Abortion-Rights Supporters Tired Of 'Taking One For The Team' In Support Of Democratic Policies, The Nation Columnist Writes

Main Category: Abortion
Also Included In: Health Insurance / Medical Insurance
Article Date: 16 Nov 2009 - 1:00 PST

email to a friend   printer friendly   opinions  

"Women Democrats have taken an awful lot of hits for the team lately," such as voting for President Obama instead of Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton in 2008 and allowing the Obama administration to place the Paycheck Fairness Act "on the backburner," columnist Katha Pollitt writes in The Nation. However, "what I don't want to hear right now about" Rep. Bart Stupak's (D-Mich.) amendment "banning abortion coverage from federally subsidized health insurance policies" is that "it's the price of reform, and pro-choice women should shut up and take one for the team," she says.

Pollitt continues, "Hey Rep. Stupak and your 64 Democratic supporters, Jim Wallis and other anti-choice 'progressive' Christians, men: why don't you take one for the team for a change and see how you like it?" She notes that some members of Congress have threatened to vote against health care reform because of its cost, adding, "Maybe you could win them over if you volunteered to cut out funding from male-exclusive stuff," such as prostate cancer screening, male infertility treatments, vasectomies or erectile dysfunction drugs. "Men could always pay in advance for an insurance policy rider, as women are blithely told they can do, if Stupak becomes part of the final bill," Pollitt says. Obama also has expressed concerns about the deficit, she writes, adding, "Maybe you could help him out by sacrificing your denomination's tax exemption." The Catholic Church "would be a good place to start," she continues, adding that it "wouldn't even be unfair, since the blatant politicking of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops on abortion violates the spirit of the ban on electoral meddling by tax-exempt religious institutions."

Pollitt writes, "What makes the Stupak fiasco especially pathetic is the fumbling response from pro-choicers," including Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), who initially implied that the Stupak amendment "isn't so bad, that it won't affect 'the majority of America' -- just low-income women -- and that it's 'an example of having to govern with moderates.'" Pollitt adds, "So people who'll tip health care reform into the trash unless it blocks abortion access are the moderates now!"

Meanwhile, the "big pro-choice and feminist organizations are up in arms," having been "caught by surprise" or not "paying attention," Pollitt writes. "Consciously or unconsciously, by not organizing in advance to insist on coverage of abortion, pro-choicers set themselves up to be out-maneuvered," she continues, noting that The Nation's Sharon Lerner recently reported that Democrats did not insist that contraception be included in the basic benefits package under health reform. "So much for the 'common ground' approach where we all agree that birth control is the way to lower the abortion rate," Pollitt writes.

"Enough already. Pro-choicers have been taking one for the team since 1976 when Congress passed the Hyde Amendment, which Jimmy Carter would later defend with the immortal comment, 'There are many things in life that are not fair,'" Pollitt writes, concluding, "Time for the theocrats and male chauvinists to give something up for the greater good" (Pollitt, The Nation, 11/11).

Reprinted with kind permission from http://www.nationalpartnership.org. You can view the entire Daily Women's Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Women's Health Policy Report is a free service of the National Partnership for Women & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.

© 2009 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.

• Additional
• References
• Citations