Bart Stupak, Democrat for Death, decided he hated women and he didn’t want women who needed abortions to get healthcare: he wants taxpayers who are women to be required to pay for government subsidies for health insurance plans, but he wants those health insurance companies to be allowed to deny those women life/fertility-saving healthcare.
The amendment will prohibit federal funds for abortion services in the public option. It also prohibits individuals who receive affordability credits from purchasing a plan that provides elective abortions. However, it allows individuals, both who receive affordability credits and who do not, to separately purchase with their own funds plans that cover elective abortions. It also clarifies that private plans may still offer elective abortions.
From a woman who had an abortion on Hallowe’en:
As much as I struggled with the sudden realization that the pregnancy was over, I also found myself trying to decide financially what I was willing to do. A chemical abortion would cost $40, but I would be alone, bleeding, and it could still be incomplete and I would require a D&C anyway, since my pregnancy was so advanced. Surgery would be quick, total, and under controlled circumstances, but would likely be our full maxed insurance amount of $1500. And of course, there was the free option of waiting for my body to finally realize I wasn’t pregnant, but after 4 weeks the risk of infection was steadily climbing, increasing my chances of future miscarriage, infertility, or even death. With a toddler at home, and still nursing hopes for extending our family some day, this was not an option.
I chose the quick and total route of the D&C, despite the costs, prioritizing my health and the health of possible future children. I was lucky, and could afford to make that choice, because currently, my insurance cannot chose to refuse to cover what the hospital as termed an abortion.
Thanks to the Stupak amendment, that can now change.
This is an anti-women amendement – the kind of misogynist crap that women-haters spew – but it is also a typically rich-bastard anti-poor people amendment. A woman who already has a good insurance plan – one that covers abortion – or who has the kind of income that can afford to pay a couple of thousand for an unexpected medical expense that her health insurance, she discovers, won’t cover – will be OK.
A woman who figures she can scrape together $40 for a chemical abortion and just hope that will do it? Or a woman who can’t afford anything but a coathanger?
Congressman Bart Stupak has decided such worthless women can die. Or become involuntarily infertile. Or whatever. Their lives, and the lives of the children they hoped to have, are of less than no importance to a man like him. He has an e-mail form here, if you want to let him know what you think. (You will need to provide him with a zip code inside Michigan’s 1st District, which you can do by looking a city up here and the zipcode for it here. )
Jesurgislac's Journal 
this is such an ignorant piece it is not even worth trying to respond…
Perhaps you should begin learning about the countless women hurt by abortion
Comment by teri — November 10, 2009 @ 12:01 pm |
Hi teri. This is such an ignorant, yet pointless comment.
About 70,000 women each year die because they needed an abortion and were unable to get one safely and legally.
Death-dealer Bart Stupak, you notice, wanted that woman who had to have an abortion only weeks ago to have to choose whether she could afford $1,500 to have her abortion done safely in a hospital, or spend $40 to have a chemical abortion – to bleed out her dead fetus at home without medical support. Stupak thinks that a woman who can’t afford to pay $1,500 out of her own pocket shouldn’t be allowed to choose between a safe and a less-safe option: she should be required to have the less-safe option, and be damned to her if she dies or suffers from it.
These are the women who suffer from abortions – the women who are denied access to safe healthcare. These are the women whose lives and whose future fertility Stupak condemns with his amendment. He is truly pro-death.
Comment by jesurgislac — November 10, 2009 @ 1:33 pm |
I’m still waiting on the baked goods…did you sentence them to death by digestion??? As an interested party, I was hoping to get a second opinion on the jurisprudence of such actions taken willfully by yourself and others who may have enjoyed, far too thoroughly, in executing those goods, without a fair trial. I move for a new batch to be considered, and the change of venue to me. Then I, and I alone shall determine whether or not to abort the mission, or to execute these delicious morsels as scheduled, myself.
Comment by Mike Lovell — November 10, 2009 @ 4:13 pm |
I’m still waiting on the baked goods…did you sentence them to death by digestion???
It was collective punishment – they got eaten by my parents, my brother and my brother’s girlfriend, her mother and brother, and me. 😀
As an interested party, I was hoping to get a second opinion on the jurisprudence of such actions taken willfully by yourself and others who may have enjoyed, far too thoroughly, in executing those goods, without a fair trial.
Oh, I think we gave them a VERY fair trial. *yum*
Comment by jesurgislac — November 10, 2009 @ 4:48 pm |
AUGH!!!!!!!
Comment by Mike Lovell — November 10, 2009 @ 5:27 pm |
Even though this amendment will almost certainly not make it to the final bill, I do enjoy the fact that it is making pro-baby murder nutjobs fly off the handle, if momentarily.
Comment by Paul Zummo — November 11, 2009 @ 12:33 pm |
pro-baby murder nutjobs
I haven’t noticed any “pro-baby murder nutjobs” reacting to the Stupak amendment particularly. But if you’re in the habit of reading blogs by people who enjoy murdering babies, I suppose you would know. Me, I tend to stick with feminist, political, and baking blogs, with a sideline in religion and in LGBT activism. None of which are “pro-baby murder”, obviously.
Comment by jesurgislac — November 11, 2009 @ 1:25 pm |
Nh, ‘r prtt mch jst pr-bb mrdr ntjb.
[Note: free expression of opinion is welcome: random abuse is disemvowelled. Paul, if you can manage to express yourself without random abuse, feel free to rejoin the discussion. One more abusive comment on this thread will get you banned, though. -Jes]
Comment by Paul Zummo — November 11, 2009 @ 2:14 pm
Over 70,000?
Where is your proof?
You just made that number up.
As far as facts are concerned over a million innocent children are murdered each year from abortion.
http://www.bookrags.com/essay-2005/3/2/225349/0603
Comment by Tito Edwards — November 11, 2009 @ 12:59 pm |
You just made that number up.
Nuh-uh. 70,000 women dead each year (and many more suffering permanent harm to their fertility) is from a World Health Organization report published in 2004. Thanks to the decrease in abortion noted since then due to the increased availability of contraception, probably it’s no longer 70,000 women a year – though where the pro-lifers have been active, making abortion available only as an illegal operation, women’s deaths due to illegal abortion rise.
As far as facts are concerned over a million innocent children are murdered each year from abortion.
Wouldn’t it be great if every single pro-lifer who came out with inflammatory statements like “innocent children murdered” (when what you’re actually talking about is fetuses…) was passionately devoted to preventing abortion by supporting free provision of contraception and promotion of protected sex?
Comment by jesurgislac — November 11, 2009 @ 1:23 pm |
One more abusive comment on this thread will get you banned, though.
Oh no, a person who doesn’t give a damned about the deaths of millions of unborn children will ban me from their blog. Whatever will I do.
I don’t care. Really, I don’t. I think that you are clearly an illogical, sad human being. Go ban me, because I will not be visiting the blog again.
Comment by Paul Zummo — November 11, 2009 @ 3:54 pm |
Actually, by my standards this comment still counts as “passionate debate” rather than “random abuse” because you do appear to be trying to communicate something – apparently your belief that because I want to prevent abortions, but refrain from using inflammatory and inaccurate language (a fetus is not a baby or a child), I must not “give a damned” [sic] about the number of abortions carried out worldwide. Now that’s illogical: your presumption that because you use inflammatory/inaccurate language and actively argue against prevention you must care more.
You’re not banned. Yet. Just try to refrain from further acts of random abuse and stick to trying to communicate, however incoherently.
Comment by jesurgislac — November 11, 2009 @ 4:29 pm |
Protesting the destruction of innocent human beings does not obligate one to promote anything else (though I know many pro-lifers who have no issue with birth control).
Why is the statement inflammatory? It seems to be an accurate description of what abortion does, though I prefer the more specific “crushing and dismembering of innocent human beings.”
Yes, we are talking about fetuses. What kind of fetuses? Human fetuses. They are human beings at a particular stage of development: Human fetus ==> human baby ==> human teen ==> etc.
It is a scientific fact that a new human being is created at conception — http://tinyurl.com/yfje8lq . At least that’s what all the secular embryology books tell me. I’m too pro-science to be pro-choice.
Comment by Neil — November 17, 2009 @ 3:49 am |
Why is the statement inflammatory?
Are women not innocent human beings? If women are innocent human beings, pro-lifers promote the destruction and death of innocent human beings
It is a scientific fact that a new human being is created at conception
And unless you are a pro-lifer, a human being has inalienable human rights – but pro-lifers believe women are not human…
Comment by jesurgislac — November 17, 2009 @ 4:25 am |
If they are trying to kill another human being they aren’t innocent. Duh, right?
It is hard to take you seriously. Our claim is simple: The unborn are human beings. That is a scientific fact. It is immoral to kill them for the reasons given for 99% of pregnancies.
And you take that argument and try to sy we think women aren’t human?!
Virtually all gender selection abortions are done for the sole purpose of killing female human beings because they are female human beings. You think those should be legal, yet you want to say we’re anti-women?
Come visit the CareNet Pregnancy Center in NW Houston if you are in the neighborhood. I’d love to give you a tour and show you all the things the female staff and volunteers do to help women in need.
Comment by Neil — November 17, 2009 @ 5:02 am |
Also see the comments by Theobromophile here — http://4simpsons.wordpress.com/2009/11/16/roundup-90/ She is even better at annihilating pro-abortion reasoning than I am.
Comment by Neil — November 17, 2009 @ 5:18 am |
If they are trying to kill another human being they aren’t innocent. Duh, right?
Ah, the pro-life justification for murder, kidnapping, arson, and other violent crimes against patients and doctors: it was OK, in the pro-life view, to shoot Doctor George Tiller in church, because “duh, right”.
Come visit the CareNet Pregnancy Center in NW Houston if you are in the neighborhood. I’d love to give you a tour and show you all the things the female staff and volunteers do to help women in need.
Are you kidding? You’ve just admitted to me that you approve of murder and violence, and you expect me to come anywhere near you?
Comment by jesurgislac — November 17, 2009 @ 10:52 am |
Pathetic straw man. Every pro-life group I know denounced his murder, unlike the reaction to the pro-lifer who was killed. Obama and the pro-aborts boo-hoo’d Tiller’s murder but were oddly silent about Jim Poillon.
More straw. Nobody light a match! As freakish and fallacious as your pro-abortion views are, I am actually grateful for pro-aborts like you. I know that you’ll probably never change your mind as the Planned Parenthood Director did when she saw firsthand what abortion does, but I am thrilled to have middle grounders see arguments like yours. When they see what Pregnancy Centers do with donations and volunteers compared to the for-profit abortion business it is obvious who is behaving more ethically. Hey, even Planned Parenthood used to be pro-life until they realized how much money the death game could earn them — http://tinyurl.com/ykeex9e .
Comment by Neil — November 17, 2009 @ 3:20 pm |
Every pro-life group I know denounced his murder
…while simultaneously justifying it by repeating the lying, the inflammatory claim that he was a “baby killer”. No pro-life group – none – acknowledged the responsibility they bore in claiming that “abortion doctors” commit murder, after Doctor George Tiller was gunned down by one of their own in church, any more than they have ever done after any of the murders or other violent assaults or terrorist attacks on clinics.
When Doctor George Patterson was murdered in front of a Planned Parenthood clinic in Alabama, there was no definite evidence that the motive for his murder was pro-life – unlike when Doctor David Gunn, Doctor John Britton, James Barrett, Shannon Lowney, Lee Ann Nichols, Robert Sanderson, and Doctor Barnett Slepian were murdered. So Doctor Patterson is not usually included in the list of murder victims by pro-lifers. Likewise, there is no evidence that Jim Poillon was killed for being a pro-life activist: the same man who allegedly killed him had already killed Mike Fuoss, but I notice pro-lifers never bother to mention the first victim: after all, naming both men who were murdered, giving their deaths equal weight, would rather spoil the story for them. So they ignore Mike Fuoss’s murder, as unimportant in their scheme of things, just as the 70,000 women who die each year thanks to pro-life activism and the clinic staff who live in fear are unimportant to the sociopaths who care more for punishing women than they do for human life.
Comment by jesurgislac — November 18, 2009 @ 8:14 am |
Here’s the murder and violence you approve of that will happen over 1,000,000 times this year in the U.S. Your 70,000 figure, which is probably as fake as the “tens of thousands” lie used in the late 60’s / early 70’s to manipulate women into wanting the right to kill their children, is worldwide, so even if true you’d have to weigh that against many millions of abortions.
And women who hurt themselves with self-induced abortions will do so even if abortion is legal. They have other psychological issues.
And of course you conflate opposition to the crushing and dismembering of innocent beings with women hurting themselves in trying to get abortions. As Theobromophile noted, bank robbers who threaten suicide if you don’t give them money aren’t on solid ground logically or legally.
Go ahead and keep up with your faux fear of pro-lifers. Yeah, don’t come to a Pregnancy Center. You might have someone give you free counseling, ultrasounds, diapers, formula, parenting and life skills training, post abortion trauma counseling, the Gospel (if you are interested in hearing it) and more — all for free.
Or you can pay $600 or whatever to have a stranger at Planned Parenthood kill your unborn child, then see how much care and concern they really have for you. Oh, and they’ll hide your statutory rape for free — http://www.carenetnw.com/ .
Comment by Neil — November 17, 2009 @ 3:25 pm |
Or you can pay $600 or whatever to have a stranger at Planned Parenthood kill your unborn child, then see how much care and concern they really have for you.
Well, yes. Planned Parenthood staff are, from every report, kind, caring, and compassionately helpful to the women who come to them in need. They work, after all, under threat of violence every day from men like you who support murder and cheer on murderers, arsonists, and axe-wielding lunatics. Unlike the adoption industry, healthcare services for low income women are not exactly vastly profitable. Marketing healthy babies to wealthy couples is much more profitable that providing an abortion to a woman who needs one and can’t get it on her health insurance (or isn’t insured).
The experience of a woman at George Tiller’s clinic in Kansas:
The experience of a woman after she went to a crisis pregnancy center:
Comment by jesurgislac — November 18, 2009 @ 8:27 am |
Sorry, wrong link in comment 13. That one will tell you about CareNet, though. We do report statutory rapes as the law requires and because we care about the victims.
Here’s the link about PP and how they systematically hide statutory rape — http://tinyurl.com/ybp5ocm . But they really care about the women, right?
Comment by Neil — November 17, 2009 @ 4:25 pm |
By the way, Neil, because – unlike pro-lifers – I have a committment to freedom and freedom of speech, so long as you refrain from personal abuse, I shall not delete your comments or ban you from my blog.
The difference between pro-choicers and pro-lifers: pro-choicers have a committment to human life, human rights, equality, and freedom. Pro-lifers hate and oppose all of these things, and especially cannot bear reasonable, polite, well-informed discussion which destroys their case for opposing access to safe legal abortion for any woman who needs it. Hence your determination to delete my comments and ban me from your blog.
Comment by jesurgislac — November 18, 2009 @ 6:22 pm |
We do report statutory rapes as the law requires and because we care about the victims.
Pretending to “care” about victims of statutory rape when you advocate that the victims of rape should be forced through pregnancy and childbirth against their will, is kind of… counterproductive, isn’t it?
What an underage girl in a sexual relationship needs is unconditional support, free access to contraception and strong support to make use of it, and – if that fails – the support to have an abortion, since no underage girl ought to be having a baby. (In the Netherlands, they have years when no girl under 15-years-old becomes pregnant and needs an abortion: in the US, the sheer number of 14-year-olds and younger who are having sex, getting pregnant, and sometimes – horrifyingly – not getting to have the abortion that will support their health and future fertility – is purely appalling. Why does the US not care for under-age girls the way the Netherlands manages to?)
Comment by Jesurgislac — November 18, 2009 @ 11:19 am |
You were banned for constant lies and repetition. I don’t mind annihilating bad pro-abortion reasoning but once I’ve refuted the same points three times it gets tiresome. The good news is that I left all your previous comments. I just deleted the ones after I insisted that you finally address the question about how hiding statutory rape is good for women – http://tinyurl.com/ybp5ocm . You just changed the subject, of course and reverted to your baseless ad homs.
Thanks for the set up. That is my question exactly: Why do organizations like Planned Parenthood hide statutory rape? If they reported it the rapists would be punished and that would reduce the amount. We know the reason: It cuts into their profits.
I trust that your readers can come to my place and see your winsome and clear thinking comments and make their own assessments — http://4simpsons.wordpress.com/2009/11/16/roundup-90/ .
Cheers,
Neil
Comment by Neil — November 19, 2009 @ 1:42 am |
TYou were banned for constant lies and repetition.
Ah. I was banned for refusing to back down on the truth. Well, that’s predictable: pro-lifers do not like being called on their chronic lies. I’ve always found that pro-lifers and anti-marriage activists tend to prefer to ban intelligent and undeniably-accurate opposition, then declare they won because they banned me.
Your desire for underage girls to have sex, get pregnant, and be unable to get an abortion via Planned Parenthood is … disturbing, in the same kind of range as your refusal to consider the murder of doctors and other clinic staff actually murder, or the deaths of women denied legal abortion anything that matters as they are not “innocent”. Of course I ignored your prurient desires: I do not choose to enable men with a lech for underage girls.
Comment by jesurgislac — November 19, 2009 @ 7:32 am |
That is my question exactly
And if you didn’t have a lech for underage girls, you would want them protected. But as you admitted, when you lure underage girls into your fraudulent “crisis pregnancy center”, your need is to see them publicly humiliated, then forced through pregnancy, and, of course, to obtain the baby for the for-profit adoption industry that funds these centers.
Comment by jesurgislac — November 19, 2009 @ 7:35 am |