It was a late night last night for the U.S. Senate. In the past, when anti-choice politicians controlled the process, that would have meant something dreadful would have happened to women's freedom and privacy.
Previous Congresses were famous for votes at 3 a.m., hoping their shenanigans would go unreported and slip under the public's radar screen.
But, pro-choice Americans, I am pleased to report different news: Last night, the Senate rejected two anti-choice amendments, but the razor-thin margin by which we won these votes is a reminder of why elections matters.
To what amendments am I referring?
Well, you can depend on anti-choice politicians to lack creativity and imagination, and last night was no exception.
In a blatant attempt to entangle the budget resolution in anti-abortion politics, Sen. Wayne Allard (R-CO) offered an amendment intended to codify a controversial Bush administration regulation, put in place in 2002, which allows states to make an embryo or a fetus -- but not a pregnant woman -- eligible for the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). The amendment failed 46-52. Last year, a coalition of pro-choice and pro-life senators defeated a similar Allard proposal -- but last night we picked up a few new senators. The tide is moving in the right direction!
As I said, the same stuff over and over again.
And speaking of items off the anti-choice shelf, Sen. John Ensign (R-NV) put forth an amendment modeled after the so-called "Child Custody Protection Act" [PDF] (CCPA). This divisive and controversial proposal would prohibit anyone other than a parent -- including a grandparent, aunt, adult sibling, or member of the clergy -- from accompanying a young woman across state lines for abortion care if the home state's parental-involvement law has not been met.
Here is another sign of progress: the Senate's rejection of CCPA late last night, by a tie vote of 49-49, is a major milestone for pro-choice Americans.
Our message of how this proposal jeopardizes the health and safety of young women who can't reach out to their parents for fear of violence, or in cases of rape or incest, really got through this time, thanks to our allies in the Senate for making the case to their colleagues.
We applaud our pro-choice friends in the Senate who blocked these anti-choice measures. They stood up against the divisive attacks which were simply trying to distract the public from our nation's true priorities like fixing the economy or making health care more affordable.
Pro-choice Americans made tremendous gains in the 2006 elections and restored pro-choice leadership in Congress, but anti-choice members still outnumber pro-choice lawmakers in both chambers. Until the numerical composition of Congress matches America's pro-choice majority, we will continue to see dangerous and divisive assaults on the values of freedom and privacy.
It is fantastic that new senators, such as Claire McCaskill (D-MO), Sherrod Brown (D-OH), Jon Tester (D-MT), and James Webb (D-VA), who defeated anti-choice incumbents in 2006 continue to show why elections matter, vote by vote.
So, celebrate today -- we won by a whisker -- and then volunteer tomorrow for a pro-choice candidate for the House or Senate.
Follow Nancy Keenan on Twitter: www.twitter.com/NARAL
Will this lead to a second civil war? I cannot imagine that more passion would have been possible before the Civil war.
How about a national refrendum, in time to avoid hatred boilng into the streets or before the south declares independance ?
Obama '08!
Who the hell thought it was a good idea for men to determine what a woman is to do with her body?
Thank God for the women who said TO HELL WITH THAT!
Why such an easy decision? I was about to graduate college, I was unemployed, had an enormous college tuition debt and most importantly I knew I was emotionally unfit to nurture, care or provide for myself much less a baby.
I can respect other woman being pro-birth. What I do not respect is a man telling me what I should and should not do with my female body. This is a woman's issue and therefore men should keep their lack of understanding out of this issue and debate. Why don't we start demanding men not masterbate or deny them medical access for conditions like penile erection dysfunction, or enlarged prostate. Better yet, lets demand Viagra be taken off the shelves of pharmacies. Men(white) have always has their rights respected, their votes counted and their voices heard. Men, this is not your battle. This is an issue for women, by women. Let the women decide what is best for themselves.
My Body, My Privacy, MY CHOICE!
I often wished that she had aborted the original fetus and conceived me when she was good and ready to be a mother. I am glad that you had the simple courage, and the ability to choose how to handle your pregnancy in your own best interests. The kind of crappy lives endured by me, my mother, my gutless absent "father", my grandparents, aunts and uncles and cousins and hapless neighbors endured because of my premature birth were avoided by your intelligent decision. Giving a crappy start in life to a kid is a poor excuse for forcing unready and unwilling women to become mothers.
Disgusted, selfish folk, like "PaNevvy", ought to experience my life and then decide if unready, unwilling mothers should be forced to raise babies.
Had your mother decided to abort you, it is most likely that it would have occured after the point at which YOUR body was fully wired to feel pain. You would have died a relatively quick but incredibly painful death and would not be here to be as pro choice as you are.
Roe v Wade ahs been on the books for 35 yrs- and we are proud we barely scraped it through AGAIN? This is Proof we have had serious Losses not gains!
NOW has done nothing to solidify this Right! We should not be in the same national discussion that was resolved ove r3 decades ago! they have Failed and you want US to pat them on the Back???
Tehy haven't even called the 'right to Lifers' Bluff- failed to define waht Rights those of US alive should have - which take preedence over those who have not even reached the point of 'Life ' Yet. Right to Life should be held to it's Rhetoric- stem cell research for those suffering from dibilitating dieases, kids getting their nutritional and health needs met, an economy which helps parents care for their children, Long term care for those who are disbled or elderly, an environment which promotes living things.
I'm a right to lifer, bu ti am not a Pro Birther regardles of the consequence to the life that will be lead once actually born. Granted any one who harms a Pregnant woman should be held responsible for the potential for a second victim, but only if they are aware the woman is pregnant and inflicts harm on her Becasue she is pregnant- Husbands/boyfriends who kill the expectatnt mother to avoid their responisblity. Let's focus on the needs of those already here first - then the rights and freedoms of a multicelled parasitic organism later- once we creat a world worth being born into.
Perhaps you can explain why soo many children remain unnadopted.
Which pro-life fundamentalist evangelical televangelist do you know of that has adopted an AIDS teenager???
.
Professionally, I worked in Family Court, and became familiar with an adoption agency which charged hefty fees to adoptive parents. They had pregnant girls referred to them from pregnancy counseling centers. I am deeply suspicious that there are financial motivations at play here. Not all adoption agencies, of course.
On a side note, it frankly offends me when infertile couples pressure pregnant girls to give babies up for adoption.
Onto the meat of the subject, I make this call to everyone out there who has strong feelings on the issue, they're are not anti-choice, and they are not anti-life. Both sides of this issue are striving to preserve something, not take something away, at least as they see it. The Pro-lifer's are not crying, "Yay, we hate woman's rights, take them all away" and the pro-choicers are not, "Yay, kill, kill, kill." So please, its just a difference of opinions and it doesn't have to be displayed so negatively.
In addition, to both sides of the issue, stop trying to use deceitful tactics and methodology to get you're point of view pushed into law. Have some guts, and straight up bring it up for a vote, should woman have the right to terminate there pregnancies, make some amendments as to the time frame of the pregnancy and then vote on it. To everyone in the congress, yes you are from your home districts/states, but don't forget that you represent America now, all of it, and if legislation that is pro-life or pro-choice passes and you disagree with it, suck it up and deal with it. Bring it up for another vote in two years when the legislature changes, I'm sorry that we offended your little southwestern town/large northeastern metropolis, but that is evidently how the American majority feels and you work for us.
If the legislature passes pro-life amendments, so be it, I cede to the majority of America, but don't you dare try some underhanded method to bypass what America wants as Senator Keenan is accusing some in the congress of doing.
Like all really decisive things I'm sure that this will be solved by science one day in the future when we'll be able to turn on and off the reproductive parts of our body at will, or something equally as cool.
it isn't just about not wanting a baby. perhaps the baby is deformed, or has a genetic defect that will make its life short, painful, and miserable. perhaps the woman was raped. perhaps the pregnancy is not viable or it is ectopic. perhaps the woman is married with 3 children and despite all efforts to avoid a pregnancy it happened anyway and they can't afford another one. perhaps the mother is unable to carry a pregnancy to term without serious threat to her health and possibly death. i don't like abortion, i don't see it like its candy and everyone should have one. but unfortunately it is a symptom of the world we live in. help make it a world worth being born into and then we can talk, ok?
if every pregnancy that has been aborted hadn't who would be caring for the resulting children? where would they live? would they be guaranteed healthcare even if it was a pre-existing condition? or would you tell the mother that she should have just kept her legs closed and forget the fact that there is an ACTUAL child involved who may suffer because you feel that the mother needs a lesson.
Because those are entirely different issues.
Whether or not a woman should be able to terminate her pregnancy is an entirely different issue from a person's right to own guns and each should be judged on their own merits and not based upon other views that an individual may hold.
Additionally, prior to abortion and reliable birth control, infanticide was how humans controlled their own populations. And before you get indignant, do your research and you’ll find that infanticide has been committed on every continent and by every culture throughout history including here in the US--we had institutionalized infanticide until the 20th century. (Hint): It was called an orphanage. No. Making abortions illegal or "restricting" them will not reduce them. It will only make them more dangerous for the poor and make the rich travel outside of the US.
Also, look up when life begins and you will find that all cultures have a different answer--some based on religion and some based on science. Some beleive that a human is not alive until it has eaten and yet some believe that life begins after an infant has been alive for four weeks. What about women who do things that put their pregnancies at risk, such as, driving without a seatbelt or not taking folic acid or sky-diving or drinking too much caffeine--should we charge them with child abuse or even murder? They caused or could have possibly caused an abortion. There is evidence that microwaves and chlorine (used to sanitize drinking water) can increase the risks of miscarriage--should we make chlorine and microwaves illegal? What about amniocentesis? It also increases the risk of miscarriage. Should doctors be prosecuted for abortions caused by amniocentesis? Would doctors then be required to report to the authorities for further investigation every time a woman has a miscarriage? Where do you draw the line?
Additionally, prior to abortion and reliable birth control, infanticide was how humans controlled their own populations. And before you get indignant, do your research and you’ll find that infanticide has been committed on every continent and by every culture throughout history including here in the US--we had institutionalized infanticide until the 20th century. (Hint): It was called an orphanage. No. Making abortions illegal will not reduce them. It will only make them more dangerous for the poor, increase infanticide, and will be a safe only for the rich who can travel outside of the US--like the women in my family did prior to Roe v. Wade.
Also, look up when life begins and you will find that all cultures have a different answer--some based on religion and some based on science. What about women who do things that puts their pregnancies at risk like driving without a seatbelt or not taking folic acid or sky-diving or drinking too much caffeine should we charge them with child abuse or even murder? They caused or could have possibly caused an abortion. There is evidence that microwaves and chlorine (used to sanitize drinking water) can increase the risks of miscarriage--should we make chlorine and microwaves illegal too? What about amniocentesis? It also increases the risk of miscarriage. Should doctors be prosecuted for abortions caused by amniocentesis? Would doctors then be required to report to the authorities for further investigation every time a woman has a miscarriage?
Women will be able to stay at home and seek quality medical care or be forced to the back alleys or accross the border to hget what they need.