So... A Panel

POSTED BY JHW22

In the debate Paul Ryan said he didn't want unelected judges deciding what women can do with their bodies.

We don't think that unelected judges should make this decision; that people, through their elected representatives, in reaching a consensus in society through the democratic process should make this determination.

Instead, he wants our neighbors to elect people to do make our decisions. That's a panel. Um, there's some pretty big hypocrisy there, folks.

And if you think about it, there's a further hypocrisy. If you really are anti-choice, why would you leave the choice up to states? Would you really be OK with abortions taking place anywhere? Because if you leave it to the people and the representatives they elect, then you're gonna have abortions somewhere.

They just need to admit they will prevent it everywhere and stop playing games -- with women's lives.

MUST READS

POSTED BY JHW22

I'm filling in for Broadway Carl today so I was ready to post some must reads. But for some reason, I can only bring myself to post this.

Just this.

The Right Not to Know

Visual Aid

POSTED BY JHW22

I'm a visual person. So a few weeks ago I decided I needed a chart that shows how many bills have been introduced to limit women's health care. But it was hard to find all the information to make an accurate chart. I even contacted my friend who is a well-connected Sociology professor on women's issues, and particularly women's reproductive care. But even her contacts couldn't get me information. Why? Because there is so damn much.

Today, I heard that the Guttmacher Institute released a report in January that documents the record number of bills proposed in 2011, across the country, to destroy abortion rights. I like their chart a lot. It's a very dramatic chart. But I still needed to make my own. Granted, theirs is based on facts and mine is based on rage, but you get the point.

WHEN DOES THIS SHIT STOP!?!

POSTED BY JHW22

This AZ bill would prevent parents from suing doctors for not telling them about any health conditions of their unborn babies. So, if a baby will have any life-threatening problems, the doctors won't be required to tell the parents prior to birth. Or, the parents don't have any recourse, at the least.

The reason: they don't want parents to choose abortion. SO, you may never consider abortion for a baby with health problems but because the doctor doesn't want to take that chance, you won't know to prepare for a baby's needs once its born. I, for one, would want to have everything lined up the second my child was born. To not be told of a health condition before the child's birth is the most backwards way of practicing health care. The right-wing's ideology is really putting lives at risk. How "pro-life".

And remember, all those transvaginal ultrasounds are meant to give women all the "facts" about her pregnancy. Or so the right-wing says.

First they came for...

POSTED BY JHW22

First they came for gay marriages by I am not gay so I did not stand up.

Then they came for abortions but I was not pregnant so I didn't stand up.

Next they came for voter rights but I had a driver's license so I didn't stand up.

Finally they came for birth control and I STOOD UP AND I FOUGHT!

The GOP finally picked the one fight most Americans won't back down from. So I love that we are standing up! I love the men who are standing with us! This is the NEW Year of the Woman and we will elect Democrats who have stood and who will continue to stand for our rights.

Brain Dump

POSTED BY JHW22

It's been a while since I posted and I have a million thoughts swimming in my head. So, since Broadway Carl is nice enough to give me the key, I thought I'd let myself in and dump all these thoughts and be done with it. So, here goes:

Rick Perry says that when he's the President, he'll "shut down" the border (with Mexico) within 100 days. I love how the anti-Big Government guy says that when he's Big Government he'll do what he couldn't do as Medium Government. And if he were President and if his replacement as Governor didn't want Big Government coming into the state, then what? See, there's a problem when you always say Big Government is bad and that states are the shiznit. And then you, as the Big Gun of The Big Shiznit State, can't shut the shiznit down without begging the Big Government to do it for you. And all the while you've been wanting Federal employees to get a freeze/cut in pay or lose their jobs altogether and or lose some of their benefits. Oh, wait, those same people you want to lose their jobs or pay are the very people the Big Government needs to send into your big shiznit state. So, how's that gonna work for ya? Good thing we'll never find out.

*****

Speaking of Rick "Keep Big Government Out -- Until I am Big Government" Perry, he wants to force rape and incest victims to be blocked from accessing abortions. Now, in some ways, at least this is consistent. I never understood how someone who said the SANCTITY OF LIFE was so damn precious that a piece of tissue was the essence of life, could then throw in a moral exception for rape or incest. Either you think that baby is more sacred than its mommy or you don't. So in that regard, his revelation (a week before a really important campaign trip) at least is consistent with his SANCTITY OF LIFE ideas. But here's the problem. Rick Perry hasn't been raped and impregnated. Yes, there are women who are raped who give birth and give their babies to loving families. Or there are women who are raped and choose to make something good of something horrible. And those women raise their children with love and respect and no angst whatsoever over the conception trauma. If I met a woman like that, I would bow to her in awe. A woman like that would have to be kind and loving and selfless in her love for her child. That, as a mom myself, is commendable. But what about the women who are held at gunpoint, and cut with knives and left for dead after being raped by more than one man? The women who lock themselves away from the outside and jump at the sound of the mail truck outside. What about the women who can barely move on with life, let alone nurture a growing child inside. A child she may not consider a child because she doesn't think life begins at conception. What about that woman? Those women? Let's honor the children of rape as survivors. Let's be glad they had a chance at life despite the first step in getting them here. But let's not ask every woman to be strong enough to get through nine months if she can't even get through the first nine days.

******

Riding on his tour bus with his wife and Wolf Blitzer, Mitt Romney was saying that Obama has been so bad for the economy, yadda, yadda, yadda. Then he did something that makes me scream. You see, one of my biggest pet peeves about politicians is when they make definitive statements (like "Obama has been bad for the economy") yet, when CBO data is presented to them to show the opposite (like Wolf did to Romney) they say, "I'll take a look at that, but...". NO! If you've formed an opinion about Obama's policies, you should ALREADY have read the CBO data. The CBO data is one of the most trusted, accurately processed data in the country. PERIOD.


******

My last thought of the evening is about Rachel Maddow screaming for days about us needing a ticker-tape parade. I had to stop listening because it bothered me so much. Do I want to show our appreciation for the troops? YES. But before we spend a lot of money on confetti and road closures, can we make sure each man or woman coming home has a job? Or a home? Can we make sure their medical needs are met? And before we have a big celebration, can we wait until every troop comes home from that OTHER war? That other war that many who have come from Iraq may very well be shipped off to soon. Can we show we respect the men and women who have fought these long wars by DOING MORE than a parade? Please?

And considering Rachel is the only major media person I have heard saying this for days, you can imagine who popped into my head today when I heard all these damn GOP candidates complaining that Obama hasn't thrown the returning troops a parade. Thanks Rachel. Thanks a frickin' lot. This is why I get frustrated with Rachel. As much as I adore her, she drives me crazy. Why can't some of that "we want a parade" energy be directed toward giving us phone numbers and websites of resources where we can help returning troops and their families. I am sure many troops would LOVE a parade. Let's just wait until we can have it for all of them, and until we've done everything else for them that we can. Okie doke?

****

Disclaimer: this was a quickly-typed brain dump so screw it if there are typos. You get my points or you don't.

Personhood Questions

So there's this ballot vote in Mississippi coming up that defines "personhood" from the moment of fertilization. Basically, it's another attempt to outlaw not only abortion, but in vitro fertilization and even stem cell research. So I have a couple of questions:

Can a person still in it's zygote state receive a Social Security number at the point of conception?

Can a person still in it's embryo state apply for a credit card? A mortgage?

Can a person who was conceived in a foreign country by his/her American citizen parents on a vacation be eligible to run for president of the United States? Or does he need to show his "Conception" Certificate?

Just saying'...

Quote of the Day

"The House of Representatives passing a bill that redefines rape and could force the IRS to check to see if women had abortions for the right reasons. It's not that a brutal assault on the rights of women isn't important. It's not that we shouldn't bash all the Republicans, every one of them, who voted for it. No, it's that the House of Representatives has decided that it is merely going to publicly masturbate for its most extremist constituents, recklessly passing shit that has absolutely no way to get through the Senate, let alone the President. So whatever they do is merely fodder for nutzoid right-wing fundraising. They're already bailing on the Medicare "reform" they just passed almost unanimously. They're worthless, disembodied cocks and cunts."

~ The Rude Pundit on things he won't be talking about because it's just too stupid, so why bother?

Jobs, Jobs, Jobs

Austan Goolsbee: ...Despite headwinds from high energy prices and disruptions from the disaster in Japan, the last three months of private job gains have been the strongest in five years. While the solid pace of employment growth in recent months is encouraging, faster growth is needed to replace the jobs lost in the downturn. We are seeing signs that the initiatives put in place by this Administration – such as the payroll tax cut and business incentives for investment – are creating the conditions for companies to add new jobs and foster the industries of the future. We will continue to work with Congress to find ways to reduce spending, so that we can live within our means without neglecting the investments in education, infrastructure, and clean energy that will strengthen our economy.

Yes, jobs, jobs, jobs. Something the Republican party ran on in November 2010, but judging by the votes taken in the House of Representatives so far, you'd think they ran on abortion, abortion, abortion.

Here's Speaker John Boehner's tweet today, trying to tamp down the best jobs numbers in FIVE YEARS.

Pathetic.

Let's Abort this Shit, Shall We?

POSTED BY JHW22

My cousin sent me a message asking for debunking back up. The crap she wanted to challenge was essentially about Planned Parenthood and the "Planned Parenthood profit" myth. Considering the amount of profit reported in the many intertube rumors shifts between $400 million and $100 million dollars, one is compelled to ask: if there is a massive discrepancy in the amount supposedly profited, don't ya think maybe the fact that there is a profit is questionable?

So anywho, I sent her a 990 form that shows exactly what Planned Parenthood brought in and what it sent out. That seemed like a reasonable thing to do. But you know what they say about reasoning... Anyway, there is no profit in a non-profit. And if anyone wants to read through this gazillion page 990, you can see that they spent a boat load of cash on preventative and health care programs. And if they had any money left over at the end of the year, it was properly re-absorbed in ways that can limit how much they get from the Feds the next year.

And of course I addressed the whole Hyde Amendment thingy-ma-bob. Which, if you are reading this, you SHOULD know what that is.

So then I addressed the millions of birth control services PP provides a year and disclaimed that with, you know, the reality that the more birth control there is the fewer abortions there are. Considering I was sending this message through my cousin to the idiot who posted the freakout, I hope my "you big dumbass" tone made it through. I also pointed out the thousands of lives saved through cancer screenings but I'm not sure why I pointed that out. The only life that is sacred is that of an unborn fetus and not a woman's who discovers she has cervical cancer after a Planned Parenthood medical professional swipes her cervix with a damn bristle brush.

And then I decided to bring up the one thing my cousin's friend left out of her original crap rant, a point I've heard raised again and again: Cecile Richards' salary. I consider this move a preemptive strike. You see, a lot of anti-Planned Parenthood (which is ironically named since APPARENTLY they only PREVENT parenthood according to some idiots) folks seems outraged over how much PP pays Ms. Richards, their president. She makes about $300k a year. That's a nice chunk of cash. Wow. I wish I made that much. And wow, she'd be the perfect candidate for that Bush tax cut... but I digress. Anyway, they don't like that she makes so much money considering PP gets federal money -- funny, the same people didn't seem bothered that heads of bailed-out banks made MILLIONS and that was all funded by the government. Well, they were mad about the bail-outs but didn't want the government to set salaries or decided how that tax-funded income should be taxed. Again, I digress...

So back to my preemptive strike of Cecile Richards' salary and how, gosh darn it, how can we use government money to subsidize an organization that pays a woman a lot of money to Plan Parenthood!?!

Enter, The Candies Foundation and ... ta da... Bristol Palin. Yep, a formerly knocked-up teen made almost as much money as the president of a national organization that serves MILLIONS of women each year to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Yep, Bristol, the poor suffering teenage single mom made almost as much as a college-educated executive.

And guess what? The Candies Foundation is a Public Charity -- meaning they collect federal dollars. And guess what? They spent only about $40k in funding to actual programs to prevent pregnancies. Obviously you can't compare the incoming and outgoing moolah between the two organizations. But when you compare apples to apples, Candies spent BUCKETS on Bristol and pits on programs. Whereas, Planned Parenthood spent a bucket on staffing and shitload of buckets on programs.

Just a little funny. Just a little ironic.

And I should probably disclose that I am still a great fan of Cecile Richards' late mother and tend to get bristly when Cecile is attacked by dumb-asses.

What About the Wanted?

POSTED BY JHW22

Today "an anti-choice group in Ohio is putting a 9-week old fetus on the witness list" in an attempt to find one more trick to make abortion illegal.

Jeez, my OB/GYN wouldn't even see me before ten weeks -- even while I was miscarrying.

Why are some people willing to ignore the woman in this debate? And why aren't the same people doing more to prevent miscarriages rather than forcing women to prove they miscarried naturally?

And what are the same people doing for babies thrown in dumpsters and shaken or born addicted? I have always said that I respect that some people have a moral problem with abortion. But I don't respect the same people when they aren't doing anything for the wanted babies who are lost or for the babies who weren't aborted but were left with no way to survive. Either DO for those who are born or who a woman desperately wants to have and DO for the women you want to make YOUR choice or don't tell a woman what to do with her body. Prevent poverty, abuse, starvation, neglect, lack of health care, illiteracy, gun violence, mental illness. Do something for the children you fight so hard to get here.

HELP or get out of the damn way.

Pro-Life Clowns

Via GottaLaff:

In support of a bill that proposes banning abortions after the first heartbeat (something that can happen within eighteen days of conception), the anti-abortion group Faith2Action has scheduled a nine-week-old fetus to testify as a legislative witness before Ohio’s House Health Committee.

Look, I can completely understand being an advocate for one side or another, but stupid stunts like this make the pro-life advocates look idiotic. And these are most likely the same people that agree with tort reform because they believe medical malpractice suits are are a "frivolous" waste of taxpayer money. Well how much money is being wasted on this debacle of a hearing?

D & C

POSTED BY JHW22

I won't link to an offensive speech on the House floor last week, where a man decided he knew what was in a woman's heart and ranted and raved about abortion -- speaking for women, about women and to women. I won't link to it because he was wrong, cruel and arrogant.

So it took a woman to speak out and call his speech what it was -- insulting. Representative Jackie Speier (D-CA) was eloquent and honest in discussing her personal story as a woman who HAS had to make a decision and choose a traumatic procedure that the man had no place in discussing.

But the woman I most want to hear from on this issue, wrote this in her book:

At the beginning of my second trimester, I went in for my monthly exam.
...

The doctor said, “There’s nothing alive in there”.

...

She went on to explain that I could go home and let "it" pass naturally. Or I could have a D & C.

...

When the doctor’s bill arrived in our mailbox, it came with a typo. In the box describing the procedure, someone had typed "Abortion.” Instead of starting over with a fresh form, they painted it over with a thin layer of White-Out, and retyped, "Miscarriage." For some reason it just felt like salt in the wound.

The woman who wrote about the pain of the same procedure Ms. Speier passionately conveyed in her speech should speak out and stand with a woman who shares her experience -- despite their party differences.

Sarah Palin, where are you? The word abortion was salt in the wounds of your D & C. So why aren't you defending other women who suffer the same grief?

Republican Priorities

For a year leading up to the 2010 elections, Republicans campaigning for public office raised holy hell against the Obama administration for spending so much time on health care reform while the country languished in a prolonged recession and unemployment hovered close to 10%. Their cry was all about jobs, jobs, jobs. It was all about doing the people's work once they regained control of the House.

So how has the first session of the 112th Congress, specifically the new Republican led House of Representatives, tackled the unemployment issue? So far, they haven't.

After one month of the new Congress, they've spent a little over their first week, reading the Constitution, while conveniently skipping the three-fifths clause, apparently to the detriment of Michele Bachmann, had a symbolic vote to repeal the "job killing" health care reform passed by the previous Congress, took a week off due to the tragic event in Tucson, and are now pushing a bill called the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act." They are so clever with their bill titles, those Republicans, aren't they?

While there is already precedence for prohibition of federal funding of abortion with the Hyde Amendment, this is a dubious effort to constrict the legal right of abortion because the wording in the bill is attempting to redefine rape.

Since the 1976 Hyde Amendment, federal law has prohibited federal funds to pay for abortions except in the cases of rape, incest, and when the pregnancy endangers the life of the mother, but now...

"...Republicans propose that the rape exemption be limited to "forcible rape." This would rule out federal assistance for abortions in many rape cases, including instances of statutory rape, many of which are non-forcible. For example: If a 13-year-old girl is impregnated by a 24-year-old adult, she would no longer qualify to have Medicaid pay for an abortion.

...Given that the bill also would forbid the use of tax benefits to pay for abortions, that 13-year-old's parents wouldn't be allowed to use money from a tax-exempt health savings account (HSA) to pay for the procedure. They also wouldn't be able to deduct the cost of the abortion or the cost of any insurance that paid for it as a medical expense."

This doesn't pass the smell test because there is no legal definition of "forcible rape." What about date rape? Or victims being drugged? And how can you pass a law with such vague definitions subject to malleable interpretation? How many bruises does a rape victim have to have before the sex is considered "forcible?"

So just to reiterate, after 18 months of GOP whining that Democrats spent too much time focusing on health care and not enough on jobs, the Republican led House has spent its first month focusing on repealing health care benefits already in place for millions of people and the further restriction of legal medical procedures. The people's work indeed.

Hasselbeck Said What Now?

I saw this headline in passing and didn't think twice about it...

Hasselbeck supports gay marriage, calls Obama a ‘cool guy’

... but a friend of mine brought it to my attention hoping I would comment on it and saying it needed my "wry sense of realism."

So here I am thinking, hell, what with a new baby, my wifey returning to work this week after her maternity leave, my softball team winning the league championship this season (yours truly manning 1st base and managing), making the familial rounds showing off the new progeny and scraping spare time together to do the occasional handyman jobs necessary to maintain a 90-year old house that we just bought, I guess I need to produce something for the semi-neglected blog. I'm trying not to completely ignore it but's not like I've been burning up the keyboard lately either.

So Hasselbeck.... Hasselbeck... uh, nope. I got nothing.

You see, the thing about The View's Elisabeth Hasselbeck is that I really don't give a rat's ass what she has to say, either for or against President Obama, gay marriage, abortion rights or anything else for that matter.

Why should I care that she thinks Obama is a "cool guy" when she campaigned for Sarah Palin? Why should I listen to someone's view on abortion rights after she said the morning after pill is the same thing as "birthing a baby and leaving it out on the street"? Does it matter to me that she needed a "mani-pedi to prepare" for an interview with the leader of the free world instead of preparing by, you know, actually researching facts and statistics?



It doesn't matter. And do you know why?

The woman is a dolt. I mean, her claim to fame is eating bugs on the Survivor reality TV series while her hair fell out for God's sake. So why would I care that she should shift her views as the wind blows?

If one minute she says she thinks the morning after pill is akin to leaving a baby in the street, but also believes the government shouldn't tell a woman what to do with her body, how can you take her seriously? If she says she supports gay marriage but is a Sarah Palin supporter, I would think she is, at the least, confused about her beliefs. So why would I give a shit about her thinking President Obama is "cool"?

You know what would be cool? If we stopped elevating not ready for prime time players like Elisabeth Hasselbeck on the same level of a Barbara Walters simply because she happens to be on the same show.  Even Walters can make casting mistakes.

Who's next? Snooki?

A Decent Man in Oklahoma

And guess what? He's a Democrat.

Oklahoma Gov. Brad Henry said he vetoed a bill that would require women to go through ultrasound examinations before abortions to avoid a court fight.

Henry Friday also vetoed a measure that would have banned wrongful birth lawsuits, The Oklahoman reported Saturday. Such suits are brought by parents of children born with Down’s syndrome and other congenital problems that were not diagnosed during pregnancy.

Henry, a Democrat, said the first bill was likely to involve the state in expensive litigation. He also described the bill as too sweeping because there are no exceptions for victims of rape or incest.

"State policymakers should never mandate that a citizen be forced to undergo any medical procedure against his or her will, especially when such a procedure could cause physical or mental trauma," Henry said.

Sounds to me to be a basic human right. And why are small government proponents, as most conservatives are, always the first to author legislation to get into your personal medical business? Hypocrites.

Quote of the Day

"My personal position: I don't get to have a position -- I don't have a uterus. If a Senate that was 90% female told me I couldn't have a vasectomy or made it a crime to leave the toilet seat up, I guess I might object."

~ Michael Moore's position on abortion

Stupak is Back and Getting Media Coverage

My friend, who shall be known as JHW22, wrote a piece on Stupak and his lying ways on abortion funding yesterday on her DailyKos diary. Seems she was ahead of the curve since the story's been picking up speed today. Here it is in its entirety.

JHW22:

Last night on Hardball with Tweety, Bart Stupak made two dramatic statements that he has made before and will continue making as long as he is given a platform (Tweety loves this topic so one action we can take is tallying the number of times Tweety mentions the Stupak language between now and the final vote). We need to understand the language in this section of the bill thoroughly and then bombard the office with calls and show up at any meetings and raise hands to challenge him in a civil, yet factually correct manner.

Here’s what Tweety and Stupak discussed:

MATTHEWS: Well, let`s take a look at House Speaker Nancy Pelosi at Blair House last week. Let`s listen. See if you agree.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA), SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Leader Boehner, the law of the land is there is no public funding of abortion, and there is no public funding of abortion in these bills. And I don`t want our listeners or viewers to get the wrong impression from what you said.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTHEWS: Is the Speaker correct?

STUPAK: No.

MATTHEWS: Explain.

STUPAK: The Speaker is incorrect. In the Senate bill -- in the Senate bill, and that`s what they`re telling us the vehicle we`re using. In the Senate bill, it says you must offer insurance policies that will be paid for by the federal government that covers abortion. You must do so. Also in that same language, if you come in the Senate version, in the OPM, Office of Personnel Management, policies they`ll be putting forth, you must pay -- every enrollee must pay one dollar per month into a fund to help fund abortions.

It`s very clear. I direct the Speaker`s attention to pages 33 to page 44 of the Senate bill as written in the Senate and passed on Christmas Eve.

This is not true. Aside from the fact that the "Senate bill as written in the Senate and passed on Christmas Eve" discusses abortion MUCH later than pages 33-44, the Senate bill says that states can choose whether companies in the exchange cover abortion or not.

SEC. 1303. SPECIAL RULES.

(a) STATE OPT-OUT OF ABORTION COVERAGE.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—A State may elect to prohibit abortion coverage in qualified health plans offered through an Exchange in such State if such State enacts a law to provide for such prohibition.

2070

HR 3590 EAS/PP

(2) TERMINATION OF OPT OUT.—A State may repeal a law described in paragraph (1) and provide for the offering of such services through the Exchange.

(b) SPECIAL RULES RELATING TO COVERAGE OF ABORTION SERVICES.—

The bill also states

(i) nothing in this title (or any amendment made by this title), shall be construed to require a qualified health plan to provide coverage of services described in subparagraph (B)(i) or (B)(ii) as part of its essential health benefits for any plan year; and

(ii) subject to subsection (a), the issuer of a qualified health plan shall determine whether or not the plan provides coverage of services described in subparagraph(B)(i) or (B)(ii) as part of such benefits for the plan year.

As for federal funding, the language abides by current law – currently that is the Hyde Amendment – but the language is written to accommodate any future changes to the existing law. It repeatedly refers to section (1)B(i) which clarifies what is prohibited from federal funding.

But Stupak stated that each policy holder would have to pay $1 into an abortion fund – yep, he said each policy holder would pay for abortions. But that is not what the heading (1) VOLUNTARY CHOICE OF COVERAGE OF ABORTION SERVICES says to me.

Stupak interprets the language to be:

If one buys any health plan through Company A, one pays into an abortion fund.

I interpret the language to be:

If one buys Plan Q with an abortion Rider through Company A, then one pays a separate rider premium. If one buys Plan R without an abortion Rider through Company A, then one DOES NOT pay a separate premium.

Now, this diary isn’t about whether the existing language is something we like or hate. This diary is about a Democrat distorting language in order to make an already difficult process passing this bill even more difficult and frankly, he’s manipulating voters by misrepresenting the language.

For the most part, the language in the bill is more about the logistical segregation of premiums that would pay for abortion services coverage from the premiums that would not. And more specifically it’s primarily about keeping premiums that would go toward non-Hyde Amendment abortion allowances segregated from other premiums. The whole gist of the language is about FEDERAL FUNDS NOT TOUCHING abortion coverage as required by existing law. But Stupak wants people to think that anyone who pays a premium funds abortions. He says all of this while saying he is fine with the Hyde Amendment language.

Where the $1 line comes in is during the actuarial part. If you have the abortion coverage Rider, all kinds of calculations have to be done to decide the premium value based on what’s covered under the Hyde Amendment and what isn’t. If it’s not covered under the Hyde Amendment, then that coverage value is determined and you have to pay a separate abortion Rider premium so as not to touch abortion coverage premiums with regular premiums. These premiums are kept in separate accounts by the insurance companies.

The bulk of the section in the bill that discusses this is found on pages 2069 through 2078 in the FINAL Senate Bill.

I have summarized the language but since the main issue here is all about "interpretation" I ask you to please print it out, read it, mark it up and learn it inside and out (if you don't already). Then call Representative Stupak’s office and leave messages telling them that you understand the language and that you’d be happy to explain it to him.

They will be quite prickly over at his DC office, I know because one of the staffers threatened to turn me over to the Capitol Hill Police if I didn’t stop calling today when I was trying to figure out why Stupak told Tweety that this language was on pages 33-44. A staffer later returned my call with the correct page numbers.

When they know you’re right and feel smug, they will ask you where you’re from because they don’t want to hear from anyone in any other district, despite the fact that this is a NATIONAL health care bill he’s willing to stop. And they do have caller ID so they will know if you’re calling from out of state, or from a cell phone that was bought out of state even if you’ve moved to his district. If you know anyone in the district, ask them to call.

Finally, if you feel that you have been brushed aside, call Speaker Pelosi. Her staffer was pleased to hear from me. Ask that Speaker Pelosi speak to Stupak to "educate" him on the language and ask that she make a public statement if he continues his appearances on national TV misrepresenting the language.

If you live in his district, get to a meeting.

Catskill Julie provided the following useful information in the comments of a Daily Kos diary:

Call (202) 225 4735
Fax (202) 225 4744
in District call Toll Free: 800-950-7371 

Alpena, (989)356 0690 Fax(989)356 0923
Escanaba, (906)786 4504 Fax(906)786 4534
Marquette,(906) 228 3700 Fax(906) 228 2305 

GO to meetin' Tawas City, March 8 

For Immediate Release
March 3, 2010 Contact: Michelle Begnoche
(202) 225-4735
STUPAK TO HOLD TOWN HALL MEETING IN TAWAS CITY
WASHINGTON, DC – U.S. Congressman Bart Stupak (D-Menominee) will host a town hall meeting in Tawas City on Monday, March 8 from 5:30 to 7:00 p.m. (EST) at the Tawas Area High School cafeteria. The meeting is open to the public and will provide an opportunity for constituents to ask Stupak questions on a range of issues. Stupak will also provide an update on health care reform, job creation, the economy and other issues pending before Congress. 

Tawas Area High School is located at 255 W. M-55, Tawas City, Mich.
"This town hall meeting in Tawas City is a chance to meet with constituents, address their concerns and answer questions about the work I am doing in Congress to strengthen our economy, create jobs and provide Americans with access to affordable health care," Stupak said. "I enjoy the opportunity to receive feedback on these critical issues and hope my town hall meetings spur additional dialogue in communities across northern Michigan." 

Out of respect for all those wishing to attend the town hall meeting, only credentialed media will be permitted to record the event. 

The Tawas City town hall meeting is a continuation of Stupak’s travels around the First Congressional District, which has included town hall meetings in Negaunee, Petoskey, Cheboygan, Escanaba, Standish, Ironwood, Ontonagon and Houghton. Last month Stupak held a telephone town hall meeting reaching 3,390 constituents in all 31 counties in the First Congressional District. 

Residents of Michigan’s First Congressional District can sign up to receive email notice of Stupak’s town hall meetings and to be included in the next telephone town hall meeting by visiting www.house.gov/stupak and selecting "E-mail and Telephone Town Hall Sign-Up" or by calling Stupak’s office at 1-800-950-7371.

UPDATE SINCE ORIGINALLY POSTED AT THE DAILY KOS: As I said he would be, Stupak is everywhere spewing this incorrect information. HOWEVER, after my calls to his office yesterday telling them he was citing the wrong pages and how could anyone check him if he didn't provide the correct pages, he is now CITING THE CORRECT PAGES. Now I need help getting him to properly represent what those pages actually say.

I Called It

Ben Nelson gets his balls teabagged.

...The effort to win Nelson's support hinges largely on abortion policy, the same divisive issue that nearly derailed action on the healthcare bill at the last minute in the House, where antiabortion Democrats insisted on tight restrictions on the funding of abortion under the proposed new health programs.

Nelson, seeking similar abortion restrictions, continued to withhold his support for the Senate bill despite major concessions made to him on other issues affecting the powerful insurance industry that is important to his home state.

Efforts to address his abortion concerns advanced today as another antiabortion Democrat -- Sen. Bob Casey of Pennsylvania -- floated a compromise designed to strengthen guarantees that federal funds would not be used for abortion.

We already have restrictions on federal abortion funding. It's called the Hyde Amendment, Senator Casey. No need to swallow the Burgermeister jizz.

More Health Care Bogeymen

I have a question: if this health care reform bill is really so horrible that practically every GOP member is against it, then why not debate what you're against and make it better, instead of making shit up to freak out your lunatic base?

Why doesn't House Minority Leader John Boehner judge the bill on the merits of what's actually in the bill instead of using the old, reliable abortion wedge issue and feel the need to make shit up about a "monthly abortion premium" being charged of all enrollees in the government-run health plan?

Unless he's seriously that stupid and doesn't understand what he's reading, if he's actually reading anything in the bill other than page numbers so he can complain about how long it is, how is it that scumbags like Boehner and his ilk feel it is completely legitimate to mislead the people that voted them into office with lies and smears?