Not really posting

[solarbird]

The Stupak amendment is worse than most people thought at first, like I expected it would be. But so is the whole health care bill, so. I'm mostly just posting this for my own memory.

Women's health, schomen's smealth. Not that it's the first time. Anger at the Stupak Democrats. More on what Stupak does. Stupak's news release. Calls for primary opponents for the Stupak Democrats. How Catholic Bishops swung the anti-abortion amendment. David Frum gets it right.

Mostly I'm waiting for the next iteration, where no health provider that also provides abortion can receive exchange-group insurance funds at all. And possibly, given that contraception is out of the bill, contraception as well.

Basically what you need to take away here is that the GOP hates most civil liberties (pretty much everything except gun rights) and women's rights in general, and there's not a civil liberty or civil right that the Democratic party won't sell out to achieve some goal. (Plus some they just hate, like gun rights.) That's just how it works. If you're a straight woman, well, here's an example, and welcome to the GBLT fuck-you treadmill.

eta: Mr. Obama says Stupak must be changed back to the Hyde Amendment status quo. We'll see whether that means anything as this unfolds. (Pointer courtesy rfunk.)

Comments

[maellenkleth]

Exactly. Thank you.

[denelian.livejournal.com]

i am *terrified* by all of this.
i am engaged. to a man. and pregnancy *WILL* kill me. and the only reason i can AFFORD contraception is because my insurance covers a good chunk of the cost.


TERRIFIED.


am i being paranoid? i really feel like the fucking Right is TRYING to destroy every single thing that came of Feminism - down to the Right to Vote. i just...


they won't be happy until we are *all* chained in the kitchen.

[solarbird]

Well - yeah, at this point, mostly. The theoconservative wing is really like that up. and. down. the. block. and while they'd be ineffective if they didn't have collaborators, there is no right or principle that the Democratic party won't sell out - not one - so this is what you get, one step at a time.

[denelian.livejournal.com]

it's just moving so much fucking FASTER than i thought it would -
until recently, i held out hope that the CC, or far right, or fundy wingnuts, whatever they're called this week -
i held out hope that they were losing. that their children were "escaping", and they were dying off faster than they could be replaced...

i am quickly losing hope. i wonder why the hell i even BOTHER taking the time to write and call my representatives, or Senator, or the president... why i bother "agitating"...
why did i donate so much money to *STOP* the fucking fundys from taking over? when it doesn't matter - the non-fundys will go along with anything at all that the fundys want...


i thought, with CLINTON, that Gay Rights would become as infallible as "normal" Rights [white-male rights? yes, that's what "normal is"...] and i was shocked at DADT at the time - years of Bush followed -
we WON, godsdamnit!
so why is everyone acting as if THEY won?


i'm pretty much just crying on your shoulder here. Poly Sci is one of my majors, i understand *how* "they" are accomplishing this. it just terrifies the holy fuck out of me.
i mean - what if McCain had WON.
!!!

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

Totally, the time is coming for the Obama to just start saying "OK, I tried bipartisanship, but for you guys that means me giving you everything you want, so now I'm just going to do what I want, like you guys do"

[solarbird]

This is what I don't get about Obama (and to a lesser degree, Democratic Party) supporters.

Why do you think this isn't what he wants?

[kirbyk.livejournal.com]

Basically...

Well, before I start, first off, yes, this amendment is _vile_. It's a slap in the face to what I consider to be moral action.

But one thing that I think I agree with Obama on, and disagree with you on, is the whole concept of incrementalism. The idea is, this bill barely passed as is. Every vote you get costs you something for a big thing like this, so the bill that passed, with a very close vote, is at least someone's definition of the least compromised bill that would pass. I'm very disappointed that this particular amendment is in it, of course.

But if it doesn't pass, health care reform is dead in the water, probably for a decade. Millions of working poor can gain health insurance, albeit with some serious political strings attached, through this bill. That's an improvement in America.

And there's a lot of unfounded fear coming from the right (shock!) about this. People aren't scared of Medicare, or the VA. It's highly likely that if even a mediocre bill passes, people will say, "Huh, I guess that's not so bad." And the political force that can ever take away the concept of health care as a basic right of citizenship will die. That's the actual goal. It's a big goal.

As far as the flaws in the bill, the right shoving in a giant FUCK YOU into it, yeah, that needs to be fixed. If they can fix it in the Senate, it's worth spending political capital to do it. If it's that or nothing, I'd rather have the health care, and introduce a new bill to kill the amendment later.

You may have a point that they're not trying hard enough to reach a compromise without ending up compromised, and I really do appreciate people calling bullshit on the bullshit. And again, there's no way I can defend the amendment as being anything but awful. But at the end of the day, if I were in the House, I'd vote Yes on the bill, because America is better off if it passes. If you always go All or Nothing, too often you end up with the Nothing.

There are cases where I don't believe in incrementalism - actually, the trans rights in the gay rights bill is one, because if it's not attached it's extremely unlikely to get through any time soon on its own. And I can certainly respect the idea that this is the same - it's not worth risking getting stuck with this anti-women's clause in our public health care. I don't do the math at the end of the day the same, though.

HOWEVER, this bill is still in the Senate, and there's still hope to pass it WITHOUT the anti-abortion crap in it, so I will keep my incrementalism in the corner until then and join you in loudly denouncing this amendment as an unnecessary and unAmerican attachment to an otherwise worthwhile pursuit.

[rfunk.livejournal.com]

Well, as far as the Stupak amendment goes, he's actually said it isn't what he wants.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/11/9/802711/-Obama:-Hyde-Is-the-Limit

[solarbird]

He says a lot of things. Hopefully he means this one.

[denelian.livejournal.com]

PLEASE! i gods he NEEDS TO TO THID NOW! hell, he needed to do it in FEBUARY!

thanx - thats a hope to hold on too. i think i shall send the President O more letters, then :)

[epawtows.livejournal.com]

A note: if the wingnuts are losing (by fading out or any other means), would you expect them to go quietly? No, they'd raise as much ruckus as they could on the way down. That could well be what this is.

Not to minimize the amount of damage they could do as they fall, but don't confuse death throws with a victory lap.

[denelian.livejournal.com]

that's...
that's a really good point, actually.
and hopeful. thank you

[epawtows.livejournal.com]

I try to be an optimist :-)

[denelian.livejournal.com]

that's not a bad thing!

i should learn how. do they have classes?
[erm. i *am* joking. just so you know - i am not *that* clueless. just making fun of myself. :) ]

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

The fact that they're saying you can get add on abortion insurance just confirms that these people think abortions are something people do as their first choice for birth control.