Mikulski to Nelson: “Why not have men buy an abortion rider for the women they get pregnant”

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.