Will your side ever be happy?
Here, Sen. Ben Nelson has dramatically expanded anti-choice legislation – to the disappointment of pro-choice advocates – and yet, you are still complaining.
As Cecile B. Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America stated,
“”The Nelson language is essentially an abortion rider…. There is no sound policy reason to require women to pay separately for their abortion coverage other than to try to shame them and draw attention to the abortion coverage.
“After the passage of the Stupak amendment in the House,” she continued, “we heard loud and clear from women across the country that they will not stand for the undermining of their rights and their access to benefits. This Nelson abortion check provision will no doubt create the same outrage, as women learn that they are being made second-class citizens when it comes to health care coverage.”
Richards has made a very valid point. I see why the Nelson language is
so upsetting to pro-choice advocates. But I have no clue why
anti-choicers are all up in arms over this.
If it had been up to Planned Parenthood or the National Organization
for Women (NOW), the health care bill would never have been used as a
platform to discuss abortion. It was the anti-choice proponents that
wanted to make health care reform about abortion, and they’ve gotten
just what they wanted in both the House and Senate versions of the
bill. Yet, they are still unhappy.
“In all the areas of our moral concern,” the bishops said, “the Senate
health care reform bill is deficient,” On the issue of respect for
unborn human life, the bill not only falls short of the House’s
standard but violates longstanding precedent in all other federal
This is incomprehensible. Even in the Senate version of the bill,
insurance funding for abortion is being curtailed well beyond what it
has ever been before. This should be a “victory” for you (although a
sad day for womens’ rights). What is it going to take for you, and
other anti-choicers, to finally be satisfied?
We’ll see where all this goes in 2010.
To subscribe to “Lynn v. Sekulow” click here.