At the End of the Stupak Lobby Day: Exhausted, But Optimistic
We had two fantastic meetings with Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins. They made it clear that Stupak goes too far and reaffirmed their commitment to women's access to full reproductive healthcare services.
We then had two encouraging meetings with Congresswoman Chellie Pingree, a staunch advocate for women and choice, and Congressman Mike Michaud, who expressed his willingness to pass healthcare without a Stupak-like amendment.
One thing we heard again and again was how important it is for our legislators to hear from us. And that means YOU!
So — one more plug to contact your senators and representatives and tell them that you demand they pass health care reform that respects and ensures reproductive freedom for ALL women.
Tell them it's necessary, it's right, it's moral, it's fair and it is non-negotiable!
Dec 3rd, 2009 at 12:23am
Dear Alysia, Your email to the ACLU list today may induce me to unsubscribe. I can understand that you want to oppose Stupak, but you abuse rhetoric by calling it "extremism". My taxes support the death penalty even though I object to state-sanctioned murder. But I don't like that. Rather than use this as a parallel to make pro-life voters fund abortions, I would rather allow stronger protections for conscientious objection. It is easy to fall into the trap of assuming your opponents always have nefarious motives. Some pro-lifers certainly take that tone about the ACLU. But the ACLU should not escalate that war. Consider that many people are legitimately concerned about a flaw in the original house bill: taxes could have gone to a procedure they actually regard as murder. Stupak was a reasonable response. It may be flawed, but no more so than the original bill was in the opposite direction. It is at least plausible that Stupak was an attempt to keep the status quo against a perceived loophole. Start by granting those concerns and then work to close the loopholes you see in Stupak.
Dec 4th, 2009 at 2:31pm
It is well known that the Catholic Church was pressuring House members intensely on this Amendment (with Bishops in and out of the House "all night"). It was very clear that the House sponsors intended it hold the healthcare bill hostage in order to push their anti-choice agenda. The Amendment goes far further than does the current law (which does, indeed, keep federal funding in a separate stream) and would have had dramatic impacts on women's access to abortion and to their privacy rights surrounding their personal reproductive medical care. Not to be a jerk, but your email is naive.
Dec 4th, 2009 at 2:43pm
To be fair - it was clear that this was never an attempt to maintain status quo - but rather, an effort spearheaded by the Catholic Church to continue to chip away at the rights granted rightly to women in Roe. The Amendment would have created huge privacy and access implications for thousands of American women who wish to continue to control their and their families' destinies. Bishops were said to have pressured House members intensley. This is simply too important an issue not to address it head on. When and how it was introduced and the entities and individuals backing the Amendment all made clear that, indeed, the motives were nefarious.
Post new comment