And, again - the reproductive rights of women are held hostage. Regardless of one's opinion on abortion, or on the national healthcare fiasco - for that matter, if this procedure is legal, is it not discrimination against low income women to deny health coverage of the procedure? Polesi's underlings allowed this vote, with THREE WOMEN (not sure which party) on the committee refraining from voting. And, yet again this effort was led by a MALE - WHO DOES NOT HAVE A UTERUS, and who WILL NEVER BECOME PREGNANT from rape (even by a family member - forced incest sadly still occurs in all regions of this country). His life will never be at risk from an accidental pregnancy that could be life threatening. He won't have to worry about whether going through the birth process will leave the THREE children he already has with a dead mother.
I know this is a sensitive subject, and hell no, abortion should not be used as routine birth control. But, life is not neat, even in the high-dollar neighborhoods where most of our representatives reside. Pregnancies occur under extreme or traumatic circumstances. There must be planning for contingencies.
BTW - I wonder if Bart Stupak, the U.S. Representative who feels he should have the power to decide if women give birth or not, has any objections to government health care paying for VIAGRA?
Up-or-down vote on an amendment to block abortion funding approved By Molly K. Hooper and Mike Soraghan - 11/07/09 01:27 AM ET
House Democratic leaders will allow an up-or-down vote on an amendment blocking any money in its healthcare overhaul from funding abortions, risking the votes of members who support abortion rights.
Anti-abortion Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) had told a bleary-eyed Rules committee panel that a deal struck earlier in the day to move forward on the issue was off.
“There was some compromise language from different proposals that we thought would be satisfactory, our understanding was that we had an agreement. Two hours later it was not an agreement,” Stupak said as the clock neared 1 a.m. Saturday.
Stupak, flanked by a bipartisan coterie of abortion opponents, argued for consideration of their amendment that explicitiy prohibits federal funding of abortions under the Democrats' healthcare bill before the Speaker's select committee.
Liberals on the committee threatened to vote against the final healthcare bill if it included Stupak’s language, warning that it would be a return to the days of back-alley abortions.
“I forsee a return to the dark ages,” said Alcee Hastings (D-Fla.). “I’m 73, I’ve seen these dark things, they use these coat hangers and die.”
Committee Vice-Chairman Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) presided over the panel while Chairwoman Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.) hunkered down with Democratic leadership. The three women committee members refrained from voting on the rule that was approved 6-4.
Slaughter, Doris Matsui (D-Calif.) and Chellie Pingree (Maine) were not present for the debate on Stupak's amendment.
“I used to think that life was black or white, but the older I get the most gray it becomes,” liberal Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) told the panelists.
“I find this amendment very, very uncomfortable.”
Freshman Rep. Kathy Dahlkemper (D-Pa.) responded that their amendment would not change the law on abortion.
“This doesn’t change the law at all, it’s not outlawing abortion today; a majority of abortions are paid for with cash,” she said.
But abortion-rights advocates, including the Speaker and a majority of the Democratic caucus, support a provision in the healthcare bill that would subsidize abortions for poor women who can’t afford them.
The agreement was quickly condemned by Planned Parenthood Federation of America, which called the amendment by Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) a "de facto abortion ban."
"A vote for Rep. Stupak’s amendment is a vote to weaken women’s access to comprehensive reproductive care and to take away private benefits that women currently have," said Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards.
On Friday, House Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) said passing Stupak's legislation could jeopardize passage of the bill, because abortion-rights supporters were likely to vote against a bill that includes it.
-- Edited by freespirit on Saturday 7th of November 2009 09:56:03 AM
__________________
It was we, the people; not we, the white male citizens; nor yet we, the male citizens; but we, the whole people, who formed the Union.... Men, their rights and nothing more; women, their rights and nothing less. ~Susan B. Anthony
FreeSpirit wrote: "And, yet again this effort was led by a MALE - WHO DOES NOT HAVE A UTERUS, and who WILL NEVER BECOME PREGNANT from rape (even by a family member - forced incest sadly still occurs in all regions of this country). His life will never be at risk from an accidental pregnancy that could be life threatening. He won't have to worry about whether going through the birth process will leave the THREE children he already has with a dead mother.
"I know this is a sensitive subject, and hell no, abortion should not be used as routine birth control. But, life is not neat, even in the high-dollar neighborhoods where most of our representatives reside. Pregnancies occur under extreme or traumatic circumstances. There must be planning for contingencies."
So well stated! And I hope voters know they're being played when this is used as a carrot or a stick. It's one thing to have true feelings about the issue one way or the other. It's quite another to have a politician put it on the table not because they have an opinion on the subject, but because it will get them votes.
__________________
Barack/Barry: If you're NOT LEGIT, then you MUST QUIT!!
Isn't it the case that if Democrats wanted to support a bill that paid for abortions (with "contingencies" and maybe with restrictions on late term abortions) they could have done so? Aren't they the majority?
I think they got one lone Republican vote for the whole health care bill, but people can correct me if I'm wrong. Why would Republicans allow this one person to vote for the bill? I really don't think any Republican wants it. Given the state of the economy/unemployment this bill possibly couldn't come at a worst time. Maybe the Republicans are giving the Dems just enough rope to hang themselves (with that one vote to get it passed in a so-called bipartisan way). God help the Democrats if the economy doesn't begin to turn around and this expensive health care bill (that mostly benefits insurance companies and neglects to include certain medical procedures for women) goes ahead. They should expect to lose in 2010 and 2012.
