How the Stupak Amendment Radically Undermines Women's Rights

abortion would have been enshrined as a Constitutional right, but since they don't....

It also serves as a good divisive issue. Why worry about collapsing bridges, broken down roads, inadequate school funding, Wall Street looting, homeless vets, good paying jobs being shipped overseas and never ending wars when you can direct people to hot button issues like abortion and the always reliable flag burning amendment, both of which should start getting major play in the upcoming mid-term election cycle.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Please stop using the propagandistic cover-up for hatefulness that anti-abortion proponents have adopted to pretend they stand for something positive. It is negative and hateful, totally. They are NOT pro-life. If so, they would care about the millions and millions of women and children who suffer terribly because of "pro-life" political policies.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

should first be required to have a vasectomy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Here is where the liberals want line-item veto power. I doubt that the conservatives, who have been gung-ho for it while the Republicans had the Oval Office, will clamor for it now. I'd like to see President Obama do some shaping of the legislation to make it conform to his verbal promises during the campaign. I know he doesn't have legislative power, but since he has to sign the bill, I think he has the right to help form it. Here's a short excerpt:

"Line Item Veto Re-enactment Activity of 2009

Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) and Senator John McCain (R-AZ) started legislation to enact a limited version of the line-item veto. This would give the president the power to rescind earmarks of new bills by sending the bill back to Congress minus line-item vetoed earmark. Congress would then vote on the line-item vetoed bill with a majority vote under fast track rules to make any deadlines the bill had.[5][6][7][8]
[edit] Debate

Some scholars, such as Louis Fisher, believe the line-item veto would give presidents too much power over government spending compared with the power of Congress.[9][10] Some argue that it could even give the president de-facto legislative authority in altering the law which could violate the principles and perhaps the letter of the Constitution.

Supporters of the line-item veto argue that the provision would make the President more accountable for federal spending. Also, the line-item veto can be used to prevent the enactment of controversial rider amendments that powerful legislators have sometimes inserted into important bills, or at least it can be used to ensure that someone elected at the national level is accountable for the enactment of such amendments. Without the line-item veto Presidents have often felt compelled to sign controversial riders into law even if they did not support them."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line-item_veto

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We waste time arguing over abortion while turning our backs to what is going on with our money:

http://americaspeaksink.com/2009/11/the-president-is

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A rational, secular case exists for the rights of the unborn. Zygote, embryo, fetus, infant, toddler, adolescent, adult, etc. are all different stages of human development. To destroy that life at any stage of development is to destroy that individual. The real question in the abortion debate is not the seemingly absurd scenario of giving full human rights to human zygotes, but rather the thorny question of how to legally protect those rights without violating a new mother's privacy and civil liberties.

In his 1992 book, Visions of Liberty, former Executive Director of the ACLU, Ira Glasser writes:

"The use of wiretapping and electronic eavesdropping emerged during the Prohibition era. Roy Olmstead was a suspected bootlegger whom the government wished to search. It placed taps in the basement of his office building and on wires in the streets near his home. No physical entry into his office or home took place. Olmstead was convicted entirely on the basis of evidence from the wiretaps.

"In his appeal to the Supreme Court, Olmstead argued that the taps were a search conducted without a warrant and without probable cause, and that the evidence seized against him should have been excluded because it was illegally gathered. He also argued that his Fifth Amendment right not to be a witness against himself was violated.

"By a 5-4 vote, the Court rejected his arguments and upheld the government's power to wiretap without limit and without any Fourth Amendment restrictions, on the grounds that no actual physical intrusion had taken place.

"Olmstead's Fifth Amendment claim was also dismissed on the grounds that he had not been compelled to talk on the telephone, but had done so voluntarily. Thus the Court upheld the government's power to do by trickery and surreptitious means what it was not permitted to do honestly and openly. It wasn't until 1967, in a similar case involving gambling, that the Court overruled the Olmstead decision by an 8-1 margin and recognized that the Fourth Amendment applied to wiretapping and electronic surveillance.

"Interestingly, these cases arose in the context of crimes like bootlegging and gambling. During the past twenty years, the majority of wiretapping and electronic eavesdropping by both state and federal officials has been in cases involving drug dealing and gambling.

"Serious crimes of violence, such as homicide, assault, rape, robbery, and burglary, are rarely the target of electronic eavesdropping, which is not normally a useful tool in such cases.

"From the beginning, when wiretapping was virtually invented to enforce laws prohibiting the sale of alcohol, to the late 1960s, when gambling was a major target, to the present, when the use and sale of drugs other than alcohol are the main target, these intrusive devices have been used mostly to enforce laws aimed at punishing and proscribing personal conduct that society deems immoral.

"Because such conduct essentially involves private activities among consenting adults who are all likely to want to keep those activities secret, they are harder to investigate and prosecute than crimes like robbery or burglary, in which an unwilling victim will probably aid any investigation...the invasion of privacy inherent in wiretapping and electronic eavesdropping remains with us as part of the legacy of our attempts to criminalize personal conduct.

"The other major use of electronic eavesdropping has been to punish political dissent. For decades, former FBI director J. Edgar Hoover used wiretaps and other electronic devices to spy on political figures and citizens not yet suspected of having committed a crime. He built vast dossiers on their political activities and personal lives. Special units of local police called 'Red Squads' did the same."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

1) in placing this legislation, how much need would there be to overturn Roe V Wade?

2) I spoke to a man last nite who said, it's ok, once they get healthcare passed, they can add abortion back in? WTF? Blue Dogs? Traitors to women's rights?

3) If you want to know what would happen to women if they criminalized abortion read this piece: Pro-Life Nation
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/09/magazine
/09abortion.html?_r=1
By JACK HITT Published: April 9, 2006
And watch this video:
Abortion video: http://www.atcenternetwork.com/?p=64 Where protestors are questioned about whether women should be punished for murder.

4)Note from yesterday, Obama specifically requested contraceptives be deleted, can anyone clarify this to be the case? But let's be honest. It was Pres. Obama who opened the door to sell us out when he decided to put the Hyde Amendment in the budget, something Bill Clinton never did. But Mr. Obama didn't stop there. During the stimulus fight, at the first sign of displeasure, our President personally asked http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive
/2009/01/27/1762544.aspx that contraceptives be taken out. Now the President seems ready to finish the job, with Democrats in the House helping him do it.

5)there is no equivalent for men, that is why they can be cavalier about the whole thing. This is an incredible step backward.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

however, if we're going to restrict federal funding for abortions, we should also restrict funding for vasectomies and Viagra - it's time that men were also forced to pay out-of-pocket for their reproductive and sexual freedoms.

I'll consider withdrawing my support for federal funding of abortions just as soon as the Catholic, Mormon, and fundamentalist churches relinquish their tax exempt status. While some may resent the use of their tax dollars for abortions, I resent my tax dollars subsidizing political lobbying firms disguised as religious institutions. The DOJ needs to step up and investigate any church that politicizes the pulpit.

Michigan can do better than Bart Stupak - we need to rid The People's House of any public servant who would use his position to derail something as critical as healthcare reform in order to advance his dogmatic religious beliefs. Michiganders are hurting in unprecedented numbers and his assault on indigent and middle-class women has not gone unnoticed.

It's time to clearly draw the line between separation of church and state - we can start by defeating C-Streeters like Stupak.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

RACHEL MORRIS, ALTERNET & PROGRESSIVES:

Please stop aiding the propagandic anti-choice hypocrites by repeating their false terminology.

Typically the religious right also believe in the death penalty (PRO-DEATH), war (PRO-DEATH) and eat meat (PRO-DEATH).

The progressives need to use accurate terminology, ANTI-ABORTION or ANTI-CHOICE.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If these people are so "Pro-Life" then why are they soooo against Universal Health Care? Why, because they are hypocrites and liars! They aren't so much "Pro-Life" as they are "Pro Control of the Female Womb"! We have underfunded schools, dilapidated and crumbling infrastructure, they don't want money allocated to increase Medicaid or anything else that might "help" to lift the poor, and because of our mass consumption and throw-away mentality we are creating more CO2 than our actual population, yet these "Pro Lifers" aren't even attempting to touch on any of those issues! Yet those are "Pro-Life" issues, it is about the quality of the lives that are here!

How many of those "Pro Lifers" have chosen either to Foster children that are in the system, or to adopt those that are eligible?! I can guess that that answer is NONE! These people don't really give a damn about said "child" once it is actually in the world! Yet they want to dictate to women what they must do with their wombs, no matter the situation that the mother is in, that is NOT PRO-LIFE, it is men dictating to women & paternalism pure and simple! These liars need to own the lies and tell the truth they aren't "PRO-LIFE", what they are are throw-backs to the age where men made all of the decisions and their wives stayed home barefoot & pregnant!

Unless you have a womb, are a single parent raising children on minimum wage or just above, deal in foster/adoption care, or can put yourself in those shoes, "Pro-life" is not a designation that you should claim! That's a lie that should choke you every time it comes out of your mouth!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Stupak is one of the Family. These are Christian cultists who share a home in Washington, D.C.
I have to agree with others posting comments to this article. This amendment will result in deaths. Many of us are old enough to remember the coat hanger.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Former President G. W. Bush frequently used signing statements as line item vetoes. Could President Obama thus "line-out" the abortion prohibition?

Also, how can something perfectly legal be prohibited?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Here's a clue: this isn't about the right to have an abortion, it's about who has to pay for it. It's unbelievable that some women, already shirking the responsibility for having the baby that they invited through sex, now can't even be expected to fork over a couple hundred bucks to terminate it. No sympathy here. If a woman unilaterally decides to keep the baby, the father is obligated for 18 years of support payments-- how about giving us some insurance to cover that? Otherwise, go whine elsewhere. Health care reform, even as bad as this, should not be held up because some folks don't want to cover their own mess. Pregnancy is not like cancer-- you get pregnant by having sex, a nature result of that voluntary act. There is no analogy worth considering. So, go ahead and allow the right to split support for healthcare, and see what kind of backlash against the right to have an abortion there will be. Because frankly, outlawing abortion would solve the problem, too.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

In theory, insurers could create separate plans for women who don’t qualify for credits but still want to buy a plan on the exchange. In reality, this is unlikely to happen, meaning that even women who purchase plans entirely with their own money in the new market may be unable to obtain one that offers abortion coverage.

Ok I still don't get this part. Why would women be unable to obtain one that offers abortion coverage. Looking at this at a solely business perspective, wouldn't this women fall under some type of market that corporations or insurance industries would want to profit from? At the very least, wouldn't this particular women fall under a niche market? Meaning, if women want to spend their money, insurance companies will gladly take it, wont they?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

lies in trying to sell people the utterly ridiculous notion that abortion is a health care issue. Elective abortion is no more health care than elective plastic surgery. I support abortion as a necessary evil if the life or health of the mother is seriously jeopardized. Otherwise, it should be illegal. And I SURE don't want to pay for such a monstrosity through my tax dollars.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Is that some sort of Political Action Kommitee for the intellectually challenged?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Single-payer health care is the only kind that would both control costs and cover all Americans.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi had pledged to hold a House vote on single-payer, but she broke her promise, and did not allow the vote.

Even worse, Speaker Pelosi stripped a provision from the health care bill that would have allowed states to try single-payer.

As a final insult, the House approved an anti-choice amendment that will remove abortion coverage from millions of health insurance policies.

That's just not good enough.

Americans deserve a healthcare system that will cover everyone and won't bankrupt anyone.

Let's make our voices heard for real health care reform. Sen. Bernie Sanders has introduced S. 703, a bill that would create single-payer systems in every state to cover all Americans.

Tell your senators to support true health care reform by co-sponsoring S. 703 today.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"I have always thought it peculiar how the liberal and conservative philosophies have lined up on the abortion issue," observed pro-life feminist Rosemary Bottcher, in the Tallahassee Democrat. "It seemed to me that liberals traditionally have cared about others and about human rights while conservatives have cared about themselves and property rights. Therefore, one would expect liberals to be defending the unborn and conservatives to be encouraging their destruction."

The only exasperation I have with the Left, therefore, is its failure to see abortion as a secular human rights issue.

During the spring of 1989, for example, a huge pro-choice rally in Washington, DC was endorsed by the Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Center for Nonviolent Studies in Atlanta. I found this incredibly Orwellian! It's like many on the Left have trouble seeing abortion as a human rights issue; seeing it as an act of violence against the unborn.

Similarly, in the mid-'90s, a group of various recording artists released an album benefiting the abortion rights movement, entitled Born to Choose. The title also struck me as Orwellian: We are "born to choose" whether or not someone else may be "born".

And recently I saw a car with two bumper stickers: one of them read "Create Peace" and the other read "Pro-Choice." The owner of the car apparently saw no contradiction between the two slogans.

Writer and activist Jay Sykes, who led Eugene McCarthy's 1968 antiwar campaign in Wisconsin and later served as head of the state's American Civil Liberties Union wrote, "It is on the abortion issue that the moral bankruptcy of contemporary liberalism is most clearly exposed," because the arguments in support of abortion "could, without much refinement, be used to justify the legalization of infanticide."

I am forced to use the terms "pro-choice" and "pro-life," because these are the political labels by which the pro-abortion and anti-abortion sides identify themselves. But they are both misleading. Both sides are enaged in a propaganda war.

Dr. Bernard Nathanson (cofounder of NARAL; a physician who presided over some 60,000 abortions before changing sides on the issue), wrote in his 1979 book, Aborting America:

"...the Right-to-Lifers are not in favor of all 'life' under all circumstances. They are not in the forefront of the save-the-seals crusade. They are not devotees of Albert Schweitzer's "reverence for life," or its equivalent in Eastern religions, in which the extinction of cows or flies somehow violates the sanctity of the cosmos.

"Turning to the human species, they do not necessarily oppose the taking of life via capital punishment. Where were they when Caryl Chessman was executed for a crime he did not likely commit--and a rape at that, not a murder?

"They were likely not notably in the opposition while the United States was sacrificing lives on both sides of a questionable war in Viet Nam.

"They are not 'pro-life'; they are simply anti-abortion."

However, Dr. Nathanson goes on to say about those who prefer to be called "pro-choice" instead of "pro-abortion":

"This is the Madison Avenue euphemism of the other side. Who could possibly be opposed to something so benign as 'choice'? The answer is: Almost anyone--depending. The diehard opposition to civil rights and public accommodations for black Americans in the '50s and '60s was 'pro-choice' with a vengeance. Some whites wanted the 'right' to serve hamburgers or rent hotel rooms to whomever they wished.

"Most of us now oppose the concept of choice in such ugly claims. The true question is, 'What choice is being offered, and should society sanction that choice?' In any honest discussion we must focus upon what is being chosen, without hiding behind the slogan."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Most Americans are neither pro-life nor pro-choice. American public opinion falls somewhere in the middle. We see those on the pro-choice side opposing even reasonable restrictions on abortion.

For example: our laws require parental notification or consent if minors want tattoos or pierced ears; why should abortion be exempt?

The decision to take a life is very grave, so why is it unreasonable to require a 24 hour waiting period, to give a new mother time to think things through, rather than make a decision in haste?

The pro-choice rhetoric that women are capable of deciding for themselves whether or not to carry a child to term means they ought to be able to make informed choices. The informed consent or "women's right to know" laws advocated by pro-lifers are consistent with pro-choice rhetoric.

Even many on the pro-choice side are uncomfortable with abortion during the later stages of pregnancy, yet they are often reluctant to support a ban on partial-birth abortion: a procedure which is never medically "necessary," and which former Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan likened to infanticide.

In Guerilla Apologetics for Life Issues, Paul Nowak points out that Planned Parenthood opposes even reasonable restrictions upon abortion, such as 24 hour waiting periods, parental notification, informed consent or "women's right to know" laws, etc. Nowak writes: "Planned Parenthood opposes clinic regulations, despite the fact that in many states there are more restrictions on veterinary clinics than self-regulated abortion facilities."

Since the goal of the pro-choice movement is to "keep abortion safe and legal," why does Planned Parenthood oppose clinic regulations?

Again, both sides are engaged in a propaganda war.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This kind of ideological interference in health care is a total invasion of a persons privacy for religious ideological reasons and could be extended to include anything any group wants to force on us if we allow this to happen. WE will have moral decisions of all kinds enforced by insurance restrictions even if it is legal as in this case, to include all risk factors that they can select out.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

allowed. The single-payer was pulled out, and then at the last minute, Pelosi allowed this attack on women. I am sick of being betrayed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What makes them think they have the right to dictate what we do in the privacy of our own lives? Having or not having a child is not and never should be their choice, its our own. When are they gonna learn you can't legislate morality. The reason you can't is because morality like everything else, is relative. I personally find highly immoral to use one's religion as a tool to control those less educated or less financially stable or less strong. I find it immoral to enforce our beliefs on other cultures, and Jesus taught in the Bible to help the less fortunate, not manipulate them. We may not hold slaves legally anymore, but the far right still wants to hold them through what they deem morally right and just. This is not what Jesus taught.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Just because you have to pay for it yourself does not mean that your right to choose is infringed upon. In addition does the bill cover other reproductive procedures such as invetro fertilization, fertility medications, ... ? If you truly want to give a women a right to choose, it seems to me that you need to be able to give them the right to choose to have a child or not to have a child and not discriminate based on the choices, whether it be the pill, abortion, or fertility treatments.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I have never, ever known of a woman who used insurance to pay for an abortion. The very idea that it could be insured, except in cases of medical emergency, would never even enter my mind, and that's not because I'm against choice. I think the right to a safe, legal abortion is essential, and I have no problem with the idea that it might be insured, but I've never heard of that being the case.

My point is, who thought they would get insurance to pay for the abortion anyway? It's almost impossible to get psychiatric care or to get insurance to pay for hospitalization for eating disorder patients, or many other medical services that are predominantly beneficial to women. So I don't really see this as a choice issue as much as an issue of trying to make sure no extra dollars go to women for our women's stuff, and then the ultra-conservatives get to make their constituencies think they're awesome, while no one will stand up against them on behalf of women. That's not news, that's the sad reality of the world as it really is.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I am pro-choice; I am a progressive Democrat. I DO NOT believe the government should pay for abortions. I don't know who is behind this movement to prevent healthcare reform. It's entirely possible it's the insurance and/or pharmaceutical industries. This is just plain wrong. I paid for my own abortions. If a woman doesn't want to get pregnant tell her to try saying "NO" to the man when he insists it feels better to not use condoms. Therein lies the whole problem...she wants to please her man and we, the taxpayers, have to pay for her man's desire for pleasure. Gimme a break!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

شات فن تايم
العاب
شات كتابي
دردشة كتابية
منتديات
مركز تحميل
مسجات
دليل مواقع
توبيكات
ماسنجر
شات صوتي
دردشة صوتية
ثيمات
عنوان اي بي
احسب عمرك
زخارف
دليل
دليل مواقع
دليل المواقع
المبدعون
المبدعون العرب
توب سايت
دليل توب سايت
دليل مواقع توب سايت
اضف موقعك
دردشة
شات
منتديات الاقتصاد المنزلي
الاقتصاد المنزلي

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The only possible objection anyone could have to prohibiting a woman from controlling her own body is religious dogma. Why do we allow the organized religions to have any involvement in the conduct of our affairs?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hey Faux Prolifers-

Real pro-lifers support providing at least BASIC health care for all US citizens

Dr. Rick Lippin
Southampton,Pa

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

http://www.indypendent.org/2009/11/12/you-must-go-to-jail/

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]