There are many Democrats who can be counted on to show their cards to the opponent, equivocate, vacillate and wave the white flag before the game has even started, as did Senator McCaskill this week on the Stupak Amendment.
The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops was among the first to call for an “abortion-neutral” health care bill in July, defined as maintaining current policies on funding, mandates, and conscience protections. But then they reneged on the deal.
The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and its allies distorted the facts by claiming that the proposed system under the House bill would use federal dollars to cover abortions. They’re wrong.
The Stupak Amendment isn’t only about trampling on women’s rights and lives, as devastating as that is. It’s also about trampling on their faith and conscience.
Why care about women’s health in health care reform? As 19th century Swiss poet and philosopher Henri Frederic Amiel wrote: “In health there is freedom. Health is the first of all liberties.”
In the midst of foaming-at-the-mouth at the political give-and-take in health care reform, many prominent pundits neglected to properly inform the public that Stupak's language allowed for a major incursion into women's rights.
Stupak-Pitts is a slippery slope: For example, every health insurance company in America could now lose some of its tax benefits. And you could just say that anybody that got a federal loan for housing could not get an abortion.
Pro-choice advocates abided by an agreement not to seek changes to the Hyde Amendment in health reform. Anti-choice factions broke their end of the bargain.
What are the real-life effects of the Stupak-Pitts amendment to the House health care bill? An analysis by experts on health law, and reproductive and sexual health issues, shows just how far it goes.
"Irrational." "Hypersensitive." "Hysterical." The tone of comments on Daily Kos around the abomination known as the Stupak-Pitts Amendment is: "Calm down, little lady. Get real. Be adults. Doncha know how politics really works?"
Is a Senator who says she's pro-choice short-circuiting efforts to beat the Stupak Amendment in the Senate by conceding the point less than 48 hours after the disastrous vote in the House on this amendment? Is she signaling for the White House?
The Stupak Amendment potentially goes farther than any other federal law to restrict women’s access to abortion. The claim that it only bars federal funding for abortions is simply false.
By banning private insurers in the public exchange from covering "abortion services," the Stupak Amendment will affect women with incomplete miscarriages. Like the one I faced last month.
The Stupak-Pitts amendment would actually result the loss of abortion coverage many women already have because it prohibits the new private insurance market as well as any possible public option from providing such coverage.
US News & World Report offers up an entirely incorrect report of what the Stupak Amendment does, a young woman gives birth and you can watch it live on the internet!, Broadsheet calls for clearly identifying Jesus in the details of an article on IVF.
Support Congresswomen Diana DeGette (D-CO) and Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) who have launched a sign-on letter and ad campaign to stop the Stupak-Pitts amendment in health reform.
These Representatives have put themselves on the line to defend our rights. We need to stand behind them. Here's how you can take action.
