<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: 64 Democrats Voted To Put A Bureaucrat Between You, Your Insurance Provider, And Your Doctor On The Issue Of Abortion</title>
	<atom:link href="http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2009/11/07/64-democrats-voted-to-put-a-bureaucrat-between-you-your-insurance-provider-and-your-doctor-on-the-issue-of-abortion/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2009/11/07/64-democrats-voted-to-put-a-bureaucrat-between-you-your-insurance-provider-and-your-doctor-on-the-issue-of-abortion/</link>
	<description>Politics for liberal newsgeeks</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 18 Feb 2012 05:37:02 -0600</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: dakine01</title>
		<link>http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2009/11/07/64-democrats-voted-to-put-a-bureaucrat-between-you-your-insurance-provider-and-your-doctor-on-the-issue-of-abortion/#comment-60177</link>
		<dc:creator>dakine01</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Nov 2009 23:24:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/?p=4744#comment-60177</guid>
		<description>But that&#039;s part of the problem.  Stupak does not make any considerations for when it might be a medical necessity.  It blanket blocks the funds from being spent on abortion coverage, regardless of medical necessity.

And I&#039;m sorry but why should the Congress by forcing insurance companies and telling them what they can and cannot cover?  Do you support coverage of Viagra and Cialis prescriptions?  Where do you draw the line?

If you support Stupak, you are supporting restrictions on women&#039;s right to choose what happens to themselves.

I believe you are very wrong in this.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>But that&#8217;s part of the problem.  Stupak does not make any considerations for when it might be a medical necessity.  It blanket blocks the funds from being spent on abortion coverage, regardless of medical necessity.</p>
<p>And I&#8217;m sorry but why should the Congress by forcing insurance companies and telling them what they can and cannot cover?  Do you support coverage of Viagra and Cialis prescriptions?  Where do you draw the line?</p>
<p>If you support Stupak, you are supporting restrictions on women&#8217;s right to choose what happens to themselves.</p>
<p>I believe you are very wrong in this.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Leen</title>
		<link>http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2009/11/07/64-democrats-voted-to-put-a-bureaucrat-between-you-your-insurance-provider-and-your-doctor-on-the-issue-of-abortion/#comment-60171</link>
		<dc:creator>Leen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Nov 2009 23:14:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/?p=4744#comment-60171</guid>
		<description>I support a womans choice I just do not want to pay for that choice when it is &quot;elective&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I support a womans choice I just do not want to pay for that choice when it is &#8220;elective&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: channel4newsteam</title>
		<link>http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2009/11/07/64-democrats-voted-to-put-a-bureaucrat-between-you-your-insurance-provider-and-your-doctor-on-the-issue-of-abortion/#comment-59910</link>
		<dc:creator>channel4newsteam</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Nov 2009 18:55:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/?p=4744#comment-59910</guid>
		<description>&lt;em&gt;But I don’t want public tax dollars to support “elective” abortion.&lt;/em&gt;

Do you also want to deny coverage for &quot;elective&quot; pregnancy?  

&lt;em&gt;&quot;Too many people not taking responsibility for their sexual activities.&quot;&lt;/em&gt;

and STDs?

What about other &quot;elective&quot; conditions such as lung cancer in smokers, atherosclerosis, hypertension, Type II diabetes, Hepatitis C, malnutrition, cachexia, dehydration, decompression sickness, motorcycle accident injuries, osteoporosis?  If one practices preventive medicine and measures consistently, all of these are largely avoidable.

Should we turn our noses at patients who suffer myocardial infarction if they don&#039;t take a statin consistently?  It&#039;s no different than women having to take a birth control pill to prevent pregnancy.

Or is it just that we need to discriminate against women of reproductive age who choose to prevent the physical harms that result from pregnancy because they are dirty, dirty girls who need to be taught a lesson?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><em>But I don’t want public tax dollars to support “elective” abortion.</em></p>
<p>Do you also want to deny coverage for &#8220;elective&#8221; pregnancy?  </p>
<p><em>&#8220;Too many people not taking responsibility for their sexual activities.&#8221;</em></p>
<p>and STDs?</p>
<p>What about other &#8220;elective&#8221; conditions such as lung cancer in smokers, atherosclerosis, hypertension, Type II diabetes, Hepatitis C, malnutrition, cachexia, dehydration, decompression sickness, motorcycle accident injuries, osteoporosis?  If one practices preventive medicine and measures consistently, all of these are largely avoidable.</p>
<p>Should we turn our noses at patients who suffer myocardial infarction if they don&#8217;t take a statin consistently?  It&#8217;s no different than women having to take a birth control pill to prevent pregnancy.</p>
<p>Or is it just that we need to discriminate against women of reproductive age who choose to prevent the physical harms that result from pregnancy because they are dirty, dirty girls who need to be taught a lesson?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: dakine01</title>
		<link>http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2009/11/07/64-democrats-voted-to-put-a-bureaucrat-between-you-your-insurance-provider-and-your-doctor-on-the-issue-of-abortion/#comment-59586</link>
		<dc:creator>dakine01</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Nov 2009 15:15:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/?p=4744#comment-59586</guid>
		<description>It&#039;s not just taxpayer dollars involved here though.  The Stupak amendment would block existing health plans that offer abortion coverage IF groups or persons in that health plan are receiving any federal funds/subsidies. It effectively blocks most of the people from having coverage.  And even Stupak admits (proudly) that his amendment is far more restrictive than existing laws.

And the &quot;well, she can purchase a supplemental plan that will cover it&quot; is a bit of nonsense that has been put out there as well.

What it boils down to is well-to-do women will be able to pay the costs but the poor women receiving subsidies will be pretty much forced to have the unwanted child with all the subsequent costs (Child abuse and neglect, unable to afford the child, etc) will then be borne by the taxpayers.

Edit: and leaving aside everything else, I am also against wars of choice and the death penalty and find nothing inconsistent in those views with supporting a woman&#039;s choice.  If there is a concern, the man should wear a rubber and be done with it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It&#8217;s not just taxpayer dollars involved here though.  The Stupak amendment would block existing health plans that offer abortion coverage IF groups or persons in that health plan are receiving any federal funds/subsidies. It effectively blocks most of the people from having coverage.  And even Stupak admits (proudly) that his amendment is far more restrictive than existing laws.</p>
<p>And the &#8220;well, she can purchase a supplemental plan that will cover it&#8221; is a bit of nonsense that has been put out there as well.</p>
<p>What it boils down to is well-to-do women will be able to pay the costs but the poor women receiving subsidies will be pretty much forced to have the unwanted child with all the subsequent costs (Child abuse and neglect, unable to afford the child, etc) will then be borne by the taxpayers.</p>
<p>Edit: and leaving aside everything else, I am also against wars of choice and the death penalty and find nothing inconsistent in those views with supporting a woman&#8217;s choice.  If there is a concern, the man should wear a rubber and be done with it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Leen</title>
		<link>http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2009/11/07/64-democrats-voted-to-put-a-bureaucrat-between-you-your-insurance-provider-and-your-doctor-on-the-issue-of-abortion/#comment-59582</link>
		<dc:creator>Leen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Nov 2009 14:20:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/?p=4744#comment-59582</guid>
		<description>&quot;The Stupak amendment would effectively ban insurance companies from selling insurance plans that cover elective abortion on the individual and small group market.&quot;

Know I am likely to get slapped down hard at FDL for what I am about to say.  But I don&#039;t want public tax dollars to support &quot;elective&quot; abortion.  I have had abortions in my younger years, my partner at the time (eventually husband) and I had to pay for those decisions ourselves.  Too many people not taking responsibility for their sexual activities.  That is their decision.  But taxpayers should not be required to pay for those &quot;elective&quot; decisions.

I have had to examine my stance against unnecessary wars and the subsequent loss of life and applying that same standard to &#039;elective&quot; abortions.  I do not want my tax dollars going to either &quot;elective&quot; choice

In  the mean time I will do everything in my power to make sure any child born has access to health care, a quality education, and living wages.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;The Stupak amendment would effectively ban insurance companies from selling insurance plans that cover elective abortion on the individual and small group market.&#8221;</p>
<p>Know I am likely to get slapped down hard at FDL for what I am about to say.  But I don&#8217;t want public tax dollars to support &#8220;elective&#8221; abortion.  I have had abortions in my younger years, my partner at the time (eventually husband) and I had to pay for those decisions ourselves.  Too many people not taking responsibility for their sexual activities.  That is their decision.  But taxpayers should not be required to pay for those &#8220;elective&#8221; decisions.</p>
<p>I have had to examine my stance against unnecessary wars and the subsequent loss of life and applying that same standard to &#8216;elective&#8221; abortions.  I do not want my tax dollars going to either &#8220;elective&#8221; choice</p>
<p>In  the mean time I will do everything in my power to make sure any child born has access to health care, a quality education, and living wages.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: channel4newsteam</title>
		<link>http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2009/11/07/64-democrats-voted-to-put-a-bureaucrat-between-you-your-insurance-provider-and-your-doctor-on-the-issue-of-abortion/#comment-59576</link>
		<dc:creator>channel4newsteam</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Nov 2009 04:27:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/?p=4744#comment-59576</guid>
		<description>&lt;em&gt;&quot;Is this abortion thing really that big an issue or are you people just trying to make it one? Have you ever heard of birth control pills? Even the poorest of women can afford those. They practically give them away at Planned Parenthood.&quot;&lt;/em&gt;

This doesn&#039;t just affect women who have an initially unwanted pregnancy, but also those who wish to get pregnant. Saw this list on another site. None of these conditions are a choice, but they are some of the health problems that can be caused or exacerbated by pregnancy.

Auto-immune disorders (see microchimerism and scleroderma, lupus)
Bacterial Vaginosis
Cholestasis
Death
Depression
Infection
Incontinence
Ectopic Pregnancy
Fistula
Gestational Diabetes
HELLP Syndrome
Immune deficiency
Hyperemesis Gravidarum
Miscarriage
Molar Pregnancy
Placenta Accreta
Placenta Previa
Preeclampsia
Pregnancy Induced Hypertension
Ruptured Uterus
Urinary Tract Infection

Now are we left to encourage women to have abortions early and often, because if they choose to go forward with pregnancy and develop dangerous complications or have health problems exacerbated, they will be left to pay for termination unless they are about to flatline? It only gets more dangerous and expensive the longer one waits. Unfortunately, women put their health and life at risk to gestate and give birth, and much of the US has decided the reward for that is to turn our backs on these women if something goes wrong. This is the thanks women can expect for taking the risk.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><em>&#8220;Is this abortion thing really that big an issue or are you people just trying to make it one? Have you ever heard of birth control pills? Even the poorest of women can afford those. They practically give them away at Planned Parenthood.&#8221;</em></p>
<p>This doesn&#8217;t just affect women who have an initially unwanted pregnancy, but also those who wish to get pregnant. Saw this list on another site. None of these conditions are a choice, but they are some of the health problems that can be caused or exacerbated by pregnancy.</p>
<p>Auto-immune disorders (see microchimerism and scleroderma, lupus)<br />
Bacterial Vaginosis<br />
Cholestasis<br />
Death<br />
Depression<br />
Infection<br />
Incontinence<br />
Ectopic Pregnancy<br />
Fistula<br />
Gestational Diabetes<br />
HELLP Syndrome<br />
Immune deficiency<br />
Hyperemesis Gravidarum<br />
Miscarriage<br />
Molar Pregnancy<br />
Placenta Accreta<br />
Placenta Previa<br />
Preeclampsia<br />
Pregnancy Induced Hypertension<br />
Ruptured Uterus<br />
Urinary Tract Infection</p>
<p>Now are we left to encourage women to have abortions early and often, because if they choose to go forward with pregnancy and develop dangerous complications or have health problems exacerbated, they will be left to pay for termination unless they are about to flatline? It only gets more dangerous and expensive the longer one waits. Unfortunately, women put their health and life at risk to gestate and give birth, and much of the US has decided the reward for that is to turn our backs on these women if something goes wrong. This is the thanks women can expect for taking the risk.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: SameOld</title>
		<link>http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2009/11/07/64-democrats-voted-to-put-a-bureaucrat-between-you-your-insurance-provider-and-your-doctor-on-the-issue-of-abortion/#comment-59570</link>
		<dc:creator>SameOld</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Nov 2009 01:14:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/?p=4744#comment-59570</guid>
		<description>Well that would be nice if I thought the President supported anything I believe in.  But he does not.  He is busy being the Tony Blair of the Democratic party.  Good at it too.  I could not believe after Stupak he had the nerve to send a begging letter 10 minutes later.  I&#039;ve taken my name off the list.  It&#039;s right up there with NOW supporting Sarah Palin.

I have to ask myself what is the difference.  In the past 30 years I haven&#039;t been much affected by the Republicans.  No I have to wait for a Democratic majority for crap like that.  Abortion per se doesn&#039;t affect me.  It is the lying, sniveling, throw women under the bus and then ask them to accept the necessity.  In fact as good little women they should crawl under on their own.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well that would be nice if I thought the President supported anything I believe in.  But he does not.  He is busy being the Tony Blair of the Democratic party.  Good at it too.  I could not believe after Stupak he had the nerve to send a begging letter 10 minutes later.  I&#8217;ve taken my name off the list.  It&#8217;s right up there with NOW supporting Sarah Palin.</p>
<p>I have to ask myself what is the difference.  In the past 30 years I haven&#8217;t been much affected by the Republicans.  No I have to wait for a Democratic majority for crap like that.  Abortion per se doesn&#8217;t affect me.  It is the lying, sniveling, throw women under the bus and then ask them to accept the necessity.  In fact as good little women they should crawl under on their own.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: LKN2</title>
		<link>http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2009/11/07/64-democrats-voted-to-put-a-bureaucrat-between-you-your-insurance-provider-and-your-doctor-on-the-issue-of-abortion/#comment-59569</link>
		<dc:creator>LKN2</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Nov 2009 01:10:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/?p=4744#comment-59569</guid>
		<description>Next, of course, our brave legislators will make certain abortion is very, very expensive, so none but the wealthy ever has access to the procedure. Just remember, the Right also wants to outlaw birth control.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Next, of course, our brave legislators will make certain abortion is very, very expensive, so none but the wealthy ever has access to the procedure. Just remember, the Right also wants to outlaw birth control.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: LibWingofLibWing</title>
		<link>http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2009/11/07/64-democrats-voted-to-put-a-bureaucrat-between-you-your-insurance-provider-and-your-doctor-on-the-issue-of-abortion/#comment-59567</link>
		<dc:creator>LibWingofLibWing</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 08 Nov 2009 23:43:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/?p=4744#comment-59567</guid>
		<description>What has Obama done to try to change the practices in D.C. since he became President?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What has Obama done to try to change the practices in D.C. since he became President?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: selise</title>
		<link>http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2009/11/07/64-democrats-voted-to-put-a-bureaucrat-between-you-your-insurance-provider-and-your-doctor-on-the-issue-of-abortion/#comment-59563</link>
		<dc:creator>selise</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 08 Nov 2009 23:22:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/?p=4744#comment-59563</guid>
		<description>amen.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>amen.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Dynamic page generated in 0.208 seconds. -->
<!-- Cached page generated by WP-Super-Cache on 2012-02-18 02:51:57 -->

