Home › Blogs › figleaf's blog

Better Than a Poke in the Eye... Oh Wait! House Healthcare Bill Passes But at a Terrible Price

Sun, 2009-11-08 00:43 — figleaf

Hortense of Jezebel says

By a vote of 290-194, the U.S. House of Representatives has just passed an amendment that bans the use of federal funds to cover abortions for anyone covered under a proposed government-run health care plan.

According to the Associated Press, “the amendment also prevents private insurers from covering abortions for anyone getting federal subsidies to help pay their premiums.” [AP]

Read the quote in context here.

Cowards. I totally get the logic of the thing. And there’s a better than zero chance that it’ll get “lost” in the conference committee that reconciles this bill with the Senate version. And once it looked like it was going to pass anyway a bunch of vulnerable Dems were able to pile on, since it really is a problematic issue in a lot of districts.

But it’s still a major blow and a real toss reproductive rights under the bus move. And not, exactly, what we elected the moral cowards to do just over a year ago.

Sun, 2009-11-08 02:34 — fiveofnine (not verified) #permalink

The public doesn’t vote for the House Speaker. I blame her.

As far as I am concerned I see the bill becoming more like Medicare Part D, not well thought out and designed to create more cost to implement, because no one understands it.

I hardly think this is what the public wants.

Sun, 2009-11-08 07:40 — Mike (not verified) #permalink

Sadly, our system does not reward anyone for sticking their neck out and ACTUALLY advocating for change… They can talk about it all they want to create their name and a media buzz, but when it comes right down to it – few are willing to risk their paycheck for what they truly believe is a right decision for the greater good of the people of our country. So, they revert back to what is safe and what will protect their pocketbook.

Sun, 2009-11-08 07:42 — Mike (not verified) #permalink

Oh – and an easy way for them to do that, is to create large stacks of complicated legalistic bills and proposals that even few with broad legal backgrounds understand.

Sun, 2009-11-08 14:20 — SnowdropExplodes (not verified) #permalink

Would there be grounds to challenge the constitutionality of this amendment as discriminatory? Given that Roe vs. Wade was a supreme court ruling, doesn’t that mean it’s a constitutional right; and that discriminating against those who wish to execute that right (especially as it’s explicitly only women affected by such discrimination) might therefore be against the rights accorded by the US Constitution? I may be completely off my rocker with this, cos I’m no expert on US law, but that’s the thought in my head right now?

Sun, 2009-11-08 14:44 — Nightfall (not verified) #permalink

Of course. Abortion is an elective surgery, don’tcha know? It’s rare that anybody actually needs it to survive. Death by pregnancy complications isn’t a normally expected result these days, just like being beaten to death isn’t a normally expected result of having an ugly face. Abortion is fundamentally about removing an unsightly bulge around the midsection, and government shouldn’t be into appearance-based quality-of-life issues. [/snark]

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.