Rights? What are you talking about?

Uncategorized

Cross posted from Rational Resistance:

Last week I posted a link to a debate about whether the Catholic Church is a force for good in the world. To me it's not a close call, but possibly the strongest argument in favor of the Catholic Church is the work it does for social justice: opposing war and the death penalty, supporting orphaned children, feeding the hungry, and the like. Why, they're so committed to social justice that they're pushing the health care reform bill in Congress, right?

Yes, with a big “but”. They have supported health care legislation, but as we now know, they were willing to pull the plug on the whole thing without the Stupak amendment: no abortion for anyone who gets subsidized health insurance or health insurance through the public option or purchased through the insurance exchanges. And if the Congress wouldn't knuckle under to the bishops, no health care for anybody.

Now, an analysis by the George Washington University School of Public Health predicts that if the Stupak amendment becomes law it will affect not only women who receive insurance under the new law, but it will lead all insurance companies to drop abortion coverage.


“Under national health reform, millions of women, including women who are covered by small employers (as employees or spouses or dependents of employees) as well as those who are currently uninsured, will receive their coverage through health insurance exchanges. By barring the sale of subsidized products that cover medically indicated abortions as part of a broader package of benefits, the Amendment can be expected to cause the industry to re-design its offerings in order to avoid violating the legal restrictions on abortion applicable to exchange products that receive subsidies,” said Professor Sara Rosenbaum, JD, lead author and Chair of the Department of Health Policy. “The Amendment also can be expected to chill efforts to develop supplemental coverage for medically indicated abortions, because it appears to prohibit the joint administration of both a basic and supplemental product,” Rosenbaum noted.

Jeffry Toobin has an editorial about this issue in this week's New Yorker, and he has it exactly right. In a point that is often overlooked, he points out that the right to abortion is not simply a question of health care. “But, as Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg observed not long ago, abortion rights “center on a woman’s autonomy to determine her life’s course, and thus to enjoy equal citizenship stature.” Every diminishment of that right diminishes women. With stakes of such magnitude, it is wise to weigh carefully the difference between compromise and surrender.”

Who else is supporting rights for women? Cosmopolitan. Yes, the “17 Tricks to Keep Your Man Begging for More” Cosmopolitan. In their current online version they are providing a link to a petition to support abortion rights for all women.

Don't think you're going to need an abortion, or don't think you're going to be relying on subsidized insurance? It still affects you, so sign the petition and push your legislators to get on board with this. The game is now in the Senate. 35% of all women are likely to need an abortion at some point in their lives. This issue is of vital importance for everyone.

16 thoughts on “Rights? What are you talking about?”

  1. The Catholic Church has told the DC City Council that they will halt all social services (they currently serve about 70,000 DC residents, including 1/3 of the homeless population here) if DC passes its gay marriage bill.  

    So, DC, if you extend more (equal!!!) benefits to same-sex couples, the Catholic Church will abandon 70,000 of the city’s most vulnerable people during–guess which time of year–the middle of f#$%@#*& WINTER!!!!!

    Force for good, indeed.  

  2. I am one of that legion of folks who are most hostile to the long tendrils of the Church.  Remind me again why they should enjoy tax exempt status?

  3. 1. Get healthcare legislation passed

    2. Get bill of rights to legislation next year, once it’s passed.

    That’s exactly why the Republicans are so afraid.  They know that once the foundation and beams are constructed, they will lose on every single vote to extend coverage (in fact, they’ll join in on any that will pass a lot of tax money to big corporations).

    Please trust this quite conservative Democrat…nothing would please the average Democrat office holder more than a nice vote on women’s rights sometime around next September or so, to nail home the basic differences between the parties.  It might seem like Rush and Beck run everything, but when it comes time to vote, the vast majority favors the status quo.  I’d sure rather be running on the left side of this issue in most battleground states than on the “right” (wrong) side.

  4. Check this out over at the VDP website: Healthcare Must Not Be Held Hostage by Judy Bevans.

    A snippet:

    [T]he Stupak-Pitts amendment […] bans insurance companies that participate in the proposed federally regulated insurance exchange from offering women – even women buying insurance privately from those companies – coverage for abortion.

    To comply with the House bill’s amended language, either the companies will opt not to participate in the insurance exchange, or they will drop all coverage of abortions, even from plans not offered on the exchange.

    And one more:

    Any amendment that restricts access to a legal procedure for half the population will cause deaths and injuries in its return to two-tiered citizenship. That’s a far cry from healthcare for all, and overturns one of the reform effort’s promises – that no one will lose the benefits they already have.

    NanuqFC

    History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. ~ Thomas Jefferson

Comments are closed.