House Democrats Say They Will Not Vote for Final Bill if Stupak Amendment Is In It

"If that is what the Amendment’s language means, it seems that conservative Democrats and Republicans are willing to tell private industry how to run their businesses when it suits their ideological leanings."

Not only that, but it would seem that the ConservaDems and Republicans are quite willing to overlook their oft-stated fears of "government bureaucrats getting between the patient and the doctor" when it comes to those procedures or situations (like the Schiavo case) they find personally/morally objectionable.

The hypocrisy is breathtaking.

It seems there is a lot of disagreement over what the actual bill and the stupak amendment would or would not cover and would or would not force people/insurance companies to do. This is one of those times I really wish there were fewer lawyers in Congress.

I'm not sure why someone doesn't offer an amendment to extend the long-standing Hyde amendment to this legislation. That seems to be President Obama's standard - that the legislation be consistent with that long-standing, if unsatisfying, compromise. I have to wonder why that kind of simple solution isn't considered, much less attempted. I suspect the answer is that both sides of the debate are attempting to change the status-quo in their favor through parliamentary trickery and confusing, lawyer-y legislation. Frankly, the American people deserve better than the travesty this process has become.

It's interesting, at least. Not amusing -- annoying is what these children are, once more -- but of note.

It's understandable that the farther-left lib Dems would object to the amendment, and want it removed from the final legislation. But these people have now weakened the House's bargaining (negotiating) position with the Senate by this stunt (which is what it is), even if they are showing initiative by donig so as early as could be expected, in a possible attempt to influence Senate Democratic legislative efforts.

We'll just have to see what the Senate does -- will it replace the House legislation with a more activist pro-abortion stance in the legislation? And will that help or hinder passage in the Senate, never mind with conference negotiations?

Note also the detail of the Stupak amendment that is being complained about, hypocritically here, which makes the Stupak amendment consistent with other Washington meddling of all other kinds insofar as federal funds and their use are concerned (such as with students accepting financial aid of any kind from the federal government, and what the federal government believes it is entitled to command schools to do on that basis, as well as with the well-known example of conditionality and demands accompanying federal highway funds, for example). I.e., there is nothing special or unusual at all about the amendment.

The other thing I found today that disturbed me is that it also doesn't include coverage for situations like multiple pregnancies that need to be reduced. It's not a particularly common situation, but it is becoming more and more common with fertility treatments where a woman might be carrying several babies and the doctor will determine that those babies will not possibly all make it to term, so they will reduce the pregnancy to twins so that two of them can be carried safely to term.

This is not a situation where someone wants birth control. These are wanted children, but the parents are basically having to decide between losing them all and saving two. To try for months and maybe even years to have a child and then be told that you're going to lose them all because your PRIVATE insurance isn't allowed to cover the procedure... That's beyond cruel.

Let them force it out. Then any House/Senate compromise bill won't pass, as there are too many Democrats from conservative enough districts that it would be political suicide for them to vote for the bill without it.

If this kills Health Care reform, I am all for it.

"then be told that you're going to lose them all because your PRIVATE insurance isn't allowed to cover the procedure"

Having been through infertility treatments, that's not as big a factor as you might think. Infertility is enormously expensive, and rarely covered by insurance, so you have to have money saved up to even consider it. It's like worrying that Limousine owners wouldn't be able to afford a CDL capable driver.

"it seems that conservative Democrats and Republicans are willing to tell private industry how to run their businesses when it suits their ideological leanings."

Well then, being a liberal democrat, you should be all for that kind of governance. It worked for the banking industry, the energy sector, and automotive manufacturers so well (sarcasm).



"disaster for women’s reproductive rights"

Oddly enough, liberals do not want to acknowlege the "right" to keep your pants on or the "right" to not have sex. Let someone else pay for your lack of judgement or common sense. Live high on the hog, sleep around, get pregnant, and be as promiscuous as you want - someone else will pay for it. It's the liberal way.

NPR quoted the actual language of the amendment tonight. What I heard quoted from the bill and what is being summarized above is inconsistent. Actual text of the bill itself is easy enough to read online. It's only four pages long. From what I heard and have read in the bill itself, private insurance is exempt from the prohibition unless one is purchasing with subsidized funds (i.e. not "private"). NPR analysts made that clear also. Concerning the exchange, private insurers can include abortion coverage in their plan but only if they also offer an identical plan that does not include abortion coverage. Given the large exchange market which would desire abortion coverage, it seems logical that private insurance insurers would provide both plans from a business incentive. Further, any non-governmental plan can offer privately paid for supplemental coverage outside there basic plan. While none of this is particularly good news for abortion rights, what I read in the actual bill is far from the prohibition being bantered about above. Here it is and you don't need a lawyer to read it for you (or an op-ed columnist).

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/15284081/Stupak-Ame...

"They’re all vowing to vote No on a bill if it contains the Stupak amendment — enough to sink the bill"

Where have I heard this before? Oh yeah: “A bill without a public option won’t pass the House,” said Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.)

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0809/26203...

Kathy, you left out the third point from the Huffington Post article. That's the part where it unjustifiably dismisses the main argument for why abortion is not unduly restricted in private plans. I've already exhaustively laid out the argument in the previously threads for why the supplemental insurance approach is a reasonable provision that should satisfy the concerns of liberals (at least those willing to accept the current law that public funds should not be used for abortion). But if you want me to try one last time to lay out my argument, let me know and I'll give it a go (or maybe I'll do it anyway when I have more time).

Andy: "It seems there is a lot of disagreement over what the actual bill and the stupak amendment would or would not cover and would or would not force people/insurance companies to do. This is one of those times I really wish there were fewer lawyers in Congress."

It is complicated, but not unjustifiably so. The law is that public funds can't be used for abortion. This is the first time (I understand) that public funds have been used to subsidize private insurance plans (at least ones that could offer abortion coverage). So it's no wonder that this problem has come up. The fix for it is complicated because the public-private system that is being proposed is complicated. But I think I have a good understanding of the amendment after several threads of discussing and analyzing it, and it seems to me that the provisions are necessary to ensure that the public funds are not used for abortion, and it does not go further than it has to to accomplish that.

Believe it or not, infertility treatments are in fact covered on my own health insurance plan. I know because I almost had to have them myself. My sister-in-law is also about to start with them, and hers are covered as well.

Of course, I'm sure that these people can afford supplemental coverage for such a procedure, but that's assuming that they've already considered that there's a one in a million chance of that specific problem occurring-- like buying specific insurance for high blood pressure. There's no way of telling which of the gazillions of problems you might have with your pregnancy.

Then there's the question of whether or not they decided to purchase the insurance well before they knew that they'd need fertility treatments. Remember that denying of coverage due to pre-existing condition only applies to plans sold within the exchange. These supplemental plans likely would not be sold there. So insurers could safely assume that you might be a risk for payout on that kind of procedure should you wait until then to get it and simply deny coverage.

That would leave only the wealthy to be able to have the procedure, since they could pay out of pocket, and the middle and lower classes could ATTEMPT the fertility treatments and be SOL should a problem occur.

All that aside, let's still consider that there are conditions which may not necessarily result in the mother's death but still could should the pregnancy continue. These situations may STILL not be qualified for coverage. Preeclampsia comes to mind, in particular, should it develop into HELLP.

The problem with this argument is that you assume a woman who has an abortion plans for it. The problem is that you're also assuming that an abortion is only used with an unwanted pregnancy. What I've been trying to hammer through here is that women do not necessarily expect the long list of complications that can and do happen with a pregnancy that they might have actually planned. And the last thing they expect to be told is, "Ma'am, you need to terminate this pregnancy now, or you're going to have some serious complications (or worse)." You might even assume that these procedures would be covered, should it come to that. Unfortunately, the language in this bill says that that's not always the case. These procedures also qualify as "abortion."

Statistically speaking, one in every three women will have an abortion. Those are some high numbers, and they're mostly from women who never in their wildest dreams would have ever thought they'd have to have one.

Let's not pretend that this is about saving unborn babies. John Kyle already shot that one down with his little speech about how prenatal care shouldn't be included-- something that would likely kill far more unborn babies than abortion ever would. This is a plan and simple case of a Congress mostly made up of men who don't understand the first thing about the complications of women's health.

Now, let's put a male spin on this... Let's say that they applied the same rules to treatment for diseases like epididymitis. Google it. I'll wait. It results (mostly) from venereal diseases, but then there are some cases where you could get it even if you were living a "Godly" lifestyle. But you could of course get a rider for it. How many men do you think would be thrilled about that? What if you knew that Joe Biblethumper doesn't want you to get treatment because there's some obscure chance that maybe $1 of his money might go some other guy's irresponsible sexual practices?

Oddly enough, I also find it strange that there's no outrage over the possibility that tax dollars might go toward paying for Viagra prescriptions. Why is that, exactly?

When we asked about insurance coverage, we were told that it was fairly rare, with a notable exception for the local pharmaceutical company's employees. For some reason, the drugs were extremely expensive, so we would have been SOL if we hadn't saved up the money.

"All that aside, let's still consider that there are conditions which may not necessarily result in the mother's death but still could should the pregnancy continue."
That would all come down to what degree of "threat" to a woman's life would be covered under the amendment. It sounds like another feast for lawyers.

I'm all for any self inflicted wounds progressives want to deliver on the Pelosi bill.

If they ever did get a pro-abortion public healthcare option passed, I have to think the Roman catholic church might make good on their threat to close those 624 hospitals that they run and shut down, thats 12.7% of all the hospitals in their communities, also 15.7% of admissions, and 20%+ in 21 states. They also tend to be most prevalent in poorer communities, and provide more public health and specialty services than any other healthcare providers, local and state government, other non profits, or private. Birthing rooms, community outreach services, childhood psychiatric services, breast cancer screening, geriatric services, community health education, nutrition services, social work services, etc.

Some information on these services for those interested can be found here:
http://www.chausa.org/NR/rdonlyres/68B7C0E5-F9A...

I wonder how the Progressive would like to be held responsible for shutting down such a sizable chunk of the American healthcare network. They could actually prevent medical services for more Americans than they plan to provide for with their bill.

leonidas -

Sorry, even I cannot see the Catholic Church closing all their hospitals over this. Never going to happen.

"The problem with this argument is that you assume a woman who has an abortion plans for it. "

Health insurance is mostly about planning for unexpected events, so I don’t see the problem with that. And the amount of “planning” that needs to be done would be minimal. The insurance companies have the incentive to make it as easy as possible to sign up for the supplemental insurance. I don’t see why it would be any more complicated than checking a box on an application form. Also, the cost of the supplemental insurance is likely to be miniscule since the probability of someone needing an abortion, and the cost of abortions relative to all the other potential medical procedures someone might need, is small.

"The problem is that you're also assuming that an abortion is only used with an unwanted pregnancy."

I am not assuming abortion is only needed for unwanted pregnancies. I am assuming that (a) most people understand that and will take that into consideration when deciding whether to check the box to opt for the supplemental insurance or not, and (b) insurance companies have an incentive (both because they make more money and also because they will likely be regulated to ensure that they do it) to make the supplemental insurance look as attractive as possible and so will be sure to inform the customer of all the possible reasons they could need the coverage. What’s so wrong about letting the customer make the choice?

"And the last thing they expect to be told is, "Ma'am, you need to terminate this pregnancy now, or you're going to have some serious complications (or worse)." "

In such a case it would not be a stretch to argue that that is "life threatening". On another thread someone said that the same language is used in the provision for medicaid, and "life threatening" is interpreted to mean more than just "you will die if you don't get this done". Even minor complications increase the risk of death, so there's still a lot of wiggle room in "life threatening". In addition, my argument above that most people will understand that risk applies here as well.

"epididymitis"

I'm not aware of any moral objection to treatment for epididymitis. I don't object to abortion because it might result for immoral behavior. I object to it because a consider a fetus to be a form of human life (not as strongly as some conservatives. I don't go as far as to consider abortion "murder").

"Oddly enough, I also find it strange that there's no outrage over the possibility that tax dollars might go toward paying for Viagra prescriptions. Why is that, exactly?"

I don’t think a significant percentage of people have a moral objection to Viagra. We could see it as a waste of tax-payer money, but then it just gets added to the end of a very long list we could complain about. It is different question than whether tax-payer money should go toward abortion.

I'm a proud Bart Stupak Democrat! Thank you, Mr. Stupak, for doing what is right instead of what is politically expedient.

"Actual text of the bill itself is easy enough to read online. It's only four pages long."

Earlier, when it was relevent, I posted a link to the Capps amendment -- I wonder if anyone here read the text, though.

"It's the liberal way."

Risk-free, responsibility-free, judgment-free, values-free. Everything given to you for "free," too.

"I wonder how the Progressive would like to be held responsible for shutting down such a sizable chunk of the American healthcare network. "

They would be generous, and not necessarily want the people closing down the facilities to be jailed or fined -- but they would probably want the facilities seized and forcibly made public non-profit facilities (and without compensating the owners for loss of income or lost present and future profits, i.e., they would unconstitutionally expropriate these people, just to teach them a Chavez-and-Stalin-style lesson).

"Thank you, Mr. Stupak, for doing what is right instead of what is politically expedient."

What Stupak obviously did was, clearly and precisely, to moderate the extremism of House lib Dems.

No, you don't have to explain how the supplemental insurance approach works -- I understand the mechanics of it now. I am curious to know why you think Jessica Arons' problems with it are "unjustifiable." I think her point that it's absurd to expect someone to prepare in advance for an unexpected event like a problem pregnancy (not a pregnancy -- a problem pregnancy) is a very fair one. As just one example, from my own life, when I became pregnant with my first child, my then-husband and I certainly had no expectation that the fetus would have Tay-Sachs disease -- indeed, we hadn't even heard of Tay-Sachs disease before. Who expects that kind of outcome?

Also, in our particular case, there was the added factor of my then-husband having been tested for Tay-Sachs carrier status after I found out I was pregnant. And the pregnancy was very much wanted by the way. The first time either of us heard the word "Tay-Sachs," was when the ob-gyn confirmed my pregnancy and asked us if we had been tested before conceiving to find out if we were carriers for Tay-Sachs. We hadn't, obviously -- so the doctor had Dave tested and sent the test to a lab, which screwed up the results, showing a false negative. So we didn't even know Abigail had Tay-Sachs until after she was born and started showing signs of being abnormal in her development.

However, IF the test had been analyzed correctly, and if I had then been tested to see if I was a carrier (which obviously I am), we would have chosen to abort the pregnancy. We never had that opportunity because of the incorrect lab results, which led us to believe the fetus was not Tay-Sachs-affected. But if the testing had been done as it should have been, and we had learned, after conceiving, that we both were carriers for Tay-Sachs, and if we then had had the fetus tested, and found out she did indeed have Tay-Sachs, I would have had an abortion. And in that circumstance, I would have had no reason to believe I would have a problem pregnancy.

(I realize this real-life example is a bit convoluted when you haven't actually lived it, so questions are fine.)

Awesome comment, Al. I just read AD's response, and he still doesn't get it, but it's not for lack of clarity on your part.

"This is the first time (I understand) that public funds have been used to subsidize private insurance plans (at least ones that could offer abortion"

No, that's patently false. Everyone who has employer-provided insurance has "public funds" supporting their "private insurance." In fact, as I noted in another thread, if you include everyone on government funded plans (40%) and everyone on employer-provided plans (27% I think), you're very close to 70% of people TODAY who receive "public funds" as a part of their health insurance. If those like me with individual plans finally get to pay in pre-tax dollars, then 100% OF AMERICANS WILL HAVE PUBLIC FUNDING of their insurance. The federal government right now pays $2,000 a year of your insurance through reduction of government revenue and increasing the deficit and debt.

That depends on your point of view, GreenDreams. To describe the tax exemption as a subsidy implies that $2000 was originally in the government's pocket, which is one way to see it. I'd describe it as $2000 the government has failed to confiscate in this one scenario.

That said, I completely support removing or reversing this incentive to get insurance through your employer rather than directly. It's a terrible distortion that, among other things, keeps the private insurers in power.

I reject the HuffPo argument because:

1) Health insurance is mostly about planning for unexpected events. There are lots of things that could be covered by a health insurance plan that I have never even heard of before. Let’s do a though experiment. I want to buy health insurance, and you want to sell me a plan. You tell me you have 2 plans you could sell me. One which covers treatment for XYZ disease I’ve never heard of, and costs $5 a month more, and one that does not cover that disease. Would I automatically take the cheaper one just because I’ve never heard of XYZ disease and therefore never expect to get it? No, I’d likely either just take the more expensive one to make sure I’m safe, or do some research to figure out if I really need that coverage.

2) The amount of “planning” involved is minimal. The insurance company has an incentive to make sure you are informed of the supplemental insurance (and all the reasons why you might want to get it), and will make it as easy as possible to add it on to the base plan (ie. “Check here if you’d like the supplemental abortion coverage”)

3) I don’t accept your argument that most people never expect to ever need an abortion. It is common knowledge that birth control is not 100% effective, and it is also common knowledge that complications can develop during pregnancy. Therefore, with a few seconds of thought (prompted by the checkbox on the insurance application form), it should be obvious to almost any woman that abortion coverage might be useful for them (unless of course they believe they would never want to abort even if there were non-life threatening complications, which is their choice). Your real-life scenario is interesting, but it doesn't change the fact that people understand that complications can develop during pregnancy.

We’ve been around this circle many times and it’s clear I’m not going to convince you, so let me take a different angle.

The current status quo is that no federal dollars can be used for abortion. If you don’t like that status quo, of course you’re not going to like the amendment, but most people (including many pro-choice people) accept that status quo. Liberals are trying to say that the amendment goes beyond the status quo, so let’s explore that.

Let’s try to create an amendment that will maintain the status quo of no federal funding for abortions but not restrict that coverage in private markets, given the system that the health care bill creates. What would that amendment look like? If the government subsidizes a plan that covers abortion, then obviously that is federal funding for abortion, so obviously that’s not acceptable. So at a minimum we need to prohibit plans that cover abortion from receiving federal subsidies. Do you agree with that? So then how can we make sure that people who want abortion coverage can still get it? We can do two things (and the Stupak amendment does both):

1) Allow insurance companies to provide alternative plans that cover abortion, but those plans can’t receive federal funds, so they can only be purchased by people that don’t qualify for the subsidy.
2) Allow insurance companies to provide “rider” insurance coverage that covers abortions that can be purchased separately, whether or not the consumer qualifies for federal subsidies for their base plan.

What else can we do to allow people to get abortion coverage that want it, while still not providing federal funds for abortion?

If you can’t answer that question but still don’t like the amendment, then I would suggest maybe we shouldn’t be creating a mixed public/private system in the first place if there’s no way to make it consistent with an existing law that the majority of Americans support.

"No, that's patently false."
I can see how there might be some gray area there, but to say its patently
false is overstating your case just a bit. To say that "not taxing"
something is equivalent to "subsidizing" it is at best arguable ad at worst
patently false.

The government gives my church a tax. Does the government subsidize my
church? That would be unconsitutional.

The government taxes me less on the lower half of my income than it does on
the higher half. Does the government subsidize me?

a dollar is a dollar, adelinesdad. A tax incentive is a subsidy for certain behaviors and is an expenditure just as surely as a company giving you a coupon that reduces their profit. The fact is that you pay $2,000 a year less for insurance than I do. Why? Because the government is paying part of it.

AD,

I don't trust myself to answer anything you've written above. And I can see it would not make any difference, anyway.

We'll have to agree to disagree.

leonidas -

Sorry, even I cannot see the Catholic Church closing all their hospitals over this. Never going to happen.

I can see it happening.

Remember this:

http://www.slate.com/id/2205326

I can't see the government being able to keep the legislation should the Catholic hospitals close and overnight eliminate such a sizable portion of the healthcare infrastructure. The Catholic Church can wait out the currently elected government, but the government cannot outwait the Catholic Church.

What they would possibly be able to do it to purchase all the Churches medical assets if the church was willing to sell them, but that would have a sizable pricetag and the transition time would be likely chaotic. There would certainly be political consequences to such a disruption and I could see the Catholic vote swinging heavily to the GOP for the next few election cycles.

I can see how a tax break and subsidy are the same *in effect*. However, it
seems to me that the law considers them differently otherwise the
consitutionality of the tax break that church's receive would have been
deamed unconsitutional (and I know of at least one organization that would
have made that challenge if they felt they had a case). And the law is what
we are talking about here: both the law that abortion is legal and the law
that abortion cannot be funded by tax-payer money.

In any case, I'm not sure what is the point you are trying to make. Are you
saying that tax-payer money already funds abortion because of these tax
breaks? If that's your view, then those tax breaks break the law as well.
Or are you saying that the subsidies don't break the law because the tax
breaks don't either? I think it's clear that if the government subsidizes
something, by definition is is helping to fund it. So, even if you make a
good point about tax breaks, I don't think it disproves the point that the
amendment is necessary to avoid federal funding of abortions.

The point is that MOST Americans receive federal help with their insurance, so this little amendment could result in elimination of the ability of insurance companies to sell policies that cover a legal medical procedure. You want to micromanage insurance companies to suit a moral and religious position? (Federal takeover of health care, DLS). It's a back door attempt to again take away a woman's fundamental right to self determination. The following is from another thread. Your comment?

Ok, once again, let's talk constitutional rights. Our citizens are protected, and who is a citizen is precisely defined. They are entitled to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." A citizen was BORN here or NATURALIZED. There is no constitutional protection for a mass of cells that MIGHT become a baby citizen. There are over 100 reasons a pregnancy might not proceed to a live birth, so that is not a citizen but a POTENTIAL citizen. Currently, there is no requirement, in any law federal, state or local, in which one citizen is required to make a medical decision to protect the life of a current citizen, let alone a potential one. For example, a parent cannot be required to give a kidney or even blood for her own child. Should that change? For that matter, why not force ANY citizen to give a kidney or blood to save another's life?

A woman IS a citizen, and her rights are protected. If a mass of cells in her uterus that MIGHT become a citizen is to have ITS rights elevated above the ACTUAL, living citizen, that is a slippery slope indeed. There is no circumstance under our constitution in which you can be forced to undergo or not to undergo a medical procedure to benefit another person. If the fetus (or morula if it's not a fetus yet) has greater rights than the living citizen, then a pregnant woman could also be forced to stop all medical treatment (chemotherapy, blood thinners, blood pressure medication, etc.) that could threaten the viability of the fetus. Take a look sometime at the drugs that are contraindicated in pregnancy. It's almost ALL prescription and many OTC drugs. So now a woman must risk her life and health to benefit another citizen, oops, a noncitizen POTENTIAL life.

Now consider that pregnancy itself is statistically way more risky than abortion, to the woman. Regardless of how you feel about abortion, you are suggesting that a woman who becomes pregnant must be required by law to take the riskier path, medically speaking. She no longer has the right to make her own decisions about "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

By what right, and on what legal basis do you suggest that any person's constitutional rights should be subordinated to the rights of another, especially a mass of cells that very well might not become a live birth?

Think about it. You who rail about a "federal takeover of health care" now suggest that the feds take from women their fundamental right to make medical decisions based on their own and their physicians' best judgment. Talk about nanny state!

There is no constitutional protection for a mass of cells that MIGHT become a baby citizen.

And this is the ultimate irony of the Democratic platform. For a party that historically has championed the cause of the marginalized, the underpaid worker, the poor, the aged, and the vulnerable, we turn around and pretend as if the most vulnerable among us simply don't exist. Forget the whole gay rights question that we chase our tail on too many times on TMV and - disagreements to the contrary - will likely end up being resolved on a state-by-state basis. On abortion, on this one issue of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," if the Dems would apply these sacred words to the "least" among us, if we were to have a sincere change of heart, then we would solidify our moral leadership in America for generations to come. If you haven't read Dr. E's essay on Fort Hood's 14th victim, take the time to do so. It's good stuff.

"You want to micromanage insurance companies to suit a moral and religious position?"

No, I want to maintain the status quo regarding federal funding, which is that women are free to have an abortion, but federal funds cannot go toward it. Liberals are painting the picture that the amendment moves us in a pro-life direction, when in fact the amendment simply reconciles the current health care proposal with the current ban on federal funding of abortions. It is the liberals who want to move us in a pro-choice direction by allowing federal subsidies to go toward abortion.

The rest of your comment is irrelevant to this discussion. I'm not arguing about whether women have a right to an abortion or not. Just because something is a right does not imply that it must be subsidized by the federal government.

You two are too caught up in this cute baby thing to consider the inconvenient thing like the constitution and medical fact. Have a nice day.

I don't recall saying anything about cute little babies, nor am I particularly opposed to ugly or large ones. And I did consider the constitutional argument for long enough to determine that it is irrelevant to the topic of federal funding for abortions.

Why thank you, my day has been nice so far.