Revoke the Hyde Amendment

[Lyric]

Here's a revolutionary idea: we should put real time and energy into not just the anti-Stupak and Nelson fight, but also to get rid of the Hyde Amendment itself. Completely.

Why shouldn't we? It's an ugly barrier to healthcare and reproductive equality, especially for low-income women. Simply by existing, it allows the government to take an official stance that there's something inherently immoral and wrong about abortion. And the argument that anti-choice taxpayers shouldn't have to help pay for abortions with their tax dollars is not only illogical, it's also incredibly unfair. Why should the government give preference and dignity to that ONE particular sub-section of people who claim to be "pro-life?" Why shouldn't people who are against hiring mercenaries have the same preference? What about people who are horrified by and utterly opposed to the death penalty--why should they be forced to pay for death penalty prosecutions, execution personnel, and execution equipment with their tax dollars? What justification is there for a Hyde Amendment, but not for a similar law that forbids using taxpayer dollars for war and executions? If there are people who want to see a prisoner executed, let THEM fund them executions--if there isn't enough money to pay for it, then tough luck, no execution. If there are people who desperately want to wage a war that isn't for direct self-defense, let THEM pay for the soldiers, equipment, bombs, missiles, and mercenaries. If enough money cannot be gathered together, then sorry, no war for you. That what we tell women with the Hyde Amendment. "Oh, you're too poor to afford an abortion out-of-pocket and/or private abortion insurance? Tough luck--no abortion for you."

There are logistical differences between the scenarios to be sure, but there is no moral difference. I'm sure someone will make the argument that killers "deserve" execution, but even putting aside that enormous debate, what have the children of Iraq and Afghanistan done to "deserve" fiery, horrific, agonizing death courtesy of an American bomb, missile, grenade, or gun? Does it exonerate us just because we didn't "mean" to do it? I don't think so. We go into war KNOWING that we will kill innocent people, but choose to do so anyway; therefore we do indeed "mean" to, whether we care to admit culpability or not. If we were defending our own nation, then perhaps there could be some justification, but we are not. We are making war on a country that has done nothing to us. Our current war is the moral equivalent of Britain preemptively bombing the nation of Ireland in order to fight the IRA. Would the western world scream bloody murder if such a thing happened? Yep, they would. But somehow we don't care as much when it's a bunch of faceless, nameless brown people in a third-world country. I guess their lives don't "count."

If I can be forced to help pay for horrific murders that I am opposed to with every molecule of my being, then the anti-choice zealots can suck it up and stop whining about contributing a few pennies each toward the cost of helping a poor woman survive an abortion--because that's what legal abortion IS. It's not about killing babies--it's about saving women's lives. I am willing to live with fundamentalist nuts and share my nation with misogynistic busybodies, because I do believe in freedom--even when I disagree with how someone else uses their freedom. However, I am NOT willing to silently tolerate our government giving these people blatant preferential treatment. I am NOT willing to stand idly by while our government hands these authoritarian loonies privileges that the rest of us do NOT have--like the right to have their refusal to pay for something they disapprove of etched into national law. I am sick and tired of these coddled whiners complaining that they're being persecuted, when the extent of their "persecution" is that the government enshrines their religious and/or ideological dogma into law *slightly less* than they have asked for.

Overturn the Hyde Amendment--because to use THEIR terminology appropriately for once, anti-choicers do not deserve "special rights."

[ananda]

1. Totally agree!

Make access to healthcare available to all women,
and affordable.

[no_hypocrisy]

2. Sounds good

until there's a republican majority in both Houses and a republican in the White House and they reinstate it.

[Lyric]

3. By that justification, we shouldn't bother doing anything at all, ever.

Eventually Republicans will get back the White House and Congress, and they'll just overturn whatever we do. Might as well not bother doing anything at all. I suppose we could tell our elected Dems to just go ahead and do whatever the Republicans want them to do now, and save ourselves the hassle of passing laws, only to have them overturned later.

:shrug:

[katandmoon]

6. We don't have to tell our elected Dems to obey the Repugs. They do that already.

[no_hypocrisy]

7. I don't see that rationale universally applied.

But the republican party has abortion rights in its crosshairs indefinitely. They'll do whatever they feel is necessary.

[Lyric]

8. They also have gay rights in their crosshairs indefinitely.

And opposition to welfare for the poor. And the waging of unprovoked war. And opposition to "socialist healthcare" (a.k.a., anything but what we have right now.) And "putting GOD back in our schools" (a.k.a., forced Christian brainwashing.)

Guess we shouldn't bother trying to pass any progressive legislation (or overturn any unfair, regressive legislation) about any of THAT stuff. Really--your argument makes no sense at all.

[defendandprotect]

21. If corporate/fascism survives and wins this one, everything will be taken backwards ...

[katandmoon]

4. When it comes to women's reproductive rights that's exactly what we will ALWAYS have

No matter WHO'S in the White House or who controls both houses of congress.

[AndyA]

5. I find it disturbing that provision has been made to pay for Viagra and Cialis for men,

but that when it comes to women, they get the shaft, so to speak.

We cover prescription meds that help men get erections, but women get...nothing.

Sounds like sexual discrimination to me. Government needs to get out of our bedrooms. It's none of their business.

[napi21]

9. I don't think the HC bill is the vehicle to start an abortion fight.

With the makeup f Congress right now, the progressives have NO CHANCE of advancng abortion rights!

[Lyric]

10. I didn't say use the healthcare bill.

I said revoke the Hyde Amendment. In fact, DON'T attach it to the healthcare bill. Write a separate bill to revoke it FIRST. That makes passing the healthcare bill easier.

Even if we can't actually manage it, we should at least TRY. It can do nothing but good for America to hear the arguments against the Hyde Amendment--the arguments that say "This legislation is incredibly unfair, and grants special privileges to certain people who claim to be "pro-life," while OTHER people who are "pro-life" (against war and the DP) are denied those privileges."

Even if we can't get it done right NOW, those arguments on the airwaves for a while would certainly soften the ground for another attempt in the future.

[MH1]

12. Exactly - it needs to be handled on its own.

Of course in the first iteration pro-choice will lose. Then maybe some people will WAKE THE FUCK UP and I will not be canvassing and hearing something like "oh I'm pro choice all the way but I don't worry about Roe v Wade being overturned" when someone is deciding how to vote.

[MH1]

11. Absolutely. Let's have this battle up front and center.

Should have had it long ago.

[TwilightGardener]

13. Hyde amendment is appropriate, IMO. I think it actually helps safeguard

the legality of abortion. Roe v Wade's primary legal basis is privacy--abortion is fundamentally between a woman and her doctor, no other parties. The federal government shouldn't be a party, either through funding or any interference. Once you start allowing federal funds for abortion (with the usual rape/incest/life qualifiers), I think you're inviting trouble from the anti-choice crowd. Abortion rights are not all that secure as it is--I think it's a mistake to start demanding federal funds for the procedure at this point.

[Lars39]

15. Privacy is out the window if your employer and bank employees

see the check written for abortion insurance every month.

[TwilightGardener]

16. That's a different kind of privacy. They are not a party in a woman's decision.

(That is what is meant by privacy). Public funding will make them a party.

[Lars39]

17. You keep telling yourself that.

Living in a small town has made me very aware of how much everybody minds everybody's business.

[TwilightGardener]

19. Again, we're not talking about medical confidentiality. We're talking parties

to a legal issue.

[FLDCVADem]

14. Thank you and I agree 100%!!!

This has been my argument all along as I hear people complaining about the funding restrictions in the HCR bill. The bill isn't the problem - it simply maintains the status quo and follows the law with regards to the Hyde Amendment.

The problem IS the Hyde Amendment.

[Odin2005]

18. K&R

[defendandprotect]

20. Majority of Catholics want coverage for CONTRACEPTION and ABORTION ...