RECENT POSTS
- President Obama: Asia Trip Helped Usher in a New Era of American Engagement
- Secretary Sebelius Celebrates the Tenth Anniversary of National Adoption Day
- Organizing for America Targets Sarah Palin
- Obama Administration Starts to Publicly Raise Issue of Detained US Citizen Xue Feng
- President Obama Gives Interview (of Sorts) to Dissident Cuban Blogger
- "You Guys Make a Pretty Good Photo Op," President Obama Jokes to Troops at Osan Air Base
- Did the Chinese Government Crack Down on an Obama Interview?
- Our Trip to the DMZ
- President Obama Greets U.S. Troops in South Korea, Wraps Up Week in Asia
- White House: We’re Not in the “Immediate Gratification Business”
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« Previous | Main | Next »
NOW President: It’s 'Not Acceptable' for President Obama to Achieve Health Care Reform 'By Pushing Women Back Into the Back Alleys to Die'
November 10, 2009 1:59 PM
Terry O’Neill, the president of the National Organization of Women, was not happy to hear President Obama’s response when ABC News asked him about an amendment added to the House Democrats’ health care bill Saturday night that further restricts abortion services in both public and private insurance plans.
“He has passed health care for half the population and an anti-abortion bill for the rest of us,” O’Neill said.
She said she understood the president’s frustration in wanting to pass health care reform, but “it is not acceptable for him to achieve that goal by pushing women back into the back alleys to die.” And the anti-abortion amendment added to the health care reform legislation “does just that.”
Other organizations that support abortion rights agree.
The office of the one of the authors of the amendment, Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., rejects that, saying that the bill “prohibits the use of federal funding for abortion under the public health insurance option and prohibits the use of federal affordability credits to purchase a health insurance policy that covers abortion.” This, Stupak argues, merely codifies existing law under what’s known as the Hyde amendment.
But O’Neill says the bill goes further than that.
“It prohibits the insurance companies from offering abortion if anyone in their plan has received any kind of subsidy,” she told ABC News. “It was very, very cleverly done. The Catholic bishops are beside themselves with glee. They rolled the pro-choice Democrats.”
The office of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., says that the Stupak amendment does not prohibit by law private insurance companies from offering plans that include abortion coverage to women not receiving government subsidies.
But many in the abortion-rights community say the amendment will likely have that effect because so many Americans would be receiving a subsidy, insurance companies would drop abortion coverage so as to appeal to the largest number of consumers possible.
In our interview with President Obama on Monday, we asked the President whether the Stupak amendment meets or goes beyond his pledge to keep federal funds from funding abortions.
"I laid out a very simple principle, which is this is a health care bill, not an abortion bill," Mr. Obama said. "And we're not looking to change what is the principle that has been in place for a very long time, which is federal dollars are not used to subsidize abortions."
That phrase – “this is a health care bill, not an abortion bill” – bothers O’Neill, she says. “Abortion is health care,” she says. “I read that quote to a huge number of people and they just gasped. Abortion is fundamental health care. Candidate Obama repeatedly said reproductive health care is a fundamental part of health care. Candidate Obama repeatedly said reproductive health care would be included in his health care package.”
Obama said that the bill cannot change the status quo regarding the ban on federally funded abortions.
“There are strong feelings on both sides" about the amendment "and what that tells me is that there needs to be some more work before we get to the point where we're not changing the status quo….I want to make sure that the provision that emerges meets that test -- that we are not in some way sneaking in funding for abortions, but, on the other hand, that we're not restricting women's insurance choices.” The president said he was confident that the final legislation will ensure that "neither side feels that it's being betrayed."
That isn’t how O’Neill sees it, as least as of now.
“The president has handed us a bill that reverses Roe v. Wade,” she told ABC News, condemning the amendment originally drafted by Stupak and Rep. Joe Pitts, R-Penn. “Stupak-Pitts is such a sweeping denial of insurance coverage of abortion for women that it in fact in essence makes abortion unavailable to women. In Roe v Wade the court said the government may not restrict women from exercising their choice to have an abortion and Stupak-Pitts clearly stops women from doing that.”
During the Democratic primaries, the campaign of then-Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, suggested that Obama would not fight for abortion rights as would Clinton. O’Neill sees this current action in that light.
“There’s no question that Hillary Clinton would have fought for our rights,” she says. “There’s no question that she would have understood the devastating implications of the Stupak-Pitts amendment. She would not have countenanced the Democratic leadership” of the House insisting that the amendment was allowed to be voted upon, which O’Neill says was a decision that essentially assured its inclusion in the bill.
Did she contact Clinton?
“She works for President Obama,” O’Neill says, “so that wouldn’t be appropriate.”
-jpt
November 10, 2009 | Permalink | Share | User Comments (124)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Ladies, if you want an abortion, pay for it yourself.
Posted by: anonymous | Nov 13, 2009 8:49:29 AM
first, i'm pro choice. that said, all this blather about the health care bill making abortion "illegal" is utter nonsense. it is factually impossible for a normal piece of legislation outside the amendment process to overturn a supreme court decision upholding a constitutionlly protected right. the crowing from NOW and the rest appears to be an attempt to move abortion from a private right to a public responsibility.
Posted by: davidfrat21 | Nov 12, 2009 7:28:18 AM
Oh geezes women, we are supposed to smarter than this. Rham and Obama are using the whole abortion issue as a smoke screen to get a compromised health scam through in any shape....he's trying to change the subject of the $TRILLIONS in cost and RATIONED coverage of the bill to something anything else that our crooked pols can say they had to make compromises on like abortion. The entire bill is bad and a rip off for taxpayers----get off the minor abortion issue. The whole bill needs to go or we all be crowding into back of dark dingy alleys for all sorts of illegal care since everything will be rationed and many more of us die...far more than died because of outlawed abortion in the past.
Posted by: VeryPainfulTruth | Nov 12, 2009 3:26:06 AM
How many women have had 6 abortions?
Posted by: godhearus
6?
OK, how many
Posted by: PO'd | Nov 11, 2009 11:54:35 PM
I would say if a man came on an made a comment about the abortion issue that some of the women would say "It is MY BODY you have nothing to say about it." Can't have it both ways.
Posted by: d | Nov 11, 2009 10:55:37 PM
Women need to be reponsible for their actions, not expecting tax payers to fund killing their kid because they don't want it. There are way to many ways to avoid getting pregnant this day and age, stop wanting hand outs for something you can avoid!!!!
Posted by: countrygirl_74 | Nov 11, 2009 2:03:01 PM
****************************************
Women? Nothing gripes me more than to hear this out of another woman. Why aren't men EVER in this argument? Why is this ALL on women?
Posted by: secondlook | Nov 11, 2009 10:40:22 PM
Posted by: BRice | Nov 10, 2009 4:11:25 PM******Sounds like a conspiracy to me. Those Christians planting pharmacies in your neighborhood. Shame on them.
Posted by: d | Nov 11, 2009 10:31:36 PM
The President wants this Health Care Bill passed no matter who is in the way, Planned Parenthood or anyone else. Anyone is fair game. Now I know why they tried so darn hard to get the bill passed before they went on their August recess. They knew the majority of the American public would be against it.
Posted by: d | Nov 11, 2009 10:19:22 PM
O'Neill of NOW says: (1) He (President)has passed health care for half the population and an anti-abortion bill for the rest of us,” O’Neill said. FIRST: The President has not passed anything, the House passed it (barely)and now it is in the Senate. (2)“The president has handed us a bill that reverses Roe v. Wade,” she told ABC News. SECOND: Flat out lie. Roe v. Wade has not been reversed, but to put it in those terms apparently she thinks it will rally people.
Posted by: d | Nov 11, 2009 9:55:36 PM
""Posted by: Ellie | Nov 11, 2009 9:19:21 AM - Abortion is legal in our country and congress should just be focusing on finding ways for more people to access health care,...."" ****Yes abortions are legal by law. Yes Congress should focus on ways for more people to have access to health care but abortions where a woman is just not ready or it is an inconvenient time are not a health care issue.
Posted by: d | Nov 11, 2009 9:46:57 PM
How many women have had 1 abortion?
How many women have had 2 abortions?
How many women have had 3 abortions?
How many women have had 4 abortions?
How many women have had 5 abortions?
How many women have had 6 abortions?
Posted by: godhearus | Nov 11, 2009 7:21:35 PM
Anything and everything that costs money is more readily available to the rich than to the poor. What's wrong with that?
Posted by: Fascist Hyena
the republican view on the constitution and justice,
saved for the wealthy, by the wealthy, for the wealthy... to hell with the rest of america..
refreshing to see it admitted so clearly
Posted by: PO'd | Nov 11, 2009 4:31:37 PM
"Sounds to me the end effect is abortion is available to the wealthy (if you have the money) - and not to the poor."
Abortion is available to everyone, if you had fun getting pregnant, let the man and the women each pay half. If you did not have fun and did not want to have sex, then I guess its called rape and the guy goes to jail.
Posted by: Lizzie | Nov 11, 2009 3:14:26 PM
Women need to be reponsible for their actions, not expecting tax payers to fund killing their kid because they don't want it. There are way to many ways to avoid getting pregnant this day and age, stop wanting hand outs for something you can avoid!!!!
Posted by: countrygirl_74 | Nov 11, 2009 2:03:01 PM
tierra said:
Of course, rich people AND their poodles can have their abortions whenever they want."
----------------------------------------
I believe in freedom of choice and don't want the government in my healthcare AT ALL.
And this comment shows why the left is so disgusting and rabid.
As a pro choice moderate the tone and content of the Obama cultists are not mainstream.
Posted by: Janice P | Nov 11, 2009 7:25:34 AM
________________________
Agree with what you said, Janice P. Those are the words of a class-warfare ideologue...disgusting and rabid.
Posted by: Jen | Nov 11, 2009 2:02:13 PM
haha, never had one, never will...never been turned on by a bunch of pie in the sky promises without the money to back it up! robinhood was never my knight in shining armor :)
Posted by: wow | Nov 11, 2009 11:59:21 AM
justjoey- very well said!
i remember when tv shows actually had thoughtful discussion on moral dilemmas facing young people. not anymore! as a parent you are always fighting the lack of morality and the lack of ethical behavior in our culture.
i wish media would understand their influence over our society and try to be a force for good, rather than highlighting the egocentric, valueless and violent.
people need to understand that only they are responsible for their bad behavior, and they need to accept the consequences of their actions.
Posted by: wow | Nov 11, 2009 11:26:36 AM
There is a lot of bull floating around in most of these somewhat sanctimonious comments. You know, before all these freeloaders jumped on the bandwagon, the prospective mommy and daddy had to sweat out how they were going to buy an abortion....and spare me the coathanger trick, please...perhaps if we stopped pushing sex on tv..ever see the cialis bathtub bit during kids' programming?...Viagara ads at any hour of the day or night until you are blue ..in the face?.....everything but actual copulation on all those marvelous tv shows designed for the 18+ age group?..come on, people, stop blaming the RC Church's stand on abortion....at least they have one, cuz sure in hell few other organizations take a stand on it.....a moral stand, not a copout "insurance" stand, that is.
Gone are the days when the guy and his
sweetie had to figure out how they were going to pay the piper for their individual actions without involving me or you or indeed, the government!!!
You want to be a "liberated" female, a non-thinking male? Well, that's YOUR problem, sweethearts.......I really don't want to get involved in your business, so stay out of mine.
Posted by: justj joey | Nov 11, 2009 10:53:29 AM
Uhm .... because one of the last things we really need is to force people who are already poor to carry through unwanted pregnancies because they are poor? I mean, there are a lot of poor people."
___________________________
Force, tierra? What force? Do we force people to pee after they drink water? Do we force people to have long hair if we don't buy them haircuts?
Posted by: Pablo | Nov 11, 2009 10:04:30 AM
The number of abortions historical does not change whether they are legal are not, just the number of people who die from them and who has better access to them.
Abortion is legal in our country and congress should just be focusing on finding ways for more people to access health care, instead of letting children die from diseases they can't afford to cure because congressmen have their hearts set on bringing up abortion, again a legal procedure, every chance they get.
Posted by: Ellie | Nov 11, 2009 9:19:21 AM
Post a comment
