Your post is too vague. What abortions must the public option pay for? What abortions would not be paid for?

You come off sounding that you want all abortions paid for, and combined with the frequent demands here, at lgm, pandagon and many other places for no limits on abortion at all up until birth, well,

the perfect is the enemy of the good

Anon, good question. Here's another good question: How much male reproductive health must the public option pay for? Are you for some extreme "no limits" approach for how healthy men can be?

Abortion is a legal medical procedure, and whether a patient should have one or not is a decision to be left to the doctor and patient.

You can't have it both ways: you can't complain that public insurance shouldn't interpose the government between a doctor and patient... and then demand that the government do precisely that.

Finally, this is an insurance plan, and that's not really "federal funding", i.e. Congressional spending. It's money paid into a health insurance plan by people to cover healthcare costs, period.

Anon,

All of them. I know you're about to spring the "partial-birth abortion" BS, but I'm not buying it. Dr. Tiller was the perfect example of a provider of necessary late-term abortions, unless you've got a good reason why a baby with no brain and all of its organs outside its body should be born. Naturally, though, I think the program should cover birth control as well -- I can't think of too many reasons why a woman who finds herself needing an abortion wouldn't have used it in the first place aside from the cost.

Jeremy, could you explain what exactly you're objecting to? Let's face it, a simple glance at an anatomy textbook will reveal that women have far more complicated reproductive systems, and thus tend to require more medical care in that area, for example when they push babies out their vaginas. I don't think that's a knock against men, since I am one, it's just the way things are. I think I'm kinda fortunate in that all I really need to keep my kit-and-caboodles safe is a 50 cent disposable latex sheath that goes outside my body.

And you have to be a truly spiteful dittohead to say, in effect, "Why can't I have as many free surgeries as women?" Think, for one goddamn second, about what you're really asking for. I mean, you want a free vasectomy, by all means go out and get one. You could get a free castration, too, I guess.

I'm just trying to think of fun ways for you to flip the bird to all those happy bubble-gum-chewing women having free abortions and then going surfing directly afterwards, or whatever you're envisioning. Hell, you could get some kinda man-episiotomy! I'm sure you'll feel like a champ.

WHEN is somebody going to start calling "centrist" Democrats what they are: Right-wing "Democrats"?

Just 5?

Tell 'em to suck it, and get lost.

Switch teams if you don't like it.

Replicating the Alan Grayson approach--running smart, pugnacious, strong progressive candidates even in purple or red districts is soooooo much the better approach, certainly long-term, than coddling these kind of squishy, stealth-Republican backstabbers.

The only convincing 'bending the curve' I see lately are these DINO creeps pulling Obama's agenda up short at every turn.

It's crazy-making.

If Meek thinks this is a good way to get me to support him for his Florida Senate race, well, I hate to say it but I might just have to sit that one out.

Judyinnm: Excellent point. I would also appreciate it if the term "conservative" were not automatically accorded to right-wing morons.

The health plan I have wouldn’t cover speech therapy for my son. And it doesn’t pay for immunizations/well baby care after 18 months. My wife had terrible scarring after her two pregnancies, and it didn’t cover her tummy tuck. I’m sure it doesn’t cover abortions. That doesn’t seem shocking to me. Actually, in terms of pooling risk, and in the context of the stuff I’d want my plan to cover that it doesn’t, I wouldn’t want to be paying premiums that cover other people’s abortions, unless they were medically necessary. Nothing for or against abortion rights, but that wouldn’t be in line with the coverage my plan otherwise provides.

Right-wing DINOs were by and large elected in formerly red districts, and their primary goal (as with ALL political scum) is to keep getting re-elected. If their constituency were cannibals, they'd be supporting legislation to boil missionaries.

The one element that seems almost entirely absent in today's 'pragmatic' political arena is principle.

Given a choice between standing up for your principles and protecting your political career and perks, almost everybody ends up pandering.

John Quincy Adams summed up the proper attitude for a good citizen in a democracy:

"Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost."

And that is why, going forward, I will never vote for any candidate of the two major pander parties.

Starting in 2010, progressives should either sit it out, or vote third-party. As long as the Democrats believe the progressives will vote for them out of fear of a return of Bush-style governance, they will ignore us and spend all their time cultivating the morons in the middle who can't reason their way to a principled position on any issue and so take the syncretist path of trying to combine conflicting elements of both sides.

Centrists are the people who would have agreed with King Solomon's wry offer to split the disputed baby in half and give a part to each claimant.

Andrew Carnegie put it correctly: "The 'morality of compromise' sounds contradictory. Compromise is usually a sign of weakness, or an admission of defeat. Strong men don't compromise, it is said, and principles should never be compromised."

And, as Jim Hightower is fond of saying, "There is nothing in the middle of the road but Yellow Stripes and Dead Armadillos.

I will point out two things:

A) The right wing is not inconsistent in insisting the government get between a woman and her doctor in cases of abortion, since they see it as the government protecting the baby from the woman and her doctor. I don't agree with their position, but I won't pretend it is inconsistent when it is not.

B) Conversely, all abortions are medically necessary, because if a woman does not want to carry a baby to term, it is medically necessary to remove it from her womb.

The "I don't want to pay for..." argument is going to get a whole lot of exercise in the next couple years, and I just hope we work it out before they come for my bacon and my cigarettes and my beer...

As for principles , the problem is we have far too many of them, and if every legislator stood only on his principles, nothing would get done. To stand on 'your principles' of when human life begins is to be at war with everyone else over it, while to stand on 'your principles' that to compromise with varying opinions (and in this case decide it is beyond the scope of law to decree, leaving it up to the mother and HER principles) is the civilized course is somehow less principled?

In reference to the Carnegie quote, as 'bernardpliers' put it so well in a comment on Daily Kos:

"It's all about looking for the abusive parent figure as a leader, and beating up anyone who shows a sign of weakness."

PS: am I the only one who has an incredibly difficult time with the Captcha here? I feel like typing a question mark at the end every time I try it (which is multiple times per post.)

Actually, in terms of pooling risk, and in the context of the stuff I’d want my plan to cover that it doesn’t, I wouldn’t want to be paying premiums that cover other people’s abortions, unless they were medically necessary.

You're arguing that you want your health plan to pay 10 times more so the woman in question can get prenatal care and give birth -- plus the additional healthcare costs of the resulting child -- rather than pay a one-time fee of $400 for an abortion.

If you're talking about cost, I think it's pretty clear which one is more cost-effective unless you're going to also argue that health plans shouldn't cover prenatal, birth and pediatric care for unplanned pregnancies.

tmaxPA : B) Conversely, all abortions are medically necessary, because if a woman does not want to carry a baby to term, it is medically necessary to remove it from her womb.

Well put. I am all for a government health plan covering reproductive health measures, including contraception, counseling and yes, abortion.

People who don't want babies should be given ample opportunity to stop it from happening, including abortion.

[i] You're arguing that you want your health plan to pay 10 times more so the woman in question can get prenatal care and give birth -- plus the additional healthcare costs of the resulting child -- rather than pay a one-time fee of $400 for an abortion.[/i]

I don’t believe most abortion decisions come down to whether or not it’s covered by insurance. I’d support a program to help low income people afford abortions.

Are you kidding me? Insurance companies will be thrilled to pay for abortions; it's that many fewer health-benefit plan participants who might do something expensive, like have normal lives that require visits to the doctor and treatment for medical issues. (/snark)