Posted by Resident, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Nov 11, 2009 at 12:51 pm

That is good to know.

I do not agree with the health bill, but I am happy to hear McNerney supports abortion.

I would rather have someone use federal money to pay for an abortion, than to have to use federal money to finance a pregnancy, etc.

Republicans are focused on the wrong thing. The health bill has a lot of problems, and all the republicans can do is criticize that it funds abortion? Get real! Roe v. Wade made it clear that abortion is perfectly legal, as it should be.

Posted by Ernesto, a resident of the Birdland neighborhood, on Nov 11, 2009 at 2:32 pm

I agree! Democrats should be granted birth control and abortions on demand.

Posted by a reader, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Nov 11, 2009 at 5:54 pm

Ernesto,

Maybe you are that guy that kept saying "just say no to contraception and the culture of death" on these boards. There truly are some Neanderthals on Pleasanton Weekly.

If you want to help humanity, stop worrying so much about zygotes and maybe volunteer some time at a children's home or shelter for abused women.

Web Link

Posted by Step it up, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Nov 11, 2009 at 7:46 pm

Paul and Ernesto,

So you support stepping up support services for children of unintended pregnancies? Sketch out your plan for me, please. And please, do specify your revenue sources.

I am pro-life, by the way.

Posted by Patricia, a member of the Vintage Hills Elementary School community, on Nov 11, 2009 at 7:49 pm

Hang on a minute, Paul. The Stupak amendment did not prohibit federal funding for abortion services. That was already in the bill and is already policy. The Stupak amendment went further and prohibited any insurance company that offers abortion services from participating in the proposed federal "insurance exchange." That exchange is where anyone who doesn't get insurance through their employer or from Medicare or some other source and can't afford high-priced insurance plans will be able to go to purchase insurance. That means that women will not be able to BUY affordable insurance WITH THEIR OWN MONEY. They won't be able to BUY insurance that covers a LEGAL medical procedure. Talk about rationing!

I'm thrilled that Jerry had the guts to vote no on this amendment. I'm livid that Pelosi and so many others didn't!

Posted by Ridiculous, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Nov 11, 2009 at 8:36 pm

Its all ridiculous. Somehow Patricia has determined the women will not be able to buy any insurance no matter how much money they have.

Heck, what do I care...maybe I should go out and buy a house for $2 million, run up my credit cards to $200,000 and then declare that the government needs to help because the economy is so bad.

Basically the government has screwed up everything they have touched for the past 50 years, why would I expect health care to be any better?

Oh, I guess because if there is any problem, they can just raise taxes.

Don't worry, we will all be on public health care before 2020.

Posted by Step it up, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Nov 11, 2009 at 8:55 pm

If by "Ridiculous," you are referring to your post, then you are entirely correct.

What you wrote is not what Patricia said AT ALL. Read her post. How about this - read the Stupak amendment. THEN try to make a legitimate argument.

Patricia posted the actual facts. Women participating in the private option OR any participating in insurance program that becomes part of the exchange will be unable to obtain insurance coverage for abortion procedures without purchasing a separate "abortion coverage" rider. Now don't get me wrong, I'm all for it. However, it does seem that Patricia is exactly correct in her assessment that this is preventing insurance coverage for legal procedures. By the letter of the law, this is akin to preventing coverage for, say, heart surgery or IVF or any number of other perfectly legal medical procedures. That's pretty hard to justify - legally.

Posted by Ridiculous, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Nov 11, 2009 at 9:06 pm

Step It Up,

Why should I read it when Particia said "That means that women will not be able to BUY affordable insurance WITH THEIR OWN MONEY."

That's what she said...I don't know how you can change the words.

"Patricia posted the actual facts. Women participating in the private option OR any participating in insurance program that becomes part of the exchange will be unable to obtain insurance coverage for abortion procedures without purchasing a separate "abortion coverage" rider"

Wait, Patricia said that women will not be able to purchase insurance, now you say they will. What is the real story? I think maybe you and Patricia have a problem with the word "affordable"

Of course this is from a person who apparently believes the government should pay for IVF...that is why this is definitely two sides to the health care story.

Posted by Clear-eyed, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Nov 11, 2009 at 9:18 pm

Thank you, Congressman McNerney, for sifting through all of the rhetoric, refusing to fall for underhanded attempts to slip in last-minute legislation denying a woman the coverage she has already negotitated and paid for, ensuring her health, when those so firmly against abortion would deny it to a woman under ANY circumstances.

Posted by F%@&#%, a resident of the Beratlis Place neighborhood, on Nov 11, 2009 at 9:24 pm

"the coverage she has already negotitated and paid for"

So all women have prepaid for abortion? How much has every woman in America paid for an abortion? What is the negotiated rate for abortion?

Posted by Al, a resident of the Happy Valley neighborhood, on Nov 12, 2009 at 8:20 am

Thanks Congressman McNerney, you did the right thing.

Posted by Patricia, a member of the Vintage Hills Elementary School community, on Nov 13, 2009 at 4:02 pm

Ridiculous

You are right that I wrote: "That means that women will not be able to BUY affordable insurance WITH THEIR OWN MONEY."

You wrote: Somehow Patricia has determined the women will not be able to buy any insurance no matter how much money they have.

Obviously, under this amendment, those with plenty of money can buy health insurance that covers whatever they want -- from abortion to boob jobs. So you are right: the key word here is AFFORDABLE. Those too poor to pay anything get put on Medicaid, which is federally funded and therefore offers no coverage for abortion. That is already law and that status quo would not change under this amendment. The health insurance exchanges set up in the House bill would offer AFFORDABLE coverage for those middle class families who don't get insurance through their employers and AFFORDABLE coverage that small businesses could offer their employees. The Stupak amendment says that insurance companies participating in that exchange are not allowed to include abortion coverage in their plans. Women could purchase "riders" just in case they needed it, but that additional expense would mean bye-bye affordability.

So yeah. You could say I have a problem with the word "affordable." I also have a problem with an amendment that, in reality, will likely result in ALL insurance plans from dropping insurance coverage so they can charge women a premium for a legal medical procedure. That will be, I fear, the ultimate effect of this amendment, should it remain in the final bill.

"Patricia posted the actual facts. Women participating in the private option OR any participating in insurance program that becomes part of the exchange will be unable to obtain insurance coverage for abortion procedures without purchasing a separate "abortion coverage" rider"

Wait, Patricia said that women will not be able to purchase insurance, now you say they will. What is the real story? I think maybe you and Patricia have a problem with the word "affordable"

Of course this is from a person who apparently believes the government should pay for IVF...that is why this is definitely two sides to the health care story.

Report Objectionable Content