Assault on Women's Reproductive Rights Continues with a Vengeance
The assault on women's reproductive rights continues with a vengeance. As Congress struggled to pass health care reform to improve the lives of America's families, anti-choice forces took advantage of the situation to mount yet another assault on abortion. They were willing to sacrifice health care reform -- even though millions of people would now be able to receive coverage, even though the bill would finally begin to lower health care costs, even though lives would be saved -- to enact anti-abortion provisions to take away reproductive rights from millions of women.
The effect of the Stupak/Pitts Amendment would be to deny the millions of women who get covered through the exchanges access to comprehensive reproductive health care that includes abortion services. These women would be denied coverage available today in private health plans. The Amendment effectively bans private insurance companies that participate in insurance exchanges from providing coverage of abortion. It tries to camouflage the impact by providing an "abortion rider" that women could choose to pay extra for to cover costs if they have an abortion.
How gullible do they think we are? Women don't expect to have an unintended pregnancy or a dangerous pregnancy that jeopardizes their health. And few if any insurance plans would actually choose to provide such a rider. Five states now have provisions to provide abortion riders. But folks have been trying to find a plan that actually provides one -- and they're still looking.
Make no mistake about it: the Stupak Amendment will deny millions of women access to safe, affordable reproductive health care. It puts an expensive price tag on women's ability to act on their reproductive rights. This outrageous provision must be stricken from the legislation before health care reform becomes law.
In 2008 the country elected a pro-choice Congress and a pro-choice president. The president has repeatedly told the country that health care reform would not take away benefits from those who currently have insurance. Now it's up to the President and the Congress to make certain that women do not lose their benefits or rights as a result of health care reform. There's no point in passing a health care reform bill that makes women less healthy, less safe and less able to exercise their constitutional rights.
Ellen R. Malcolm is the president of EMILY's List, an organization that helps elect pro-choice Democratic women to office.
Killing the Stupak Amendment Wouldn't Have Killed the Bill
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
This amendment discriminates against women and violates our human rights.
Now more than ever we need to support Lois Herr in her race against Joe Pitts in Pennsylvania! Please support her at http://www.herr2010.com/ We need women like Lois in Congress to protect the rights of all women.
I have an idea - lets outlaw abortion. Then we'll have every person registered in a database that believes they should be outlawed and when someone dies as a result of their decision that it should be that way, we choose a right-to-lifer out of the database at random and they go to jail for manslaughter (same as we do now for vehicular manslaughter in a lot of states). And if both the mother and the child dies, we pull 2 names and they get to go to jail. We can also make them pay an additional tax so that when the surviving spouse or family members want justice that their loved ones were killed in the name of religion, they can sue those pro-life members of the database and get a monetary settlement for their loss and grief. If these people want the blood of mothers and children on their hands, then they can damn well be responsible for their decision. Sounds like a plan to me...
Gay Marriage activists, gays in military and now women's reproductive rights... that was the sound of yet another of his base going under the bus...
Don't worry though ladies... he'll be back to smile and chant Hope and Change at rallies and expect you to vote for him and the Dems in 2010 and 2012....
The number of women seeking an abortion would be greatly reduced if "The Morning After" pill were sold over the counter. Most insurance policies cover the cost of Viagra for men, but won't cover the cost of birth control for women. Men who don't wish to bother with a trip to the doctor can buy Viagra on the net. "It's discrimination."
We all know why "The Morning After" pill isn't available....It's a political issue Republicans use to rally their base.
That is interesting. I wonder if the exchange can mandate that it is covered?
J
FYI, Viagra and birth control are two very different things.
Yes, different. Irresponsibility in males is encouraged by the use of male entertainment drugs like Viagra. Birth control encourages responsibility in all and keeps unwanted, uncared for, (and unsupported! ) children from adding to the taxpayers' burden.
If YOU do not want to use birth control, then don't (but then have the decency to care for and support the 'babies' you force a woman to give birth to, against her will and personhood.) However, do not assume you have the RIGHT to force others — of other religious and philosophical beliefs — to follow your personal religious 'morality' (which is all for embryos, but cares little for women, girls, or actual children,
"No chit Sherlock." We all know what Viagra is. Sexual gratification is a personal need not a medical need.
The Catholic Church has little moral authority. So many years of excusing their preists for raping boys in their churches, covering it up, paying hush money, now they tell us they have found morality! Let them tell that to the millions and millions of lives they have destroyed They have now inserted themselves in the health care debate to destroy it. Why is anyone listening to them?
Time for the Catholic Church to take a long hundred year walk into the wildernes to cleanse themselves.
And what moral authority do YOU have?
They are not claiming moral authority only stating the obvious that the Catholic church has none.
And if they want to be a political entity, they can start paying taxes.
You are so right. The Catholic Bishops have lost all moral authority to speak on ANYTHING due to the pedophile clergy, and the cover-ups. They failed millions of children, whose lives have been wrecked through sex abuse.
I want to vote out all the politicians ; wish I could fire the bishops!
The support of 64 Democrats for the last-minute Stupak Amendment may have less to do with the efforts of Cathoic bishops than with the growing number of evangelicals among Democrats.
Whatever the basis for supporting the anti-abortion amendment in the House, the passage represents a real threat to the right of choice for women -- particularly those of modest income.
Now is the time for pro-choice Americans to organize a vigorous lobbying effort in the Senate and among Congressional leaders who will participate in the reconciliation process.
I wonder now that the Stupak/Ellsworth amendment has been passed, if the US Catholic Conference of Bishops headed by Cardinal George will be as passionate about passing this House version as they were vilifying it just a week before......Or are they just the republican drones that most people think they are.......
Remember please that it is the Stupak-PITTS amendment and that the Republican rightwing had a heavy hand in this. Also, both Stupak and Pitts are part of the bipartisan "family," and this is part of their long-running assault on women's reproductive rights. Isn't it about time we taught them a lesson? Let's remember this as we prepare for the 2010 election.
www.herr2010.com
The attitude of many writers is that because women have sex, they must face the consequences of that decision if the result is pregnancy. Sometimes, that is not their decision to make (rape, incest) or their responsible behaviors are stymied by failures (yes, even the birth control pill has a failure rate, and the stats on all methods' rates of failure are widely available).
What are the ramifications for men? Why are there no consequences to them for a pregnancy in any of these situations? Why are they not held responsible? Why doesn't society put a scarlet letter on them?
Women are the downtrodden majority in this country. And as the majority, I think we deserve to put a couple of terms on men to bring a real balance on consequences - impregnate a woman by crime or by accident - lose your ability to reproduce. (And that procedure is not covered by insurance either). Let's call erectile dysfunction a lifestyle problem - since many people mistakenly assume abortion is a lifestyle decision. Treatment for it should NEVER be covered by insurance.
Its time, ladies, to take over.
The ramifications for men is called child support as it well should be. Or take him to court to help pay for any medical procedures. Also woman should scream as loud at the man to wear a raincoat as they do for their abortion rights. All of you know you have the power when it comes to sex so let's leave neutering out of it.
Correct but you won't hardly ever hear that from these folks here at huffpost
They have the power in cases of rape or incest? Child support , what a laugh. The states go after the man and he simply quits his job.
"Neutering"? Are you from another planet? Are you not aware that Viagra and Cialis are entertainment/recreational drugs for males?
Why should any woman pay for this male self-indulgence, when women's lives are so devalued that even when they have been raped, or incested, even when they risk DYING or serious physical illness if they are forced to carry another foetus, the boys come out howling about "life" (for zygotes only!)
The trouble with 'child support' is the reality: the laws are written for men, by men, presided over by largely male-run courts, police, and values, so the laws are NOT ENFORCED and the women are left holding the bag, as always.
The horny old goats who are voting on this insanity seem to be unable to keep their pants zipped, ESPECIALLY the married men like Senator Vitter. Their need for sex seems to be insatiable yet they don't want the women to have birth control or the means of ending an unwanted pregnancy. They don't even want us to tell our teenagers how to avoid a pregnancy.
It's time the women of this country declare war on those good old boys. Cut off their viagra. Cut off the convenient sex. I suggest that we practice the abstinance they endorse so whole heartedly until they scream!!
Perhaps if the women in the House got some balls and submitted an amendment to remove Viagra or penile implant surgery from coverage, men would sit up and take notice. EVERY pun intended. We need more women in office. Period.
How about this: we expand the reproductive rights, privacy rights, rights to bodily intergity, and choice that have been enjoyed by American women for decades and offer the same to American men? And, outlaw the routine, non-medically indicated, unnecessary, unethical, permanent, forcible, non-consensual, irreversible amputation of neo-natal male foreskin that occurs over 1 million times per year, every year, every 30 seconds, everyday in the United States in "male circumcision" proceedures?
Can we do that? I'd even go for the non-coverage of penile implants and Viagra if we could.....and, with several hundred million, if not more than a billion dollars spent annually on unnecessary and non-medically indicated male "circumcisions"....this money could fund a whole lot of medically necessary abortions.....
There's glaring irony in this debate-women continually bristle at any real or perceived threat to their "bodily integrity", privacy rights, reproductive rights, and choice, and readily lash out at men-yet are completely and blissfully blind to the very real reality that men haven't and don't enjoy these very same rights in America, and simply don't care, and can't be bothered. There is no quid pro quo.
The abortion issue is not just about the reproductive rights of female patients. It has a unique position in medical science because there is a second "life" involved, and there are large numbers of women who also feel very strongly about the fetus's rights. Roe vs. Wade is not a decided issue in the minds of millions of well-intentioned, caring Americans of both genders. There are even people who feel that those who implement the choice that Roe vs. Wade decided belongs to women, should be themselves killed rather than permitting the killing to continue. It is an intensely felt viewpoint that is not even entirely religious in its nature, and to confound health care reform with such a difficult and divisive issue is to condemn the overall bill to additional and massive controversy which should be addressed separately. Both Pelosi and Obama recognize this fact.
Yes we need more women in office...but did NARAL , Plan Parenthood and Emily's List stand with Hillary? No, they threw her under Mr. Obama's bus, because they knew he would protect their reproductive rights, better than a woman would/could do. How does it feel to be blind-sided by the party of women's rights? Feeling used, humiliated, controlled, frustrated, or just hopping mad? As an Independent 50+ woman who burnt her share of bras until Roe vs Wade , that is how I and many felt last fall when the above groups tossed Hillary under Mr. Obama's bus. We were not needed any longer as you had a new friend to protect your reproductive rights. Now we are hearing from all three groups today asking us old ladies for our money, time and know how to step up once again and save YOUR reproductive rights.
Can you at the very least say the word PLEASE.
Spot on donnal.
Agreed, the good ole boys club needs to go.
This is all politics. Despite 30-plus years of Roe v. Wade, Americans remain very ambivalent about abortion. Congress' treatment of it reflects that ambivalence. Many members of Congress come from places where the majority are "pro-life."
http://www.gallup.com/poll/118399/more-americans-pro-life-than-pro-choice-first-time.aspx
The 'ambivalence' is about women being full human beings, with full personhood, not just abortion which is just one manifestation of the pervasive acceptance of misogyny in this benighted country,
Hard to prove, that. There probably are a small number of persons who would admit to your charge. There may be a larger number who are guilty but either don't recognize it or would lie about it. Either way, there's no effective way to discern who's who. Pretending we know the hearts and minds of others invites projection of our own anger, fears and prejudices upon them.
wow ladies --hows it feel..? Its only a matter of time when one minorities Rights are put up to vote - that others rights will erode......LGBT Americans are Tired of thier Rights Being Voted on........Equality for ALL...Pro-Choice!
Hmmm...funny, I seem to remember something about "no one coming between a patient and her doctor" being a core conservative value.
Ah, I love conservative projection: they complain that any "government takeover" of health care will lead to rationing, reduction in care, government making doctor-patient decisions and all other kind of "Marxist/Maoist/Hitlerist/Stalinist/Carrot Toppist" horrors.
So what's the first substantive thing they add to the health care bill? A provision prohibiting PRIVATE insurance companies, operating in the FREE MARKET from covering a PERFECTLY LEGAL and MEDICALLY APPROPRIATE procedure.
That's why conservatives fear a "gubmint takeover" of anything: they're afraid someone else might abuse that power they way they do.
You are not discussing getting between a patient and her doctor. You're talking about getting someone else to pay the bill.
There are only 12 states with any prohibitions on insurance coverage. You can buy insurance anywhere you want.
http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_RICA.pdf
Clip, "A handful of states prohibit private insurers from covering abortion services, except in cases of life endangerment; more extensive coverage may be purchased at an additional charge"
Iam beyond pissed off ..Iam ready and fired up,when do we hit the streets ladies and gents!!!
If the Democratic Party wants to be a marginal minority party composed of mainly middle and upper-class white women, it should listen to Ellen Malcolm and like voices. The Democratic Party will lose tens of millions of Hispanic, Asian, Black Christian, and blue-collar white voters. If funding abortions is a non-negotiable issue for them, then let them become Republicans as they are threatening. The Republican Party, the party of "me first", is where they belong.
"The Democratic Party will lose tens of millions of Hispanic, Asian, Black Christian, and blue-collar white voters."
To who?
That would more correctly be, "To whom?"
Most Hispanic voters are Catholic
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
