Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Catholics for Choice Say Stupak Amendment "Unconscionable".

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-07-09 07:58 PM
Original message
Catholics for Choice Say Stupak Amendment "Unconscionable".
HCR House Debate: Catholics for Choice Say Stupak Amendment "Unconscionable," Stupak Smirks

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."


Meanwhile back at DU those of us who question why this amendment was allowed are being lectured to get on board.



Refresh | +7 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
jasi2006 Donating Member (544 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-07-09 08:07 PM
Response to Original message
1. They should speak with thier purse strings. Stop the flow of cash
put it into a special fund for pro-choice women to be used when necessary for those who can't afford abortion when needed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-07-09 10:34 PM
Response to Original message
2. Democrats say not "unconscionable". Pass it with a good margin.
I am having trouble with this sinking in. That the party so openly and proudly sold out women's rights.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
patrice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-07-09 11:09 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. According to some, because they know it will be stripped out in conference.
Edited on Sat Nov-07-09 11:10 PM by patrice
I still do not understand what purpose it serves, when no Republicans were EVER going to vote for this anyway AND there is existing law that already prevents Federal $$$ from paying for abortion. Are they trying to ADD other reproductive services to the prohibition on $$$?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-07-09 11:14 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Yes, they are expanding the Hyde amendment in effect.
I find it shocking.

Why did we work so hard for a majority so they could take away more rights for women.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Aug 01st 2025, 05:38 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC