Last Saturday the House traded a woman’s right to choose for healthcare reform. Even though President Obama has promised that reform will not cause any U.S. citizen to lose benefits they already have, the House passed the Stupak Pitts amendment which takes away a woman’s right to full reproductive health coverage
Over the weekend several representatives threatened to vote down the healthcare bill unless the House passed the amendment. The amendment, by prohibiting coverage of abortion in the public option, effectively bans abortion coverage across the board. That’s because it also prohibits private insurers from offering full reproductive coverage through the exchange to both subsidized and unsubsidized individuals. Remember: abortions are legal, medical procedures.
The amendment does make a provision for an abortion rider that women could purchase in the event they are planning an unplanned pregnancy. But Planned Parenthood says these riders don’t really exist. Many claim that the amendment is in place to make sure no federal money is used to pay for abortions. But that protection was already in place. The Stupak Amendment, which was backed by the Catholic Bishops, is far more restrictive.
I spent too many years in the Catholic Church to take abortion lightly, but women must have the right to control their own bodies. According to Planned Parenthood, 1 out of 3 women in the U.S. have an abortion by the time they are 45 years old.
I have also been pregnant three times. Sadly, my first baby didn’t make it. Somewhere between eight and ten weeks, his or her heart stopped beating and I underwent a surgical procedure, known as a D&C, to remove the dead fetus from inside me. The procedure ensured I would not get an infection from the tissue and, more importantly to me at the time, it gave me closure while I mourned a baby I never knew but absolutely loved. Under the Stupak Pitts amendment, hospitals might not distinguish the reason for a D&C, which is often used to perform abortions, and another woman in my situation may not have access to the surgery. What will she do then?
Sixty-four Democrats and 176 Republicans voted in the Stupak amendment, and in doing so, essentially traded women’s rights for so called healthcare reform. But this reform would not live up to Obama’s promise that we will be better off after reform than we are now. And many of those same lawmakers then voted against the healthcare bill later that night. Women’s rights were used as a political bargaining chip in the House of Representatives last weekend and that’s not okay. However, there is hope that the Stupak Pitts amendment will be stripped from the Senate healthcare bill.
In Massachusetts, the issue is heating up the Senate race for Ted Kennedy’s seat. Congressman and Senate candidate Mike Capuano voted no on the Stupak amendment but yes for the healthcare bill that included the amendment. Following the vote, Attorney General Martha Coakley took a firm stance on the issue with this statement, “The inclusion of the Stupak/Pitts amendment violates the very intent of health care reform, which is meant to guarantee quality, affordable health care coverage for everyone. I believe that the Senate has a responsibility to fix this by eliminating the provision in whatever reform legislation moves forward.”
Capuano then jumped on Coakley’s statement and said, “Unlike a prosecutor, a legislator must have the skills to build consensus and the courage to make difficult decisions, and the wisdom to know when to choose progress over perfection.” His statement echoed the idea that women’s rights are just collateral damage in the game of politics. Candidate Steve Pagliuca is also willing to choose healthcare over women. His statement read, “if the choice is between providing healthcare to over 30 million people without federal coverage for abortion or to leave them with no coverage at all, I could not, in good conscience make the choice to leave them out in the cold.” Yet he could in good conscience take away women’s rights?
Days later, in what appeared to be a complete reversal, Capuano told The Boston Globe he would not support a healthcare bill that included the controversial amendment. And then, just yesterday, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, the women behind the machinations last Saturday, endorsed Capuano citing his “courageous vote for this historic legislation” and his “proven record of standing up for progressive values and what he believes is right.” What exactly does he believe is right?
Know your candidates, ladies. Women should never be compromised for some greater good. We need unwavering advocates in Washington. Period.
