Iron Out My Congresswoman

The sum of Congresswoman Laura Richardson's response to a proLife appeal is sadly lacking in sanity, truth and substance.

[Hums tune to TheGrinch...]  "Her heart is a greasy black peel..."

KUDOS to Joe Pitts.

Thank you for contacting me about the Protect Life Act.  I appreciate the opportunity to hear your thoughts on this issue. As you may be aware, Congressman Joseph Pitts introduced H.R. 358, the Protect Life Act on January 20, 2011.  The Protect Life Act imposes an unprecedented limitation on abortion coverage and takes extreme measures to prevent women from accessing safe and legal abortion services. This legislation will prevent women from purchasing private insurance coverage for abortion [OH really!?] while exempting hospitals from treating women in need of emergency abortion care.  The Affordable Care Act already contains strict safeguards [strict?!] at multiple levels to prevent federal funds from being used to pay for abortion services beyond those in cases of rape, incest or where the life of woman would be in grave and eminent danger. But the Protect Life Act wants to go further.  The Protect Life Act will make it virtually impossible for insurance companies in state health-insurance exchanges to offer abortion coverage, including those paying for coverage entirely with private dollars. The bill also prohibits all individuals who receive federal subsidies from purchasing a plan that includes abortion coverage, as well as barring insurance plans from covering abortion if they include even one individual who receives a subsidy.  [Why is it wrong to tell a woman to pay for her own death deed? The taxpayer is supposed to underwrite her child's demise?] Today, nearly 87% of private employer-sponsored insurance offer plans which include abortion coverage. This bill would deter insurance companies from offering plans with such options and would likely force millions of women to drop the coverage they currently have. [How's that?] Currently, all hospitals in America that receive Medicare or Medicaid funding are bound by a 1986 law known as the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA), to provide emergency care to all patients, regardless of the circumstance. Under EMTALA, if a woman required an emergency abortion to save her life and she was a patient at an anti-abortion hospital or being treated by a health care provider against abortion on religious or moral grounds, the hospital would be forced to either perform the abortion or transfer the patient.  [Transfer away! We've allowed the draconian Feds to tell Catholic hospitals they have no right to obey their conscience!?] The Affordable Care Act leaves laws that protect medical providers [not according to the above paragraph!] who have religious or moral objections to abortion services intact. But the Protect Life Act goes even further by not requiring medical providers who are not willing to terminate a pregnancy to either perform the abortion or facilitate a transfer. This bill would override the requirement that emergency room doctors provide emergency care to patients and would essentially allow a hospital to let a pregnant woman die rather than perform a life-saving procedure [Doc's don't consider an ectopic pregnancy treatment to be an elective abortion, my dear]. The Protect Life Act prohibits the Affordable Care Act from ensuring access to abortion [child killing] services. This broad language could prevent states and state-based health insurance exchanges from ensuring that women get information about the health care coverage options available to them. It should be an ethical healthcare provision that patients be presented with accurate and complete information about their medical options in order to make the best decisions regarding their health care [Here!Here! That would include requisite ultrasounds showing the woman how alive her child is, yes?!]. This bill denies women that fundamental right [to an ultrasound!?]. In addition, a subtle provision of the Protect Life Act could allow insurers to refuse to offer important services that are part of the minimum standards for health coverage such as services and supplies related to contraception, infertility and sexually transmitted diseases. [OnceUponAtime in the UNITED STATES of America, private companies weren't forced by the government to compromise their principles.] This extreme anti-choice bill is about protecting [did you mean 'removing' ?] the reproductive rights of Americans in our country. A woman's right to choose [choose to do what? OH. Right. "Choose" to kill her unborn child...] what is best for themselves and their families is a constitutionally protected right [Not for long, my friend The Supers who voted for Roe/Carhart/Doe/Casey are soon to be pitied, prayed for and pilloried.]. Eliminating access to legal abortions denies women the right to make their own health decisions in accordance with their religious and moral beliefs and as a result, infringes on their equal rights. When it comes to attacking women's freedom and privacy, this legislation knows no bounds. It is an extreme attack against women's reproductive right and undermines women's access to quality healthcare.  [again, what part of the Constitution instructs us to pay for the mistakes of lied-to women? And what part of High School English did you sleep through, rendering the above paragraph permissible?] On October 13, 2011, the Protect Life Act passed the House by a vote of 251-172. I voted against H.R. 358 because this bill is not only unconstitutional, but it is dangerous. H.R. 358 now awaits consideration in the Senate. It is a fundamental right [RESPONSIBILITY] of every woman to manage her own fertility [You can say that again! WHY are all these children sleeping around?] and we must continue to condemn bills [and Supreme Court Edicts] that threaten that right [ROE was such an EDICT]. In a time of such tough economic instability, we should be concentrated on creating jobs and stabilizing the economy, not advancing extreme legislation that is nothing less than the most comprehensive and radical assault of women's health [freedom to live irresponsibly] in our lifetime.  Again, thank you for taking the time to contact me about this issue.  As your Congresswoman, I hope that you will continue to inform me of your opinions so that I can best represent you in the future.  Sincerely, Laura A. Richardson Member of Congress