Stupak Amendment — If “Reproductive Health” Folks Are Mad, It’s Gotta Be Good
I haven’t been able to keep up with the latest developments in American Health Care reform. I know the bill passed through
congress , which is the furthest that American health care reform has even gotten, but it still needs to go through the Senate.
But I also know that the Stupak amendment passed. It must be a great thing for us anti-choicers, because the folks at feministing.com are pissed (and using lots of colourful language). Ann writes:
I’m sure you’ve heard by now that, last night, the House passed a health-care reform bill. I got this lovely email from Barack Obama telling me what a victory this is.
I think I made pretty damn clear (as did Obama, in several speeches during the campaign) that reproductive health care is essential health care.
So what the FUCK is this Stupak amendment doing attached to the health-reform bill? You know, that amendment that takes away women’s access to health care?
What?! Removing women’s access to health care?! That’s horrible! What kind of health care are women being denied?!
The amendment will prohibit federal funds for abortion services in the public option. It also prohibits individuals who receive affordability credits from purchasing a plan that provides elective abortions. However, it allows individuals, both who receive affordability credits and who do not, to separately purchase with their own funds plans that cover elective abortions. It also clarifies that private plans may still offer elective abortions.
THIS IS FUCKED.
By health care she meant… abortion. Sounds healthy.
This has me so incredibly infuriated because it further segregates abortion as something different, off the menu of regular health care. It is a huge backward step in the battle to convey — not just politically, but to women in their everyday lives — that reproductive health care is normal and necessary, and must be there if (or, more accurately, when) you need it.
Abortion, different from regular health care? Yeah, that sounds like a terrible mistake, because other regular health care routinely involves the intentional killing of innocent human life. Oh, wait…
Sarcasm aside, this is the absolute centre of the cultural divide: is it health care to provide someone with death?
To use the euphemism of “reproductive health” to refer to abortion is profoundly deceptive. Not surprisingly, it’s controversial to refer to killing as healthy.
I think killing is a pretty lousy way of caring.
Now, I’ve read elsewhere (glancing at headlines and skimming posts, can’t remember where) that the U.S. Catholic Bishops welcome the Stupak amendment and are quite happy with it, but still may not be satisfied with the state of the bill in general (don’t quote me on that, check it out yourself if you want to be sure!). I mention them only because, unlike many pro-life Republicans, the Bishops tend to want universal health care while still being strongly opposed to taxpayer funding of abortions. If they’re not satisfied, it’s because of abortion.
I was going to end the post here. But in reviewing it, I noticed an astounding line I glazed over at first:
Reproductive health care is normal and necessary, and must be there if (or, more accurately, when) you need it.
Wow. Is Ann trying to say that unwanted pregnancies and abortion are inevitable for women? I’d love to hear that explained…