Anti-Choice Senator: No Talking about Abortion on the Internet
Stop me if you've heard this one: an anti-choice politician, instead of focusing on creating jobs, sticks an attack on women's freedom and privacy onto an unrelated piece of legislation.
Seems to be a theme, huh?
Anti-choice Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) just filed an anti-choice amendment to a bill related to agriculture, transportation, housing, and other programs. The DeMint amendment could bar discussion of abortion over the Internet and through videoconferencing, even if a woman's health is at risk and if this kind of communication with her doctor is her best option to receive care.
Under this amendment, women would need a separate, segregated Internet just for talking about abortion care with their doctors.
Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, called Sen. DeMint's actions outrageous:
What about a woman experiencing a high-risk pregnancy who is talking with her doctor through video conferencing? Under Sen. DeMint's extreme plan, if abortion came up in that doctor-patient conversation, the woman and her physician would have to go to a separate communications system. He's calling for an abortion-only version of Skype. It is impractical, ridiculous, and, most importantly, bad for women in rural or remote areas who would not be able to discuss the full set of options with their doctor.
Last week, the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R.358, the "Let Women Die" bill. The House has now voted on more anti-choice measures this year than in any year since 2000.
And now, anti-choice senators are saying, "Me, too!"
The U.S. Senate could vote on the DeMint amendment as early as today. And even though we have strong pro-choice leaders in the Senate, only 40 out of the 100 senators are fully pro-choice.
Stand up today: call your senators at 202-421-3121 and tell them to oppose the DeMint amendment (#768) to H.R.2112.
It's an important reminder that pro-choice Americans must always be vigilant in standing up for our values of freedom and privacy.
Tags| Share this post: | Tweet |  |
 |
 |
 |
 |
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Anti-Choice Senator: No Talking about Abortion on the Internet.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.blogforchoice.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/3869
Search the Blog
I'm continually disappointed in our governing body.
Why Can't I find the actual language he's using from any of these links? I think that would be highly relevant to this article yet it is excluded.
Neither can I.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r112%3A1%3A.%2Ftemp%2F%7Er112KNnvpI%3Ae38355:#
Thanks for your questions.
Last June, the House adopted Rep. Steve King's (R-Iowa) amendment to an agriculture bill that mirrors the amendment Sen. DeMint filed to the Senate bill.
Here's a story from The Iowa Independent that describes how anti-choice politicians use bills that appear unrelated to choice to move their agenda.
My friends, we MUST have a link to this bill or amendment, so we can forward it to our network for action. Without a link, this is just another internet rumor. *I* trust you but if you want to be effective, you must provide a link permitting independent verification! There is a *huge* population of 1st-Amendment-absolutists who would be NARAL's natural allies on this *if* you can point us to DeMint's amendment.
This doesn't pass the constitutional sniff test on 1st amendment rights.
really no different than the pending "no talking about doing weed in Amsterdam" federal felony law now in the works.
Freedom, ain't it grand?
Flyover Jeebusland Country should just secede, and leave intelligent people alone.
Are you absolutely sure about the Bill and Amendment Number? This is what I got out of Thomas for HR 2112, SAmdt 768 submitted by DeMint:
SA 768. Mr. DeMINT submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill H.R. 2112, making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2012, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may be used for mifepristone, commonly known as RU-486.
Why don't you link to the bill so people can actually read the bill for themselves?
Can you please clarify why this is what the CR has for senate amendment (SA) 768:
SA 768. Mr. DeMINT submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill H.R. 2112, making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2012, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may be used for mifepristone, commonly known as RU-486.
This is a ridiculous misrepresentation of the amendment. It would in no way, shape, or form "bar discussion of abortion over the Internet." It only addresses FUNDING of a particular program, which was already part of the bill (so accusations that this amendment was "slipped in" to an unrelated bill are unfounded). As far as I can tell (few if any sources have bothered to reproduce or link to the actual text), the amendment simply says that funds for that specific program cannot be used in prescribing RU-486.
People can still talk on the Internet about abortion as much as they want. This amendment simply addresses federal funding for a particular program.
You're welcome to disagree with it, but such scare-mongering and inaccurate reporting makes you look bad. Unfortunately people are now repeating this misinformation all over the Internet. If you have any journalistic integrity, I think you a significant correction to this post is called for.
Just some further info for those who are curious:
DeMint's amendment is SA 768 to HR 2112. It reads, in full:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may be used for mifepristone, commonly known as RU-486.
(You can find this text in the Congressional Record page S6610)
This is based on Iowa Rep. John King's House amendment, H.AMDT.463 (A045).
You can find a transcript of King's description of the amendment in the Congressional Record pages H4268-H4269.
Basically, the background is that there's a $15 million dollar line item for telemedicine in this bill. In the past, apparently, similar grants have been used to provide telemedicine to prescribe RU-486. King didn't like this so he proposed his amendment.
So, were you unaware of this? Or did you know and decide to completely misrepresent this legislation to your readers?