When I was a kid, I used to have elaborate fantasies (usually while in church) about how someday I'd be old and a grown up and smart and powerful and rich and probably president, and then I'd do all kinds of things to make the world better. Improve schools, make abortion totally legal and easy to get always, get rid of poverty, make sure no kids are ever hungry or malnourished, stricter sentencing for sexual predators and a greater cultural effort to end discrimination.
I miss being a kid and feeling like I would ever have a chance to make one fucking bit of difference in this world. My vote, opinion, body, existence--all mean nothing to this country. #healthnuts
This whole thing makes me infuratinglydisgustedfrustrate.... All at once.
I am continuously appalled at the way this issue is made about everything but what is really at stake: A woman's individual right to decide her own reproductive decisions are every stage. To my mind, that should never be subject to anyone else's approval.
From conscience clauses to Stupak, from "pre-pregnant" to refusing sterilization, it's a concentrated, deliberate, horrifying effort to force every woman to adhere to one view of "morality". Which is really that apparently women shouldn't be having sex unless they want to endlessly bear children. I don't think my choices should be celibacy or motherhood. I don't think anyone else has the right to decide that for me.
I get the "personal responsibility" argument. I get the whole "life is precious" thing, too. And if we lived in a vacuum, or a world where no one was economically downtrodden, or rape didn't occur, or if a system of determining who "deserves" to not to be forced to carry to term was in any way ethical...they might make sense. But we don't.
I'm sick of it. No one wakes up and thinks, gee, I'd really like to have an abortion. But life isn't always predictable.
And honestly, if we don't want women being forced to abort, we shouldn't ever forget that this is just about forcing women to carry to term. You can talk about "life" all you want. But all I see is forced reproduction and the continued belief that women are not really people. #healthnuts
Frankly I don't even understand how the Hyde Amendment or the Stupak amendment is Constitutional. As some blogger earlier noted, it is like saying that women can't use public highways to travel to get an abortion.
@J.D.Regent: unfortunately (you porb already know this, legal scholar that you are), Hyde was upheld in 1983 (i think) b/c the Supreme Court basically said that the state has no interest in making sure you have the money to pay for an abortion.
I've seen some good arguments on law blogs (good as judged by non-attorney me) that explain why Stupak would be unconstitutional so that's at least promising. #healthnuts
@TheGuvnah: I actually did not know, to my shame. Thanks so much for the information! But...doesn't the state have an interest in upholding the constitutional right to privacy? Would love to see some of those arguments if you get the chance. #healthnuts
I'm confused. I see how this amendment affects those who would benefit from the public option... and I kinda see how it would affect women who are compelled to buy private insurance with aid(since the Senate is making everyone do that, public option or not) -- but I don't get how the government can say I don't get abortion coverage if I get my insurance from my company. I'm not being incredulous. I read this article twice, and I still don't understand how that works. Someone help. #healthnuts
@judgingamy: The bill creates a federal insurance exchange. The exchange will become the main marketplace for people who don't have coverage elsewhere (employer coverage, Medicare, etc.) to buy insurance. It should become cheaper to buy via the exchange than it is to just buy on the open market.
The bill requires 2 things related to abortion. First, any plan offered to people receiving the government subsidy cannot cover abortion. Second, if an insurance company offers a plan on the exchange that is not eligible to people on the subsidy and the plan includes abortion coverage, the insurance company must offer the exact same plan on the exchange without abortion coverage.
It is very likely that most insurance companies will not offer a plan that covers abortion. First reason is fear of the anti-choice activists who can easily search the exchange plans and target those insurance companies. Second reason is that it doesn't make much financial sense as actuaries assume you want coverage because you expect to use it so the extra you pay for abortion coverage will probably not make financial sense to most women. It would probably make more sense to put money away in an emergency account.
The exchange is also meant to provide an option for small businesses. Small businesses can contribute directly to the exchange rather than dealing with an insurance company, so they can get the cheaper rates. So people with employer coverage who are employed by a small business would likely lose abortion coverage. #healthnuts
I am so sick of the whole 'unless it is rape or incest.' Putting the mother's health before the fetus makes sense because that is still all about the "sanctity of life." But because a fetus is the product of rape suddenly it loses its value? No - they are saying that in this case the mental health of the mother trumps the life of the future kid. I totally feel the unspoken words are, you can only have an abortion if your are morally decent. All you whores who spread your legs willingly can't have it. It is bad enough they want to take away my choice, but to be so blatantly hypocritical in the process too - it just nauseates me. #healthnuts
@Elaken: This is the only thing I respect Sarah Palin on. She thinks abortion is wrong even in cases of rape and incest. As ass-backwards as that seems to me, I respect her logic. If you think that it's murder, the circumstances surrounding that fetuses conception are irrelevant. #healthnuts
@Elaken: What really bugs me is the "except when it endangers the mother's life" caveat. How do people not recognize that every pregnancy and every delivery represents a non-negligible risk to the health and life of the mother? Especially as the US has the highest maternal death rate in the industrialized world. #healthnuts
I wonder about that 13% statistic. Perhaps some abortion providers don't want to deal with the hassle of billing to insurance, leaving women to submit claims themselves (and fall into the 74% who supposedly paid out-of-pocket). #healthnuts
@Kivrin: Check out the last link, as far as I can tell they say more or less what you're saying -
Perhaps even more importantly, the 13% statistic does not include women who pay for an abortion up front and then seek reimbursement from their insurance provider. This is common when a medical provider does not participate in a patient’s insurance plan, as is often the case with small, specialized providers, including abortion providers.
@Kivrin: I've gone to Planned Parenthood when I moved to a new place and didn't have a gynecologist and needed a gyn visit. They weren't in my very large insurance network and I had to file the claim for out of network coverage myself. So this could be a lot of people with insurance going to Planned Parenthood. And, unfortunately, there probably are a lot of women who don't send in the claim form for reimbursement because they are embarrassed and might think their employer will find out. Many people don't understand that HIPAA prevents employers from accessing your claims data. #healthnuts
@Atomic Bowling: Yeah, I just wish there were some more research around that. Seems like a reporter could do a sample of PP clinics, for example, and find out what percentage of major insurers are covered, etc. Some more data would be helpful. #healthnuts
How far does this amendment go? If I have insurance through a government subsidy, and I pay for an abortion out of pocket as I apparently am forced to do, what happens if I have complications from the abortion procedure? Is the medical treatment for the complications covered?
What if 2 years later, I have trouble conceiving and desire fertility treatments covered by insurance (paid for by govt. subsidies). Will my abortion be a pre-existing condition and allow my insurance to deny coverage? #healthnuts
@curiousgeorgiana: This amendment doesn't prevent medical treatment related to complications from an abortion procedure. It only limits the payment for the procedure itself. The complications will have separate CPT codes going to the insurance.
The reform proposals are getting rid of the pre-existing condition exclusions. Even if they didn't get rid of them, a pre-existing condition is something you had prior to your insurance coverage. It isn't about something that happened while you had coverage that the coverage didn't pay for. If you have insurance and pay for elective plastic surgery and end up in the hospital with life-threatening complications, your insurance should pay for the complications treatment even though they didn't pay for the surgery. #healthnuts
@Lymed: I'm glad to know about the complications being covered, thanks.
I didn't mean "pre-existing condition" in the way we use the phrase now-- I know this legislation would eliminate them. I couldn't think of a better term at the moment... #healthnuts
While it may be true that only 13 percent of abortions were billed to private insurance, consider the fact that the vast majority of abortions take place in the first trimester and cost anywhere from $300 to $1,000. Second trimester procedures routinely cost upward of $10,000 and are totally out of reach for all but the most affluent. Non-first trimester abortions often occur under much more awful circumstances-- maybe they discover a birth defect in an ultrasound, maybe the father abandons the mother and she decides that she's just not prepared to go through pregnancy and childbirth alone.
And what will this amendment mean for women who use fertility treatments and end up pregnant with a dangerous number of fetuses? Will their ability to selectively reduce (expensive, expensive, expensive) be restricted due to its cost and their insurance company's non-coverage of the procedure? Will this mean that the industry that helps infertile couples conceive will have to be totally re-tooled to insure that it's impossible for a woman to possibly be impregnated with a dangerous number of fetuses? In that case, does that mean that, because of this amendment, infertile couples have much less chance of ever bearing their own biological children?
...This shit has gotten really stupid. I'm amazed at the quantum stupidity exhibited by Congress. Just when you think that it can't get any dumber... it does!
@morninggloria: Thank you for mentioning that catastrophic abnormalities aren't the only reason women may need to abort outside the first trimester. #healthnuts
@morninggloria: I remember you mentioning something about that. *cough*
Also, women's circumstances change. Sometimes daddy-to-be takes a hike or becomes abusive, or she loses a job or any number of other reasons that don't have a damn thing to do with any fetal abnormalities. #healthnuts
@bluebears: not when this is a legal and constitutionally protected procedure. It almost makes me long for the days when "women's business" was women's business. #healthnuts
@bluebears: It infuriates me. My right to get proper medical information should be not infringed on by someone else's "conscience". It's not like there aren't areas of medicine you can go into that don't involve that. It's a specialized field. Go into podiatry if you can't deal with it. And the fact that it not only effects abortions, but also contraception access, makes me livid.
As for pharmacists, how about you just give people the pills they've been prescribed and save the moral judgments for elsewhere. I don't know why they should get any say over my reproductive choices. #healthnuts
The reason we are having this intraparty Democratic culture waar is because of the tea-party town halls, Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin. It is because those trying to kill health reform were talking about abortion coverage that it became so large an issue.
And it will impact people with employer paid coverage as soon as the exchange begins because the exchange is not only designed for people without employer coverage, it is also designed for small businesses to purchase employer coverage. #healthnuts
While traveling on the train in India, a group of hijras wandered (loose term here, given how packed it was) the aisles asking for money. Apparently its bad luck to deny them, so most people just refuse to make eye contact.
I was both surprised and a little excited, because I wasn't aware that there was a transexual population in India that were open and out. I'm sort of irrationally excited about this site. I hope it ends up being a positive expierence for the community. #hijras
11/16/09
I miss being a kid and feeling like I would ever have a chance to make one fucking bit of difference in this world. My vote, opinion, body, existence--all mean nothing to this country. #healthnuts
11/16/09
I am continuously appalled at the way this issue is made about everything but what is really at stake: A woman's individual right to decide her own reproductive decisions are every stage. To my mind, that should never be subject to anyone else's approval.
From conscience clauses to Stupak, from "pre-pregnant" to refusing sterilization, it's a concentrated, deliberate, horrifying effort to force every woman to adhere to one view of "morality". Which is really that apparently women shouldn't be having sex unless they want to endlessly bear children. I don't think my choices should be celibacy or motherhood. I don't think anyone else has the right to decide that for me.
I get the "personal responsibility" argument. I get the whole "life is precious" thing, too. And if we lived in a vacuum, or a world where no one was economically downtrodden, or rape didn't occur, or if a system of determining who "deserves" to not to be forced to carry to term was in any way ethical...they might make sense. But we don't.
I'm sick of it. No one wakes up and thinks, gee, I'd really like to have an abortion. But life isn't always predictable.
And honestly, if we don't want women being forced to abort, we shouldn't ever forget that this is just about forcing women to carry to term. You can talk about "life" all you want. But all I see is forced reproduction and the continued belief that women are not really people. #healthnuts
11/16/09
Ok, it's war. #healthnuts
11/16/09
11/16/09
11/16/09
I've seen some good arguments on law blogs (good as judged by non-attorney me) that explain why Stupak would be unconstitutional so that's at least promising. #healthnuts
11/16/09
11/16/09
[writ.lp.findlaw.com] #healthnuts
11/16/09
11/16/09
11/16/09
The bill requires 2 things related to abortion. First, any plan offered to people receiving the government subsidy cannot cover abortion. Second, if an insurance company offers a plan on the exchange that is not eligible to people on the subsidy and the plan includes abortion coverage, the insurance company must offer the exact same plan on the exchange without abortion coverage.
It is very likely that most insurance companies will not offer a plan that covers abortion. First reason is fear of the anti-choice activists who can easily search the exchange plans and target those insurance companies. Second reason is that it doesn't make much financial sense as actuaries assume you want coverage because you expect to use it so the extra you pay for abortion coverage will probably not make financial sense to most women. It would probably make more sense to put money away in an emergency account.
The exchange is also meant to provide an option for small businesses. Small businesses can contribute directly to the exchange rather than dealing with an insurance company, so they can get the cheaper rates. So people with employer coverage who are employed by a small business would likely lose abortion coverage. #healthnuts
11/16/09
11/16/09
11/16/09
11/16/09
11/16/09
Perhaps even more importantly, the 13% statistic does not include women who pay for an abortion up front and then seek reimbursement from their insurance provider. This is common when a medical provider does not participate in a patient’s insurance plan, as is often the case with small, specialized providers, including abortion providers.
11/16/09
11/16/09
11/16/09
How far does this amendment go? If I have insurance through a government subsidy, and I pay for an abortion out of pocket as I apparently am forced to do, what happens if I have complications from the abortion procedure? Is the medical treatment for the complications covered?
What if 2 years later, I have trouble conceiving and desire fertility treatments covered by insurance (paid for by govt. subsidies). Will my abortion be a pre-existing condition and allow my insurance to deny coverage? #healthnuts
11/16/09
The reform proposals are getting rid of the pre-existing condition exclusions. Even if they didn't get rid of them, a pre-existing condition is something you had prior to your insurance coverage. It isn't about something that happened while you had coverage that the coverage didn't pay for. If you have insurance and pay for elective plastic surgery and end up in the hospital with life-threatening complications, your insurance should pay for the complications treatment even though they didn't pay for the surgery. #healthnuts
11/16/09
I didn't mean "pre-existing condition" in the way we use the phrase now-- I know this legislation would eliminate them. I couldn't think of a better term at the moment... #healthnuts
11/16/09
And what will this amendment mean for women who use fertility treatments and end up pregnant with a dangerous number of fetuses? Will their ability to selectively reduce (expensive, expensive, expensive) be restricted due to its cost and their insurance company's non-coverage of the procedure? Will this mean that the industry that helps infertile couples conceive will have to be totally re-tooled to insure that it's impossible for a woman to possibly be impregnated with a dangerous number of fetuses? In that case, does that mean that, because of this amendment, infertile couples have much less chance of ever bearing their own biological children?
...This shit has gotten really stupid. I'm amazed at the quantum stupidity exhibited by Congress. Just when you think that it can't get any dumber... it does!
11/16/09
11/16/09
11/16/09
Also, women's circumstances change. Sometimes daddy-to-be takes a hike or becomes abusive, or she loses a job or any number of other reasons that don't have a damn thing to do with any fetal abnormalities. #healthnuts
11/16/09
11/16/09
11/16/09
11/16/09
As for pharmacists, how about you just give people the pills they've been prescribed and save the moral judgments for elsewhere. I don't know why they should get any say over my reproductive choices. #healthnuts
11/16/09
And it will impact people with employer paid coverage as soon as the exchange begins because the exchange is not only designed for people without employer coverage, it is also designed for small businesses to purchase employer coverage. #healthnuts
11/16/09
11/12/09
I was both surprised and a little excited, because I wasn't aware that there was a transexual population in India that were open and out. I'm sort of irrationally excited about this site. I hope it ends up being a positive expierence for the community. #hijras
11/12/09
11/04/09