What Is True/Slant?
275+ knowledgeable contributors.
Reporting and insight on news of the moment.
Follow them and join the news conversation.
 

Nov. 8 2009 - 2:03 pm | 27 views | 3 recommendations | 13 comments

House representatives vote ‘no’ on women’s rights, ‘yes’ on war

Image from Firedoglake (by twolf1)

Image from Firedoglake (by twolf1)

The House voted yesterday and the anti-women’s health Stupak amendment passed 240 to 194 with one member voting present.

64 Democrats voted yes on the Stupak amendment, which effectively bans insurance companies from selling insurance plans that cover elective abortion on the individual and small group market.

Firedoglake calls this “one of the most far reaching national [restrictions] placed on abortion in decades. It could also [potentially] be used by insurance companies to allow them to legally discriminate against low income Americans.”

Many of the Democrats who voted in favor of the Stupak amendment will surely boast they did so because they are the sentinels of human life. Of course, these Democrats are only concerned with protecting certain types of life.

In preparation for such pharisaic claims, I compared the list of 64 Democrats with the roll call for HJ Res 114, the bill that authorized the United States Armed Forces to invade Iraq.

19 of the Democrats who voted for the Stupak amendment also authorized the United States to invade Iraq (one representative, Ortiz, chose not to vote, which in a time of war, is just as bad as voting “aye.”)

The so-called Democratic representatives that voted in favor of the Iraq invasion and for the Stupak amendment are: Robert Berry (AR), Mike Ross (AR), Sanford Bishop (GA), Baron Hill (IN), Stephen Lynch (MA), Collin Peterson (MN), Gene Taylor (MS), Ike Skelton (MO), Bob Etheridge (NC), Mike McIntyre (NC), Earl Pomeroy (ND), Paul Kanjorski (PA), John Murtha (PA), Tim Holden (PA), John Spratt (SC), John Tanner (TN), Jim Matheson (UT), Bart Gordon (TN) (voted “aye” on Stupak and “nay” on final bill,) and Solomon Ortiz (TX) (didn’t vote in Iraq authorization roll call).

All of these representatives are male, and with the exception of Sanford Bishop and Solomon Ortiz, they’re white, and ten are from southern states. None of them are poor. This is the kind of unrepresentative, elite club that gets to vote on sending our soldiers to possibly die after killing many innocent people in distance lands, and this Rich Boys’ Club also occasionally votes to steal rights from poor women.

What’s even sadder is that southern states have historically high rates of unplanned pregnancies, which makes the need for women’s health alternatives, including contraception (also not terribly popular in religious areas of the south) and abortion, all the more great. The Stupak amendment only ensures that poor, desperate girls will have to resort to terrible measures in order to terminate unwanted pregnancies.

Meanwhile, the Iraq authorization has resulted in the deaths of anywhere between hundreds of thousands and a million Iraqi civilians in addition to 4,000 US troops without counting the deaths of US allies.

These 19 Democrats voted in favor of a horrific, pointless war based on a lie, and have now voted to suppress the rights of poor women. This means they would rather authorize the US military to bomb, maim, and murder innocent civilians than allow a woman to make a personal decision about her own body.

If it goes to war like a Republican, and votes against women’s rights like a Republican…

I can’t wait for the primaries.


Comments

Active Conversation
13 Total Comments
Post your comment »
 
  1. collapse expand

    While I am not supported of the Stupak Amendment, I’m having trouble working out how Firedog reaches their conclusion. I’m unaware of any insurance policy in existence that covers elective abortion. Indeed, virtually any elective procedure remains uncovered by insurance policies. I’m also at something of a loss to understand how this allows an insurance company to legally discriminate against low income Americans. While I suppose you could argue that higher income Americans will have the money to pay for abortions out of pocket -something that lower income individuals might not be able to do, this would not meet any test of legal discrimination. Not to suggest that a nose job and an abortion are the same thing, but higher income Americans can pay for cosmetic surgery that a person with less money would not be able to access.
    I wonder if you could provide a bit more explanation on both issues. Why does this constitute a far reaching ban on abortion when there has been no previous such opportunity? Why would it be legally discrimination against low income Americans?

  2. collapse expand

    Just for the record, not everyone agrees that killing a fetus is a woman’s right. Interchanging “abortion” with “woman’s rights” is a bit misleading.

  3. collapse expand

    I’m not sure what type of argument you are trying to form by showing how certain democrats vote on going to war compared to how they voted on the Stupak-Pitts Ammendment.

    I think it’s completely ridiculous that so many people, including politicians, still follow party lines.

    However, I’m glad that some Deomcrats have finally gone against how their party typically votes to show that the majority of Americans do not support the killing of inocent children who have no voice.

  4. collapse expand

    I did my own research.
    It turns out that 46% of health insurance policies in the country DO provide for elective abortion services. I never knew that.
    That said, I very much see your point. By disallowing such policies to enter the health exchange and to only permit elective abortion coverage vai a rider paid 100% by the policy holder and using no federal monies for administration or anything else, these policies will be dropping the elective abortion coverage. That means that only those with the funds to pay the entire bill will be able to get coverage. Thus, your point is made and is absolutely correct.

  5. collapse expand

    I’m not one way or the other on choice issues very strongly, but I think it’s remarkable how much the Democrats can get away with slapping their own base in the face sometimes.

Log in for notification options
Comments RSS

Post Your Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment

Log in with your True/Slant account.

Previously logged in with Facebook?

Create an account to join True/Slant now.

Facebook users:
Create T/S account with Facebook
 

My T/S Activity Feed

 
     

    About Me

    I co-host Citizen Radio, the alternative political radio show. I am a contributing reporter to Huffington Post, Alternet.org, and The Nation.

    My essay "Youth Surviving Subprime" appears in The Nation's new book, Meltdown: How Greed and Corruption Shattered Our Financial System and How We Can Recover beside esssays by Ralph Nader, Joseph Stiglitz, Barbara Ehrenreich, and Naomi Klein, who I'm told are all important people.

    G. Gordon Liddy once told me my writing makes him want to vomit, which is the greatest compliment I've ever been paid ever.

    See my profile »
    Followers: 453
    Contributor Since: May 2009
    Location:New York, New York

    What I'm Up To

    • In The Nation’s New Book

      picture-11

      Check out my article “Youth Surviving Subprime” in The Nation’s new book beside essays by Ralph Nader, Joseph Stiglitz, Barbara Ehrenreich, and Naomi Klein.

       
    • Citizen Radio

      I co-host the biweekly political-comedy show, Citizen Radio. It’s like CNN, but with more swearing. Citizen Radio covers the stories that the mainstream, corporate media ignores. Past guests include: Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, Matt Taibbi, Jeremy Scahill, Ralph Nader, Tariq Ali,  Janeane Garofalo, Melissa Harris-Lacewell, and more…

      Go to wearecitizenradio.com and click on the iTunes logo to subscribe to our podcast for FREE. Also, join us on Facebook

       
    .<
    • +O
    • +O
    >.