Stupak amendment attempts to "keep women in their place"

As a result of late-night, back-room negotiations, anti-choice forces took a "win" when the House health-care bill passed the Saturday before last. Outlawing coverage for a legal medical procedure, the Stupak amendment will hurt millions of women who will pay the price for this staggering restriction on their right to choose.

The Stupak amendment doesn't just extend the status quo — which says federal funds cannot cover abortions — it proposes to make insurance coverage for abortion virtually unavailable for millions of women in the new health-insurance exchange, even if paid for with their own money

Conservatives are attempting to highjack health-care reform to legislate reproductive rights when what we need right now is an affordable, fair health-care system that will include the millions of Americans who currently have little or no access to medical care.

Outlawing a legal medical procedure — for women only — is another attempt to "keep women in their place."  This amendment is part of a conservative political agenda that cannot be allowed to poison the health-care reform bill. It is discriminatory and it is wrong!

Health care reform now!

— Jessie Jones

About Webmaster
Mountain Xpress Webmaster Follow me @MXWebTeam

Before you comment

The comments section is here to provide a platform for civil dialogue on the issues we face together as a local community. Xpress is committed to offering this platform for all voices, but when the tone of the discussion gets nasty or strays off topic, we believe many people choose not to participate. Xpress editors are determined to moderate comments to ensure a constructive interchange is maintained. All comments judged not to be in keeping with the spirit of civil discourse will be removed and repeat violators will be banned. See here for our terms of service. Thank you for being part of this effort to promote respectful discussion.

9 thoughts on “Stupak amendment attempts to "keep women in their place"

  1. travelah

    Jessie, don’t you know how to just say “no”? Women have had effective birth control for several decades now. More than that, the amendment to the bills didn’t do anything to take away your right to kill babies in the womb for whatever reason you wish. You can still run down to the mill and have the deed done as can any woman. The only difference is the amendment means you have to pay for it rather than I.

  2. travelah

    OR … you just use your own private sector insurance to pay most of it and stop trying to force the bill onto those who are morally offended by the murder of babies in the womb. Right to Choice is also a matter of Right to Privacy and the need to keep some things private and out of the pockets of others.

  3. Megan

    Oh, yes! All us womens should just shut up and keep popping pills to keep from getting preggers. Forget the fact that they are linked to cancer and many other fun side affects (and also not covered by many insurance carriers). If its such an easy solution, why arent there more birth control options for men, who have comparatively simple anatomies? If it’s so effective, why is there still a need for abortions at all?

    Unfortunately for us (women), the majority who have abortions are from lower socio-economic backgrounds, which is linked to lower education, income, and employment levels. While these factors make them less likely candidates for jobs that offer private healthcare, these are also the same people who would benefit most from a Federal Health program.

    The biggest problem is that this amendment will set a federal precendent on abortion, which many private insurance companies will follow (and have already stated such).

    My question to you, Travelah, you obviously feel strongly about “the murder of babies in the womb.” How do you feel about the wealth of dead-beat fathers in this country?

    Are you just as offended by their irresponsible and damaging behavior or does your moral outrage about the treatment of a child begin at conception and cease at birth?

  4. travelah

    Megan, as the father of five children, I think dead beat fathers who skip out on the obligations should have their assets seized to enforce those obligations. My outrage continues with those who abuse children, sexually abuse others and are mysygonists. Women and child rights are not defined by those who subscribe to statist fundamentalism and radical feminist agendas. In other words a woman is not defined as such by her politics.

    As for setting precedents, the lack of federal funding for abortion does not seem to have fostered any simliar move among private insurers in the past. There is nothing to suggest otherwise now. For that matter, if the client base demands it, the services will be covered.

    As for who have abortions, you are not altogether correct in your estimation. The distribution of woman having abortions is widespread across various income and ethnic levels. The following gives a general review of these facts.

    Perhaps the real issue here (as noted in the statistics) is a lack of education regaridng birth control or a social-cultural disregard for it. Abortion is almost always a means of convenience and not necessity and as a result we have a society that has become dumbed down to the killing of babies in the womb. It is a contentious issue and I am not one in favor of outlawing what people do in this matter. This is a matter of federal funding and not prohibiting individuals from acting out of their own convictions.

  5. TokyoTaos


    you might want to actually read the websites you refer to.

    From the Guttmacher Institute website you reference above:

    “• The abortion rate among women living below the federal poverty level ($9,570 for a single woman with no children) is more than four times that of women above 300% of the poverty level (44 vs. 10 abortions per 1,000 women). This is partly because the rate of unintended pregnancies among poor women (below 100% of poverty) is nearly four times that of women above 200% of poverty* (112 vs. 29 per 1,000 women[3,1]”

  6. travelah

    Taos, I read it carefully. What it leaves out is the rate for those women above the poverty rate and below 300% above the rate. Statistics can be your friend or your enemy.

  7. Matt Mercy

    This letter is just an example of the new “divide and conquer” strategic talking point I’ve been hearing. The implication is that if you don’t support the Healthcare bill, you’re a sexist. I guess “racist” didn’t work.

    What’s even more clever is framing the argument as if everyone wants this bll passed, and all that’s left to debate is if the bill will be “pro-choice” or “pro-life.”

    Conservatives want a “pro-life” bill? You are confused. Conservatives want NO healthcare bill.

  8. JWTJr

    It just blows me away how the extremists on both sides are willing to kill the bill over this on issue.

    It is possible for quality reform to occur without a stand on abortion at the same time.

  9. travelah

    Actually, the abortion issue in this bill is a minor element of the objections to socialized medicine and the excessive taxation needed to force people onto a public payer program. It is actually possible to tweak the existing system to provide coverage for more people and address the portability issues being propagandized by the Democrats.

Leave a Reply

To leave a reply you may Login with your Mountain Xpress account, connect socially or enter your name and e-mail. Your e-mail address will not be published. All fields are required.