Who Speaks For Me On This Issue?
Exhibit one on why we need to have more representation for women in government: abortion restrictions in the health care reform bill. A group of “pro-life” (which means life begins at conception and ends at birth) Democrats were willing to deny 32 million already existing people health insurance because the bill fails to outlaw a legal procedure. I don’t see how this is the “moral” position. I agree with the Catholic nuns on this one, providing insurance to millions of women will do more to help fetuses than any hyperventilating Congressman.
The News Journal does a round-up of our local electeds and hopefuls:
U.S. Rep. Mike Castle, the Republican who has held Delaware’s lone House seat since 1993, will vote against the bill, he said Friday. But not because of its abortion language.
Castle has supported abortion rights throughout his political career.
“But I have never believed that we should use taxpayer dollars for abortion,” he said. He voted for an amendment to the original House bill to ensure exclusion of federal money for the practice. And he believes the Senate bill pending in the House protects that boundary line by requiring that those who seek abortions pay with their own money.
Castle: pro-choice, pro-Hyde, pro-Stupak
O’Donnell: anti-abortion
Coons: unknown
Planned Parenthood’s Knearl said she was disappointed that Castle voted for the restrictive amendment in the House bill and that U.S. Sen. Ted Kaufman voted for the restrictive amendment in the Senate bill.
But Kaufman said it is important to define the boundary lines of how abortion is covered.
Kaufman: pro-choice (?), pro-Hyde, pro-Stupak
Carper voted against the restrictive amendment but said the Senate bill should pass.
“I recognize that some people have raised concerns about how our health care legislation addresses the issue of abortion. I do not believe that taxpayer funds should be used to pay for abortions,” he said.”
Carper: pro-choice, pro-Hyde, anti-Stupak
Carney supports abortion rights but wants the provisions of the 1976 Hyde Amendment — which prohibited the use of federal funds for such procedures — to remain intact.
Carney: pro-choice, pro-Hyde, unknown on Stupak
Scott Spencer, a political novice, has filed to force a Democratic primary. He opposes abortion — and believes that will appeal to Delaware Democrats.
“Right now there are too many Democrats out there who … would be pro-life, but they follow the political expediency of rounding up votes and compromising themselves,” he said. “… The important common ground I’m trying to achieve as a pro-life Democrat is that pro-choice Americans believe women should have the right to choose, and I believe she should choose the baby first.”
No, it doesn’t appeal to me.
I couldn’t tell from that statement, it was bit of a mush. Is he going the “safe, legal, rare” route or is he just anti-abortion?
Glen Urquart, Kevin Wade: anti-abortion
“She is not our friend on the life issue,” said Collins, president of Delaware Right to Life. “She is very pro-abortion and that could hurt her.”
Rollins said that is wrong.
“I am Catholic, and I do not condone abortion,” she said. “I am against abortion. I would not choose it as an easy alternative. But I think abortion is a personal decision — not one the government should dictate.”
Michelle Rollins: pro-choice, unknown on Hyde or Stupak
I am pro-choice. I think abortion should be legal and a decision between a woman, her doctor and her family and it’s not something that the government should monitor. I hope that more access to health care will lead to better contraceptive use so that abortions become fewer. I think it’s wrong to treat abortion as an issue separate from women’s general health care needs and wrong to punish poor women over rich women, which is what the Hyde restrictions do. Where is the Delaware politician that speaks for me?
Tags: Abortion, Health Care Reform, News Journal
The real agenda with the Hyde amendment is a continuation of the war on poor and working class women. No direct federal funds are to be used to fund abortions for women who cannot get healthcare via their employers or privately. And yet, if you have health care via your employer, you have that courtesy of massive tax credits that subsidize that coverage. So the feds do subsidize plans with abortion coverage if you have the good fortune to work for an employer who provides abortion coverage. Which is most of them. With a co-pay, of course.
Apparently it is still the season to write off the lives of poor and working women in Delaware.
Where is the Delaware politician that speaks for me?
Actually, the Hyde Amendment doesn’t apply to this HCR bill. It’s worse than that.
I did a little reading and got somewhat into the weeds on this. It turns out the Hyde Amendment is introduced and voted on each year as a rider to the Health and Human Services appropriations bill. The language of the Hyde Amendment is narrow and mostly affects Medicaid. Since the subsidies in the Senate HCR bill do not flow through Medicaid, the Hyde Amendment would not apply and that is why pro-lifers were freaking out and the Nelson and Stupak language got attached.
So even if the Hyde Amendment is dropped one day, the Nelson Amendment will live on.
If you are looking for a politician who speaks for your (entirely reasonable) viewpoint, you will probably have to take a harder line and speak out against those who vote for the Hyde Amendment each year, and support primary opponents who match your views even if they have no chance.
But it may be too late for the Nelson language. That is part of the law and doesn’t expire each year. Getting rid of that will take an outright repeal.
Nonetheless, us public option and single-payer advocates can identify with your lament. Where are the politicians who speak for us, and where are the liberals who stood with us?
If you are willing to compromise to win a larger goal, you can’t complain about the compromises you chose to make. Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas. You might be on the path to becoming a purist.
Actually, a far preferable compromise might have been to add the Nelson language to the Hyde Amendement annually. But liberals were too busy running to the center to pay attention.
The Hyde Amendment applies to funds from HHS. The Hyde Amendment applies to the HCR because that is where the subsidies to those who qualify are expected to be administered. The Nelson Amendment is still bullshit, but that is more of the war on working class and poor women by our political class than anything else.
The Hyde Amendment applies to the HCR because that is where the subsidies to those who qualify are expected to be administered.
You are probably right… I was relying on an NRLO analysis that might be outdated; perhaps they changed the funding administration. Nonetheless, the pro-lifer objections stem from funding that leaks around the Hyde amendment; for example the Catholic bishops cite funding for community health centers as one source.
3 to 1 the people are opposed to expanding abortion funding and do not want it in healthcare bills. Women don’t want it. Men don’t want it. Only a fringe wants it and they are willing to ruin the bill to get it.
And of course you are here without anything to back up that claim. Again. Really, how often do you have to be embarrassed over this before you get a freakin’ clue?
Funny how David is all about the rights of minority opinion except when he isn’t. And links would be nice to back up his claim, but I’m not holding my breath.
Also, notice how he has nothing to say on the bad behavior of tea partiers. Your silence is speaking, David.
Cassandra you have Michelle Rollins get out your check book. haha
Go to my blog, the posts last week has the links. I do not need to provide them repeatedly. They are well known facts.
They certainly are not well known facts and if it is posted in your blog that provides plenty of ammunition that they are not FACTS. I’ll just mark you down for not being able to back up your distorted view of the world — again.
None of the liberals here are even interested in why Chris Coons ducked this issue or at least in following up on why the WNJ couldn’t get an answer out of him? Fuck this shadow candidacy. Get Kaufman into the chase.
Kaufman has said 100 times he is not running. Honestly why would he want to–I would want out of there as quickly as possible.
Kaufman is not running. Period.