Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (12649)	12/24/2009 1:41:07 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

OTOH, the Stupak one extended it. How so? The Stupak amendment prevented indirect federal funding of abortion through the new bill, but it doesn't outlaw funding of abortion that had no federal connection. Doesn't seem like an extension to me. Of course if the feds are controlling funding of things more and more, then prohibitions of federal funding of X effect more things, but the problem here is the greater area of government involvement caused by the bill before the amendment, not the amendment itself. ---- "...Under our amendment, women who receive federal subsidies will be prohibited from using them to pay for insurance policies that cover abortion. The amendment does not prevent private plans from offering abortion services and it does not prohibit women from purchasing abortion coverage with their own money. The amendment specifically states that even those who receive federal subsidies can purchase a supplemental policy with private money to cover abortions. Some opponents of the amendment have tried to argue that it would effectively end health insurance coverage of abortion in both the private and public sectors. This argument is nothing more than a scare tactic. The language in our amendment is completely consistent with the Hyde Amendment, which in the 33 years since its passage has done nothing to inhibit private health insurers from offering abortion coverage..." nytimes.com