November 7, 2009 should have been a day for me to celebrate. After months of organizing phone banks to call our reps and dealing with Tea Party insanity, the House finally passed a health care reform bill that would cover 96 percent of Americans, and even included a reasonably strong public option.
I should have been ecstatic. Instead I was numb. Because apparently the White House and Nancy Pelosi had to trade away my reproductive rights at the 11th hour to pass the bill.
If you’re reading this, I don’t have to rehash the rest. I don’t have to tell you that pro-choice groups were caught flat-footed and unprepared, or that Stupak would eventually mean the end of abortion insurance coverage, period.
Coverage for Viagra? Sure! Coverage for abortion services to protect the health of the mother? Are you nuts?
No, I don’t have to tell you any of that. You already know.
But here’s the thing. We can do something about this.
See, during the Obama campaign last year, my group, Venice For Change organized dozens of phone banks. Our congressional district alone had 1,500 volunteers and made over 600,000 phone calls to swing states all over the country. We know how to do this. We have the power.
With the help of FDL Action PAC – and all of you – we’re going to make sure those 64 Democrats who voted for Stupak know it’s not OK to hold women’s reproductive rights hostage to pass health care reform.
Today, we launched "One Voice For Choice". As featured on MSNBC’s "Morning Joe", this will be a unique and tightly targeted campaign, pressuring these lawmakers with the voices of those they need care most about – motivated Democratic voters who will hold them accountable at the ballot box in 2010.
This is a fascinating development in politics. Jane Hamsher, the founder of firedoglake blog, one of the influential liberal blogs, she’s a former movie producer from Seattle.
She has a PAC, raises a lot of money and starting today they’re announcing they’re going to be phone banking into the districts of House Democrats who voted for that abortion restriction amendment, the Stupak amendment on health care reform. They’re going to call pro-choice voters who are likely to vote in 2010 and telling them to pressure their Democratic member of Congress to make their vote on health care contingent on pulling that out.
So this is a very fascinating new force in politics and it shows that the health care calculus isn’t as set on the House side as we thought it might be.
President Obama is supposed to have promised the Democratic Caucus that he’d strip Stupak from the final bill. That’s great, except he can’t honor that promise if it means losing the three votes it took to pass the original bill. We know we’re going to lose Stupak and the Republican, Cao – that leaves us with only a one vote margin. Too close too call.
So Obama and Pelosi are going to need our help. We know how to do this. We have the power. Already we have a half a dozen phone banks set up in my home state of California. Today we added Texas to that list.
Make your voice heard. Sign up to host a phone bank in your neighborhood. It’s easy, it’s fun, and it works.
Click on this link to sign up.
Click on this link to find a phone bank in your area.
HELP US SPREAD THE WORD!
You can follow us:
on the web at http://www.onevoiceforchoice.com
on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/onevoiceforchoice
on twitter @OneVoice4Choice



58 Comments

I am pro choice.
I am pro choice for practical reasons.
A woman wants to know whether she wants a baby.
I get that. In spades.
At heart, I have questions about abortion. I wonder whether the planet would be better off with random reproduction. I don’t know the answer to the question, but I feel it is a legitimate question.
Joined on fb and twitter and signed up to make calls today. Thank you all for this organized opportunity to DO something!
hold them accountable at the ballot box, how?
either the motivated Democrats will vote Democratic, as they always do, or . . . what?
seriously, what is the script for your phonebankers?
“Reproductive rights” = genocide.
“Choice” = license to kill.
There is no health, no care, and certainly no “reform” in the bills currently contemplated. At present, FDL should be applauding the medieval abortion restrictions in hopes that they kill the bills.
I have come to the conclusion that all the misguided progressives fighting FOR this “reform” already have insurance and don’t understand what horrible crap is in those 2,000 pages. There’s going to be bloody hell to pay if this passes, abortion restrictions or not. It’s just stunning how blind the left is…
I imagine a pro-choice primary challenger might have a decent shot at capturing a significant portion of the vote. But the goal here is make sure that the reps know that their constituents want them to vote for a Stupak-free bill.
Thank you, Eurkea Springs!
Why are you here?
Apologies if this is already known around here, but David Sirota at Open Left reports Sanders Puts Official Senate Hold on Bernanke Nomination.
Looks like Ron Paul’s getting even more help from Progressives of all people!
Sanders is going to push for single payer.
He lashes out against what he perceives the Left.
I say, welcome him (or her).
Far out. He didn’t play the Rethug game of keeping his name secret.
So, as one middle-aged man to another, who does not currently have insurance, please tell me what you have done today that makes any difference?
Marta, Rock On!
Looks like Sanders isn’t angling for health care, so much as he just wants to hold Bernanke’s feet to the fire for his role in the economic mess we’re still in. I think Sanders just wants Bernanke out. period.
See Sanders’s release here:
Thanks Marta!
it is true that primary challengers should be invigorated by Stupakified incumbents, but what if they give it their best shot, and do not prevail?
then, will the ‘motivated Democrats’ vote for the anti-choice incumbent?
how will they justify that to themselves, knowing that their Rep helped take away “Coverage for abortion services to protect the health of the mother”?
He and Durbin are in a Q & A and one of the first things he said was that he had just put on the clerk’s desk legislation for single payer.
So, please tell me what you have done today that will help stop the Stupafikation
*g*
You think Sanders is after a quid pro quo?
Keith on Countdown just called Karl Rove “Porky Pig.”
I’m in – signed up this morning to make calls.
Dunno. I don’t want to speculate.
Damn, Keith insulted Porky Pig? Damn.
So wear a rubber if you don’t believe in a women’s right to control her own body.
Where did all these “me Tarzan, you Jane” people come from today? They really have their knickers in a twist.
They’ve always been there but this issue has brought them out in spades. We don’t get to see them live and in living colour so it’s hidden from us until their hormones get knotted up and they can come here and be anonymous.
I guess they just hate the idea of women’s rights. Suits me just fine if they go back to their bridges.
It’s all about control.
Gonna hit the books.
Namaste
“Coverage for Viagra? Sure! Coverage for abortion services to protect the health of the mother? Are you nuts”
Yeah, that part in the Stupak Amendment that allows for payments of abortions to protect the health of the mother? Let’s just ignore that totally so that we can tell a huge fucking lie about the bill.
Fair enough. Supporting Sanders on both scores.
I find myself agreeing here. When I was younger (16 ish or so) I was anti abortion because I thought no matter what I thought it was still a life.
My opinion changed later tho. No matter what my choice would be it’s her body, it’s her decision. And that was the end all be all of it for me.
What would even be an appropriate punishment for the woman? you’re going to make someone you just forced to give birth go to jail and make the child an orphan?
The whole debate got ridiculous, and in the end pro choice was the only logical place to find oneself. It’s a civil liberties issue thru and thru.
I do however, as a man who has not yet had kids, see a flip side to this that most women don’t seem to like. If you make that claim, that it is your body, and in the end the right to have the child or not is your call, as you have all right to do, You cannot then force paternity on a male.
If you block the male from having any say or control over the decision, if it is completely the woman’s choice, you have no right to force it on the man. He has had no say on whether or not to abort the child, and you both had equal parts in the act of conception. Assuming no rape. It’s not my argument to imply rapists should get a choice in the abortion. But in the case of equal consensual sex that resulted in pregnancy.
There’s more to it than that argument wise, but that’s the core of it. But I’d like to see what people think about that.
In a word. vasectomy.
Or wear a rubber as I mentioned above…
Opposing the passage of a Stupak-like amendment in the Senate would kill the bill as at least one senator has indicated he will definitely filibuster the bill if it is not included. Furthermore, the House version only passed by two votes. If the Stupak Amendment is stripped, it will definitely cost enough votes to kill this thing.
Then there will be a few ex-Senators and Representatives if that’s the case.
The bill only says “LIFE” of the mother. Anti choicers could not care less about women’s health. There is also no exception for a dead fetus.
Forcing a woman to give birth a dead baby is pro.. what again?
Stupak should be stripped of his committee assignments by the rest of the House.
It’s a known troll. Ignore.
Why should we want it to pass with the f*cking Stupak Amendment?
That amendment only benefits male conservatives.
It is truly disappointing, the way reproductive health and freedom is used as a political football in the Congress.
Marta, I signed on at Twitter and Facebook, today, too, but only to blog. On the phone, I tend to get tongue-tied.
On a tangent, I could not post the image for One Voice 4 Choice. I seem only to be able to post videos… no images. Any clues?
Oh, I know it’s a known troll – that’s partly why we have to engage so that folks who read without commenting recognize the trollness.
marta-I’m signed up; should I expect to hear from someone, or do I just have to show up at the nearest phone bank? I’m in San Antonio – looks like North Austin is my nearest, which iskind of far in a shaky car.
Can we make calls individually, without being part of a phone bank?
-
- How do you know what a women with an unwanted pregnancy is going through??
-
- Unless you’re Pro Choice – Stay out of a woman’s pregnancy business.
So men have to get surgery that will forever cause them nto to be able to have children?
If you don’t see the imbalance with that I feel sorry for the people you know, because you’re obviously not a good person.
@34
couldn’t the woman be on the pill / or other birth control implementation?
Works both ways with that.
neither of you have countered my point at all, you’ve just been extremely unfair to males. Sexism also works both ways.
You can’t claim to have complete and utter control over wether you have a child or not and then force paternity. It’s the woman’s call 100% or it’s not.
Nothing like being willfully obtuse.
I was just offering you the available options (as was ES), if it is so important to you or any other man to avoid becoming a father. Getting a vasectomy or wearing a condom are the most easy ways for a man to assure he does not father a child and have it be under HIS control.
You know, making sure the man gets his way? I’ve heard too many MRA types complain about how they were “tricked” by the woman claiming to be on the pill or IUD. This way, the man does not have to rely on having been “tricked” but controls himself.
There’s absolutely nothing sexist or unfair to the man at all about that statement
email me directly at onevoiceforchoice@gmail.com and I’ll send you some images
You should have a received an email on what to do next. If you haven’t, please email me at onevoiceforchoice@gmail.com
I disagree. I believe it is entirely sexist.
First of all a Condom isn’t 100% effective. But that’s a small griping point.
But to imply that a man has to recieve potentially permanent, potentially deadly (as all surgery is) operation to ensure himself of his rights is straight up sexist yes.
And is the woman not responsible for birth control in that situation? Shwo she not be on the pill to ensure her rights then by your logic?
I feel like you’re nitpicking because you don’t want to deal with the core issue of my argument, that’s fine. But calling my intentionally obtuse because you don’t have an answer is disingenuous at best.
Sorry but Bull Shit! If the man does not want children then he is responsible. To say that the woman is responsible for the birth control and then whine about how the woman has trapped the man is nothing but total BS.
Condoms, when used properly, are the most effective means of birth control (except for abstinence which is not part of this discussion.)
You are trying to blow smoke and make up issues. I would expect the woman to take care of her own birth control but you are the one who first brought up the point about women entrapping men so to now make the claim that this is an issue only for the woman is such a BS cop out as to be beyond belief.
I am not nitpicking. I am a 57 year old white male and I have taken full responsibility to assure taht I have no children running around this world. For you to make any claims that it is all on the woman is just for you to show your basic BS for all to see. I’m surprised you haven’t just gone ahead and admitted that you don’t like condoms “because you can’t feel anything with them” (that seems to be the standard argument I hear against using them)
Completely not my point, and a gross mischaracterization. I am saying BOTH are responsible for the birth control. You can’t trust your partner to do it so you both must do it.
But if you’re both responsible for the birth control why then is it soley the woman’s right to choose? Because it’s her body, OK fine..but if it’s completely her choice why can she then force the man, who had no say, into being father?
False paternity isn’t a made up issue, go research it sometime. And at no point did I talk about women “entrapping” men, I don’t even know how you pulled that out of thin air.
Both are responsible for birth control, man and woman. So if she DOES get pregnant, that means both of them failed. I repeat, if the woman got pregnant BOTH of them failed at birth control.
Yet the woman is the only given a choice wether to continue the pregnancy or not. That’s correct IMHO, as it is her body. But if both failed at birth control why is she the only one who gets to make the choice? What if the man didn’t want the child, but she did?
Both failed at birth control, but she gets to make the decision, which is right.
But if that is right why does she have the right to then force paternity?
you have not yet come close to answering this. All you’ve done is call me names and take my argument out of context like a Republican. ( I can name call to if you really want to go that way).
I’m happy for you. I’m 27 with no children running around. I use condoms every single time, and participate in handing them out to the poor.
You aren’t even attempting to get at my argument. You’re just calling me a mysonginist. It makes you look foolish, it makes you look Republican.
If you have an actual argument to refute me with then please respond again.
Sorry but these were your words in your first comment on this last night:
So though you did not say explicitly “entrapped” that is the meaning of the words you used. And the arguments you are using are in fact, the classic arguments used by misogynists and men’s rights activists everywhere.
I have control over whether I have children, regardless of the actions of the women I am with. But yes, once I shoot my wad, it is totally her decision if I have not done the actions to assure that I do not become a father.
The definition of entrapment
I’m not claiming the women tricked the men into getting them pregnant. Not even close. I’m saying the women are making a conscious decision to keep the baby, regardless of the man’s feeling or opinion
If you can’t see the difference then you’re not as smart as you’re trying to make out to be. And I object strongly to being called a Mysonginist.
If you object to being called a misogynist, then don’t use the misogynists and mens rights activists’ arguments.
I agree I’m using Men’s rights language. I disagree that that makes you a Mysoginist. I don’t think anything I’ve said has qualified me as a Mysogynist, nor do I think your’re even qualified to make that statement.
Men have rights dude. Just because you have a penis you are not by default a monster.
You haven’t countered a single one of my points in any form of coherent way.. All you’ve done is sit there and hurl insults at me.
Please try some logic to dispute my arguments. If you just come back at me with some cheap insult again I’ll just take that as proof you have no counter to them and be done with you.
I have a penis and also have absolutely no right to tell a woman what to do with her body. I make my choices. Just as she does once we’re through having sex. And if I have failed to do the steps necessary to not have a child, then too feckin’ bad for me. It’s no longer my choice at that point so that’s the reality.
If you don’t understand that, then nothing I can say will penetrate the thickness.
Edit: In no way have I insulted you personally (although I have most definitely insulted your “arguments”). I have insulted your arguments as they are totally fallacious and without merit IMNSVHO. If you can’t deal with that, that is your problem, not mine.
She also didn’t take the steps necessary to not have a child. But she gets all the decision on wether to have it or not. As she should, but then she is able to force Paternity, where I draw the line.
oh really?
@ 50
@46
@54
pretty much admitting you’re calling my a Mysogynist.
At least stand up and admit you’re insulting me.
When you use the misogynists arguments, what am I supposed to think? That you’re a member of NOW and voting for the ERA?
I can’t control what a woman does. All I can do is control my actions to make sure that I don’t father a child. What part of that do you not understand? If I abdicate my personal responsibility in this, why should I then have a say? I failed to do what I needed to do so so now I get to tell a woman what to do? Not happening.
And yes, if you do not understand these simple facts, then you are most definitely being willfully obtuse. You are electing to NOT understand.
I tend to trust that the moderators at FDL will bounce my comments and warn me if I in fact do cross a line and start name calling. All I’ve done is mock your arguments, not you.