I'm Pro-Choice and I am against this provision in the bill. If it were 1970, yes I would agree with it. But it's not and there are other financial resources available for abortions.

In that same vein, I don't believe infertility treatments should be part of the bill either.

We need a HEALTH care bill. A bill about HEALTH. Neither of these conditions are illnesses. Which I know even puts maternity care on the line. And I am torn on that. Yet I can deduce that good maternity care is for the common good.

Let's limit this bill to healing injury and illnesses. Otherwise we go the way of California where even sex change operations are covered.

What if the abortion is for medical reasons?

Off topic, but please get rid
of that God dammed dancing shadow
ad. It is so fucking distracting
I have to move another window over
it to block it out.

Why shouldn't a public plan cover the same things that private plans do?

If the AB is for a medical reasons then an illness is present. Maybe I should clarify (I work in this area, so it seems apparent to me) ... abortions without underlying medical issues should not be covered.

If a woman wants to have an abortion because she does not feel she is prepared to have a child then it should not be covered under a Federal Program. If she can't afford it then she should seek out other resources.

Not all private plans cover abortions.

Wait, so the Republicans want to ration healthcare?

I thought they opposed that?

Strange.

These idiots need to check with their overlords before they open their pie holes. I know that most insurance, if not all, cover abortions. When the greedy have to decide between a very minimal cost procedure or the 9 month cost of pregnancy and birth, they like the lower costs. And god forbid the baby has a genetic defect and insurance get stuck with 18 years of treatment because pre-existing isn't a card they can use on a baby. Ditto for vasectomies and tubal ligation.

BigInsurance is not going to like this non-sense, expect it to go nowhere.

Some States prohibit private insurances from covering abortions.
http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_RICA.pdf

I agree with Coral. If no funding for abortions (except in saving the life of the woman), then no funding for fertility or erectile dysfunction. This is a compromise I could swallow in exchange for a health care program. Things can change in the future.

My health care provider does not pay for abortions or fertility treatments. It does, however, cover erectile dysfunction.

We should probably inform Ms. Bachmann that the new abortion centers will be built right alongside the new census bureau offices.

It should be between a woman and her doctor dipshit and yet it will be used as a leg to try to prevent HC reform. Just disgusting. We are not talking about 'elective procedures' here. The dumbshsittery of these conservatives is just astounding.

Coral, I think you're missing a few things here. First, you're right that not all private insurers cover abortion -- but 90% of them do. I don't know why the public option should not cover something that is covered by 90% of private insurers.

Second, "they can find other resources" is pretty heartless, not to mention unrealistic.

Finally, and most importantly, the idea that covering abortions would lead to skyrocketing costs is absurd. Carrying a child to term is far more expensive than having an abortion. And it results in a whole new human being who will also need a lifetime of healthcare. Forbidding abortions is not about cost savings -- it is about restricting reproductive rights only to those who can buy it.

As someone who agrees with you on the vast majority of the issues, I find this post to be both insulting and tone deaf. I am a Catholic, a Catholic who supports Obama and can't stand the Republican party and what it stands for. I believe that the current health care system in this country is an outrage, and must be fixed.

I believe that abortion is always wrong. It is an act of pure violence, the wilful murder of the unborn. I deplore violence. I strongly oppose war, the death penalty, torture, and support a ban on handguns. I suspect many of you would agree with me on these issues. But let's please be consistent -- let's stop making excuses for abortion, which is also a pure act of violence.

If this bill increases the public funding of abortion, Obama in finished in Catholic circles, and the Catholic Republicans will be gloating. Please don't let this happen. I'm not asking you to agree with me that abortion should not be legal. I'm not even asking you to change the status quo. All I ask is that you show a little respect to the heartfelt beliefs of a large number who support Obama's agenda.

If a woman wants to have an abortion because she does not feel she is prepared to have a child then it should not be covered under a Federal Program.

Who makes that judgment? The doctor? "I'm sorry ma'am. You appear to be an irresponsible whore. Your insurance company frowns on that kind of slatternly, un-Christian behavior and won't pay for the procedure."

oh great, now everybody thinks they can have an opinion on who really owns a woman's uterus, and even whether or not a woman's uterus should be covered by a healthcare program.

Let's try this:
1- a woman owns her own body.
2- her health concerns/decisions are between her and her healthcare expert(s)
3- all her healthcare concerns should be covered under -duh -- a healthcare program.

4- the united states of america is such a silly infantile country.

Just strip out all provisions for abortions, maternity care, erectile dsyfunction, and root canals. Abortion will never go through and perhaps pushing the cost of maternity care onto the parents will make them re-think "miracle babies" with greatly compromised QoL and huge lifetime medical bills.

So what do you want between you and your doctor? A bureaucrat or a culture warrior?

Yes, let's make abortion completely inaccessible for millions of women! Forced pregnancy is a small price to pay to make a political point and/or allow you to feel happy and warm because your religious views are shaping American law.

Or wait, maybe we could let women make decisions about their own bodies, and doctors make decisions about medical options?

I'm actually fine with stripping out all abortion from the bill. Just balance it with a new surtax on the wealthiest 1% of all Americans to pay for all the government services, medical services, foster homes, adoption costs, education and all other costs associated with unwanted children.

Coral,

The correct term is not "sex change operation," but "gender reassignment surgery" or "genital reconstruction surgery" (GRS).

WPATH (World Professional Association for Transgender Health), an organization made up of doctors who advocate for the health and wellbeing of transgender people worldwide, have written a paper on justification for and criteria of the numerous aspects of gender reassignment surgery. Private insurance carriers such as Aetna and Cigna (.pdf) have developed and are evaluating protocols for such insurance coverage, and have discovered that they are cost effective and do not actually increase premiums. Employers who utilize these carriers for their employees' health insurance must opt for the plans which do cover GRS.

http://www.wpath.org

http://www.wpath.org/documents/Med%20Nec%20on%202008%20Letterhead.pdf

Before you denigrate GRS alongside abortion as some moral aberration (hint: neither one is immoral or unnecessary), please educate yourself a little more on the medical needs of the transgender community.

If a woman wants to have an abortion because she does not feel she is prepared to have a child then it should not be covered under a Federal Program. If she can't afford it then she should seek out other resources.

Such as? Planned Parenthood offers all their healthcare services, including abortion, on a sliding scale and pay plan based on income levels, but there isn't exactly an easily accessible abortion provider in every state, let alone every county or major city. The highest costs associated with abortion aren't the procedure itself, but the travel, time off work, and hotel costs a woman incurs when getting the abortion in a clinic far from home, because your anti-choice buddies have managed to shut down a good many health clinics. This disproportionately impacts minority and low-income women, who already have more diffculty accessing preventive contraception in the first place. You can thank your anti-choice buddies for restricting contraception access and insurance coverage, too.

If Congress intended for the health care reform bill to offer a government-sponsored health care plan competitive with private insurers, then those need to include an option for coverage for both abortions, particularly the dangerous, risky, medically necessary late-term abortions where a wanted pregnancy has gone horribly wrong, and GRS, which has been deemed a medical necessity for people with Gender Identity Disorder by the APA and AMA.

Oh, and Morning's Minion? I'll respect the Catholic position on abortion when the church starts respecting already-born children instead of molesting them and then providing sanctuary to the criminals. America isn't the Vatican, the Pope isn't our head of state, and your Bible doesn't double as the Constitution no matter how much you want it to.

Houdini's Ghost:

I am not suggesting that the idea of covering abortions would lead to skyrocketing costs -- covering abortions for non-medical reasons will KILL the bill. Listen to Morning Minion's post.

Unlike in the 70's, women now can go to Planned Parenthood and receive funds that I and countless others have donated for these very reasons. So it is not heartless to suggest that a woman accept the donations that I have made.

And who makes the judgement, Halfdan? The WOMAN does. We are not half-wits who don't understand our own thoughts and actions. We know why we are doing what we are doing.

Part of the problem with HC is that everyone wants everything, and everything should be free. When I went to nursing school, having a vasectomy was not life threatening. But cancer and diabetes and heart disease are. These are the illnesses that bankrupt Americans. As a society we have gotten away from the idea of health and of personal responsibility. And the sad part is that the insurance companies have taken advantage of this attitude and now we all suffer.

Morning's Minion, let me get this straight. You think abortion is always murder. But you think it should be legal. And you think this is a deeply moral set of positions to hold. Does that sum it up accurately?

Spyder @ 12:44 - Try Mozilla Firefox (internet browser) with the "AdBlock" add-on. Problem solved.

@coral: Oh, my mistake, I thought you were saying that abortion coverage should not be in the bill -- is your point actually that IF it is in the bill, the bill will not pass? Because that is a very different argument.

And if you think that women have no problems accessing abortion in this country, since it is not the 70s and also you gave money to Planned Parenthood, you are sadly mistaken.

Who are the 19 Dems?

I'm not even asking you to change the status quo. All I ask is that you show a little respect to the heartfelt beliefs of a large number who support Obama's agenda.

I sympathize with your viewpoint, I really do. But abortion is legal, it is the law of the land. Heartfelt beliefs and the law do not intermingle.

I'm sorry everyone, but I got stuck at the name of this group. The House Values Action Team? They expect to be taken seriously with a name like that?

The House proves all the time that it has no values and it rarely takes action. Go Team!

I don't think so Houdini. I'm in the field.

You don't think so what? Sorry, I honestly don't understand that last one. Are you saying that you agree that women do not actually have free access to legal abortion care? Because earlier it seemed like you thought women can just stroll into a Planned Parenthood clinic. Some can, some can't.

I had abdominal surgeon when I was 20 weeks pregnant. I had an obstruction that required a foot of my intestine to be removed all the while trying to retain the pregnancy. Things went fine until shortly after recovery I went into labor - obviously not the best time. I had no idea what was happening and neither did the doctors until too late. The NURSE asked me if I wanted to abort the baby - it was the only thing to do at that point. I certainly did nothing to want my baby not to survive and have been haunted by her labeling the procedure that way. Right or wrong the procedure is needed in the medical world. The term should be abolished. The choice to have the procedure is up to the woman and her doctor - no legislator should get in the way of deciding that or what is best for me.

Access to any health care is difficult outside of cities, whether it's reproductive or cancer or surgery.

health insurance should cover everything that's legal, anything else just creates more bureocracy etc. My health insurance didn't even cover my prescription birth control, and that seemed very wrong too. It does get back to the patient and her doctor question, if it's medical and you're talking about medical insurance it should be covered...
Similarly, I'm not thrilled by a lot of plastic surgery,but I'd rather have people getting their plastic surgery from doctors who know what they are doing, not from hacks who offer the lowest cost.

"These 30 conservatives, then, are effectively arguing that in at least one instance, the government must come between a woman and her physician, because the lawmakers don't like the legal medical procedure in question."

No, they're arguing public tax dollars should not subsidize procedures many feel are morally repugnant, any more than I wish to pay for someone's breast implants.

And you course you may say that a public would not cover elective and maybe at first it won't. But wait until some stripper or actress challenges the government in court because she has a "right" to health care.

And wait until said court rules that persons do have a "right" to health care no matter what the procedure, abortion, lyposuction, botox implants and so forth.

If a woman does not want to have an abortion she does not have to use the service. it is not right to deny it to others. If a woman does not want to go to a hospital that performs abortions, then don't go to that hospital. If you don't like a benefit don't use it. Leave the benefit for the person who does want to use it.

Settle the abortion yah/nah in a different discussion, the question her is are we going to let republicans decided what procedures are and are not going to be covered. It's that simple, and keep in mind they are the super minority.

We have been down this road a million times, and it's not going to ever be solved, so let's work on the stuff that is solvable.

I'm a guy and I would go nuts if someone, especially someone of the opposite sex and political party wanted to legislate my doctor's advise over my junk. Plus abortions are way cheaper and I'd like to keep the prices down as much as possible. I'm lucky enough to not suffer from the burden of believing in god, so it's pretty clean decision. What is cheaper ?

If they want to argue this or that procedure then they should quite obstructing because I for one don't believe they care about anything but derailing reform. Abortion just happens to make more ears perk-up then the the crap they have tried, including costs.

I too am a Catholic woman who supports Obama wholeheartedly. I do not agree with him 100% of the time nor would I agree with any legislator 100% of the time. But my disagreements are logically made and are not made emotionally or for the sake of morality alone. I am pro-choice because I believe that each person should decide for themselves their choice of birth control methods or health care methods and choices they want for themselves. My religion has not bearing on other peoples choices and should remain out of the separated from this argument about abortion.

I find blocking access to legal abortion care and making it more difficult for women to control their own bodies morally repugnant. Is my moral repugnance worth less than yours, Sean? Why?

coral I think I understand what you're getting at, but if the procedure is covered in the insurance, and the woman has paid the premium, then how is she being irresponsible? I suppose you could argue that poor people whose premium is paid for them are being "irresponsible" but lots and lots and lots of conditions fall into that area. Like emphysema and lung cancer and maybe obesity and diabetes etc. What makes abortion qualitatively different?

(Or maybe I don't get what you're getting at, at all.)

That coral is "in the field" is a scary thought. That reactionary minds have access to control of the field does not give me confidence.

Personal responsibility means just that: personal. It does not give the right of control to the legislature and religious activists. Outside control by non-medical personnel seems to be the core of the Republican's argument against a "public option". Personal responsibility also can change through education and access to new information. Healthcare that does not include access to the latest information in the "field" is irrelevant. We are entitled to information to make informed choices. Personal responsibility includes the pursuit of the latest information on conditions one has been diagnosed with.

I am committed to Oneness through Justice and Transformation
peace,
st john

If coverage is restricted to "treating injuries and diseases," as coral wants, that would leave out every healthy person's annual check-up, wouldn't it?

Houdini's ghost asks: Morning's Minion, let me get this straight. You think abortion is always murder. But you think it should be legal. And you think this is a deeply moral set of positions to hold. Does that sum it up accurately?

There is not always an easy translation from morality to law. I think adultery is gravely unjust, but I'm not for criminalization. Personally, I believe the law should provide some protection for the right to life of the unborn -- but I do not favor locking up women who have abortions (most right-wing po-lifers overlook the stark relationships between abortion and economic deprivation). I don't see a disconnect.

My goal is to end abortion. If we could do that it a wave of a legal wand tomorrow, I would support it. But it's not going to happen. You have to change hearts and minds first. Let me repeat my argument -- abortion is an act of violence, and as such, cannot be defended by appeal to individual rights.

I've been writing a lot about this on the Vox Nova blog, if anybody is interested in the pro-Obama Catholic perspective. See here for example: http://vox-nova.com/2009/07/15/cardinal-cottier-on-obama-and-abortion/

Coral, I challenge your assertion that women can easily get "other resources" from Planned Parenthood. I had a pregnancy scare about a year ago, and looked into abortion at Planned Parenthood. Surgical abortion cost around $550, and when I called the clinic they informed me that they no longer charge on a sliding scale for services. I was broke with no health insurance at the time, and in no way could have afforded that much money. Fortunately it turned out I was not pregnant, but if I had been, please let me know what "resources" would have helped me pay for that abortion.

I call BS, I don't think you work in the reproductive health care field.

And people try to say it's all about the babies, but it's not long until the implications of sluttiness come out-
Sean:
"wait until some stripper or actress challenges the government in court because she has a "right" to health care"

I guess no one but a slutty, slutty stripper or actress would consider abortion coverage a health care right.

I'm a strong supporter of legal abortion, but I agree with Coral and others who say let's keep this out of the health care reform. Having universal health care is just too important a goal to let it get torpedoed by the culture wars. Our concern should be coverage for major medical problems - cancer, heart attacks, bad accidents, kidney failures, etc. These are the things that are destroying families financially. These are the risks we need to protect against.

Abortion is still a relatively affordable procedure. Even the poor can probably find financing through aid organizations.

We just can't risk losing the opportunity for a meaningful helath care reform on this one divisive issue.

So, we have Rs and DINOs that won't support this health care bill because of public options and all that stuff. And now, the argument will be that if there is no express exclusion for abortions, then they will not back it.

However, we have the fact that (as people here have noted) about 90% of private health insurances will cover abortions. But, these Rs and DINOs are taking campaign contributions from these same private insurance companies?

How does that jive with the religious right that they covet and their own rhetoric about abortions?

Again, I feel like there's a little extra hand-waving going on, so tell me if I am getting this wrong.

You would like to criminalize abortion, but you realize that this is politically impossible. Instead, you just want to erect barriers and make it impossible for a certain class of women to exercise their reproductive rights -- which would be the result of caving to conservatives and excluding abortion from the health care reform bill.

And this is because, although abortion is murder and thus indefensible, the government should only protect fetuses through not jailing people for murder. I must say, I remain unconvinced that your religious views should determine which medical services women have access to.

All I ask is that you show a little respect to the heartfelt beliefs of a large number who support Obama's agenda by allowing us to impose those beliefs upon public policy.

Fixed it for you. And no thanks.

How about this: If a woman wants a medical procedure, from an abortion to an appendectomy, she can get one without checking to see if you approve first. Her medical treatment is none of your business.

(And don't bother complaining about taxpayer funding when taxpayers have funded -- or more accurately will fund the repayment of Bush's debt for -- the butchery in Iraq, without Republican Catholics raising a hue and cry.)

First, having taken embryology in college, the idea that abortion is killing a human being, or violence against a human, is flat out ludicrous. It is an embryo until 9 weeks gestation. 52% of abortions occur before 9 weeks. Easier access and a lower stigma could increase that substantially.

I have no choice but to pay taxes on the 533.7 BILLION dollar Pentagon budget. It amounts to at least 33 cents of every tax dollar. Another 33 cents goes to interest on the DEBT which the Republicans have generated for all the military spending, deregulation, loop holes for business taxes that let corporations off 90% of their taxes, and all the tax cuts for the wealthy.

The remaining 33 cents covers EVERYTHING else. So just how much is that Public Option cost of covering abortions going to cost the people whose belief that it is murder is based on religion rather than science? 0.00001 cent? (And despite the fact that the Supreme Court upheld the practice as legal.) The death penalty IS murder. US citizenship is not granted without a certificate of live birth. Ergo, right to life does not apply. (Israel is the only country on earth that gives citizenship from conception - and they still cover abortion in their national health insurance.)

Women have a very unique need to have viable means for Reproduction Control, which is central to reproductive health. This is the incredible disconnect in this whole discussion. (Tweety was discussing this with - an all male panel.) Tubal ligation is done in hospitals, not as an outpatient. Vasectomy is almost totally outpatient. Women's reproductive systems play a huge role in our overall health. Controlling the reproduction option is multifaceted and needs MUCH more support from health care and society.

We could and should start with real sex education - and expand it to SEXUALITY education, for adults as well as pre-teens. STOP funding abstinence based education (another tax I couldn't do anything about.)

Then let's be sure that access to and coverage of CONCEPTION control is ridiculously, stupidly, no brainer easy. That no one can refuse to fill a prescription for a birth control medication because of their personal convictions. That's the law, it's part of the scope of practice for the job. If you can't do your job, get another one. It isn't like these folks got their training without knowing they would have to fill those prescriptions.

Part of my problem with taking the abortion coverage out of the Public option is that it makes it that much harder to get. Yes, there are women who have to go a long ways to find an abortion clinic. We would not need more clinics if the current health care providers could get out from under the Religious restrictions of their boards. They could easily be done in many conventional locations AND, it would reduce the risk of abortion clinic doctors and workers being killed.

FYI. The Values Action Team (VAT) is a group of members of "The Family." See the book by Jeff Sharlet. This is critical to understanding the cognitive dissonance that makes Congress dysfunctional. Until we address that influence, even the lobbyists (some of them also Family members) are amateurs by comparison.

No, they're arguing public tax dollars should not subsidize procedures many feel are morally repugnant, any more than I wish to pay for someone's breast implants.

Next up for the "morally repugnant" crowd: Contraception.

Boink that. As I said before, tax dollars already subsidize plenty of morally repugnant things, from white phosphorus munitions to farm subsidies to agribusiness to to the Bridge to Nowhere to the salaries of Senate Republicans.

The last we need us a bunch of self-righeous busybodies passing judgement on whether they approve of the motivation for a medical treatment.

(Oh, and no, kowtowing to the anti-sex crowd on this issue won't kill the bill, sorry.)

That coral is "in the field" is a scary thought. -- St John, @14:21

My guess is that coral is "in the field" as "an anti". Those people who stand in front of Planned Parenthood clinics, yelling abuse at all who enter, making it necessary for every woman who goes in to have an escort. Two escorts, actually, so that they can vouch for one another, when they're accused of abusing the "antis".

Her "easy access" to Planned Parenthood is pure BS. I'm in rural/small town Virginia. There's a (small but adequate) hospital in my town and there are a couple others within a 5mile driving distance. Planned Parenthood? The nearest I know of is in DC area -- 200miles. And that's, of course, assuming that nobody shoots the doctor and the clinic doesn't close.

All legal procedures should be performed in hospitals and paid for the same as any other procedure. That includes abortions, not just tonsillectomy (an elective procedure, afterall).

Virginia, @15:50. You say:
Abortion is still a relatively affordable procedure. Even the poor can probably find financing through aid organizations.

1) "relatively affordable" is a relative term in itself. Some of the people I see in our Free Clinic (which isn't really totally free), forgo their dental care because they can't afford the $20 pay (an it takes a lot of paperwork to get a waiver). So, $500 for an abortion would be out for them.
2) "aid organisations"... For most of the people here, the "aid organisation" of the first resort is their church. Need I say more?

Off to shill for Dems at the County Fair. Back at 20:00 or a little after.

Personally, I believe the law should provide some protection for the right to life of the unborn

Well, congratulations, then, Minion, because under Roe v Wade, it already does.

If you're suggesting otherwise, you're either ignorant or a liar.

Also: I think adultery is gravely unjust, but I'm not for criminalization.

Well, that's just dandy, but happily no one's suggesting we base law on what you do or do not find "morally repugnant" or "gravely unjust."

The fact that I identified myself as Pro-choice should have been enough to frame my concerns that the bill will not pass if this is included. I have stated that all abortions required for medical reasons should be covered. There is much free birth control and RU486 that abortions for economic or life-style reasons - though I support a woman's right for one - should be paid for from her own pocket. Otherwise it's existance in the public option only undermines efforts to cover the more expensive illnesses and injuries. I feel the same for vasectomies and other non lifethreatening or non suffering conditions. Coverage of MD exams goes without saying.

Coral, indulge me please in a hypothetical: IF Congress has the votes to pass health care reform that includes abortion coverage, do you support that? It seems like part of your objection is pragmatic -- insisting on abortion coverage might kill health care reform entirely. But what if it won't? Should we still cave to people like Michelle Bachmann?

As for "non-suffering" -- being forced to bear a child because you were blocked by ideologues from accessing abortion care sounds like suffering to me. You keep saying that it's so easy to just go to Planned Parenthood or get RU486 or hey look over there! -- but if you are "in the field" as you claim, you must know that this is unrealistic/impossible for a great many women.

Everybody who used the term "subsidy" or "subsidize" above, please slap yourselves in the face. The public option is required by this law to be self-supporting after startup costs.

Rep. Pitts used to be my representative. I can assure you that he is full of the scrapings from a Texas feedlot. The man makes a big deal about being family friendly, but when it actually comes to helping families, the jerk is MIA.

The same applies to those who want to restrict women's access to abortion. I remember seeing a debate years ago where a judge from NY came up against a dingbat Catholic female who was wailing about abortion and claiming that abortion was murder and all the rest of it. The judge had just allowed a 14 year old to get an abortion after being raped by one of her relatives. She got really hot and pointed out that if the antiabortionists would care as much about kids after they were born as they did before, the world would be a much better place.

It's also interesting that those opposed to abortion also are opposed to contraception. Figure that one out.

And why on earth these people think that life starts at fertilization, I'll never know. They should have learned in their high school biology class that independent life starts at ovulation when the ovum separates from the ovary. Of course, that means that every woman who has a period is guilty of murder, or at least manslaughter.

Sean Scallon: they're arguing public tax dollars should not subsidize procedures many feel are morally repugnant, any more than I wish to pay for someone's breast implants.

Tax dollars subsidize lots of procedures that many people feel are morally repugnant, including war and execution. In some districts, the anti-abortion faction may outnumber the pro-choice vote, and the resistant Representatives are probably responding to perceived voter pressure, a sensible tactic in a democratic system. But it's politics.

Houdini my repugnance doesn't cost anything, yours does.

Right now health care plans can cover what they choose to cover. A national plan or public plan would presume to cover everything that is within the law including abortion, even though the Hyde Amendment forbids taxpayer money to be used cover abortion.

Aside from that little problem, the time will come when someone will ask for an elective surgery they feel they need either for employment, beauty, health or personal fullfillment. A rationing board may say no to paying for such treatment, but such rejection could very well lead to court cases that render such rationing irrelevent because the courts may very well decide that healthcare is a "right" as you all seem to believe, ergo we have to pay for it all, inlcuding Viagra (which I WOULD NOT be in favor of covering). Once that happens, the number of persons now entitled to free face lifts, tummy tucks, stomach staples, penile implants and sex-change operations will explode the cost of health care beyond anything we see today.

You have been warned.

Sean, you are misinformed. The Hyde Amendment applies to Medicaid, not the federal government as a whole. Otherwise there would be no reason for conservatives to add amendments to the health care reform bill forbidding payment for abortion, as the Hyde Amendment would do that for them. Or what did you think we were discussing here?

Beyond that, your argument makes no sense. If your fear is that courts will mandate coverage of tummy tucks, those rulings would apply just as well to health care legislation as to the rulings of a "rationing board" -- if a "rationing board" even existed, which as far as I can tell it will not under the current plans.

And if you can't see the difference between a woman exercising her reproductive rights and a face lift, well, what's wrong with you?

Finally, I firmly believe that a public option ought to cover gender reassignment surgery. I assume you don't know any transgender people, if you would so cavalierly lump that in with face lifts and penile implants, whatever those are.