For health care reform....
"The battle for the individual rights of women is one of long standing and none of us should countenance anything which undermines it."
Eleanor Roosevelt
My wife had a conversation on blog tonight that I will share here - it was the rationalization and minimizing of the Nelson language in the bill, by those who claim to support women's right. It started with this post. The first sentence is maddening. Yes. It is status quo that politicians and anti-choice groups advocate against women's health and safety. This time they were successful in actually succeeding in getting language in a bill that reduce a woman's ability to pay for and thus OBTAIN safe reproductive health care servies.
Blogger: False meme going around that the health insurance reform bill is anti-choice. It's not; status quo is more accurate. Read the post that dismantles this idea--key part here: "The language in the Senate bill isn't new. Every year we see the Church and Coats and Weldon amendments passed as part of the Labor-H appropriatio...ns bill. Where was the outrage then? Or aren't those riders as media friendly as this fight?" Then stop the meme by sharing this post that has actual facts in it.
Wife: Sick for Profit - this is not correct. The Nelson language in the bill would require women to purchase a separate policy for abortion coverage, why not just force them to buy scarlet letter A's and post the to their chest. Extensive links on this subject and more on our group page (bottom left of wall). Please be careful in the information report - this bill is most definitely anti-choice -
http://www.facebook.com/#!/group.php?gid=292932589774Blogger:
The person who wrote the post is a former NARAL staffer and currently a women's health legislative analyst who actually attends House meetings chaired by Representative Slaughter (and other members of Congress). I mention her bona fides because it's her job to follow the health care bill and advocate for women's health. I understand her ... See Moreargument as this: the current bill is no more anti-choice than the current law of the land. Both conform to the Hyde amendment, which disallows federal funding of abortion. Did you read the post, which cites a lawsuit, Harris v. McRae? Because judges have upheld that lawsuit, we still have the Hyde amendment because a right to an abortion isn't recognized by the FEDERAL constitution. However, if you read the post, several STATE constitutions do recognize a greater right to an abortion than the federal, so if your top priority is making sure abortions are safe, legal and affordable, maybe a better focus is repealing Hyde, and/or expanding the coverage of rights in your state or a neighboring state. Make no mistake, no pro-choice person is going to trumpet this bill as pro-choice--it's not. But it's an exaggeration--and maybe even a mischaracterization--to say it's an anti-choice bill. --CL
Wife: I don't care who wrote the post, as a nurse and reproductive health advocate I have been following this extremely closely. Let's talk about the legislation instead of the Hyde amendment which is not the focus of the current post:
This is what people need to know:
Requires every enrollee--female or male--in a health plan that offers abortion coverage to write two separate checks for insurance coverage.
... See More
Includes "conscience clause" language that protects only individuals or entities that refuse to provide, pay for, provide coverage for, or refer for abortion, removing earlier language that provided balanced non-discrimination language for those who provide a full range of choices to women in need.
Prohibits insurance companies by law from taking into account cost savings when estimating the costs of abortion care and therefore the costs of premiums for abortion care.
Eliminates the provision in earlier versions of the Senate bill and in the original Capps language in the House bill to ensure that there is at least one insurance plan in each exchange that offers and one that does not offer abortion coverage.
Here's a good link to read:
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2010/03/03/health-reform-lumbers-forward-stupak-allies-ratchet-efforts-deny-basic-health-coverage-women Bottom line: in terms of abortion coverage, women will not only be worse off with this version of health reform, they will also face institutionalized sex discrimination for basic reproductive health care in a sweeping law passed by a Democratic White House and Congress.
Pro-choice reproductive health providers support health reform but remain steadfastly against the Nelson provisions. Planned Parenthood, for example, strongly opposes it.
Also - here is a link to a recent Washington Post article that shows how severely riders end up restricting women's access to private insurance coverage:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/13/AR2010031302139.htmlAny legislation that makes it more difficult for women to obtain safe, accessible, and affordable services is by definition anti-choice. I hope now that you are informed about the truth of this bill, you will remove the original post.
Blogger: I'd rather see our current weak pro-choice climate strengthened by the elimination of Hyde, Church, Weldon, and "conscience clause" anti-choice amendments, including Nelson, but I'll take an imperfect bill that we can improve over Hamsher's grandstanding to "kill the bill" any day. Why? Because passing the bill would help 32 million men, ... See Morewomen and children. Here's a post on what's changed recently in the bill and what's stayed:
http://bit.ly/drM82j. I see that RH Reality Check (a favorite repro rights blog of mine also) has gone silent on the Nelson provisions since March 4. And in the March 3, 2010 RH Reality Check piece you cited, it's clear Planned Parenthood is already thinking down the road: "
is exactly the opposite of what President Obama and many members of Congress have pledged under health care reform. That’s why we are asking the president and Congress to fix the Nelson provision in a technical fix bill later on." I'm up for that future battle, as I suspect you are, but will Hamsher be there? If you read the post you'll see that's what originally sparked Melissa's opinion piece.
Wife:
We are talking about this bill. We are talking about a democratic house and senate who have allowed women's bodies to be used as bargaining chips in the current health reform legislating process and that is unconcionable -
As for your hope that we will see improvements down the line, I do not trust this Congress or President to keep to any word after the current debacle of health care reform.
We are suppossed to trust a President who has made a backroom deal to nix the public option with private insurance companies while lying to the nation that it was something he supported - New York Times Link here
... See More
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/miles-mogulescu/ny-times-reporter-confirm_b_500999.html
First, no public option because we didn't have 60. Now, no public option with reconciliation and 50 votes. And, single payer doctors and nurses were ARRESTED in the Senate Finance Hearing for requesting ONE single representative at the health care negotiation. They called for police. They arrested them. They laughed like jeckyls.
....we are supposed to trust this President who came in and destroyed the drug reimportation act with Canada when Congress looked like it had the votes...link here:
http://www.myq2.com/health/la-naw-senate-drugs-2009dec16,0,6216695.story
The democrats have done the corporate industry bidding that this group supposedly detests throught this entire process. There is no trusting their word on doing anything as their actions have completely shown that they do no hold to their word, but govern for the corporate profiteers that dictate their campaign.
I have cut and paste this discussion as it is the perfect example of how democrats are willing to sell out women's rights as an acceptable negotiation technique. What century are we in?
Third Blogger Chimes In:
thanks for the open and civil debate citing real facts. I feel like I have a much better grasp of the abortion issues in the bill. I think I am still for the bill, but it sure makes me a lot weaker about supporting it. I still think once it is in, it will be easier to tweak and change and get where we all really wish we were, than if it fails, ... See Morewhich will empower the right wing to basically freeze the Obama policy and allow them to fight health care reform even harder next time a democratic president is elected (which probably wouldn't be '12, so may be '20?).
they said they would change the Patriot Act
They didn't
They said they would change NAFTA... See More
They didn't
Rights loss are very hard to regain. We should NOT let them go without a fight.
There is something very deeply wrong that any language would effect a women's most basic human right to have control over her own body and dictate her own reproductive future is rationalized or accepted. There are some things you do not negotiate. You don't negotiate human rights. I will NOT just accept a bill that could seriously damage a woman's ability to pay for a abortion and thus receive safe and affordable abortion care.
I leave this discussion with this quote from Eleanor Roosevet - may her wisdom prevail over fear and desperation:
The battle for the individual rights of women is one of long standing and none of us should countenance anything which undermines it.
Eleanor Roosevelt
Join the Facebook group that is kicking ass and forming a grassroots movement to ROAR back at this treatment of women with a national campaign on their website next month - JOIN HERE
http://www.facebook.com/posted.php?id=131712548997&share_id=374965583809&comments=1#!/group.php?gid=292932589774
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(284 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
