Author: has written 5299 posts for this blog.

Jill began blogging for Feministe in 2005. She has since written as a weekly columnist for the Guardian newspaper and in April 2014 she was appointed as senior political writer for Cosmopolitan magazine.
Return to: Homepage | Blog Index

13 Responses

  1. Cha-Cha
    Cha-Cha November 9, 2009 at 10:26 pm |

    Oh. My. Goddess.

    Every single “progressive” man I have talked to about this today told me something along the lines of how they had “mixed feelings” about abortion anyway, and therefore, they didn’t really have a problem with laws that make the procedure less accessible.

    And I feel like, I have been there for these assholes on foreign policy issues, I’ve busted ass on local neighborhood issues, I’ve been there during the elections, local state and national, I’ve been there just about every damn time they need me.

    But when it’s my body that’s under the bus, where are those progressive dudes in my community? Far away, not with me, on the other side of the fence.

    Today, the saddest part is not how betrayed I feel by Congress.

    The saddest part is how betrayed I feel by people I thought were comrades.

  2. Hot Tramp
    Hot Tramp November 10, 2009 at 2:36 pm |

    I think I don’t understand. Jill, you wrote that the amendment “blocks even private insurance companies from covering abortion services,” but I don’t see that in the amendment. I see that the amendment prohibits abortion coverage under the public option, and prohibits people receiving the credit thingies from using those credits to buy insurance that covers abortion services. Private insurance companies can still cover abortion services if they want to, yes?

  3. Sheelzebub
    Sheelzebub November 10, 2009 at 2:58 pm |

    Hot Tramp, this amendment would take away existing coverage women are already getting, and would make it so difficult for insurance companies to offer abortion coverage that they would likely just drop it. This amendment states that any woman gets a federal subsidy cannot get abortion coverage. Insurance companies would have to offer two versions of their plans, one with coverage and one without, but the hassle involved in that (and in figuring out who gets subsidies, etc.) would be enough to encourage them to just drop the coverage across the board. Not to mention the fact that the “rider” coverage is non-existent, and out of financial reach for many of these women. If you get a subsidy, chances are, you cannot afford to pay for an abortion or the premiums for a “rider” policy out of pocket anyway, so the most vulnerable women are getting fucked over.

    From the NARAL:

    * The Stupak-Pitts amendment forbids any plan offering abortion coverage in the new system from accepting even one subsidized customer. Since more than 80 percent of the participants in the exchange will be subsidized, it seems certain that all health plans will seek and accept these individuals. In other words, the Stupak-Pitts amendment forces plans in the exchange to make a difficult choice: either offer their product to 80 percent of consumers in the marketplace or offer abortion services in their benefits package. It seems clear which choice they will make.
    * Stupak-Pitts supporters claim that women who require subsidies to help pay for their insurance plan will have abortion access through the option of purchasing a “rider,” but this is a false promise. According to the respected National Women’s Law Center, the five states that require a separate rider for abortion coverage, there is no evidence that plans offer these riders. In fact, in North Dakota, which has this policy, the private plan that holds the state’s overwhelming share of the health-insurance market (91 percent) does not offer such a rider. Furthermore, the state insurance department has no record of abortion riders from any of the five leading individual insurance plans from at least the past decade. Nothing in this amendment would ensure that rider policies are available or affordable to the more than 80 percent of individuals who will receive federal subsidies in order to help purchase coverage in the new exchange.

  4. Hot Tramp
    Hot Tramp November 10, 2009 at 3:05 pm |

    Okay, thanks for clarifying.

  5. On the Stupak-Pitts amendment to the health care bill « I am the Lizard Queen!

    […] entirely or in part, by the government, find this amendment unsettling, to say the least. (See Ann, Jill, and Shark-Fu’s takes.) The idea that the amendment will probably get removed in committee? Not […]

  6. NinaG
    NinaG November 10, 2009 at 3:33 pm |

    This is a victory for insurance companies. We will be mandated to have insurance (purchased on our own or through or employers). The price for health insurance is going to skyrocket. Two Democrats (Davis – AL; Kucinich – OH) opposed the healthcare bill for progressive reasons; hopefully they’ll push for single payer legislation or something much better than this.

  7. Karisa
    Karisa November 10, 2009 at 3:50 pm |

    I absolutely agree that Stupak-Pitts is infuriating and disgusting and am equally appalled that SO many Dems voted for it. Those 21 need to go INDEED! Was watching Rachel Maddow last night (who did a really good segment explaining what Sheelzebub just clarified above) and she was at first calling out Claire McCaskill specifically because of that HuffPo article you link to. But later in the show she had to update that Senator McCaskill now seems to be against Stupak-Pitts. She twittered about it and I know, it’s Twitter, tad silly, but it seems that maybe early in the day on Mon she’s wasn’t 100% informed on what the amendment would do. Later Mon she tweeted “Oppose Stupak.Don’t think we should change current law which is no public $ for abortions,but amndmt goes too far limitng private funds too” and her next 3 consecutive tweets from Mon night thru this morning kept up the same promise:
    “@jenlabarbera It’s too early to say,We all need to keep talking and working toward a good bill.I hope it’s not in it and will vote that way.”
    “Asked this morning my opinion on whether Stupak amndmnt would kill the bill(said prob no) and NOT asked my opinion of the amndmnt.Im opposed”
    “@hb4president That IS the current law which no one is trying to change. Longstanding Hyde federal law= no public $ for abortions.”
    I just think this is more evidence that this amendment clearly goes WAY too far and hope that like Senator McCaskill, some moderate Dem Senators will see that and oppose it.

  8. Wednesday Link Love « The Feminist Texican

    […] Feministe: Bittersweet victories, choice, and what you can do […]

  9. JenniferP
    JenniferP November 11, 2009 at 11:34 am |

    I agree with all of your steps of things we can do, plus one more:

    I would like to explain How It All Works to every dude in America, with a series of questions followed by a Lysistrata-type protest:

    Q: “Did a lady make you in her belly?”
    A: “Yes.”
    Q: “Then you had better care about women’s health and reproductive health.”

    Q: Do you like having sex with women?
    A: Yes
    Q: Do you want to make a baby every time you do that?
    A: No
    Q: Then you had better care about women’s health and reproductive health.

    I live in Illinois and am not represented by Stupak traitors, but I wonder what would happen if women, especially young progressive women, stopped fucking those young progressive men of ours until they donated some money and made a few phone calls themselves. “Honey, I know you’d like to explain politics to me again, but believe me when I say that I just won’t be in the mood until this amendment is killed.”

  10. dasha
    dasha November 11, 2009 at 10:26 pm |

    Sex protests work.

  11. jennygadget
    jennygadget November 12, 2009 at 9:41 pm |

    my congressperson was one of the ones who voted for the amendment, but for reform. I am still more than happy to help take him down, though.

    Problem is, this is the purple part of CA, the part where most of my co-workers are also of the opinion that abortion is icky – possibly birth control too. Clearly I need to do some research; I’m sure there has got to be other ways in which the amendment screws women over.

  12. Jen’s Den of Iniquity » the view from under the bus

    […] it difficult to put my feelings into words, and in part because i feel others have said it sooo much better than […]

  13. Gabrielle
    Gabrielle November 14, 2009 at 5:35 pm |

    I’m going to write a letter. I have mixed feelings about abortion too, but I still want the RIGHT. God. And you know what–this effects the lower class citizens most of all, the ones who won’t be able to afford a good doctor. Lower class citizens are more likely to have problems with pregnancy, adoption, plus you hear all these news stories about parent’s leaving their kids under their beds you think a lot of people really should NOT be having kids in the first place. So if you get pregnant then I guess you’re doomed. What a bunch of last minute STUPIDITY.

Comments are closed.

The commenting period has expired for this post. If you wish to re-open the discussion, please do so in the latest Open Thread.