Jivin J's Life Links 11-10-09

web grab.jpgby JivinJ

  • In the Wall Street Journal, William McGurn has a piece on Bart Stupak appropriately entitled, "The man who made Pelosi cry uncle." It sounds like the pro-life Democrats aren't going to accept the Stupak amendment being stripped from health care reform:
  • As it is, Democrats now have to make some decisions that may anger their Planned Parenthood wing. The fight itself will be interesting, judging from a claim by Diana DeGette (D-CO) in yesterday's Washington Post that 40 Democrats will vote against a final bill unless the Stupak amendment is stripped out. Of course, if it is stripped out, that will put even more pressure on those 64 Democrats who voted for the amendment....

    "We won because [the Democrats] need us," says Mr. Stupak. "If they are going to summarily dismiss us by taking the pen to that language, there will be hell to pay. I don't say it as a threat, but if they double-cross us, there will be 40 people who won't vote with them the next time they need us - and that could be the final version of this bill."

    Wouldn't be amazing if pro-choice desire for federal subsidized abortion sunk health care reform?

  • Surprise. Surprise. The New York Times opposes the Stupak amendment. I do like this paragraph though:
  • The highly restrictive language was easily approved by a 240-to-194 vote and incorporated into the overall bill, which squeaked through by a tally of 220 to 215. It was depressing evidence of the power of anti-abortion forces to override a reasonable compromise.
    The Times also praises pro-choice Democrats for "sensibly cho(osing) to keep the reform process moving ahead." Except that more than 40 of them have already promised to prevent the final passage if the Stupak amendment isn't removed. Why are pro-life representatives somehow less than sensible because they had the majority of votes?

  • Natalie Fohl, president of the pro-life students club at McGill University, has an editorial detailing attempts to revoke her club's status.


  • Comments:

    It's ironic that the same women who say that abortion is an issue between a woman and her doctor (and sometimes her minister) are willing to force abortion coverage into National Healthcare which will virtually remove all hope of privacy with computerized public health records, insurance records and such. Why would women want to expose their abortions instead of paying with cash?

    Posted by: Janet at November 10, 2009 5:05 PM


    Janet, my thought is that when people pay for their own abortion, there is a limit set by market forces on what they can charge. If insurance covers it, the price can creep up, like everything else. Do you really think it costs $2000 to run an MRI machine for 20 minutes?

    Posted by: Hal at November 11, 2009 12:22 PM


    I'm not sure what your point is, Hal.

    Posted by: Janet at November 11, 2009 12:46 PM


    Janet, you asked why people were trying so hard to make abortion part of the National Healthcare bill. I just offered as one opinion that if abortion is covered by insurance, the price will go up.

    Posted by: Hal at November 11, 2009 12:56 PM


    Hal, I don't know anything about abortion pricing. But typically insurance companies negotiate LOWER rates of reimbursement than the standard, non-discounted fee for service that an uninsured patient would be billed.

    Posted by: Fed Up at November 11, 2009 1:15 PM