Dear Kathy,
I'm writing to you with an urgent request.
Late yesterday, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops met with leaders in the House of Representatives in their bid to eliminate women's access to abortion care under health care reform.
We have just received news that their efforts are working, and Representative Bart Stupak has introduced an amendment to the health care reform bill that will result in women losing health care coverage for abortion.
We urgently need you, and your friends and family, to call your representative. Call and ask him or her to reject the Stupak amendment that will remove abortion coverage from health care reform. After you call, just reply to this message and let us know how it went.
If the bishops and their anti-choice partners in the House succeed, they'll permanently alter health care in America, even taking away benefits from women that they have today. The bishops want to effectively eliminate abortion coverage in both private plans and the public option. We simply cannot stand for such a discriminatory, mean-spirited attack on women.
It's a chilling ultimatum: eliminate choice for millions of women, or the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops will do all they can to kill health care reform. This is a true crisis for American women, and we need you to act now.
Call your representative and tell him or her to reject this attack on women's health — and then forward this message to your friends, your family, everyone you know and ask them to do the same (and don't forget to post the news to Facebook, Twitter — everywhere).
We need you now, more than ever. Thank you for standing strong with us in the face of this vicious last-minute attack on women. We will keep you posted on what's next.
Dear Rep Akin:
RE: Health Care
Specifically, women's health.
Religion should NOT dictate medicine. You must reject the Stupak amendment that will remove abortion coverage from health care reform. You should NOT dictate medical coverage based on YOUR religious beliefs.
We are watching. We believe in women's reproductive health care...and their right to choose it. We believe:
a) abortion is a choice made between a woman and her doctor.
b) YOU have no place (nor should you) in approving or denying her coverage.
c) YOU have no business dictating, based on your morals, beliefs, opinion or religion--or lack thereof, who should and should not receive ANY medical procedure. You need to back out of the equation.
In fact, you SHOULD speak out AGAINST the Stupak, priest-driven amendment. You could do so on the the premise of keeping a wall of separation between church and state. If the state can't dictate to the churches, then the churches should not dictate to the government either. Else they should pay taxes like the other lobbyist groups.
Do not let your religion stand in the way of female reproductive health care coverage. Health care coverage should be impacted neither one way nor the other based on religion. ...AND WE VOTE--errrrr--religiously!
Kathy W
Now we have the insurance lobbys, the big pharma companies, AND the Catholic Bishops!!! all deciding what should be in the insurance package. If they put their religion on our medicine? Fur is gonna fly!
Please call YOUR Reps, and tell them HOW TO VOTE. DON'T ASK THEM. TELL THEM.
https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml or
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 41
As long as it is legal to choose, we must make sure women are able to choose the form of birth control they need when they need it. To hell with Catholic Bishops, Republicans, Blue Dog Democrats, and pharmacists who refuse to fill prescriptions, while I'm at it.
We must stop the drive against women and their health in this country! Remember that boys, when you go to get your insurance paid for little blue penis pills!
JAY-SUESS KEEEERIST, that might be the moment that would probably land me in jail. Eh, my kids swear I'd rule if I ever got busted--
Whatever!
Luv U EmJay, thanks for fighting the good fight for all of us.
Wilka
]
And I don't endorse other people using violence.
But, bet we could get it to stand up in court. AND the pharmacy would pay big bucks to keep it's chain out of the evening news. THAT money could be donated to PP.
Wilka
Religious bodies - Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Muslim, Mormon, whatever - have no business in secular government. This is a warning from the American people - stay out of government or we'll kick you out!
We don't want to go back 100 years in women's medicine, nor in a woman's right to choose ANY of her medical options.
OH! It makes me so furious.
Wilka
Look out!
(Personally, I love it. It means we are getting close to the nerve of the issue.) And Roy, my friend? I couldn't respect you any more tomorrow than I do today. I think you're peaches.
Wilka
There were 7 kids in our family. Another family that sat near us in church had 11 kids.
Meanwhile the Knights of Columbus was composed of the Doctors and Lawyers who had 2 or 3 kids at the most and a lot of money to donate.
I know who the Bishops always fawned over and it wasn't the big families following the rules.
So screw 'em. They are not on the high moral ground.
Aren't they also the fellows that moved the pedophile priests from parish to parish.
Errrr---I've heard the same thing from my sis who married catholic (her husband is one of 13) and she says the same thing about the church and money'd parishoners. Pretty darned sad.
James, I'm not even sure they'd recognize the "high moral ground" if it reared up and poked them in the a$$ with a priestly-scepter.
I don't have a problem with anyone who wants to believe in any given religion. They can worship the Almighty Tater-Tot if they want to. Good for them, if it gives them a warm, belonging feeling, and a sense of rightness about their world.
But I WON'T let anybody's religion get in the way of women's health. That is just so freakin WRONG.
If the priests want to lobby? Let 'em pay taxes, sez I.
Wilka
W
******** whoa Kathy, you might be on to something here.
With the epidemic of obesity in the US today, I think it is time for this religion!
I jes' ain't feelin the love heah!
You know, That sense of community spirit that uplifts and takes away the angst of minimum wage jobs; that sense of belonging to a social order that is defeated every monday morning by just being a cog in the big wheel of corporate outsourcing; that sense of love and connection (approval?) that stems from the finding the unconditional (positive) relief of ascertaining that there actually ARE other like minded individuals who believe the same stupid things I do.
Soooooo, If I can't commune with my kids or grandbabies on Sunday mornings.....I read or go to the park.
Someday, I'm gonna meet Spencer for Sunday Breakfast...and we're gonna fix all this!
Wilka
The part that angers me the most is that we're not addressing the root causes of teen pregnancy...which I am VERY willing to do! Educate, Educate, Educate, and be open, honest, and straightforward with the kids.
I bet the STDs would drop by 75% and teen pregnancies would fall by 50%. But NO! That would mean speaking honestly and medically with teen age girls and boys. Some of whom, by the age of 15 are having babies instead of Being somebody's baby.
Until we educate the kids, especially the girls---they'll keep having kids they can't afford to have, at a time of their life when they should be focused on themselves.
Whoa, Spence! Sorry, I'm kickin it!
How ARE you Spencer? Thank you--btw for being such a thinking man.
Once again, we agree.
Wilka
And this? from an athiest.
Blessings on your head, too, Kat.
Must we go back to those days? My classmates went to visit an aunt or cousin in another state for several months when actually, they went to a home for pregnant girls and gave up their babies for adoptions.
But what do men care? As long as they get their Viagra and Cialis, they are very happy and truly believe they should be able to dictate women's rights.
Would that ALL men thought alike. Too often, in our culture the men walk away. It's not that they walk away from their wives, or girlfriends, etc...
But they walk away from their own children. Because they can, too easily.
The girls get left with the babies, and the boys walk away.
Even in Sarah Palin's family.
And it is not just about ending unplanned pregnancies. We're talking about educating our little chicas so that they don't have unprotected sex. THAT is what pi$$es me off most about this. They don't need to go through all the angst and the guilt of termination, if they don't get preggers to begin with.
And that step? Educating our girl-babes? is what the right can't or won't do.
That step could seriously slow down the STD spread...and the unplanned pregnancy spread. But a lot of right wing, really sweet, innocent, wanna-do-good-but can't say "dick" to their daughters moms --who need somebody else to step up to the plate and educate their young.
The LAST thing we want is more repubs, but they're breeding faster than any other demographic group (given the stat figures of unplanned pregnancies of unwed mothers.)
However, a lot of them are giving their kids up for adoption, and a lot of dems are adopting, so maybe it will balance out. We can educate them to be thinkers, and maybe they can fix the world for us. We'll be Serious Senior Citizens by then.
Wilka
Even in Sarah Palin's family.
********* I see a bumper sticker for 2012
I DO have a problem with religions that want to dictate laws that cross secular lines...and it seems you do, too. They can preach all day sunday, if they like, to any folk that willingly sit their skirts down in their pews; they can advise on how their parishoners should this, or shouldn't do that...Hell, they can even tell them how to do it, or how many times. That happens in their church, and they have a right to do it.
But, when it comes time to writing laws, that cross many church lines, and many / no denominations? There I get all defensive, and all righteous-my-own-self.
And, like you? I purely don't get where the church, who have collectively (mostly! disavowed science) have the right to legislate regarding science/ research/logic/medicine.
If they want to do that? I think we can back them off with the "lobby tax" concept. If they want to lobby? They pay the same taxes as the avowed lobbyists." Watch the church scramble then, to maintain their tax-free status.
We could sure use some of their billions, though, to make this education / health care thing work.
W/ Blessings on your Head, Grems.
Wilka
It's one thing to stand by your family, when they're being persecuted. It is a totally different thing to stand by your family, when they are clearly "in the wrong" of it.
This is a grey area of ethics and morality that the church, in my opinion, is not qualified to decide on. Having neither ethics nor morality.
So, they should back off, and the government should prosecute, as they do with all street level pedophiles.
Just because they wear a strange collar does not make them less of a pedophile, now, does it? Perhaps more so, In my Humble Opinion. Had it been one of my children sexually abused by a "man of god?" God herself would have been in awe of my rage--
I just made a comment yesterday (or the day before) about how important EDUCATION is on prevention of health problems, including teenage pregnancies and the spread of STDs....sigh.
I fail to see how anyone claiming to understand principle cannot see why Catholics, conservative Protestants, Jews, and Muslims could not support abortion paid for by the taxpayer
MY personal credo prevents me from paying for breast implants and penis-growing pills, but that's part of the package.
We have GOT to keep religion separated from health care. Lest we move back a century in women's medicine. What's next? No stem cell research? You DON'T want to cure Alzheimers?
I can see objecting to the bill on a fiscal level, because I see what medicare is billed for now; BUT, I sincerely, violently, rebelliously refuse to let your religion run over my health choices.
Out of patience with the whole damned thing,
Wilka
Considering the largest not for profit health care organization in the country is not the government but the Catholic Church, it makes a bit of sense to not go trying to force them to do things that they consider morally repugnant. The Bishops have already decided to shut down hospitals/clinics if forced to do medical procedures against their moral guidelines. Millions now depend on the Church for care, can the government now take up that slack too?
You say you wish to keep religion and health care apart, fine. Figure out a way where tax payer dollars aren't involved then. But if you use force (which taxation is based on) to make people who just like you are violently (hopefully a figure of speech) and rebelliously opposed to certain health care choices funded by their tax money, then you will have more problems in the future.
If your personal health care choices are funded by others tax monies, its not really only your choice because someone else is paying for it. Choice without personal financial responsibility isn't something the taxpayers can keep supporting forever.
I have no problem with people doing their own thing on their own dime. I don't like abortion but I agree its a woman's decision. I agree with you on the implants/penis pills too, its a symbol of a system that has others paying for someone else's choices. As long as Peter is paying Paul's bills, Paul can be pretty demanding.
I get a little annoyed too repeating this all ad nauseum. Your money, your choices- fine. Taxpayers funds, they have a right to restrict it.
I don't support Viagra or whatever being bought with taxpayer dollars. I have a pretty strict rationale for the spending of that money and I find that Washington, under either party does a very poor job of ensuring our monies are only spent properly
An amendment hyped by conservatives would have the effect of banning all coverage through insurance offered through the exchange. A failed amendment to the previous version of the House bill offered by Stupak and Pitts would effectively bar insurance companies from offering plans through the health insurance exchange that cover abortion. As Media Matters for America documented, such a provision -- if implemented as part of the current House health care reform bill -- would effectively cause a number of people who currently have abortion coverage to lose that coverage.
Media forwarded same myth about previous version of bill
Parker advanced myth that conservative proposal merely about "exclud[ing] abortion" from health reform bill. In her September 6 Washington Post column, Kathleen Parker described an amendment to the House's health care reform bill by anti-abortion members of Congress merely as a proposal "to exclude abortion from the bills" and suggested that a compromise provision in one of the versions of the House bills would change current law by allowing federally subsidized insurance plans to cover abortion as long as federal funds are not used. In fact, the anti-abortion proposal would effectively ban abortion coverage for those participating in health insurance plans that would be part of the proposed health insurance exchange -- including those who currently have such coverage -- and contrary to Parker's suggestion that "[s]egregating funding" would reverse current law, Medicaid already allows states to cover abortion so long as they don't use federal funds.
Additionally, on the September 1 edition of Hannity, Fox News contributor Dana Perino falsely suggested that allowing federally subsidized health plans to cover abortion is inconsistent with current law
Media fact-checks failed to note effect of Stupak-Pitts amendment. CBS, ABC, the Cleveland Plain Dealer, and the Los Angeles Times all purported to fact-check claims about government funding for abortion but have ignored the fact that the Stupak-Pitts amendment by abortion opponents would have had the effect of forcing many who currently have abortion coverage to lose such coverage even if they receive no government subsidy.