stupak

The progressive community is at each other's throats over the health care bill: some say kill it and start over, others say pass it now and fix it later. Without a public option, Medicare buy-in, or other cost-controlling measures, and with Stupak and Nelson holding women's rights for ransom, is there anything good left in this bill?

On December 2, 2009, activists from NARAL Pro-Choice New York, Planned Parenthood, the New York Civil Liberties Union, and the National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health headed to Washington, D.C., for a day of lobbying against the Stupak amendment to the health care bill, which drastically sets back women's access to safe and legal abortion.

Senator Bernie Sanders has been a leader in Congress in the movement for single-payer health care, or Medicare for all, but he's also working with the Senate leadership to ensure that the bill that does pass, while it won't be single-payer, will contain more positive steps than negative ones. In this segment from Brave New Films, Sanders lays out the good (more coverage, no preexisting conditions), the bad (proposed tax on existing benefits), and the ugly (the Stupak amendment) in the current House and Senate plans.

"If women are denied a chance to develop their full human potential, including their potential to lead healthier and at least somewhat happier lives, is society as a whole really healthy?" It's not my question -- it's the question raised by Dr. Margaret Chan, Director General of the World Health Organization which just finished up its first study of women's health. The verdict? Societies are still failing women. While women provide the bulk of health care, they rarely receive the care they need. Sound familiar?