ObamaCare Week Is a Great TIme to Support Pro-Choice Trevor Thomas

Last week, for its 2-year anniversary, Democrats rightly celebrated that ObamaCare has made preventative health care–things like mammograms–accessible for free to 45 million women.

And this week, as the ObamaCare hearing represents the biggest event at SCOTUS since Bush v. Gore, Democrats continue to celebrate ObamaCare (which is a good thing, politically; Obama should have done this a year ago).

But no one is talking about the biggest error the Democrats made aside from selling out the public option: letting Bart Stupak, an anti-choice MI Democrat, roll back access to abortion for women in every Congressional District in America. Not only have Democrats forgotten that their own tolerance for anti-women stances hurt Obama’s signature issue (and hurt their chances in 2010), but they’re back at it–recruiting anti-choice self-funders like Steve Pestka rather than backing pro-choice candidates like Trevor Thomas.

It’s as if the Democrats have put a price tag on women’s health, one they’re not willing to invest to pay.

There are a lot of reasons why Trevor Thomas is the better choice to take on Justin Amash in MI’s 3rd CD: his working class background, his push to address MI’s high unemployment rate for Veterans, his call to do something about the looming student loan bubble.

But this week, of all weeks, it’s important to make clear that it is not acceptable to do what the Democrats have done, decide that fighting for women’s issues is simply too much work and too much money.

Support Trevor Thomas. Support Trevor Thomas on ActBlue.

Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Reddit0Share on Facebook0Google+0Email to someone

3 Responses to ObamaCare Week Is a Great TIme to Support Pro-Choice Trevor Thomas

Emptywheel Twitterverse
bmaz @Greg651 Anytime. Like I said, it is a hassle, but not a horrid one. And once on list you get truly noticed like a party from ECF.
6hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @BernardKingIII @DavidSug Which is why I am all WTF?
7hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @BernardKingIII @DavidSug Assumption of risk etc all seem precluded by prior AZ precedent. Though all involve bites/attacks, etc.
7hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @Reillax @foolintheforest @djsziff I am hoping, but.....
9hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @foolintheforest @djsziff Dude, already had that quote in mind if an insurance carrier atty doesn't take over!
9hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @Reillax @foolintheforest @djsziff Yes, it is. But this is not under the "dog bite statute", but under ARS §11-1020 http://t.co/syYDOzwvZR
9hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @foolintheforest @djsziff ...a bite or an "attack" by the animal, not just presence and being tripped over.
10hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @foolintheforest @djsziff but where the fuck does that fit in with "strict animal liability" law, which almost universally contemplates...
10hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @djsziff @foolintheforest at least this is what I believe *so far*. But I trust this client pretty far.
10hreplyretweetfavorite