An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
Mikulski to Nelson: “Why not have men buy an abortion rider for the women they get pregnant”
Posted by JILL MILLER ZIMON in At TMV, Economy, Health, Miscellaneous, Politics, Religion, Science & Technology, Society.
Dec 7th, 2009 | 113 responses
Dec 7th, 2009 | 113 responses
U.S. Senator Barbara Mikulski is disgusted with the Nelson Amendment and she is letting everyone know it. “[This bill] allows women to purchase an abortion rider. Oh, boy. Is this supposed to be big deal? Is this supposed to be the kind of thing that’s supposed to make us happy? What an insulting, humiliating thing to say: if you want an abortion, go buy a rider.”
Watch the videos for yourself:
And here’s another great idea: health care plans allowed to coerce women to get sterilized in order to get health care coverage:
Floor transcript of floor speech today by U.S. Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) during Senate debate of the health care reform bill and the Nelson amendment in particular (bolded portions are in the video clips above):
MS. MIKULSKI: THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE SENATOR FROM MARYLAND.
MS. MIKULSKI: THANK YOU. MADAM PRESIDENT, I RISE TO SPEAK ON
THE BILL AND ALSO IN OPPOSITION TO THE NELSON OF NEBRASKA
AMENDMENT ON THE SUBJECT OF ABORTION. FIRST OF ALL, MADAM
PRESIDENT, I TRULY BELIEVE THAT HEALTH CARE REFORM IS THE MOST
IMPORTANT SOCIAL JUSTICE VOTE THAT WE WILL CAST IN THIS DECADE. WHY?
BECAUSE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT PROVIDING UNIVERSAL ACCESS TO
HEALTH CARE, WHICH I BELIEVE IS A BASIC HUMAN RIGHT AND SHOULD
BE A FUNDAMENTAL AMERICAN RIGHT. THAT'S WHY HEALTH REFORM IS SO
IMPORTANT. PROVIDING UNIVERSAL ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE AND IN
THIS BILL ENDING THE PUNITIVE PRACTICES OF INSURANCE COMPANIES
AGAINST WOMEN, PARTICULARLY IN THE AREA OF GENDER
DISCRIMINATION, WHERE WE PAY MORE AND GET LESS IN OUR BENEFIT
PACKAGE, AND ALSO WHERE SIMPLY BEING A WOMAN IS OFTEN TREATED
AS A PREEXISTING CONDITION. EIGHT STATES CONSIDER DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE A PREEXISTING CONDITION, AND YOU CAN'T GET INSURANCE.
ONE WOMAN WHO HAD A MEDICALLY MANDATED C-SECTION WAS TOLD SHE
COULDN'T GET INSURANCE AGAIN UNLESS SHE HAD A STERILIZATION.
COERCED STELZATION IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA --
STERILIZATION IN THE UPLTS. -- IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
I THOUGHT THAT'S WHAT THEY DID IN NAZI GERMANY. THE OTHER THING
THIS BILL DOES IS STRENGTHEN AND STABILIZE MEDICARE TO MAKE
SURE SENIORS HAVE ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE AT ALL AGES AND ALL
STAGES. NOW, MADAM PRESIDENT, I CONSIDER THESE PRINCIPLES TO BE
PRO-LIFE. I THINK THE HEALTH CARE BILL THAT WE ARE DEBATING IS
AS PRO-LIFE AS YOU CAN BE, BECAUSE WHAT OTHER THING HELPS
MAINTAIN, PROTECT, SAVE, OR DEAL WITH IMPAIRED LIFE THAN
PROVIDING UNIVERSAL ACCESS TO HAVING HEALTH CARE?
A FAMOUS PASTOR BY THE NAME OF RICK WARREN WHO'S WRITTEN THE
GREAT BOOK THAT'S INSPIRED SO MANY -- "PURPOSE-DRIVEN LIFE" --
TALKS NOT ABOUT PRO-LIFE BUT WHOLE LIFE PRINCIPLES. NOW I THINK
THAT BEING ABLE TO SEE A DOCTOR OR AN APPROPRIATE HEALTH CARE
PROFESSIONAL SAVES LIVES, AND I VIEW THIS VOTE ON HEALTH CARE
REFORM AS PRO-LIFE OR WHOLE LIFE AS ANYONE CAN CAST. I AGREE
WITH PASTOR RICK WARREN WHEN HE USES THAT PRINCIPLE, AND I
BELIEVE TO SEE A DOCTOR WHEN YOU NEED ONE, TO SAVE A LIFE OR TO
DEAL WITH THE HEALTH CARE YOU NEED SO YOU DON'T LOSE AN EYE.
LIKE IN DIABETES, YOU DON'T LOSE AN EYE, YOU DON'T LOSE A
KIDNEY, YOU DON'T LOSE A FOOT, OR IF YOU'RE PREGNANT AND
DIABETIC, LOSE YOUR CHILD. WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WOMEN HAVE
ACCESS TO MAMMOGRAMS, THAT THE MEN WE LOVE AND WHO LOVE US HAVE
ACCESS, IF THEY HAVE HIGH BLOOD PRESSURE -- AND SOMETIMES THEY
HAVE IT BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE HEALTH CARE FOR THEIR FAMILY --
PROSTATE CANCER. I BELIEVE THAT'S WHAT WHOLE LIFE IS. SO, YOU
SEE, IN THIS BILL I BELIEVE THAT SUPPORTING SCREENING FOR
DIABETES IS PRO-LIFE, CERVICAL CANCER SCREENING IS PRO-LIFE.
BUT MOST OF ALL, IF YOU WANT PEOPLE TO HAVE HEALTHY
PREGNANCIES, HEALTHY CHILDBIRTH, HEALTHY BABIES, THEY NEED
ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE. SO THAT'S WHY I SAY THAT VOTING FOR
UNIVERSAL ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE IS AS PRO-LIFE AS YOU CAN BE.
MAKING THIS DEBATE ABOUT ABORTION, I BELIEVE, IS MISGUIDED AND
WRONG. FIRST OF ALL, IN THE BILL WE ALREADY DEAL WITH THIS
TOPIC. NOW, IN THE INTEREST OF PASSING HEALTH CARE REFORM, I
BELIEVE WE DEAL WITH THIS SENSITIVE TOPIC IN A SENSITIVE WAY.
WE WERE CHECKED IN ON AMENDMENTS ON BOTH SIDES -- FOR EXAMPLE,
WE DID NOT SEEK TO CHANGE THE SETTLED LANGUAGE REGARDING
ABORTION THAT IS THE HYDE AMENDMENT. THERE WERE THOSE IN THE
EXUBERANCE OF LAST YEAR'S ELECTION SAID LET'S GET RID OF HYDE.
MANY OF US TOOK THAT POSITION TRYING TO FIND THAT SENSIBLE
CENTER. WE'RE PRINCIPLED AND WHOLE LIFE PEOPLE AS WELL. WE SAID
LET'S KEEP THE HYDE AMENDMENT. IT IS SETTLED LANGUAGE. I DON'T
USE THE TERM SETTLED WRONG, MADAM PRESIDENT, BECAUSE THAT IS A
PRECISE LEGAL TERM AND I KNOW MY COLLEAGUE FROM PENNSYLVANIA
AND OTHERS CAN ARGUE THAT. BUT HYDE IS SETTLED LANGUAGE. WHAT
DOES THE HYDE AMENDMENT THAT'S BEEN AROUND FOR ALMOST 30 YEARS
DO?
IT PROHIBITS ANY FEDERAL FUNDS TO BE USED DIRECTLY FOR
ABORTIONS EXCEPT IN THE CASE OF RAPE, INCEST WHERE THE LIFE OF
THE MOTHER IS AT RISK. IT HAS A CONSCIOUS CAUSE TO PROTECT
PROVIDERS WHO DO NOT WANT TO PROVIDE INSTITUTIONS. THIS BILL
DOES NOT SEEK TO CHANGE THE UNDERLYING PREMISE OF THE HYDE
AMENDMENT, WHICH, AS I SAID, I REGARD THE SETTLED LANGUAGE OF
30 YEARS AGO. THE SENATE BILL, THE PENDING BILL, GOES EVEN
FURTHER THAN HYDE. IT WAS LEGISLATION THAT CAME OUT OF THE
FINANCE COMMITTEE, AND I SALUTE THEM FOR ONCE AGAIN TRYING TO
FIND A SENSIBLE CENTER, ENGAGE IN CIVIL AND RATIONAL DIALOGUE.
AND I WOULD LIKE TO COMPLIMENT THEM ON THEIR EFFORTS. HOWEVER,
THE OTHER SIDE KEEPS CHANGING THE MIDPOINT. BUT SEEKING A
GREATER GOOD, MANY OF US AGREED WHAT WAS IN THE FINANCE BILL.
QUITE FRANKLY, IT WENT FARTHER THAN I WOULD IF I WERE WRITING A
BILL. BUT, AGAIN, IN THE ISSUE OF COMITY AND SO THAT WE
WOULDN'T TURN -- WE WOULD KEEP THIS DEBATE ON THE ISSUE OF
PROVIDING HEALTH CARE AND NOT TURN IT INTO AN ABORTION DEBATE.
NOW WHAT IS -- WHAT CAME OUT OF THE FINANCE COMMITTEE IS IN THE MERGED BILL DO?
IT SAYS LOUDLY, CLEARLY AND CONSISTENTLY, NO FEDERAL FUNDS CAN
BE USED TO PAY FOR THE COVERAGE OF ABORTION. AND IT DOES IT BY
SEPARATING OUT FUNDS SO THAT NO PUBLIC MONEY FROM FEDERAL
CREDITS OR SUBSIDIES WOULD BE USED FOR ABORTIONS. WHAT MORE DO
YOU ASK ANYONE TO DO?
HEALTH CARE UNDER THE PENDING BILL HEALTH CARE PLANS CANNOT BE
REQUIRED TO COVER ABORTION. HEALTH CARE PLANS CAN CHOOSE TO
COVER OR NOT COVER IT. AND STATE LAWS REGARDING ABORTION ARE
NOT PREEMPTED. AND IT AGAIN INCLUDES THE LONG-STANDING PRACTICE
OF A STRONG CONSCIOUS CAUSE FOR EITHER INDIVIDUAL PROVIDERS OR
INSTITUTIONS, FOR EXAMPLE, CATHOLIC HOSPITALS, FROM PERFORMING
ABORTIONS IF IT'S AGAINST THEIR CONSCIENCE. I BELIEVE WHAT
WE'VE DONE HERE IS FIND THE SENSIBLE CENTER. AND IT LEAVES THE
DECISION IN THE HANDS OF PATIENTS AND DOCTORS, NOT POLITICIANS
OR INSURANCE EXECUTIVES. SO THE QUESTION IS NOT WHAT IS
DECIDED, BUT WHO DECIDES. AND I BELIEVE IT SHOULD BE IN THE
HANDS OF PATIENTS AND DOCTORS, NOT POLITICIANS OR INSURANCE
EXECUTIVES. LET'S GO TO NELSON, WHICH IS REALLY A SENATE
VERSION OF STUPAK. I REJECT THE BEN NELSON AMENDMENT. I BELIEVE
IT IS UNNECESSARY. I BELIEVE IT IS UNNEEDED. AND I BELIEVE THAT
IT'S UNCALLED FOR. IT GOES FURTHER THAN HYDE BECAUSE IT
PROHIBITS THE PUBLIC OPTION FROM COVERING ABORTION. IT
PROHIBITS INDIVIDUALS FROM RECEIVING FEDERAL INSURANCE
SUBSIDIES FROM PURCHASING A PLAN THAT COVERS ABORTION. AND EVEN
IF YOU USE YOUR OWN MONEY, YOU CAN'T RECEIVE -- YOU CANNOT BE
USED TO PAY FOR AN ABORTION. IS MY TIME EXPIRED?
I'M SORRY, I THOUGHT I HEARD A KNOCK.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: NO, YOUR TIME HAS NOT EXPIRED.
MS. MIKULSKI: IT ALSO ALLOWS WOMEN TO PURCHASE AN ABORTION
RIDER. OH, BOY, IS THIS SUPPOSED TO BE BIG DEAL. IS THIS
SUPPOSED TO BE THE KIND OF THING THAT'S SUPPOSED TO MAKE US
HAPPY?
WHAT AN INSULTING, HUMILIATING
THING TO SAY: IF YOU WANT AN ABORTION, GO BUY A RIDER. I THINK
IT DEMONIZES WOMEN. WHY DON'T YOU JUST GO INTO THE WORKPLACE
AND PAINT A SCARLET LETTER ON YOUR HEAD?
HAWTHORNE STILL LIVES IN THE NELSON AMENDMENT. LET'S GET AN
"A." LET'S PAINT THE "A" WORD ON YOUR FOREHEAD. CAN YOU BELIEVE THIS?
I DON'T KNOW OF ANY INDIVIDUAL WOMAN OR ANY WOMAN IN
CONSULTATION WITH THE MAN THAT SHE LOVES AND LOVES HER SAYING,
YEAH, YOU KNOW, WE MIGHT HAVE AN ABORTION. YEAH, WHY DON'T WE
BUY THAT RIDER. NOBODY PLANS TO HAVE AN ABORTION. IT'S NOT THE
SUBJECT OF WHAT INTIMATE CONVERSATIONS THAT FAMILIES TALK ABOUT
AS THEY PLAN THEIR LIVES TOGETHER. YOU REALIZE THE INTENSE
DISCRIMINATION A WOMAN WOULD FACE?
AND HOW ABOUT WHY NOT HAVE MEN BUY AN ABORTION RIDER FOR THE
WOMEN THEY GET PREGNANT.
THIS. AND WE'RE CRANKY ABOUT IT BECAUSE THERE'S NO NEED TO DO
IT LIKE THIS. WE HAVE TRIED IT EVERY STEP OF THE WAY TO TRY TO
HANDLE THIS TOPIC WITH GREAT RESPECT. BECAUSE THERE ARE PEOPLE
WITH PRINCIPLE. WE ARE ALL PEOPLE OF PRINCIPLE. SOME PEOPLE USE
THE TERM PRO-LIFE, I USE THE TERM WHOLE LIFE. WHAT ARE THE REST OF US?
DO YOU THINK I'M ANTILIFE?
ALL MY LIFE AS A SOCIAL WORKER, I FOUGHT FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE. I
FOUGHT FOR ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE. AND TO SAY THAT I'M GOING TO
SUPPORT A BILL THAT DENIES ACCESS TO SERVICES FOR MOST WOMEN --
ANYWAY. I THINK THIS LANGUAGE GOES FURTHER THAN HYDE AND WE'D
SHOULD BE DEBATING HEALTH CARE, NOT ABORTION. THIS LEGISLATION
ON THE SENATE FLOOR SHOULD BE ABOUT WOMEN'S HEALTH, LIKE THE
THE DEBATE WE HAD LAST WEEK ABOUT PRENATAL HEALTH CARE, ABOUT
HOW TO IMPROVE DELIVERY SYSTEMS FOR GREATER SURVIVAL THINGS. TO
MINIMIZE BIRTH DEFECTS. THAT'S WHAT IT SHOULD BE. WOMEN'S
HEALTH CARE SHOULD BE MADE BY THE WOMAN IN CONSULTATION WITH
HER DOCTOR. THE PATIENT PROTECTION AND AFFORDABLE ACT IS WHAT
WE BELIEVE IS A WONDERFUL COMPROMISE. AND IT DOES REJECT THE
STRIDENT FEW POINTS. BECAUSE THE MORE PRO-LIFE THING WE CAN DO
IS TO PASS UNIVERSAL ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE. THE MOST PRO-LIFE
THING WE CAN DO IS STABLIZE MEDICARE SO THAT PEOPLE HAVE HEALTH
CARE AT ALL AGES AND AL STAGES. SO REJECT THE NELSON AMENDMENT.
AND IF YOU'RE REALLY PRO-LIFE, VOTE FOR THE SENATE-MERGED BILL.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
113 Responses to “Mikulski to Nelson: “Why not have men buy an abortion rider for the women they get pregnant””
Jill, I commend you for your insight, patience, and honesty in this thread… especially your patience.
Jill, I second JSpencer's kudos
Dorian
I find it extremely difficult to believe that the current proposals have any chance of reducing overall health care costs, since they're playing with rather small cost drivers. I agree with the cost-effectiveness studies (aka. “death panels”), at least as it applies to public programs, and as a resource for private ones that are already underway. However, I should be allowed to drop cancer coverage, if I want, as long as I'm paying. I can't see how reducing out-of-pocket expenses for those who can afford them and removing lifetime limits will somehow reduce costs.
But much more interesting to me is what's not included:
Repealing McCarran-Ferguson to end the current monopolies. Why is the answer to government supported monopolies a government supported competitor?
Allowing people to purchase their drugs from overseas, or to form arbitrary groups in order to negotiate lower prices.
Breaking the AMA's near monopoly on medical licensing. Why do we need to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to train one doctor, and only a few thousand to train a paramedic? Does anyone really think that it takes a great academic to become a great doctor or surgeon?
Investigating natural remedies to prove, scientifically, how effective they are, since there's no commercial reason for proving the effectiveness of something you can't patent.
I don't know about multitudes of plans, but there have been several proposals from other groups, which I can give as links if you're interested in reading them.
Elwood – thank you re: offering up other plans. I am of course aware that numerous groups have their plans, I just read what CStanley wrote re: there being “multitudes” that are “vastly superior” as being a supreme overstatement. The reality is that we get, as reform, what the people we elected to office figure out they can agree on – and that is, of course, shaped in part by us, but also by industry and other special interest lobbyists (and I'm using special interest in the pure form of the concept, not in the slangy slander way since everyone could be a member of a special interest, and lobbyists can play valuable roles in helping legislators learn a heck of a lot about a lot of things they know nothing about – which is why they get to have staff and the CRS and so on – a whole other topic and post!).
Anyway – thanks. Yes – many plans around, but there are 535 legislators, yes? If they can't pass something, all those plans don't matter.
Just for the record: I wrote and posted a blog entry on BlogHer on 11/16/09 called, “Stymied by Stupak? Reject its False Choice & Culture War Divisiveness.”
http://www.blogher.com/stupak-amendment-subsidy…
So you can see that I've been batting aside the irrelevance of the imperfection of Hyde for a while now. It is 100% beside the point in regard to getting health care reform legislation passed and enacted.
Just read this post about what the current tentative agreement DOES include – makes you realize how much of a sideshow the bringing in of abortion has been.
http://www.drumsnwhistles.com/2009/12/08/public…
The only commenter that made sense to me, in that regard, was MagicalSkyFather's Sh– sandwich explanation. That is, the bill sucks, but it's what you've got to deal with in order to get what you really want, which in this case is expanded coverage. But with their haphazard backroom deal approach, the costs are going to go up to the point where the working poor are going to be in even worse shape, since the subsidies won't be able to keep up with the still-rising costs, and the only ones who won't suffer will be the the richest people that can afford the costs, and the poorest, who are on medicaid. In other words, it's not a sh– sandwich, but more like bread floating in a septic tank.
You're advocating Lobbyists as advisers? The game of campaign cash has pretty much messed that up, even on state and (larger) county levels.
Please do not misstate what I've written or the context in which I've written it, which can be seen above by everyone.
Every member of Congress, in either chamber, has a legion of staff and interns. Lobbyists as individuals who arrive in those offices with information are a fact of our legislative branch's existence. If you want to get rid of that, then let's debate that.
Maybe you have experience like I have too, but from my experience of having interned in a congressional office (1983, Bruce A Morrison, seat now held by Rosa DeLauro), I can tell you that those lobbyists tell you about stuff you've never heard of that will make its way to other legislators as well, so you better get educated. And you're going to start with them.
If we want our system to work the way we can trust it and feel that it has integrity, then the only way to deal with lobbyists is straight up. You want to get rid of the money side – tell that to SCOTUS which might be on the verge of making things tougher than ever.
In the meantime, no blaming the “system” – when someone presents themselves and the elected official thinks they're tied to money, then they need to make the right decision. If they can't, then shame on them – not the “system” – unless we force the system to change.
Been there; done that:
http://themoderatevoice.com/47430/campaign-free…
I've been trying for a decade or two: a system change is way overdue. All major reforms are seriously hampered without it.
MUST HEAR SARCASM: Have you run for office yet? What exactly have you been doing for a decade or two?! Come on – get on it!
Seriously – for another thread – I would like to know what you've been doing when you say you've been trying – maybe you need some new tactics!
Most of it has been helping the Libertarian party, and encouraging others, especially disaffect voters, to pick a party and help them wherever possible. I've strolled for office (that's running for office pretty much on your own) and am now trying to help get a respectable tea party organization (a rather eclectic mix of blue dogs, libertarians, and conservatives, with a couple of Glenn Beckers thrown in for flavor) off the ground in my area, which is a lot more involved that I thought it would be.
When I started helping as a young man in Indianapolis, we used to run a thing that we called the politically homeless booth, the idea being that liberals had the Democratic party, the conservatives had the Republican party, and most politicians were really moderates, so libertarian minded people needed a political home. Now I'm convinced that liberals, conservatives, and moderates need new homes, also.
Amen to their being many reasons behind this: “Now I'm convinced that liberals, conservatives, and moderates need new homes, also.”
I've never been a party girl, but I did just run and win elected office for my first time, in a nonpartisan city council race. Other than the support of individual voters, I did not seek the support of any specific entity – party or otherwise. There are just so few organizations that don't include virulent voices that I cannot agree with and which I do not want to become what defines me in the minds of others – the work of making sure people can disentangle has become harder and harder (just check out an old old post of mine about Obama and Rev. Wright where even ASKING the question if we should care about the connection AUTOMATICALLY got me all kinds of nasty “you are doing guilt by association!!! cone of shame for you!!!” kinds of comments – and that was BEFORE Obama himself decided that he needed to address his connections/history in that vein).
Anyway – I've always been skittish about connecting to Labels, or Groups that have big images in people's minds. So I'm not so sure replacing failed parties with others is the thing to do.
Going back to something I wrote earlier in this comment thread, if people trusted the people who ran for and got into office more, then we would feel that as individuals, we could vote and have it mean something. People usually organize to make their power more concentrated and effective, but their principles and reasons for supporting something can also be diluted by the totality of the whole.
There are no good solutions that I can think of, except if each of us could really see the other as a more than monolithic stereotypes. Sadly, the media and political punditry – I include myself there at times – has really made it profitable to do this – again, think Frank Luntz.
Anyway – thanks for answering the question. Good luck to you in those efforts.
FYI FOR PEOPLE INTERESTED IN THE DEBATE ABOUT WHY STUPAK or NELSON is or is not needed:
The NYT published an editorial by Stupak yesterday and Rep. Lois Capps, of the Capps Amendment, has responded:
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2009/12/09/s…
Sorry for the late reply, I'm still trying to catch up. Thanks for bearing with me. You're absolutely right about trusting people and totality working against it. There a few things that I'm hoping for, since I don't think either main party will die altogether: a larger diversity of opinion, some new blood in the established groups, an end to the “X passed all the bad laws” line, and less negative campaigning, since it's easier to tear down one opponent than to build yourself up, but tearing down three or four should flip that equation.
It doesn't surprise me on the Stupak amendment, but it's dead now, so that's kind of a moot point.
And good luck (and some divine wisdom) to you in your endeavors.