Sigh

Dammit

Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) who has been tasked by leadership with helping hammer out a compromise on abortion between the two chambers, said she was not thrilled with either the House or Senate legislation’s provisions. But in an interview with the Huffington Post, the Connecticut Democrat did say she would support the Senate’s version of abortion-related language provided that she could confirm her belief that it did not go beyond current law.

“There are some questions I still have,” DeLauro said. “And that’s why I want to see this side-by-side with the language. It’s not Stupak-Pitts [the House's language]. So, it’s already [an improvement]. And it would appear to be current law. I would have to look at the questions that surround it, et cetera. But if it is current law then it would be something that was my goal at the outset: let’s maintain current law and then let’s pass health care.”

My belief is that the Senate language goes far beyond current law.

 

A “victory” on the backs of women. Again.

If I’m reading this correctly, the Senate HCR bill is even more onerous than the House bill when it comes to women’s reproductive freedom. Rather than just a bill that says that federal funds cannot be used to fund abortion, the Senate bill says that states can require insurance companies operating in the exchanges to not cover abortion. I assume that means, that even if a premium is paid completely with private funds, abortions will not be covered in those states. 

A compromise measure introduced by Reid would let states disallow coverage of abortion in new insurance exchanges.

After reading the appropriate section of the amendment (pdf) here’s my take in a nutshell:

1. States can require insurance companies participating in the Exchanges in their state to not offer abortion coverage at all. 
2. Any insurance companies that participate in the Exchanges and offer abortion coverage must figure out the cost of providing that coverage, split that cost off from the regular premium, and require the insured to make two separate payments for one policy (or in the event that an employer is participating in the exchange and her employees are using payroll deductions to pay their premiums, the employer must send two payments to the insurance company).  
3. In determing whether to offer abortion coverage, an insurance company CAN take into consideration the added costs in providing that coverage (see #2 above), but cannot consider what it could cost them not to offer the coverage, that is, the cost of providing pre and post natal care to a woman forced to carry the pregnancy to term.
4. Insurers will be required to set apart premium portions for abortion coverage in separate accounts.
5. Already strapped state insurance commissioners are responsible for enforcement of the two account provision, so I can see them rushing to the state legislatures pronto to put #1 above into law.
6. The “conscience rules” are given full force in the bill

Have I missed anything? After the jump is the text of the “compromise.”  I’ve tried to format it properly, but may not have succeeded. I’ve added my emphasis in bold italics.

 

A short review

Back in September I wrote:

Even if rates don’t go up because of an individual claim, I’ve heard that rates may be charged by your community demographic.  Could that mean, for instance, that residents in Fallon, because of the leukemia cluster will pay higher rates than people in my town? Or will it mean, as you get older, you move into the “higher risk” category, and up your rates go, regardless of whether or not you make any claims? Of course, what I’ve “heard” and what is “real” may be two different things. Or not. I don’t know, because we don’t yet have a bill

Further, and this is the kicker, Obama’s pledge that no federal funds will go to fund abortions and the odious “conscience rules” will remain in place is a huge red flag. Will this be the proverbial camel’s nose under the tent that will allow the forced birthers to demand that no insurance company cover any abortions at all in the off chance that the woman’s premium is being payed by a tax-payer funded “tax credit?”  It’s the global gag rule come home to roost.

Well, now we have a bill.

Global gag rule come home to roost? Check. And if you think this is coming out in conference, you’re delusional. The Stupak amendment’s torch is about to be picked up by Senators Bill Nelson (D) and Bob Casey (D) in the Senate. And we all know where Harry stands on choice don’t we?

Higher rates via demographic? Check

Meanwhile the Wall Street Journal is reporting that the house bill *only* makes older people pay twice as might [BL: note: should read "much"] for health insurance as older [BL note:  "younger"] people. These are the figures:

under the House’s 2-to-1 cap, a 20-year-old would pay $3,169 in annual premiums and a 60-year-old would pay $6,339 for comparable plans, if they both had incomes above the subsidy-eligible level. Under a bill passed by the Senate Finance Committee, which had a 4-to-1 age-rating ratio, the 20-year-old would pay $2,258 and the 60-year-old would pay $8,357.

Hope and Change vs the Status Quo? Status Quo wins

All the Democrats were using some odd rhetoric on TV today. When asked directly if they would vote for a bill that had a Stupak amendment they kept saying that they were going to work to make sure that they “preserved the status quo.” The president said the same thing:

“I laid out a very simple principle, which is this is a health care bill, not an abortion bill,” Obama said. “And we’re not looking to change what is the principle that has been in place for a very long time, which is federal dollars are not used to subsidize abortions.

Saying the bill cannot change the status quo, the President said “there are strong feelings on both sides” about an amendment passed on Saturday and added to the legislation, “and what that tells me is that there needs to be some more work before we get to the point where we’re not changing the status quo.”

Joe Cannon envisions another scenario:

Under today’s system of socialized emergency medicine for the poor, she probably would go to the hospital within 24 hours. But under Pelosi’s plan, she knows that stepping into that hospital mean paying an unpayable fine, because she can’t afford to be on a health plan. And she’s terrified to fill out any forms giving out her personal information, because the last year she filled out a tax form was the year she “fell off the grid.”

So she stays home, spitting out her saliva every minute, unable to sleep, feeling ready to die. Maybe she ends up doing just that.

Well, screw Ellen. She didn’t pay taxes. She didn’t really contribute to the economy. It’s not as though society owed her a decent job or a social safety net. Let the bitch die. Too bad the taxpayers have to fork over the money to put her underground.

 

“take this with perspective…”

Email exchange between me and a supposedly “progressive” male friend. Sent before yesterday’s vote and under the subject line “One More Chance” said progressive sends me this Truthout article and pulls this quote: 

Sent: Friday, November 06, 2009 7:50 AM

´The congressman also said he doesn’t accept the decision to remove the amendment from the bill, and he said that there would be one more chance for the American people to push for a single-payer system.

“Once the health care bill passes the House, and the Senate passes its version, the two bills will go to a Conference Committee,” Kucinich said. “It is at this point that we will have one more chance. We need to insist that the Kucinich Amendment be included in the Conference Committee report, since that is what will ultimately become law.”

I’m thinking mebbe, but doubtful.  I write back:

Sent: Sat 11/7/2009 5:26 PM

Lessee – Pelosi wouldn’t even give Weiner the 20 minutes she’d previously promised him but is willing to side with the US Catholic Bishops to disallow any poor woman to get an abortion through any insurance plan that may receive federal funds either directly or indirectly through “subsidies (tax credits)” and delusional Kucinich thinks his amendment is going to get into the bill in conference? Has a bill EVER gotten BETTER in conference?

Stick a fork in it.  This bill is dead. Or should I say, hope for Americans is dead.

I am beyond disgusted.

I also foward him the email from HealthJustice linked in my post below and write:

Sent: Sat 11/7/2009 5:44 PM

Read email below….in light of what I just wrote you about Pelosi and the Catholic Bishops. I highlighted the paragraph.

No debate for Weiner’s amendment, yet she allows debate and vote on Stupak’s amendment. 

Now it gets interesting. He writes back today (my emphasis):

Sent: Sunday, November 08, 2009 9:26 AM

Pelosi is Catholic…duh? Please take this with perspective. I know HC is a big issue. I, personally, believe that it is being used to deflect debate from issues much more dear to our freedom(s).

1). Warrentless wiretapping

2). Leaving bushco appointed fed attorneys in place nationwide…they dictate what cases are prosecuted.

3). Torture

4). Posse Comitatus/habeus corpus

5). All things financial

6). Anti-trust a la FCC, SEC, FTC, FDA

7). Iraq/Afghanistan

8). Executive orders/signing statements from previous criminals in charge

 Health care has completely sucked all oxygen from discussion of the above…as ‘they’ continue dictatorial endeavors. 

Jus’ sayin’…

As you can well understand, I was a a bit put off (okay, I was pissed) by the condescending “take this with perspective” comment, so I replied (judiciously utilizing ALL CAPS for in hopes of encouraging some reading comprehension on his part):

Sent: Sun 11/8/2009 1:04 PM

Uh no. Obama has no intention of doing anything about those issues either. This is NOT either/or.

For the record: Pelosi voted against the amendment – so her true colors are all about getting enough votes to pass this POS legislation. After saying there would be no vote on Single Payer SO THAT other amendments SUCH AS THOSE THAT COULD RESTRICT WOMEN’S RIGHT TO CHOOSE [could not be introduced], she then scuttles single payer amendments and ALLOWS an amendment that RESTRICTS A WOMAN’S RIGHT TO CHOOSE. 

 I repeat. This is not an Either / Or. And frankly, I am fucking sick of women always being told that there is something (ALWAYS SOMETHING) that is more important than their rights, that has to be dealt with RIGHT NOW, so ladies, either get with “our” program or go sit down over there, be quiet, and we’ll get to you after we finish with whatever it is we deem more important than your rights. 

Fuck That.

 

And we get? Updated

I got an email today from HealthJustice with the subject line: Single-Payer Vote Called Off

It said:

On the eve of what could have been the first vote on single-payer legislation in our nation’s history, we have just learned that because of last minute developments, the vote and debate on Congressman Weiner’s single-payer amendment will not happen.

Speaker Pelosi received a statement from Rep. Kucinich and Rep. Conyers, the co-authors of HR 676, that they do not think that this is the right time for a vote on national single-payer legislation. They made this statement despite the extensive mobilization in support of this vote across the country. In addition, Speaker Pelosi felt that offering a single-payer amendment would open the floodgates to amendments proposed to limit abortion funds, restrict immigrant access to healthcare, and other regressive legislation.

 So, what happens? Pelosi allows an amendment introduced by a Democrat that limits abortion funds for women wishing to purchase insurance from the exchanges created by the health care bill. And 64 Democrats voted for it, along with all the Republicans. It passed. As a commenter put it at Firedoglake:

OMG I am just sick. Who are these Democrats? They have now determined that any woman who wanted to buy a policy in the exchange – even with their own money – will no longer be allowed to buy a policy that allows her to have a legal procedure. They have effectively made this the most discriminatory bill conceivable. Women are the losers and this bill deserves to go down in flames now.

Another comment:

Oh, first no negotiated rates, no single-payer for the states, and now that it’s got Stupak in it (and let’s not delude ourselves of any guarantee that center-right Obama would or could have it pulled in conference)… exactly what are we gaining from this bill again? Closing one more loophole for the insurance companies in exchange for allowing them to tax us? Scuttle it and start over!

I shouldn’t be surprised. And yet, I am. As a reminder, these tidbits from the 2008 Democratic Party platform:

We oppose the current Administration’s consistent attempts to undermine a woman’s ability to make her own life choices and obtain reproductive health care, including birth control. We will end health insurance discrimination against contraception and provide compassionate care to rape victims. We will never put ideology above women’s health.

[...]

The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay, and we oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.

Why any Democratic woman who supports choice remains in the Democratic Party after this sell out by the leadership is mystery to me. Time for them to step back and stop being the workhorses for The Party until it lives up to its platform. No money. No time. Women, just STOP.

Updated to add this comment by WMCB at The Confluence. She says it just right.:

Women need to WAKE THE FUCK UP. It’s The DEMOCRATIC party that has more power now than ever before – they are COMPLETELY in charge. They can do whatever they want. And they are FUCKING YOU OVER without even blinking. And they are dead certain that you will walk into the booth and punch that “D” every damn time – no worries.

WAKE THE FUCK UP. Don’t pick up the dirty socks, then whine and bitch about how you always have to pick up the dirty socks. STOP doing it. Period. STOP voting for these assholes.

Update #2 – Violet:

Personally, I’m just grateful that we have Democrats in power. I’m so glad that American women voted in a Democratic president and overwhelming Democratic majorities in Congress last year. True, most women voted that way because they thought the Democrats were on the side of women’s issues, but fortunately, they were wrong. The Democrats clearly have a more historic, a more — how shall I say? — masculine vision for America.

First, they made sure that women’s medical needs would not be considered part of basic healthcare. Then, this morning, they added in an extra special amendment to make extra-double-plus sure that abortion wouldn’t be covered. Even by private plans! That’s right: any insurance plan that participates in any way in the new exchange, or receives any federal subsidies, or is paid for with any tax credits, will not be allowed to offer abortion coverage. Gosh, it’s almost like making abortion illegal.

 

Drinking the Sand

Joe Cannon is torn about whether or not to just suck it up and support HR 3200. Joe writes:

Let’s face it — Jane Hamsher is right. The “mainstream” House and Senate plans can be considered neoliberal giveaways to the insurance industry. That industry which has no valid role to play in our health system. Why should we allow the insurance execs to gobble up some twenty percent of each health care dollar?

I despise the idea of mandated purchase of private insurance. The constitutional viability of such a mandate still strikes me as questionable. And those proposed fines are obscene.

And yet. And yet.

Senator Feingold can find it in his heart to support this immensely flawed scheme — even though I suspect that he would prefer single payer, as would I.

In the House, Dennis Kucinich has introduced HR 676, the single payer plan. Yet he has not yet ruled out voting in favor of HR 3200, the neoliberal giveaway plan. For all its awfulness, that plan would disallow the insurance companies from denying insurance based on pre-existing conditions. Scoff at that if you will. People with pre-existing conditions will not scoff.

What if Kucinich decides to vote — however reluctantly — for HR 3200?

John Conyers, another backer of 676, has said that he will not vote for 3200 unless the public option is maintained and strengthened. The implication is that he could end up voting in favor of that bill.

Anthony Weiner is another force behind 676. He has not yet indicated whether he would vote for 3200. I’ve seen interviews in which he signaled that he might do so.

My point is this: The few decent people left in politics have indicated that they might support the Obama-favored plan, even though single-payer remains infinitely preferable. Should we tell them that they are wrong to do so? Or do they know something that we don’t?

If they know something we don’t they better start singing, because until I know what it is I’m being asked to whip, I got nothing. Give me some bullet points, diagrams, anything.

 

Obama to poor women: Fuck You

Obama to poor women: Nothing will change for YOU. I don’t give a damn if you’re married and you just can’t afford another child. I don’t give a shit if your birth control fails. I don’t care. You’re all a bunch of sluts. You’re poor. You shouldn’t be having sex anyway. And nothing matters more to me than trying to please people who will never be on my side.  Ever. So, over the side you go.

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius pledged Sunday that President Barack Obama will support barring public funding for abortion in any health care overhaul legislation.”That’s exactly what the president said and I think that’s what he intends, that the bill he signs will do,” she said on ABC’s “This Week.”

[...]

Currently, federal money can only be used for abortions that deal with pregnancies resulting from rape, incest or that endanger the mother’s life.

 

Hypocrisy abounds

Frankly, I don’t have a problem with this at all.

Senate Democrats are scrambling to defeat a Republican-backed provision that would allow gun owners to carry their weapons across state lines, overriding the stricter laws of many jurisdictions and giving preference to states with looser standards.

It’s not the gun owners with Concealed Carry permits that we have to worry about. And I say this as one who has had a gun waved in her face and held to her ribs and can still remember the terror I felt 31 years ago. 

But here’s where the hypocrisy stinks to high heaven.

On the one hand, we’ve got liberal Democrats like Charles Schumer, invoking “states rights” claiming that each state has a right to determine who should be allowed to carry a concealed weapon.  Conceal Carry laws vary greatly by state, with a patchwork of state-to-state reciprocity agreements.  This amendment would serve to end that patchwork  and end the confusion for law-abiding gun owners – the ones not engaged in stick-ups and drive bys –  to travel from state to state with their secured weapon.

On the other hand, the very same Republicans and conservative Democrats who are sure to vote for this law had no problem voting for the Defense of Marriage Act that allowed any state to not recognize the legal marriage of a gay couple.  These are the same Republicans and conservative Democrats who have no problem with each state crafting its own abortion laws and who voted for the “partial birth abortion” ban, declaring themselves the arbiters of private medical decisions when it came to a woman’s reproductive health and the sanctity of the doctor/patient privilege.

Privacy is privacy, and I’ll keep my nose out of your gun cabinet if you keep yours out from between my legs. Deal?

Sauce for the goose and all. We are either all citizens of the UNITED STATES of America, or we are just a hodge-podge of individual fiefdoms wherein civil rights can be denied merely by crossing the state line.

Article IV – The States
Section 1 – Each State to Honor all others

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

[...]

Amendment 2 – Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

[...]

Amendment 4 – Search and Seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

 

Deconstruction

The Red Queen shreds the forced birthers’ arguments.

The thing is, if they really did want more babies to be born there are a gazillion programs that help do that. Universal healthcare and daycare are a start. Paid parental leave, flexible work schedules, better overall collection of child support or even the socialist idea proposed by Richard Nixon of mandatory minimum incomes so that financial devastation is no longer a side effect of an unplanned pregnancy would help. Eliminating the mommy tax (the giant wage gap between moms and EVERYBODY ELSE that works) would make it better too.

But those aren’t programs that punish women for having sex (and generally they require some relinquishment of $ from dudes in the form of lower wages, higher taxes or child support payments).

[...]

All this is a long way of saying that the pro life part of the forced birthers party line is one giant crock of shit. The question of when life starts may be fun to debate in a purely philosophical exercise, but it has nothing to do with the actual problem of women who are pregnant and don’t want to be. The real debate is who controls your body? You, your nearest patriarchal overseer, the assholes in navy blue suits who vote for our laws? If you believe that you are the only person capable of making decisions about your own body, then you believe that everyone is capable of making decisions about their own body. If you believe that there is ever a time when someone else gets to make decisions about a body not their own (which is slavery), then you better be prepared to line up for mandatory blood donations. If you’re okay with a little bit of slavery, it’s best not to assume that you’re going to be the slave owner.

Go. Read.

 

Rest in Peace, Dr. Tiller

L.A. Times

“Dr. Tiller really was a warrior. He was a quiet, persistent, capable visionary, a true leader. Even if he had known it was going to end up this way, he wouldn’t have been deterred.”

During his trial, when his attorney asked why he stayed in practice despite years of harassment, Tiller told the jury, ” ‘Quit’ is not something I like to do.”

[...]

Later, Tiller’s attorneys released a statement from Tiller’s wife, Jeanne, his four children and 10 grandchildren.

“Today we mourn the loss of our husband, father and grandfather,” it said. “Today’s event is an unspeakable tragedy for all of us and for George’s friends and patients. This is particularly heart wrenching because George was shot down in his house of worship, a place of peace. Our loss is also a loss for the city of Wichita and women across America. George dedicated his life to providing women with high-quality healthcare despite frequent threats and violence. We ask that he be remembered as a good husband, father and grandfather and a dedicated servant on behalf of the rights of women everywhere.”

I’m waiting for one of our leaders to call this what it is: terrorism. Pure and simple. (See bostonboomer’s post at The Confluence)

Obama punts:

I am shocked and outraged by the murder of Dr. George Tiller as he attended church services this morning. However profound our differences as Americans over difficult issues such as abortion, they cannot be resolved by heinous acts of violence.

I would have prefered a response more like this one (H/T to Susie):

So far, we know very little about the suspect, other than that he’s a man in his 50s and was driving a blue Ford when they stopped him outside Gardner.

However, the motive for the crime we can all surmise in light of the vitriolic  campaign that has been waged against Tiller for more than two decades by anti-abortion groups.

And if we’re right about that, then we already know the identities of his accomplices.

They include every one who has ever called Tiller’s late term abortion clinic a murder mill.

Who ever called Tiller “Tiller the Killer.”

The groups who spent decades fomenting hate toward a man who simply believed that he was serving a purpose by being one of the few doctors in the country performing late-term abortions.

Hate. Not heated opposition. Not strong disagreement.

But blind hatred.