Letter: Pitts continues to vote against women

To The Editor,

Letters1Congressman Joe Pitts is very proud of the fact that he has voted against Obamacare 42 times. His stated reason for voting against it is that it is unpopular with businesses. It is too bad that his record shows that he only cares about corporations and the unborn. In his mind, corporations deserve rights but newborns don’t deserve health care. Mr. Pitts also voted against health care for children (SCHIP), apparently on the idea that once a baby is born, it is on its own.

Mr. Pitts is fine with insurance companies denying coverage for pre-existing conditions and cutting off benefits for sick children that have met their lifetime cap on benefits. He doesn’t want women to have preventative care such as mammograms and pap smears. These are all loopholes that the Affordable Care Act (AKA Obamacare) has closed. In states which have already instituted the provisions of Obamacare, insurance rates have dropped by 20-50%. Since he opposed this change 42 times, I guess Mr. Pitts is in favor of insurance companies over-charging, too. The hypocrisy of his position, that we the people do not deserve affordable health care, is that Joe Pitts receives government health care paid for by us taxpayers. If Mr. Pitts is so opposed to affordable health care, why doesn’t he give up his own?

So what else is Mr. Pitts opposed to? Well, he voted against equal pay for women and the Violence Against Women Act. So he is opposed to health care for women and children, opposed to fair pay for women and in favor of violence against women. The War Against Women is real and Joe Pitts is leading the charge.

Mr. Pitts, do you realize that 51% of your constituents are women? Why would you work so hard to harm the majority of your constituents? Joe Pitts, it is time for you to begin serving your constituents and not corporate interests or for you to find another job.

Cindy Losco

West Grove

Women’s Rights Coalition

of Southern Chester County

   Send article as PDF   

Share this post:

Related Posts


  1. Ellen Goodson says:

    Pitts is not voting against women for goodness sake. It is actually Democrats who want their women to become dependent on the government for their lives, that is voting against women.

    Marice, good for Mr. Pitts to vote against a highly fraudulent food stamp program that is so poorly run and totally unnecessary for most of the people scamming it. You should be asking why this Democrat administration has created the economic mess that has record number of people on food stamps.

    Also, Marice, you don’t understand what the “general welfare” clause from the Constitution even means. It has nothing to do with the government giving people financial assistance, good grief.

    The general welfare clause means the Constitution and powers granted to the federal government were not to favor special interest groups or particular classes of people. There were to be no privileged individuals or groups in society. Neither minorities nor the majority was to be favored. Rather, the Constitution would promote the “general welfare” by ensuring a free society where free, self-responsible individuals lived.

    Obviously, the current Democrat administration is stepping all over the true meaning of the “general welfare” clause.

  2. Marice Bezdek says:

    Mr. Pitts has also recently voted for draconian cuts in the food stamp program (SNAP), which helps not only the elderly but also single women with children. For him, charity evidently extends only to businessmen. He has a long record of voting against ordinary people. and especially against women with children. It’s past time for him to retire and to be replaced by someone who thinks government can and should be used “to promote the general welfare,” as the Constitution has it.

Leave a Comment