The NYT published a Letter to the Editor by Congresswoman Capps published this weekend rebutting points made by Cong. Stupak in his editorial last week.
On Wednesday, the US Conference of Catholic Bishops issued a statement calling defeat of the Nelson-Hatch-Casey amendment a “grave mistake,” and underscoring that they continue to work toward maintainingg Stupak Amendment language in the final bill.
Yesterday’s NYT op-ed by Rep. Bart Stupak made misleading claims about the Stupak-Pitts Amendment. Here, Congresswoman Lois Capps (D-CA), author of the Capps Amendment, provides a reality check to his claims.
No one reading this has forgotten that the House passed a healthcare “reform” bill that includes the Stupak Amendment. Here’s a speech Congressman Stupak needs to hear.
This weekend, insurance company executives confirmed to NPR health reporter Julie Rovner what the pro-choice community has been saying since the Stupak amendment passed the House. In short, the amendment will lead to a virtual elimination of insurance coverage for abortion care, in turn leading to what one analyst calls “devastating outcomes” for some women.
Support Congresswomen Diana DeGette (D-CO) and Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) who have launched a sign-on letter and ad campaign to stop the Stupak-Pitts amendment in health reform.
These Representatives have put themselves on the line to defend our rights. We need to stand behind them. Here’s how you can take action.
The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and its allies distorted the facts by claiming that the proposed system under the House bill would use federal dollars to cover abortions. They’re wrong.
Daily Kos contributor “Adam B” has launched an effort to show vulnerable pro-choice Dems “we’ve got your back.”
Our biggest defeat since 1973 was enactment of the Hyde Amendment and the lack of an uncompromising commitment to overturning it. If nothing else, we must now make overturning Hyde the single objective of our movement.
The President’s speech was impressive, but as John Nichols of the Nation observed, hardly a rousing “to-the-barricades” oration. The proposed “limited public exchange” is not what supporters had in mind but won’t “threaten” insurance companies.