Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘congress’

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) (a UCLA law grad!) speaks out against the Stupak Amendment, and does a great job explaining why it will limit access and harm healthcare for women and girls.

Read Full Post »

imagesThere is nothing that angers me more than men making decisions that greatly affect the choices of women. When it happened with the partial birth abortion ban, we all were quick to attribute the awful decision to Bush being in the White House, but now Obama is here, and nothing has really changed.

The Stupak Amendment, which was added to the healthcare bill, which just passed in the House, prohibits anyone receiving federal health care coverage from buying plans that cover abortion. This means that it will be even harder for women to access abortion.

I am not going to spend this post talking about all the reasons why a woman might need an abortion that go beyond the “irresponsible, unprotected sex” narrative. And, never having had an abortion, I certainly don’t feel that ist is my place to explain how abortion is not a decision that most women take lightly – there are many people who have explained it more eloquently and truthfully than I can. Instead, I would like to take a minute to point out that political moves like the Stupak Amendment demonstrate exactly why women are still considered second class citizens, women’s bodies still are considered to be of much less value than men’s, and that we have a far way to go before women truly have equality in this country. Men should not be making these decisions, and men should certainly not be writing these amendments and arguing that women should not be having an abortion. Until men can get pregnant, they will have no idea what it feels like to have bodily autonomy slowly stripped away.

I know that this healthcare bill, if it is enacted, will be an incredible step forward, but I am sick of women being the casualties of “progress.” I sincerely hope that while the bill is debated in the Senate women (and our pro-choice male allies) continue to push for this amendment to be removed, to not continue to make sacrifices that compromise the autonomy of women in this country. And, I hope that Obama takes a stand against this amendment. I have yet to be convinced that he truly meant what he said during his campaign. I have yet to believe that he will dedicate any greater attention to women in this country than presidents in the past.  I still have hope, but if this bill passes in the Senate with the Stupak amendment in tact, I will certainly not be celebrating, because it will just mean that I do not merit the same respect as my fellow male citizens.

Read Full Post »

777px-Gay_flagToday has been a sad day. I had high hopes that Maine would vote to allow gay marriage, and we would be celebrating a victory today. Unfortunately, the Yes on 1 campaign won out, with numbers strikingly similar to the Prop 8 numbers in California last year. As Kate Kendell from NCLR said, this deja vu is far from comforting. It is so disheartening to know that there are still so many people in this country believe that same-sex couples do not deserve the same rights as different sex couples. Of course, no one can ever take away the ability of people to form loving, long-term relationships with same-sex partners, but every state that takes away the right to marry continues to impress upon us that there are those out there who do not think LGBT are as deserving, or not full citizens in some way. 

Sometimes I wonder if the marriage battle is worth all of the money and energy, because the lack of progress is so frustrating, but then I step back and think about everything that comes along with marriage. Without marriage, same-sex couples cannot protect basic parts of their relationship. Without federal recognition of marriage, same-sex couples are not entitled to the same healthcare benefits, cannot secure the same medical rights, or death benefits, and often have trouble securing parentage rights over the children they raise together. I like to think that marriage is just a meaningless status, but when the government makes so many rights contingent upon it, marriage becomes so much more. And unless we get rid of the institution of marriage all together, I think it will continue to be important to fight as hard as we can for marriage equality (not, of course, at the expense of anything else).

And just a word on blame. Everyone seems eager to blame someone or something for the disappointment in Maine, but I really don’t think this is the way to go. The people who worked on the No on 1 campaign worked incredibly hard, and gave all they had to turn out the vote and to convince people to vote no. In order to get the numbers where we want them to be, everyone needs to step up, and not just in the states where the battle happens to be centered. Everyone who thinks that same-sex couples deserve the right to marry (and everyone who thinks that the LGBT community deserves every right straight people have, for that matter) needs to take some time to talk to the people they know who don’t share those beliefs. It will never be possible to suceed if everyone is not participating in the effort.

On the bright side, we will hopefully see a victory in Washington (although the numbers are a little too close for me to be totally satisfied), and there was also victory in Kalmazoo, MI. Houston will (hopefully) have a lesbian mayor, as will Chapel Hill, NC, and Detroit elected an openly gay city council president. Despite the loss in Maine, progress continues to occur.

Now that the election is over, I urge you to continue to move forward and fight for the passage of ENDA, which will secure federal employment protections for LGBT people. If it passes (which it can), it will be an incredible sign of progress and hope. Contact your congressperson to urge them to support it.

Read Full Post »

My utter hatred for insurance companies has been increasing recently for many reasons both personal and political, but the information I found out today takes my hatred to a totally new level. Apparently some insurance companies consider domestic violence a pre-existing condition and use it to deny coverage.

Under the cold logic of the insurance industry, it makes perfect sense: If you are in a marriage with someone who has beaten you in the past, you’re more likely to get beaten again than the average person and are therefore more expensive to insure.

This may be the most disgusting thing I have ever heard. The fact that an insurance company could deny health care to a woman who has been severely abused is a horrifically cruel punishment. It also makes me wonder if we can truly say that women’s rights have been advanced if there are 8 states that still allow this practice.

Click here to tell Congress that this is revolting and unacceptable.

Read Full Post »