Tuesday, November 10, 2009

Obama Objects to Stupak-Pitts

Barack Obama finally made his feelings clear on this.

ProChoice President Obama suggested Monday that he was not comfortable with abortion restrictions inserted into the House version of major health care legislation, and he prodded Congress to revise them.

“There needs to be some more work before we get to the point where we’re not changing the status quo” on abortion, Mr. Obama said in an interview with ABC News. “And that’s the goal.”

On the one hand, Mr. Obama said, “we’re not looking to change what is the principle that has been in place for a very long time, which is federal dollars are not used to subsidize abortions.”

On the other hand, he said, he wanted to make sure “we’re not restricting women’s insurance choices,” because he had promised that “if you’re happy and satisfied with the insurance that you have, it’s not going to change.”

Before passing its health bill on Saturday, the House adopted an amendment that would block the use of federal money for “any health plan that includes coverage of abortion,” except in the case of rape or incest or if the life of a pregnant woman is in danger.

Some private insurance now covers abortion. Under the bill, most private insurers would receive federal subsidies on behalf of low- and middle-income people.

The Senate is working on its own version of health legislation... [emphasis added]

Inserted from <NY Times>

At least one of you apparently misunderstood me on this issue a couple days ago, so please allow me to clarify.  My personal belief that abortion is wrong is a belief I apply only to myself.  I do not have the right to impose it on anyone else, and I oppose any attempts on the part of others to do so.  I am fully committed to a woman’s right to make her own health care decisions, including the right to choose abortion.  If I disagree with her choice, so what?  God did not put me in charge of anyone else’s decisions.  Therefore, I am pro-choice.

I do, however, disagree with Obama on one thing.  Even the Hyde Amendment violates women’s rights.  Simply stated, Hyde forbids federal funds being spent on abortion on the premise that people should not have to fund practices to which they are morally opposed with their tax dollars.  That premise is flawed.  If it is not, would the government please refund to me every penny I paid in taxes spent on every war in which the US has engaged from Vietnam until today.

10 comments:

the walking man said...

All of the posturing now by the senate is a forecast of future events. I wonder which senator is on knees and which are standing up?

Holte Ender said...

The Hyde Amendment provides a loop hole for every American tax payer to claim taxes back, we are all against something, whether it be abortion or war for profit, but for some reason funding for abortion is a hotter potato than eternal war.

Karen said...

Couldn't have stated it any clearer than you did, Tomcat... it's clearly a sticky issue.

Gwendolyn H. Barry said...

TC... I commend you on your point of view!
I am pro-choice for ethical and substantive issues concerning equal rights. This is not an easy choice for any woman to make.
I have been stunned by this Stupak add on. I was getting my news on Sat through inet and HuffPo, my bad. If I had been watching C-span, I would have known that the small moments of elation I experienced at having HCR passed were false starts.

Obama's words are of no comfort here for me. But, on the upswing...

the "Teabag Party" has been added to the voting roster of my state! (FL) and now the rightwingnutter [Americans for Prosperity] support crowd are on their way to despoiling Crist in favor of Rubio. Is it too much of me to think in a small way; happy days? LOL

Lisa G. said...

TC,
I appreciate your point of view. As a woman who's had to make the choice to have an abortion, let me tell you; that is one of the most difficult decisions you will ever make. To this day, I think of what might have been, but I am still happy that I had the choice.

RealityZone said...

Maddow had the guy on last night that wrote the book on C Street, {The Family}. Evidently stupp/pitt are connected with this group. This amendment is part of an agenda for the far right XTIAN fringe. It has nothing to do with the payment for abortions. It is a frontal all out assault on ROE vs WADE. Shame on the dems for not calling these insanos out for what they are. BROWNSHIRTS.

TomCat said...

Good question Mark. I guess we'll find out.

Holte, I never could figure that one.

Thanks Karen. It is. As I see it, separation of church and state must depoliticize moral issues.

Gwen, I almost based an article on that this morning. I love it!

Lisa, I think God that is a decision I shall never have to make. Whichever choice you made, I hope it worked out in the best possible way for you and support your decision.

Middle Ditch said...

Just passing by to say hi.

rjs said...

Just lay back and think of it as a Vagina Added Tax
Hey ladies! Congressman Pete Sessions of Texas thinks you should pay more for your insurance because you chose to have all that crazy plumbing with its nook and crannies down there instead of a good old fashioned American penis. This was an unhealthy choice on your part… like taking up smoking. No. Really: Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Tex.), the head of the Republicans campaign committee, caused a stir at last night’s Rules Committee meeting when he suggested that treating female-related health conditions was comparable to insurance-company imposed restrictions on smokers. “Why should a woman pay more than a man?” asked New Jersey Democrat Frank Pallone, according to the Courthouse News Service.“Well, we’re all different,” Sessions explained. “Why should a smoker pay more?” he said before interrupted. So, to sum up: your decision to own a not-penis is going to cost you

TomCat said...

Thanks, RZ. I saw that too. I'm not surprised.

Hi Monique. :-)

RJ, that's sick!! If Sessions is so opposed to female plumbing, I hope no females hold it against him... ever.