10 Reasons Why the Stupak-Pitts Amendment Has to Go

Once upon a time in America, men lorded over women, screwed any woman they could, and women and children paid the price. That quaint world lives on in the Family's C Street house, home to Sen. John Ensign, former home to Gov. Mark Sanford, and home to the new celebrities, Reps. Bart Stupak and Joseph Pitts. They'd like to revive that old-time religion throughout the land. Thanks to the Democratic Party they are one big giant step closer to their retro dream.

Lest you're also feeling nostalgic for a simpler time, here are some features of that lost world you might want to consider. Not too long ago children born to unmarried women had their birth certificates stamped "illegitimate." Why? You might suppose this was to enforce universal chastity on all. Nope. Just women. Nine out of ten men had sex before marriage. Four out of ten women weren't virgins at marriage, but most of that premarital sex was with their fiances shortly before the wedding. Almost 40 percent of men reported extramarital affairs at the time; among women just over 10 percent fooled around. Who knew Don Draper was Everyman? The real purpose of the state's stamp of disapproval? To deny children and their mothers any legal claim on the father's income and property. Not until 1968 did the Supreme Court rule that 'illegitimate' children had the same legal rights as legitimate ones.

I bring up this tale of the real-life consequences of the double standard because we need to be clear what is at stake in the Stupak-Pitts antiabortion amendment in the House Health Care Reform bill. Even if some Democrats who voted for the amendment did so because of deep convictions or from fear of the wrath of the Catholic Church, the main thrust of the measure is to condemn women for being sexually active. (If this seems a stretch to you, take a look at the comments section across the blogosphere. Women have to 'take responsibility' for their sex. Who knew humans had figured out asexual reproduction?)

Jumping into bed with the extreme anti-abortion Christian Right is a criminally stupid strategy for the Democratic party. We know the Democrats have become terrified by exaggerated warnings of doom in 2010 from Beltway insiders. Here are 10 numbers they might want to contemplate instead:

1. 10 million more women than men voted in 2008.*

2. 6 out of every 10 votes for Obama were from women.

3. 1,040. A very conservative estimate of the minimum number of times an average American woman who wants two children will have sexual intercourse not for procreation during her fertile years.

4. 1 out of 4 middle-class and low income women have, since the recession began, put off a gynecological visit or are having a hard time affording birth control.

5. 8.7% of women using oral contraceptives get pregnant in the first year of use; 17% using condoms do.

6. 1 out of 2 pregnancies in the United States are unintended.

7. 19% of American children under 18 years of age live in poverty.

8. 35% of American women will have had an abortion by age 45.

9. 61% of American women obtaining an abortion have at least one child already.

10. 80% of Americans think abortion should be legal in some circumstances. 41% think it should always be legal. 10% think it should never be legal.

"I'm angry, I'm still angry. I thought we would get a break." This from a woman, who campaigned hard for Obama, about the Stupak-Pitts amendment. Democrats beware. (Particularly those of you who voted for this amendment. Names here.) Similar outrage is boiling among women, your most reliable and most neglected supporters.

* Additional statistics for this article come from the U.S. Census and the General Social Survey.

 

Comments

[BKFactor]

You guys need to read this ... esp. the entire article (see link at end). Just a short excerpt from "Did C Street Influence the Stupak Amendment", it will break your heart:

"The blog Empty Wheel notes in relation to The Stupak amendment, that he [Stupak] was boasting about taking reproductive choice away from women. Many News organizations have attributed the Stupak Amendment to lobbying by the Catholic Church. It has also been pointed out that there is a growing influence of Christian evangelicals in the Democratic Party as a recognition that they can wield more influence on legislation that way, as The Stupak Amendment demonstrates.

This is why it bears investigation as to whether this ultra secretive cult that sometimes refers to itself as the Christian Mafia, is the real power behind Bart Stupak's legislating in general and the Stupak anti-abortion amendment in particular. His legislation in essence ends Roe v. Wade for most women and takes us back to back alley abortions.

In any event the crowning glory for Stupak a Michigan Democrat, is his donating $2,500.00 to Rep. Zack Wamp a Republican gubernatorial campaign. As noted both live in the C Street cult house."

To read the entire article, go to: http://www.examiner.com/x-3629--Philadelphia-Progressive-Examiner~y2009m11d11-Did-C-Street-Cult-influence-the-Stupak-Amendment-

[free speech for all]

If the Stupak-Pitt amendment is removed, then there is 0% change of health care reform legislation passing House and Senate.

[Ainsley Phillips]

I find it interesting that Stupak is from Michigan where laws allow insurance companies to cap coverage to where this 12 year old one-armed boy whose health care (at the very least for prosthetics) is no longer covered, meaning that all future artificial arms must come from private pay, although he is still growing.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/16/insurance-runs-out-for-12_n_359920.html

Pro-life should mean more than merely being anti-abortion. It should mean that people continue to care what happens to you once you've been born and all through your lifetime, even if you're 105 with Alzheimer's.

I'm personally totally-against abortion except as a lifesaving measure after the first trimester, but let's be honest about that first trimester.

When a criminal gets executed, there's a death certificate issued with the cause of death as being homicide. There is no death certificate issued when an abortion takes place--not as a homicide or any other kind of death.

When fetus dies before being born, there generally is prenatal death certificate. Not so during that first trimester. What happens is called an abortion (induced), spontaneous abortion (natural), and miscarriage (another word for spontaneous abortion).

This boy is definitely a person, so where is his pro-life!?!

You're right, Nancy!

This denial of abortion coverage is more of a scarlet letter issue than having anything to do with being truly pro-life.

[been2there]

The tragedy of abortion is that there are two patients, and one must lose. As a child who should have been aborted, I say women make the choice. I will also point out that a woman's emotional health does matter to her children. I really hate those who forced me into this world and I do not want anyone else to suffer as I have, and as I do.

[jcmoore99]

Now THERE's a point of view you don't see every day.

[seted]

I would love to see a law passed that every American Citizen who reaches puberty or older has to have either a vasectomy or have their tubes tied untill the time they are absolutly sure they want a child. Both procedures are simple and reversable, then both sides could shut the eff up about abortion. I imagine there are plenty of guys out there who wish this was already a law.

[caterpol]

Here's an old idea. Let's make every single anti-choicer foot the bill for the entire pregnancy, birth, and costs incurred to raise a potential child from conception to college graduate.

Further, let's make them guarantee that if anything goes wrong, they'll pay for the health costs ot the potential mother and child.

Raise your hands naysayers. Pay up or put up.

[wonketteRAWKS]

And this ammendment came out of a House led by a woman! A democrat! This healthcare "reform" bill mishmash that will reward the insurance industry and Big Pharma will also set women's rights back years. It's an outrage!

Unfortunately, many of those women voters will still go along should this terrible ammendment be included in the final bill. What will it take for them to really get angry in having rights taken away? What will it take for them to stand up and say We will not be sacrificed again ever?

[eriand48]

You have the right to buy health insurance to cover abortion; but have no right to require tax dollars pay for that abortion.

The right to purchase health care is a right secured by our liberty. No law can keep anyone from purchasing health care from a health care provider or keep one from purchasing health care insurance covering the cost of a health care provider, when needed. This is the only way health care "is a right".

If Health care is made a statutory right, it becomes a right by the law enacted. Prior to such a law, there is no right to free health care. A non-existent right is no justification for the house bill.

The right to be free from government interference with, or deprivation of, our unfettered and inalienable liberty to acquire health care does not mean the government has an obligation to provide health care just as the government has no obligation to go out and buy handguns for the residents of the District of Columbia who have a 2nd amendment right to own a handgun per the US Supreme court; or buy computers for citizens to use in the exercise of the constitutional right to petition their government with emails; or to buy cars for citizens to exercise their constitutional right of interstate travel; or to buy church buildings for citizens to exercise constitutional right of freedom of religion; or to buy loudspeakers for citizens to exercise constitutional right of freedom of speech.

[Alethea]

"You have the right to buy health insurance to cover abortion; but have no right to require tax dollars pay for that abortion."

I didn't want my tax dollars going to an illegal war that displaced or killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's. Neither did I want to contribute towards the fraudulent and abusive behavior of the contractors (Halliburton and Blackwater) who thrive on human suffering as a source of profit. (Those two things a also not explicitly covered under the Constitution I might add, and yet they are still financed through taxation).

Rather, they go against every moral fiber of my being. And yet, I still had to help pay for it.

So why should Christians and/or men be off the hook for helping women get a perfectly legal medical procedure because it goes against THEIR beliefs? Why are their beliefs more important than mine and the majority of Americans?

[shamanbart]

Excellent point -- and perfectly reasonable.

[eriand48]

Aleatha asks: So why should Christians and/or men be off the hook for helping women get a perfectly legal medical procedure because it goes against THEIR beliefs?

ERIAND48 answers:The central government has a constitutional authority, and responsibility, to defend the United States. In the discharge of that constitutional responsibility some, such as you, may think the threat from which the US is being defended is no threat at all. Such an objection merely goes to the policy considerations behind the motivation to exercise said constitutional authority and responsibility to defend the United States. That objection does not allow you to cease paying taxes. However, there is no constitutional authority and responsibility for the central government to provide or pay for abortions. It is on this point that your analogy breaks down. While the Preamble and Article 1, Section 8 of our constitution mention promoting and providing for the common defense and general welfare of the United States, these are not separate enumerated powers, and even if they were, they confer no personal right to you (as do other provisions of the constitution) but apply only to the states that united to form our republic each being a sovereign entity retaining, under the 10th amendment, all powers not delegated to the central government. Also, you assume too much in thinking non-Christians and/or women do not share my position.

[Abbey123]

Eriand48
Actually that is not correct. The whole point of Stupak - Pitts is to take Hyde into the new insurance exchange that will probably be used by many small to medium sized companies and people that are self employed. If even one woman who has a federal subsidy based on income level buys insurance from a company in the exchange then that company cannot offer abortion coverage to ANYONE in that plan even if 95% of the women in the exchange on that companies plan are paying the full premium themselves or through their company. There will theoretically be a second plan or a "rider" that will be offered to cover abortion over and above the normal health policy.
Because most of the writers of articles about this amendment doubt women would opt for the special rider - either because they don't "plan" to have an uplanned pregnancy or more likely they wouldn't want their employer to think they are planning on having an unplanned pregnancy they won't sign up for it, therefore the insurance companies won't offer it.

[eriand48]

You state: Because most of the writers of articles about this amendment doubt women would opt for the special rider - either because they don't "plan" to have an uplanned pregnancy or more likely they wouldn't want their employer to think they are planning on having an unplanned pregnancy they won't sign up for it

ERIAND48 Replies:

1. Do you plan on your house burning down? I think your answer will be - NO. OK, fair enough. So, are you, or anyone else so foolish not to buy fire insurance to cover that risk? If one is so foolish, and there is a fire, they have no option but to sit and look at the smoldering ruins of their home.

2. "planning on having an unplanned pregnancy" How does one plan to have an unplanned pregnancy? If it's unplanned, then it’s not planned. Look, if there is such a demand for abortions, as you appear to believe, the greedy evil capitalists will find a way to make a buck...don­'t you think. If there is no demand for the insurance rider...we­ll then, people are accountable for their own decisions.

ERIAND48

[Abbey123]

my original comment was too long so here is the rest.

Hyde states that no federal funds will be spent on abortion. So, if you are poor and are on medicaid and probably aid for dependent children then you aren't covered for abortion procedures. Gee, maybe some law makers ought to go visit the South side of Atlanta or Chicago and see how well that is working for everyone.

This is a direct affront to women's right to choose when they want to bring a child into the world. That is a huge responsibility that too many in our society today don't take seriously with very real consequences to both the child and society as a whole. Our jails and prisons are full of kids and adults that probably never should have been brought into this world only to be neglected.

So, instead lets make it harder for a woman to not bring a child into this world that she is not financially or emotionally ready to take care of and raise to be a productive member of society. Yah, man that makes a ton of sense.

[eriand48]

Dear Abbey,

Abbey states: Gee, maybe some law makers ought to go visit the South side of Atlanta or Chicago and see how well that is working for everyone.

ERIAND48 replies: I guess that means everyone on the South side of Atlanta or Chicago does not love or want the children because having them is not working out.

Abbey states: This is a direct affront to women's right to choose when they want to bring a child into the world.

ERIAND48 replies: We have the right to buy health insurance to cover abortion; but have no right to require tax dollars pay for that abortion. There is no constitutionally secured right to free or subsidized abortions or health care. The right to be free from government interference with, or deprivation of, our unfettered and inalienable liberty to acquire health care does not mean the government has an obligation to provide, pay for or subsidized the expense of abortions or heath care.

[eriand48]

Abbey states: This is a direct affront to women's right to choose when they want to bring a child into the world.

ERIAND48 replies: We have the right to buy health insurance to cover abortion; but have no right to require tax dollars pay for that abortion. There is no constitutionally secured right to free or subsidized abortions or health care. The right to be free from government interference with, or deprivation of, our unfettered and inalienable liberty to acquire health care does not mean the government has an obligation to provide, pay for or subsidized the expense of abortions or heath care.

[Nuyorican21]

I don't think that anyone here is petitioning the Supreme Court to change the meaning of the Constitution or Bill of Rights. Many people in this country want to see a form of universal health care for American citizens. Petitioning the government and supporting legislative candidates that identify with that sentiment is what is happening currently (and for a very long time). Regarding this article and the Stupak Amendment, I completely understand objecting to my tax dollars going to abortions; I am pro-choice but do feel uneasy about that.
Now if you want to make an ideological argument about the role of government and how limited it should be, then that is always a valid point. What most liberal bloggers here would say is that they do not agree with your political philosophy or the definition of limited government in today's world. Especially given the statistics regarding the costs of employer-based insurance and the effects of medical bills on the purchasing power of the average American family; as well as debt and eventual bankrupcy for thousands of Americans. Given your political philosophy, the government wouldn't have anything to do about that; again, that is a valid argument, just not shared by most people in your audience on this blog.

P.S. For future blogs, please consider your audience; the increasing amount of 'legalese' in your post doesn't help your cause

[Shanie Scott]

Really, well that is interesting since this is the first time in our history that a MEDICALLY SAFE and LEGAL procedure was banned from inclusion in a private insurance policy. Well, lets see...my religion does not believe in blood transfusions, vasectomies, or lets say Viagra....­but I believe that all of these procedures will be available, subsidized as you say, with TAX PAYERS DOLLARS!! As we all know, religious beliefs should never play a role in how we create and pass public policy in this country, unfortunately many believe that only what THEY believe should be interjected into policy. This is a slippery slope, as we grow and become more and more diverse as a country this may and probably will come back to bite us all in the behind!!

[Lacey Olivia]

There is a VERY big difference between taking a potential human life and getting a blood transfusion. I do not personally agree with someone getting a sex change but I would never make them illegal. If a person wants to change themselves, that is their business. In most cases however, a woman is fully aware that she can get pregnant by engaging in sex (yes, even with a condom) Birth control is not a perfected art. So I guess you could say I pro- choice. I completely agree that a woman has the right to choose to not have sex until she is in a stable enough point in her life that having children would be a serious detriment to her goals. And if a woman does have an unplanned pregnancy, even through rape, there is no law keeping her from giving that child up for adoption.

[Kassandra]

Apparently, the Catholic Church has a tremendous interest in seeing health reform fail. check it out:
The Bishops’ Billion-Dollar Business Bonanza
http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/14740

This from the richest state in the world...st­ill preying on the poor and superstitious of the world. Sickening

[BKFactor]

It is interesting that the Catholic Church, that is still to this day embroiled in sex abuse and sex scandals, feels they can push lawmakers around and bend to their will.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sex_abuse_cases
-

Did you read where the the Catholic Archdiocese of Washington said Wednesday that it will be unable to continue the social service programs it runs for the District if the city doesn't change a proposed same-sex marriage law, a threat that could affect tens of thousands of people the church helps with adoption, homelessness and health care."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/11/AR2009111116943.html?hpid=topnews
-
Also read:
"Did C Street Cult Influence the Stupak Amendment?"

To read the entire article, go to: http://www.examiner.com/x-3629--Philadelphia-Progressive-Examiner~y2009m11d11-Did-C-Street-Cult-influence-the-Stupak-Amendment-

[sweetleopardess]

It's not about prohibiting the use of public funds for abortion - the Hyde amendment already took care of that. The problem with the Stupak-Pitts amendment is that it restricts ACCESS to abortion, by prohibiting already existing insurance plans from covering it. If my insurance plan, which I pay for 100%, covers abortion now, it could be stripped away under Stupak-Pitts and that is WRONG!

[Chris]

The only way it could be stripped away is if they only offered that plan throught the exchange. It woudl seem highly doubtfull that those "greedy insurers" would not offer the same coverage outside the exchange. Especially since so few will actually be allowed to particpate in the exchange.

[tabaqui]

Some don't want to pay for abortion - I don't want to pay for Viagra.

Funny how the GOP screams about 'the goverment' coming between them and their doctors and how that's immoral, horrible, the end of the world! And yet they are more than willing for the government to come between women and their doctors.

I don't want my taxes to pay for war, Viagra, the wall being built between Mexico and Texas, raises for any senator or congressman, Gitmo, or 'faith based' initiatives. Now - who do I call on the Hill to get *my* personal preferences made into law?

[SonofLiberty1]

You can't have it both ways you know...

If it's such a "private matter" you have no business asking for public money.

If you really want public money it ceases to be private.

And then you might see all hell break loose...

You won't like it much

[HPdevotee]

LOL..SOL

That is just ludicrous. So, any entity that receives public funds then forfeits their clients constitutional rights? The CC would then lose their special privilege of the 'confessio­nal'..I mean, sense they receive public money for some of their charities.­..right? I demand that all confessions be printed out and distributed to the public...c­an't have it both ways, you know.

[SJBrown]

If it's public funding, what does that make the insurance industry, pharma, and health care providers? All of them receive some level of federal payments--tax breaks/credits, medicare payments, local/state/federal employee program... the list goes on.

We can certainly have it both ways if they can.

And I don't like it now.

[easarsfield]

You are aware that Planned Parenthood receives a pretty size-able chunk of money from tax payers, right?

[been2there]

War is wrong. If my tax money is spent on that, you can just live with women being able to buy insurance that is comprehensive. You should read about the anarchists of the 1800s. Their philosophy was much like yours--and it was wrong then, too.

[SonofLiberty1]

Not every man buys Viagra...m­ost in fact don't.

[caterpol]

Most women don't have abortions.

Your point?

[TheTruePatriot]

After reading the Stupak Amendment to HR 3962 (read it, its only 3 double spaced pages) I fail to see how any of Nancy L. Cohen's 10 reasons has anything to do with the amendment. Ms. Cohen brings up the usual scare tactics about "right-wing conspiracies" and "religious oppression" that she and her other radical left minions continuously spew. She's making it sound is if Roe v. Wade would be overturned, women would be required to wear chastity belts, stay barefoot and in the kitchen!
"Once upon a time in America, men lorded over women, screwed any woman they could, and women and children (and now taxpayers) paid the price." What color is the sky in your world Nancy? Many men are still doing that. It is a shame but true.
Anytime someone dares to tread on the scared Roe v. Wade decision with fear of ANY possible curtailment of abortion rights, I'm sure Nancy will be there blowing her rusty trumpet to lead the charge for wholesale abortions. But don't fret too much old girl, the choice to abort will still be around, except the public won't have to pay for the "elective" procedure.

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/15284081/Stupak-Amendment-to-HR-3962-Rev-108

[mydwyf]

You got it ! The Roe v Wade decision IS 'scared'.
Because it addresses the issue of women having to deal with the results of males planting their
fears into females. And then being too fearful to admit that is what they did.

Interesting that the name of one of the parties is "Roe" which is the name for some sorts of eggs.

[SonofLiberty1]

Interesting too that "Roe" isn't pro choice anymore!

[SonofLiberty1]

Even more "Sacred" to these women is that they just can't seriously say "NO" to their deadbeat bad-boy boyfriends

[Osusuki]

Thank you for the hyperlink. Now go back to it and read the parts of the amendment that strike language in the original bill, some of which change the meaning of entire clauses by striking one or two words. My favorite is 'Page 182, Line 22, strike "willingness or".'

The whole passage referred to in the bill reads, "No Exchange participating health benefits plan may discriminate against any individual health care provider or health care facility because of its willingness or unwillingness to provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions.­" After the change, the passage makes it perfectly all right to discriminate against health care professionals who are WILLING to have anything to do with abortions, but not against those who have already killed several women with their religious claptrap.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume they don't teach you how to read legislation in home school.

[TommyMcCarthy]

Oh! susuki

Tough, but fair.....t­ough, but fair.....
heh
tm

[sedc72]

I say this to ANY proper thinking human, whether straight/gay, left/center/right, ALL colors/rel­igions/etc­., I repeat an earlier statement, if you allow ONE group to have their rights taken, eventually yours will be done also. This is especially going to those of you who voted AGAINST same-sex marriage. You thought that you were upholding marriage, no, you took away someone's rights. Now that you see how easy it is for someone of a narrow mind to take away YOUR rights, don't feel so good, does it? If you hear me, do this - help the citizens of D.C. get our TRUE representation, help same sex couples become marriage partners, and let's fight back the shackles of imposed slavery of women by OLD WHITE MEN, and together, we can make a difference!!

[seted]

You should really get off the 'old white guy' crap. Obama wouldn't be president if some people like me( 44 , white, male) didn't vote for him.

[been2there]

Sorry, your demographic is still a big oppressor. I am glad you aren't--are you?

[MDCA]

Stupak and Pitts Amendment is both Stupid and the Pitts of barbarism that has defined the conservative elements of the US Congress since Obama has become president. How dare two old white men dictate to millions of American women how to deal with their reproductive decisions?
I thought there is a clear separation of Church and State in this country. I thought there is freedom of expression in this country. I thought America was a place where women were respected, and not dictated to like they are in Moslem countries. This Amendment is shameful and it specially angers me that Stupid Stupak defied the Democratic Party's Platform. I will do all I can to make sure he is not re-elected. Stupak and Pitts are closet Moslems and should move to a Moslem country where they would be right at home with their fascist ideas.

[Lacey Olivia]

Actually, I'm a young woman and I dictate that millions of american women dealt with their "reproductive decisions" when they chose to have sex before they were ready for what came next. It's not just the "old white men" in this country who understand what happens when sperm and egg meet. (even on accident) I would prefer to not insult the intelligence of today's American women by insinuating that they don't understand the human reproductive system.

[jorr101]

I dont understand? How does no federal funding for abortion punish women for being sexually active? I dont want my hard earned cash going to murder an innocent child because someone isnt using contraceptives. You may feel differently about abortion that it is not murder and only uuuh (post deffence here) and thats fine, but use your own money for your abbortions because we dont want to pay for it!

[imaginati0n]

I don't want to pay for war, yet I do.
War is actual murder, abortion is not.
Abortion is legal and the wars we are engaged in are not.
Should I withhold my tax dollars? Please advise.

[SonofLiberty1]

NOPE YOU ARE 100% WRONG.

ABORTION IS A NON ESSENTIAL PROCEDURE

IT IS "A PRIVATE MATTER BETWEEN YOU AND YOUR DOCTOR"
WHICH IS THE PRO CHOICE MANTRA

THEREFORE, IT SHOULD BE PRIVATELY FUNDED.

YOU WANT PUBLIC MONEY YOU LOSE YOUR "PRIVACY"

[valkyrie607]

But you'll pay to abort the baby of a rapist, right?

Because, in the end, it's all about making sure those slatternly harlots, the ones who CHOSE to have sex, get what's coming to them.

[Joe The Nerd Ferraro - Huffpost Blogger]

i cannot believe that you actually just wrote that and want to be taken seriously.

[meko]

Not allowing women to purchase insurance that includes abortion coverage is punishing them for being sexually active.

Contraceptives are not 100% effective. Pregnancies do not always go to term without incident. Stupak doesn't even have an exception to protect the health of the mother (and was originally written so that only "forcible rape" would be an exemption).

Automobile collisions are the #4 cause of death in this country, yet we cover all of those in our health insurance. People talk on the phone, fail to maintain a 3-second following distance, jump into intersections the second the light turns green (which is why 70% of collisions in intersections happen in the first two seconds after the light changes), have intense conversations, pick things up off the floor and otherwise behave negligently all the time. And they are KILLING other people who don't know them and don't care to pay for it either. Every time I see an idiot driving on a cell phone (and hands-free have not been demonstrated to be safer - it's the conversation) I know I might have to pay for that - with my life - and I don't like it. But that's the way it is.

Things happen even when you make your best effort to avoid them, and makes mistakes. This bill is about punishing women, not changing behavior.

[SonofLiberty1]

Not the same thing...if it is a private matter then it shouldn't be made public because of the use of public money. ..

Or do you want to have folks throw rotten tomatoes at you?