Skip to main content

Today members of the Dem's Café and allied groups visited with Congressman Cuellar's aide to thank the Congressman for his support of the health care reform bill HR 3962, we also let him know that we weren't happy with his vote in favor of the Stupak amendment eliminating insurance coverage for abortions. We also delivered the following letter.

Dem’s Café activists and allies

November 17, 2009

The Honorable Henry Cuellar
100 S. Austin Street, Suite 1
Seguin, Texas 78155

Subject: HR 3962

Dear Congressman Cuellar,

Thank you for standing with your constituents and the American people in voting for HR 3962. There is still a long way to go and we urge you to continue to work for a robust public option, one that allows everyone to participate and starts right away. The bigger the pool of participants the more efficient the system will be and the greater the savings your constituents will enjoy, as well as, according to the CBO, the greater the impact it will have on lowering the federal deficit.

While we appreciate your support for this historic legislation our happiness is tempered by your vote in favor of the Stupak anti-choice amendment and we will be working with our friends in the choice community to ensure that this dangerous measure is stricken from the final bill. President Obama has said that the Stupak Coat Hanger amendment goes too far and doesn’t maintain the compromise of the Hyde amendment. We’re counting on you to recognize that the Hyde amendment already is highly restrictive and including the Stupak amendment in the final bill is unnecessary and unjust as it would effectively eliminate abortion services from any insurance plan whether or not it is paid for with federal funds.

We understand that Catholic bishops put a lot of pressure on members of Congress to support the Stupak amendment. We ask you to realize that many of your supporters are not Catholic nor are they religious and our form of government exists because of the separation of church and state. We therefore urge you to step back from the Stupak amendment and allow it to die in conference.

If you’re going to support the Stupak Coat Hanger amendment then to be consistent you should work to eliminate coverage in Medicare and the Exchange for Cialis, Levitra, Viagra and penile implants.

Legalized abortion is now clearly understood to be largely responsible for the decrease in violent crime over the last 15 or so years by minimizing the number of unwanted children born to women too young or otherwise unable to care for them*. It has also reduced the number of battered children reducing the need for programs like Child Protective Services and Head Start. By eliminating women’s options you are guaranteeing the need for more police, SCHIP, Medicaid and CPS funding as well as the untold misery caused by the adolescents and adults those unwanted children turn into.

The Stupak amendment does not literally say that plans on the exchange can’t include abortion coverage, it just makes it completely impossible that a plan could for several reasons. To pretend that a reading of the Stupak amendment could not easily be used to stop the sale of plans covering abortion on the exchange is absurd. That is like claiming a law making it illegal to sell tubes capable of having a bullet pass through at high speeds would not be a ban on firearms.

If women and families are forced to have children that are unplanned and unwanted, then the government and society that imposes that burden on women and families must offset the burden with all of the necessary societal programs that are needed to sustain and enhance the child and the family. If you take away choice, then you must replace it with social and economic programs to help the families be responsible, productive tax paying citizens. When your fiscally responsible views collide with your anti-abortion stance you have to choose and fully support one or the other, which will it be?

Redistricting will soon be here and as I understand it Texas stands to pick up two new House seats. Your district may not remain the same so unless you are prepared for a primary challenge from the left you should remember that "Hell hath no fury like a woman disenfranchised". If you plan to stay in office much longer you should remember that women support Democrats more often than men and women are more likely to be Pro-Choice than men so you’re throwing away the Democrat’s slim edge in the district. Virginia Governor candidate Creigh Deeds ran away from the Democratic Party’s principles and party stalwarts stayed home in droves on election day. The day that Democrats in your district don’t bother to vote because you don’t inspire us to come out is the day that the Republican challenger will beat you.

For the good of the country, the Democratic Party and most of all for the good of women we urge you to work to eliminate the Stupak amendment from health care reform legislation.


Dem’s Café progressive activists, Members of American’s United and allies

* "The Impact of Legalized Abortion on Crime" by John Donohue and Steven Levitt published in the Quarterly Journal of Economics in 2001

Originally posted to JC Dufresne on Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 02:30 PM PST.


Should dem's who support the Stupak-Pitts amendment be primaried?

75%21 votes
21%6 votes
3%1 votes

| 28 votes | Vote | Results

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  The Bill is not law yet. We will be jumping the (0+ / 0-)

    gun if we do that.

    •  I don't see any problem (3+ / 0-)

      with telling Representatives who support Stupak that their vote on that matter was not appreciated, and that we would certainly be seeking primary opponents for any Democrat who opposed a conference report which lacked the Stupak language.

      I'm not sure I'd have used the phrase "Coat Hanger Amendment" in a letter to a Congressperson, though, it seems it would make it too easy for the Congressperson to dismiss the letter as being Not Serious.

      In America, 60% of bankruptcies are because of medical bills, and 80% of those people had health insurance

      by sullivanst on Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 02:45:18 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  If you remember (0+ / 0-)

        the "coat hanger" days of the 1950's, as I do, you would not think it easily dismissed.  That's what it often was and the outcomes were serious, very serious indeed.

        *the blogger formerly known as shirlstars

        by Shirl In Idaho on Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 03:42:02 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I know exactly what it means (0+ / 0-)

          I don't think it's appropriate for the letter that was sent.

          After all, only a small minority (fewer than one in five) of abortions currently performed are paid by insurance, and of those one in five, most of the women receiving the treatment are on group plans and above the subsidy level (and who could likely afford the out-of-pocket cost), so the effect of the Stupak amendment on the number of abortions performed will be minimal.

          As a result, the potential just isn't there for the Stupak amendment to dramatically increase the number of back-street abortions.

          And even if it was, sensationalizing the issue in that way is no different to the "baby-killer" rhetoric of the other side: it's an obstacle to reasoned debate, and makes changing people's minds less likely, not more.

          In America, 60% of bankruptcies are because of medical bills, and 80% of those people had health insurance

          by sullivanst on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 07:35:06 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  Thanks for doing it (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    We need more pressure. Great letteer, great news and good work.

    "If I pay a man enough money to buy my car, he'll buy my car." Henry Ford

    by johnmorris on Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 02:46:22 PM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site