:00am.

That site's more than a little weird, Tigana. It doesn't really seem like a credible information source.

http://gmfoodwatch.tribe.net/thread/ab358b5c-5e61-45d5-a28b-784151674691

WTF?

Submitted by Tigana on November 9, 2009 - 3:39pm.

Hmm, looks like an extra number is on the end of the link.

Good sources here:

http://gmfoodwatch.tribe.net/thread/78999f60-b0a6-4f52-957d-74d0bf240d96

Submitted by Pennywise on November 9, 2009 - 1:02pm.

I'm concerned that this thread has gone from 'how do we support poor women' to 'let's stay in the vague area of criticising Obama...once again, the REAL victims of this admnistration are getting lost.... please.... read my initial post and focus your comments on that.

Submitted by G. Muffin on November 9, 2009 - 2:15pm.

Another point of view (William Saletan's) on the trade off available here: http://www.slate.com/id/2235016/

Quote:

One of these problems is that people don't like their tax money being used for procedures that offend them. You may think that's stupid. You may point out that your tax money is used for wars you don't like. But you don't have two or three dozen swing votes in the House. Pro-life Democrats do. They don't have the clout to ban abortion, but they have the clout to keep tax money from paying for it.

Submitted by remind on November 9, 2009 - 2:58pm.

Personally, I think that exclusion will challenged all the way to the SCC, in quick order once the Bill is passed.

It would be an exclusionary service denial based upon genitalia assignment.

People should be funding groups getting them ready to make it a gender bias challenge

Submitted by Timebandit on November 9, 2009 - 7:41pm.

Yes, there's more fighting to do for reproductive rights in the US. And although it sucks beyond belief that this concession was made, I understand why. One step at a time.

Submitted by remind on November 9, 2009 - 7:53pm.

agree, timebandit

and think they knew it would most likely not stand a court challenge, but it will make the elected reps face less blowback from their constituents, who are for some reason against having medicare for all.

Submitted by Ghislaine on November 9, 2009 - 7:58pm.

Senior Democrat is confident that the Stupak amendment will be stripped

Submitted by abnormal on November 9, 2009 - 8:01pm.

The AP is already predicting this is DOA in the Senate. It's not clear it's going to survive in any form let alone this one. And if the Dems can't push it through before year end they'll be in full election mode which means they're not likely to try to push this through. [According to the latest Rasmussen poll the public is opposed 52% to 45%.]

Submitted by remind on November 9, 2009 - 8:13pm.

From the article:

Quote:

But it’s also possible liberals could drop their support for the bill if the language is not changed.

Submitted by Fidel on November 9, 2009 - 8:59pm.

Why I voted NO The strengthening of the for-profit health insurance industry
by Rep. Dennis Kucinich

Quote:

We have been led to believe that we must make our health care choices only within the current structure of a predatory, for-profit insurance system which makes money not providing health care.

We cannot fault the insurance companies for being what they are. But we can fault legislation in which the government incentivizes the perpetuation, indeed the strengthening, of the for-profit health insurance industry, the very source of the problem. When health insurance companies deny care or raise premiums, co-pays and deductibles they are simply trying to make a profit. That is our system.

Clearly, the insurance companies are the problem, not the solution. They are driving up the cost of health care. Because their massive bureaucracy avoids paying bills so effectively, they force hospitals and doctors to hire their own bureaucracy to fight the insurance companies to avoid getting stuck with an unfair share of the bills. The result is that since 1970, the number of physicians has increased by less than 200% while the number of administrators has increased by 3000%. It is no wonder that 31 cents of every health care dollar goes to administrative costs, not toward providing care. Even those with insurance are at risk. The single biggest cause of bankruptcies in the U.S. is health insurance policies that do not cover you when you get sick....

Submitted by Unionist on November 10, 2009 - 12:07am.

Timebandit wrote:

Yes, there's more fighting to do for reproductive rights in the US. And although it sucks beyond belief that this concession was made, I understand why. One step at a time.

One step at a time - in which direction!?

Thanks to Fidel for posting that reality check from Kucinich. I'm sitting here in disbelief that babblers could consider the passage of this private health care bill as a step forward. I can understand having illusions about Obama before. But can those illusions continue to blind us after?

Submitted by Ghislaine on November 10, 2009 - 1:11am.

Yes - especially when people can be fined under this legislation for not having healthcare insurance.

Submitted by Michelle on November 12, 2009 - 4:06pm.

remind wrote:

Personally, I think that exclusion will challenged all the way to the SCC, in quick order once the Bill is passed.

It would be an exclusionary service denial based upon genitalia assignment.

People should be funding groups getting them ready to make it a gender bias challenge

I completely agree.

I also think, though, that those asshole misogynist Democrats who pushed for this amendment and refused to vote in favour otherwise should be (figuratively) roasted over a spit by progressive women in the US over this. Fuckers! What the hell is wrong with them?

Submitted by remind on November 12, 2009 - 10:53pm.

Nothing new, same old patriarchy as it always has been.....

Submitted by autoworker on November 13, 2009 - 12:31am.

Anyone who expects a public option to include abortion, doesn't understand baseball. Even Kucinich knows that.

Submitted by Jingles on November 13, 2009 - 1:52am.

Those same people who in good conscience cannot give their tax dollars to abortions, fully support their tax dollars going to the military. This is entirely consistent, and a great slogan for both branches of the Property Party: "kill babies over there, so we don't have kill them over here!"

Moreso, it is yet another indication that Margaret Atwood grossly misunderestimated how grossly distopian their (Americans) future will actually be.

Submitted by abnormal on November 13, 2009 - 8:09am.

remind wrote:

Personally, I think that exclusion will challenged all the way to the SCC, in quick order once the Bill is passed.

While I don't expect the bill to be passed the US already has the Hyde Amendment:-

Quote:

The Hyde Amendment, passed on September 30, 1976 by the U.S. House by a 207-167 vote, is a limitation amendment barring the use of federal funds to pay for abortions [26] through funds allocated by the annual appropriations bill for Health and Human Services.

The article does go on to point out that the Amendment does not ban all federal funding of abortion, only the use of funds from HHS. That's stood for 30 years without the Supremes intervening.