December 7, 2009


Under Stupak, if you want to get an abortion, you can pay out of pocket, just like now. No change.
If you pay for your own private insurance, and your plan covers abortion, you can have an abortion. No change there either.

Since the Hyde Amendment, federal funding for abortion has been illegal.
The problem isn't the Stupak amendment, it's the Hyde Amendment.
Why has the left-wing chosen NOW to get pissed off, when it's been on the books for years?
Why have they never made an issue about it before now?

The usual stuff:


  1. Except that it is different. The Hyde amendment ALREADY guarantees that no federal funds will pay for abortion. If there is truly no change, as you say, why should the Stupak-Pitts Amendment pass when the Hyde Amendment is already on the books? If there is no difference whether or not it's passed, then it should be rejected.

    Obviously both sides believe the passage of this amendment would result in added restrictions on reproductive rights than if it did not pass.

    The Stupak amendment adds the additional restriction that publicly-funded healthcare (including a potential public option, as well as any private insurance that accepts government-subsidized customers) may not cover abortion - even if abortion funds are totally covered by private individuals' premiums.

    Specifically, the following claim is false:
    "If you pay for your own private insurance, and your plan covers abortion, you can have an abortion. No change there either."

    Even if I don't participate in the public option and choose to keep my private healthcare plan, my private insurance company would be compelled to drop abortion coverage, since they would not be able to accept any of the potential millions of customers who would receive government subsidies to help pay for their health insurance. Hyde basically forces private insurers to stop covering abortion - the alternative would be tantamount to dropping out of the competitive insurance market.

    If Stupak doesn't pass, there is still way no federal funds will pay for abortion - Hyde guarantees that. My private insurance, which I pay for with the help of my employer (no government money involved whatsoever), could still cover abortion. Additionally, any plan that receives government money could choose to cover abortion only from funds payed by private members' premiums. Under Stupak, that is not the case.

  2. We had this same conversation over at

    This is false. The Hyde amdnement is the problem, not the Stupak amendment.

    Women's reproductive rights are being used as a pawn in the health care debate, getting people all worked up about a non-issue while massive bailouts for the private health insurance companies pass without so much as a peep from the organized left.

    The Bill, HR 3629 SUCKS, even without the Stupak Amendment (which again, doesn't actually change anything. If you have private insurance and you want an abortion you can get one. The Stupak amendment merely bypasses the judicial review process, in which an anti-abortion group would have sued the USA to bring the health care bill in line with the Hyde Amendment, bringing a drawn out and pointless legal battle.)

    To complain about the Stupak amendment is to complain about warts on your feet when your legs were amputated.

    The bill sucks.

    We should have Single Payer.