When the United States House of Representatives voted in favor of health care reform that includes an abortion ban...which was their way of trying to leave women's access to the full range of reproductive health care services on the curb while the reform bus pulled away...well, it took some folks by surprise.
Many pro-choice voters were shocked that so many self identified Democrats didn't seem to understand a key plank of the democratic platform...or the pledge made by President Obama at the beginning of this reform campaign that no one would lose the coverage they already have...or the fact that women vote, that the separation of church and state actually means churches and the state need to be separate, or that abortion services are health care services...and I could go on and on.
Sigh.
On the flip side, more than a few of the Democratic legislators who voted in favor of the abortion ban in the House health care reform bill appeared to be shocked by the fierce outcry of anger and disgust that came from reproductive justice circles.
Now that my blood pressure has returned to safe levels, I'm ready to pause and reflect.
This legislative fail may actually turn out to be a movement win.
Since passage of that abortion ban wrapped up in the House health care bill, I've witnessed a lot of grassroots activism. That's to be expected...we're nothing if not organized. But I've also witnessed a lot of folks recommit to the cause of reproductive justice...individuals who may have mistakenly thought that electing Democratic majorities was the same thing as electing pro-choice majorities and that reproductive choice was safe from attack on the federal level.
The abortion ban in the House bill was a wake up call...big time.
And I think that's a good thing...even though I'm not celebrating the reality that we're going to have to fight like hell to clean this mess up in the Senate.
A good thing...because more than a few pro-choice voters need to see exactly how women's access to reproductive health care is treated by so-called moderates...how our rights and our freedoms are seen as bargaining chips in the corridors of Congress...and how religious lobbyists can get a meeting to discuss and derail choice in health care legislation at the last minute that you and I couldn't get with two weeks advance notice.
Mmmhmm, it's a good thing because our elected officials need to know that the masses have expectations...that we are watching them and are prepared to hold them accountable.
Change did happen right around this time last year.
Promises were made.
And even though I'm more than familiar with the ugly sausage making mess that is the creation of legislation, I ain't buying the b.s. that women's health had to be sacrificed for the "greater good."
On the contrary, women's health needs to be protected and access needs to be expanded for the greater good.
As much as I hate to see any legislation that holds within it the power to deny women access to our full range of reproductive health care needs...as much as I've been so upset over this I haven't been able to sleep...I'm also beyond inspired and proud of the resounding "Oh, hell no!" I've heard from the reproductive justice community.
Government needs to hear, see and experience that kind of reaction.
It's good for them...kind of like an electorate-based pro-choice vitamin supplement.
So yes, the abortion ban in the House bill was a wake up call to just how much did not changed with the last election.
We need to make sure our reaction is a wake up call to Congress.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Notes from a bitch...pondering what it all means....
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/17171
Ironically, this particular incident has made me rethink somewhat how wise it is to have the government involved in healthcare funding. It has made me consider that some of the paranoid rants of the kooky rightwing may have at least some basis in truth.
As a feminist, I have believed for a long time that the government has no place in private healthcare decision-making (particularly regarding abortion). With our government -- items rarely recieve funding without some strings attached, i.e. if the taxpayer is paying for it, the taxpayer is going to demand some control over what they're paying for.
Nobody knows better than feminist the disasters that can ensue when healthcare decisionmaking is taken by the government ... back-alley abortions, etc. The ramifications of this on abortion rights could be cataclysmic, and I wonder how it will affect other difficult medical decisions. Will medical procedures be completely reduced to a cost-benefit analysis? Will limited funds be rationed based on how "morally acceptable" the service is? Will healthcare funding be reduced to a triage scenario -- i.e. treat the treatable, and let the untreatable waste away because the cost to the taxpayer exceeds the benefit to the patient?
Its scary stuff, and, honestly, before this amendment to the bill, I had never seriously considered the strings that may be attached to government funded healthcare. If this amendment it a harbinger of things to come, this could be very ugly.
kbz
I just wanted to point out that, as I understand it, although healthcare would be administered by the government, it would not be funded by the government. It would be funded by the people paying for it, the way it works for insurance companies.
I just find it incredibly ironic that, in order to woo opponents who are against gov't run healthcare, Democrats include amendments that include even more intense gov't involvement in a person's decision about their health.
Just another example of when politicians talk about wanting to keep gov't out of people's lives, people does not include women, as they are more than willing to get involved with every little thing.