Rep. Wasserman Schultz: Republicans Are Giving Women A ‘Back-Of-The-Hand Treatment’
Rep. Wasserman Schultz: Republicans Are Giving Women A ‘Back-Of-The-Hand Treatment’
This morning, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) participated on a conference call with the Center for American Progress Action Fund’s Judy Feder to discuss Republican efforts to shut out women’s issues in the health reform debate. Feder noted that in 2006, nine Senate Republicans voted to explicitly kill a proposal that would have ensured that insurance companies cannot use domestic violence as a pretext for denying coverage to women. The two went on to discuss how, as the House vote drew near, Republican lawmakers’ disregard for the interests of women became more apparent.
In the House Rules Committee the Friday before the vote, Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX), who is also the chief recruiter for Republican House campaigns in 2010, justified the practice of insurance companies discriminating against women by comparing gender differences to smokers and non-smokers. The next day — on Saturday morning — Rep. Tom Price (R-GA) and several of his GOP colleagues shouted down congresswomen making 1-minute speeches on the importance of health reform for women. Wasserman Schultz denounced the interruption tactics and Sessions’ comparison of women to smokers as the “Republicans’ back of the hand treatment to women”:
WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: I’m pleased to have an opportunity to express and underscore my concerns of essentially what amounts to the Republicans’ back of the hand treatment to women, issues that are important to women, particularly women’s health. We already have had a clear sense that Republicans were opposed to our efforts to advance women’s health interests. Now we know we know they’re opposed to letting women voice opinions on health care as well. [...] My colleague Pete Sessions actually compared women to smokers and suggested women, like smokers, have to pay more for insurance just by the accident of our ability to get pregnant.
Listen here:
Indeed, asked by a witness why should a woman pay more for a man for health insurance premiums, the supposedly pro-life Sessions scoffed:
SESSION: We’re all different. Why should a smoker pay more than a non-smoker.
Watch it:
Insurance companies employ a variety of discriminatory practices towards women. In many states, insurance companies consider rape, previous pregnancies, a c-section, and domestic violence as preexisting conditions. President Obama’s health reform proposals, including the bill passed by the House on Saturday, will end all denials of care based on preexisting conditions and ban gender discrimination for premiums.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
WASSERMAN SHULTZ: I’m pleased to have an opportunity to express and underscore my concerns of essentially what amounts to the Republicans’ back of the hand treatment to women, issues that are important to women, particularly women’s health. We already have had a clear sense that Republicans were opposed to our efforts to advance women’s health interests. Now we know we know they’re opposed to letting women voice opinions on health care as well. [...] My colleague Pete Sessions actually compared women to smokers and suggested women, like smokers, have to pay more for insurance just by the accident of our ability to get pregnant.
November 9th, 2009 at 3:53 pmMay the Repblicans never hold the White House ever again.
“Why should a smoker pay more than a non-smoker.”?
Did he just compare being a woman to engaging in a harmful activity?
Someone wants to sleep on the couch.
November 9th, 2009 at 3:54 pmPete “Republicans-Need-To-Act-Like-The-Taliban” Sessions really does want to emulate those wily Pashtuns. Whether its mounting an insurrection against a democratically elected institution or relegating women to the status of second class citizens, the Mullahs would be proud.
His mama must have been so PROUD of him…
And his father, the former FBI director, must be likewise ashamed.
November 9th, 2009 at 3:54 pmHow any woman in their right minds would even call themselves Republican, much less vote for one, is beyond me.
Everything about these Republi-pigs screams misogyny.
November 9th, 2009 at 3:58 pmThe difference is that you’re not born as a smoker.
November 9th, 2009 at 3:58 pmWhy not just be honest and have them admit that the Double X syndrome (XX) is a pre-existing condition ?
I’m ducking for cover.
November 9th, 2009 at 3:58 pmI’m really beginning to think that local revolutions may be necessary, if only to knock some of these revisionist fothermuckers out of office so we can advance society in a meaningful way.
November 9th, 2009 at 3:59 pmmargarine says:
The difference is that you’re not born as a smoker.
November 9th, 2009 at 3:58 pm
Are you saying inherent discrimination is justified?
November 9th, 2009 at 4:00 pmIt’s a matter of free choice, of course. Smokers freely choose to smoke (tobacco company’s advertising it totally ineffective at encouraging smokint)
And women made the choice to be born female, when that sperm with the XX chromosome chose to fertilize the egg instead of chosing to allow a sperm with the XY chromosome have the honors.
So, for denying all those countless millions of male spermatozoa their birthright, women should pay more for health insurance.
November 9th, 2009 at 4:01 pmThis is just typical of neocons they are bought and payed for by the insurance lobby. It is intersting how he comes from a district of high uninsured and he doesnt represent his constituents.
http://www.wfaa.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/politics/national/stories/102709dnmetsessions.3d1fe92.html
He represents more people without health insurance than any other Republican in Congress.
Rudominer, the Democratic campaign committee staffer, noted that campaign finance records show Sessions has received $384,000 in donations from insurance companies in the last 20 years.
November 9th, 2009 at 4:02 pmDoes anyone doubt the incredible (paid) control that insurance companies have over Congress? The mercenaries themselves don’t even mind admitting it at this point! Congress has the lowest approval rating in years and none of them seem to worry. More women need to speak up….yell if necessary.
November 9th, 2009 at 4:03 pmMapleStreet says:
Why not just be honest and have them admit that the Double X syndrome (XX) is a pre-existing condition ?
November 9th, 2009 at 3:58 pm
Sadly, I think you’re on the mark, MapleStreet.
November 9th, 2009 at 4:05 pmI forgot to add:
/snark
November 9th, 2009 at 4:05 pmPeople who “smoke” are not smoking, the cigarette is doing the smoking while the “smoker” is inhaling or sucking. So that makes them suckers not smokers.
November 9th, 2009 at 4:07 pmBriseadh na Faire says:
So, for denying all those countless millions of male spermatozoa their birthright, women should pay more for health insurance.
November 9th, 2009 at 4:01 pm
Damn, women are responsible for everything — even before birth!
November 9th, 2009 at 4:09 pmWhy not just be honest and have them admit that the Double X syndrome (XX) is a pre-existing condition ?
I’m ducking for cover.
November 9th, 2009 at 4:10 pmThe XX “syndrome” as you like to put it, is just as much of one as the XY syndrome. So if they’re going to predicate gender as a pre-existing condition, then nobody should be insured, they go broke, and we get the public option.
I want an amendment that says Republicans cannot be covered by health insurance. No particular reason. I just felt like it.
Makes as much sense as the Republicans proposed amendments.
November 9th, 2009 at 4:12 pmThat’s it!
BACK IN THE KITCHEN, YOU IGNORANT SL*TS!!!
(snark – serious, serious snark)
(Geesh – who knew you can’t say sl*t??)
November 9th, 2009 at 4:16 pmI think those miserable repub men would re-visit that little constitutional amendment allowing women the right to vote if they could get away with it. They are rude, crude, and socially unacceptable.
November 9th, 2009 at 4:16 pm“My colleague Pete Sessions actually compared women to smokers and suggested women, like smokers, have to pay more for insurance just by the accident of our ability to get pregnant.”
______________________________________________________________
I wonder if Rep. Sessions should have to pay more for insurance just by the accident of his being a sh!thead?
Or was that a choice on his part — not a congenital condition?
November 9th, 2009 at 4:18 pminteresting how a repub can go for “blimp research” and not consider it pork and another says volcano research money for the stimulus is so bad. O
h I know why!!!
The blimp research can be used for defense which all neocons like and get kickbacks for.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/25599.html
every time you look at what a repub does you only have to follow the money.
November 9th, 2009 at 4:20 pmAhhhh, the days of Leave It To Beaver mentality.
Where women are at home, slaving over all day house chores, making sure dinner and cocktails are ready for hubby.
And to end the day of just lying there for an “exciting” minute and a half (foreplay included) of him drooling and sweating over her.
Seriously, I think the right truly wishes we could go back to that era?
November 9th, 2009 at 4:21 pmThe two major killers in this country is heart disease and cancer. The major risk factor for both diseases is smoking. Women, on the other hand, have a lower life-time probability of developing either disease when compared to men.
If smoking was all together outlawed, we would save billions/year on health care costs.
November 9th, 2009 at 4:21 pmSo. Things women have to pay more for:
Haircuts
November 9th, 2009 at 4:22 pmDry-cleaning
Indoor plumbing
Health Care
The stupidity of some men
And women get tested/treated for their prostate?
I’m surprised he didn’t mention that women tend to live longer. Stupid women and their longer life spans just mooching off medicare!
(snark in case you weren’t sure)
November 9th, 2009 at 4:22 pmHis father was fired as FBI Director after using a government plane to visit his daughter and having a security system installed at his home with taxpayer money.
My guess is that Sessions being a colossal moron is hereditary.
November 9th, 2009 at 4:23 pmNovember 9th, 2009 at 4:23 pm
I wonder what Republican elected women think of statements like this?
November 9th, 2009 at 4:23 pmRepublicans to women – What the hell are you doing out of the kitchen?
November 9th, 2009 at 4:23 pmAnd let us not forget the senators for rape.
Mug shots of Republicans For Rape
From republicansforrape.org
November 9th, 2009 at 4:24 pmUgh, sorry, I was quoting Leftside Annie at post #18.
Leftside Annie says:
That’s it!
BACK IN THE KITCHEN, YOU IGNORANT SL*TS!!!
(snark – serious, serious snark)
(Geesh – who knew you can’t say sl*t??)
And I said, somewhere Dan Akroyd is quietly weeping. Man, I really screwed that up! LMAO
November 9th, 2009 at 4:25 pmNo, I’m just saying his comparison is especially ridiculous. I’m not implying any merit to any of it, honestly.
November 9th, 2009 at 4:30 pmRep. Wasserman Schultz: Republicans Are Giving Women
A ‘Back Of The Hand Treatment’
that’s to be expected… we ducked that one, ugly and mean that it was…
the real blow came from the stupid-stupac so called dems…
that one did hurt…
paybacks are hell… a women scorned… and all that…
November 9th, 2009 at 4:34 pmWhere do the Republicans dig up these idiots? More important is why Republican women are tolerating and voting for these fools. Where are Senators Snowe, Collins and the Republican women in the House? Voters in Texas must have a high tolerance for these fools. The Republicans have gone from the sublime to ridiculous.
November 9th, 2009 at 4:41 pmPlease help us kick Pete Sessions’ worthless butt out of congress by supporting his Democratic Party challenger, Grier Raggio.
Please give what you can to Grier Raggio’s Act Blue Page
November 9th, 2009 at 4:48 pmpags2 says
November 9th, 2009 at 4:41 pm
Where are Senators Snowe, Collins and the Republican women in the House?
______________________________________________________________
You realize, of course, that the “Republican women in the House” group includes people like Michelle Bachmann and Virginia Foxx. Who no doubt support everything Pete Sessions says.
November 9th, 2009 at 4:50 pmThat’s awesome. Great job. Thanks
November 9th, 2009 at 4:50 pmA bit off topic but somewhat related:
Man Admits Shooting Abortion Provider
Defiant and unapologetic, a man (Scott Roeder) accused of shooting a Kansas abortion provider confessed to the slaying Monday, telling The Associated Press that he killed the doctor to protect unborn children.
MORE DETAILS:
November 9th, 2009 at 4:56 pmmargarine says:
No, I’m just saying his comparison is especially ridiculous. I’m not implying any merit to any of it, honestly.
November 9th, 2009 at 4:30 pm
Thanks, margarine. I’m battling a nasty case of the flu, and my sense of humor is spotty at best.
November 9th, 2009 at 4:56 pmHang ‘em high. I’ll even buy the rope.
November 9th, 2009 at 4:57 pmMy thoughts on Mr. Session’s ignorance: It would be fair to charge women more for insurance coverage for pregnancy IF men get charged extra premiums for having sex. After all, no woman gets pregnant by herself!
November 9th, 2009 at 5:01 pmoops at #38 here’s the link
November 9th, 2009 at 5:01 pmmary lacewing says:
And women get tested/treated for their prostate?
Ha! Women don’t have to worry about prostate cancer, which is the most common cancer among men. I don’t see that not getting covered or making men’s rates any higher. Perhaps these insurance companies who don’t want to cover pregnancy or charge more for it should offer coverage for affordable healthcare.
November 9th, 2009 at 5:08 pmWhat I want to know is how any woman in her right mind could belong to the repug party. Even a dog will run away if his owner beats him. Why aren’t all women running away from this sexist party?
November 9th, 2009 at 5:16 pmeekybookworm says:
mary lacewing says:
And women get tested/treated for their prostate?
Ha! Women don’t have to worry about prostate cancer, which is the most common cancer among men. I don’t see that not getting covered or making men’s rates any higher. Perhaps these insurance companies who don’t want to cover pregnancy or charge more for it should offer coverage for affordable healthcare.
And almost every man gets prostate cancer….
November 9th, 2009 at 5:24 pmRepublicans treatment of womens issues in the health care debate is nothing short of apalling. Democrats spineless capitualition is equally apalling.
I don’t know why, and there is NO good reason, for the democrats to have totally caved into the wishes of the republicans.
Where’s a third party when you need one?
November 9th, 2009 at 5:40 pmIt’s just more proof that white haired white men run the country. Stupak is a C Street evangelical. Americans shouldn’t have to have C Street style health care because a few evangelicals want to take the country back to 1850. The problem here isn’t Democrat vs. Republican, it’s liberal vs. religious extremism. If we don’t stand up to this we are going to find ourselves living in a C Street style dictatorship. I personally don’t care if this healthcare bill goes down anyway, it’s a conservative bill created to appease conservatives, let it go down.
November 9th, 2009 at 5:43 pmIn Neaderthal speak:
Woman = smoker = baaaaaaad
November 9th, 2009 at 6:32 pmMan = nonsmoker = gooooood
Here is my proposal: For every child that is born in this country, the bill shall be split down the middle. The mother should be responsible for 1/2 and the father should be responsible for 1/2. Conception involves a male and a female. For all those bills that are unpaid, bill a Republican. Maybe then they might get it.
November 9th, 2009 at 7:22 pmRich H says:
Where’s a third party when you need one?
November 9th, 2009 at 5:40 pm
The teabaggers just started their own party in Florida!
November 9th, 2009 at 8:26 pmI hate to be perceived as the sexist here, but stop a second: If you and I both buy the same product from a company, but you live further away from the seller than I do, is it “discriminatory” for the seller to charge you more for shipping? Surely if the cost to the seller of sending you the product is higher, it’s fair for them to charge you more.
I do not like Sessions at all, but he explicitly referred to the actuarial tables. If it costs more to provide women with health care, why would it be wrong to charge them more for it?
November 9th, 2009 at 8:32 pmPete Sessions has a strong Democratic opponent – Grier Raggio – the husband of a judge, the son of the women who wrote the property law for women in Texas. He’s without a doubt a much better candidate for representing women’s rights in DC. Please contribute to his campaign http://www.actblue.com/entity/fundraisers/22993
November 10th, 2009 at 5:48 amRepublican Integrity has become an oxymoron..The R’s use only extreme rhetoric ,rudeness and disrespect rather than engage in meaningful dialogue. Their behavior is so juvenile. They have proved they were unable to govern during their 8 yrs in The White House.
November 10th, 2009 at 2:34 pmI am a nurse in my late 60’s and I worked with women before Roe vs Wade was passed. These women went to unlicensed doctors and other extreme means to abort these pregnancies sometimes causing themselves to be sterile for the rest of their productive lives.
To pass bills banning abortion does not mean women will not have abortions! Middle class and weathy women will still be able to pay for abortions. These same R’s also banned a provision last winter which would ban birth control measures. That makes no sense what so ever ! Why do they want bigger government and putting themselves in people’s bedrooms?
@ 51. bl09 says: I hate to be perceived as the sexist here, … I do not like Sessions at all, but he explicitly referred to the actuarial tables. If it costs more to provide women with health care, why would it be wrong to charge them more for it? November 9th, 2009 at 8:32 pm
sheeyit, bl09, I won’t call you sexist; how about doofus? does that work for you?
Sessions ‘explicit’ refererence to actuarial tables is garbled enough that it’s hard to distinguish any relevance to the remark, other than the fact that such tables exist and are used by insurance companies to set rates on individual policies. for pooled policies, the rate should reflect the aggregate for the pool; a rate that would cover something more than the expected mean risk for the pool, plus overhead and profit, etc.
denial of coverage or recision for pre-existing conditions in pooled policies is nothing more than bad faith on the part of the insuror; denial or recision in the case of individual policies is a failure to do due diligence on the part of the insuror or on the part of the insured, except when it’s just a corporate policy of take the money and run.
November 10th, 2009 at 6:48 pm