The details on how the amendment compromise will impact the bill are still hazy, but the Washington Post provides an outline of possible scenarios and complications:

The long-standing ban on federal funding for abortion has complicated congressional Democrats' health-care legislation. Medicaid bars federal funding for abortion, but 17 states and the District allow the procedure for female Medicaid enrollees paid out of their own funds. It is harder to reach middle ground in the bill before Congress, which would provide federal subsidies to millions of people to buy private health insurance plans on a new marketplace, or "exchange." The deal reached by Nelson and other Democrats over the weekend would allow those people to purchase insurance plans with abortion coverage. But they would have to write two separate premium checks — one to cover the bulk of their plan and the other to cover the sliver for abortion coverage, probably a dollar or so per month.

States could also decree that no plans including abortion coverage be provided on the exchange in their state. As it stands, five states already have some sort of ban on abortion coverage.

By contrast, an amendment that passed the House would prohibit insurers from selling plans with abortion coverage to anyone buying coverage with the help of subsidies — excluding 85 percent of customers on the exchange. The amendment, sponsored by Reps. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) and Joe Pitts (R-Pa.), would permit the sale of "riders" for abortion coverage, but abortion rights groups say it is offensive to expect women to buy separate coverage for a procedure that most do not plan on needing.

Neither the House language nor the Senate language would affect women who have employer-provided plans, many of which cover abortion. But it is expected that more people would go into the exchange over time for coverage, broadening the impact of its rules.

While health policy experts believe the additional restrictions may "chill" insurers' willingness to offer abortion services, the Post article reports that there isn't much known about implementation since the bill is not yet finalized. While it appears this deal was done without any consultation with insurance companies, insurance representatives point out that they already comply with state regulations on abortion - adding a federal level of regulations would be something they adapt to.

Despite the optimism of the insurance companies that they can meet the needs of women, Cecile Richards, President of Planned Parenthood, is not pleased with the compromise:

This new "extra" payment for abortion coverage is akin to an abortion rider — as if women would take these extra steps to pay for insurance, with a separate check, that included abortion coverage. Women don't plan an unplanned or problem pregnancy any more than they plan for a heart attack. But they expect that they have coverage nonetheless.

Requiring people to write two separate checks for their health coverage doesn't accomplish anything other than the real goal — making the system unworkable — which is exactly what health care reform opponents want. Like the Stupak abortion ban, the Nelson abortion provision creates such complicated administrative burdens for health plans that it's highly unlikely insurers will offer abortion coverage at all.

How all this will pan out remains to be seen. Remember, the Stupak amendment still exists in the House bill. The Senate vote will happen on Christmas eve, much to the chagrin of Senate aides and workers who have been stranded on Capitol Hill since mid-December. But even in something as universal as griping about working overtime close to Christmas, partisanship still prevails:

Republicans have been quick to cast Democratic leaders as grinches calling for votes so close to Christmas. Of course, the Senate may have already finished its business were it not for GOP delay tactics, such as Sen. Tom Coburn (Okla.) demanding last week that the clerk read aloud a 767-page amendment.

Abortion deal may be hard to keep in health bill [AP]
Both sides question health bill's abortion compromise [Washington Post]
Expert: Nelson Amendment Would ‘Chill' Access to Abortion Coverage [Washington Independent]
Women on the Verge [Huffington Post]
Health-care vote means senators will spend Christmas Eve at the Capitol [Washington Post]

Senator Ben Nelson's vote for health care reform was locked in Friday night, after what was described as "a 90-minute nail biter." What was he doing? Making a call to "a Nebraska based anti-abortion activist' about the proposed compromise around abortion restrictions in the final bill. However, the final results infuriated both sides.

The Washington Post has the details on the compromise:

Under the new abortion provisions, states can opt out of allowing plans to cover abortion in the insurance exchanges the bill would set up. The exchanges are designed to serve individuals who lack coverage through their jobs, with most receiving federal subsidies to buy insurance. Enrollees in plans that cover abortion procedures would pay with separate checks — one for abortion, one for any other health-care services.

Pro-choice Senator Barbara Boxer also stands by the Nelson compromise, saying:

[T]his compromise ensures there is a firewall between private and public funds, and does not prohibit women from using their own private funds for their legal reproductive health care."

Anti-choice groups are already mobilizing against Nelson. The Susan B. Anthony list, in particular, demonstrates its measured reasoning and understanding of the right to choose:

Americans – women included – reject the radical feminist vision of an abortion for every home, at government expense.

Still, Nelson cleaned up during the proceedings. In exchange for his vote, the state of Nebraska will have the federal government fund their Medicaid expansion (in perpetuity) and got Nebraska non-profit insurers an exemption from a proposed industry wide tax. No wonder the Republicans are blasting this as " a sweetheart deal."

The deals extended to Nelson, as well as other moderate Dems, paved the way for the magic number 60, which has effectively stopped a Republican filibuster, allowing the bill to move forward before Christmas. Sen. John McCain lamented on Fox News that there is probably nothing the GOP can do to stop the bill.

But despite this small concession, many on the left are left with a lingering bitter aftertaste from the whole health care debacle. Paul Krugman used his column today to point out how the United States Congress has become "ominously dysfunctional:"

Now consider what lies ahead. We need fundamental financial reform. We need to deal with climate change. We need to deal with our long-run budget deficit. What are the chances that we can do all that - or, I'm tempted to say, any of it - if doing anything requires 60 votes in a deeply polarized Senate? [...]

The political scientist Barbara Sinclair has done the math. In the 1960s, she finds, "extended-debate-related problems" - threatened or actual filibusters - affected only 8 percent of major legislation. By the 1980s, that had risen to 27 percent. But after Democrats retook control of Congress in 2006 and Republicans found themselves in the minority, it soared to 70 percent.

Outside of the nuts and bolts of productivity, other progressives are becoming increasingly concerned with what we are actually buying. The anxieties expressed last week over the ultimate costs and benefits of health care reform are still in full effect. Politifact recently waded into the health care debate while evaluating Obama's campaign promises. Using their popular "truth-o-meter," editors rank the claim "Obama said health care reform will reduce the cost of health care" as half true:

First, we need to acknowledge that when it comes to characterizing the "costs of health care," there are several ways to look at it.

The first is how much people would pay in health insurance premiums. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) studied the health care bill proposed by Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., and concluded that if passed, most people would see a very modest decrease in premiums by 2016 (compared to what they would pay under the current system). How modest? Best-case scenario - for those in group plans with large companies - about 3 percent better. For a small percentage of people (less than 8 percent of the insured) who would buy insurance on the individual market, and who wouldn't be eligible for federal subsidies, they might actually pay 10 to 13 percent more, though with new federal minimum standards, they'd also be getting more insurance coverage as well.

The second way to look at cost is its effect on the national deficit. And here again, the CBO has weighed in on the Reid plan. The CBO concluded that while the plan would be very expensive, the bill is also more than paid for with new taxes and plans to reduce health care spending over time. The net effect, according to the CBO, is that over 10 years, the plan would end up reducing the national deficit by $130 billion.

Which brings us to a third way to look at cost, whether the plan would lower the rate of health care inflation over the long term. Republicans are correct when they say that based on the CMS report, health care spending would increase by $234 billion over the next 10 years. [...]

It's also worth noting that while the CMS is a legitimate nonpartisan source, there's lots of difference of opinion among respected economists about how various cost-cutting proposals in the plan will shake out. In other words, these projections are all highly speculative.

"There's a tremendous amount of uncertainty about whether what's in the bill will be enough to lower health care inflation," said Josh Gordon, policy director for the Concord Coalition, a group that advocates fiscal responsibility. "No one knows for sure."

In light of these insecurities, it should come as no surprise that Senator Olympia Snowe of Maine backed out of supporting the Senate bill and has pledged to join the Republican filibuster. Her reasons depart from the rest of her party, however: While most rank and file Republicans seem to be opposing the bill just to spit in the Obama Administration's collective eye, Snowe's statement shows a thoughtful engagement with the issues in play:

This bill has taken a dramatically different direction since the Finance Committee bill - it is now 1,200 pages longer and includes a new employer mandate that could annihilate the job growth potential that is so vital to our economic recovery. As the Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council has stated, this mandate "will only burden firms with more costs and red tape which means they will not grow, invest, or create jobs."

This bill also creates the CLASS Act on long term care insurance, a brand new program which the Medicare Actuary has said is projected to go into the red just five years after it begins paying out benefits. And the legislation requires a $90 billion increase in Medicare payroll taxes - a provision that was not part of the bill I voted for in Finance Committee - that predominately affects the self-employed and the very same small business owners we are counting on to create new jobs and lead us out of this recession. And that's just to name a few of the vital issues.

Furthermore, we still don't have answers to some of the most fundamental questions that people will be asking at their kitchen tables. These are the critical questions relevant to peoples' daily lives, such as, what does this mean for me? How much will my health insurance plan cost? How much will my deductible or my co-pay be? How much am I going to have to pay out of pocket? Not one single member in Congress - Republican or Democrat - can answer those questions, and that is why I wrote to the Congressional Budget Office on December 3rd requesting a complete analysis of these and other key issues as it is imperative that we have those answers before proceeding.

Ultimately, there is absolutely no reason to be hurtling headlong to a Christmas deadline on monumental legislation affecting every American, when it doesn't even fully go into effect until 2014.

Snowe took her plea to Face the Nation:

Unfortunately for Snowe, the health care reform train is leaving the station. Hopefully, the public will start getting some answers before it becomes too late to chase it down or change course.

Health Deal Hinged On Abortion [Politico]
To Sway Nelson, A Hard-Won Compromise On Abortion Issue [The Washington Post]
Boxer Affirms Support For Abortion Deal [Politico]
Pro-Life Group Blasts Nelson Compromise [Politico]
Health Care Bill Clears Key Senate Test [AP/Time]
McCain: GOP Can't Stop Health Care [Politico]
A Dangerous Dysfunction [NY Times]
Obama Said Health Care Reform Will Reduce The Cost Of Health Care [Politifact]
She's A No! Snowe Confirms Opposition To Health Care Bill [TPM]
Sen Olympia Snowe To POTUS: Give Us More Time On Health Care [Politico]

Earlier: "Kill The Bill": Is Real Health Care Reform Still Worth Fighting For?

Supporters of the Oklahoma bill claim that women will be kept anonymous because their names and county of residence will be omitted. Women who oppose the bill point out that women, particularly in rural areas, could be identified based on the data requested. And what does the new law ask?

NPR reports:

The survey in Oklahoma's new abortion law includes some of the following questions: Would having a baby dramatically change a woman's life, or interfere with her job or education? Is she unemployed, or unsure of a relationship with the father?

"This is not going in and getting a wart removed. This is a procedure that ends a human life," says Oklahoma state Rep. Dan Sullivan. He says the law is valid and necessary.

"And because it's a special procedure, we believe that it's appropriate to be able to find out why these are going on and if there is something that we can do to change that," Sullivan says.

CNN has more information on the questions posed:

The law requires doctors to fill out a 10-page questionnaire for every abortion performed, including asking the woman about her age, marital status, race and years of education.

One section of the "Individual Abortion Form" says the woman must state her reason for seeking an abortion and answer this checklist. "Having a baby:
• Would dramatically change the life of the mother;
• Would interfere with the education of the mother;
• Would interfere with the job/employment/career of the mother."

So what part of the reasons why women have abortions is a mystery? Proponents of anti-choice laws (many of whom are in the state legislature) seem to want to pretend that they care about women and want to invade their privacy in order to "help." But what are they planning to do? If a woman says it she is aborting due to financial concerns, are they going to funnel money into family support programs, and job training? Doubtful, particularly considering how the last law that Oklahoma tried to pass regarding abortion required doctors to describe the fetus during the ultrasound.

The survey - combined with the desire to make the information accessible to the public - reflects a larger push to stigmatize women making the choice to end their pregnancies. It is in this way many opponents of the right to choose hope to work around Roe vs. Wade. Instead of challenging the law outright, they attempt to chip away at the protections and make it more and more difficult for women to obtain the services. After all the talk of trying to "help" women, the bottom line is always the same:

Why draft the legislation?

"I'm pro-life," he says. "Oklahoma is a conservative state. We are a pro-life state, and I believe it's important public policy to stand on the side of sanctity of life."

After all, if anti-choicers are interested in reducing abortion, it's clear what needs to be done.

Linda Meek, executive administrator of Reproductive Services in Tulsa, Okla., says [the law is] discouraging and intrusive to patients.

"If they want to reduce the number of abortions, then they need to concentrate on educating women about preventing unwanted pregnancies, educating them about emergency contraception, birth control - and making birth control more accessible," Meek says.

Nelson rejects abortion compromise [Politico]
Abortion Reporting Requirements Across The Country [NPR]
Oklahoma Abortion Law 'Invasive,' Critics Say [NPR]
Online posting of women's abortion information challenged in Oklahoma [CNN]

Instead of just tying health care reform to the train tracks and letting nature take its course, Lieberman had to kick the Dudley Do-Right Dems when they were down, waiting until they had confidently announced an impending compromise to reveal he was against the plan. He chose to do this on Face the Nation.

Watch CBS News Videos Online

According to TPM, Lieberman has threatened to filibuster over the expansion of Medicare to those 55 - 64 years in age.

This should be no surprise. After all, Lieberman's relationship with the Democratic Party has generally gone like this:

Yglesias also points out that unless Democrats are willing to push for reconciliation, Lieberman, Nelson, and the Republicans have them over a proverbial barrel:

Can't liberals be just as stiff-necked as Lieberman? Sure, they could. But liberals members do have an incentive to compromise-the tens of thousands of people who die every year for lack of health insurance. The leverage that Lieberman and other "centrists" have obtained on this issue (and on climate change) stems from a demonstrated willingness to embrace sociopathic indifference to the human cost of their actions.

Speaking of sociopathic indifference, there are two major developments on the women's health front- neither of which appears geared toward improving the actual lives of women.

Senator Ben Nelson, saddened by the defeat of his "this is not extending Hyde...but it really is" amendment, swears to fight on, saying that he can't support a bill that doesn't allow him to get his way. Interestingly, back in 1991, Nelson's anti-abortion stance put him in a precarious position within the Democratic party. Now, the Democrats are no longer as staunch in their defense of a woman's right to choose, which has allowed Nelson to gain some traction.

Meanwhile, the recent advisement about changes to breast cancer screening guidelines has become the latest political football, with both Democrats and Republicans dog-piling on the issue. But make no mistake - this is done to score points, not to do something silly like figure out what is best for women. Dems want to prove that Republicans don't care about women; Republicans want to win back female voters.

The end result? Who cares about that?

Welcome To The Lieberman Administration [Think Progress]
Health Care Reform In Peril; Lieberman Threatens Filibuster Over Medicare Buy In [TPM]
Nelson: Won't Vote For Abortion Language [UPI]
A Senator's Moral Dilemma On Health Bill [Washington Post]
Mammograms As Political Weapon [Politico]

Earlier: New Breast Cancer Screening Guidelines Spark Confusion, Criticism

Senate Republican Whip Jon Kyl (Ariz.) said he expected that all but a few Republicans would support the Sen. Ben Nelson's (D-Neb) amendment, which would restrict access to abortions for women who receive federal subsidies.

But the amendment is likely to be subject to the Senate's 60-vote threshold, and Kyl does not expect 20 votes on the other side to back the controversial change.

"Most Republicans will but I don't think that will be enough to carry it through, it's a 60-vote margin," Kyl told The Hill Thursday afternoon.

Republicans control only 40 seats, which means Nelson would have to pick up the support of at least 19 Democrats (or 18 plus one of two independents), an unlikely scenario given strong opposition from the Democratic base.

The Republicans are shaking the filibuster stick, but in the immortal words of the Rock and Wyclef Jean: it doesn't matter!

Now, this doesn't mean that advocates for choice can rest on their laurels. Far from it. The new battle being waged is over Sen. Barbara Mikulski's amendment that ensures preventive care and screening:

The Mikulski "women's health amendment" to the Senate healthcare reform bill didn't include the word abortion. But opponents of abortion allege the amendment, which was passed today, leaves the door open for the Health Resources and Services Administration to include abortion as "preventive care" in its guidelines and therefore guarantee no-cost coverage for the procedure.

"Because today's bill as written has no exclusion for abortion in its language, there is no doubt that Sen. [Barbara] Mikulski's amendment opens the floodgates to massive public underwriting of abortion, a position Planned Parenthood has always favored," Family Research Council President Tony Perkins said in a statement. "Without the adoption of 'Stupak-Pitts' amendment language in the Senate version of the bill, it's now very clear that taxpayers will be forced to pay for abortions."

It's always something.

Nelson amendment expected to fall short even with GOP support [The Hill]
Abortion Fight Moves to Mikulski Amendment [US News]

The two bills do have some common ground:

Both bills would require all Americans to carry health insurance, with government help to make premiums more affordable. They would ban insurance companies from denying coverage or charging more to people with health problems. They would set up new insurance markets for those who now have the hardest time finding and keeping coverage - self-employed people and small businesses. Americans insured through big employer plans would gain new consumer protections but wouldn't face major changes. Seniors would get better prescription coverage.

Thing is, the battles are getting increasingly more contentious as the debate continues. For Representative Patrick Kennedy, the national mud-wrestling match over abortion rights has turned personal:

A bitter dispute over abortion that prompted Rhode Island's Roman Catholic bishop to ask Rep. Patrick Kennedy not to receive Holy Communion has revealed the depth of the divide among Catholics over how politicians should reconcile their faith with their public duties.

Bishop Thomas Tobin on Sunday said he made the request because of the Democratic lawmaker's support for abortion rights. The news prompted debate among Catholics around the country and within the bishop's flock in the nation's most Catholic state about whether it was right for Tobin to publicly shame Kennedy for breaking with the church on what its leaders consider a paramount moral issue. [...]

Their dispute began in October when Kennedy criticized Catholic bishops for threatening to oppose an overhaul of the nation's health care system unless lawmakers included tighter restrictions on abortion, which have since been added to the House version of the bill. Tobin said he felt Kennedy made an unprovoked attack on the church and demanded an apology.

Since then, their feud has played out in public. Tobin, who has said he might have gone into politics were he not ordained, has written sharp public letters questioning Kennedy's faith and saying his position is scandalous and unacceptable to the church. Kennedy has said his disagreement with the church hierarchy does not make him any less of a Catholic.

This isn't the first time a question of Catholicism and politics made waves in public:

In 1984, former Democratic New York Gov. Mario Cuomo, a Catholic who supported abortion rights and was at the time a potential presidential candidate, delivered a speech at the University of Notre Dame explaining that Catholic lawmakers shouldn't be pressured by church leaders to work for anti-abortion legislation. He said Sunday it's dangerous for the church to pressure politicians because of the potential for unintended consequences.

"If you're required (by the church) to make everybody follow your Catholic role, then nobody would vote for Catholics because it's clear that when you get the authority, you're going to be guided by your faith," the former governor told The Associated Press.

Cuomo said there are two positions a politician can take: They can oppose church doctrine outright or, as he did, accept church teachings personally but refuse to carry them into the public arena where they would affect people of every faith.

"Don't ask me to make everybody live by it because they are not members of the church," Cuomo said. "If that were the operative rule, how could you get any Catholic politician in office? And would that be better for the Catholic church?"

Outside of religion, party politics are looming large over the horizon. Lawmakers are feeling major breaks between the Dems and the GOP, as well as splintering within their own parties:

A leading Senate Democrat said Monday his party is determined to push through a health care overhaul bill with or without Republican support because the "system is broken."

"We prefer to go at it with Republicans if we can reach compromises in some areas," said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y. "But we're not going to not pass a bill."

Schumer dueled with Republican Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison on a network morning news show in the wake of a key Senate vote Saturday night that advanced a 10-year, $959 billion health bill to full debate. Hutchison argued that "you're going to put taxes and mandates on business" that would be a drag on an economy still struggling to recover from recession.

Accusations around the political use of the task force recommendations on breast cancer screening have also become a dividing line between Democrats and Republicans:

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.), a breast cancer survivor, slammed Republicans on Sunday for trying to use controversial new mammogram guidelines as an argument against Democrats' health care legislation.

"The Republicans, and Ms. [Marsha] Blackburn, have for the first time politicized breast cancer," Wasserman Schultz said on ABC's "This Week," where Blackburn (R-Tenn.) was also a guest.

Obviously, an orderly fight ensued.

Health Care Hurdles [ABC News]
Schumer: Dems ready to go-it-alone on health care [AP]
Kennedy Abortion Flap Shows Catholic Rift [CBS News]
Dem: GOP has 'politicized breast cancer' [Politico]

Earlier: New Breast Cancer Screening Guidelines Spark Confusion, Criticism

Senator Reid unveiled his plan last night with both fanfare and steely resolve:

Reid's plan would expand coverage to 94 percent of Americans through a government-run health insurance option - allowing states to opt out - and other features, all while reducing future federal deficits by $130 billion over the next 10 years, according to a Congressional Budget Office report released late Wednesday. [...]

But Reid's plan contains considerable differences from House legislation passed earlier this month - with a more limited public option and different ways to pay for the bill. Reid included an excise tax on insurers who offer "Cadillac" health plans, not the "millionaire's tax" that's in the House bill.

And one of the biggest differences between the bills – on language restricting federal funding for abortion – could prove problematic for Reid. His bill doesn't include as many limits as the House bill and already is drawing fire from anti-abortion activists.

On the issue of abortion, the bill makes the following provisions:

The bill grants the secretary of Health and Human Services the authority to determine whether federal money is being used to fund abortions under the public plans, but doesn't ban those plans from offering the coverage. Reid's bill also explicitly requires insurers to separate private premiums from any public subsidies used to pay for that coverage to assure taxpayer dollars aren't used to fund the procedure - which is prohibited by the Hyde Amendment. [...]

There is a conscience clause that makes it perfectly acceptable for insurance companies to deny that coverage or health care providers to refuse carrying out the procedure. But the bill also requires each exchange to offer one plan that provides abortion coverage and one that doesn't - a major sticking point for critics of the original House language.

California Rep. Lois Capps, who tried to hatch a compromise on the Energy and Commerce Committee, commended Reid's language, saying, "I am pleased that the Senate has adopted a reasonable, common ground approach on this difficult question. It appears that their approach closely mirrors my language which was originally included in the House bill."

In a statement, she went on to point out that the bill "ensures that federal funds do not pay for abortions but allows continued access to this legal medical procedure."

We also have a date: Reid's version of the bill would start exchanges in 2014.

Reid, it should be noted, isn't fucking around with party holdouts.

At a special evening meeting of the Democratic caucus tonight, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid outlined, in broad strokes, the details of his health care bill, which the CBO has found, in a preliminary analysis, will expand coverage to 94 percent of Americans while reducing the deficit. And earlier in the day, during a separate meeting about floor procedure, Reid let three of his party's key skeptics know that if they join Republicans at any stage of the process to block the bill, he still retains the option of passing major parts of it through the filibuster proof budget reconciliation process.

In response to a question from TPMDC Nelson told reporters that, at a meeting this afternoon with Sens. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) and Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), Reid "talked about process, procedure, discussion about reconciliation and a whole host of issues of that sort."

"Nobody's really jumping up and down to push for reconciliation," Nelson said, "he's not threatening that, but anybody can conclude that if you don't move something on to the floor, that is one of the possibilities."

National Right to Life-rs are, of course, talking shit, but I'm going to ignore them in favor of reason and sanity. The real battle begins on Saturday.

Reid plan ups pressure on moderates [Politico]
Reid's restrictions on abortion [Politico]
Reid Outlines Bill For Caucus, Warns Conservative Dems That Reconciliation Is Still An Option [TPM]
National Right to Life blasts the Reid bill [Politico]

Last night, Mr. Stupak spent eight minutes regurgitating the same points.

But here's the thing: the reason why Stupak-Pitts is gaining so much attention and momentum is because it is expanding the scope of Hyde in such a way that it will impact the majority of women.

Talking Points Memo summarizes:

In other words, though the immediate impact of the Stupak amendment will be limited to the millions of women initially insured through a new insurance exchange, over time, as the exchanges grow, the insurance industry will scale down their abortion coverage options until they offer none at all.

"As a result, Stupak/Pitts can be expected to move the industry away from current norms of coverage for medically indicated abortions. In combination with the Hyde Amendment, Stupak/Pitts will impose a coverage exclusion for medically indicated abortions on such a widespread basis that the health benefit services industry can be expected to recalibrate product design downward across the board in order to accommodate the exclusion in selected markets."

Furthermore the study finds that the supposed fallback option for impacted women—a "rider" policy that provides supplemental coverage for abortions only—may not even be allowed under the terms of the law. "In our view, the terms and impact of the Amendment will work to defeat the development of a supplemental coverage market for medically indicated abortions. In any supplemental coverage arrangement, it is essential that the supplemental coverage be administered in conjunction with basic coverage. This intertwined administration approach is barred under Stupak/Pitts because of the prohibition against financial comingling."

Now some, like Ruth Marcus, seem to think that again, this isn't a big deal. The most important thing is going to be health insurance coverage, right?

The issue with that stance though is that while we know Stupak-Pitts is fucked-up, we don't know that this reform bill is good. We don't know how they will determine what constitutes affordable and we don't know when this exchange will start bringing costs down, though we may now be penalized for failing to purchase insurance. And to trade a right that was hard-won and continues to be fought for daily for a box of ifs, possibles, and maybes is too high of a price to pay.

Study: Stupak Amendment Will Eliminate Abortion Coverage 'Over Time For All Women' [TPMDC]
GWU School Of Public Health's Study Into The Effects Of The Stupak Amendment [TPM Documents]
Health reform's false abortion debate [Washington Post]

"I am not one of the women at your disposal, Prime Minister." Women's groups, feminist organizations, and even Facebook groups are urging Berlusconi to apologize. •  Burmese pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi was allowed to meet with Britain's most senior representative in the country, Andrew Heyn, for the first time since 2003. British foreign secretary David Miliband says of the meeting: "The fact that the Burmese authorities have allowed this meeting gives us some hope that the authorities might finally be ready to start a genuine dialogue which can lead to political reconciliation." • A recent study shows that cognitive behavior therapy may be the fastest way to help bulimia patients. After only a few months of the talk therapy, 37% of ED patients showed an improvement. • Senior Catholic Bishops sent a letter to congress saying that they will oppose healthcare reform unless changes are made on the abortion coverage. They also ask that Congress make quality healthcare affordable to everyone, especially those living near the poverty level. • Amanda Knox's mother, Edda Mellas, says she is hopeful about the outcome of her daughter's trial. Knox has been imprisoned in Italy for the last two years for the murder of her roommate, but Mellas says she is innocent, and the court needs to overcome "a year's worth of bad press and lies." • A 40-year-old Bavarian woman who fell into a coma in her 13th week of pregnancy delivered a healthy baby a year and a half ago. The hospital director said, "We wanted to keep the spectacular case secret for as long as possible to demonstrate that we're not experimenting on people and that the child is still healthy." • President Obama says that after he was woken up by a telephone call telling him he'd won the Nobel Peace Prize "Malia walked in and said, 'Daddy, you won the Nobel Peace Prize, and it is Bo's birthday.' And then Sasha added, `Plus, we have a three-day weekend coming up.' So it's - it's good to have kids to keep things in perspective." • President Obama will donate the $1.4 million cash award that comes with the Nobel Peace Prize to charity, but hasn't decided which organizations he'll give it to. • The International Olympic Committee is unhappy with three unnamed countries for failing to support the participation of female athletes in the games. IOC president Jacques Rogge said the countries all pose "religious, cultural and political difficulties for women" to compete in sports. "We are engaged now in high-reaching discussions with these countries to try and persuade them to be a little more liberal or positive about women's sport." • Journalism groups and media law experts are defending TMZ founder Harvey Levin. The groups say the L.A. County sheriff's investigators violated the law when the obtained a search warrant for Levin's record to find out who gave him details on Mel Gibson's anti-Semitic tirade during his 2006 drunk driving arrest. • German researchers have found an account of Joseph Goebbels post-war trial that reveals in more detail how his six children were killed. Dr. Helmut Kunz, who helped with the killings, said, ''Towards the end of April, Magda [Goebbel's wife] came up to me and said, 'I need your help in the killing of the children.' I refused her, saying that was not my responsibility... But Magda Goebbels insisted and shortly afterwards declared to me that it was no longer a request for help but a direct order from Hitler.'' He escaped from the bunker but was tracked down and told by Magda that he had to return or, ''you will be a dead man." • The first Norman Mailer Writers Colony Gala will honor novelist Toni Morrison for lifetime achievement and the late David Halberstam for distinguished journalism on October 20. • A woman from New Mexico has sued Delta Airlines for throwing her off the plane when she refused to cover herself while breastfeeding her baby. The lawsuit was brought in Vermont, which has some of the strongest breastfeeding laws. • 12-year-old Jennifer Valdivia caught the ball from Ryan Howard's 200th home run. A representative from the Philadelphia Phillies asked her for the ball back because they wanted to give it to Howard. When Valdivia's mother found out Jennifer had given up the ball she contacted a lawyer who sued on her behalf and made Howard return it. • Serena Williams says on her nude ESPN magazine cover photo, "ESPN had a 'Body Issue' and they told me I had a great body and they wanted me to be on the cover so I was super flattered. But I wanted to do it really classy and not trampy. I thought it was a really tasteful picture... I love it." •

[Washington, D.C., October 5. Image via Getty]

A pro-life activist demonstrates in front of the US Supreme Court on October 5, 2009 in Washington, DC. The US Supreme Court, which now includes its first Hispanic justice Sonia Sotomayor, begins a new term Monday that will focus on hot-button issues including gun rights and counter-terrorism. The nation's highest court, whose decisions deeply affect US policy, will also go to work amid growing speculation over the possible departure of a judge. The nine justices have agreed to examine 55 cases this term. They will soon decide whether to add to that roster an appeal brought by Guantanamo Bay detainees who have been cleared for release and are seeking resettlement in the United States. AFP PHOTO/Karen BLEIER (Photo credit should read KAREN BLEIER/AFP/Getty Images)

It's only about twenty minutes long, but as Pandagon points out, Obvious Child accomplishes what Juno and Knocked Up couldn't — depicting an abortion in an amusing but sensitive way. Jenny Slate's Donna isn't jumping for joy at the thought of going to the abortion clinic, nor is she totally blasé about it. But rather than being shocked at the very idea of terminating her pregnancy (a la Knocked Up), she decides it's the right choice for her. Her friends and family are supportive — turns out her mom had one too — and the procedure doesn't ruin her life. In fact, it brings her back together with the sweet Peter, who unintentionally got her pregnant in the first place.

The hipster love story aspect of the film is a little predictable — one thing this movie shares with other romantic comedies is it too-good-to-be-true guy. But it's nice to see a movie where a woman can get an abortion and a guy, especially now that only 47% of Americans think abortion should be legal all in most of the time (that's down from 54% last year). I'm not sure Obvious Child will change anybody's mind about abortion — but it does prove wrong the people who said, after Knocked Up, but no one could make a funny movie about it. Interestingly, though support for abortion is dropping, so is the percentage of people who think it's a critical issue for the country — just 15% this year, compared to 28% in 2006. Maybe Obvious Child is part of a growing acknowledgment that abortion doesn't have to change the course of every election — or every woman's life.

Support Drops In U.S. For Abortion Rights, Poll Shows [NYT]
A Rom Com About Abortion [Pandagon]

[Mexico City, September 28. Image via Getty]

Women march in Mexico City in support of abortion, on the 'Day of Decriminalization of Abortion in Latin America and the Caribbean' on September 28, 2009. AFP PHOTO/Alfredo ESTRELLA (Photo credit should read ALFREDO ESTRELLA/AFP/Getty Images)

Is Congress being haunted by the ghosts of bullshit policy plays?

If there was any story to seize as part of the cause, it would be Sutton's. She even provided an interview in 2008 which states:

She went two months without possible life-saving medications because her insurance wouldn't cover it, another example of abusing the working poor, she said.

"How in the world can it take so long to find out (whether they would cover the medicine or not) when it could be a matter of life or death," she said. "It is almost like, in a way, committing murder."

But are we discussing the fact that the health insurance companies run their own death panels? Oh no. Instead, we're covering abortion, which really means the President is making it clear that no federal money is going to pay for abortions. Which is only a problem if you ignore the existence of the Hyde Amendment, which banned the use of federal funds for abortions. This amendment was passed back in 1976 - clearly, this should be common knowledge.

And yet, they have Kathleen Sebelius on television, driving this point home like it's new:

And in case you missed that point:

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius says the president supports language in health overhaul legislation that explicitly prohibits money for abortions.

Sebelius says President Barack Obama has made it clear that his health care goals do not include using public money to pay for abortions.

The health secretary says Obama will include wording in overhaul legislation that explicitly prohibits the practice.

Okay, we get it. Federally funded money isn't going to be used to fund abortions. And yet, the subject continues on. The anti-choice set is intent on using health care reform as a way to further their agenda, in the same way the GOP is trying to leverage the current health care animosity to score points against Obama.

And all the while, we still haven't discussed the major differences in each of the plans floating around, and it appears that people are still confused about what constitutes a public option. Nate Silver, while picking apart a vaguely worded Washington Post survey, noted:

From my vantage point, what the poll "proves", if anything, is that specificity will be helpful to the Democrats. They should either insist on the public option or remove it — but keeping their options open may be doing little more than confusing the public. And the pollsters.

Real ‘Norma Rae' dead of cancer after battle with health insurer [ Raw Story]'
Real 'Norma Rae' has new battle involving cancer [Times News]
Hyde Amendment [Wikipedia]
Dems: No taxpayer funds for abortions [Politico]
HHS Head: No Abortion Money in Health Plan [Time]
Exploiting the healthcare debate to restrict abortion [Salon]
Reform Opposition Is High but Easing [Washington Post]
When You Assume, You Make a Mess Out of Your Poll [FiveThirtyEight]

[Wichita, May 31. Image via Getty]

WICHITA, KS - MAY 31: Flowers are seen in front of the Women's Health Care Services abortion clinic and serve as a memorial to Dr. George Tiller's death May 31, 2009 in Wichita, Kansas. Dr. George Tiller, a late term abortion doctor, was gunned down inside the foyer at the Reformation Lutheran Church during morning church services. A suspect in the shooting has been apprehended in Kansas City. (Photo by Kelly Glasscock/Getty Images)

This is not the first time Tiller has been targeted: in 1986, his clinic was bombed, and according to the New York Times, "in 1993, Dr. Tiller was shot in both arms by an anti-abortion activist while driving away from the clinic." Tiller's clinic has long been the target of pro-life activists, and he was recently charged with performing 19 illegal late-term abortions; he was acquitted of these charges in March of this year. At this time, details of the shooting are still coming out; there have been no reports of a suspect being held thus far.

Update: Police are currently on the lookout for a 90s powder blue Ford Taurus with the Kansas license plate number 225BAB in connection with the shooting.

Jurors Acquit Kansas Doctor In Late-Term Abortion Case [NYTimes]
George Tiller Shot And Killed At Wichita Church [Kansas City Star]
Police: Kansas Abortion Doctor Killed [MSNBC]

• Police say as many as 2,000 angry teenagers were involved in a disturbance in Lancaster, Texas, when they were denied admittance to the films Notorious and My Bloody Valentine. Kids these days! • An openly anti-choice nurse is being sued after she "accidentally" pulled out her patient's IUD and then refused to put it back in. • A British biotech company has announced that it plans to use stem cells from an aborted fetus in a study designed to help stroke victims. • Taliban militants have blown up two closed girls schools in Pakistan. All the girls' schools in the district have been closed, due to previous threats. • Abortion rights groups will gather this Thursday in Olympia, Washington, to celebrate the 36th anniversary of Row vs. Wade. • Remuda Ranch Programs for Eating and Anxiety Disorders, the nation's leading eating disorder treatment center, has reported that there is an increased pressure for pregnant women to stay thin. Women with a history of EDs are at an even greater risk when pregnant. • A 52-year-old missing German woman has been found living in the woods on the outskirts of Bern, Switzerland. She has been living in the forest for the past 12 years with nothing more than a tent for shelter. • Australian women are now able to get screened for breast cancer while they shop, thanks to a new initiative. • 757 Chinese women who lost children during the May 12th earthquake are now pregnant, officials say. The women received a special exemption from the country's strict population control laws to compensate for their terrible loss. • The Kansas parents who waited a decade to report their son missing are now prime suspects in the resulting murder investigation. • Robert Evens, a rapist who photographed his victim on his cellphone has just begun serving his six-year sentence. Evens was arrested after sending naked pictures of the victim to his friend, along with a text message describing the assault. • Change we can't believe in: D.C.-area dermatologists are seeing a spike in Botox in the days leading up to the inauguration. • New research shows that women's brains fare better during famine. • A Chicago teen has been sentenced to 18 years in prison for his role in the death of a young girl. Police say the teen was babysitting with his girlfriend when they decided to recreate scenes from the video game "Mortal Kombat" with 7-year-old Zoe Garcia. • Research shows that despite current restrictions, most Chinese woman would like to have two or more babies, ideally one boy and one girl. • Topping the list of scariest (fictional) villains is the white witch from The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe, and Captain Hook. The list was compiled from poll results that surveyed adult readers. • Feeling that there was "no other option," a frustrated British woman locked a repairman in the room with her broken washing machine. Shockingly, this tactic worked, and she is now getting a new washer. • Veterinarians found 15 pacifiers in the stomach of a 2-year-old bulldog named Lulu. The vets saved the pacifiers, recovered during surgery, to show to Lulu's owners. • Lidocaine, a common skin-numbing agent used during hair removal, has been found to cause life-threatening side effects, including irregular heartbeats, seizures, and even comas. • A new father in Michigan is facing a tough choice under Michigan's paternity act: pay for his child's birth or wed the mother. • Reports of abuse in Jordan has led the Philippine government to open shelters for its citizens in the Middle East. Many of the abused women were working as maids, and the Jordan government offers little protection for foreign workers. •  A Utah woman is suing Fox Television for airing nude clinical photos of her body without permission. The photographs were featured in a segment called "Plastic Surgery Nightmares" that aired in Salt Lake City. •

"[The rule] would prohibit recipients of federal money from discriminating against doctors, nurses and other health care workers who refuse to perform or to assist in the performance of abortions or sterilization procedures because of their 'religious beliefs or moral convictions.' It would also prevent hospitals, clinics, doctors’ offices and drugstores from requiring employees with religious or moral objections to 'assist in the performance of any part of a health service program or research activity' financed by the Department of Health and Human Services."

Despite the fact that the White House said new rules had to be proposed by June 1st and passed by November 1st to avoid a rush of new ones before Bush leaves office, the "provider conscience" rule "is getting special treatment because Dubya is just so eager to pass it. According to the Times, "The White House Office of Management and Budget received the proposal on Aug. 21 and cleared it on the same day…The 'provider conscience'rule missed both deadlines." The Bush Administration having flagrant disregard for established laws? What a shock!

Oh and also? Here's an example of the current policies which the Bush Administration objects to: "officials cited a Connecticut law that generally requires hospitals to provide rape victims with timely access to and information about emergency contraception." Because people shouldn't have to provide rape victims access to emergency contraception if it's against their beliefs, you know. If it is pushed through before the end of Bush's deplorable reign, Obama says he will overturn this law immediately. However, the Times reports that the rescinding process could take 3-6 months.

If you want to tell the Bush Administration where they can put their proposal, click here for the Planned Parenthood Action Center form. Only 63 more days of this horseshit, people. I think I can speak for almost all of us when I say, don't let the door hit ya on the way out, George!

Protests Over a Rule to Protect Health Providers [NY Times]
Tell The Bush Administration To Keep Its Word [PPAC]