Women’s rights advocates say parts of health reform bill a step backwards

I am puzzled. I thought the Stupak amendment is now history, not being part of the Senate bill that passed the House last Sunday night. I am not aware of this amendment being part of the reconciliation bill though the Republicans unsuccessfully attempted this via a “poison pill” amendment.

How does someone rationally equate prostate cancer with pregnancy? The environmental and hereditary factors for prostate cancer are far from well understood. Behaviors leading to pregnancy are very specific and understood thoroughly by virtually anyone at an age capable of reproduction.

Furthermore, isn’t having a baby killed pretty cheap? Pretty much a one time charge, maybe a little more than the cost of cell phone? And only rarely do complications arise.

But any form of cancer is much more likely to end in death, with those surviving likely suffering life-long deformity and fear of recurrence.

I don’t think the comparison is a good one.

Thanks Lane. It was actually the executive order that upheld part of Stupak’s amendment. I’ve changed the post to reflect that.

@Lane: There was no Stupak amendment. Stupak refused to support the bill until Obama promised he would issue an executive order, as I understand it, confirming the status quo on federal funding of abortions.

AFAIK there is no such restriction in the bill itself. Otherwise why would they issue the order? The executive order has no teeth. It can be canceled or thrown out entirely as the president doesn’t have the authority to override the will of Congress.

Ostensibly this is why Planned Parenthood dismissed the issue.

Keep talking about how having sex is a “behavior” like only a few people do it, like playing tennis or collecting stamps…. ugh

How about looking beyond the literal comparison between pregnancies and prostate cancer to the reality that each gender have its own set of unique health issues with a history of the insurance industry giving women’s health needs short shrift?

Jimmy, only if pregnancy is that simple. What about uninformed teens who did not get proper sex education? What about a condom that breaks? What about rape, incest, and complications that endanger the mother’s health and life? A woman should be in control of her own body.

I’ve always felt that men should not have any say in pregnancies unless they’ve become pregnant themselves and actually delivered babies through their urethras. And that includes the Pope in the Vatican.

Even though I am personally horrified by abortion, I am just glad the status quo of the Hyde Amendment prohibiting federal funding *elective* abortions while maintaining the woman’s right to safe, legal abortion is still maintained. I am still angry that this badly-needed healthcare reform was held hostage to abortion politics. As for abortion itself, I strongly believe in scientifically-based sex education that includes abstinence as but one option and NOT the only option (people will still have sex no matter what the Church says), access to birth control including the morning after pill, more education to empower people to become more responsible for what they choose to do and such so as to minimize and hopefully eliminate the need for abortion in the first place.

Finally, I am also troubled by the hypocrisy of many abortion foes in also not supporting increased adoption of our own unwanted children and making sure that the safety net exists and is funded for single women and their children.

To me, actions speak even louder than words, no matter how shrilly those words are yelled. Sheesh!

No, Obama did not throw the barn door wide open, he barely got his foot in the door. The next highest cost western nation spends 40% less than we do. If we had cut our costs by 40%, we would not save 1 Trillion dollare in TWENTY YEARS, we would save it in ONE YEAR.

Thats right, we spend 2.5 TRILLION DOLLARS A YEAR on health care. Yeah, I’m pro-choice, but the insurance companies are still making out like thieves.

If we cut our costs by 100% how long would it take?

Why not ban doctors and hospitals and drugs? Think of the money we would save! Well, that’s what Barry has in mind. Naturally, he and his family will be exempt.

Jimmy, what the heck are you talking about? You are just blather not worth listening to really.

It is very simple, a WAR ON WOMEN has been declared. Insidious, often subliminal, however, programs that women depend upon, virtuall with their lives are at risk. Healthcare, social security, medicare, “entitlement” programs.

C’est vrai

War on women? Consider living in Iran or Saudi Arabia. In those places, women have no rights; homosexuals are KILLED! Why don’t we just agree to disagree and live our lives under the sweet Liberty we are fortunate to enjoy in America? Don’t kill or injure anyone and you can live free as you see fit, male, female, gay, straight, black, white, whatever.

Jimmy, as I recall, the Pledge of Allegiance ends with the words “with liberty AND JUSTICE for all” to include women and those who are LGBT. Regardless of what happens elsewhere, there is plenty of room for improvement in this area in these States. It is not enough to merely agree to disagree …

Drury,
I do not believe that abortion is a choice. A woman has already made her choice when she decided to have sex. An unborn baby has a choice also, that is to be born and not murdered for no reason at all. It definitly did nothing wrong to receive that type of a sentence. I absolutely do not agree to pay for the murder of an unborn baby. That baby has as much right to live as you and I. How would you like to kill someone you know real well that is say your age.? She also was an unborn child at one time. Think about it. I’ll pray for you.

Lane, many people are never going to agree with the LGBT lifestyle. So what? Why would a gay person care? They are free to live as they see fit. Trying to achieve approval by all others is impossible and fortunately unnecessary.

Jimmy, just what the heck is a “LGBT lifestyle”?

Sexual orientation is NOT a “lifestyle.”

Your assertion that gay people are free to live as they see fit is incorrect. In most states, loving gay or lesbian couples who want to commit to each other are not allowed to get married.

Simple, full equality under the law for each and every American is not a popularity contest.

I’ve been married. It’s not that great.

Besides, if two or even more people want to be “married” they can send out announcements to all their friends and family declaring they are married. They can say they are married. They are free to commit to each other. They can call each other husband, wife, ball and chain, whatever.

Live as you see fit.