I don't have a favorite team in this week's Super Bowl, but you can bet I'll be watching the day's events with interest.
If you haven't heard, CBS made waves last week, after it was announced that they'd be running an anti-choice ad from the far-right group Focus on the Family during the Super Bowl.
There's been plenty of discussion about how CBS made their decision and why they decided to change their policy at this time. But I can't help but think about an even more troublesome, underlying issue: that anti-choice forces are ratcheting up their attacks on women's rights and preparing for a forceful -- and public -- assault leading up to this fall's midterm elections.
If the passage of the House-s Stupak/Pitts Amendment taught us anything, it's that we need more pro-choice Democratic women in Congress to fight for reproductive rights. Every EMILY's List woman you helped elect voted against the measure, but when it came down to a vote, we needed more women there to stand with them.
When I learned of Stupak's proposed amendment, I rallied my supporters immediately to take action and fight against new restrictions on a woman's right to choose. Because, after years working on behalf of women's rights in New Hampshire, there's one thing I know for sure: If given the opportunity to roll back women's rights, anti-choice proponents will do just that. And given the tough battles Democrats face this fall, we can't afford to let up for a moment.
I once heard historian John D'Emilio speak about the "leaping and creeping" of social change. Members of EMILY's List certainly understand this concept -- that we slog through trying to change the world for the better, periodically celebrating small victories, when all of the sudden there is a convergence of facts that creates huge and significant change. Having lived through the upheaval of the Thomas-Hill hearings and the "year of the woman," I'm always eager for the next leap forward!
Tuesday, December 8, wasn't as great a leap as 1992, but it certainly was a convergence of facts and success that resulted in tremendous celebration of our victories together. Hooray for Martha Coakley, who will soon become the 16th pro-choice Democratic woman elected to the Senate with help from EMILY's List! And hooray for the defeat of the Nelson-Hatch Amendment, the Senate version of the Stupak Amendment, that would eliminate insurance coverage for abortion for millions of women. Every woman we helped elect to the House and Senate voted to protect women from this anti-choice effort.
One victory shows that we know how to win. One victory shows why we need to win.
Politics is dangerously personal for women right now.
The Washington Post featured an article earlier this week about one woman's struggle to obtain the care she needed.
It should have been a happy time. D.J. Feldman, a federal attorney, and her husband had been trying to have a baby for two years, and finally she was pregnant. But, at 11 weeks, Feldman learned that the child she was carrying had anencephaly, a fatal defect that also put Feldman in serious medical jeopardy. Her doctor told her she should end the pregnancy.
But Feldman is a federal employee -- and, thanks to anti-choice forces in Congress, federal employee health care plans do not cover abortions. That means that Feldman's insurance would not cover the $9,000 procedure. Despite her doctor's efforts to explain the health risks the pregnancy posed to Feldman's life, her claim was denied.
And so, at an incredibly difficult time with no good options, Feldman paid out-of-pocket for a procedure she did not want, but needed. Many women less financially secure would simply not have that option.
In yet another attack on women's rights, Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) announced today that he is planning on introducing an amendment to the Senate health care bill that will echo the controversial language of the Stupak-Pitts amendment.
"It's as identical to Stupak as it can be," Nelson said.
That's the last thing that we wanted to hear.
Women should never be forced to choose between their rights and a chance at health care reform- and it's time our senators and representatives know that. Sign our petition to stop this assault on women's reproductive rights at StopStupak.com.
Cheryle Robinson Jackson, our candidate in the IL-Senate race, took a strong stand against the Stupak/Pitts Amendment today. In an email to supporters about her reactions to the House and Senate versions of the bill, she called the amendment "an insidious way to take us back to the dark ages."
"The Stupak-Pitts amendment to the House bill that passed would deny millions of women access to safe, affordable reproductive health care and would especially hurt lower income women. It would even prohibit women from using their own private money for such coverage. Just yesterday, the George Washington University released a study that found that this amendment would end up eliminating ALL abortion coverage eventually – for ALL women."
Cheryle is certainly a leader in the fight to protect reproductive rights -- and with those rights currently under attack, it's clear we need women leaders like Cheryle joining the ranks of our pro-choice Democratic women in Congress.
Yesterday, four EMILY's List alums -- Senators Amy Klobuchar, Barbara Mikulski, Kay Hagan, and Jeanne Shaheen -- held a press conference focused on impact of health care reform on women. Of course, we already knew that women were central to the health care debate -- and that the women we've helped elect are playing a crucial role in ensuring reform efforts address women's concerns.
Many women face incredible challenges when trying to get coverage, including outrageous claims by some insurers that "pre-existing conditions" should include domestic violence or pregnancies. It's more expensive for women to get health care coverage than men -- so much so that a 22-year-old female stands to be charged up to one and a half times more than the premium for a 22-year-old male. Women also need more frequent contact with their health care providers, due in part to needing more specific care, like mammograms and obstetric care.
Thankfully, our ladies in the Senate are doing something about it. They're working to correct the imbalance between men's and women's health care coverage costs and are working to ensure that women have access to the entire range of reproductive health choices, including expanding insurance coverage of maternity care.
Here are quotes you shouldn't miss:
"When it comes to health insurance, women pay more but get less for our money. We women must end punitive insurance company practices that discriminate against women simply because we are women – practices that say domestic violence or c-sections are pre-existing conditions or that deny coverage for maternity care or basic preventive services and screenings. Just as the women of the Senate fought for equal pay for equal work when we passed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, we are fighting for equal health care for equal premiums in health reform."
--Sen. Barbara Mikulski (MD)
"As a former prosecutor I am particularly appalled that in 8 states and the District of Columbia domestic violence is classified as a pre-existing condition. Health care reform must ensure that all women have access to preventative services and maternity care, and that health care that doesn't use 'pre-existing conditions' as a way to deny women care."
--Sen. Amy Klobuchar (MN)
"For too many women and their families today, quality, affordable health care is out of reach. Men and women have very different health care needs, and women are more vulnerable to high costs. We must level the playing field, and pass comprehensive health care reform that makes health care accessible and affordable for all women."
--Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (NH)
"Without health care reform, insurance companies will continue to discriminate against women. Charging women more for coverage and denying comprehensive maternity care are just two of the common insurance company practices. The Senate is working on sending the President a reform bill that ensures women are treated fairly, expands coverage, and provides security and stability to people who have health insurance."
--Sen. Kay Hagan (NC)
Usually, it's a good thing when I say someone is "on the List." But there's always an exception.
A number of EMILY's List elected women are being targeted by the Susan B. Anthony List, a PAC dedicated to electing anti-choice women candidates. The so-called "Votes Have Consequences" campaign is an organized attack on 12 members of Congress, including three EMILY's List women. Freshman Congresswomen Suzanne Kosmas and Debbie Halvorson, along with two-term Rep. Carol Shea-Porter, are among those on the group's targeted list.
Already, they're up with ads in Nevada against Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and there's more to come. According to POLITICO, there will be more attack ads, along with likely robocalls and online campaigns against the targeted members.
Unsurprisingly, there's a familiar face behind the group's political actions, former GOP Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, who was defeated by EMILY's List candidate Rep. Betsy Markey last year. Seems like Musgrave has a bit of a bone to pick with progressives in Congress -- and with a $2 million budget for this current campaign, these candidates will need our continued support to hold their seats.
Irony: the use of words to express something other than and especially the opposite of the literal meaning b: a usually humorous or sardonic literary style or form characterized by irony c: an ironic expression or utterance
My friends know I am a stickler about the word "irony," which might be the most misused word in the English language. So whenever I see an example of true irony, I like to point it out. This, my friends, is true irony: Right-wing Cong. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), who is virulently opposed to reproductive rights, including a woman's right to choose, says "under no certain circumstances will I give the government control over my body and my health care decisions." No, she has not changed her views on choice; she's just continuing her campaign of misinformation about Democratic efforts at health insurance reform.
Health care coverage is dominating the news cycle lately, and rightfully so.
We told you last week about how reform will affect women's lives dramatically, and this week, despite growing tensions, we have a good piece of news to deliver. Senator Barbara Mikulski (MD) accomplished a notable victory for women last week, when she successfully added an amendment to the Affordable Health Choices Act that would require insurance coverage for preventative reproductive health care for women.
Republican senators were quick to attack, but the measure passed through committee.
Expanding coverage to these populations is an urgent matter of public health. First, women have higher health care costs than men to begin with. Women of childbearing age spend 68 percent more in out-of-pocket health care costs than men, in part because of reproductive health-related needs.
Yet the economic downturn, loss of jobs and health insurance and expansion of the numbers of people living in poverty have led a growing number of women to forego preventive health care. Recent research shows that women are increasingly delaying or skipping preventive health care due the inability to pay for these services, thereby raising overall health costs in the long-run when treatment is required for originally preventable illness an disease.
Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-KS) -- Congrats! You are the recipient of the very first Are you Kidding Me!? post with an honorable mention for Senator Coburn of Oklahoma.
Last week Tiahrt argued on the House floor to restrict public funding of abortions within the District of Columbia. Tiahrt suggested that if such “financial incentives” had been available some 47 years ago, President Obama might not have been born. Continuing in his offensive downward spiral rant, he had one more example of yet another ”great mind” that might not have been born -- he added Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.
"If you think of it in human terms, there is a financial incentive that will be put in place, paid for by tax dollars, that will encourage women who are -- single parents, living below the poverty level, to have the opportunity for a free abortion… If you take that scenario and apply it to many of the great minds we have today, who would we have been deprived of? Our president grew up in a similar circumstance."
"If that financial incentive was in place, is it possible that his mother may have taken advantage of it? …Clarence Thomas, Supreme Court Justice, if those circumstances were in place, is it possible that we would be denied his great mind? The opportunity to have tax-funded abortions, a financial incentive, is something that I think most of us want to oppose in America and it's certainly deserves a clean up or down vote."
Is this really how the GOP is trying to reach out to minorities? Is this how they think they are going to build their ‘Big Tent’? Last week during the confirmation hearings of Sonia Sotomayor, Senator Tom Coburn, R-OK, told Judge Sotomayor, a Latina, that she had “lots of ‘splaining to do” as if he were imitating Ricky Ricardo from I Love Lucy.
Dana Goldstein's post on TAPPED yesterday about the effect of health care reform on women highlighted what many of you may already know: women are in a very unique position when it comes to reform.
Some facts you don't want to miss:
Even though women are more likely to have health insurance than men, only 38 percent of women get their insurance through their own job.
So what does this mean for women in a system that ties insurance to employment? Dependent women -- those who count on their spouse for coverage -- could be placed at a serious disadvantage because of the so-called "marriage problem." When their spouses lose coverage (or the plans won't cover dependents), women are left to fend for themselves in a very expensive market.
With health care front and center, this is a powerful reminder that electing progressive women means ensuring women have a voice at the table during one of the country's most critical debates.
Read My Lipstick
Comments
Leave a Comment