Throwing Women Overboard -- Again

This is going to be a short -- but not too sweet -- message to the President.

Mr. President, in your speech to a joint session of Congress, you managed once again to gratuitously use women's rights to placate the right, assuring the nation that no public funds will be used to cover abortion in the new health care overhaul.

Dammit President Obama -- we support you. Women put you in office, and stuck with you when the crazies were beating you up with "death panels" and "socialized medicine."

We still support you, but like millions of women who were watching, we wonder why you have to always use our most intimate health issues as a bargaining chip to give away, when you're not going to get anything back. You did it at Notre Dame, and now you've done it again.

In defending your health care plan you stood up for the public option, and we applaud you for that. You stood up for Medicaid -- the health care of last resort for millions of poor women and their children. We applaud you for that. You stood up for Medicare -- the safety net for many more older women than men, because we live longer and have fewer private policies following us from our careers. We applaud that too.

But what about our daughters and granddaughters? What about those poor women who face life-threatening situations when they must continue a dangerous pregnancy? You let us down once again by not calling for repeal of the restrictions on our reproductive health care that are already in place in Medicaid coverage.

And worse, you opened the door for private policies to cancel abortion coverage if their clients are using any government subsidy money to pay the premiums.

To put reproductive health care on par with "death panels" and scare tactics about illegal immigrants being covered is an insult to women. We are now the majority of American citizens, the majority of voters, and the majority that continues to support you. Stand up for us.

As the debate heats up in the coming days, we must paraphrase the question from our foremothers -- Mr. President, how long must women wait for equality?

Comments

[maiathebee]

Yes!

For me, this isn’t an issue of expecting Obama to take on abortion funding all rolled up into federal health care. That’s politically untenable and I wouldn’t mind if he had just not fought for it. But, I do resent his “throwing us under the bus”, by entirely conceding the issue…

…As if abortion was not a fundamental feature of women’s HEALTH CARE and as if federal funding for abortion wasn’t necessary to make the legal right to an abortion more than just a BS-on-paper-only right for many women. You can’t dodge this by saying that a funding issue is not a rights issue- is that were the case, poll taxes would be legit… Rights can’t only exist on paper and be rights.

BTW--- Many posters here have asserted that medically necessary abortion (and in many states, abortion due to rape/incest) is covered by Medicaid. On paper, that may be true. The notion that the exceptions in Hyde are reality is simply FALSE in many cases. In reality, you can’t get Medicaid money to pay for any abortion in many states (like Texas), even if it is medically necessary or if you are a victim of rape/incest. Ockraz can copy the TEXT all he or she wants--- that doesn’t change the REALITY that this is not the case. Ask any social worker…

REPRODUCTIVE JUSTICE NOW!!!

In the meantime…

Texas Equal Access Fund
http://www.teafund.org/

SisterSong
http://www.sistersong.net/reproductive_justice.html

[femdem262]

What happened to "all's fair in love and war?"

If it's ok to spend our tax dollars to kill people in wars, why is it not ok to spend a fraction of our tax bill on a legal medical procedure?

Also, why is it ok that men have a disproportinate say in a matter that affects only women?

[LuckyGrad68]

I think what women really want but won't say is 100% control of everything. As far as unapproved abortions go it looks to me like the two people that caused it are the ones who need to pay for it and not stack the deck of the Supreme Court instead.

You and Mr Wonderful did that to yourselves not society.

You break it, you bought it certainly applies.

[concern4civility]

It would be fabulous to have abortion included. The reason it had to be tossed "overboard" is because this is not the time to fight that battle. There is enough acrimony ... and it is threatening to derail healthcare altogether. If Obama pushed to win a battle to include anything with abortion at this juncture... there is not a doubt in my mind it would just be another nail in the coffin for defeat of healthcare. Think strategically and take a deep breath.

[Jen Boulanger - Huffpost Blogger]

THANK YOU Martha! I have been so frustrated with how quickly abortion has been thrown off the table without any consideration. Women are being treated as 2nd class citizens and poor women are being blatantly discriminated against. I want my tax dollars to support women in need of abortion care. I don't want my tax dollars funding abstinence-only education or anti-abortion crisis pregnancy centers - which are being funded federally. There is NO reproductive justice for women and our human rights are being violated. I did not expect this from the President that I voted for.

[jmpurser]

It is the official position of the government of the United States that superstition is a good reason not to fully fund women's health care.

And Obama doesn't want to change that.

[kissmygrits]

Well said!!!

[zizyphus]

The Equal Rights Amendment still has not been ratified. Women still do not have equal rights under the constitution. "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex."

We are still second class citizens in our own country. Politicians use our reproductive power as a political football to be kicked back and forth at election time.

Sure, they will pay to have our soldiers kill millions of poor people, but God forbid a poor woman get a federally funded abortion to save her life.

[ockraz]

zizyphus, this is not an issue of "federally funded abortion to save her life"- I've put it up more than once here, so I won't again, but the restrictions would not exclude abortions when the woman's life is in danger.

[JuniperSunshine]

Hey, private insurance for the self-employed usually refuses to cover prenatal care, childbirth, birth control, AND abortion. We looked and many, many plans before we threw our hands up and went back to work for corporate America. "That's a private choice" (to have a child), as one agent explained to me. "Our policy holders shouldn't have to pay for that." And smoking for 40 years before getting lung cancer is a requirement?

As a young woman in my 20's, they were happy to save money on my lack of heart attacks or cancer, (or the reckless accidents that affect young men far more often) but could legally deny coverage for the only thing I needed. Yet, they charged me the same as my husband. Pro-life advocates and women's groups have both been pretty silent about this. If you plan to have children, or plan to avoid having them while in a relationship, I guess you're out of luck.

[BannedFromCommenting]

Yeah, they will cover the Viagra and Cialis and all the other ED medicines, so a guy can more easily get a woman knocked up, but if that pregnancy proves dangerous to her health or the baby if born will suffer due to a disability, FORGET IT!!!

So men's hard ons hold more value than a woman's reproductive health and life basically.

[anghiari]

I disagree..­.Rethuglic­ans have made opposition to abortion and choice central to their familyvalues BS...thus inclusion brings with the new plan a whole extra debate. At some point progressives have to understand that the reality is...it is better to get a universal healthplan in place then add, add, add! Now I have no problem with advocacy for a pro choice segment being included in the President's bill, but why make him the damn villain? He is reforming the healthcare system...thusI will never understand the narrowness of the strategy that progressive groups use to try to move an agenda. It rarely works. I personally would never Choose abortion, but will fight like hell for all women to have the choice to choose abortion, but I am smart enough to understand inclusion of such language in an already tough bill makes no damn sense. And the whole man/women BS is just time consuming drivel. Look around how many other places do you see the concerns of men first on the list? Duh?

[Strywever]

My understanding is that most policies don't cover drugs like Cialis and Viagra, as the ability to function sexually isn't considered medically necessary. (More bizarre American puritanism.)

[wonketteRAWKS]

Thank you for this important point.

It's truly sad that many will just accept anything passed for a political victory rather than what is simply right for our nation.

I actually laughed when Ms. magazine had Obama on the cover saying "This is what a feminist looks like." There is very little that we know of in his backround and history that indicates how he has stood up for women.

[Strywever]

Fighting for adequate access to quality health care certainly is standing up for women, in my opinion. Women, often single heads of families, make up a disproportionate number of the un-insured and under-insured, and it follows that their children are inadequately insured as well.

Getting health care for all women, no matter what their life circumstances -- including prenatal care for women who choose to have children -- will be a huge step forward, and should not be sacrificed for improvements in abortion rights alone, as it surely would be if Obama pressed that point now.

[NC4Obama]

Passing the bill is what is important, not everything we want is going to be able to get in on the first round.
If we didn't expect anything but a perfect bill then nothing major would ever get passed.

[wonketteRAWKS]

Should we expect it to get in the second round when the republicans take over the congress and/or senate?

True reform is needed now. Not a watered down bill. The dems control all branches of the government. The time is NOW!

[Rudyabdul]

First of all, the only way the Repubs re-take the house and the senate is because we progressives sit out the election in 2010. If we sit on our asses and allow that to happen, we don't deserve anything.

[Strywever]

If health care reform passes, Republicans will *not* be taking over Congress or even the Senate.

[WeMustSpeakOut]

I'm with you wonkette. Dems have the White House and the majority.
If they can't/won't do it now, then when?! The excuses simply don't hold water.

Need billions more for war - done!
Need billions more for the already astronomical defense budget - done!
Need billions more for the "too big to fail" banks - done!
These bills fly through Congress at the speed of light!!

Need billions more to promote the general welfare of our ailing populous.- WHAT?!
That's preposterous! We can't add to the deficit.... we don't have the money...
Blah blah blah blah blahhhhh

Please! I'm tired of the sh|tstorm of lies and theatrics. The problem is these "representatives" do NOT represent us. Their corporate masters are their constituents and they are paid handsomely to do the corporate bidding. Profits before people every time!

This is the reality of our strife. They continue to bleed us, throw us a crumb and declare victory. The problem is that the score is always corporations-1, people=0. It's time to turn this tide! I just wish I knew how!

[Nor Cal Mom]

ockraz was astute enough to point out this is a funding issue, not a rights issue. I think because it feels like RvW is so close to being overturned any minute this is a really hot button issue.

[ockraz]

Thanks Nor Cal Mom. I think that it is important to stress that from my point of view (I am pro-life.), I would be much happier as an ally of those who want health care reform than as an opponent of health care reform because of an abortion provision. It is a misconception that pro-lifers are all just small government conservatives. For a large portion of us providing universal health care is a moral imperative (as I expect it is from your point of view). The problem is that for those who feel as I do, that moral imperative is not something that will allow me to compromise my position on what I consider a matter of unjust killing. (I hope that if from your perspective people can see it as a funding issue, then your side can find a way to compromise.)

It may not be what many Obama voters had in mind when he began talking about it, but perhaps "common ground on abortion" can mean no funding for abortion so that the larger goal of health care reform can be achieved. I'm actually one of the people we keep hearing about who has no health insurance, so I'm especially eager to put aside the issue of abortion on this and be able to support a health care initiative which I not only believe in, but which would very much serve my best interests.

[Nor Cal Mom]

Thank you sister for writing this. While I personally don't know if I could live with having an abortion I will always stand up for a woman's right to choose. Men don't have to bear children. They have not a clue about the implications of an unwanted pregnancy. A woman's morality is her own value system, not to be dictated by anyone other than herself.

[luziannagirl]

You know, Nor Cal Mom, maybe that's the key in crossing the great philosophical divide on this topic.

If we could somehow get across to men what it's like to be pregnant for 9 months, and then to deliver, nurse, and raise a child, and then to be forced against your will into all that when you didn't choose it at all. And then to feel guilty, because of course you love the child once it's born. Maybe it' all just a case of lack of empathy.

What would a good analogy be, one that men could understand?

[anghiari]

Luzianne, Nor Cal Mom...for all those women who bitch and moan about men ...can you tell me as mothers, sisters, girlfriends and wives...how is it that WE have so little impact on how these men behave toward or see the plight of women in this society? We crank out complaints by the dozens, but these guys have women in their lives..why no influence? And another thing to think about ..."a woman's morality is her own value system" perhaps so but her actions rarely only affects the mother.

[according2mark]

Federal funding of elective abortions is an example of an issue that could potentially derail any health care reform bill. First and foremost is the fact that we need to ensure that everyone has access to a basic set of core preventative and medically necessary services. This is key to gaining the wide, bipartisan support that we need to change such a fundamental and key part of society. The last thing that we need is a bill that passes on a strictly partisan basis that is setting us for debate every election cycle.