Woman says both twins would have died under Stupak amendment. Instead one was saved.

[madfloridian]

It's a real life example of how religious fervor in lawmaking can have drastic impact.

From RH Reality Check:

My Baby Would Have Died Under the Stupak Amendment

In 2006 I became pregnant and was thrilled. After landing in the hospital with a severe kidney infection at 19-weeks gestation, I received my first ultrasound, leaving us shocked and thrilled to see we were expecting identical twin boys.

The joy didn’t last when our babies were diagnosed with Twin-to-Twin Transfusion Syndrome. Webmd.com describes Twin-Twin transfusion syndrome as “the most serious complication of identical twins. It starts in the womb when one twin gets too much blood and the other not enough. The outcome for both twins is grim.”

Severe TTTS has a 60-100 percent likelihood of fetal or neonatal mortality rate. We were sent to one of the premier fetal care centers in the country and told our only hope for saving this pregnancy was to have a selective termination on the one of the babies, and hope the other twin would survive.

At my next doctor appointment when I asked my perinatalogist if the termination we had would be allowed under the abortion ban. He said no. I was outraged and felt violated, how a group of individuals dare think they can make life-altering medical decisions for me. If I hadn’t had the termination, I would have buried two babies instead of only one. I contacted the SDCHF and the next day I was giving my first interview with Newsweek.

When she discussed the total bill, and what their portion would be...it shows what women without resources would be up against with such an amendment. Huge numbers.

The total bill from the fetal care center was just over $220,000. Add the care for the entire pregnancy and the cost was well over $500,000. We were fortunate that our insurance covered 80% of the costs. Had they not, I’m not sure what we would have done. Why should I have to choose between having a life-saving procedure that will most likely put us into bankruptcy while at the same time forcing me to choose between the best interests of our much wanted unborn child versus the best interests of our other two children? After three years we have finally paid off our share of bills from that pregnancy.

Their 20% was very large...indeed. Just think if there had been no coverage.

The Stupak amendment would carry over to private insurance, and it would only permit abortion late term if the LIFE of the mother were at stake.

Her health is not a consideration. The fact she would have lost both twins is not a consideration under Stupak. There is more at the link.

It's a serious situation. I don't see any Democratic leaders speaking out on this issue of women's choice. Gays and women's rights are expendable now even though we have a majority.

We can express outrage over Uganda, but we not paying attention to the slippery slopes here in our own country.

Today we learn that Ben Nelson is going to introduce his own little Stupak amendment. I would not be surprised if it passes.

James Wagoner of Advocates for Youth has much to say about whether the amendment passed because of a "power outage" of the pro-choice movement.

Stupak: Aberration or Power Outage in the Pro-Choice Movement?

The Stupak amendment, which robs women of insurance coverage for abortion, has caused all of us to mobilize to redress the damage done by this historic assault on a woman’s right to choose. While this campaign should be our immediate focus for the coming weeks, it should not prevent us from analyzing the factors that brought us to this debacle in the first place.

A few provocative questions come immediately to mind. For starters, how does a pro-choice President and pro-choice House leadership end up moving a bill that seriously undermines a woman’s legal right to abortion? Has the political arm of the pro-choice movement been so co-opted by the Democratic Party that the pro-choice constituency is not just being taken for granted, but being taken to the cleaners on key legislative issues?

Good question, indeed.

Has the decision of pro-choice leaders to acquiesce, implicitly or explicitly, with the decision of Democrats after the 2004 elections to vigorously recruit anti-choice candidates to build the Catholic “brand” within the party, set us on the inevitable path towards marginalization?

While there may be some argument on the “yeas and nays” of these questions, the disastrous 240-194 vote on Stupak signaled profound dysfunction in pro-choice vision, leadership, strategies and tactics. Folks, this wasn’t just a wake-up call, it was a defining moment.

The pro-choice leadership seems to believe that it has an identity of interests with the Democratic Party. This is a mistake. While interests intersect, when it is politically expedient Democrats will throw the abortion issue under the bus. The events of the past few weeks constitute a case study.

Wagoner ends by saying "Stupak looks less and less like an aberration and more like an inevitable consequence of a power outage in the pro-choice movement."

[Hekate]

1. Kick and Rec

:-(

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[madfloridian]

5. Sounds a little like spamming a board. Not wise.

.

[Hekate]

6. Enjoy your short stay at DU. nt

[Hekate]

8. That was quick. Good work, Mods! nt

[Sirveri]

11. we're all on high alert due to the recent Afghan speech...

:hi:

[Bolo Boffin]

2. K & R

No life of the mother being threatened here. Stupak amendment is very much stupid.

[saracat]

4. K+R And to think Nelson wants an identical amendment in the Senate Bill!

[Contrary1]

7. Selective termination may not have been the only hope to save the pregnancy...

Unfortunately, I know a bit about this condition. Our only two grand babies did not survive.

There are 3 or 4 specialists in the country that deal with this situation. I don't know all the specifics, but it involves in vitro surgery. The blood vessels in the placenta that connect the babies are closed off, giving both babies a chance. The success rate of at least one of the babies surviving is good, many times both make it.

Please know that I am not faulting this woman for the route she chose. By the time we found out that my daughter's babies were suffering from this condition, it was just a matter of days before they were lost.

Every situation is different. The doctor just shook her head as she showed me the placenta. Too much was connected.

Our two beautiful, fully-formed baby girls were born far too early, and there was nothing anyone could do to save them. I wish a small percentage of what this country spends to wage war could be used to further research TTTS.

I'm only posting this in case there is someone out there who might someday face this situation. There may be another option for them other than selective termination.

[madfloridian]

12. Under Stupak, neither procedure would be covered.

Only the wealthy could afford it.

[Contrary1]

13. Yeah, you are right about that...

It will eventually get to the point that only the wealthy can afford any kind of medical treatment at all.

[Ms. Toad]

20. Why would neither procedure be covered?

The procedure Contrary1 suggested has the goal of having both babies survive. Although there is significant risk that one or both babies will not survive, Stupak only addresses deliberate termination - not procedures intended to save the lives of both infants even if they carry a significant risk of fetal mortality.

That tension (procedures which are potentially life-saving, but also having a significant risk of death) does raise an interesting (and somewhat ironic) unintended consequence of Stupak.

As part of some volunteer work I do, I have encountered a significant number of pro-life women who induce early when they find they are carrying a child with a "condition incompatible with life." Sometimes they want a little time with their infant alive outside of the womb, sometimes they because they believe death will be easier for the infant at an earlier gestational age, or they may have a variety of other reasons/rationalizations that make early induction acceptable to them whereas abortion is not. Often, the induction is done at a stage which would (even without the underlying condition) be fatal absent heroic measures. No heroic measures are taken - the expectation (but not the deliberate intent) is the child will live only briefly.

I would argue that even though it is going by a different name, induction at, say 25 weeks, with DNR orders for the infant is an abortion and under Stupak cannot be paid for by an insurance plan which receives any federal subsidies. (In the alternative - if it is permitted to be paid for, then any woman who wants an abortion should just ask for an early induction.)

[madfloridian]

21. Do you have a link to the part of Stupak that clarifies?

I would appreciate it.

Do you approve of a bill that would even make us wonder if it would allow insurance to pay?

I don't.

[Ms. Toad]

26. Here's a link to the actual text of the amendment

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8748118

The question you have asked, for me, is sort of a "When did you stop beating your mother?" question.

I have a chronically ill daughter who requires about $60,000 worth of medical care a year. She will almost certainly need a liver transplant, which will max out any lifetime caps that currently exist. She is stuggling (and failing) to remain a full time student because of her medical condition. Once she is no longer a full time student, she no longer has access to insurance as my dependent. On her own, because she is "lucky" enough to live in a state that requires the big insurance companies to offer open enrollment periods, she will have the "privilege" of purchasing insurance at $14,400 a year (at age 19), which rises to about $72,000 a year before she reaches the age for Medicare. Someone who has just a high school diploma and who is forced to drop out of college because she is too ill to carry a full time load isn't likely to land a job that will provide health insurance, and isn't likely to be able to work enough hours to purchase it on the open market.

All of the bills, even the worst, will make insurance available to her (and others like her) at a cost of $0 (because of the subsidies), will cover her pre-existing illness, and will not impose lifetime caps. She will have co-pays - I haven't read that aspect of all the bills in detail, but most put those on a sliding scale and cap them at around $5000.

No bill in the past two decades (since I was first told that I was uninsurable and started watching closely) has even come close to making such significant changes in the regulation of insurance - and the above are minimums in every bill - some provide even stronger regulation. (The last significant change was HIPAA - around 1998 - which theoretically guarantees access to insurance so long as you can afford to pay health-based rates and never have a gap of more than 63 days since you obtained a pre-existing condition. That only helped a small fraction of the number of people any of these bills would help)

So - do I approve a bill that would make us wonder if it would allow insurance to pay? If that were the only issue, no. Do I want a bill that bans coverage of abortion for any plan which receives Federal subsidies. Again, if that were the only issue, no.

But it's not.

My daughter is lucky - she has parents who can pick up the bill if she can't. Far too many people are in my daughter's shoes - uninsurable through no fault of their own. They are not getting health care at all because they cannot afford to pay for insurance or a doctor's visit. All of the bills at least guarantee the poorest of the poor free insurance, and all of the bills guarantee that those with money to pay for insurance can actually find a plan that will accept them.

None of the bills are what I want, but each will result in far more people having access to routine health care than currently have access. It is a significant start.

I'm not happy about the Stupak amendment - but I am even more unhappy that the starting date for the new regulations will be 2013 or 2014. Again - it is a matter of what is it most important for me to spend my time on. Both are important (removing the amendment and moving up the date); but between the two my energy has to go to the latter which will ultimately save more lives (and, selfishly, will allow my daughter the freedom to take a year or two off from school without having to worry that doing so will jeopardize her access to health care).

You may have noticed - virtually none of my discussion focused on my the impact my daughter's health has on her life/quality of life. It is a sad commentary when a 19 year old, with an illness for which there is no cure and no effective treatment, who is barely functioning, is making the decision about whether to drop out of school and focus on her health almost solely in reliance on the impact that decision will have on her access to health insurance (the current gateway to health care). She is not the only one - and that overwhelming side worry makes the underlying illness that much more devastating.

We need to at least fix that - more would be better, but we cannot afford to do nothing because whatever might pass is far from perfect. From my perspective, that would be like being starving and passing up potatoes - the only thing available - because I might end up with malnutrition because potatoes don't provide a balanced diet.

[madfloridian]

27. My point was that a woman could die while an idiotic amendment was clarified

by a judge or a hospital or doctors or insurance companies.

I realize it is a question with no answer. That is what I am writing about.

We ought not to tolerate that religious groups can dictate a woman's ability to have good mental or physical health, or that it would take time to determine if she would really die or maybe die.

That is why I write about it.

[Ms. Toad]

28. I don't think any doctor, insurance company, or judge

would deny the separation of the circulation procedure mentioned based on the Stupak amendment. They might deny it for other reasons (it may still be considered experimental, for example) - but it is pretty clear that separating the circulatory systems of twins is an attempt to save their lives rather than an attempt to terminate pregnancy.

Not to say it is a good amendment - but it is a fairly clear amendment. Plans eligible for subsidies cannot cover abortions with a few fairly clear exceptions (1) a doctor certified threat to the life of the mother or (2) rape or incest.

It doesn't prohibit abortions - it just prohibits plans that are eligible for federal subsidies from paying for them.

Plans eligible for federal subsidies can offer abortion riders, so long as there is no intermingling of federal money between the eligible plan and the rider.

[madfloridian]

29. I know what it does. It is a shameful bill.

I don't like the way too many here are parsing it to make it seem acceptable in some way.

It disturbs me greatly, in fact.

I know what it does.

Do you know why they are doing it? Our Democrats whose platform reads they support a woman's right to have one?

Do you know what power the religious right is gaining now?

I know what it does.

I fear we here are too accepting.

[Ms. Toad]

33. You said the fact that it was not clear bothered you.

because people might die while waiting for it to be clarified, and you said a medical procedure that another poster suggested would not be covered under Stupak

The procedure suggested by the other poster was not an abortion - it was a potentially life-saving procedure for both twins. Coverage for that procedure would not be prohibited by the Stupak amendment.

The bill itself is clear. That is all I addressed.

[madfloridian]

34. Yes, the bill is clear.

The bill relegates women to the status of second-class citizens

[madfloridian]

35. Dupe

[madfloridian]

30. Also you appear to be questioning that mother's decision...

saying that she could have gone another path.

That is not your right.

[Ms. Toad]

36. I have made no comments at all about the mother's decision

Another poster shared that there is a medical procedure that, in some instances, can save both twins.

You said that medical procedure designed to save the lives of both twins would not be covered under Stupak.

That assertion is just plain wrong.

I was gentle about correcting you the first time - butI guess I need to be a bit blunter.

1. Procedures that are intended to save the lives of both fetuses are not abortions - no matter how much risk there is that one or both twins will die. That would be like calling brain surgery euthanasia because there is a significant risk of death during the procedure. The Stupak amendment has no impact at all on insurance coverage for risky procedures that are intended to save the lives of the fetuses. The language of the bill is very clear.

2. I made ZERO comments - either directly or indirectly, about the choice the woman in the article made. My comments were limited to correcting the misstatement you made about the alternate procedure someone else suggested, responding to your question and various assertions that the amendment is not clear (and that women will die while the courts clarify the matter), and providing my observation that the pro-life group may have cooked their own goose by either banning payment for a procedure they favor (early induction for fatally ill fetuses) - or opening it up to be covered as an authorized means to have an abortion (by calling it an early induction, rather than an abortion).

[madfloridian]

38. Well, don't worry about being "gentle" with me. Be as blunt as you wish.

I am concentrating on the harm that could be done to women and their rights. You are concentrating on a procedure.

You don't seem to understand that by saying that saving both fetuses is covered....that you are making it sound as though you do not disapprove of the Stupak amendment.

I have not studied the procedures, I am concentrating on the fact that our party is becoming accepting of selling out women's rights.

So you go ahead being as blunt as you wish. Blunt is mild to what I usually get around here.

And while you are at it, you might want to show how you feel about the fact that women must go through all this wondering if they can afford to do it.

Blunt is fine and dandy with me. I just don't care.

[Ms. Toad]

39. Stating the facts about the amendment

and what it permits to be covered or not has nothing to do with approval or disapproval of the amendment. (Any more than stating the fact George Bush was the president of the US in 2007 implies I approve of that fact.)

The amendment says, "No funds . . .may be used to pay for any abortion or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion . . ."

Fact: The woman in the article said she was "told our only hope for saving this pregnancy was to have a selective termination on the one of the babies"
Fact: Selective termination is an abortion.
Fact: Another poster shared another procedure s/he was told about: "The blood vessels in the placenta that connect the babies are closed off, giving both babies a chance."
Fact: "giving both babies a chance" is not an abortion - regardless of how risky the procedure is.

Fact: You said, "Under Stupak, neither procedure would be covered." (In other words I didn't focus on the procedure - I responded to your assertion about whether Stupak would cover the procedures.)

Fact: The amendment bans "funds . . . used to pay for any abortion"
Fact: The first procedure is an abortion.
Fact: The second procedure is not an abortion.
Fact: Coverage for the first procedures is banned by Stupak, coverage for the second is not.

Again, accurately stating the facts about what Stupak covers and what is does not cover has absolutely no relation to whether I approve of the amendment - which, for the record, I said I did not in post #26.

[TheMadMonk]

41. Try this on for a scenario. Surgeon opens up mother. Placenta is inopperable.

What exactly are the options:

• Stuff the kids back and sew her up. The outcome is inevitable, but at least the bills will be paid and everyone's legal arse is covered.
  
• Attempt the surgery with inevitable results. Might get paid, might see the surgeon charged if somone on the surgery team is nursing a grudge.
  
• Do 'the right thing', knowing full well that an insurance assessor will draw a big red line through the claim and present the mother with a crippling medical bill.

And exactly the same options will crop up any time a surgeon attempts some form of foetal surgery and part way through the procedure, runs into a 'situation'.

Stupak could all too easily sound the death knell for all forms of in utero surgery, as it effectively takes away the surgeon's final option to terminate in an untennable situation.

[Ms. Toad]

43. First of all Stupak covers funding; it does not criminalize abortion

The surgeon could not be "charged" under Stupak - even if s/he WAS performing an abortion.

A surgical failure resulting in a death is no more an issue for this procedure than it is for any other kind of procedure which carries with it a risk of death. You don't see physicians refusing to do open heart surgery merely because the surgery might not have the hoped for outcome and be suddenly transformed from heart surgery to euthanasia.

The procedure will be charged to the insurance company as selective laser photocoagulation of communicating vessels (SLPCV). If it doesn't turn out as hoped, it is merely a failed procedure. It doesn't transform into an abortion merely because one (or both) of the twins die - or could not be successfully separated.



Effectively Prohibiting insurance coverage of abortions is bad enough - but if you start crying that the earth is imploding every time there is an earthquake pretty soon no one will listen to you.

Address the real concerns about the amendment: it creates classes with respect to abortion, the rich who can afford them (or the insurance riders) and the poor who cannot; it is an inappropriate attempt to insert legislative judgment between a doctor and his/her patient by creating financial disincentives for certain medical options; it will likely increase childhood poverty, and potentially abuse as children are born to parents who cannot afford them and/or did not want to have children. I'm sure you can come up with more concerns that are directly and realistically related to the amendment.

Address real gray areas - one of which I mentioned in an earlier post: early induction by parents who learn that their child has a condition that is incompatible with life (such as Potter's syndrome with bilateral renal agenesis, Trisomy 18, anencephaly). The stated intent of these inductions is typically to minimize suffering, or to be able to spend some time with these children alive outside the womb (many die before birth if carried to term). The reality is that early induction generally takes place at a gestational age when even a healthy child typically would not survive without medical intervention(25-33 weeks), and no effort is made to save the child. That sounds to me like an abortion - there is no medical reason for the induction (either for the mother or child). It is certain the child will die - the procedure hastens the death.

The surprising thing is that every single instance of this I am aware of involved pro-life parents who do not consider it an abortion - and I expect they believe it should be covered by insurance. If it is NOT an abortion, it is a very large loophole for doctors and patients who agree an abortion is appropriate - just have an early induction.

Surgery intended to be life-saving is not a gray area - and insisting it is just makes it easier for opponents to dismiss the real significant hardships that this amendment will create.

[TheMadMonk]

48. No it doesn't criminalize. It just leaves the door wide open for all sorts...

...of civil procedings.

"A surgical failure resulting in a death is no more an issue for this procedure than it is for any other kind of procedure which carries with it a risk of death."

It is an issue if a surgeon attempts the procedure when it can be demonstrated that the attempt was a) futile, and b) certain (or even likely) to result in death if attempted. If, because he wants to be paid, he takes the cowards way out and does nothing, except inform the mother that both of her babies will be dead inside of a month.


This is not about dismissing the real significant hardships. It's about pointing out that in addition to the many issues you have identified, insurers given an opportunity to argue that a neccessary medical procedure is a defacto abortion will attempt to do so.

[Ms. Toad]

53. It leaves the door no more wide open for civil proceedings

than it currently is.

The amendment (and the health care bill, in general) create absolutely no new civil claims. It is solely about funding. Just because there is a new statute relating to a particular procedure doesn't mean all sorts of new civil litigation is authorized.

As to whether or not the doctor will be paid by the insurance company - virtually every insurance company requires pre-authorization for major procedures. If a surgeon is contemplating this type of surgery, he will find out in advance whether the insurance company will pay him to perform the surgery.

It isn't like this amendment permits insurance companies to jump up after the fact and reclassify procedures they already approved just because they turned out differently than hoped for. Again - if that were the case, insurance companies would be reclassifying failed heart surgery as euthanasia after the fact and refusing to pay those bills because the insurance company doesn't cover euthanasia. If you don't see heart surgeons refusing to operate for fear they won't get paid if the patient dies (because payment for deliberate termination of adult life is barred by internal company policy), you aren't going to see that kind of impact on fetal surgery merely because payment for deliberate termination of fetal life is barred by statute rather than (or in addition to) company policy.

Not that it isn't a bad amendment, but you are giving this amendment credit for being much farther reaching than it actually is.

[Contrary1]

47. Actually, given what I have learned since my daughter lost her babies...

It is determined before the surgery whether the procedure I mentioned is an alternative. I'm sorry, it's been a while, and I don't remember what all is involved.

I only know that it would not have been feasible in my daughter's case.

[madfloridian]

51. My sympathies to your family...you appear to have been caught in the middle

of things. You do not need to make any explanation to anyone on private medical decisions, so don't be intimidated here about that.

That is why I posted this, so people can see the ramifications of religious dogma mixed with politics.

You were brave to post about it, and it must have been very painful.

My best to you and your family.

[TheMadMonk]

40. Because most sugeons would rather operate on the spleen with a steak knife...

...and a Little Miss sewing kit than touch a placenta in situ.


Yes there are ways to "game" the system, but gaming shouldn't be needed. Gaming means you are skating on very thin legal ice. Your 'admission' could well be enough under Stupak to see you, the doctor and patient charged. And a suitably creative prosecutor and sympathetic (to the ammendment) judge could quite possibly convict.

[Ms. Toad]

45. The procedure offered by the other poster is not "gaming"

the system. It is a real procedure which is used by parents who want to try to save both twins. The fact that it is not always successful in saving both babies does not transform it into "gaming" the system.

As noted in response to another post - Stupak is about funding. It does not criminalize abortion. It does not even prohibit abortion. No one is going to be charged under Stupak.

As to being reluctant to perform surgery on fetuses - life-saving surgery on fetuses is being more and more frequently. You might want to do more research before you make assertions that aren't supported by the reality of the state of medical science - here are a few starting places:

http://fetus.ucsfmedicalcenter.org/patient_center/your_fetal_surgery.asp
http://www.cardinalglennon.com/fetalcare/Pages/OpenFetalSurgery.aspx
http://www.fetalcarecenter.org/surgery/default.htm

[TheMadMonk]

46. Nice 'dodge'. Gaming the system is early induction with inevitable results.

Gaming, is a pro lifer excusing abortion with word games.

Criminal prosecution is not the only form of prosecution. There is also civil. An insurer given even the most surious opportunity to declare the procedure an abortion and withold payment will almost certainly do so. Hospital beancounters will then immediately bill the patient. And if the past is anything to go by, a good many patients will then attempt to sue the surgeon for performing a 'wrongful' procedure.


Surgeons may well be willing to perform surgery when only their comptetence may be called into question. However, what is happening in the field of obstetrics clearly indicates that, when they can be successfully sued over circumstances entirely beyond their control, a large number of doctors chose to abandon that branch of medicine.

[Ms. Toad]

50. charging is specifically criminal

Charging, prosecutors, and convictions (the terms you used) are specifically criminal. In civil litigation plaintiffs bring (or prosecute used) claims, but there is no prosecutor involved. Even putting the terminology slide, the amendment has no impact at all on the claims that might be brought in civil litigation - it solely limited to how federal funds may be used (or in this case are prohibited from being used). If the amendment (and bill) passes, patients can bring the exactly the same civil claims after the amendment as they could have brought before - no more, no fewer.

As to the 'dodge,' I expressly suggested the double edged sword that might come back to bite pro-lifers (in both posts I made on the subject); that either the procedure might not be covered because it was an abortion - or that if it is covered the same procedure could then be used by those actually seeking an abortion to end their pregnancies early and have the non-abortion procedure covered by insurance. It would not have occurred to me that you were trying to trap me into admitting something I pointed out in the first place.

Again - as to surgeons being frightened by the prospect of additional litigation - the amendment changes nothing. It authorizes no new claims, it doesn't create any new crimes the physiciains may be charged with. It doesn't create new "wrongful" procedures. In fact, the amendment specifically authorizes plans which are prohibited from covering abortions because of federal subsidies to offer fiscally isolated "riders" which can cover abortions.

One might even say, using the logic you seem to be applying, abortions are actually "authorized" in more portions of the amendment than they are "banned."

Wordplay aside - all I am suggesting is that it is far more productive to understand what the amendment actually does, and make your attacks based in reality. There's plenty to attack without making dire predictions of far out consequences arising from provisions the amendment does not actually contain.

[madfloridian]

52. Why don't you start your own thread to defend the Stupak amendment?

I think it would be a great idea.

You have treated us in this thread as though we were ignorant.

Our party caved to Stupak and the Catholic Bishops, and I will not back down from being critical.

You have nearly destroyed this thread with your arguments in favor of it.

Please start a defense of it....I am sure many would be interested.

[Ms. Toad]

54. I am not defending the Stupak amendment

In fact, I can't imagine a single comment I have made that could be interpreted as in favor of the amendment - as I noted earlier, factually discussing the amendment has nothing to do with whether I think the amendment is a good thing.

I stepped in to try to gently correct what I assumed was an honest mistake - the assertion that payment for a fetal lifesaving procedure would be barred by the Stupak amendment. I really expected that would be the end of it - perhaps even an "oops - I didn't understand that the procedure the poster was suggesting wasn't an abortion."

Unfortunately, there have been a number statements made in response to things I said that are - literally - ignorant. I felt the need to respond to those statements since they were directed at me.

I am sorry you feel as though you were being treated as if you were ignorant - I have tried to be careful to address the statements, rather than personally attack whoever made the statements (although, without rereading everything, I am sure my internal censor probably let a few things through that I could said more gently).

If you want to criticize the amendment - more power to you. As I have said numerous times, it is a bad amendment. I'm just suggesting that there are some pretty convincing arguments against the amendment that you are omitting in favor of noisy rhetoric (e.g. "The bill relegates women to the status of second-class citizens") and statements that anyone with much familiarity with the amendment will immediately and correctly dismiss as false (e.g., (by another poster) "Your 'admission' could well be enough under Stupak to see you, the doctor and patient charged . . . {and} quite possibly convict{ed}")

[madfloridian]

55. "noisy rhetoric" God I hate that term.

I made no personal judgements about a woman's choice.

Bye for now. Not worth it.

[Ms. Toad]

56. On protest signs, or as a chant, noisy rhetoric can be effertive -

in a discussion about whether the amendment is clear enough to determine if a certain procedure is covered, the response "Yes, the bill is clear. The bill relegates women to the status of second-class citizens," doesn't really answer the question.

As to your second comment - I am not aware that anyone suggested you made any personal judgments.

If the comment is intended as a backhanded dig at the two of us in this thread who have discussed a surgical procedure that is generally available to women with the same syndrome (TTS), women should have as many options as are medically appropriate, and should be free to choose any of them (and have any of them covered by insurance). Neither (1) disclosing a third option that the woman was not told about nor (2) pointing out that the third option is not an abortion (and therefore not covered by Stupak) is making a personal judgment about the choice made by the woman who was told she only had two options.

Ten years ago, I went to about a half dozen doctors and was told by each that I had only one option to survive - major surgery that would require at least a month of recovery time. Lots of people accept that guidance and choose to have the surgery. I did research and found a second option - relatively new procedure which cut the recovery time perhaps in half. I decided that even with the different risks I wanted the newer procedure and set out looking for a doctor willing to perform the newer procedure. Once I found one, and told her what I wanted, she told me there was also a third option that required minimally invasive surgery with a two day recovery time.

In telling me about the third option, she wasn't making a judgment on all the other people who accepted what their doctor told them - that major surgery was the only option. She wasn't making a judgment on the choice that I had made before I walked into her office (to have the newer treatment), or on any of the other people who who had made and carried out the choice either to have the standard treatment or the newer one. She was merely informing me that I had not one (as the other doctors had told me), not two (as I had discovered on my own), but three medically viable options. I was grateful for that information.

That is all that was being provided by the other poster in this thread - information that there may be more ways to address TTTS than the two options the woman in the article was told about. If I had TTTS (or knew anyone who did), and thought the only choices were selective termination and allowing both twins to die, I would be grateful for the information.

[Hekate]

18. I'm so sorry for your family's loss of babies that were wanted and cherished...

May your daughter's arms be filled soon. :hug:

Hekate

[madfloridian]

31. There does appear to be some faulting of this woman in this thread.

I find that appalling that the decision she and her doctor made would be questioned by anyone here.

You may not be openly critical, but there is questioning.

[Contrary1]

49. I am not questioning anything...

This woman was told that selective termination was her only option. I am saying it may not have been.

She did not mention being told about the surgery I posted about. Perhaps her doctor didn't know it has been performed successfully. Or perhaps she was told about it, and decided against it. That's between her and her doctor.

I only offered our experience. I would hate to have someone reading this who might someday face the same situation, make a decision based solely on this woman's case when there may be another option available to them.

If you consider that questioning, so be it.

[jbnow]

32. I am so sorry for the loss your family suffered. What a horrible way to learn

about a condition not commonly known. Your daughter's heart must just have broken.

My nephew's wife had a t shaped uterus and was 20 weeks pregnant with twins when it ruptured. Their son lived a few days and died on Thanksgiving and the daughter died on Christmas a couple of years ago....so I get a little of what your family went through.

Words don't help, sill I wish you all the best.

[Anakin Skywalker]

9. .

.

[JDPriestly]

10. It's great that this mother had the courage to speak out.

Abortion should be between a woman and her doctor. No one and nothing else should intervene.

[madfloridian]

15. Exactly right.

:hi:

[madfloridian]

14. Ben Nelson is so proud to introduce his own Stupak in the Senate

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/12/nelson-crafting-abortion-amendment-nearly-identical-to-stupaks.php?ref=fpb

"If it seemed like the congressional row over abortion coverage in health care reform had ebbed, it was probably just an artifact of Thanksgiving recess. Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) is charging ahead, and plans to introduce an amendment to the Senate health care bill in the spirit, if not the precise letter, of the controversial Stupak amendment.

"It's as identical to Stupak as it can be," Nelson told CongressDaily.

Senate experts will be unsurprised to hear that it will likely have the support of Pennsylvania Democrat Bob Casey.

"I think it's likely to be one of the amendments we'll vote on," Casey said."

[yankeeinlouisiana]

16. They all need to stop playing doctor

and let the real doctors and patients involve decide what is best.

Question: Are there any other medical procedures that are outlawed other than certain "types" of abortion?

I really don't know the answer to that, but I don't think there are any.

[madfloridian]

17. Yes, and why are we not more alarmed at what is happening?

That congress and the Democrats are using the very health and well-being of women for political purposes.

We should be furious at Nelson and Stupak, and yet we are not that angry.

[jbnow]

37. I was wondering why we weren't more alarmed that the women

least able to afford abortion were going to be barred from any payment (except for life, rapem incest) with or without the Stupak amendment. About 20 million of lowest income will be put on Medicaid as they increase the cap to 150% of poverty level. They will join all the other women on Mrdicaid that can get no help.

I was more worried about them than I was the rest of it. Most of us will get no abortions, few of us will get more than 2. An average abortion is $500 and to most that could at least be put on a credit card... the poorest women might not have that option and might not have savings and might not have options. That bothered me.

Then I looked up Medicare that many younger disabled woman get. They paid while working, pay monthly premiums and probably buy additional medigap insurance from their own pocket, Similar to subsidies then it's a mixture of public and private monies.
Abortion being covered has those same limitations. That irritated me too since disabilities might make the pregnancy and childbearing harder as well as raising a child. How is the health of the mother not considered.

Then O looked at federal employees who do use their own money for premiums. Same damn restrictions and that made me mad too. Seems they are pushing it saying it's because taxpayer money pays for the insurance it can't be covered. It shouldn't be compared to welfare that they first passed the law for.

I figured military coverage surely had the same restrictions as these others since it is federal funds. But no
They only get coverage when pregnancy threatens the life of the mother!
Not for incest or most of all rape! That is a big issue since all those studies show 1 out of 3 women in a war zone are rape victims! God knows many wouldn't be using any birth control being so far from any male partner left at home.
And they would not get coverage? Horrible.

So I am upset about all of these.
It is the thought of late abortion that troubles me for restrictions for most of these groups including stupak crap. If amnnio shows a problem pr if the health pf the mother could be badly affected that will come up after the first trimester when abortions are simpler and affordable. It could be a great financial burden right on top of the heartache of the situation. How dare they exclude such coverage?

So...perhaps my anger is wider than this amendment. No I don't think limits should increase...but I can't speak out on stiupak and not the others.

[CrispyQ]

57. Yes, why aren't we angry?

Personally, I'm outraged! And that this sell out is being perpetrated by members of our own party sickens me. One DUer told me that because the health care bill will provide birth control to more women, this amendment is acceptable, his justification being that birth control will reduce the number of abortions. :banghead: I would like to know which right he is willing to give up so he can get coverage for something. :grr: Stupid me. I broke my rule that I never debate any part of the abortion issue with a man because they simply don't have the same stakes in this issue as women.

It's too late to rec your thread, but here's a kick.

[inna]

19. KR. Excellent post, as usual! nt

[Rebubula]

22. Blame your god...

...if he wanted you to have both children - you would have had both.

[Odin2005]

23. K&R

[Demoiselle]

24. Thank you for this post, MadFloridian.

I'll keep it handy for any arguments I may be forced into by Stupak/Nelson supporters.
If I can resist the urge to smack 'em in the eye, that is.

[me b zola]

25. K&R

[Solly Mack]

42. k/r

[Luciferous]

44. K&R People need to see these types of stories so they

can see the potential impact of Stupak.