Pitts is the Pits: The Right to an Abortion About to Become Yet Another Privilege of the Rich (Only)


Throughout the 111th Session of Congress debate over healthcare reform, I kept screaming and hollering in these pages about the willingness of Democrats, including the President, to deal away the right to choose. By the time the healthcare bill hit the President’s desk, the Democratic-controlled Congress had done just that.

Most onerous in the law was the stipulation that no individual participant in an insurance company plan offered by a state-based health insurance exchange be permitted to use public funds to cover the procedure.

But, along the way, an even worse proposal was offered-up, the so-called Stupak Amendment, which would have expressly prohibited any insurer participating in a state based exchange to offer abortion coverage, if it wished to receive any federal funds to subsidize the (other) coverage it would offer.  

Now, Representative Joe Pitts, Republican of Pennsylvania, a co-author with Representative Stupak of the Stupak Amendment, is chairman of the very subcommittee with jurisdiction over Medicare, Medicaid and private insurance programs, jurisdiction over all of us, the people and institutions that his proposed amendment would hurt so horribly.

I’ve started getting e-mails again from the Beltway pro-choice advocates.

The consensus in their community is that the Pitts’ plan is the pits: Laurie Rubiner, vice president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said: “[Rep Pitts] is…as anti-choice as a member of Congress can be.”

You think?!

Those of us out in the hinterlands, way outside the Beltway, have known for years that the Beltway-focused Congressional lobbying strategy– now gearing-up again–to keep abortion safe and legal, wasn’t working. Some of us have been screaming about this for years. But, to no avail.

Last summer, when the Pitts hand writing was clear on the wall, in the regulations Secretary Sebelius proposed for operations of the state health insurance exchanges, I even went so far as to write a long, and, I thought, thoughtful memo, to one of my inside-the-Beltway powerful feminist friends to say that it was time—past time—to do something new and different.

My memo proposed we gear up in the fall, fall 2010, and get moving by Election Day because things looked bad, whichever way you turned. Well, that memo went exactly nowhere.

Maybe, someone else had the same idea and a big plan is being concocted, which I’ll hear about soon.

Anyway, now the proof is in the pudding of 45 new anti-choice Members led by a virulently anti-choice Speaker.

Time for a new deal.

And when I say a new deal, it’s like the old new deal—in capital letters.

Mr. Pitts needs to be surrounded, diminished, made to look like an ogre, shown to be unfeeling, harassed at every turn, picketed at his fundraisers, criticized in his hometown papers, ostracized by his fellow Members, and otherwise made to understand that the Pitts plan is the pits.

Yes, yes I know he’s got at least 45 friends who feel just like him and the backing of the Speaker and the Republican majority.

Yes, yes, I know you say that one of the great things about the Beltway, nowadays, is that compromise is in the air. Well, the Pitts (Stupak) Amendment isn’t compromise; it’s war on American women.

While Mr. Pitts is being harassed, ostracized, criticized, picketed and protested by those of us outside the Beltway, I propose that the pro-choice Members hit him in another place where it really hurts: Don’t invite him to participate in a partnership, in any compromise, in any circumstance in which he might then be perceived as reasonable. Because he isn’t. The American public might be deceived into think so, if you allow him to participate in some other sort of legislation that seems like an OK deal. But, there is just no reason for you, the pro-choice Members, to do that, when Pitts’ very reason for living is to deny American women their most basic right, the right to control their own bodies. Proof?  Here is what the National Right to Life Committee had to say:  “… [Mr. Pitts has] made the protection of the sanctity of innocent human life the cornerstone of his service in the House.”

This House cornerstone needs to be bulldozed. There’s just no other choice.

Beltway deal-making, not abortion, kills.

When an abortion become so hard to get that it’s as though the procedure were illegal, it’s not time for backslapping lobbying and deal making. It’s time for profiles in courage.

Pitts is the Pits. Time to throw out the rotten apples, pits and all.  

Like this story? Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

Follow Rebecca Sive on twitter: @@RebeccaSive

  • stacey

    When an abortion becomes so hard to get that it’s as though the procedure were illegal, it’s not time for backslapping lobbying and deal making. It’s time for profiles in courage.

     

    Amen. Non-profit, volunteer-run abortion funds talk to women every single day for whom abortion might as well be illegal already. Because of the Hyde Amendment, obtaining an abortion with any semblance of dignity has simply not been an option for women on Medicaid, for women in the military, for Native American women insured through Indian Health Services, and many others–for nearly 35 years.

    An uninsured, cash-strapped woman in a low-paying job currently has no recourse but to sell off her belongings,  bargain with her landlord, delay paying her heating bill, and hope that her local abortion fund can help pay for a portion of her procedure if she needs an abortion.

    Women without means will do what they can to find a way to get the abortions they need–even if that means seeing an illegal, unlicensed provider who preys on vulnerable populations. And that pool of women is growing larger every day.

    Please join the National Network of Abortion Funds and demand justice: click here to sign the petition to repeal the Hyde Amendment.

  • puma

    thank you for posting your article and for the comment linking the petition.

    it seems peculiar that some in our government are more devoted to destroying the already ragged safety net than they are to sustaining the lives of the poor, elderly, disabled and others who have suffered the indignities of our oppressive regime. What would happen if Mr. Pitts used his leadership position, his missionary zeal, to provide for those who have left the womb? What will be next? Will the womb become government property? Will our eggs be confiscated if we don’t show up at religious services? Does Mr. Pitts have a grasp on reality or is he grasping for himself the power to give life?