As the health-care debate moves to the Senate, many pundits are warning the Democratic Party that the fight to keep an anti-choice amendment out of the Senate bill represents a split in the party’s big tent.
The rationale, as the pundits say, is that the Democratic congressional leadership has to choose between the economically liberal wing of its party and the socially progressive one. (The latter, of course, is code for the pro-choice voters who have consistently helped elect Democrats at all levels of government.)
Let me be clear: I strongly disagree with this premise, precisely because my personal experience has taught me that you do not have to trade off your economic ideals to make social progress.
I am the daughter of a union member from Anaconda, Montana. My dad worked in the copper smelter that sustained our community for decades. When it came time for me to go to college, I signed my union card, picked up a shovel, and suited up as part of the first wave of women to work in what had been a male bastion. The money I earned at the smelter made it possible for me to complete college and return to my hometown as a teacher for special-needs students.
Then disaster struck. Without any prior notice, the company operating the smelter told its employees that the plant was closing. The livelihoods of my neighbors and many relatives literally went up in smoke. Our population shrank, and the bustling town of my childhood became a thing of the past.
Determined to do something about that, and acting on my lineage of outspoken Irish Catholics, I ran for the legislature. My main issue was making sure corporations couldn’t blindside a community with news of a plant closure -- they had to give ample notice.
I got to the legislature and fought for this kind of economic justice, while at the same time working to end insurance companies’ practice of discriminating against women in insurance coverage. I believed then, as I do now, that social justice and economic justice are intertwined - you simply cannot have one without the other.
After six years in the legislature, I went on to serve three terms as the statewide elected superintendent of public instruction. I ran as a pro-choice candidate for that office and spoke at pro-choice rallies when opponents of a woman’s right to choose started launching more attacks in our state.
When I ran for Congress in 2000, I campaigned as a candidate for working families and for women’s freedom and privacy. For me, the two values complemented each other. They weren’t in competition.
So, I tell my fellow progressives to reject the pundits’ premise that, in order to achieve great progress, we have to push aside allies who, in this case, helped build and still support the Democratic Party’s big tent.
In fact, one of the most vocal proponents of the “divide and conquer” strategy is Rep. Bart Stupak of Michigan, the principal author of the notorious anti-choice amendment in the House bill. He injected anti-abortion politics into the debate, even though the original House bill (much to our disappointment) included a ban on federal funding for abortion and continued other federal and state status-quo restrictions on abortion.
Stupak’s amendment goes far beyond the status quo. It also makes it virtually impossible for private insurance companies to cover abortion care in the new system (although 85 percent of these plans currently provide such coverage). Without the full range of reproductive-health options in the new health-care exchange, women will once again be at an economic disadvantage in the workplace. That's not a prescription either wing of our party should be able to take.
Rep. Stupak and his allies are taking issue with NARAL Pro-Choice America’s efforts to hold senators accountable and stop divisive anti-choice language like that found in his amendment from contaminating the Senate bill. Rep. Stupak even told the Detroit News, “We are in contact with senators to make sure our language holds. The other side is playing with fire.”
Rep. Stupak, I worked in the copper smelter. I can stand the heat.
Follow Nancy Keenan on Twitter: www.twitter.com/NARAL
Peggy Drexler: The New Father/ Daughter Dance: Changing Lessons in Power
How has a rebalancing of gender power affected the connection between father and daughter -- for many women, one of the defining male relationships in her life?
What I understand however that it does do is prevent women from being able to buy insurance under the public option that covers abortion even when paying for that insurance with there OWN MONEY not federal funds.
Anti-choice is a filthy and immoral position. Abortion is a tragedy, yes; anti-choice is a tragedy that compounds with cruelty and is rooted in selfishness and unwarranted interference. Grow up!
I very much doubt if you would find any of our founding fathers that thought abortion was ok.