Posted on 11/08/2009 12:54:24 PM PST by Askwhy5times
Nancy Pelosi managed to gather enough votes to pass the almost 2000 page House health care reform bill (H.R.3962) by allowing the Stupak Amendment. Many blue dog Democrats would not vote for Pelosicare because because it covered abortion with health care reform funds.
According to the New York Times:
To save the health care bill she (Pelosi) had to give in to abortion opponents in her party and allow them to propose tight restrictions barring any insurance plan that is purchased with government subsidies from covering abortions.
How tight are these restrictions? Here is a screen shot from a pdf of the Stupak Amendment.
The Amendment says no funds may be used to fund abortion or any health care plan that includes abortion unless there is a physical disorder, physical injury or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself, or unless the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest.
This certainly sounds like a strong prohibition, except for the rape or incest clause. Usually Democrats try to leave a huge loophole by sticking in an exception for "mother's health." This could be interpreted to include mental health. Under the The Mental Health Parity Act most of the distinctions insurance companies can make between mental health and physical health have been removed. At first glance, this loophole seems to be be missing from the Stupak Amendment. That is until you look up the definition of "physical disorder." A physical disorder (as a medical term) is often used as a term in contrast to a mental disorder, in an attempt to differentiate medical disorders.
(Excerpt) Read more at bluegrasspundit.com ...
Only because government intervention in health care is in the works.
And this would be the very same “no funding of abortion” amendment that that our brave Republican House Members lined-up to vote in favor?
the mental health was used for late term abortion and guess what person oversaw that law in her state.
yep Kathleen S
Yes, Republicans voted for the Stuppak Amendment. I think they were deceived by the meaning of “physical disorder.” It is not obvious that is referring to a type of “mental disorder.”
Are you joking?
Do you really believe that every GOP member of the House is dumb enough to be deceived by the meaning of "Physical disorder" and how in medicine the lines between physical and mental disorders are often blurred or overlapping?
Wow, you are really funny!
This simply means all abortions for any woman willing to lie will be paid for. The big loophole is rape. Any woman wanting an abortion can say she was raped. Of course she didn’t report it at the time because she didn’t get a good look at him. The event was so traumatic that all she wanted to do was forget about it. Now that she’s pregnant, her nightmare has returned. You can be sure that a simple affadavit will be all that’s needed. No police report or questionig of the rape allegation will be necessary.
Doesn’t matter. This will be stripped in Conference Committee IF the Senate passes their version of the monstrosity.
No, it is a lot easier than that.
All a woman needs to say is:
“I will kill myself if I have to have this baby”
“If Obama Care does not pay for my abortion, I will do it myself.”
“My husband/boyfriend is not the father of this baby and he will hurt me when he sees that he is not the father.”
Each of the above are clearly potential physical disorders and the program would pay for the abortion.
And it is clear that once again, the Pro-Life Movement was Punked by the GOP.
It will be back when the Senate and House meet on the bill, the only thing the Stupak Amendment did was sucker in the republcans.
She won't even need to lie - all she needs is a "doctor" to work in collusion with. And the doctors who perform abortions are more than willing to stretch the "truth" in order to earn a buck.
Liberal social justice in action, it now has a religious oh so holy holy holy whitewash.
Pregnancy will be deemed a ‘physical disorder’
The Republicans would have been wise to vote against the Stupak amendment, but the “National Right to Life” said they were scoring this vote.
Would this Stupak amendment have not passed if it weren’t for Republican votes? If that is the case, then Republicans have blown it once again. When are they ever going to learn that satan does not play fair?
Take your pick:
A. The Republicans are too stupid to read between the lines and understand that this will not stop tax payer funded abortions.
B. The Republicans only pay lip service to the Pro Life Movement and really have no interest in stopping abortion.
None of these “fig leaf amendments” would be part of the final conference committee bill that would pass both House and Senate and land triumphantly on BO’s desk. This is simply a trick to try to get so-called “conservative” Democrats re-elected next year. EVERY “Blue Dog” must be terminated next year because their election is a vote for Nancy Pelosi to remain Speaker of the House.
Is the Stupak amendment actually in the bill and, if so, where can a printed copy of the bill as passed be found?
I wouldn’t worry so much about this language as I would the exemption for States and other entities (provided funds arising from this specific bill are not used):
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/15284081/Stupak-Amendment-to-HR-3962-Rev-108
That’s assuming, of course, they don’t come back and simply write another amendment, perhaps citing equal protection or some civil rights statute, to provide federal funding for abortions.
They will tak this onto another bill somewhere down the line if it’s not there already, THEY FOOL NO ONE!
>> Doesn’t matter. This will be stripped in Conference Committee IF the Senate passes their version of the monstrosity.
Yes. It was merely a device to move HR3962 to a vote. It makes a mockery of the Pro-Life movement.
All Republicans should have passed on the vote. They were hoodwinked.
You are correct. This was a very cynical approach to getting enough Democrats on board to pass it.
Abortion is the issue but anti-abortion language is not the correct strategy.
The better approach is to appeal to the principle of subsidiarity because once government has the power with this bill they will continue to come back again and again until any safeguards against abortion or physician conscience are removed.
The problem is in letting government have this power in the first place.
The major Pro-Life organizations said that they wanted the amendment, and that they would score any vote not FOR the amendment as a vote against the pro-life cause.
Do we let the pro-life movement define what they want, or do we play politics? Frankly, I’m not sure at this point.
But I can’t figure out why the pro-life movement would require a vote for a rape/incest exception. We have not required federal taxpayers to fund abortions, and now we are going to use taxpayer money to kill innocent children because of the sins of their father? And this is supposed to be “pro-life”?
I’m pretty disgusted with the “pro-life” groups right now that forced this vote. Given that Roe lied about being raped, we all know that the rape exception is pretty much a free pass to abortion. And even if it wasn’t, the idea that there is a MEDICAL REASON to abort a child based on a crime committed by the father is absurd. Frankly, there isn’t really a reason to abort for incest either; the risk of grave medical problems are very slim, and often “incest” isn’t biological, it’s a step-parent.
>> that they would score any vote not FOR the amendment
They were in a bit of pickle. They probably made promises to the ‘Blue Dogs’ that they wouldn’t break. Can you believe they finished last?
I watched C-SPAN’s coverage of the debate on the Stupak amendment. The zeal in favor of abortion was harsh on the soul. It’s just a matter of conscience as one Democrat member stated. I would imagine the pro-aborts are fully aware of the kill nature that abortion provides the unborn. Such cruelty seems not to be an issue for them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.