11
07

CALL NOW - Women's Rights and Lives Are on The Line

by Erin Matson, NOW Action Vice President

TAKE ACTION:
Please call your Representative RIGHT AWAY and tell her or him to vote NO on the anti-abortion, anti-woman Stupak Amendment. Then forward this message to everyone you know who supports women’s rights!

Here’s what’s going on:

The House is debating the health reform bill as I write, and a final vote will be later this evening. There will be only TWO amendments allowed before the final vote:

The Republican alternative to the bill that’s on the floor
The Stupak, Ellsworth, Pitts, Smith (NJ), Kaptur and Dahlkemper amendment that would drastically restrict women’s access to legal abortion services.

Every NOW member and all women’s rights supporters should call their Representatives immediately with a short message: I am a constituent / donor / voter /supporter of (name your congressperson) and I’m calling to urge you to please vote AGAINST the upcoming Stupak amendment. This amendment is a direct effort to curtail women’s access to reproductive health care. Your vote today will determine my vote next November!

The general number, 202-225-3121 is jammed, so go here to find the direct line to your Member: http://www.capwiz.com/now/dbq/officials/. If the Washington, DC office is busy, find your congressperson’s district office number at this same link.

According to the American Public Health Association, “The Stupak amendment would prohibit the ‘public option’ created in the legislation from covering abortion services. In addition, the amendment would prohibit any individual receiving subsidies for their insurance premiums from purchasing a plan that offers abortion services. The amendment could significantly impact lower and middle-income women who are not able to afford to purchase separate supplemental coverage for abortion services.”

At the Healthcare for America Now blog ( http://blog.healthcareforamericanow.org/2009/11/07/call-today-to-defeat-the-stupak-anti-abortion-amendment/ ), there is a list of Members who need phone calls the most. If your Representative is on this list, call their DC and/or district offices and hit redial until you get through:

Leans pro-choice but needs shoring up:

Arcuri (D, NY-24) - 202-225-3665
Bean (D, IL-08) - (202) 225-3711
Bishop, S. (D, GA-02) - (202) 225-2203
Boswell (D, IA-03) - (202) 225-3806
Butterfield (D, NC-01) - (202) 225-3101
Cardoza (D, CA-18) - (202) 225-6131
Chandler (D, KY-06) - (202) 225-4706
Cooper (D, TN-05) - 202-225-4311
Costa (D, CA-20) - 202-225-3341
Doyle (D, PA-14) - 202-225-2135
Edwards, C. (D, TX-17) - 202-225-6105
Etheridge (D, NC-02) - (202) 225-4531
Gordon (D, TN-06) - (202) 225-4231
Kratovil (D, MD-01) - (202) 225-5311
Langevin (D, RI-02) - (202) 225-2735
McMahon (D, NY-13) - (202) 225-3371
Michaud (D, ME-02) - 202-225-6306
Minnick (D, ID-01) - (202) 225-6611
Neal (D, MA-02) - (202) 225-5601
Nye (D, VA-02) - (202) 225-4215
Obey (D, WI-07) - (202) 225-3365
Owens (D, NY-23) - (202) 225-4611
Ruppersberger (D, MD-02) - 202-225-3061
Ryan, T. (D, OH-17) - 202-225-5261
Salazar (D, CO-03) - 202-225-4761
Space (D, OH-18) - (202) 225-6265

Unknown:

Biggert (R, IL-13) - 202-225-3515
Carney (D, PA-10) - (202) 225-3731
Castle (R, DE-AL) - 202.225.4165
Cuellar (D, TX-28) - 202-225-1640
Davis, A. (D, AL-07) - (202) 225-2665
Dent (R, PA-15) - 202-225-6411
Ellsworth (D, IN-08) - (202) 225-4636
Frelinghuysen (R, NJ-11) - (202) 225-5034
Kirk (R, IL-10) - 202-225-4835
Lynch (D, MA-09) - 202-225-8273
Pomeroy (D, ND-AL) - (202) 225-2611
Snyder (D, AR-02) - (202) 225-2506
Tanner (D, TN-08) - (202) 225-4714
Visclosky (D, IN-01) - (202) 225-2461

Leaning anti-choice:

Altmire (D, PA-04) - 202-225-2565
Barrow (D, GA-12) - (202) 225-2823
Berry (D, AR-01) - (202) 225-4076
Boccieri (D, OH-16) - (202) 225-3876
Bright (D, AL-02) - (202) 225-2901
Capito (R, WV-02) - 202.225.2711
Donnelly (D, IN-02) - (202) 225-3915
Hill (D, IN-09) - (202) 225-5315
Jenkins (R, KS-02) - (202) 225-6601
Kildee (D, MI-05) - 202-225-3611
Lance (R, NJ-07) - (202) 225-5361
Lee, C. (R, NY-26) - (202) 225-5265
Matheson (D, UT-02) - (202) 225-3011
Mollohan (D, WV-01) - (202) 225-4172
Ortiz (D, TX-27) - (202) 225-7742
Paulsen (R, MN-03) - (202) 225-2871
Perriello (D, VA-05) - (202) 225-4711
Rahall (D, WV-03) - (202) 225-3452
Ross (D, AR-04) - (202) 225-3772
Spratt (D, SC-05) - (202) 225-5501
Wilson, C. (D, OH-06) - (202) 225-5705

13 comments » Register or log in to leave a comment. [Log in] [Register...]

Comment from: jem11701 [Member] Email
We must boycott the advertisers of the Miss America pageant if they do not drop Rush Limbaugh as a panel judge!!
If the NFL can do it, so can NOW!!!



Read this editorial from the Baltimore Sun, Oct 9.


Rush Limbaugh has once again found himself the subject of national attention, this time for his failed bid to become a part owner of the National Football League's St. Louis Rams. After the world was reminded of Mr. Limbaugh's history of racially charged commentary, the group trying to buy the team rightly realized that Mr. Limbaugh's involvement in the effort could cripple their chances. Rush was dropped - which is exactly how he should be treated by the Miss America Pageant.

Mr. Limbaugh is slated to be a Miss America judge in 2010, in spite of the deep-seated misogyny that he has broadcast nationwide throughout his career. The pageant presents itself as "one of the nation's leading achievement programs and the world's largest provider of scholarship assistance for young women" and is adamant that its contestants compete on far more than their appearance.

So why would the pageant want to compromise this image by approving a judge with a record like Mr. Limbaugh's? This is the man who famously declared that his cat has "taught" him "more about women than anything my whole life" because his cat is "smart enough to know she can't feed herself" and gets "loved," "adoration," "petted," and "fed," without having "to do anything for it." He has speculated that women "would love to be hired as eye candy" and has claimed that "[w]omen still live longer than men because their lives are easier."

Mr. Limbaugh has ridiculed what he calls the "sexual harassment crowd," saying, "They're out there protesting what they actually wish would happen to them." He regularly calls feminists "femi-nazis" and says that "feminism was established so as to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream of society."

Mr. Limbaugh frequently laments the "chickification" of society, particularly in government and the media. In his world, female media figures (some of whom are former Miss America Pageant winners) are "infobabes" or "anchorettes"; female professors are "professorettes"; the cable network MSNBC is dubbed "PMS- NBC," and female Cabinet secretaries find their title changed to "Sexretary."

After seeing "a blonde, female FBI agent," Mr. Limbaugh complained that someone must be "trying to ram" political correctness "down our throats" because "a 5-foot woman could not play in the NFL; a 5-foot woman could not play in the NBA, but somehow she can be a police officer, a deputy, or a cop, and a lot of people think that this is a little crazy."

He has shared with listeners his "pet name" for the National Organization for Women (NOW): "National Association of Gals" (his acronym: "NAG"). When former Sen. John Edwards disclosed an extramarital affair, Mr. Limbaugh offered the following theory as to Edwards' "motivations": "[G]iven his wife is smarter than he is and probably nagging him a lot about doing this, and he found somebody that did something with her mouth other than talk." After House Speaker Nancy Pelosi became the country's first female speaker of the House, Mr. Limbaugh said: "Why, she can multitask. She can breastfeed, she can clip her toenails, she can direct the House." Limbaugh also thinks a great idea for population control would be to "simply put pictures of" Pelosi "in every cheap motel room." That picture, Limbaugh said, "will keep a lot of things down."

Perhaps no leading female figure has been a more frequent target of Mr. Limbaugh's sexist wrath than Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. Besides frequently warning of her "testicle lockbox," Mr. Limbaugh has said that Mrs. Clinton "reminds men of the worst characteristics of women they've encountered over their life: totally controlling, not soft and cuddly. Not sympathetic. Not patient. Not understanding. Demanding, domineering, Nurse Ratched kind of thing." He calls Mrs. Clinton "the most cheated-on woman in the world," describes her supporters as the "new castrati," and once said: "She sounds like a screeching ex-wife. … Men will know what I mean by this." He's repeatedly mocked her physical appearance, frequently referring to her as a man and several times claiming that she wasn't in the military because "they didn't have uniforms or boots big enough to fit that butt and those ankles."

Based on this abysmal record, it's hard to imagine what Miss America Pageant officials were thinking when they selected Mr. Limbaugh as a judge. His history of misogyny has no place in an organization that claims to focus on the advancement of women. If anything, Mr. Limbaugh represents the opposite of that cause.

Marcia Kuntz and Julie Millican are vice president and senior researcher, respectively, at Media Matters for America ( www.mediamatters.org), a progressive media watchdog, research and information center based in Washington. E-mail: mm-tips@mediamatters.org.
11/07/09 @ 18:04
Report Abuse

Comment from: kassandra [Member] Email
It seems good ol' HJarry Reid wants Stupak. I cannot BELIEVE we are going to have to fight this fight all over again!

I firmly believe this is the reason for the formation of the Christain right. And also, that this has nothing whatsoever to do with teh sacred fetus. This is all about keeping wimmin in their places, barefoot and pregnant.

I usually blog on Huff Po and you should have seen the cucharaches come out of the woodwork on this one! And nobody said a word about the sacred fetus it was all misogyny and hate towards wimmin. Even some wimmin.
I fought in the culture wars of the 70's and I'm willing to fight again...for once and for all. Because now it's not ok to be racist, but it's still just fine to be sexist.

I just wish younger wimmin hadn't dropped the ball. we must be vigilant about these things.
Stupak was sneaked in at the last minute before anyone had a chance to organize against it...clever, no?

This healthcare bill is NOT worth losing our rights over. And, it seems Obama is perfectly willing to throw wimmin under the bus. Wimmin who worked very hard to get him elected. This bill is just another giveaway/bailout for corporations. PAH!
11/10/09 @ 11:43
Report Abuse

Comment from: marykelly [Member] Email
Focus On The Family offers its employees a health plan through Principal Insurance that offers abortion services. How hypocritical can you be?
11/10/09 @ 15:02
Report Abuse

Comment from: feminista [Member] Email
Kassandra, how did younger women drop the ball. Younger women were, in fact, busy organizing on Saturday doing whatever possible on short notice to try to stop the Stupak amendment. We called and faxed congressional offices. We marched to the Capitol on Saturday (the Sister Song event in DC that day cancelled its activities and organized a demonstration on the Hill). And we got on e-mail, Twitter, and Facebook to tell everyone we knew to call, fax, e-mail Congress immediately. As well as to keep each other updated.

Women definitely got thrown under the bus on this one. Don't just point fingers at Obama. Nancy Pelosi let the Stupak amendment (the ONLY amendment allowed) come to a vote. We need to hold her just as accountable.

But I hope you won't fall prey to the lure of accusing younger feminists of dropping the ball. That's divisive. And we don't have time to point fingers at intangible groups. We have work to do.
11/10/09 @ 18:23
Report Abuse

Comment from: cabaret voltaire [Member] Email · http://www.wendymcelroy.com/news.php
What about the rights of the unborn child?

I'll never understand why feminists put their goals above that of a child.

Nicole Blackman on abortion:

"The only reason why we're alive is because someone decided to let us live."


11/11/09 @ 07:06
Report Abuse

Comment from: sagefemmecollective [Member] Email
Sage-femme Collective is licensing the Natural Liberty book for free download.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/22321349/Natural-Liberty-Rediscovering-Self-Induced-Abortion-Methods

Sage-femme Collective seeks to encourage discussion and educate on the dangers of restricting abortion access. We seek to provide information on the various historical methods of self-induced abortion, so the fundamental inherent right to abortion can be deeply appreciated. Our book, Natural Liberty, is also a detailed and well-cited resource regarding the safest methods of self-induced abortion. Natural Liberty focuses on providing women with the specifics regarding techniques and methods of self-induced abortion. With knowledge and education, women have shown that together we can provide safe abortion services when abortion services are restricted. Natural Liberty is a detailed resource that helps to provide the knowledge and education for women to secure safe termination of an unwanted pregnancy if the political climate does not recognize a woman's right to a safe abortion.
11/11/09 @ 12:28
Report Abuse

Comment from: raincrow [Member] Email
Sorry, cabaret voltaire
As harsh as it may sound to some, the unborn child's rights begin as soon as it can live independent of my uterus. Period. Of course a government and/or a medical establishment (or lack thereof) and/or poverty can deny me this right and force me to use my body to grow another human being against my will. But that does not diminish my right, merely my ability to secure it.

I'll never understand the people who would force me to bear a child against my will, seemingly only because I am born equipped with a uterus.

We do not force men and women to donate blood or blood products even to others who desperately need it. We do not compel people to temporarily "loan" a kidney to someone dying of kidney disease (not even just for 9 months) until a permanent transplant organ becomes available to that person. We do not force people to donate skin, corneas, bone marrow, bone tissue, cartilage, ova, sperm, etc. Why would we force a woman to use her body to grow another human being if she does not wish to use her body -- and her heart and soul -- for that purpose??

To me, abortion, however sad an expedient it might be, is far less monstrous than forcing a woman through pregnancy against her will.
11/11/09 @ 19:14
Report Abuse

Comment from: thorn [Member] Email
@raincrow, An abortion is not the only way to make sure you don't have kids. It is not a form of birth control. The only instance where a woman could possibly have a child against her will is if she was raped.

Furthermore, why should women be given the privilege of opting out of being a parent? If a man doesn't want to be a father, his only options are abstinence or a vasectomy. I'll never understand the people who would force me to support a child against my will, seemingly only because I am born with testes.

I'm not arguing that abortions should be illegal, I'm very pro-choice, just the logic you use to defend that right.

I believe that men should have reproductive rights as well. As it stands, as soon as a man gets a woman pregnant, his choices and rights end.
11/11/09 @ 21:31
Report Abuse

Comment from: cabaret voltaire [Member] Email · http://www.wendymcelroy.com/news.php
@ raincrow:





raincrow writes:

"We do not force people to donate skin, corneas, bone marrow, bone tissue, cartilage, ova, sperm, etc."


True, we don't force people to donate skin, instead, my foreskin was ripped off without consent.

11/12/09 @ 10:28
Report Abuse

Comment from: cabaret voltaire [Member] Email · http://www.wendymcelroy.com/news.php
Truth be told, I'm actually pro choice. What some random woman up the road does is none of my business. However, if my girlfriend became pregnant, I'd firmly become pro life. Obviously, I couldn't make her keep the baby, but as soon as she entered the abortion clinic, I'd end the relationship. That's about the extent of a man's choice as it relates to abortion.
11/12/09 @ 10:32
Report Abuse

Comment from: cabaret voltaire [Member] Email · http://www.wendymcelroy.com/news.php
I just had another thought:

Whats the feminist position on gender selection? Thousands of female fetuses in China and India are aborted because many would rather have a son.


Here's a dirty little secret. Gender selection also occurs in the US.
11/12/09 @ 10:43
Report Abuse

Comment from: thorn [Member] Email
@cabaret voltaire, Your right, gender selection does happen in the US. It happened with my daughter. If she had been a boy, my ex would have gotten an abortion. I've never encountered a worse case of misandry in my life.
11/12/09 @ 12:33
Report Abuse

Comment from: lifestream52 [Member] Email
The current legislation which was approved by the house violates Roe v Wade. This issue must be taken to court to protect a woman's right to chose. This legislation also is unconstitutional as it is a dictate of ideology and religious doctirine. Again, this issue must be taken to court. Signing petitions is not enough and will not prevent the legislation from being passed in the senate. Go to court and protect our rights.
11/17/09 @ 19:52
Report Abuse

Comments are not allowed from anonymous visitors.