Connie Saltonstall stepped up to run against Bart Stupak because he was willing to vote no on health insurance reform unless the Catholic bishops approved of the bill. In her own words:
Mr. Stupak’s dogmatic insistence on inserting his own religious views into the legislative debate and threatening to deprive his constituents of needed healthcare reform has eroded people’s trust in him. Throughout this debate there is the sense that our Congressman has let us down. It appears he has been more interested in promoting his own personal agenda than in representing the people of Michigan’s First District.
Bart Stupak led the effort to force women to sacrifice their access to a legal and constitutionally-protected procedure because of his personal religious beliefs. He should pay a price for that.
Losing the Democratic primary to Connie Saltonstall is the price I have in mind.
The health insurance bill, with the Nelson language, can be expected to have a significant impact on the ability of women to access abortion services. If you think that conclusion is overly dramatic, I invite you to read this excellent summation by debcoop at OpenLeft in Nelson Goes Beyond Hyde, Decimates Abortion Coverage Almost as Fast as Stupak.
The political point of highlighting abortion coverage is meant to create an arena for anti-choice forces in the state to happily conduct campaigns to opt out of coverage. That was one of the main purposes of the Nelson Amendment. It provides more fodder for organizing by anti-choice forces. Those folks should thank Sen. Nelson.
Increasing access to health care for women through this bill will not increase access to abortion for women. It does make it nearly a certainty that it will eliminate abortion coverage. The Nelson amendment is designed to decrease it and without changes it will succeed. ...
Lastly it is insurance industry practice to limit their plan template for efficiency purposes, to maximize profits by cutting administrative costs. And this will act to limit their offerings down to plans that do not have abortion.
She points to the analysisof researchers at George Washington University School of Public Health, who have written several papers as the legislation went from the House to the Senate.
Taken together, the provisions of the amendment can be expected to have a significant impact on the ability or willingness of insurance issuers to offer Exchange products that cover a full range of medically indicated abortions. Furthermore, as with insurance laws generally, and for the reasons stated in our earlier analysis, the amendment could be anticipated to have considerable spillover effects. This is because companies that issue insurance products (or administered products in the case of sales to self-insured plans) obviously desire to sell these products in as many markets as possible. If one purchaser market places significant restrictions on one or more aspects of product design, it is likely that sellers will attempt to design their products to a common denominator, so that the product can be sold across all markets in which the company desires to do business. This is particularly true with modern health insurance coverage products, where the concern is not only the coverage but the provider network through which coverage will be obtained. Negotiating the elements of such a product is extremely difficult, and it is just as difficult to have to explain to providers that some of their patients will be insured for certain medical procedures while others will not.
Let us not kid ourselves that any part of the legislation of the White House Executive Order preserves the status quo, as was promised by our leaders. Those promises were not that important, as it turns out.
The White House's press release proudly admits that it goes further in terms of "safeguards". "Safeguards" for making sure that Nelson is so effective that women will have next to no access to abortion coverage in insurance. A very odd choice of words to be coming from a supposedly pro-choice President. Safeguarding anti-choice measures instead of safeguarding women's legal and moral right to an abortion.
If we want to be taken seriously over here on the left side of the spectrum, we need to demonstrate that we are serious. I am sure there will be comments to the effect that Stupak is the best we can do in the everlovin' UP. I don't buy it. And even if true, I would be willing to have him be one of the losers this year, (and there will be some Democratic losers), if having his antlers over the mantel will help serve as an example to others who might be tempted to risk the wrath of women in the Democratic Party. You know, the Democratic Party that has this in its platform:
The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman's right to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay, and we oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.
Stupak diaries filled up the list for a while, but now he is sinking back to the backbench obscurity he has enjoyed for so long, safe in the arms of his Family. That cannot be allowed. You can help Connie Saltonstall by going to ActBlue.
And if you want to double the gesture, go help Lois Herr, who is running against Pitts of the Stupak-Pitts Amendment, also a Family Guy.