The HR3 Ten: Meet Dan Boren (One Creepy Dude)

Ten Democrats cosponsored H.R.3, even with language redefining rape; four of those ten also apparently don’t care if pregnant women die. Sarah Jaffe takes a closer look at all ten, find all posted to date here.

Meet Dan Boren, Democrat from Oklahoma. 

Dan Boren is such a good Democrat that he is on record hoping for Democrats to lose seats in 2010. He told the Tulsa World that Democratic losses would be a: 

“good thing for Oklahoma and for me.” 

“If we have a tight majority one way or another, that puts me in the driver’s seat,” the three-term lawmaker said. 

“In the 112th (Congress), I probably will have the most influence I have ever had, no matter who has the majority.” 

Because we all know that what happens to the country does not matter! It’s all about DAN BOREN!  

And that includes what goes on inside your bodies. He of course voted to defund Planned Parenthood, and co-sponsors H.R. 3.

But ladies! He’s a cosponsor of the Abortion Non-Discrimination Act of 2011! He does not want to discriminate against your abortions! 

Oh wait. Priests for Life (No snarking) says:

“The legislation protects health care entities, both individuals and institutions, from discrimination by any recipient of federal financial assistance for refusing to perform, pay for, or refer for abortion. It also bars any entity that receives federal funding from forcing a person or institution to undergo or provide training in abortion procedures.” 

This video explains more. Language NSFW. 

Sarah Morice Brubaker, who wrote about Lila Rose’s quest to defund Planned Parenthood for Religion Dispatches and lives and teaches in Tulsa, Oklahoma, told me that there are plenty of pockets of progressives in and around Tulsa, but outside of that it’s a pretty conservative state with a thick Tea Party presence. 

Boren is also a cosponsor of the most misleadingly-named legislation in Congress that doesn’t involve uteruses or fetuses, the Fair Tax Act. The “Fair Tax” would get rid of all income taxes and instead tax “consumption.” It would take a while to explain all the ways in which this is a bad plan, so you may have to trust me on it: sales taxes are regressive, and even with a “prebate” giving people money back to cover purchases up to a certain level, this is a plan to lower taxes on the rich and hike them on everyone else. 

Sort of like cutting funding for Planned Parenthood, or driving abortion services out of private health insurance. 

He is ALSO a cosponsor of the “Free Industry Act” which would amend the Clean Air act “to provide that greenhouse gases are not subject to the Act, and for other purposes.” Cause climate change is for suckers. 

And like all the rest of the HR3 Ten thus far, Boren is no fan of immigrants. He’s a cosponsor of the “No Social Security for Illegal Immigrants” act, which at least has the benefit of not having an Orwellian name. Except that whole calling-human-beings-illegal thing. 

Just to make things fun, Dan Boren also doesn’t like Net Neutrality–he cosponsored a resolution “Disapproving the rule submitted by the Federal Communications Commission with respect to regulating the Internet and broadband industry practices.” So he wants to let corporations regulate your internet access, too. Freedom!

He votes with his party a whopping 46% of the time. Really. Less than half of the time. He voted to repeal health care reform, voted AGAINST the Food Safety and Modernization Act, voted against Don’t Ask Don’t Tell repeal. 

He voted AGAINST the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. That’s right, ladies, he thinks that he should get to tell you what to do with your bodies and ALSO that you don’t deserve to be paid the same as men. 

He voted against SCHIP, the State Children’s Health Insurance Program. Because he’s pro-life. Seriously, can we never apply the pro-life label to people who vote against health care for children? They’re pro-forced birth and that’s it. 

Dan Boren does love guns, and guns love him: the NRA spent $8,175 on his campaign. 

Dan Boren has a cameo in Josh Fox’s Oscar-nominated film, Gasland. Howie Klein notes: 

Since 1990, Big Oil has invested around $144 million in the careers of congressmen, almost all conservatives. Almost 70% of the payoff have gone to Republicans. And among current members of the House there’s only one Democrat in Big Oil’s Top 10: Dan Boren ($565,460). As you can see, Big Oil is, by far, the biggest source of cash for his political endeavors. What you haven’t been able to see, until Fox caught it on tape, is that Boren, who bragged about not voting for Obama and who has voted against virtually every piece of Democratic legislation since Obama has become president, has never found anything in the oil industry’s agenda that he didn’t get behind. And, as a member of the Committee on Natural Resources — and on the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources — that support has been worth a lot more to Big Oil than the $565,460 they’ve given Boren for his campaigns.

Boren’s top individual donor is a law firm called Nix, Patterson & Roach, whose claim to fame is prosecuting the tobacco industry. 

On the fiscal responsibility front (he is a Blue Dog, after all), Boren’s had $59,712,500 in earmarks, mostly military and in-district stuff. 

So to recap: Oil is cool. “Fair” Taxes are cool. Greenhouse gases are totally cool. Immigrants are not. Abortion is obviously not. Health care is not. A Democratic House and a Democratic President are not. 

You can ask Dan Boren how he can look himself in the mirror every day and claim to be “pro-life” here at his website or contact him at his office:

2447 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
(202) 225-2701
(202) 225-3038 fax

And as usual, you can ask the DCCC why it likes antichoice Dems like Mike Ross better than it likes women.

430 S. Capitol St. SE
Washington, DC 20003
Main Phone Number: (202) 863-1500

While you’re at it, you can ask them why they’re only asking for $100,000 for “the DCCC’s Women’s Health Rapid Response Fund.”  Antichoice Dems are worth $3.4 million and women’s health is worth $100,000?

Meet the rest of the HR3 Ten here. Meet Collin Peterson next! 

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

For more information or to schedule an interview with contact

  • freetobe

    and they are ALL creepy! We need to vote in massive numbers and get these maggots out for good!! Yes maggots that is all they are worth to me- smashing into a gooey mess and left tro dry into crust on the street!

  • malematters

    Maybe he did so for good reason.

    No legislation yet has closed the gender wage gap in the U.S. — not the 1963 Equal Pay for Equal Work Act, not Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, not the 1978 Pregnancy Discrimination Act, not the 1991 amendments to Title VII, not affirmative action, not diversity, not the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, not the countless state and local laws and regulations, not the horde of overseers at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission….. Nor would the Paycheck Fairness Act have worked.

    None of the legislation pushed by pay-equity advocates works because the advocates continue to overlook the effects of this female AND male behavior:

    Despite the 40-year-old demand for women’s equal pay, millions of wives still choose to have no pay at all. In fact, according to Dr. Scott Haltzman, author of “The Secrets of Happily Married Women,” stay-at-home wives, including the childless who represent an estimated 10 percent, constitute a growing niche. “In the past few years,” he says in a CNN August 2008 report at, “many women who are well educated and trained for career tracks have decided instead to stay at home.” (“Census Bureau data show that 5.6 million mothers stayed home with their children in 2005, about 1.2 million more than did so a decade earlier….” at This may or may not reflect a higher percentage of women staying at home than in the previous decade. But if the percentage is higher, perhaps it’s because feminists and the media have told women for years that female workers are paid less than men in the same jobs, and so why bother working if they’re going to be penalized and humiliated for being a woman.)

    As full-time mothers or homemakers, stay-at-home wives earn zero. How can they afford to do this while in many cases living in luxury? Because they’re supported by their husband.

    If millions of wives can accept no wages and live as well as their husbands, millions of other wives can accept low wages, refuse overtime and promotions, take more unpaid days off, avoid uncomfortable wage-bargaining ( — all of which lower women’s average pay. They can do this because they are supported by a husband who must earn more than if he’d chosen never to marry — which is how MEN help create the wage gap. (If the roles were reversed so that men raised the children and women raised the income, men would average lower pay than women.)

    See A Response to the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act at

    By the way, the next Equal Occupational Fatality Day is in 2020. The year 2020 is how far into the future women will have to work to experience the same number of work-related deaths that men experienced in 2009 alone.


  • datasnake

    1. The article mentions the “violence against women act” as an example of women getting preferential treatment. Despite the name, the law itself is in fact gender-neutral, as of the 2006 amendment.

    2. The part about women choosing not to work as much, or working in less demanding jobs, is a red herring. The issue addressed by the law is people being denied equal pay for equal work. Nobody is saying that a part-time receptionist should earn as much as a brain surgeon.

  • beenthere72

    It’s your own damn fault you married a gold-digger.

  • goatini

    Publishers Weekly describes Haltzman’s woman-hating tome as follows:  “Haltzman’s promise of stress-free marital bliss is attractive, but his advice grates, recalling the worst sort of paternalistic misogyny. After explaining that men’s worst communication habits are the result of genetics, Haltzman goes on to say that men need to be nurtured, require acknowledgement for their efforts and only get married for sex.” 

    As for me, I never “lived off” a man in my life, I always was an equal contributor, I never took off any time for children etc, I pick up the slack everywhere I’ve ever worked for the women AND men who have child care responsibilities, and I have been the breadwinner of my household for 17 years.  

    I want and deserve equal pay for equal work in a male dominated field, and I get it.  What’s important is that ALL women should be paid equal pay for equal work. 


  • arekushieru

    Especially when they (MRAs) often make the claim that it’s the woman’s own damn fault for marrying someone who is abusive.

  • plume-assassine

    So, let me get this straight, “MaleMatters” – because some women are content to be homemakers/primary caregivers without pay, then that means the rest of the women who are in the work force (performing the same jobs as men) don’t deserve equal pay for equal work? Smells like some bullshit to me!


    Also, to your last point: because men suffer more work-related deaths than women is due to the fact that society discriminates against women who try to participate in the more “dangerous” fields. Girls are socialized from a very young age to only seek out safe/nurturing jobs, if they are to have jobs at all.

  • wendy-banks

  • wendy-banks

    What piece of crap…

  • crowepps

    The work-related deaths that men suffer do not happen in “dangerous” fields but instead are mostly TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS.