Thursday, November 12, 2009

Why the Stupak Amendment to the Healthcare Reform Bill Is Unconstitutional

Why the Stupak Amendment to the Healthcare Reform Bill Is Unconstitutional

Why the Stupak Amendment to the Healthcare Reform Bill Is Unconstitutional

by Marci A. Hamilton Thursday, November 12, 2009

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hamilton/20091112.html

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops registered a major victory this week, when it succeeded in pressuring members of the House to include in the healthcare reform bill the so-called "Stupak Amendment." The Amendment is a provision that carves out new territory for those organizations and persons who oppose abortion -- virtually all of whom are religiously-motivated. It does so by forbidding federal funds from being applied to abortions in any instance, including when those funds are being used to subsidize the purchase by low- or middle-income individuals of private insurance on the open market. Under the Stupak Amendment, federal funds cannot be used to pay for "any part" of an insurance plan that would fund abortions.

Before the Stupak Amendment was added, the bill had already included a compromise provision that grandfathered in the approach taken by a prior federal law that sharply restricts funding for abortions. That law, known as the Hyde Amendment, has forbidden federal spending by Medicaid on non-therapeutic abortions since 1976. There have been times in recent history when no abortions could be federally-funded, but at this point a few circumstances permit federal funding, including a pregnancy deriving from incest or rape, or a threat to the life of the pregnant woman. Despite its burden on women's rights, the Hyde Amendment has been upheld in a series of Supreme Court cases, including Maher v. Roe.

The Health Care Reform Act in the House had included a compromise provision that recognized the Hyde Amendment principle, but did not extend the prohibition to the funding of abortions through private insurance plans. But the addition of the Stupak Amendment changed all that when it extended the ban on funding for abortions to private insurance plans, thus creating a world in which the vast majority of plans are unlikely to cover abortion and in which almost all women will have no choice but to pay for abortions out of pocket. This is a remarkable attempt to overreach into the private sphere, and to force all Americans' healthcare plans to reflect the religious beliefs of one subset of Americans.

At this point, it appears unlikely that the Stupak Amendment will survive the healthcare reform battles in the Senate. President Obama quickly criticized it and Senator Boxer produced a list of 40 Senators who would not vote for healthcare reform with such onerous restrictions on women. But the anti-abortion lobbyists have shown their hand: They fully intend to use the federalization of healthcare to further their religious agenda. Therefore, this is unlikely to be the last we hear of the Amendment, even if it does not survive the Senate this time around.

Although many have attacked the Amendment as a policy matter, the constitutional arguments against have been underplayed. That is a shame, because under any reasonable reading of the Constitution, the Stupak Amendment is unconstitutional: Indeed, it violates three different constitutional principles.

How the Stupak Amendment Violates The Establishment Clause

First, the Amendment violates the Constitution's separation of church and state. The anti-abortion movement is plainly religious in motivation, and its lobbyists and spokespersons represent religious groups, as is illustrated by the fact that the most visible lobbyists in the Stupak Amendment's favor have been the Catholic Bishops. This is a brazen and frank attempt to impose a minority's religious worldview on the entirety of American healthcare. (A majority of Americans have favored a woman's right to choose for many years.) There is no secular purpose for the extension of the Hyde Amendment to all private health insurance plans as well. Accordingly, whatever secular purpose might be devised by those trying to defend the Stupak Amendment in court would be a sham purpose, intended to cover the frankly religious pandering the Amendment represents.

One of the clearest Establishment Clause principles is that the government may not impose a certain group's religious beliefs on those with different beliefs. The principle was articulated by the framer of the First Amendment, James Madison, in his important work "Memorial and Remonstrance," and it has been a mainstay of Establishment Clause doctrine. The Stupak Amendment violates this principle by imposing on the entire country a religious worldview that millions of Americans do not share. Moreover, this imposition of religious belief in the private sphere is in the context of healthcare, which every American needs.

How the Stupak Amendment Violates The Equal Protection Clause

The Stupak Amendment also discriminates on the basis of gender. Only women have to deal with the difficult question of abortion. Conspicuously missing are parallel exemptions barring funding for Viagra, or for, say, prostate surgery treatments, which can leave a man sterile and therefore operate as a birth control measure.

In addition, the exemption (the purpose of which is, again, obviously a religious one) does not serve any medical end, when serving medical ends is presumably the overall and most important purpose of the Health Care Reform Act. If health is truly to be served, then refusing to permit women to obtain even private health insurance that covers unplanned pregnancies, or pregnancies involving fetuses with fatal abnormalities, is not just discriminatory, but outright irrational.

How the Stupak Amendment Violates Substantive Due Process and Privacy Rights

Finally, the Stupak Amendment attempts to curtail -- across the board – the privacy rights that Roe v. Wade and its progeny secured for women. While other restrictions on abortion (including the Hyde Amendment) have been upheld by the Supreme Court, this is a far more expansive and repressive move against women, and it surely institutes an undue burden on a woman's right to obtain an abortion in consultation with her doctor. Although it is not clear precisely where the boundary line lies, it is very clear that this move transgresses any reasonable interpretation of the line the Court's cases draw.

The Stupak Amendment is also a harbinger of future constitutional violations, for it erects a slippery slope of top-down control of the spectrum of healthcare options. Abortion is surely just the first foray of the religious lobbyists' battle to take away Americans' right to choose among the full panoply of healthcare options. Attempts to control and halt the funding of both emergency and ordinary contraception surely are not far behind, for such attempts are part of the very same politico-religious platform that includes the Stupak Amendment. There is no more obvious violation of Griswold v. Connecticut – which established that laws prohibiting contraception are unconstitutional under the Court's right-of-privacy doctrine -- than for the federal government to reduce the affordability and, therefore, the availability of contraceptives for all Americans.

Conservative Senators who are pandering to religious interests (and/or simply imposing their own religious beliefs on the country) have been quoted recently as saying that they will not permit the Health Care Reform Act to backtrack on abortion issues. But backtracking is a misleading description of what the religious lobbyists are seeking. The truth, instead, is that the Stupak Amendment is a far reach beyond the already repressive Hyde Amendment, and that the advent of the federalization of healthcare is giving anti-abortion religious believers a one-stop lobbying opportunity on an issue that they were previously having to address on a state-by-state basis.

In sum, if the millions of Americans who believe in choice do not act quickly and in a concerted fashion, then we will have a historic rollback of women's liberties. That would be a true disaster, for not only is the Stupak Amendment repressive and regressive, but it also violates constitutional rights.

Marci Hamilton, a FindLaw columnist, is the Paul R. Verkuil Chair in Public Law at Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law and author of Justice Denied: What America Must Do to Protect Its Children (Cambridge 2008). A review of Justice Denied appeared on this site on June 25, 2008. Her previous book is God vs. the Gavel: Religion and the Rule of Law (Cambridge University Press 2005), now available in paperback. Her email ishamilton02@aol.com.

Salt Lake Oks Gay Rights Laws With Mormon Backing

By JENNIFER DOBNER Associated Press Writers

SALT LAKE CITY (AP) - The Mormon church for the first time has announced its support of gay rights legislation, an endorsement that helped gain unanimous approval for Salt Lake city laws banning discrimination against gays in housing and employment.

The Utah-based church's support ahead of Tuesday night's vote came despite its steadfast opposition to gay marriage, reflected in the high-profile role it played last year in California's Proposition 8 ballot measure that barred such unions.

"The church supports these ordinances because they are fair and reasonable and do not do violence to the institution of marriage," Michael Otterson, the director of public affairs for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints said.

Passage made Salt Lake City the first Utah community to prohibit bias based on sexual orientation or gender identity. Under the two new ordinances, it is illegal to fire someone from their job or evict someone from their residence because they are lesbian, bisexual, gay or transgender.

Utah lawmakers tend to quickly fall in line when the influential church makes a rare foray into legislative politics. So Tuesday's action could have broad effects in this highly conservative state where more than 80 percent of lawmakers and the governor are church members.

"What happened here tonight I do believe is a historic event," said Brandie Balken, director of the gay rights advocacy group Equality Utah. "I think it establishes that we can stand together on common ground that we don't have to agree on everything, but there are lot of things that we can work on and be allies."

But the church has pointed out an inherent dispute it has with the gay lifestyle. Mormonism considers traditional marriages central to God's plan. Gays are welcome in church, but must remain celibate to retain church callings and full membership.

Its strong support for Proposition 8 in California last year drew a sharp reaction from gay rights supporters nationwide, with many protesting outside temples that singled out Mormons as the key culprits in restricting the rights of gay couples.

Since then, however, Utah's gay community has sought to engage church leaders in quiet conversations to help foster better understanding, said Valerie Larabee, executive director of the Utah Pride Center.

"I thought this conversation would never come to be while I was here in Salt Lake City," said Larabee, adding that the discussions have "shifted her perspective of what's possible" and could foreshadow a different relationship between the two sides.

But addressing the council on Tuesday, Otterson said the endorsement is not a shift in the church's position on gay rights and stressed it "remains unequivocally committed to defending the bedrock foundation of marriage between a man and a woman."

Church support for the ordinances is due in part to the way the legislation was drafted to protect those rights. Exceptions in the legislation allow churches to maintain, without penalty, religious principles and religion-based codes of conduct or rules.

"In drafting these ordinances, the city has granted commonsense rights that should be available to everyone, while safeguarding the crucial rights of religious organizations," Otterson said Tuesday.

Previous Utah legislation that sought statewide protections for the gay community did not contain those exceptions.

And although this was the church's first public endorsement of specific legislation, it is not the first time the church has voiced support for some gay rights. In August 2008 the church issued a statement saying it supports gay rights related to hospitalization, medical care, employment, housing or probate as long as they "do not infringe on the integrity of the traditional family or the constitutional rights of churches."

Last year, church leaders were silent on a package of gay rights bills known as the Common Ground Initiative, dooming them from the start, despite the bill having the support of the most popular governor in state history, Jon Huntsman. Huntsman resigned this summer to become U.S. ambassador to China.

His successor, Gov. Gary Herbert, has repeatedly said it shouldn't be illegal to discriminate against someone for being gay. | 2009-11-11 14:32:04 GMT

Wonk Room » The House Health Care Bill Makes Progress For Gay Rights
By Igor
Gay rights advocates are hoping that certain LGBT-friendly provisions now part of the House
health care legislation “will be incorporated into the final bill” once the Senate and House bills are “reconciled in conference.” ...
Wonk Room - http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/

Veterans Die from Lack of Health Insurance | Mother Jones
By By James Ridgeway
From the web site of Physicians for a National
Health Plan comes this summary of a new study on American veterans' limited access to health care. These figures as an estimate, extrapolated from an earlier study--but if they are right,
MoJo Blogs and Articles - http://www.motherjones.com/rss/blogs_and_articles

RealClearPolitics - Don't Let Abortion Destroy Health Care Reform
The Michigan Democrat's measure -- passed 240-194, with 64 Democrats voting "yes" -- would prohibit abortion coverage in the public health care option and bar any federal subsidies for plans that included abortion purchased on the new ...
RealClearPolitics - Poll Averages - http://www.realclearpolitics.com/

HOW DID YOUR REPRESENTATIVE VOTE ON HEALTH CARE?

FIND OUT AND CONTACT THEM.

The House of Representatives has passed their historic health reform legislation 220-215, the first time in our country's history that a comprehensive health care bill has passed the House.

How did your Representative vote on the historic day? Did they side with you for quality, affordable health care for all? Or did they side with the insurance companies to deny you health reform. Find out:

ALABAMA

ALASKA

ARKANSAS

  • Berry, Marion, Arkansas, 1st - VOTED YES on the Bill, VOTED YES to take away abortion coverage from women who currently have it - Contact them now
  • Boozman, John, Arkansas, 3rd - VOTED NO on the Bill - Contact them now
  • Ross, Mike, Arkansas, 4th - VOTED NO on the Bill - Contact them now
  • Snyder, Vic, Arkansas 2nd - VOTED YES on the Bill, VOTED YES to take away abortion coverage from women who currently have it - Contact them now

ARIZONA

CALIFORNIA

COLORADO

  • Coffman, Mike, Colorado, 6th - VOTED NO on the Bill - Contact them now
  • DeGette, Diana, Colorado, 1st - VOTED YES on the Bill - Contact them now
  • Lamborn, Doug, Colorado, 5th - VOTED NO on the Bill - Contact them now
  • Markey, Betsy, Colorado, 4th - VOTED NO on the Bill - Contact them now
  • Perlmutter, Ed, Colorado, 7th - VOTED YES on the Bill - Contact them now
  • Polis, Jared, Colorado, 2nd - VOTED YES on the Bill - Contact them now
  • Salazar, John T., Colorado, 3rd - VOTED YES on the Bill, VOTED YES to take away abortion coverage from women who currently have it - Contact them now

CONNECTICUT

DELAWARE

  • Castle, Michael N., Delaware, At-Large - VOTED NO on the Bill - Contact them now

FLORIDA

GEORGIA

HAWAII

IOWA

IDAHO

ILLINOIS

  • Bean, Melissa L., Illinois, 8th - VOTED YES on the Bill - Contact them now
  • Biggert, Judy, Illinois, 13th - VOTED NO on the Bill - Contact them now
  • Costello, Jerry, Illinois, 12th - VOTED YES on the Bill, VOTED YES to take away abortion coverage from women who currently have it - Contact them now
  • Davis, Danny K., Illinois, 7th - VOTED YES on the Bill - Contact them now
  • Foster, Bill, Illinois, 14th - VOTED YES on the Bill - Contact them now
  • Gutierrez, Luis, Illinois, 4th - VOTED YES on the Bill - Contact them now
  • Halvorson, Deborah "Debbie", Illinois, 11th - VOTED YES on the Bill - Contact them now
  • Hare, Phil, Illinois, 17th - VOTED YES on the Bill - Contact them now
  • Jackson Jr., Jesse L., Illinois, 2nd - VOTED YES on the Bill - Contact them now
  • Johnson, Timothy V., Illinois, 15th - VOTED NO on the Bill - Contact them now
  • Kirk, Mark, Illinois, 10th - VOTED NO on the Bill - Contact them now
  • Lipinski, Daniel, Illinois, 3rd - VOTED YES on the Bill, VOTED YES to take away abortion coverage from women who currently have it - Contact them now
  • Manzullo, Donald, Illinois, 16th - VOTED NO on the Bill - Contact them now
  • Quigley, Mike, Illinois, 5th - VOTED YES on the Bill - Contact them now
  • Roskam, Peter J., Illinois, 6th - VOTED NO on the Bill - Contact them now
  • Rush, Bobby L., Illinois, 1st - VOTED YES on the Bill - Contact them now
  • Schakowsky, Jan, Illinois, 9th - VOTED YES on the Bill - Contact them now
  • Schock, Aaron, Illinois, 18th - VOTED NO on the Bill - Contact them now
  • Shimkus, John, Illinois, 19th - VOTED NO on the Bill - Contact them now

INDIANA

  • Burton, Dan, Indiana, 5th - VOTED NO on the Bill - Contact them now
  • Buyer, Steve, Indiana, 4th - VOTED NO on the Bill - Contact them now
  • Carson, André, Indiana, 7th - VOTED YES on the Bill - Contact them now
  • Donnelly, Joe, Indiana, 2nd - VOTED YES on the Bill, VOTED YES to take away abortion coverage from women who currently have it - Contact them now
  • Ellsworth, Brad, Indiana, 8th - VOTED YES on the Bill, VOTED YES to take away abortion coverage from women who currently have it - Contact them now
  • Hill, Baron, Indiana, 9th - VOTED YES on the Bill, VOTED YES to take away abortion coverage from women who currently have it - Contact them now
  • Pence, Mike, Indiana, 6th - VOTED NO on the Bill - Contact them now
  • Souder, Mark E., Indiana, 3rd - VOTED NO on the Bill - Contact them now
  • Visclosky, Peter, Indiana, 1st - VOTED YES on the Bill - Contact them now

KANSAS

KENTUCKY

LOUISIANA

MAINE

  • Michaud, Michael, Maine, 2nd - VOTED YES on the Bill, VOTED YES to take away abortion coverage from women who currently have it - Contact them now
  • Pingree, Chellie, Maine, 1st - VOTED YES on the Bill - Contact them now

MASSACHUSETTS

  • Capuano, Michael E., Massachusetts, 8th - VOTED YES on the Bill - Contact them now
  • Delahunt, William, Massachusetts, 10th - VOTED YES on the Bill - Contact them now
  • Frank, Barney, Massachusetts, 4th - VOTED YES on the Bill - Contact them now
  • Lynch, Stephen F., Massachusetts, 9th - VOTED YES on the Bill, VOTED YES to take away abortion coverage from women who currently have it -Contact them now
  • Markey, Ed, Massachusetts, 7th - VOTED YES on the Bill - Contact them now
  • McGovern, James, Massachusetts, 3rd - VOTED YES on the Bill - Contact them now
  • Neal, Richard E., Massachusetts, 2nd - VOTED YES on the Bill, VOTED YES to take away abortion coverage from women who currently have it -Contact them now
  • Olver, John, Massachusetts, 1st - VOTED YES on the Bill - Contact them now
  • Tierney, John, Massachusetts, 6th - VOTED YES on the Bill - Contact them now
  • Tsongas, Niki, Massachusetts, 5th - VOTED YES on the Bill - Contact them now

MARYLAND

MICHIGAN

  • Camp, Dave, Michigan, 4th - VOTED NO on the Bill - Contact them now
  • Conyers Jr., John, Michigan, 14th - VOTED YES on the Bill - Contact them now
  • Dingell, John D., Michigan, 15th - VOTED YES on the Bill - Contact them now
  • Ehlers, Vernon J., Michigan, 3rd - VOTED NO on the Bill - Contact them now
  • Hoekstra, Pete, Michigan, 2nd - VOTED NO on the Bill - Contact them now
  • Kildee, Dale, Michigan, 5th - VOTED YES on the Bill, VOTED YES to take away abortion coverage from women who currently have it - Contact them now
  • Kilpatrick, Carolyn, Michigan, 13th - VOTED YES on the Bill - Contact them now
  • Levin, Sander, Michigan, 12th - VOTED YES on the Bill - Contact them now
  • McCotter, Thaddeus, Michigan, 11th - VOTED NO on the Bill - Contact them now
  • Miller, Candice, Michigan, 10th - VOTED NO on the Bill - Contact them now
  • Peters, Gary, Michigan, 9th - VOTED YES on the Bill - Contact them now
  • Rogers, Mike, Michigan, 8th - VOTED NO on the Bill - Contact them now
  • Schauer, Mark, Michigan, 7th - VOTED YES on the Bill - Contact them now
  • Stupak, Bart, Michigan, 1st - VOTED YES on the Bill, VOTED YES to take away abortion coverage from women who currently have it - Contact them now
  • Upton, Fred, Michigan, 6th - VOTED NO on the Bill - Contact them now

MINNESOTA

  • Bachmann, Michele, Minnesota, 6th - VOTED NO on the Bill - Contact them now
  • Ellison, Keith, Minnesota, 5th - VOTED YES on the Bill - Contact them now
  • Kline, John, Minnesota, 2nd - VOTED NO on the Bill - Contact them now
  • McCollum, Betty, Minnesota, 4th - VOTED YES on the Bill - Contact them now
  • Oberstar, James L., Minnesota, 8th - VOTED YES on the Bill, VOTED YES to take away abortion coverage from women who currently have it -Contact them now
  • Paulsen, Erik, Minnesota, 3rd - VOTED NO on the Bill - Contact them now
  • Peterson, Collin C., Minnesota, 7th - VOTED NO on the Bill - Contact them now
  • Walz, Timothy J., Minnesota, 1st - VOTED YES on the Bill - Contact them now

MISSISSIPPI

MISSOURI

MONTANA

NEBRASKA

NEVADA

NEW HAMPSHIRE

NEW JERSEY

NEW MEXICO

NEW YORK

NORTH CAROLINA

  • Butterfield, G.K., North Carolina, 1st - VOTED YES on the Bill - Contact them now
  • Coble, Howard, North Carolina, 6th - VOTED NO on the Bill - Contact them now
  • Etheridge, Bob, North Carolina, 2nd - VOTED YES on the Bill, VOTED YES to take away abortion coverage from women who currently have it -Contact them now
  • Foxx, Virginia, North Carolina, 5th - VOTED NO on the Bill - Contact them now
  • Jones, Walter B., North Carolina, 3rd - VOTED NO on the Bill - Contact them now
  • Kissell, Larry, North Carolina, 8th - VOTED NO on the Bill - Contact them now
  • McHenry, Patrick T., North Carolina, 10th - VOTED NO on the Bill - Contact them now
  • McIntyre, Mike, North Carolina, 7th - VOTED NO on the Bill - Contact them now
  • Miller, Brad, North Carolina, 13th - VOTED YES on the Bill - Contact them now
  • Myrick, Sue, North Carolina, 9th - VOTED NO on the Bill - Contact them now
  • Price, David, North Carolina, 4th - VOTED YES on the Bill - Contact them now
  • Shuler, Heath, North Carolina, 11th - VOTED NO on the Bill - Contact them now
  • Watt, Mel, North Carolina, 12th - VOTED YES on the Bill - Contact them now

NORTH DAKOTA

  • Pomeroy, Earl, North Dakota, At-Large - VOTED YES on the Bill, VOTED YES to take away abortion coverage from women who currently have it -Contact them now

OHIO

  • Austria, Steve, Ohio, 7th - VOTED NO on the Bill - Contact them now
  • Boccieri, John A., Ohio, 16th - VOTED NO on the Bill - Contact them now
  • Boehner, John A., Ohio, 8th - VOTED NO on the Bill - Contact them now
  • Driehaus, Steve, Ohio, 1st - VOTED YES on the Bill, VOTED YES to take away abortion coverage from women who currently have it - Contact them now
  • Fudge, Marcia L., Ohio, 11th - VOTED YES on the Bill - Contact them now
  • Jordan, Jim, Ohio, 4th - VOTED NO on the Bill - Contact them now
  • Kaptur, Marcy, Ohio, 9th - VOTED YES on the Bill, VOTED YES to take away abortion coverage from women who currently have it - Contact them now
  • Kucinich, Dennis J., Ohio, 10th - VOTED NO on the Bill - Contact them now
  • LaTourette, Steven C., Ohio, 14th - VOTED NO on the Bill - Contact them now
  • Latta, Robert E., Ohio, 5th - VOTED NO on the Bill - Contact them now
  • Kilroy, Mary Jo, Ohio, 15th - VOTED YES on the Bill - Contact them now
  • Ryan, Tim, Ohio, 17th - VOTED YES on the Bill, VOTED YES to take away abortion coverage from women who currently have it - Contact them now
  • Schmidt, Jean, Ohio, 2nd - VOTED NO on the Bill - Contact them now
  • Space, Zachary T., Ohio, 18th - VOTED YES on the Bill, VOTED YES to take away abortion coverage from women who currently have it - Contact them now
  • Sutton, Betty, Ohio, 13th - VOTED YES on the Bill - Contact them now
  • Tiberi, Pat, Ohio, 12th - VOTED NO on the Bill - Contact them now
  • Turner, Michael, Ohio, 3rd - VOTED NO on the Bill - Contact them now
  • Wilson, Charles A., Ohio, 6th - VOTED YES on the Bill, VOTED YES to take away abortion coverage from women who currently have it - Contact them now

OKLAHOMA

OREGON

PENNSYLVANIA

  • Altmire, Jason, Pennsylvania, 4th - VOTED NO on the Bill - Contact them now
  • Brady, Robert, Pennsylvania, 1st - VOTED YES on the Bill - Contact them now
  • Carney, Christopher P., Pennsylvania, 10th - VOTED YES on the Bill, VOTED YES to take away abortion coverage from women who currently have it - Contact them now
  • Dahlkemper, Kathy, Pennsylvania, 3rd - VOTED YES on the Bill, VOTED YES to take away abortion coverage from women who currently have it -Contact them now
  • Dent, Charles W., Pennsylvania, 15th - VOTED NO on the Bill - Contact them now
  • Doyle, Mike, Pennsylvania, 14th - VOTED YES on the Bill, VOTED YES to take away abortion coverage from women who currently have it -Contact them now
  • Fattah, Chaka, Pennsylvania, 2nd - VOTED YES on the Bill - Contact them now
  • Gerlach, Jim, Pennsylvania, 6th - VOTED NO on the Bill - Contact them now
  • Holden, Tim, Pennsylvania, 17th - VOTED NO on the Bill - Contact them now
  • Kanjorski, Paul E., Pennsylvania, 11th - VOTED YES on the Bill, VOTED YES to take away abortion coverage from women who currently have it -Contact them now
  • Murphy, Patrick J., Pennsylvania, 8th - VOTED YES on the Bill - Contact them now
  • Murphy, Tim, Pennsylvania, 18th - VOTED NO on the Bill - Contact them now
  • Murtha, John, Pennsylvania, 12th - VOTED YES on the Bill, VOTED YES to take away abortion coverage from women who currently have it -Contact them now
  • Pitts, Joseph R., Pennsylvania, 16th - VOTED NO on the Bill - Contact them now
  • Platts, Todd, Pennsylvania, 19th - VOTED NO on the Bill - Contact them now
  • Schwartz, Allyson Y., Pennsylvania, 13th - VOTED YES on the Bill - Contact them now
  • Sestak, Joe, Pennsylvania, 7th - VOTED YES on the Bill - Contact them now
  • Shuster, Bill, Pennsylvania, 9th - VOTED NO on the Bill - Contact them now
  • Thompson, Glenn W., Pennsylvania, 5th - VOTED NO on the Bill - Contact them now

RHODE ISLAND

  • Kennedy, Patrick, Rhode Island, 1st - VOTED YES on the Bill - Contact them now
  • Langevin, Jim, Rhode Island, 2nd - VOTED YES on the Bill, VOTED YES to take away abortion coverage from women who currently have it -Contact them now

SOUTH CAROLINA

  • Barrett, J.Gresham, South Carolina, 3rd - VOTED NO on the Bill - Contact them now
  • Brown, Henry, South Carolina, 1st - VOTED NO on the Bill - Contact them now
  • Clyburn, James E., South Carolina, 6th - VOTED YES on the Bill - Contact them now
  • Inglis, Bob, South Carolina, 4th - VOTED NO on the Bill - Contact them now
  • Spratt, John, South Carolina, 5th - VOTED YES on the Bill, VOTED YES to take away abortion coverage from women who currently have it -Contact them now
  • Wilson, Joe, South Carolina, 2nd - VOTED NO on the Bill - Contact them now

SOUTH DAKOTA

  • Herseth Sandlin, Stephanie, South Dakota, At-Large - VOTED NO on the Bill - Contact them now

TENNESSEE

  • Blackburn, Marsha, Tennessee 7th - VOTED NO on the Bill - Contact them now
  • Cohen, Steve, Tennessee, 9th - VOTED YES on the Bill - Contact them now
  • Cooper, Jim, Tennessee, 5th - VOTED YES on the Bill, VOTED YES to take away abortion coverage from women who currently have it - Contact them now
  • Davis, Lincoln, Tennessee, 4th - VOTED NO on the Bill - Contact them now
  • Duncan Jr., John J., Tennessee, 2nd - VOTED NO on the Bill - Contact them now
  • Gordon, Bart, Tennessee, 6th - VOTED NO on the Bill - Contact them now
  • Roe, Phil, Tennessee, 1st - VOTED NO on the Bill - Contact them now
  • Tanner, John, Tennessee, 8th - VOTED NO on the Bill - Contact them now
  • Wamp, Zach, Tennessee, 3rd - VOTED NO on the Bill - Contact them now

TEXAS

UTAH

VERMONT

VIRGINIA

  • Boucher, Rick, Virginia, 9th - VOTED NO on the Bill - Contact them now
  • Cantor, Eric, Virginia, 7th - VOTED NO on the Bill - Contact them now
  • Connolly, Gerald E. "Gerry", Virginia, 11th - VOTED YES on the Bill - Contact them now
  • Forbes, J. Randy, Virginia, 4th - VOTED NO on the Bill - Contact them now
  • Goodlatte, Bob, Virginia, 6th - VOTED NO on the Bill - Contact them now
  • Moran, Jim, Virginia, 8th - VOTED YES on the Bill - Contact them now
  • Nye III, Glenn C., Virginia, 2nd - VOTED NO on the Bill - Contact them now
  • Perriello, Tom, Virginia, 5th - VOTED YES on the Bill, VOTED YES to take away abortion coverage from women who currently have it - Contact them now
  • Scott, Robert C. "Bobby", Virginia, 3rd - VOTED YES on the Bill - Contact them now
  • Wittman, Robert J., Virginia, 1st - VOTED NO on the Bill - Contact them now
  • Wolf, Frank, Virginia, 10th - VOTED NO on the Bill - Contact them now

WASHINGTON

WISCONSIN

  • Baldwin, Tammy, Wisconsin, 2nd - VOTED YES on the Bill - Contact them now
  • Kagen, Steve, Wisconsin, 8th - VOTED YES on the Bill - Contact them now
  • Kind, Ron, Wisconsin, 3rd - VOTED YES on the Bill - Contact them now
  • Moore, Gwen, Wisconsin, 4th - VOTED YES on the Bill - Contact them now
  • Obey, David R., Wisconsin, 7th - VOTED YES on the Bill, VOTED YES to take away abortion coverage from women who currently have it - Contact them now
  • Petri, Thomas, Wisconsin, 6th - VOTED NO on the Bill - Contact them now
  • Ryan, Paul, Wisconsin, 1st - VOTED NO on the Bill - Contact them now
  • Sensenbrenner, F. James, Wisconsin, 5th - VOTED NO on the Bill - Contact them now

WEST VIRGINIA

  • Capito, Shelley Moore, West Virginia, 2nd - VOTED NO on the Bill - Contact them now
  • Mollohan, Alan B., West Virginia, 1st - VOTED YES on the Bill, VOTED YES to take away abortion coverage from women who currently have it -Contact them now
  • Rahall, Nick, West Virginia, 3rd - VOTED YES on the Bill, VOTED YES to take away abortion coverage from women who currently have it - Contact them now

WYOMING

  • Lummis, Cynthia M., Wyoming, At-Large - VOTED NO on the Bill - Contact them now

The Tool Box Found At The Link Below Will Provide Almost Anything You Will Need Through The Healthcare Battle!

http://itsthejudiciarycommitteestupid.blogspot.com/

No comments: