House Passes H.R. 358, the "Let Women Die" Act of 2011
by Jodi Jacobson, Editor in Chief, RH Reality Check
October 13, 2011 - 8:12pm (Print)
Correction: We have corrected an error in the name of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops; we inaccurately identified the group as the United States Council of Catholic Bishops. We also corrected the link in the vote count to access the final tally which is correctly cited in the text of the article. An earlier link was to the preliminary count.
Today the GOP-led House of Representatives, with the blessings and encouragement of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and extremist religious groups such as the Family Research Council, passed a bill in a vote of 251 to 172 that would, among other things, allow doctors and hospitals to "exercise their conscience" by letting pregnant women facing emergency medical conditions die.
Yes. Die.
This is what the Republicans called the "Protect Life Act." And no, I am not kidding.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi called it what it is... "a savage assault on women's health."
Fifteen Democrats voted for what women's groups are calling the "Let Women Die" Act. These include anti-choice Congressmen Jason Altmire (PA), Sanford Bishop (GA), Dan Boren (OK), Jerry Costello (IL), Mark Critz (PA), Henry Cuellar (TX), Joe Donnelly (IN), Tim Holden (PA), Dan Lipinski (IL), Jim Matheson (UT), Mike McIntyre (NC), Nick Rahall (WVA), Mike Ross (AR), Collin Petersen (MN), and Heath Shuler (D-NC).
"Extremists prevailed today in the House of Representatives," said Debra Ness of the National Partnership for Women and Families, "proving again that they are badly out-of-touch with the majority of Americans who want lawmakers to focus on economic recovery, jobs and promoting, rather than restricting, affordable, quality health care -- not [on] an extreme, anti-woman agenda."
Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, called passage of the bill yet another reminder of how playing politics with women’s health and privacy is a priority for Speaker John Boehner.
“Americans are facing real challenges, yet House Speaker John Boehner is ignoring the public’s call for Congress to focus on jobs, “said Keenan. “Instead, he is coming up with new ways to give politicians more control over our personal, private decisions. The House’s attacks on women’s freedom and privacy are out of touch with our nation’s values and priorities.”
The bill, H.R. 358, about which we have written extensively, revives the earlier failed Stupak amendment, which would force health plans to drop comprehensive coverage in state health insurance exchanges, cutting off millions of women from the benefits they receive today and prevent women from paying for health insurance with abortion coverage with their own money.
H.R. 358 contains other provisions revealing complete disregard for women's health and lives. It permits states to enact sweeping refusal laws that would allow health plans to refuse to cover women’s preventive services, including birth control, without cost-sharing — undoing a new protection under health reform supported by 66 percent of Americans. It also codifies and significantly expands an already expansive refusal clause (also known as the Weldon amendment) without any regard for patient rights or protections. Under current law (through the 2004 Weldon amendment), hospitals, health care facilities, and insurance plans can refuse to provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions. The Weldon amendment has no protections for patients to ensure they have access to care and information in a timely manner. H.R. 358 codifies this unfair and discriminatory provision. H.R. 358 further allows health care entities--hospitals, clinics--to refuse to "participate in" abortion care. This could mean that a hospital employee with no medical training or role in a patient’s treatment decisions could refuse to process bills, handle medical records, or even set up an examination room for a patient seeking abortion care.
And finally, it overrides protections for pregnant women under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act. EMTALA was enacted in 1986 to ensure public access to emergency services regardless of ability to pay, including women in active labor. Under EMTALA, hospitals must stabilize a pregnant patient who, for example, is facing an emergency obstetric condition or life-threatening pregnancy and either treat her--including an emergency abortion--or if the hospital or staff objects, to transfer her to another facility that will treat her.
H.R. 358 overturns decades of precedent guaranteeing people access to lifesaving emergency care, including abortion care and says its ok that a pregnant woman fighting for her life be left to die.
Read it again. It is that breathtaking.
As Representative Jackie Speier (D-CA) stated during floor debate, had this law been in effect 20 years ago she might not be here, because she was one of those women who needed an emergency abortion to save her life.
But the real lives of real women don't seem to be of great concern to the predominantly white male Congress.
“This bill is a collection of dangerous ideas that will undermine women’s health,” said Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America. “Most devastating, the bill eliminates protections for patients seeking care in emergency circumstances, and would allow a hospital to deny lifesaving abortion care to a woman, even if a doctor deems it necessary.”
President Obama has said he would veto the bill if it were to reach his desk. "The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 358," said the statement of policy put out by the White House, "because, as previously stated in the Statement of Administration Policy on H.R. 3, the legislation intrudes on women's reproductive freedom and access to health care and unnecessarily restricts the private insurance choices that women and their families have today."
"America’s women and families are counting on the Senate to reject this measure," said Ness of the National Partnership, "and, if necessary, for President Obama to make good on his promise to veto it.”
***************
Follow Jodi Jacobson on Twitter: @jljacobson
Follow Jodi Jacobson on Twitter, @jljacobson
There's no other word that describes my mental state upon reading this.
Isn’t it great at a time when the economy is going to hell and people are marching on the streets in an attempt to get our lawmakers to unfasten their suckling lips from the teat of Wall Street and stop legislating to the benefit of the 1% and start focusing on the 99% — our GOP-controlled House of Representatives refuses to take their eye off the ball and passes landmark legislation that will serve their constituency — and by that, I mean the small percentage of insane Americans who support “life” until it’s actually “born” and then “you’re on your own!”
Way to go, Republicans! We’ll try to remind everyone about your heroic actions next November.
Way to go, Republicans! We’ll try to remind everyone about your heroic actions next November.
This would be a first...
Indeed a terrible decision. The only good thing to be said is that publicizing this will perhaps show to people how uncaring the extremists actually are. Let more people know about that -- who knows, that may make a difference.
I agree entirely with Ms Jacobson's article. Oh, of course, except for the blatant sexism in the "... congressmen..." part. That's really irrelevant (which way do you think women like Sarah Palin would have voted?) and actually offensive.
But aside from that... right on.
Did you fully read that paragraph?
What Ms. Jacobson was commenting on was the fact that the only DEMOCRATS to vote for the bill were men, which is significant. Your counter example of Sarah Palin fails as she is a Republican with Tea Party leanings.
I did fully read the paragraph, and no, it is most certainly not relevant that the Democrats in question were men. Most male Democrats voted against the bill, and I'm sure there are female Democrats who (for the same reasons as these male Democrats did) could vote in favor of it (I know female pro-life Democrats -- including my mother-in-law -- who would have done exactly that if they were in congress). I'm sorry, but insisting on the gender of the voters rather than on their identities, personal beliefs, motivations, etc., is just plain sexist.
It is quite relevant to me whenever men step in to make decisions for women's health, lives, right toward the ends of limiting or controlling rather than expanding. It is not lost on most women that we as yet have an entirely lopsided Congress with relatively few women, and one that this year alone has spent more time on and taken more votes intent on limiting women's rights than any other goal, cause, or priority issue, like the economy, let's say.
It is not lost on me that there are male members of Congress who call themselves Democrats who consistently vote against family planning, access to abortion care, maternal health, children's health and other critical public health and human rights issues that also have implications for women and their families.
So yes I point out that the ONLY Democrats who voted for this bill are men, along with the predominantly male GOP/Tea Party members of the House well over 200 of which voted for this bill and are also primarily men and a few misogynistic women thrown into the mix.
The point is NOT that men can not be effective champions for everyone's rights. Obviously the vast majority of men in the Democratic party in the House did not vote for this bill. The point is that we are supposed to have a party that says it is there to protect all of our rights, including the more than half of us who are female, and still many don't; yet they still receive support for their elections from the party.
The fact that they are men and can never face either pregnancy or emergency maternal health concerns, who are Congressmen who never have to worry about health care coverage and are connected enough they would never have to worry about getting their wives, girlfriends, daughters, etc access to safe abortion care no matter the legality...those are important things to point out.
Thanks, Jodi
and one that this year alone has spent more time on and taken more votes intent on limiting women's rights than any other goal, cause, or priority issue, like the economy, let's say.
Has anyone put together a pie chart or other diagram indicating the portions of total time/bills/votes dedicated to various policy areas? It would send a powerful message if (anti-)reproductive health efforts made up a much bigger slice than the economy.
You wrote: "The point is NOT that men can not be effective champions for everyone's rights. Obviously the vast majority of men in the Democratic party in the House did not vote for this bill. The point is that we are supposed to have a party that says it is there to protect all of our rights, including the more than half of us who are female, and still many don't; yet they still receive support for their elections from the party."
But this is true regardless of gender, Ms Jacobson. You could have written this very paragraph if every one of the Democrats who voted for the bill were women (as I'm sure there were women -- Republican women -- who voted for it). What you're basically saying here is what he hear all the time, ad nauseam, from the media: Democrats don't stand together for what they claim to believe in the way Republicans do. The same has been said in a number of occasions, especially when the Dems still had the majority in congress. As far as I can see, this really has nothing to do with gender.
You also wrote: "It is quite relevant to me whenever men step in to make decisions for women's health, lives, right toward the ends of limiting or controlling rather than expanding. It is not lost on most women that we as yet have an entirely lopsided Congress with relatively few women, and one that this year alone has spent more time on and taken more votes intent on limiting women's rights than any other goal, cause, or priority issue, like the economy, let's say."
Sure, but this is not specific to this vote. It wasn't this bill that suddenly made it clear that there are fewer women in congress than there should be: this is common knowledge. The argument doesn't even depend on this bill: a simple look at the numbers quickly reveals that. Now, what you seem to be suggesting is that the reason why this Congress passed so many votes that go against feminist/leftist goals is that there are too many men. No; obviously, since the overwhelming majority of male Democrats voted against this bill (and presumably against all the others you oppose), this is most definitely not the reason why all those bad votes were made. The real reason, obviously, is that there are too many Republicans in Congress; which, unfortunately, is the fault of the American people.
Ideas and party membership are a much better predictor of anti-women-health-issues votes than gender. If you insist in the Dem pro-voters being men, you suggest the wrong causal link. Which is a pity. A congress full of Sarah Palins would have passed this bill just as nicely.
You also wrote: "The fact that they are men and can never face either pregnancy or emergency maternal health concerns, who are Congressmen who never have to worry about health care coverage and are connected enough they would never have to worry about getting their wives, girlfriends, daughters, etc access to safe abortion care no matter the legality...those are important things to point out."
The same fact is true for the overwhelming majority of Democrat men who voted against the bill: they also "can never face pregnancy or emergency maternal health concerns". And yet they voted against the bill. This clearly shows that not needing to "face pregnancy or emergency maternal health concerns," etc. is not a good predictor of vote: it's possible to be in this situation and still support women's health issues (in fact this is not only possible, but overwhelmingly true among Democrat men, at least in the case of this bill).
So I maintain my disagreement. The gender of the voters is immaterial, since it was their ideas (or, who knows? shady political deals) that made them vote one way or another. It would be just as immaterial to point out that the few Republican congresswomen apparently voted for the bill -- since the fact that they were women is not what decided their vote, but their Republican ideas and ideals.
To insist on the gender of these Democrat congressmen is to strengthen old stereotypes about the "war of the sexes" and "boys vs. girls". It is irrelevant, just as it would be irrelevant to point out, in bold italics, that the Democrats in question were Black, or Jews, if indeed they had been Blacks or Jews.
I think we have to agree to disagree. It is a largely male project at the state and national level to strip women of their rights. We still live in a patriarchal society. yes, it is true that there are women who put ideology over "sisterhood" let's say... if there were not we would not have Michele Bachmann for one thing or the Virginia Foxxes of the world. But the fact is that this effort to constrain women's rights is largely driven by men, and it is an area in which men have little or no business except within their personal relationships.
So I just disagree.
best, Jodi
Indeed we disagree, because your answer has the signature of essentialism ('a male project' = 'because they're men'), when in fact sociological theories of gender would agree that social stereotypes and superstructure are the reason (i.e., not 'because they're men', but 'because they've got in their heads certain ideas that our society puts there'). It's not only true that there are women who put ideology over "sisterhood"; there are lots of women who do that, I'd say as many as there are men who think that way.
We're not determined by our genitalia, Ms Jacobsen. We're more than what exists between our legs, or the hormones in our bloodstreams. Ideas are more important than genitalia in determining who we are.
For the non-essentialist, there are no 'male projects', only 'projects driven by sexist ideas.'
Since I'm a non-essentialist (at least in the political arena), then indeed I do disagree.
All the best,
Asehpë
P.S.: Don't let this mask the fact that I, for instance, agree that the bill is bad. Surely this is more important?
Surely this is more important?
Your agreement or disagreement is of no concern. Your 'contributions' thus far have been shallow nitpicking, condescending attempts to derail the conversation.
We're not determined by our genitalia, Ms Jacobsen. We're more than what exists between our legs, or the hormones in our bloodstreams. Ideas are more important than genitalia in determining who we are.
Unfortunately, there exists a rather strong correlation between "people trying to take away women's rights" and "people with penises." I think your point would be better directed toward them.
For the non-essentialist, there are no 'male projects', only 'projects driven by sexist ideas.'
I'm guessing there's no such thing as White privilege in Nonessentialistan, either.
These republiCON'S sincerly hate women don't they, they care more about a fetus than a woman who is already alive, when are young women going to see how destructive these people are.
I was furious when I read this article. Actually, that is probably an understatement. However, leave it up to one of my conservative friends to put me straight. I did this research on my own and here is the actual text regarding the main portion of the bill you, and Nancy Pelosi, speak of (notice what comes after "except", in particular (B)).
‘(c) Limitation on Abortion Funding-
‘(1) IN GENERAL- No funds authorized or appropriated by this Act (or an amendment made by this Act), including credits applied toward qualified health plans under section 36B of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 or cost-sharing reductions under section 1402 of this Act, may be used to pay for any abortion or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion, except--
‘(A) if the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest; or
‘(B) in the case where a pregnant female suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the female in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself.
Now, I'm a college educated woman and from what I'm reading here it says the opposite of what you said. Have I missed something?
That statement above is reiteration of Hyde policy with respect to Medicaid funding of abortion... it repeats current law.
You fail to read the rest of the bill which does exactly all the things I have described in my article.
and since I have now seen this exact misleading comment in several places on other sites under different names I am quite sure you are a troll.
That statement above is reiteration of Hyde policy with respect to Medicaid funding of abortion... it repeats current law.
You fail to read the rest of the bill which does exactly all the things I have described in my article.
and since I have now seen this exact misleading comment in several places on other sites under different names I am quite sure you are a troll.
I'm pretty sure this level of invulnerability to misinformation technically qualifies as a super-power!
since I have now seen this exact misleading comment in several places on other sites under different names
The professionals who have been hired to coordinate the anti-woman and anti-gay movements for the Church sure do get those lists of talking points assigned and distributed quickly, don't they? It must be nice for them to have an e-mail list that allows instant contact with all those bobble-heads, ready to take up the banner of misogyny and homophobia at a moment's notice. And of course it's really helpful to own some Congressmen in your pocket, ready at a moment's notice to give speeches about how the morality of a country should be constructed on a pyre of martyred women.
Of course, there's the occasional embarassing error like some senile old coot misunderstanding and saying "If you want an abortion, you go to Planned Parenthood, and that's well over 90% percent of what Planned Parenthood does" when (as explained by LifeNews/"fails to focus on the percentage of “services” Planned Parenthood provides to pregnant women") the new talking point was supposed to be delivered as "abortion is the service PP provides to over 90% of their pregnant clients". After Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart got through with that one, the Church had to toss all those bumper stickers and start over.
These guys voted Nay:
Nay GA-2 Bishop, Sanford [D]
Nay PA-12 Critz, Mark [D]
Nay PA-17 Holden, Tim [D]
Nay TX-28 Cuellar, Henry [D]
Does anyone know the reasons the nay-sayers gave for their votes? Are they simply pro-life Democrats, or is something else ('politicking') going on?
Thanks very much, BeenThere.
But the final tally (corrected and final) shows they voted FOR the bill (Yea), and I was working off that final tally when I drew up the list.
I believe the earlier link that was inserted as I was writing was the preliminary count.
Here is the final tally:
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll789.xml
Ah, OK, thanks for the correction. Looks like they've corrected the count at the earlier link too: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2011-789 I tell ya, it's the one time I'm happy to see my entire state (MA) in 'red' (with Nays!).
Reliability lost on first sentences. There is no such entity as the "United States Council of Catholic Bishops."
And how is it trolling to point out what news agencies are reporting about the bill's exception language?
She didn't say council, Waterjoe. She says 'conference'. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. And yes, there is such an entity.
She didn't say council, Waterjoe. She says 'conference'. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. And yes, there is such an entity. She corrected herself and the point of the article still stands. No amount of nitpicking will change that.
I have corrected Council to Conference. Thank you for pointing that out. Simple mistake.
The rest of the article is completely factual and verified by every analysis that has been done since we started writing on this fiasco and attack on women in February.
And as for the language lifted by the troll and used in exactly the same format under different names on other sites, that is but one portion of the bill which reiterates current law under Hyde, which is to say that federal funding can not be used for abortion care except in circumstances of life endangerment, etc.
Other portions of the bill -- and never put it past members of the anti-choice, anti-woman community to use information selectively, erroneously, or just to make up lies -- denies women the right to spend their own money on insurance policies covering abortion care, expands a so-called "conscience clause" into an unconscionable ability of Catholic hospitals not only to refuse to perform a life-saving abortion for a women dying from complications of pregnancy gone horribly wrong, but also to REFUSE TO REFER HER in a timely manner to another facility because then, according to the intrepretations of said United States CONFERENCE of Catholic Bishops, they would be aiding and abetting an abortion. In short, let her die.
And just this week a Bishop in Kansas is indicted for covering up the taking by priests and others under his "wing" of lewd pictures of little girls.
Yep... they are imposing morality on all of us, all right.
WaterJoe is a constant apologist for the Bishops so I know whenever I see his name here.....
Let's just say that this article itself is being seen by more people than perhaps any other piece we have ever had on the site so at least the truth is getting out there.
Jodi
The law would also protect Catholic hospitals from being sued by DOCTORS when they refuse to allow those doctors to do procedures that could save their patients' lives, even though the doctor might STILL BE LIABLE for a malpractice lawsuit for failing to provide standard of care.
I see the Bishops have really thought this one through.
Some Doctors might object to notions of 'social justice' that force them to kill their patients. It's odd how the (spit) Bishops and the (spit) Republicans and the (spit) Blue Dogs don't seem to believe that other people, even trained professionals, Catholic or not, and certainly not women, should be allowed to exercise their consciences. The Bishops never die for their consciences, only women unfortunate enough to end up in one of their godawful hospitals are targeted for painful, unnecessary death.
The message of the 'pro-life' movement and the Bishops is clear: If a woman's body is unable to sustain a pregnancy and an abortion is the only thing that will save her life, the moral solution to this dilemma is to kill the woman . Note how they still want to force us to pay with our dollars and our lives for a notion of 'social justice' designed solely to dramatically increase the maternal mortality rate. Indeed, this bill is all about protecting profits. Disgusting.
Learn to think for yourselves! READ THE BILL FOR YOURSELVES, PLEASE!!
This article seemed pretty far fetched to me, so I read the bill for MYSELF. It clearly and plainly states exceptions for:
`(A) if the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest; or
`(B) in the case where a pregnant female suffers from a physical disorder, phy...sical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the female in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself.
All you all would have to do for yourself is LOOK IT UP!! That's fine if you still believe that abortions should be paid for by tax payers, but know that the above article and many, many, many more left wing articles in the news and on the web are blatant LIES that you are all falling for hook, line and sinker. My belief is that NO elective surgery should be paid for by tax payer dollars. So wrtiers, reporters and bloggers should at least state their belief that tax dollars should pay for elective procedures and stop adding all the malicious lies to misinform people in an attempt to get them on their side....your argument must be a weak one if you have to lie to get people on your side. Pathetic.
Learn to think for yourselves! READ THE BILL FOR YOURSELVES, PLEASE!!
This article seemed pretty far fetched to me, so I read the bill for MYSELF. It clearly and plainly states exceptions for:
`(A) if the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest; or
`(B) in the case where a pregnant female suffers from a physical disorder, phy...sical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the female in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself.
All you all would have to do for yourself is LOOK IT UP!! That's fine if you still believe that abortions should be paid for by tax payers, but know that the above article and many, many, many more left wing articles in the news and on the web are blatant LIES that you are all falling for hook, line and sinker. My belief is that NO elective surgery should be paid for by tax payer dollars. So wrtiers, reporters and bloggers should at least state their belief that tax dollars should pay for elective procedures and stop adding all the malicious lies to misinform people in an attempt to get them on their side....your argument must be a weak one if you have to lie to get people on your side. Pathetic.
Oh I've read the entire bill, including the part that doesn't allow women to pay for abortion care in their insurance with their own money and the so-called 'conscience' clause which allows hospitals to refuse to treat a woman with a life-threatening condition that may require an abortion. I think perhaps that it is you who hasn't read the entire bill; and this parroting of right-wing talking points is getting quite tiresome to say the least. As is this constant stream of right-wing bills sponsored and passed by repubs that purport to be 'pro-life' but are really anti-women. I'm voting in 2012 and believe me, I won't forget this. And neither will other women.
I couldn't be happier to see that my comment has been shadowed out on this left-wing lying points site. I'm a woman. I won't be voting democrat in 2012. Again, I believe NO ELECTIVE surgery or procedure should ever be paid for with tax payer dollars. You liberals are all for defending the rights of anyone but christians, in particular Catholics, aren't you?? It solidifies my thoughts about the left, as I'm sure mine do for you about the right. I'm sure we're both quite happy to be on opposite sides.
Again, I believe NO ELECTIVE surgery or procedure should ever be paid for with tax payer dollars.
Great! I'm sure you'll be happy paying for non-elective pregnancy complication surgery, or non-elective subsidized child care and schooling costs with tax payer dollars.
Me, on the other hand, I prefer saving money. Even when it's not all mine. I guess I'm funny like that.
You liberals are all for defending the rights of anyone but christians, in particular Catholics, aren't you??
No, we'll defend the rights of christians, and Catholics, too. Just not any special rights for them that others don't get.
It solidifies my thoughts about the left, as I'm sure mine do for you about the right. I'm sure we're both quite happy to be on opposite sides.
I don't think you'll be too happy about it if you're poor and you have to deal with an unwanted pregnancy.
Oh I support the rights of Christians to practice their faith. But the right to choose not to fill a prescrption or to refuse to perform a procedure that will help a woman in a life threatening situation out of so-called 'conscience'? No, I do not support that at all, because that infringes on the rights of others. I don't think that religious freedom entitles you to impose your religious laws and beliefs on others who may not follow the same belief system. Sorry.
Interestingly, there have been a number of court cases on conscience clauses in other venues, and the courts have pretty uniformly turned them down. Baptist police officers don't have the right to refuse to provide security at gambling casinos because they disapprove of gambling, when employers forbid the wearing of jewelry the fact that the necklace is a cross doesn't miraculously make it sanitary and create an exception, and cab drivers who think alcohol is sinful don't get to refuse rides to passengers carrying duty-free booze. None of those people is required to participate in any of those activities, of course, because they are all free to go find work more closely in line with their principles.
The compromise the court tried to establish concerning birth control and abortion, that individual pharmacists and medical personnel don't have to personally participate but that someone else could slip into the service position without the person needing the service ever being aware that the switch was made, has been violated, over and over and over, by ideologues who aren't content with merely not participating, but who instead feel compelled to ask extremely snoopy, even prurient questions so they can 'judge', or to give moral lectures to strangers. Not only do these people not have a right to impose their religious beliefs on others, in my opinion it is extremely unprofessional for them to take advantage of their professional pharmacist, doctor or nurse position and convert into one which entitled them to inquire into people's sex lives, which are none of their business, or preach at people and give them moral lectures.
Now Crowepps...these professionals are just demonstrating their deep, Christlike love for the wayward...because Christ most certainly would behave in an intrusive, insulting and abusive manner to anyone who chose not to accept the teachings of those who have carefully, violently and selectively edited HIS messages for reasons All Their Own.
You liberals are all for defending the rights of anyone but christians, in particular Catholics, aren't you??
Please trust me when I tell you that you do not want this fight. Unless of course, you enjoy having your ass handed to you on Bishop Robert Finn's platter. Or Bryan Fischer's radio waves. Or Warren Jeff's court transcripts.
I could go on.
Aside from the children stolen and then adopted out or sold or shunted into orphanages in Canada
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duplessis_Orphans
And the children stolen and then adopted out or sold or shunted into orphanages in Australia
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-07-25/catholic-church-apologises-over-forced-adoptions/2808672
And the children stolen and then adopted out or sold or shunted into orphanages in Ireland
http://www.amazon.com/Banished-Babies-History-Irelands-Business/dp/1874597537
Now they're are finally starting to get to the bottom of the estimated 300,000 children stolen and then adopted out or sold or shunted into orphanages in Spain
And that's not even mentioning all the sexual and physical abuse in those orphanages, or the excessive death rate among those children.
Does anybody STILL want to argue that the Catholic Church should be given tax money to run adoptions in THIS country? Really?
that YOU never voted Democratic in your entire life.
And BTW, RHRC is more fact-filled on one single page, than the whole of lying hypocrite Stanek's forced-birth misogynist hate-fest website.
Police believe the girl was sexually assaulted for years by her stepfather, possibly since she was six. That she was four months pregnant with twins emerged only after she was taken to hospital complaining of severe stomach pains.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h112-358
The parts you are neglecting to read are:
‘(2) OPTION TO PURCHASE SEPARATE COVERAGE OR PLAN- Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as prohibiting any non-Federal entity (including an individual or a State or local government) from purchasing separate coverage for abortions for which funding is prohibited under this subsection, or a qualified health plan that includes such abortions, so long as--
‘(A) such coverage or plan is paid for entirely using only funds not authorized or appropriated by this Act; and
‘(B) such coverage or plan is not purchased using--
‘(i) individual premium payments required for a qualified health plan offered through an Exchange towards which a credit is applied under section 36B of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; or
‘(ii) other non-Federal funds required to receive a Federal payment, including a State’s or locality’s contribution of Medicaid matching funds.
‘(3) OPTION TO OFFER COVERAGE OR PLAN- Nothing in this subsection or section 1311(d)(2)(B)(i) shall restrict any non-Federal health insurance issuer offering a qualified health plan from offering separate coverage for abortions for which funding is prohibited under this subsection, or a qualified health plan that includes such abortions, so long as--
‘(A) premiums for such separate coverage or plan are paid for entirely with funds not authorized or appropriated by this Act;
‘(B) administrative costs and all services offered through such coverage or plan are paid for using only premiums collected for such coverage or plan; and
‘(C) any such non-Federal health insurance issuer that offers a qualified health plan through an Exchange that includes coverage for abortions for which funding is prohibited under this subsection also offers a qualified health plan through the Exchange that is identical in every respect except that it does not cover abortions for which funding is prohibited under this subsection.’;
...snip...
‘(g) Nondiscrimination on Abortion-
‘(1) NONDISCRIMINATION- A Federal agency or program, and any State or local government that receives Federal financial assistance under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act), may not subject any institutional or individual health care entity to discrimination, or require any health plan created or regulated under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act) to subject any institutional or individual health care entity to discrimination, on the basis that the health care entity refuses to--
‘(A) undergo training in the performance of induced abortions;
‘(B) require or provide such training;
‘(C) perform, participate in, provide coverage of, or pay for induced abortions; or
‘(D) provide referrals for such training or such abortions.
Since you're spamming your misinformation everywhere, I'll spam Jodi's reply everywhere:
The last part you cite does exactly as I have described, which is to allow insitiutions and individuals to suffer no consequences whatsoever if they allow a woman in need of an emergency abortion to die. Perhaps you don't understand legislative language?
may NOT subject to discrimination or require... any institutional or individual health care entity to discrimination, on the basis that the health care entity refuses to--.....
And the first part is also as I describe it because any single exchange under health reform that takes a single dollar of federal funding for any person out of thousands or millions in the system then becomes federallyfunded for the purposes of this act. therefore even if i pay my premium out of my pocket entirely, that exchange can not offer me abortion coverage because they took a dollar to subsidize SOMEONE ELSE's PREMIUM.
She's smarter than you are, and she has better teeth.
I was responding to Catfitz, pleople. Catfitz' post was on multiple threads, so I posted the entire bill to make sure Catfitz read it because it looks like he/she did not!
... or rather CraZpic2... who might be the same as Catfitz on the other thread...
Whoops! Sorry, I was supposed to respond to CraZfitz, too. Darned comment threads, confusing my little ferret-y head!
Can you ever forgive me?
I read your comment (apparently erroneously) as in support of the one above it.
My apologies!
Jodi
I know its been a minute for me (been busy defending the dissertation!) but I felt the need to pop in and correct a little ignorance.
Elective, as it pertains to medicine, simply means that a procedure is able to be scheduled. For example, a person needing a valve replacement will likely SCHEDULE a heart surgery (write it on the surgical schedule, all the surgeons will show up as scheduled, etc.) Similarly, a much needed organ transplant is still likely to be scheduled. On the other hand, emergency surgeries are not scheduled. For example, an appendectomy is likely to be emergent as opposed to scheduled. Abortions can be both elective (scheduled) as well as emergency (not scheduled) procedures.
THE TERM ELECTIVE IN NO WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM IMPLIES THAT A PROCEDURE IS UNNECESSARY. That is why the terms "medically necessary/indicated" exist.
PLEASE STOP USING TERMS FOR WHICH YOU HAVE NO REAL UNDERSTANDING... it makes you look even more ignorant than your position would otherwise imply. :/
"You liberals are all for defending the rights of anyone but christians, in particular Catholics, aren't you??"
In case you haven't noticed, we live in a country founded on separation of church and state - largely an "Enlightenment" reaction to the centuries of persecutions, Crusades, and Inquisitions perpetrated by the less than six degrees of separation between the not so "holy see" and the civil rulers. In case you haven't noticed, not all of us share what I assume is your Catholic faith which is now trying to impose its own Catholic view of women being happy breeders onto the rest of us. If Catholic women want to live a life of subservience to the "Holy Father" that's just fine - but when the United States Catholic Bishops are up to their Roman collar trying to craft American laws that limit what I can do with my reproductive organs, than it's time to speak up. If, in a Catholic world, it's fine to let a woman bleed to death in the parking lot of a Catholic hosptial, that's just ducky - but meantime we live in a country of laws that are not, let me repeat are not, based on the majesterium of a pedophile enabling foreign country.
The "rights" of the Catholic church in no way supersede the rights of those who are not Catholic. At present, there is, nor should there be, the right of the Catholic church to dictate women's reproductive health policy that affects those who are not Catholics - and that includes the rights of those who seek legal contraceptives and emergency abortions. Keep your rosaries off of my ovaries.
This comment is absolute gold. Thank you
being hijacked by a very SMALL, screeching minority of vicious misogynist fundamentalists. The vast majority of Catholic women use real (as opposed to the woo-woo tea-leaf-readings of phoney, ineffective vaginal mucus analysis) birth control, and avail themselves of reproductive health care options, including abortions.
I'd like to make a radical suggestion, since these bills are created to essentially shame women who have sex and are mostly from men and religious zealots who stress abstinence, we as women should collectively abstain from having sex until our rights are restored. That's right, husbands, boyfriends, lovers... no one gets any! Let's see how men will feel about it then.
I dunno. I think going on a PREGNANCY strike would work better...no babies-especially no white babies...if only for the sheer pleasure of watching Pat Buchanan's head explode.
OK then, I wish I had taken the time to comment on this subject days ago but it's taking more time than usual to wrap my senile demented mind around the most outrageous, disgusting, reprehensible piece of legislation by the so-called "conservative" party members, AKA The Party of NO --- but I figured the other commenters pretty much spoke what I was thinking.......
At this moment, there are, I believe, TEN states (already) who have passed rotten, prohibitive legislation to keep their female population firmly in their scrawny, impotent MALE grip of compliance with the Republican ideology of NO CHOICE, eliminating human rights issues, and why are such politicians, men of course, allowed to stick their uninformed, non compos mentis status (when it comes to purely medical issues just for women??) into the most personal rights of every single citizen in this country.....including men? Having done volunteer work in my city's fan-damm-tastic hospital for 12 years, and my daughter working there as a medical professional.....I know about how strict the medical profession is about patient privacy.
I was born in 1930. That makes me old. That's life, whatcha gonna do but the best ya can, right? I was a passionate follower of Gloria Steinem, Betty Freidan, Bella Abzug, Ann Richards (passed on now, but a former feisty governor of Texas), whose daughter Cecile Richards heads the wonderful, compassionate 95-year old organization known as *Planned Parenthood*...... 95 years this fine organization has helped millions of men, women and children with their unbiased attention to good care for those who could not have afforded it otherwise. Providing abortion to low income women accounts for apprx. 3% of the health services it provides. The Rethuglicans would have the public believe PP is a hotbed of 24/7 abortion surgeries every day !!!!!!!.
I have, not because I wanted to....LOL....retired from the women's rights movement, not only because I don't have the energy anymore but there just isn't the passion, the fire-in-the-belly anger of MY era when women *really* got really ticked off with the status quo of NO equal pay for equal work......being called "girls"......(some of my cutesy co-workers used to tease me with that title so I started calling them "boys". Embarrassed little snickers from the MAN....haha
Oh my gosh, I really got carried away here. Well, it's done now, I'll just hit the Save button, let someone delete my ramblings, but at least I think I will....finally....have something to say on my blogpage (which I started in 2002, even garnered some small bit of notoriety, which was fun!) Now it's Facebook. I haven't belched up a blog since August, going to sit me down tomorrow and write about ...................whatever falls out of the hole in my head? Ummm. No. I believe I will rant about the formerly respected party of Lincoln called the GOP. Ain't no *Grand Old Party* today, that's for sure!
I have just recently "come out of the closet" and declared I am a full-fledged Atheist and boy, does that feel good !! LOL Or, as "1 of 15 Americans" who DO acknowledge that they are Freethinkers and apparently we hold the title of "Most Despised People in America", I am very content.
Anywayyyy, Prez Obama *says* he is going to VETO that stinking Rethug Bill.....and he had just better DO IT. I will be voting for him next November, even though I wish he would put a little more steel in his backbone, too anxious to please everybody and that definitely does not make a bit of difference to tone-deaf Republicans. Bummer.
~~~meandthecat.com
