Skip to main content

cross-posted at The Politicizer

If you had told me a few months ago that the passage of health care reform would ultimately come down to the divisive issue of abortion, I would have called you crazy. Yet that is exactly what happened in the House of Representatives with the passage of an amendment that drastically undermines Roe vs. Wade. The Stupak-Pitts amendment is a despicable affront to a woman’s reproductive freedom that effectively prevents lower income women from getting an abortion. Of course, I speak only of safe procedures that are thankfully legal.

Recently out of a college with a promising future ahead of her, Marie Johnstone found out she was pregnant in the mid-1950s. The father of her baby was an older man with whom she had no intention of marrying. Unlike today’s women, Marie could not choose to undergo a safe abortion. After she obtained enough money from her baby’s father, she delved into the underground world of abortion and found a man who performed the incredibly unsafe procedure in an isolated carport. Marie was one of the lucky ones. While she bled profusely for days, she did not die or sustain any permanent physical damage.

The same could not be said of a tragic number of Marie’s contemporaries. Marie’s abortion was one of at least 200,000 illegal abortions that occurred in the 1950s (200,000 is the conservative estimate. Some experts say that number is closer to 1.2 million). Within that same period, between 160 and 260 women died from unsafe abortions while thousands sustained life-threatening injuries. Everyone, even those who equate abortion with premeditated murder, should feel disgusted when they hear about the consequences of unsafe abortions.

The Stupak-Pitts amendment re-creates the kind of society that brought Marie into that carport in the early 1950s. The Affordable Health Care for America Act that passed the House by a vote of 220-215 establishes a central health insurance exchange that attempts to make our chaotic health care market more efficient. The exchange is structured so that it covers lower and middle income Americans who will almost certainly require access to government-issued affordability credits. The Stupak-Pitts amendment effectively prevents women who participate in this exchange from accessing an insurance plan that covers abortion, even women who pay out of pocket through the private portion of their health care premium.

How do Congressmen Bart Stupak and Joe Pitts get away with a piece of legislation that effectively bans a legal procedure?  They claim that a provision that allows women to purchase a separate insurance policy, known as a "rider" in the bill, sufficiently covers abortion. The abortion rider would supplement a woman’s primary health care plan and would function as an additional insurance policy and an unnecessary financial burden.

The establishment of an abortion rider is based on a naïve and insulting notion that women plan for an abortion. Unexpected pregnancies are exactly what they are: unexpected. Stupak and Pitts are either incapable of understanding this reality or they harbor the ugliest and most sexist notions about female promiscuity.

Proponents of the Stupak-Pitts amendment have tried to frame the legislation as nothing more than an additional assurance that the Hyde Amendment will be applied to health care reform. The Stupak Amendment, however, goes far beyond the scope of Hyde. While Hyde restricts the direct appropriation of funds to pay for abortions through the annual budget for the Department of Health and Human Services, the Stupak Pitts Amendment would prevent a woman from accessing an abortion through her own private insurer.

I urge Bart Stupak and other anti-abortion politicians to advance legislation that does not exclusively target the lower and moderate income women that would participate in a health insurance exchange. Severing the non-wealthy’s access to a safe procedure would further exacerbate our country’s unjust delivery of health care and I pray that the Stupak-Pitts amendment is omitted from a final health care bill.

Originally posted to dem4evr on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 08:03 PM PST.

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

  •  Tip Jar (9+ / 0-)

    "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing" I'm a Ralph Yarborough Democrat -8.25, -7.54

    by dem4evr on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 08:03:18 PM PST

    •  The wealthy will always be able to afford it. (4+ / 0-)

      Some Republicans must think that making abortion more difficult won't affect their own ability to get that service for themselves.  Perhaps they believe that their "underground" will be in a nice out-patient clinic somewhere, and maybe they are right; maybe money can buy a safer underground abortion.

      In any case, Republicans are in denial if they think that Republicans never have abortions.

      A Wall Street "bonus" should not be more than what my house is currently worth.

      by bushondrugs on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 08:59:32 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Same as it always was. (6+ / 0-)

        Before Roe, money could buy an abortion, no problem. Sometimes it was in the form of Benjamin to a doctor, where the procedure was done as an outpatient thing.

        Of course, the Spa treatment cost more. In that case, the abortion was usually preceded by a 1st class flight to Japan or Europe.

        Stupack-Pitts is part hypocritical moralizing, and part class war.

        Maybe Planned Parenthood  could start raising money for a rural traveling clinic system. We need to start thinking about increasing access, especially in red states.

        It is curious to see the periodical disuse and perishing of means and machinery, which were introduced with loud laudation a few years or centuries before. -RWE

        by Gravedugger on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 09:11:07 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  I took this picture (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Bill W, martydd

    at an anti-Palin rally in Anchorage last year.

    Image Hosted by

    "Fail Baby, Fail!" - Sarah Palin

    by frsbdg on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 10:57:34 PM PST

  •  dem4evr - a question? (0+ / 0-)

    First, I am pro-choice and trying to understand the Stupak Amendment. Help me understand the difference between policies on the exchange, which will not have abortion coverage, and policies sold to all federal employees which cannot include abortion coverage due to the Hyde Amendment.

    "let's talk about that"

    by VClib on Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 12:22:14 AM PST

  •  Stupak & Hyde Need to Go (0+ / 0-)

    Hyde affects the poorest and most vulnerable women.  For them, abortion in a medical setting is already unavailable.  As for the rape and incest exception, it is almost useless.  There are many situations where women don't report rape.  Incest too often involves a young teen who doesn't realize she is pregnant and is well into the second trimester before it is discovered.

    Our religion-addled politicians aren't much different from the religious politicians in the Middle East.

    Don't look back, something may be gaining on you. - L. "Satchel" Paige

    by arlene on Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 04:29:54 AM PST

  •  hasn't the coathanger always been there (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    GN1927, princss6, QES

    for low income women because of hyde?

    hasn't hyde been around for thirty years or so?

    A ugly person who goes after a pretty person gets nothing but trouble. But a pretty person who goes after a ugly person gets at least cab fare.

    by princessglitterboots on Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 05:10:01 AM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site