Why the stupak ammendment is personal...

Three years ago, I was pregnant with my fifth child. At 17 weeks I was diagnosed with cancer. I agonized over what to do. My only option was to begin chemotherapy immediately. I was offered the option of a termination of the pregnancy but because of the Catholic hospital here I would have had to travel 2 hours away. After doing a lot of research, I opted to continue the pregnancy and do chemotherapy at the same time.

I had 6 cycles of chemo, multiple complications and a premature baby born at 32 weeks that ended up in the NICU for 5 weeks while I completed radiation therapy.

It was most certainly the most traumatic experience of my adulthood.

Until that time, I had never seriously considered abortion as an option for myself. I hadn't really understood it and though I supported a woman's right to choose, I didn't have an investment in this issue. I chose to continue my pregnancy, but what would I have done if continuing the pregnancy had put my life at greater risk? I had 4 children to care for. Keeping the pregnancy was a risky move because I didn't know what the outcome would be for me or the baby. It was more difficult to recover from the chemo and keep going while continuing the pregnancy. Any woman in the position that I was in should have that choice as a medical option available to them...covered by their health insurance.

I certainly would have never purchased an extra abortion rider because I couldn't have foreseen the future. Would I have been forced to pay for a termination of the pregnancy on top of the other health care costs and the stress of a cancer diagnosis while raising 4 children? According to this new bill...the answer to that is yes.

A woman with a choice.

under this scenario. They cost around $468 now. The cancer treatment would have dwarfed that into a minor point.

And no one can predict the future. That's why anyone would buy health insurance at all.

The problem with personal stories is that it is just one story. What about the personal story of a woman who is not covered at all and could not afford that cancer treatment, or any treatment and who never was pregnant and so that wasn't an issue? Is she less important?

She is important...as important...and I believe that everyone in this country should have access to the best care possible for something like cancer....absolutely. I do, however, think it is shameful that this amendment tosses women's rights under the bus. Does that mean that we shouldn't support the bill itself? I didn't say that. I still am entitled to my opinion about the amendment that was tacked on. We all know that once a health care bill is passed, it will take years for it to go into effect and then changes...will come even more slowly. Abortion is such a highly charged topic that it is unlikely to ever be over-turned in the health care legislation. It will become a polarizing issue every election cycle and will be used by the left and right again and again...at the expense of women.

That doesn't mean that I think we should trash the current legislation. I do, however, disagree with this amendment. It's my right.

That agrees with the amendment.

There are however a lot of people here that dissagree with the idea that because it should passed the whole health care bill should have been discarded.

I am not saying you are someone that thinks it should have been discarded btw as you clearly state that you are not.

Personaly while I dont like the amendment I think its a small price to pay for the rest of the bill.

that they are not.

if it threatens your health. I'm in no way dismissing your statement. But from my understandig if you fall into that field, and based on your statements you would. Stupak would have you covered, but then that's because Hyde had the same prerequsite---which is reiterated in Stupak.

If I were a doc, which I'm not, I'd assume this would be covered under the amendment as medically necessary. However I don't know what the risks of childbirth are to someone with cancer under chemo.

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/15284081/Stupak-Amendment-to-HR-3962-Rev-108

I bet that it would not fall under medically necessary if I got pregnant again. I would have to be extremely careful though so this is why I have an IUD.

Some cases, like cancer, probably would fall under the law.