Stupak amendment won't cover miscarriagesFollow

Okay, so in the first part of the sentence you agree that medical insurance should cover live births. Then in the second part of the sentence, you seem to indicate that the covering of such live births should not include hospital stays. Do you even know what a live birth is? It's a woman pushing out a baby the size of a watermelon, or having it cut open from her belly, potentially ripping tissue and breaking bone. This is best done IN A HOSPITAL, in which the mother is expected to stay for 24-48 hours, and in which the baby is often asked to stay for up to a week.

Edit: Misguided rage mode deleted. Points stands, Varrus should use less talking points and more clear arguments when he's complaining about his tax money going to pay for hospital stays for pregnant women.



Edited, Nov 10th 2009 3:28pm by catwho

I'm down with that.

Thanks, Virus. You just single-handedly increased my earning potential.

None, but I'm not going to pretend to know what every single foster mother is like based on one ****** little city in the South, either.

That's how it read to at least two of us.

Speak clearly and with less talking points then.

You've seen every one, eh? Maybe you should stop raping and leaving, Varus.

<-- apprentice midwife here. Not likely to let anyone forget for long.

What if they don't have a baby, but a septic mass of dead flesh? Should that be listed as an intentional expense that shouldn't be covered?

If I'd ever dealt with foster care, I might know what a bunch of people in Knoxville get up to? Weill, sure, I guess I might. I might know that without dealing with foster care. It's not very likely either way, though, is it?

Hey, I'm with you. I think it should all be covered, and then some. I was being sarcastic.

Yes that's why denying abortions to people of low socioeconomic standing does. So let me know how you came to grips with it.

Ok. Before I even read any further, I just have to say that this is the most moronic over exaggeration I've heard (recently anyway).

First off, it's funny how quickly a story that is trying to convince us that by opposing abortion we're really also hurting women with miscarriages (and that's bad), gets turned into an abortion rights issue. Did you miss the morning liberal memo that says you're supposed to pretend that you're not actually fighting to keep funding for abortions in the health care bill?


Secondly, how does this remove any options women had before? The amendment does not make it illegal for an insurance company to pay for an abortion. They can do so exactly to the degree that they can right now. It does not change this one bit. The only thing it does is prevent the government from mandating that insurance companies cover abortions, which is quite obviously not the same thing.

If I remember correctly, it also prevents government funding to go towards abortions (you know, our tax dollars). So if there is a public option, that option cannot pay for an abortion. Of course, if the Dem party line is true that no one will be forced to take the public option and it'll actually increase choice for consumers, then this isn't a problem, right? Anyone who can't afford insurance today isn't getting their abortions paid for by their insurance. And if they can, then they wont be forced to take the public option and their coverage wont change, right? So if their insurance covers abortions today, it'll cover it after the bill goes into effect, right?


Or are you saying that the Dems and Obama are lying?

When you make a living off the suckers, it stands to reason that more suckers = more profit. Volume over value, yeah?

Why can't we please have a "delete post" option?

Edited, Nov 10th 2009 4:17pm by Sweetums