Streams

Abortion and the Health Care Bill

Monday, November 09, 2009

One last-minute element to the health care reform bill was the Stupak/ Pitts amendment, which limits coverage of abortions. Laurie Rubiner, Vice President for Public Policy and Advocacy Planned Parenthood Federation of America and Planned Parenthood Action Fund, discusses the amendment.

Guests:

Laurie Rubiner

The Morning Brief

Enter your email address and we’ll send you our top 5 stories every day, plus breaking news and weather.

Comments [13]

Anne from USA

Giving a woman the right to choose, does not mean the government and our taxes have to pay for her abortion. If she chooses abortion, she should pay for it herself, unless it is ABSOLUTELY BEING DONE TO save her life or that of the child. That is the way the laws were written, for the most part, before the abortion Bill was passed. That is such a small part of the basic health care coverage which millions of Americans need, it is obvious that the Republicans are just USING this issue to stall the entire Bill. They should be ashamed. They want millions of Americans, of all ages, to die, to "possibly' prevent abortions which would take place no matter what happens to this Bill

Mar. 09 2010 10:19 PM
Jeffrey Slott from East Elmhurst

Your guest claims that a woman can't know in advance if or when she may need to get an abortion. But that's the same for any type of medical need. That's why people need health insurance in the first place.
A week ago, I had a nasty fall. I have no health insurance. I really hurt myself but, so far, nothing truly serious has occurred. It could have been otherwise. But there was certainly no way I could have known this accident was going to happen.
I am pro-choice but if a compromise can be reached where a woman, who has no problem with abortion, needs to opt for a different plan than a woman who does, I say that's a compromise that should be taken.

Nov. 10 2009 09:31 AM
rk from new york

why don't we monitize this issue; after all, it is a market; i would like to know if the insurance industry has already calculated whether it is cheaper to cover "x" number of abortions than births. If that's the case, maybe it would attract more customers and make them more competitive in the new marketplace. After all they are in the business of making money, and maybe it is cheaper to have more customers with a loss leader nominal self financed $1 abortion rider, than less customers with no abortion rider.
I would like to see the data on this.

Nov. 09 2009 01:10 PM
the truth from bkny

Calls 'em - this is NOT a red or blue issue, it is a moral issue - and the "DEMS" did not get this country into trouble, trust me!

Nov. 09 2009 12:26 PM
Calls'em As I Sees'em from McLean, VA

This conversation shows what trouble the Dems have gotten the American people into.

Congress got this part right - public money should not be used to murder unborn infants.
Spend your own money on it if you must do it at all (expect in the cases of rape, incest and danger of death in the mother).

The national socialist health care plan that the Dems propose can't be funded, it can't be managed and it will wreck the American economy as well as the health care system that now successfully serves 85% of the country.

All this to grab some power for the Democrat Party. Luckily, all their “hard work” will be corrected and undone after the 2010 election.

Nov. 09 2009 12:02 PM
the truth from bkny

I think I am pro choice, and I also think I am pro, pay for it yourself!

Nov. 09 2009 11:59 AM
gregory Hawthorne from brooklyn

Hypocrisy has never been in short supply in Congress.
I wonder how many who voted for the Stupek amendment have accepted contributions from health insurance companies whose plans offer abortion. I wonder how many receive their own government paid health care, which includes abortion coverage.

Nov. 09 2009 11:57 AM
RCT from NYC

I could not remain on the phone but would like to post a comment.

I am an attorney who interned for NOW-LDEF during law school. I strongly oppose the Stupak/Pitts Amendment, but strongly support health care reform. I disagree with the parade of horribles recited by the guest; the Amendment makes the situation worse than under Hyde, but only incrementally. We'd still have Hyde, were the Amendment to be defeated.

We cannot sink health care for 300 million Americans by playing into the Republican right's trap and holding health care hostage to abortion rights. Support the bill, and then repeal Hyde after the next congressional elections. That is the way to go on this one.

Nov. 09 2009 11:57 AM
Cory from Manhattan

How many abortions are currently paid for by insurance annually?

Nov. 09 2009 11:51 AM
Cathy

Apparently, I'm not to be trusted to select my own coverage and do what I want with it if (entirely out of my control) my private insurer accepts federal subsidies.

Message heard loud and clear. As the Democrats make more concessions like this to the Bluedogs at the center, I will keep my money and support come re-election time.

Nov. 09 2009 11:49 AM
Peter from Sunset Park

President Obama promised planned parenthood that his very first act as president would be to strengthen abortion rights. Once elected, President Obama then said he didn’t have time for abortion rights. Now President Obama has allowed the weakening of abortion without a fight. How does Ms. Rubiner think women should respond to Obama’s disrespect?

Nov. 09 2009 11:48 AM
Terri from Brooklyn

If one argues that a subsidy for a choice of coverage for abortion is equal to a subsidy for abortion itself, then couldn't one argue that a subsidy (a voucher, a fed-subsidized student loan, Pell grant) for a student to attend a religious institution is equal to a subsidy to the religious institution itself?

Nov. 09 2009 11:46 AM
Ken

I don't understand. You have all of these Hollywood celebrities and other "hip" "politically correct" well to doers adopting kids from China and Africa. Why can't these people adopt babies from the poor areas of urban and rural America? But, I think they would rather see them aborted.

Nov. 09 2009 11:43 AM

Leave a Comment

Email addresses are required but never displayed.