Please note that with a few exceptions, such as the inimitable Alan Grayson and Anthony Weiner, most of those who are fighting back hard in the health care reform debate are women. I know there are a lot of prominent men involved, too, but I don’t see them fighting back as hard. Many of them seem to want to keep making backroom deals, deals that will benefit their large donors.

Why, you may wonder, are women fighting harder?

One reason may be that women pay more for health care, even when maternity is not included. Other reasons may be those gender-based pre-existing conditions that have me, and so many others, feeling so outraged lately. Another reason may be that women tend to take the longer, larger and wider view when it comes to public policy.

While we’re at it, we might wonder if the GOP wonders why there are so few women in top leadership positions in their party. Something tells me that they do not.

How can Republicans ever hope to attract m/any women into their ranks when 30 of them in the senate (and presumably all male) expressed the moral turpitude of a slug recently and voted against Al Franken’s bill that would not allow the government to do business with contractors who made female employees sign contracts that included fine-print clauses forbidding them to press charges for rape? By their co-workers? [Any kind of rape-consent clause should be an obvious NO!-brainer.]

Beats me. I really don’t understand how Republican men can look at themselves in the mirror to shave in the mornings, given their peculiar set of moral stances. Beats Jon Stewart, too. He doesn’t get the GOP, either. And, there are lots of other men who I know don’t understand the GOP’s PoliticalPOV– many of them on FDL’s and The Seminal’s threads. They, too, wonder at the GOP’s willingness to deny service for any kind of health care that a man would not need, as if these men did not have mothers, wives, sisters and daughters. Well, perhaps some of them have only one of the three.

For some reason, Republican men (and some Democratic men, too) believe deep in their souls that they are the defaults for the world’s standards, and that whenever they are not inherently so, they should be able to set those default standards, e.g., when deciding whether women should be able to press charges for rape, have access to birth control or to safe abortions, be able to get a mammogram covered by insurance, have a baby, not have a baby, do either of those with or without insurance coverage, and so forth and so on.

Ideally, more men would be fighting back, right now when it is so critical, and saying “Hey, wait a minute! You can’t just do that! It isn’t fair!”

And yet, today, in that hearing it was the women who were raising a ruckus. For a woman who was refused insurance coverage because she’d had a C-section, and the provider wanted her to agree to being sterilized, in order to get health insurance. [Where are we? China? Or BizarroWorld? The GOP hates abortion, but some of their largest donors love sterilization?] And, for women who have been denied care because they have been victims of domestic violence.

I follow a lot of very smart & interesting people on Twitter, both women and men, but again in Twitterland among those I follow, it was mainly women who were dealing with this hearing:

from @whymommy, who was actually present at the hearing (newest to oldest):

Sen. Mikulski, “No one in the USA in order to get health insurance should ever be forced to get sterilization.” (invoked China) #hcrabout

RT @lizhenry: Pelosi: No. That discrimination will not be allowed. They can’t charge more for ANY pre-existing conditions. #hcr #blogherabout

RT @lizhenry: Pelosi: No. That discrimination will not be allowed. They can’t charge more for ANY pre-existing conditions. #hcr #blogherabout

Ranking republican says insurance commission has not found ex. of insurance denials due to domestic violence. NatWomensLaw disagrees. #hcrabout

@lizhenry Elimination of exclusions for preexisting conditions would make it possible for my family to change jobs.Otherwise, I’m stuck #hcrabout

HELP Committee attendance has ranged between 3 and 6 speakers today. #hcrabout

Sen. Merley is asking what the committe can do about VBAC coverage! But #2 speaker (anti-bill) quashed it with talk of lawsuits. #hcrabout

@lizhenry @punditmom @queenofspain HELP hearing is focusing on gender ratings, preexisting conditions like c-sections, dom.violence #hcrabout

Real mom testifying that she was denied coverage bc of c-section. They said she could be covered if she agreed to be sterilized. GASP! #hcrabout

Women pay 45% more than men forhealth care premiums at age 25 even excluding maternity coverage… (I had NO idea.) #hcrabout

Janice Crouse, Concerned Women of America, “Honor your father and mother… Most seniors are women and have been mothers…Medicare.” #hcrabout

HELP hearing: “You never hear people saying, OMG I’m losing my job, I’m losing my auto insurance…or my life insurance…” Whoa. #hcr

from @PunditMom, who was re-tweeting @whymommyamong others about today’s hearing, as well as from a BlogHer call with Nancy Pelosi (newest to oldest):

For families, approx. $20K in increased premiums over next decade w/o reform #hcr #blogherabout

Pelosi – if we do nothing, small business will see increase in cost of $2.5 TRILLION dollars for health care #hcr #blogherabout

Pelosi thinks exchange system is “brilliant” #hcr #blogherabout

AARP has stated that fixing waste/fraud in Medicaire will help with #hcr and not cut benefits #hcr #blogherabout

Pelosi – cuts in Medicaire not in benefits, but b/c of waste/fraud can be stopped w/o cutting benefits. Use those savings for #hcr #blogherabout

Pelosi – thought proved her strength in having 5 kids, when she was denied by insurance. #hcr #blogherabout

No discrimination in cost b/c of pre-existing cond. No exclusions in House bill. Maternity will be in “Essential benefit pkg” #hcr #blogherabout

Nancy Pelosi has received a lot of grief since she became Speaker, but I’ve always thought that she was a tougher fighter than Harry Reid. I still think so. Unfortunately, bills have to get through both chambers, not just one, and for my money, it’s the Senate (primarily an exclusive club for rich, white men) that has been the legislative bottleneck.

There are important reasons for taking care of the least advantaged and most vulnerable in our society. The main reason is that it is the right thing to do. However, for those who need more than mere principle, there are always attendant benefits. When the least advantaged among us have their rights shored up, everyone else’s rights are shored up, too. When curbs were smoothed to street level to meet ADA requirements for wheel chairs, others benefited, as well: seniors who might feel less secure stepping from a curb, parents taking their children on tricycles or bicycles for a walk, kids delivering newspapers from a wagon. Attending to the needs of the most vulnerable is a kind of cultural or social lubricant that makes the world around us work and feel better.

Such benefits always accrue. Yet, the principal reason for doing good is merely because it is the right thing to do, and certainly not because it has anything to do with protecting Corporatists’ profits before protecting people’s lives.