Nationally recognized women’s healthcare advocate Sandra Fluke is adding her influential voice to the growing chorus of opposition to proposed Amendment 6. Editorial boards, Faith leaders, doctors and trusted voices including Catholics for Choice, the League of Women Voters and NAACP are beginning to speak out about why they are urging a “No” vote on Amendment 6.
“Amendment 6 could deny a lot of Florida women access to the basic healthcare that they need,” Fluke says in the ad. She points out the political interference Amendment 6 would represent, noting that it “would put politicians like Rick Scott right there in the middle of basic healthcare.”
Fluke is a nationally known women’s rights activist and graduate of Georgetown Law School. She has dedicated many years to protecting victims of domestic violence and trafficking. She is joining more than 60 organizations and eight editorial boards (so far) in warning Florida voters that a vote for Amendment 6 is a vote to allow politicians to meddle in the most personal of medical decisions.
“Amendment 6 makes no exceptions for a woman’s health,” said Lillian A. Tamayo of Planned Parenthood who chairs the Vote No on 6 campaign. “This flawed amendment could deny women access to insurance plans that cover care they count on. It is not for politicians to decide the best health insurance coverage for women.”
The Vote No on 6 campaign recently launched online banner ads and have so far purchased $1 million in air time for television ads. The Sandra Fluke ad is the first in a series of ads to be released in the final weeks of the campaign.
“For me, this issue hits very close to home,” said Dr. Suzie Prabhakaran. “I actually had a patient who was diagnosed with cancer after she learned she was pregnant. She needed to start chemotherapy right away to protect her health but to do so I advised her she would need to end her pregnancy. If Amendment 6 were to pass, it could preclude health plans from covering the care my next patient in this situation needs. This kind of political interference may serve a certain political agenda but it would be extremely harmful to my patients.”