Amidst the debate over HR3, and now HR358, a number of Democratic co-sponsors have been neglected in the rush to condemn the bills. This diary will focus on Mark Critz (D-PA), and how proud he is not of his name on that legislation.
Back in April of 2010, Critz was in a special election to fill out the rest of John Murtha's term in PA. It's interesting to note that an ad he ran then is no longer available, although it has been awhile. I found some notes on what it was like, though.
Most conspicuously, the former Murtha aide launched a television ad this weekend in which -- with his voice apparently hoarse from the campaign trail -- he aims to set the record straight and declares his opposition to the health care law passed and signed last month. It was a response to an ad from the National Republican Campaign Committee which said Critz "will put the liberal agenda before Pennsylvania."
"I'm pro life and pro gun. That's not a liberal," Critz says in his own spot.
A month later after Critz won the special election, RH Reality Check was left wondering what he would do. In the end they predicted a 'wash,' that he would have a pro-life voting record much like Murtha's had been.
Will he vote against prevention programs? Against contraception? Against access to clinics and all the services they provide? Will he support laws and policies that flout all evidence regarding how to reduce unintended pregnancies and sexually transmitted infections? Will he vote against funding for SCHIP, food stamps and other programs critical to ensuring reproductive justice? Or will he be another reflexive, anti-evidence, anti-choice vote?
In November, after Critz won re-election, one might have wondered already if the fix was in. Evidently, the National Right to Life Committee PAC saw no reason to intervene in Critz's race or even comment on it, even if they did make endorsements elsewhere in the state.
The past month has seen Critz sign on to these Republican efforts to restrict access to abortion, to threaten women with vague notions of 'forcible rape,' and lately with the 'Let the Women Die' legislation.
Pitts' new bill would free hospitals from any abortion requirement under EMTALA, meaning that medical providers who aren't willing to terminate pregnancies wouldn't have to -- nor would they have to facilitate a transfer.
The hospital could literally do nothing at all, pro-choice critics of Pitts' bill say.
The ironically named Joe Pitts (R-PA), the sponsor of HR358, refers to these concerns as "the same old talking points." And Mark Critz, as with the earlier brouhaha over HR3, has said nothing at all.
What, are we supposed to think that they don't care? That hospitals will go on performing abortions, giving preference to saving the lives of women? That pro-lifers and organized religion will just give it all a pass? Oh, they care. They care a lot.
In the case of Mark Critz, I wonder when the pattern becomes clear? How many of these Republican proposals, that Critz supports, does it take? At what point can we view this pattern and see what they are really after? What does 'forcible rape' even have to do with HR3, the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act"? I know there is some thin premise about redefining rape to further restrict abortion, but it's just that. Thin.
I know the mere notion of a 'purity test' gets the moderate folk all up in arms, but I don't know what people like Mark Critz are doing in the Democratic party when they support the subservience of women. When it comes to women being raped, or dying in the ER for lack of care -- somehow I find no room for compromise here.