Would you vote for a Final Bill that precluded private abortion coverage in exchange policies?

Were you in the House or Senate would you vote for a Final Bill (post-conference) that precluded abortion coverage from being available in any private insurance plan offered through the exchange?

(Assuming the bill were otherwise in the range of bills we expect to see.)

I would be willing to fight that battle later or find alternative (private) funding methods.

Greater good type argument.

Who will provide this "alternative(private)funding"?

Which group will be next that the Democrats toss into a dumpster for the "greater good"?


The truly pathetic thing is that just like the Republicans, you blind supporters of this bill, speak only in what ifs. You offer nothing more solid then a sense of hope that the right thing will be done in the end! But you have nothing else, no real alternatives, no battle plans, you have provided less then nothing.

Talk as they say is cheap! Provide a plan, an outline, anything that will prove that the Democrats will fight.

Until then all we have can be compared to the Republicans first attempt at health care reform, 4 pages in a blue folder.

1. I am not a supporter of this bill, blind or otherwise. The abortion provision happens to NOT be the reason why.

2. The uninsured who need these services under the current non-system are getting the services somewhere. Have you heard of "Planned Parenthood"? Maybe some of the money many of us are paying for private corporate plans could be donated help them provide more services. Will you commit to that?

3. Prochoice.org says that about 1.3 million abortions are performed each year. The CDC says that 26 million people have heart disease, 30 million diabetes, and there are 27 million people with asthma. If you think it is best to let those people with chronic conditions continue to struggle with paying for treatment because of your ideology, you are foolish and mean.

4. The average price for an abortion is minuscule compared to what a cancer patient or other more prevalent conditions require. To sacrifice a chance to help MORE people because of ideology is, again, foolish and mean.


Maybe you should reread the question and give your response some thought.

Our foot is in the door like it was in 1935 with Social Security.

I remember reading that legislation in an old Encyclopedia "Book of the Year": real time accounts of developments of each year.

It was a very small program covering very few people.

:patriot:

but all the other things in the bill are too important to toss away.

Now if the bill tried to sneak in a way to actually take away a woman's right to an abortion, thats a different story.

But you can't vote against a bill that bands gender discrimination and then try to call yourself and advocate for women's rights and equality.

I hope the amendment gets dropped before the final bill, but healthcare reform was never about government subsidized abortions and that should not become a focus of the debate now.

When there's a law already in the books that deny women to get federal funding for abortions.

You know, something constructive that the left just can't seem to figure out how to do.

What became of the robust public option we were promised, and that we got in lieu of single payer?

Why should we rejoice at this crap?