By Jen Nedeau
“This is not a bill about abortion, this is about health care reform,” said White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs to the audience of Good Morning America on Tuesday.
Easier said than done, Mr. Gibbs. For the past six months, the health care reform process has become a venomous tug-o-war over women’s choice in exchange for offering health care to 30 million uninsured Americans.
We are now in the final few weeks of this struggle. Now, more than ever, is the time to stand up for women’s reproductive rights.
There are several major threats to choice outlined below that must be addressed before the final bill is passed or else women will find themselves stuck under the bus, with the gears in reverse:
Big Insurance. Progressives everywhere have taken aim at big insurance companies, which are slowly gaining more traction in the health care reform process and making it nearly impossible to have any type of public option in the current bill. Costs of health care for small business owners – which include private women’s health care clinics – will skyrocket if the bill is not passed. However, if a bill is passed that regulates costs, but simultaneously rolls back a woman’s right to choose, the insurance companies will then be able to charge even more exorbitant prices for birth control, women’s health procedures and any medical costs associated with performing legal abortions in private clinics.
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. The USCCB has become a completely unregulated anti-choice lobby arm (with a tax exempt status) in Congress. No one is pushing back on the Bishops in an organized manner while they preach political policy from their pulpits. While simultaneously trying to strengthen the Nelson language in the current Senate bill, there have been reports of a potential third abortion bill chartered by USCCB’s favorite Catholic crusader, Rep. Bart Stupak. David Dayden at FireDogLake breaks down the rosary beads on this clear disintegration of the idea behind a “separation of church and state.”
The Nelson Amendment. The House still has to vote on the reconciled bill from the Senate, which contains the Nelson amendment. This amendment is considered a severe rollback of reproductive rights. If the bill is passed with the Nelson amendment, some have said it will become the “Jim Crowe” law of reproductive health. While women’s rights groups are in support of the current health care bill, they are demanding that Nelson language be removed during the final stage of the bill’s passage.
Bart Stupak and his 11 Merry Pranksters. We all know why Stupak is on this list. He has been having a temper tantrum ever since the Stupak-Pitts amendment language was not included verbatim in the Senate bill. RH Reality Check reports that he has a dwindling crew of “11 other representatives that will vote against reform if they don’t get their way" on abortion language. However, these 11 are becoming a rare species thanks to Speaker Pelosi negotiating with them separately to reduce Stupak’s leverage. It seems to be working as RH Reality Check points out how “on February 24th, Stupak told The Hill that he had ‘15 to 20’ members of this crew. On February 26th, it was down to ‘10 to 12’…yesterday it was 12, and today it is 11.” It is important that we work hard to make Stupak as toxic as possible, which includes supporting progressive candidates running in his district such as Connie Saltonstall.
Dennis Kucinich. This is a new threat to reform as written about on The Huffington Post. Kucinich signaled a hard “No” vote on the present health care bill due to the fact that it lacks a public option. This dissonance from the Ohio Democrat will make House leadership scramble to find another vote to get the reconciled bill passed, which may lead them back to Stupak and offer even more leverage to the Michigan Democrat.
White House Leadership. Despite Gibbs’ statement on Good Morning America, White House leadership has been seemingly quiet on the tenuous issue of abortion coverage lately. While the White House has made health care reform a huge priority, it has felt at times that women’s health is still being shoved under the rug. In the GMA segment above, Gibbs followed up by saying that any bill that is passed should maintain the current federal funding limits on abortion, referring to the Hyde Amendment, but continue to protect a woman’s right to choose. Maintaining status quo on abortion has been the White House stance since the beginning, but in failing to take a stronger stand against the Bishops, Stupak and other evolving threats to reproductive choice, White House leadership could be seen as indirectly condoning final rollbacks to choice once everything is all said and done.
The Mainstream Media. It seems that everywhere you look these days another anti-choice voice is taking over the television screen. Again, Stupak is often in the spotlight for his controversial positions, but has received little pushback from reporters on the blatant lies he has been proliferating across the airwaves of America. Thankfully, Media Matters has been covering the journalistic malpractice by the likes of Chris Matthews, Peter Johnson, and Greta Van Susteran – but it is important that you tell the mainstream media through letters to the editor and phone calls to radio and television stations to stop giving Stupak a stage and a microphone for his radical viewpoints without counter opinions or fact checking.
As you can see, we’ve got our work cut out for us. The women’s rights movement has been fighting hard against these anti-choice efforts, but we need your help, we need your voice and we need you to stand up against these major threats.
Women’s Media Center is maintaining a hub of information about the bill and it’s relationship to abortion coverage at NotUnderTheBus.com; Emily’s List issued a warning to any female politician who has ever received funding from the organization about voting out of line with pro-choice policy; NARAL, Planned Parenthood and other organizations are distributing petitions to pressure Speaker Pelosi and house leadership; and a handful of pro-choice elected officials such as Senator Kirsten Gillibrand are raising their voices and driving constituents to push back against anti-choice measures in the current bill.
It is clear that America cannot afford to move forward without comprehensive, fair, accessible health care coverage. And yet, despite Gibbs’ statement that “this is not a bill about abortion” the issue has clearly driven a huge wedge into the heart of Democratic Party and created an opening for religious interests and conservative rhetoric to take control of the dialogue.
In my limited time as a feminist activist, I’ve written about a lot of things. But in looking back, just a few years ago when I started my work in this movement, I never thought that in the year 2010, at age 25, my activism would be defined by the same battles as those in my mother’s lifetime — the struggle over my body and my choice.
The views expressed here are the authors alone.



12 Comments






I’m strongly behind the idea of you having sovereignty over your own body(which includes the brain) but all I have read is that the House CANNOT change the wording of the Senate bill and if such is changed, the Senate will reject whatever the House comes up with.
A truly great post… and from one so young, too.
I was a little younger than you, Jen, when Roe v. Wade was passed. In the past two decades, what was passed then has been ever so gradually eroded with one prohibition after another. Roe v. Wade may still be the law of the land, but it has become increasingly difficult for women to exercise any kind of choice. Even one to use birth control.
Trust women. That’s what Dr. Tiller was known for saying.
Frankly, I’m not even sure that Obama trusts women that much. I’ve only ever heard him say that a decision about whether to continue or terminate a pregnancy is between a woman, her husband, and her pastor. (Did he even mention the doctor?) In many, many cases that would be one woman vs. two men. If not three.
I’m not opposed to women seeking input from others, but I do think that a choice about continuing a pregnancy is a woman’s choice. And hers alone. Not even her husband’s. After all, he doesn’t have to subject his body to the hormonal– or later the weight-reduction challenges– nor even the simple wear and tear that so many men later use as an excuse for trading their wives in for younger models.
I speak as the oldest child of a woman who had six children in ten years because she was not allowed to use birth control, and who later died an early death, at 55, as so many women do when they have their children that closely spaced.
I like the way in one breath you say the insurance companies are bad for working to make a public option harder and harder to pass, and then, in the next breath, you attack Dennis Kucinich for saying he will vote against legislation that doesn’t contain a public option.
EG:
I find your commentary typical of the Democratic mainstream, where people are quite happy with the idea of all of us tithing Aetna each month with no public alternative, while also demanding “a public option”, while also attacking anyone in office who has the temerity to say he won’t vote for legislation without a real public alternative, all while seeming to castigate Bart Stupak only a bit, and the Republicans not at all. This muddled mess of want-it-both-ways perspectives is entirely un- self-consistent and shows only evidence of denial on the part of the commentator.
The movement for real health care reform failed spectacularly last year, because most Republicans and Democrats don’t really want such reform, as it eats into the profits and wealth of their corporate sponsors and plutocratic golf buddies. This year, we working people have been barraged with bullshit excuse after bullshit excuse from the national Democratic Party as its honchos and elected figures desperately try to find a way out of their plight, that they have elections this year, they haven’t done anything serious enough to help out the broad public, and they don’t want to and their corporate sponsors won’t let them anyway.
As for the abortion issue, it would seem obvious to anyone on this web site that any legislation that attacks reproductive freedom is a non-starter. But that is almost a distraction from the real problem, which is that the real reform movement, if it ever existed at the high levels of government, died last year and the free-for-all at hand is just a bunch of politicians and rich guys trying to save their stakes or make out like bandits from the mess.
@ubetchaiam – It seems that Democrats and Republicans want to maintain the Status quo with Hyde. That was the message in the beginning and it has gotten completely lost. The Senate bill is more conservative than Hyde. You think that we really need to be more conservative on reproductive health in order to get this bill passed? I don’t. Not with this administration. I think a lot of people have been misled on this issue.
@KarenM Thanks for the comment – it has been hard for someone who was actually raised Catholic to see it become more conservative in my lifetime and instead of promoting social justice, it is effectively targeting the most vulnerable communities with these anti-choice lobbying moves. Also – you’re right on Obama – he hasn’t been strong enough about women’s right to CHOOSE — which doesn’t mean she will have an abortion, but just means that she makes the ultimate decision about her own destiny. It is horrible how this debate has become so black and white, when the grey area is where most people agree I think.
@Seymour Friendly – I wish my commentary was part of the Democratic mainstream. Sadly, being pro-choice these days has made me feel like I’m living on the fringe of the Democratic party. I wish that wasn’t the case. You make a good point about calling out big insurance and then Kucinich. What I didn’t include is the part about Kucinich basically using the “public option” as a cop out. He is being a chicken and I think it is also tied to his pro-life ties.
I have no problem with pro-choice. It is an important attribute to our society. The problem I do have is that an abortion, like it or not, is most often a voluntary procedure. With few exceptions, women get an abortion because…ooops! I will not pay for that! Keep your legs closed. Get your John to pay half. Whatever, but I will not pay for your good time. Unlike you, I’m not that stupid. There is something called personal responsability. If more people respected it, we wouldn’t be talking about this right now.
If one wants to be so callous as you… you should simply consider the reasons private insurers offer it now.
It’s cheaper. Policies which don’t cover women’s early reproductive care will likely cost more.
You want to pay for a few baby “John’s” first couple of decades vs a few women’s health concerns who get responsible after the fact but before society pays for decades?
“Stupid people” deserve health care too.
You do have a problem with being pro-choice if you think some people deserve access to abortion and others don’t. Having a choice isn’t about always having an abortion – but the option to. It about a woman’s body being property of the government or her own responsibility.
Stupid people deserve… No,actually, they don’t, but I digress. If insurance companies were allowed to treat abortion as they should, women would either close their legs, keep the kid, or opt for adoption. In addition, if you (or your employer) choose health insurance that covers elective surgery, good for you!! I only ask that you not require I pay the premium.
Wow good thing nobody ever gets raped or is the victim of incest in your little world. That bit about “close their legs” is so 1950s, don’t you think?
What next, birth control is an aspirin between the knees?
that would fall under “with few exceptions”…sorry I expected you to read.
So here’s what you have to say at 7:21:
“Sorry…for stuping [sic] to name calling. I’m actually a bigger person, but I sometimes let emotion get the best of me….[snip]….Won’t let that happen again.
And yet at 7:23 you are back on your high horse again, “sorry I expected you to read.” Not credible.
Of course, it’s not as if contraception ever fails, either! [/sarcasm]
And then there are the actual pregnant women with real-life health concerns, or fetuses that were wanted as children, who would not survive the pregnancy. Yep, carrying those pregnancies to term is certainly for the public good, endangering a woman’s life, her fertility, and so on… good grief! what if she already has a family who depends upon her? Their tough luck, huh?