

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Is this 2009? Or have we time-travelled backwards to some primitive time when women's rights were decades away as a political notion? If we listen to the discussion today - September 25, 2009 - in the Senate Finance Committee as they mark-up their healthcare reform legislation, it would be hard to pinpoint the year as nearing the close of the first decade of the 21st century.
Senator Jon Kyl, R-AZ, couldn't stand hearing that he might have to pay for maternity benefits under any healthcare reform that passes this Congress. Truly. He said he doesn't require maternity care and therefore really objects to being asked to pay for it.
When Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-MI, reminded him that his mother might not share that sentiment, Senator Kyl stuck to his guns. "Maybe 60 years ago," he acknowledged. Maybe. But no sure thing for this red-blooded, strong Western fellow. No sir, even invoking the needs of his mother made no real dent in his bias.
As Committee Chairman Senator Max Baucus, D-MT, thanked Sen. Kyl for his comments and bonded with him about their love for the great American West, all that was missing was a hitching up of their pants and a little good old boys chest bump.
It was sickening. As this nation struggles with one of the highest infant mortality rates in the industrialized world, to have any United States Senator make the argument that he or she would not support inclusion of maternity benefits in the basic healthcare needs of this nation is not only offensive, it should have been met with an immediate rebuttal from every other member of the Senate Finance Committee. Where was their outrage on our behalf?
But not today. No, not today. In this 111th Congress, making this sort of ugly comment still passes as something for which pats of the back are more likely than real reform. Shameful, shameful.
I will remember these comments, gentlemen and gentlewomen. I will remember. I will spread the word. And I vote. In 2010, in 2012 and beyond.
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Is this 2009? Or have we time-travelled backwards to some primitive time when women's rights were decades away as a political notion? If we listen to the discussion today - September 25, 2009 - in the Senate Finance Committee as they mark-up their healthcare reform legislation, it would be hard to pinpoint the year as nearing the close of the first decade of the 21st century.
Senator Jon Kyl, R-AZ, couldn't stand hearing that he might have to pay for maternity benefits under any healthcare reform that passes this Congress. Truly. He said he doesn't require maternity care and therefore really objects to being asked to pay for it.
When Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-MI, reminded him that his mother might not share that sentiment, Senator Kyl stuck to his guns. "Maybe 60 years ago," he acknowledged. Maybe. But no sure thing for this red-blooded, strong Western fellow. No sir, even invoking the needs of his mother made no real dent in his bias.
As Committee Chairman Senator Max Baucus, D-MT, thanked Sen. Kyl for his comments and bonded with him about their love for the great American West, all that was missing was a hitching up of their pants and a little good old boys chest bump.
It was sickening. As this nation struggles with one of the highest infant mortality rates in the industrialized world, to have any United States Senator make the argument that he or she would not support inclusion of maternity benefits in the basic healthcare needs of this nation is not only offensive, it should have been met with an immediate rebuttal from every other member of the Senate Finance Committee. Where was their outrage on our behalf?
But not today. No, not today. In this 111th Congress, making this sort of ugly comment still passes as something for which pats of the back are more likely than real reform. Shameful, shameful.
I will remember these comments, gentlemen and gentlewomen. I will remember. I will spread the word. And I vote. In 2010, in 2012 and beyond.
Is this 2009? Or have we time-travelled backwards to some primitive time when women's rights were decades away as a political notion? If we listen to the discussion today - September 25, 2009 - in the Senate Finance Committee as they mark-up their healthcare reform legislation, it would be hard to pinpoint the year as nearing the close of the first decade of the 21st century.
Senator Jon Kyl, R-AZ, couldn't stand hearing that he might have to pay for maternity benefits under any healthcare reform that passes this Congress. Truly. He said he doesn't require maternity care and therefore really objects to being asked to pay for it.
When Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-MI, reminded him that his mother might not share that sentiment, Senator Kyl stuck to his guns. "Maybe 60 years ago," he acknowledged. Maybe. But no sure thing for this red-blooded, strong Western fellow. No sir, even invoking the needs of his mother made no real dent in his bias.
As Committee Chairman Senator Max Baucus, D-MT, thanked Sen. Kyl for his comments and bonded with him about their love for the great American West, all that was missing was a hitching up of their pants and a little good old boys chest bump.
It was sickening. As this nation struggles with one of the highest infant mortality rates in the industrialized world, to have any United States Senator make the argument that he or she would not support inclusion of maternity benefits in the basic healthcare needs of this nation is not only offensive, it should have been met with an immediate rebuttal from every other member of the Senate Finance Committee. Where was their outrage on our behalf?
But not today. No, not today. In this 111th Congress, making this sort of ugly comment still passes as something for which pats of the back are more likely than real reform. Shameful, shameful.
I will remember these comments, gentlemen and gentlewomen. I will remember. I will spread the word. And I vote. In 2010, in 2012 and beyond.