Since January 2012, I’ve relied on healthy eating habits, home remedies, rest, and prayer: “Lord, please don’t let me get hit by a car when I ride my bike today. Allow for safe travels. Amen.”
An ACLU’s suit against Kansas private insurance abortion ban focuses on three points: The law acts as an unconstitutional tax on women, it serves no legitimate state interest, and it constitutes gender discrimination.
The following the letter documents the infuriating, scary, time-consuming and unconscionable experience I have had trying to move from one state to another without losing adequate health insurance.
By catering to Nelson, the Bishops, and fundamentalists, the Senate aided the anti-choice forces in achieving one of their primary goals: further stigmatizing reproductive and sexual health care, and making it harder for women to get.
Opponents and supporters of women’s choices in childbearing agreed early on, in theory, to maintain the “status quo” with “abortion neutral” health care legislation. The Senate bill achieves this goal; the House bill does not.
The Stupak-Pitts amendment would actually result the loss of abortion coverage many women already have because it prohibits the new private insurance market as well as any possible public option from providing such coverage.
A front page story in today’s edition of the New York Times highlights access to abortion as a potential roadblock to acheiving health insurance reform.