House Representatives Vote No on Women's Rights, Yes on War

The House voted yesterday and the anti-women's health Stupak amendment passed 240 to 194, with one member voting present.

Sixty four Democrats voted yes on the Stupak amendment, which effectively bans insurance companies from selling insurance plans that cover elective abortion on the individual and small group market.

Firedoglake calls this "one of the most far reaching national [restrictions] placed on abortion in decades. It could also [potentially] be used by insurance companies to allow them to legally discriminate against low income Americans."

Many of the Democrats who voted in favor of the Stupak amendment will surely boast they did so because they are the sentinels of human life. Of course, these Democrats are only concerned with protecting certain types of life.

In preparation for such pharisaic claims, I compared the list of 64 Democrats with the roll call for HJ Res 114, the bill that authorized the United States Armed Forces to invade Iraq.

Nineteen of the Democrats who voted for the Stupak amendment also authorized the United States to invade Iraq (one representative, Ortiz, chose not to vote, which in a time of war, is just as bad as voting "aye.")

The so-called Democratic representatives that voted in favor of the Iraq invasion and for the Stupak amendment are: Robert Berry (AR), Mike Ross (AR), Sanford Bishop (GA), Baron Hill (IN), Stephen Lynch (MA), Collin Peterson (MN), Gene Taylor (MS), Ike Skelton (MO), Bob Etheridge (NC), Mike McIntyre (NC), Earl Pomeroy (ND), Paul Kanjorski (PA), John Murtha (PA), Tim Holden (PA), John Spratt (SC), John Tanner (TN), Jim Matheson (UT), Bart Gordon (TN) (voted "aye" on Stupak and "nay" on final bill) and Solomon Ortiz (TX) (didn't vote in Iraq authorization roll call).

All of these representatives are male, and with the exception of Sanford Bishop and Solomon Ortiz, they're white, and ten are from Southern states. None of them are poor. This is the kind of unrepresentative, elite club that gets to vote on sending our soldiers to possibly die after killing many innocent people in distance lands, and this Rich Boys' Club also occasionally votes to steal rights from poor women.

What's even sadder is that Southern states have historically high rates of unplanned pregnancies, which makes the need for women's health alternatives, including contraception (also not terribly popular in religious areas of the south) and abortion, all the more great. The Stupak amendment only ensures that poor, desperate girls will have to resort to terrible measures in order to terminate unwanted pregnancies.

Meanwhile, the Iraq authorization has resulted in the deaths of anywhere between hundreds of thousands and a million Iraqi civilians in addition to 4,000 US troops without counting the deaths of US allies.

These 19 Democrats voted in favor of a horrific, pointless war based on a lie, and have now voted to suppress the rights of poor women. This means they would rather authorize the US military to bomb, maim, and murder innocent civilians than allow a woman to make a personal decision about her own body.

If it goes to war like a Republican, and votes against women's rights like a Republican...

I can't wait for the primaries.

Cross-posted from Allison Kilkenny's blog. Also available on Facebook and Twitter.

 

Follow Allison Kilkenny on Twitter: www.twitter.com/allisonkilkenny

Comments

[britainy]

I am SO sick of this argument. Listen, I'm a woman, a young one, and I'm sick and tired of being included in such a blanket statement on "womens rights". I for one believe life is precious. I believe that abortion is a selfish act done by people who don't want to take responsibility for their actions. I am a woman, and I have no problem with the 'right' to abortion taken away from me. Because once there's a life growing inside of you, it's not just your body anymore.

[research]

Even if a rapist put it there?

[britainy]

Why is it pro-choicers use this argument so often as though it made up half of the cases? Should we base all of our laws on such small percentages and Newton's law? Terrible things like that do happen, and it's a tragedy. But even so, I hear the argument all the time that we'd never be able to differentiate between true rape abortion cases and liars if abortion was only legal in rape cases. It's simple, if there was no initial police report of rape, then you've made your own bed. And yes, I am THAT unselfish that I would keep it. We take far too much for granted, including life. For me, it has nothing to do with religion (I'm agnostic), just the fact that I take responsibility for my actions, and have plenty of respect for life.

[Bailey Reynolds]

The hypocrisy of the "pro-life" community is revolting.

[worldlyhick]

Botched abortions in parts of the world where abortion is not obtainable legally is one of the major causes of youthful death.

I heard this on an NPR discussion about the large numbers of young people dying by preventable causes worldwide.

[Handyman2]

Pro- Choice / Pro-Life. There are NO easy answers and NO absolutes. As a Progressive Democrat, I have never had to face the issue personally and don't think I know of anyone who has. (Perhaps they have and I didn't know it.) Although outlawing abortions seems to me to be unworkable, as history has proven, I'm morally opposed to obortions as a way of avoiding an inconvenience. That is, however, a moral and personal question and not under most circumstances an issue for the State. So, I guess I'm Pro-Choice...sort of (maybe). That being said, the whole abortion issue has undercut a progressive agenda on so many levels. For many people, it's the ONLY issue and that, unfortunately, means that issues that touch an even greater number of lives, like health care, national defense (wars), economy, education, welfare, etc. etc. are considered only through the "eyes of the abortion issue". As a result, a more progessive agenda is sidetracked. We can't let that happen again on Health Care. The abortion issue can destroy what has been accomplished thus far. Please don't let tha happen.

[research]

perfectly consistent, if you vote to fund more war crimes, you also vote to ensure the supply of fodder to fight those wars.

Rich people will always be able to get safe abortions.

[Citizen-Jane]

Agree. And thanks Research for putting that out there.

[garynoel]

Actually it is not whether to kill or not, it is who makes the choice, men or women. There is a lot of research which shows two basic mating strategies. Either the females get to choose their preference in males (which can be helped by abortion), or the males who can kill the other males get to rape the females. Naturalists can tell which strategy a species uses by the relative size of the males to females. If females choose, the sizes are close to the same, if the males fight it out, the males are much larger than the females. There are cases in insects and spiders, where the females fight it out and then they are much bigger than the males.

This is the basic dynamic which plays out in the Iliad by Homer. Helen wants the smaller Paris, but he has to fight it out with the her much larger Greek warrior husband who has come to demand her.

This is the dynamic which still plays out in human society. I am sorry to look at this problem is such a scientific light but this really is a part of human and non human nature which does cause, and is causing a societal split. In more isolation, it could over the long term be the cause of species split.

Understanding the big picture may lead to more insight in the immediate struggles.

[GreatNews27]

Until women refuse to be second-class citizens, they will be second class citizens. Now please go an stand at the back of the bus. We white men will let you know when and where you can get off.

[Countess]

You are so right about this! This is part of the movement to the right in both parties which embraces the values of right wing republican born agains and will result in a backward looking society ready to keep women down while giving the pentagon unlimited funding for stupid wars which will make us less safe than ever before.

[blizb]

This is about tax dollars.

In order to preserve choice tax dollars can't fund choice.

All tax dollars come with control

You can't have choice if accepting money in the way of tax dollars will control the choice.

By leaving it out of the bill it preserves your right to choice and your right not to be under any control over your choice by accepting money from tax dollars that will come with control and conditions.

[Kassandra]

When all a country can do is butch it up for war, the last thing on anyone's minds (sic) are the rights of wimmin. Actually it makes sense, in a sickening way, that they force poor wimmin to have children for their war apparatus. Which is, I fear, what is happening here.

Look at who the military has been forced to take into itself to plump out it's ranks: illegal immigrants with the promise of citizenship; convicts with the promise of lighter or sentence rescission...all sorts of bully boys and wimmin who need to go because they've lost their health insurance, homes and jobs.

I suspect strongly that America is turning into the military arm of the Global Government and, as such, will be taking away all sorts of things to force the least of us into the service. And the ones who can't go? Who cares

This attack on reproductive freedom for wimmin ( men already have it) has been going on since Roe and it won't stop with this piddly "health care" bill, you watch. They'll take every right away from wimmin and start on the men ( Obama's already gone back on his promise to gays).

When one sees a nation going backwards, something big is up. We are BECOMING the same as Isam.

[floridafun]

i am a lib dem and pro-choice all the way. i dont mind the restrictions. women will still be permitted to obtain legal abortions. they will also still be able to have access to birth control. its time to do as obama has always said, allow a successful negotiation to give each group some of what they insist on without giving up the spirit of the plan in question. what we really need to do at this point is focus on male responsibilities much more, begin fighting for laws which force males pay half of the cost of abortions..no way out of it because it isnt his body that would be needed to carry the baby to term.

[JimR]

Well-said. I agree.

[sinpareil]

Wealthy women will. The language of the amendment clearly discriminates against the poor.

[GreatNews27]

Agree. The floridafun handle says it all, yes?

[debqd]

Republicans -- the party of patriots and freedom? So, they say. That party won't be satisfied until every single American is a certified FUNDAMENATALIST CHRISTIAN. That, folks, is their real agenda.

[SonofLiberty1]

Show me just where in the Constitution it says that a person who is innocent of wrongdoing MUST pay for someone's private actions who just happens to be a stranger?

[brady61995]

show where it says you dont. who and what do you think you are paying for? think of your taxes going to defense budget or fixing roads or cleaning parks or police or air quality.

[valkyrie607]

Show me where in the Constitution where it says that you have the right to dictate what medical procedures I have access to, just because you think some of them are immoral.

[wonketteRAWKS]

Or where it says that all Americans must be forced to buy health insurance or face stiff penalties?

[JimR]

Show me where the amendment says you won't have access to abortions.

[MuchMadness]

It is a mark of the weakness of the pro choice position that its supporters so often bring up unrelated issues like the death penalty or war. I happen to oppose both abortion and the two current wars, but I don't think that the issues of war and abortion have anything at all to do with each other.

[valkyrie607]

Congratulations: you're consistent.

Sadly, your allies are mostly hypocrites.

Abortion and war have little to do with each other. But the Forced-Birth Brigade claims that the reason they want to force a woman into bearing an unwanted child is because they're all about "life" and that we should never kill because it says so in the Bible. So, naturally, we all take a look around and notice that "life" apparently only means fetuses, because killing 600,000 Iraqis is just hunky-dory and doesn't violate God's commandment.

See, it's a tad bit inconsistent. Which makes me, at least, question their true motives.

[MuchMadness]

The commandment is not "thou shalt not kill." It is " thou shalt not commit murder."
Over the years, there has been a lot of debate within Christianity about under what conditions the use of military force is justified. Generally, though, Christianity has never held that absolute pacifism is required. Similarly, most Christian groups have historically held that the death penalty is sometimes justified, though its application is fraught with problems in terms of equity and impartiality.

[BalsterDl]

You missed the point of the Stupak amendment. It does not take away anyone's "rights" to an abortion. It just ensures that those of us who know it is morally wrong, won't have to pay for it.

It would be wrong to force someone to fund an activity that they feel is clearly immoral - the stopping of the human heart.

DLB

P.S. Did you see the lastest news that new borns cry in the tone of their mother's language and that they can recognize their mother's voice from hundreds of others. Dont' try to convince me that you are not ending a human life. - look at the DNA!

[WorkingClass]

Gee. I wish I didn't have to pay for the killing of children in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. It's clearly morally wrong.

[babeltek]

pointing out another moral failing of the government does not make the other one okay; nor should it make the other one tolerable

[klondiker]

Allison, what's even more outrageous is that many people (both Dems and Repubs) who voted for the Stupak amendment, later voted AGAINST the reform bill. Clearly, their true intention was never to help expand health care. They are using this opportunity to scale back women's reproductive rights.

[brady61995]

i dont think thats a factual statement. i think they had to give the dogs a bone and it this was it. its not scaling back and its not changing anything its just not advancing. I support full funding and privacy for all americans and their health procedures. the problem is so much bigger anyways that these are all distractions. until we get the lobbys out of washington and have public finance we will never be free of these folks and their money.

[klondiker]

Did you even read my comment? It IS factually accurate that a number of Dems (26 to be exact) and whole bunch of Repubs voted for the Stupak amendment and but against the reform bill.