It's a Mad World in the US House of Representatives when it comes to Health Care Reform

The US House of Representatives just asked women to take a sucker punch in the ovaries, "Sacrifice your fair access to LEGAL health care for the GREATER GOOD."

I think women have been sacrificing too much for too long for the greater good. Elected officials -- put in office, by the way, most likely largely by women -- have no right to not ask but IMPOSE such a sacrifice on women.

I don't think it's time to suck it up and take another one for the team, with all due respect, Madame Speaker Pelosi, and I'm flabbergasted you think that's the right thing to do.

Let's get one thing crystal clear: I am personally opposed to abortion. That's right, I am. My husband and I rejected prenatal testing and even had a specialist threaten to drop us from care because we would not sign a paper agreeing to selective reduction or abortion.That was our choice for us, and we don't extend our personal choices or morals to anyone else.

What we do extend to others is a trust and respect in their ability to choose what is best for them and their family and their own life situation.That's because we inherently believe in the individual's right to free will and choice.

Sort of, you know, like the founding principles of the great nation of the USA.

That's also my guiding principle behind believing utterly in a woman's right to choose for her reproduction, a legal right, by the way.

Welcome to the new generation of political women: we won't sit down, shut up or take one for the team.

Quit selling out women's rights. Women, quit letting them do it.

Members of Congress, it's dead wrong to deny access to legal health care. Period. In fact, it perpetuates the very inequities in care that you purport to be reforming. It's clear discrimination of women and public health care should NOT be allowed to prevent access to legal health care. It's an invasion of privacy (there, I said it out loud).

In the incredibly insightful words of Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), "Proposing that women … purchase a separate abortion rider is not only discriminatory, but ridiculous.” She went on to note that in five states that do require such riders, it’s nearly impossible to find coverage for abortions.

Respect the right to different opinions, different choices, and most of all, the legal right to both.

I'm speaking up and will be contacting my own senators (as much as that is shouting down a black hole) because I do not want this madness to infect the Senate.

Comments

[Karoli]

The past 2 days have been an exercise in not screaming as I see furious women, progressives and a few men screaming for death of health care reform because of Stupak. Here's the problem: The politics involved in the health care reform process are deep, divisive, and complex. The Stupak amendment accomplished its intended goal: to divide the grass-roots, and do it right along gender lines.

On its face, Stupak is an amazing piece of misogynist work. On the other hand, it's so amazing I don't believe it will survive the Senate or conference. What matters most to me is the cynical use of women's health as a wedge to try and kill health reform, and the predictable response from both edges of the extremes with regard to the whole issue.

I am against abortion, too. Actually, I'd guess more people are against than are for it. It's a deeply unpleasant choice. (emphasis on the word CHOICE) However,the idea of the Supreme Court, Orrin Hatch, or Bart Stupak crawling into my uterus is repugnant and disgusting, and all the more so when I'm reminded that Viagra benefits have been around since Viagra was approved. Evidently men have a right to erections and ejaculation without a responsibility for the consequences. That, it appears, belongs solely to women.

Bottom line here: While I agree that it is a horrid piece of work, I also think our response to it should be carefully crafted to remain united as a party and committed to getting health care reform done. There are some big levers to pull in the house bill, not the least of which is the antitrust exemption. We're in a horsetrading phase, and need to come at it from a position of strength rather than divided weakness.

[Cynematic]

What I was trying to say (in lengthy fashion) in my post was that women are no longer tangential to the greater good. We are the greater good. The world over, when we thrive, society thrives.

I think a perfectly good compromise had been worked out in the Capps Amendment and the sooner we work our way back to that carefully calibrated position, the better.

Otherwise the Stupak-Pitts amendment cancels out a few of the important principles that have guided this process from the outset: an aspiration to universal coverage population-wise, and the end to exclusion of coverage based on ANY pretext.