UMass Amherst Views on Stupak
Most students I talked to were not aware of the details of the Stupak Amendment, but had heard a rumor of restrictions being passed on abortion. Well, if the vote in the Senate doesn’t change the measure, the rumors will be true: there will be a ban on abortion coverage.
According to sophomore social thought and political economy major Maria Geueke, “A woman should have the same access to resources and be able to afford abortion.” Geueke found the recent legislation “ridiculous.”
Nancy L. Cohen of the Huffington Post also sees Stupak as preposterous. Cohen believes “the main thrust of the measure is to condemn women for being sexually active.” She gives a good break down of why women need reproductive services in her 10 Reasons Why the Stupak-Pitts Amendment Has to Go.
The most telling statistic being “80% of Americans think abortion should be legal in some circumstances.” So if the majority of Americans approve of some abortion rights, than why shouldn’t there be insurance coverage of reproductive services that are essential in some circumstances?
Senior sociology major, Laura Mason said, “I think that in America health care is viewed as a business where as in other countries it is seen as a social right.”
There is a business aspect, but also a strong religious aspect. The Catholic Bishops showed their lobbying force in the House, as well as the Blue Dog Democrats by getting Stupak passed last minute.
“Religion shouldn’t be forced on anyone, everyone should have the right to freedom,” said philosophy senior John Maynes. Maynes sees the legislation as step towards prohibiting Roe vs. Wade.
In Newsweek, reporter Eleanor Clift does not see the legislation as permanent. There is still hope in the Senate bill. Access to abortion coverage needs to improve, not be further restricted.
Medi-Gal 