Monday, November 9, 2009

Life of the Mother Exceptions

With Fran Kissling in a tizzy and reports below that the tears were flowing from the eyes of female lawmakers scared the free services of killing children of the men women sleep with would be in jeopardy, I'm taking these in as all good signs.


So when Pelosi announced late Friday that she would allow an amendment strictly limiting insurance coverage of abortions, it touched off an angry yelling match between DeLauro and another Pelosi confidant, California Rep. George Miller, and tears from some veteran female lawmakers, according to people in the room.

Some of the lawmakers argued that Pelosi was turning her back on a decades-long campaign by female Democratic members in support of abortion rights. Miller rose to Pelosi’s defense, which resulted in an angry confrontation between him and DeLauro, said the sources.

Miller told DeLauro that there were “more pro-life votes in the House than pro-choice” and that abortion-rights advocates had better acknowledge that reality.


Strong signals that this is an authentic loss.

One of my pursuits in catching up is to see if the "life of the mother in danger" exceptions been dropped from this Bill.

There's a distinction between "life of the mother in danger" and "health of the mother in danger"

"Health of the mother in danger" is something that has a physical diagnosis that is life threatening.

Historically speaking,"life of the mother in danger" a woman would go to her primary care doctor saying she was pregnant and wanted an abortion, he'd then connect the dots that her pregnancy was causing "situational anxiety" that was endangering her life, he would then refer her to the shrink who would then render his opinion that she was mentally unstable, depressed, suicidal - etc., and that would make her eligible to fit the "life of the mother in danger" exceptions.

It doesn't appear to have been dropped from my quick googles on it last evening.

If so, we'll be having some undercover work to do to expose the sham if this ever passes the Senate. Could be the women were crying because the process will now involve an official diagnosis of mental instability when women want their low-cost and free abortions.

We need to use the pause before the vote in the Senate to get this information out there and get clarification.


For instance, what are the circumstances around this jewel?

The House passed its version of health-care legislation Saturday night by a vote of 220 to 215 after the approval of an amendment that would sharply restrict the availability of coverage for abortions, which many insurance plans now offer. The amendment goes beyond long-standing prohibitions against public funding for abortions, limiting abortion coverage even for women paying for it without government subsidies.

The abortion issue had been rumbling within the House Democratic caucus for weeks, but Saturday's votes revealed the depths of the fault lines. The amendment passed with the support of 64 Democrats, roughly a quarter of the party caucus.

But abortion-rights supporters are vowing to strip the amendment out, as the focus turns to the Senate and the conference committee that would resolve differences between the two bills.

Although House liberals voted for the bill with the amendment to keep the process moving forward, Rep. Diana DeGette (Colo.) said she has collected more than 40 signatures from House Democrats vowing to oppose any final bill that includes the amendment -- enough to block passage.

"There's going to be a firestorm here," DeGette said. "Women are going to realize that a Democratic-controlled House has passed legislation that would prohibit women paying for abortions with their own funds. . . . We're not going to let this into law."


Do tell.

UPDATE**

Excluding concerns about siphoning funds from sick and seniors by rationing their healthcare and bankrupting the country, the restrictions on abortion coverage is something I believe we can celebrate.

Out of the mouths of the babes:

Stupak Amendment does:

1. It effectively bans coverage for most abortions from all public and private health plans in the Exchange: In addition to prohibiting direct government funding for abortion, it also prohibits public money from being spent on any plan that covers abortion even if paid for entirely with private premiums. Therefore, no plan that covers abortion services can operate in the Exchange unless its subscribers can afford to pay 100% of their premiums with no assistance from government "affordability credits." As the vast majority of Americans in the Exchange will need to use some of these credits, it is highly unlikely any plan will want to offer abortion coverage (unless they decide to use it as a convenient proxy to discriminate against low- and moderate-income Americans who tend to have more health care needs and incur higher costs).


2. It includes only extremely narrow exceptions: Plans in the Exchange can only cover abortions in the case of rape or incest or "where 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." Given insurance companies' dexterity in denying claims, we can predict what they'll do with that language. Cases that are excluded: where the health but not the life of the woman is threatened by the pregnancy, severe fetal abnormalities, mental illness or anguish that will lead to suicide or self-harm, and the numerous other reasons women need to have an abortion.

3. It allows for a useless abortion "rider": Stupak and his allies claim his Amendment doesn't ban abortion from the Exchange because it allows plans to offer and women to purchase extra, stand-alone insurance known as a rider to cover abortion services. Hopefully the irony of this is immediately apparent: Stupak wants women to plan for a completely unexpected event.


The voice of a conscience would have to be almost completely paralyzed to make proactive plans to kill your own children. Buying abortion riders is an industry that would be tapped into by a small subset of the population. Tough hurdles for exploiting the poor and grand opportunities to be providing authentic supportive services to pregnant women - roll up your sleeves service to women and children.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

This bill would not have gone through without the Bishops providing cover for this to look just with the blessings of religion. It will be added back in or loopholes be made so as to make this amendment ineffective.

"Pro-Lifers" Put Party Over Principle

"According to press reports, a large number of pro-life House members refused to support the Pelosi government health care bill until after they had an agreement had been reached that strong pro-life language would be included in the measure.

WIRE has now learned from reliable sources within the House Democrat cloakroom that the agreement was largely a sham.

According to the sources, at least a dozen of the purported pro-life House members cast their vote for the Pelosi bill after being explicitly told that any pro-life language would be stripped from the measure in the expected Senate-House conference.

In sum, the "pro-life" members allegedly participated in a deliberate deception devised to provide them cover for next fall's elections. In short, party triumphed over principle."

L, Rachele

Anonymous said...

I think this statement sums it all up. If you removed who was making this statement, I think you could easily think it was a WH press release.

"The bishops' stamp of approval means that this bill is unambiguously pro-life and we will vigorously oppose those who suggest otherwise," the conference said in a statement Saturday.

Don't let the facts get in the way.

I highly doubt they read the bill in its entirety either. How you can vote on something so important or endorse something so important without knowing all your voting for or endorsing is beyond me.

It is sad they don't vigorously teach Catholic teaching. It is good that this happened in that their split from Rome as a body is manifesting itself more and more. The Lord is cleaning house and we are going to continue witnessing scandal after scandal until He's done.

This bill WOULD NOT have gone through without the Bishop's support because there were enough Dems who would not have voted for it without their blessing. Pelosi knew it and that is the only reason the amendment was allowed. There is still exceptions to the amendment and the Senate is not going to be swayed by the Bishops when they pass their bill barring tons of grace. Then the two will be meshed together and except for the Lord allowing Himself to be moved for the sake of His faithful ones, it will be added back in or so many loopholes will be given that in practice it would make the amendment meaningless.

The Bishop's commented on the dignity of the human person from conception to natural death. Abortion, of course, is a vital consideration but the rest should not have been "compromised" as it is in direct violation of Church teaching as well. What message does that send our enemies? Other Catholics? Other Christians? We are only paying lip service or are extremely gullible. Go ahead and dissent on some aspect of Church teaching. Go ahead and tell us what we want to hear and we will believe you. You can't say that to serpents or the flock.

The Bishops compromised on Church teaching because they want healthcare available to everybody. Healthcare is already available to everyone who is here and we are already paying for it. When my sister had to go to the ER and had no insurance the first comment the social worker made was " this would be so much easier if you were an illegal." They just file paperwork and there is no charge to them. Also a friend of ours told us the story of a friend of his who is a doctor. The doctor is required by law to operate on an illegal without getting paid for it and also opens up the door for the illegal to sue him. That is not just. Neither is forcing Americans to buy into this or face a fine or jail times. The quality of care they think they are going to provide everyone with is going to go down the tubes. Care that we can elect to have now will be denied all in the name of providing quality care for everyone.

This is not the answer or a correct application of the Church's teaching on social justice. The corruption in the system needs to be dealt with and eliminated not taken over by a godless government and added to.

What about the violation of the parent's right to decide what is best for their children? In the name of the health of the child, in this bill, the government can come into your home and decide if your teaching your child what the government thinks is best.


We need to pray harder... for the enemies of Christ from within and without.

From the beautiful City of Boston said...

All that glitters isn't gold!

Love