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."
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.