Text of e-mail sent today to the U.S. Senators of the state in which I reside; see my previous post for more background.  I'm walking the talk.  If you would like to do the same, you'll find your Senators' addresses, both snail mail and e-mail, at this site: http://www.senate.gov/contacting/index.cfm

====

October 14, 2002

 

The Honorable Debbie Stabenow
702 Hart Senate Office Building
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510

mailto:senator@stabenow.senate.gov

 

The Honorable Carl Levin
269 Russell Senate Office Building
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510
mailto:senator@levin.senate.gov

 

RE:  S.724. -- Mothers and Newborns Health Insurance Act of 2001

Dear Senators:

 

I am writing to you to express my concern and distress regarding the above bill now before the U.S. Senate as well as a recent ruling by the U. S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

 

1)       HHS’ recent departmental ruling that ''unborn children,'' from the moment of conception, are eligible for health care under the State Children's Health Insurance Program, is an attempt to grant rights under both federal and state laws to all unborn fetuses, even those fetuses which are not viable.  At the same time, there is no apparent attempt to maintain the eligible pregnant woman’s rights at a superior level to the fetus’ rights to health care, although the fetus is clearly subordinate to the pregnant woman until viable or born.

 

2)       Revision of Bill S.724 to grant coverage explicitly to the fetus for coverage and not explicitly to a pregnant woman eligible for Medicaid by virtue of financial status is a denial of a pregnant woman’s equal or greater rights under the law.  In particular, a woman of majority, eligible to vote, would not be specifically granted this federally-funded health care; however, her unborn and possibly unviable fetus would specifically be granted that right.

 

3)       Because Bill S.724 relies on each individual state to grant and appropriate health care as it sees fit to either the pregnant woman or her fetus, an eligible pregnant woman is not assured access to the same rights under the law across the United States.

 

4)       Under Public Law 103-3, The Family Medical Leave Act, pregnancy itself may be recognized as a temporary disability or as a serious health condition; revision to Bill S.724 to grant coverage explicitly to a fetus and not explicitly to the pregnant woman is in contradiction to this previous recognition.  This same contradiction may also apply under Public Law 101-2336, Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (as revised), if said Law provides protection to those with temporary disabilities and/or short-term serious health conditions.

 

For these reasons I cannot support any modification to or final text of Bill S.724 which:

 

1)       does not explicitly grant health care coverage to the eligible pregnant woman;

 

2)       does not ensure an eligible pregnant woman’s right to equitable health care coverage under this bill anywhere and every where in the U.S.;

 

3)       contradicts the status of pregnancy under any other federal Public Law.

 

Lastly, I protest the HHS’ ruling change recent departmental ruling that ''unborn children,'' from the moment of conception, are eligible for health care under the State Children's Health Insurance Program as a veiled attempt to thwart a woman’s right to choose by setting precedent through the granting of rights to a fetus.

 

Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions regarding this letter.

 

Sincerely,

 

[s] my legal name here

 

  4:09:57 PM    comment []

It’s a Monday, sorry to remind you.  I should save this for another day, rather than start the week with a RANT.  On the other hand, I’m not one to let stuff fester.  Let’s get it out on the table, get it out of the way, shall we?

 

This article peeves me off in a HUGE way.  It’s grounds for a lawsuit, waiting to happen.  Why aren’t pregnant women (particularly those of voting age, of majority) accorded equal rights under the law by HHS?  Their fetuses are accorded MORE rights than their mothers.  Since when does a fetus which can’t pay taxes, can’t vote, can’t go anywhere unescorted, under the care and control of another adult human, have any MORE rights than the escort, carrier, incubator has?  Why should it be assumed that because the fetus gets federally funded health care, the mother-to-be will get all the health care she needs?

 

That’s just it:  the Bush Administration has exposed itself once again for what it is – a group of rich misogynists who want to move all women to the back of the bus, treat them as spawn-carriers and nothing more. You have to be able to PAY to move to the front, and there aren’t any guarantees even when you can pay.

 

What if a pregnant woman, one who may yet choose not to carry to term or who has a high-risk pregnancy, has a persistent yeast infection?  She can’t get treatment since it’s not a problem to her fetus, can she?  I guess this must just be an annoying personal inconvenience and treatment just a luxury to any poor woman in this country.  That means: Get your financially-challenged, morning-sick butt back to your workfare job and if you’re itching to the point of squirming and tears, tough rocks, b*tch.

 

It’s bad enough that the radical right-wing Bible-thumping Right-to-Lifers can’t admit their push for their own initiatives has actually resulted in MORE abortions for the at-risk group in the population.  More poor women in the U.S. have abortions now because they can obtain no support if they have these children.  Net-net, there are fewer abortions – people who are better off either get better birth control, say no more often or keep their babies.  But poor women – already suffering for a lack of education, reduced access to birth control, financially challenged for options – have no choice but to abort in order to keep their shelters, their foods, their kids.

 

Maybe that’s the real agenda: genocide of those individuals who are too poor and too voiceless to be so-called “productive members” of this society.  We’ll just import the labor we need in the future, or export the jobs.  Another shining example of the shallowness of thinking that visits many of the right-wing in this country; they simply are unable to see there’s a price for everything, there’s an equal reaction to every action.

 

What an incredible bunch of crap.   All you poor Iraqi women, watch out, you may actually fair better now than under this new batch of American Taliban.  Imagine if these fat, rich white American guys in office get a hold of your health care system during an occupation.

 

P.S.   Save your negative comments if you’re a man and well-off enough to get your own health care.  You have NO clue what you’re talking about.  Try reading Francis Fukuyama’s The Great Disruption and figure it out.  The price of women’s social freedoms in this country came at their own expense and the expense of their children, not at yours.  Your male rights have been guaranteed to you in writing since the inception of this country, and the male leaders you’ve chosen are certainly not going to change them at risk to their own rights.

 

  8:57:36 AM    comment []