Bart Stupak, Leave My Daughter Alone

Why would twenty men with positive ratings on past votes from Planned Parenthood vote for the horrendous Stupak amendment? I have no idea.

Democratic representatives Joe Baca, Zach Space, Ciro Rodriguez, and Chris Carney all had 100% Planned Parenthood ratings, and they voted with Stupak, the Catholic Bishops, and all but one House Republican for a radical anti-choice measure.

The Stupak amendment, passed with the votes of 64 House Democrats, prohibits any Federal subsidies for any health insurance policy, private or public, that covers abortion. Most private policies now do, including the Cigna policy that covers employees of the Republican National Committee.

The House passed health care reform mandates that all Americans be required to buy insurance coverage if not covered at work, and do so through an insurance exchange. Since many without insurance cannot afford insurance, the legislation provides for subsidies to lower the cost. Preventing those subsidies from going to any policy, private or public, that covers abortion effectively forces insurance companies to drop coverage.

Quite clever, in a darkly perverse way. Leverage the nation's desperate need to provide universal health care to force private insurance companies to restrict access for women!

It makes sense that Rep. Stupak, a fiercely anti-choice member of Congress, would use his leverage to radically change reproductive rights. After all, he is a resident of the infamous C Street townhouse owned by the secretive right wing Christian group The Family.

But why twenty Democrats, almost all of whom favor health care reform, and who say they are pro-choice, voted for the most repressive anti-choice legislation, I have no idea. This makes no sense.

It makes so little sense that I want them all to come to their senses and tell Speaker Pelosi they have changed their mind and will change their vote if given the chance.

And to make sure these men get the point, I am sending each of them a coat hanger. You can join in at www.sendacoathanger.com.

We know what happens when women are denied access to reproductive health care including abortion. And we can't go back to an era of coat hangers and back alley abortions.

Like the majority of Americans, I support serious health care reform. I think that reproductive health is part of health care reform, not something separate. And their ratings of these twenty guys from Planned Parenthood indicate they once agreed with me.

Did they discuss this vote with their wives, daughters, nieces, and mothers? I have a daughter, and I sure don't want the likes of Bart Stupak to set the terms of her insurance policy.

Guys, think long and hard about this one. You made a big mistake, but there is time to fix it. Tell Nancy you have changed your mind.

 

Comments

[Frustrated in PA]

I want to thank the writer for a great article. It is refreshing to hear a man speak up on this issue and to consider the women in his life such as his wife, mother and daughters. This is NOT just a female issue, but it is the male members of Congress and society that are getting to decide it.

I, unfortunately, live in Chris Carney's district and always fought the 100% rating he received from planned Parenthood of which I am a member and volunteer for. He has NEVER been pro-choice, is a devout Catholic, father of five and doesn't hide his anti-choice leanings. I have 2 emails from his office responding to an inquiry I made where he states that as the father of 5 and a CATHOLIC he can never agree with abortion. Those were forwarded to PP so they knew what his stance was. I was also at a town hall of his in August where he implicitly said when asked the question that he would make sure abortions were not covered. He did not state that he would interfere with a woman entering into her own contract with an insurance company, paying her own premiums, that would provide abortion coverage under the policy. This is the effect of the Stupak amendment.

Although I disagree with Hyde, this is the law of the land. It was enough. Stupak goes beyond it.

[illit]

Mr. Stupak,
"And to make sure these men get the point, I am sending each of them a coat hanger. "

You see value in women beyond 'breeding' - others will see the 'coat hanger' as what we deserve. You can't shame those determined to put woman back in her barefoot place.

thank you for writing this, but the xtian taliban makes a lot more noise.

[Brightsided]

2.) In most cases, (although not all), she and her man are simply not being preventative and careful enough - period.

Here's the bottom line - It's 2009!! Women need to stand the **uc up!!

STOP getting pregnant!! Demand much, much more from yourselves and from your men.

If you do get pregnant, stand up, have integrity, and do the right thing and have the baby. If you don't wish to raise it you can give it up for adoption.

Women need to stand up, use their spines, and shove right past ANY shame at all whatsoever that any person tries to lay upon them. Stand up now and choose the right thing to do - which is give life to the child / soul that is now forming inside of you.

Let's choose INTEGRITY. Let's face life with full integrity. Let's LOVE ourselves and not give in to any type of feelings of shame, embarrassment, etc. Let's stand up and take life on it's terms and DO THE RIGHT THING.

It's not going to kill you to take 9 months out of your life and give birth to a child whom you can then let a loving family raise through adoption.

[Channel4NewsTeam]

If you want to gestate and give birth in order to provide babies to people who want to adopt, that is your choice. Others do not want to suffer the physical harms of pregnancy.

[Brightsided]

2.) She doesn't want to risk losing the man she is with, (whom she fears will leave her when he discovers that she is pregnant), who helped to get her into this situation in the first place. The fact is, she shouldn't be in any relationship whatsoever, in the first place, with any man who does not offer her consistent iron clad rigorous agreement that he will stand by her, (as a man of integrity!), and support her 100% is he gets her pregnant.

3.) She is afraid of the pain, discomfort, etc. that is involved with being pregnant and having a baby.

4.) She doesn't want to get fat and lose her figure.

5.) She is SELFISH. She wants to put herself first and avoid any margin of inconvenience in her life whatsoever that being pregnant and then having a baby, (she does not have to raise it, she can choose to put it up for adoption), would entail.

Let's also get unvarnished about why she is facing an unwanted pregnancy in the first place as well:

1.) She is not exerting her self esteem power optimally enough in her relationship with her man - and thereby NOT vehemently insisting that he use birth control as well and/or get a vasectomy or consequently go without access to sexual relations or ANY relations with her whatsoever.

[Brightsided]

I love women. I happen to have a uterus, so this is not some misogynistic, archaic, religious zealot MALE that you are listening to. Far from it.

Let's turn up the high beam to full force. Let's tell the TRUTH. Let's get rude and blunt about why a woman has an abortion in the first place:

1.) She wants to avoid at ALL costs the personal embarrassment and shaming that will come from HERSELF, her family, men she knows, friends, and complete strangers, when it's discovered that she is pregnant and therefore sexually active She is choosing to intrinsically embrace stereotypical, time honored, backwards judgments that her sexuality is dirty; and that she needs to be embarrassed that she is sexually active and is now pregnant as a result. The fact is, she will do anything to avoid being automatically branded as a slut, etc.

By choosing abortion she actually adds to and perpetuates this shame based undercurrent that she must 'hide' and 'get rid' of her pregnancy just so that people won't brand her as a slut, etc.

[Channel4NewsTeam]

Nonsense. Pregnancy is an inherently dangerous physiological process with a high rate of morbidity and even mortality under certain circumstances such as poor access to skilled medical care.

Women do not want to put their health and lives at risk to gestate. There is no shame in that. There is nothing immoral about protecting oneself from physical harm. This is a natural instinct.

Women have abortions in places far from the US.. Many of these places are not obsessed with hating women and their sexuality.

[illit]

possession of a uterus (not sure if you're a woman or a man with a wife) does not negate misogynistic attitudes.

please, don't get an abortion - just don't interfere with the rest of us - avoid the stereotypical time-honored vision of the judgmental zealot (whatever your gender).

[DinkSinger]

"Why would twenty men with positive ratings on past votes from Planned Parenthood vote for the horrendous Stupak amendment?"

So we could have health care reform. The progressives in the House didn't have the votes to pass a bill that did not contain the Stupak amendment. With it, it passed by five votes. That means a shift of three votes would have defeated the bill. There were sixteen Democrats who voted against Stupak and against passage. Not a single one of these members voted against passage because the Stupak amendment was adopted. On the other side, there were forty-one Democrats and one Republican who voted for Stupak and for passage. Cao, the Republican, would have voted against the bill without Stupak. If two out of the 41 Democrats would have changed their vote on final passage without Stupak the bill would have been defeated.

[BalsterDl]

Let's accurately report the situation. The Hyde amendment (law since 1976) prohibits the use of federal funds directly for abortion -- or, in a provision that gets less attention but is highly relevant now, "for health benefits coverage that includes coverage of abortion."

The Hyde Amendment's language is reproduced almost precisely in the Stupak amendment. - See the Wall Street Journal for details.

Even Congresswoman Pelosi told Planned Parenthood that her bill without the Stupak Amendment would require federal funding of abortions for the first time in over 30 years. The cause for the uproar is the pro-abortion side thought they could slide this in without anyone noticing but they got caught.

The Stupak amendment doesn't outlaw abortions in the U.S. They are still available and relatively cheap. The amendment just makes individuals pay for it themselves instead of relying on taxpayers!!

[jingles32]

Yes, let's report accurately, shall we??? It doesn't matter if you're given a government subsidy OR you pay for your policy, in full, on your own dime, without one cent of TAXPAYER money; you will not be able to access full reproductive rights via any insurance company/plan offered on the exchange, period!

Many people get their insurance via their employer, many employers will be purchasing via the exchange for a better rate, along with individuals. Unfortunately, a "paying" woman will have to go outside of the exchange to purchase a rider for this LEGAL service. Get the difference? See, the Hyde amendment all along took care of your concerns, and was incorporated into the original bill: No taxpayer dollars to go toward the funding of abortion! Since you are in fact saying that this amendment is nothing more than what is required in Hyde, why did you and yours feel the need to add it?

What next? Any clinic, hospital, receiving "federal funds" in any way, shape or form will now be precluded from performing this LEGAL service? You're not kidding anyone; your intent is to slowly but surely chip away and make it, with time, for all intents and purposes, unobtainable to a vast majority of women. BTW, why should my taxpayer dollar go to pay for your vaz ek tomy, your Viagra??? Cheap enough; pay for it with your own dime, not mine.

[DinkSinger]

"Unfortunately, a "paying" woman will have to go outside of the exchange to purchase a rider for this LEGAL service." This is not an accurate statement. The Stupak amendment allows plans that include abortion coverage to be sold through the exchange as long as "any nonfederal QHBP offering entity that offers an Exchange-participating health benefits plan that includes coverage for abortions for which funding is prohibited under this section also offers an Exchange-participating health benefits plan that is identical in every respect except that it does not cover abortions for which funding is prohibited under this section."

Individuals who receive affordability credits will not be allowed to purchase plans that cover abortion and will have to purchase separate supplemental coverage for abortion. There is nothing in the amendment that prevents the supplemental coverage from being offered through the exchange. Individuals who enroll in exchange participating plans as employees are not eligible for affordability credits and will be able to select plans that cover abortion.

I personally oppose both the Stupak amendment and the Hyde amendment because they unfairly single-out the poorer members of our society who receive direct assistance through government programs like Medicare, Medicaid and the proposed affordability credits while allowing wealthier people to obtain government subsidies for abortion through tax preferences.

[DASChicago]

Trying to poke holes in Roe v. Wade is AS stoopid as it gets-Stup-hack.
The wombless need to check their own gender!

[roshni]

i vote pro-choice and every one of these anti-choice voters should be voted out.

[truthglow]

They are all in danger of being so in 2010, thank goodness. I would rather not have Democrats than to have these worthless "Faux Dems!"

[CarlyHope]

I agree. Except, we can't pass healthcare reform without this amendment