Rep. John Boehner is set to become the next speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives. As Boehner prepares to take the gavel, a survey released last week shows that the vast majority of Americans has no idea who he is. We have no doubt that, before long, Boehner will emerge as the new face of the anti-choice movement in the U.S.
Maybe you're thinking, "Wait a minute, didn't Boehner campaign on jobs and the economy? Isn't calling for attacks on choice inconsistent with the 'limited government' he talks about?"
When it comes to choice, Boehner's rhetoric about limited government rings hollow. Less than 48 hours after polls closed, Boehner did exactly what we expected him to do: make attacking a woman's right to choose a cornerstone (or pillar, rather) of his agenda. He even told the National Right to Life Committee that, when women have the right to choose, "freedom is diminished." A recent front-page story in The New York Times spells out how imposing additional restrictions on a woman's right to choose and ending insurance coverage of abortion is a central part of his push to repeal the health-reform law.
Let's face it. Creating jobs, especially in the short term, will be hard. Boehner won't have much to show his base, unless he takes aim at a woman's right to choose.
Contrary to his statements about 'limited government', Boehner has never missed an opportunity to open the door to more political interference in our personal, private decisions. He even has accepted the endorsement of the Republican National Coalition for Life, which requires all endorsed candidates to "indicate they are faithfully pro-life, and do not justify abortion for innocent babies who are conceived through rape or incest."
Since entering the House in 1990, Boehner has cast 142 votes on abortion and other reproductive-rights issues. All 142 were anti-choice. That's right: in 20 years in Congress, Boehner voted in favor of a woman's right to choose exactly zero times.
Here's a quick glance at his "greatest hits" list of Boehner's anti-choice votes:
Now that Boehner will control the House, the outlook for women is grim.
Boehner already is a co-sponsor of the dangerous "Stupak on Steroids" bill. This bill is even worse than the original Stupak amendment that threatened health-care reform. It would ban coverage of abortion in the new health-care system and impose a tax on Americans with private insurance plans that include abortion coverage. Eighty-seven percent of private plans currently include such coverage.
In addition, Boehner's plan to repeal the health-reform law jeopardizes the promise of free prenatal care and birth control for millions of American women. He also could revive the failed Bush-era "abstinence-only" programs that censored discussion of birth control and cut funding for family-planning services (the Title X program) that provide women access to basic health care, such as birth control and cancer screening.
Sadly, Boehner faces few obstacles when it comes to a vote count. He will lead a House of Representatives with at least 79 new anti-choice members.
We are under no illusions about changing Boehner's position on choice, but we are committed to making sure he feels the pressure of America's pro-choice majority as he carries the water for the anti-choice movement in the coming months. In just the last two weeks, we've recruited thousands of new activists and educated our supporters about our need to fight back against the incoming speaker.
We will ensure that each and every day more Americans know that, when it comes to women's freedom and privacy, Boehner doesn't speak for the majority of people in this country.
Follow Nancy Keenan on Twitter: www.twitter.com/NARAL
Shira Hirschman Weiss: The Morality of IVF is Between God, Me and My Endocrinologist
Michele Somerville: Assumption of Responsibility: Condoms and the Pope
Firstly, taking a pro-life stance AND and anti-contraceptive stance, though not a hypocrisy per se (I think Monty Python explains this pretty well) is just plain stupid.
Secondly, he voted against the Family and Medical Leave Act; so he's clearly not big on families.
I'm pro-choice, within reason, but I cannot, with good conscience support women's rights groups who use abortion as their only reason for existing. Address issues like rape and incest, then I'm with you. It is unreasonable to only deal with the consequences of these actions and not their causes. Investigate, arrest and incarcerate the men responsible.
Come on, this is what liberals do, scare women into thinking that they are going to take away abortion rights. And most women don't believe in abortion anyways.
You don't have a clue what women want or need regarding the difficult decision about choice.
NARAL's work goes far beyond abortion. The organization fights for access to contraception, medically accurate, comprehensive sex education in schools, and prenatal care for women who want to continue their pregancies, among other issues. It's a reproductive rights organization, not an abortion rights organization. If you look into some of their work, especially in your own state, you may find you want to support it!
As for John Boehner, I doubt the sincerity of a man who protects pre-born life, but didn't vote in favor of the mothers of that life receiving equal pay for equal work.
There is no justifiable reason why fetuses should be protected only until they emerge from the womb. Being truly pro-life requires giving a damn about the born as well as the unborn. To do less is to be a liar and a fraud.
Wow. The cruelness of your mentality is stunning.
It's about the unborn child that has no say as to whether they live or die.
Selfish much?
I also believe in a woman's right to choose.
go figure :)
Boehner is bad for EVERYONE.
Just two years ago, you had so much admiration for the voters....now, not so much, huh?
But for now, the effects were sobering to see.
There were ads in ever paper by gynecologists with euphemisms implying they would break the law.
Many women went to Germany, or other bordering countries. German abortion clinics along the Polish border do very well.
Some women appeal to the outstanding feminist organizations which offer abortion pills to women in oppressive countries around the world.
Women had options, and I'm quite certain no woman is ever jailed (though doctors do lose their licenses), but people should feel assured that they can talk to their doctors about any health issue, and many women in Poland had to go through an intimate and emotional experience behind the backs of the doctors they trusted, sometimes with doctors who didn't speak their language, sometimes with unqualified doctors.
Other women felt they had no choice, married men who they didn't love, and men married women they didn't love.
It is a terrible, terrible law to consider.
When we're having a debate, I don't want to hear any cringing from the left. A woman has the right to an abortion. Period.
and working to ensure the rights of the pre-born to enjoy life, as the rest of us do
Funny how B0n3r and his fellow Repubs consistently eschew working for the rights of the BORN to enjoy life.
"as the rest of us do"
You mean, as the rest of the Repubs do at our expense. You and I pay to keep ex-Veep Crashcart alive, at a time when more of our citizens than we have seen in most of our lifetimes are cruelly consigned to rely on faith-based health care. You and I will pay for whatever consequences B0n3r suffers as a result of who knows how many packs a day.
A lot of unwanted kids become throwaway kids, living short, nasty, brutish lives. "Enjoying" life does not simply consist of drawing breath. Enjoying life has everything to do with the common good, which in concept the Repubs have done nothing but fight against tooth and nail.