An anti-choice amendment to the health care bill was filed today by Democratic Sen. Ben Nelson and Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch - it's likely to be debated today as well.
Other than pull a George Sodini, there isn't much more Republicans and conservative "Democrats" can do to reveal their deep seated sexism. Nelson's God Awful Amendment takes the Stupak language to an entirely different level and goes right for the jugular by proposing an outright abortion ban for women who receive federal subsidies. This could mean that a woman's status as a welfare recipient or a patron of the proposed insurance exchange program could effectively bar them from receiving any abortion services. This man has the nerve to not only propose such an outlandish measure, but to cry filibuster if he doesn't get his way.
The refrain heard around Capitol hill is that the amendment has no legs and women are in the clear. But when are we going to have a serious conversation about the motivations behind this Amendment. Many a conservative will contend that this is strictly about dollars and cents and that they do not want their taxpayer money going towards abortions. But this recent Amendment reveals the long-held intentions of conservatives who insist on bringing the abortion fight to healthcare's door. These mofos want to ban abortion outright simply because they have a differing perspective about the right every woman should have to make decisions about her person when she's pregnant.
Laws that govern a population of differing viewpoints and perspectives cannot be dictated by one group's ideological whim. Something that shouldn't be missed as the debate progresses is that the feminist position on abortion has always been a compromise that accounts for those across the ideological spectrum. Pro-choice, pro-reproductive justice, anti-choice or anti-abortion women were legally allowed to exercise their abortion rights after Roe's passing. But what existed in the 1970s and what exists still today is the economic divide between the women who can afford to exercise their legal rights to abortion and the women who cannot. At this juncture, low-income women and women of color are the most vulnerable. Fundamentally, this healthcare debate is about the fact that our financial constraints should not dictate our health outcomes. Abortion should not be an exception to this principle that motivates healthcare reform.
Call 888-423-5983 or or go here to find your senators and push them to make the right decision today.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Nelson anti-choice amendment likely to be debated today.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://classic.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/17441
Oh Lord, when will this end?
I think this is a conspiracy to also prevent health care from being reformed.
Just when it's slightly better, I mean
SLIGHTLY, they find a way to try to destroy it
You're defintely right Toongrrl. Especially for the Republicans who support this Amendment but have no intention of supporting the final bill no matter what. For them this is nothing but a 'poison pill'. That's what you saw in the House, a bunch of Republicans who voted for Stupak, but then voted against the final bill.
Thanks. For a while I thought I was crazy, you made my day
I agree with you Rose that the Nelson Amendment is a cleverly camouflaged attempt to go well beyond Hyde and restrict abortion generally. So I couldn't disagree more that its "a whim". This is absolutely a strategic calculation to greatly restrict abortion rights. Its a land grab that would make an 1700s Imperialist blush. Nelson's Amendment would keep women from using their own private money to buy abortion coverage. That's just wrong.
While I don't think abortion should be covered by taxpayers who're honestly pro-life, I also don't think women should be restricted from using their own money to pay for an abortion. This is nothing more than cheap politics masquerading as principle.
"While I don't think abortion should be covered by taxpayers who're honestly pro-life, I also don't think women should be restricted from using their own money to pay for an abortion."
Tax dollars go towards a lot of things that not everyone finds morally acceptable. Its wrong for the government to try to eliminate a medical procedure that is protected by law.
AMEN
"our financial constraints should not dictate our health outcomes"
That statement makes me feel like crying. I will be a college graduate in less than two weeks, but that means my mom's insurance is going to drop me. I have HPV and a compromised immune system so seeing a gyno regularly is absolutely vital for me. Unfortunately, I live in a small town surrounded by poor, rural communities so the health department is overwhelmed and getting in to see a doctor is next to impossible. The nearest Planned Parenthood is over an hour away. Without insurance, I can't afford to see a doctor (of any kind) nor can I afford to buy birth control. I'm so scared (and that's what it is, not anger or frustration, just fear) and every road block to health care reform just adds to it.