So the US Conference of Catholic Bishops care more about preventing women from having access to abortion--which is still legal, btw--than about providing healthcare access to millions and millions of the uninsured.
Catholics for Choice don't agree:
Jon O'Brien, president of Catholics for Choice, said:
"This is unconscionable. This tiny group of individuals has decided that their personal beliefs about abortion are more important than insuring millions of Americans who do not currently have coverage.
"We urge members of the House of Representatives to vote against the antichoice amendment. It is bad for American women and wrong for Congress to be deciding which procedures are covered and which are not.
"Catholics support healthcare reform and support coverage for reproductive healthcare services in that reform. The US Conference of Catholic Bishops has been on Capitol Hill claiming to speak for America's Catholics. They do not do so with any legitimacy. Poll after poll has shown that the American public, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, does not want to see Congress play politics with women's healthcare.
"American Catholics will not forget who held their healthcare hostage, and allowed it to be held hostage, when the elections come around in 2010."
Meanwhile, Bart Stupak crows over how he got his way with nothing more than a bluff.
He's saying that health care reform does not have any bearing on whether the Stupak amendment passes or not. And if the 10 or 15 members he has on the amendment wouldn't care if it passed or not, so can bet that, with enough leverage, they wouldn't care if the amendment were held either.
Now, John Boehner's on the floor calling the Stupak Amendment a shell game. And it is. But the shell game is that Stupak ever had 40 votes to take down the rule whatsoever. He clearly did not. He never made public the 40 names. By contrast, the Progressive Caucus had 60 names on a list claiming they would vote against any bill without a public option. But that wasn't respected. Stupak was. Because the leadership calculated that progressives would back down, and calculated that Stupak wouldn't. But Stupak simply didn't have the votes. He admits that here.
...he also takes a shot at progressives:
"Now, I have not threatened that every time that we went to Rules Committee and we didn't always get our pro-life amendments, I did not try to take down any rules. You have to pick your fights at the right time. You can't be crying wolf all the time because you lose your wolfiness. You lose your credibility," he said. "So I'm not going to lose my credibility. So you use it at certain times when it's appropriate."
Ironic, that being willing to completely blow up the most important domestic policy agenda of your president and your party is rewarded in our system. That's politics.
Update: The Stupak amendment is being "debated" now, if you can call the anti-choice side lying about the current bill a debate. There's still some time to make calls. Chris says target these members to vote NO on Stupak:
Baird (WA-03): (202) 225-3536
Barrow (GA-12) (202) 225-2823
Berry (AR-01) (202) 225-4076
Cardozza (CA-18): (202) 225-6131
Castle: (DE-AL): 202.225.4165
Cuellar (TX-28) (202)-225-1640
Matheson (UT-02) (202) 225-3011
Michaud (ME-02): 202-225-6306
Perriello (VA-05): (202) 225-4711
Pomeroy (ND-AL) (202) 225-2611
Snyder (AR-02) (202) 225-2506
Tanner (TN-08) (202) 225-4714
Visclosky (IN-01) (202) 225-2461
Wilson (OH-06) (202) 225-5705
And there are some Republicans who are extending their obstruction to this amendment. More power to them. I hope they recruit some more naysayers.
No comments:
Post a Comment