Saturday, November 14, 2009

THE STUPAK-PITTS AMENDMENT SHOULD STRIKE FEAR IN THE HEART OF EVERY WOMAN

It’s 4:50am (est.), and I can’t sleep. Anger, resentment, and fear have gripped my heart; and my heart can't stop racing, and each beat becomes louder and louder.
-
As is my habit when something disturbs me greatly, I have to put pen to paper [key stroke to blog] and release what's gnawing inside me.
-
I need you to feel my anger, and understand why I'm upset.
-
Last Saturday, we watched every male Republican (but 1 who voted present), and 62 male Democrats, interfere with, and restrict a woman’s freedom and rights. Two women Democrats, and every female Republican, were co-conspirators; and I wonder, if perhaps, there is self loathing in that group.
-
I don’t care if you are pro-life or pro-choice. If you did not say no or object to the Stupak-Pitts amendment … you knowingly chose to interfere with, restrict and chip away at a woman’s rights and her freedom. This amendment went beyond the language that was already in the House bill.
-
The Stupak-Pitts amendment, a male written amendment, was another step in the direction to return women to what many men (around the world) see as a woman’s rightful place. That place is for women [and her body] to be subject to a man’s will and whims.
If you were not outraged, and/or did not write your representatives, or express your anger in some meaningful way, you aided and abetted those men [and their co-conspirators] who felt entitled, and sought to purposely interfere, restrict, and chip away at a woman’s rights and freedoms.

We women have come too far to allow men such as these, and their co-conspirators, to interfere with our rights and freedoms. Women, your body is your own. No man can possess it our own it. No man [or woman] should be able to pass legislation that will ultimately interfere with your decisions about your body, and interfere with and restrict your choice of, and access to health providers who would care for your body. Men would never willingly allow you to do it to them.
-
You see, ... people come to America from all over the world to celebrate and embrace freedom and choice. They come to America to be free.

Some, who never enjoyed freedom before, kiss the ground when they step on America's soil. They cry out … I’m freeI’m free. Free from ... imprisonment, or domination, or cruelty, or silence, or human rights abuses, or religious persecution; and they feel free to go where they want, or read what they want, or see what they want to see, ... .

Days, or weeks before the House vote on Healthcare, two men started crafting legislation that would have far reaching implications, and impact and further restrict a woman’s freedom. I want you to really think about this. I’ll say it again, … two mentwo men crafted [wrote] legislation to interfere with and further restrict a woman’s freedom. *

I don’t know about you, but most psychologically healthy women would never want any man to interfere with and restrict her freedom.

[In the United States] If a woman decided to get up late one morning, that’s her right, and no man can force her to get up early. If she decided not to cook, that’s her right, and no man can force her to cook.
-
If a woman wanted to go to work, that’s her right, and no man can tell her to stay home. If she didn’t want to marry, that’s her right, and no man can tell her that she had to marry. If she wanted to go to school, that’s her right, and no man can tell her she can’t go to school.

For a woman to be paid as much as a man doing the same job, that’s now her right, and no man should be allowed to pay her less.****

If a woman went on a date with a man, and he demanded sex, but she refused, that’s her right, and no man can force himself on her. If some man/men wanted to sell her into slavery**, she has a right to say no, and every man has a duty to come to her aid to prevent her from being sold.
-
If a woman wants an abortion, no man [or woman] can tell her she can't have one. If a woman wants to go to a hospital of her own choosing, no man can tell her she can not go. If a woman wants to see a doctor of her choice, no man can tell her she can not go.

In the United States of America, a woman has the same rights and freedoms as a man. She has a right to liberty; and she has a right to happiness. These are fundamental rights. No man can [legally] take her rights away from her. No man has the right to tell her what to do with her life. No man has a right to touch her if she doesn’t want to be touched. Her body is her own and no manno man can own her. She and she alone own her body.

It is rare for another woman to form a group or start a movement meant to interfere with her own rights and freedoms as a woman. If there was such a woman, I would think you would agree, that something is wrong with her ... that perhaps she is psychologically damaged in some way.

I want you to think about who is at the forefront of almost every group or movement to restrict or interfere or strip away a woman’s rights and freedoms. ... They are almost always men. They are the Randall Terry’s’; they are the "Men Against Abortion" kind of groups; they are the sex slave traders, the rapists, the men who like to abuse women; they are the men who want to control women; they are the cold blooded killers like Scott Roeder; and now the Ben Nelson's, the Jeff Merkley's, the Orrin Hatch's, the Mike Johanns', and Bart Stupaks and Joe Pitts of this world.***
-
None of these men would ever willingly allow another man or woman to own his body. He decides how his body is to be used or abused. He makes the decision about his reproductive organs; and he would never willingly allow anyone to interfere with that decision. These men will move heaven and earth; and they will legislate, demand, and fight for a man’s rights and freedoms. [He yells] "Give me liberty or give me death".

That a woman would not fight with every fiber of her being when a man [or another woman] seeks to restrict, take away or strip away her rights and freedoms is incomprehensible; and one would surmise that a woman who does not fight, has low self esteem, or is mentally challenged, or suffers from some other infirmity.







-
-
UPDATE 4/29/2010:
by Mary Alice Carr
-
Comment: What is so unsettling about the Hyde amendment and the Stupak-Pitts amendment is that we are back to where we were when abortion was illegal.

Rich women always had access to abortion services [legal or illegal].

When abortion became legal, all women had access.

With Hyde and Stupak-Pitts, we are now back to where we were before abortion became legal.

This is now about class, control and unequal access; leaving poor women who can least afford to bear children, having less access, and being pushed deeper into poverty.

Hyde and Stupak-Pitts ultimately gets between a patient and her doctor by denying access to a legal procedure if the patient will be receiving federal monies (subsidies).

Hyde and Stupak-Pitts also prevent health insurance companies from providing coverage for a legal procedure if they receive federal subsidies. [The words "restraint" and "free trade" come to mind]

That men are at the forefront, crafting legislation and making it more and more [extremely] difficult for women to have access to a legal procedure, is so much about control of women and very little about pro-life. The fact that these men have female co-conspirators (as do sexual slave traders with their madams) does not negate the fact that these men seek to control and bend women to their will and whims.

There is so much wrong with Hyde and Stupak-Pitts, I can't for the life of me understand why some smart lawyer can't figure a way to get rid of both.



-
UPDATE 5/22/2010
-
UPDATE 4/29/2010:
by Mary Alice Carr




-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Note: When I say "no man" shall restrict ... , I also mean "no woman" shall restrict ...
-

13 comments:

Anonymous said...

From MM at HP

Again, Medicare and private insurance plans pay for both Viagra for men ($15 a pill) and for erectile dysfunction, the vacuum constriction device at $300-$500 per pump.

If you have such a problem paying $300-$700 for an abortion with public funds, why don't you have a problem with sticking your friends and neighbors with the bill for "treating" that all- important health issue of erectile dysfunction? Let's see, one Viagra at $15 a pill, once a week, times one million men on Medicare (seems a very conservative number) means $780 per man per year, times one million men: That's $780,000,000 a year. $780 MILLION DOLLARS A YEAR!

In 2005 (latest numbers I can find) there were 1.2 million abortions. Let's say that state Medicaid funds paid for even 200,000 of them. Now take the average cost of $500 for an abortion procedure, and we find that only $100,000,000 ($100 MILLION DOLLARS) went for abortions--many of those because of rape, incest and to save the woman's life--serious circmstances which qualify for state funding.

$780 million to treat erectile disfunction; $100 million to treat victims and save lives.

Let's have a special rider for erectile dysfunction, since taxpayer dollars are being used NOW for that malady. As one post said, "How many men would sign up for THAT at work?"

Anonymous said...

Above comment is response to another comment on the HuffP under the title "10 Reasons Why the Stupak-Pitts Amendment Has to Go"

Clevelands Secret Club said...

"The blog Empty Wheel notes in relation to The Stupak amendment, that Stupak was boasting about taking reproductive choice away from women. Many News orgaizations have attributed the Stupak Amendment to lobbying by the Catholic Church.

It has also been pointed out that there is a growing influence of Christian evangelicals in the Democratic Party as a recognition that they can wield more influence on legislation that way, as The Stupak Amendment demonstrates.

This is why it bears investigation as to whether this ultra secretive cult that sometimes refers to itself as the Christian Mafia, is the real power behind Bart Stupak's legislating in general and the Stupak anti-abortion amendment in particular. His legislation in essence ends Roe v. Wade for most women and takes us back to back alley abortions.

In any event the crowning glory for Stupak a Michigan Democrat, is his donating $2,500.00 to Rep. Zack Wamp a Republicans gubernatorial campaign. As noted both live in the C Street cult house."

From: Did C Street Christian Cult influence the Stupak Amendment ?
http://www.examiner.com/x-3629-Philadelphia-Progressive-Examiner~y2009m11d11-Did-C-Street-Cult-influence-the-Stupak-Amendment-

Read the entire piece.

Anonymous said...

Everybody read:
The Bishops’ Billion-Dollar Business Bonanza
http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/14740

Those sex scandal ridden, child molesting Catholic priests and bishops need to stop their rather transparent attempts to shape the healthcare debate.

With men, it's all about sex and money ... and that includes the corrupt and morally bankrupt Catholic Church leadership (priests, bishops, etc)

Even Handed said...

Just saw this:
"Stupak Amendment Could Likely Be Used by Insurance Companies to Discriminate Against Low Income Americans"
http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2009/11/07/stupak-amendment-could-likely-be-used-to-by-insurance-companies-to-discriminate-against-low-income-americans/

"The Stupak amendment would prevent any private health insurance plan from covering elective abortion, if even one of its customer used even one dollar of affordability tax credits. The problem is that the Stupak amendment will conflict directly with other parts of the bill. The bill would require “guaranteed issue.” This means that any insurer offering coverage to individuals on the health insurance exchange must accept all customers.

If the insurance companies offering plans on the exchange are not allowed to turn down any customers, it means no basic insurance plan on the exchange could cover abortion. There would be no way to prevent that at least one of the plan’s customer would be using affordability tax credits to help purchase the plan. So the effect is no plan sold on the exchange could offer abortion coverage as part of its basic package.

The contradiction could be solved in a different manner. The decision could be that insurance companies who offer plans covering abortion on the exchange would be allowed to turn down customers using affordability tax credits. This would create a dangerous loophole for the new guaranteed issue rule. This could lead to the ghettoizing of the health insurance exchange. Insurers would know that offering plans that cover abortion would prevent low income Americans from being able to sign up. Low income Americans tend to have higher medical costs and are less profitable, less desirable customers. Offering abortion coverage would be a simple way for an insurance company to keep them out of their risk pool. Since the exchange has dangerously weak risk adjustment mechanisms, this Stupak Amendment could become a profitable tool used by insurers to discriminate against low income Americans.

It seems the Stupak Amendment would either effectively ban any basic health insurance plan sold on the exchange (the individual and small business market) from covering abortion or would create a way to discriminate against low income Americans. Either way the Amendment will have far reaching ramifications for our health care system."

Even Handed said...

Bart Stupak and the religious right -scuttle healthcare legislation at any cost..
Go to:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mu1UdnJfPhk

Even Handed said...

Stupak whip count on the passed House Healthcare bill.

http://www.openleft.com/diary/16057/stupak-whip-count

Even Handed said...

Democrats who voted Yes on Supak and No on the final House Healthcare bill:
http://www.kevinbondelli.com/2009/11/08/democrats-who-voted-yes-on-stupak-and-no-on-hcr/

Anonymous said...

Read:
April 28, 2010
"Shocking: Doctors Now Allowed to Hide Birth Defects from Pregnant Women to Curb Abortions"

http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2010/04/28/oklahoma-lawmakers-decide-doctors-can-hide-birth-defects-from-pregnant-women-to-curb-abortions/

This is the final straw with those anti-choice, anti women's rights males and their co-conspirators.

Women wake up before you find yourself a sex slave and/or "bare-foot and pregnant", and/or physically and emotionally abused by men and their madams.

Look around the world. When you stop giving women the right to choose, women end up like many women around the world ... second class citizens, or animals who exist to breed and pleasure men.

If you don't like what I said or how I said it ... think about the this: the cost of health care will increase; tax-payers will be the one's paying for the care of children with birth defects and also the now economically devastated (government assistance eligible) family;

I don't get it, isn't it conservatives who scream the loudest about taxes, deficits and the national debt?

Wake up women ... how many women have had their husbands leave and divorce them when they've had a handicapped child to constantly take care of? ... and who is left to care for these children after the divorce? Right ... the woman

Again, wake up women ... these anti-choice crusaders (who, again are mostly men) are detrimental to your mental and physical health, and your freedoms.

Anonymous said...

Shocking Law: Doctors Now Allowed to Keep Information About Birth Defects from Women in Order to Stop Abortions

http://www.alternet.org/reproductivejustice/146662/shocking_law%3A_doctors_now_allowed_to_keep_information_about_birth_defects_from_women_in_order_to_stop_abortions

Anonymous said...

PHILL KLINE AND KEN CUCCINELLI
THES MEN NEED TO GO TO PRISON:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show/#38841689

Anonymous said...

Good for them:

"Women Tweet #ihadanabortion After Anti-Choice Midterm Election Wins"
by Alex DiBranco (Nov 5, 2010)


http://womensrights.change.org/blog/view/women_tweet_ihadanabortion_after_anti-choice_midterm_election_wins?me=nl

Anonymous said...

"CBS Evening News with Katie Couric Features NARAL Pro-Choice America"
(NARAL BLOG FOR CHOICE - JANUARY 28, 2011 - http://www.blogforchoice.com/archives/2011/01/cbs-evening-new.html) //

"The House GOP's Plan to Redefine Rape" (Mother Jones, January 28, 2011)

http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/01/republican-plan-redefine-rape-abortion