Skip to main content

So the health insurance reform bill is through the House on its first pass. There's a weakened version of the public option in there. That's good. And there's the Stupak amendment in there. That's bad.

The inclusion of the Stupak amendment has a couple of great backstories about activism and organizing, if you look for them.

First, of course, there's the story of the vast, lavishly-funded national network of professional abortion rights advocacy groups who somehow found themselves blindsided and rolled by a situation that was 100% predictable (not to mention 35 years in the making), and will now have to either threaten to kill the entire bill if the Senate is unable to resist the temptation to pass the same language, or release 40+ super-progressive women legislators and allies to vote for a health insurance reform bill that for all practical purposes nearly eliminates access to abortion that isn't paid for up front and in cash. Ordinarily, that'd be ludicrous, except for the fact that those super-progressive legislators just voted for exactly that, though surely they'd explain that they just did it "to move the process forward."

Second, there's the story of the voices in the wilderness, the single payer advocates, who settled for the promise of a floor vote on the Weiner amendment, only to see that amendment withdrawn in a deal to avoid... the Stupak amendment, only to see that amendment not withdrawn and ultimately given a floor vote and be adopted.

The public option -- to the extent it was saved (and that's yet to be determined) -- was saved by taking a sober look at the legislative playing field, identifying where the cracks in the dam would appear, and building the best bulwark against it that an ad hoc network of advocates could build, working it, grooming it, and maintaining it. Vote pledges were sought early on, lined up and reinforced in advance of the committee markups, with a special emphasis on seeing those pledges through all the way through conference.

Abortion rights advocates, on the other hand, had an existing network of professional lobbyists and policy analysts, plus a multi-million dollar funding base, not to mention nearly 35 years of lead time in terms of knowing that any health care bill would include a serious abortion threat (counted from the earliest days of the Hyde amendment on), and yet their efforts seemed next to invisible, and they now look to be in position not only to possibly lose, but to put their biggest supporters in Congress in danger of voting the wrong way on their signature issue.

Even if you don't buy the idea of starting the clock on threats to abortion rights in the health care bill with the advent of the Hyde amendment, Bart Stupak was open about his demands on the bill from early on, committing them to a letter to the Speaker as early as June.

But the professional advocates appear to have been caught largely by surprise by Stupak's maneuvering. Reacting much too late in the game, they were forced to rely on "urgent" emails to their lists of supporters to drive calls to Congress on the day of the floor vote. That's a game that's perhaps slightly more effective for amendments than for entire bills, but it's almost always way, way, way too late in the process to make a big impact. (In truth, urgent "call your Representatives!" emails sent on the day of a vote are usually designed to keep you "involved" as a donor, not effective as an activist. But that's another story.)

As I said, the anti-choice threat to federal health care legislation is going on 35 years old. It's a known threat, and just as much is known about the efficacy of different approaches to activism and lobbying on those threats. When, in those 35 years, has a bunch of phone calls stemmed the steady tide of erosion of reproductive rights?

So the effort of the professionals now turns to praying for a conference miracle. That's always possible, but now it's the play that was once floated for the public option, only in reverse.

That is, it was once speculated that the Senate would exclude the public option in order to get a bill to conference, but that there could be a super secret plan to accede to the House position on it in conference, and that way make conservative Dems in the Senate vote on it (and cloture) only once, but in so doing it would appear right up until the last minute as if the public option were being abandoned, and there would in fact be no second chance to revive it if something went wrong with the super secret plan.

Now the shoe is on the other foot, and the abortion rights community must await the super secret plan that looks, right up until the last minute, like they're being thrown under the bus.

And of course, the public option still has to survive the process as well.

So you're looking at two distinct groups and issues, both basically praying for the same procedural miracle, of which supply is typically fairly short.

Will one be traded for the other?

It's a plausible enough trade. As Marcy Wheeler theorized in an e-mail exchange, so long as the Senate side dynamics still appear to revolve around Olympia Snowe (R-ME). Snowe's both pro-choice and an opponent of the public option. So it makes for a great play: win Snowe's support, win the thanks of progressives who are at least picking up hints about the removal of the Stupak language in conference, and be rid of the public option and the nascent but pesky progressive bloc that had begun to coalesce around it.

That result, though, would represent something of a bailout of a permanent, professional pro-choice advocacy community that's become "too big to fail," even when they're caught flat-footed and do nothing in the way of preparation to fight the biggest and most visibly telegraphed attack on their position in decades.  Meanwhile, outsider startup advocacy and legislative strategy efforts finally beginning to find their way and actually learn to enter the game have their first tiny win (if it is one) flushed down the toilet for big advocacy's comfort.

That's just one way of looking at it, of course.

On the single payer front, things have got to be even more frustrating. An embarrassing series of surrenders marked an already uphill battle as the process moved forward in the House, beginning with Rep. Anthony Weiner's (D-NY-09) agreement not to offer his single payer amendment in the Energy & Commerce Committee in exchange for the promise of a floor vote on that amendment. And, well, we all saw what happened on Friday, when Weiner again miraculously agreed not to offer his single payer amendment on the floor, either.

The tragedy (or dark comedy, depending on how you look at it) is that Weiner allegedly withdrew his amendment again when he heard that the leadership would be disallowing all amendments across the board, so that they could block Stupak without having the political mess of picking and choosing between amendments individually. That, of course, worked out spectacularly.

So in the end it was the advocates who relied on the super-secret delayed gratification plan who went home empty-handed here. Single payer gets nowhere, and it's got to at least be in part because of reliance on strategies that always seem to fall victim to situations like this one, in which Anthony Weiner spends the summer being lauded as a fearless hero and a champion, even as he ends up walking away from the fight twice.

Does every similar situation end up working itself out in exactly the same way? Of course not. But let the single payer amendment's path to death (taken twice) be a lesson to those who advocate betting on the "two in the bush" side of a gamble on legislative procedure.

We are a long, long way from finished with this bill, of course. And there are some powerful and monied interests who we'd consider to wear white hats in this fight who still have chits they can call in which should not be discounted. Conference miracles do happen. But the basic rule is and always has been that the obstacles faced by those who want to change legislation grow exponentially as the process moves forward. That rule has application for those now clinging to "fix it in conference" strategies, those whose champions (it is now revealed in hindsight) played things too clever by half on single payer, and probably for those relying on the "they'll never dare" strategies floating around the opt-out, too.

To this point, it's been the public option -- championed by those yahoo, know-nothing, pajama-wearing Cheeto munchers -- that, weakened though it may be, has ridden the most traditional, predictable and effective path to inclusion in the final bill: get your ducks in a row early, and fight hard every step of the way to keep them there, no matter how appealing each successive excuse for stepping out of line may seem at the time.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 09:32 AM PST.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  That is a beautiful analysis (33+ / 0-)

    Anthony Weiner got snookered.   I remember that moment when Waxman promised him that Pelosi promised a floor vote.

    I thought "wow, that's quite a promise... will it happen?"  

    We have our answer.

        •  Trust? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          happenstance

          I will risk repeating from below because it seems relevant to the question of trust.

          Die Pelosi lie to Waxman?
          Did Waxman lie to Weiner?
          Did Weiner lie to himself?
          Did we lie to ourselves?

          Who is kidding who here?

          Or are words just something that people use to grease the sausage making machine, and adults just need to understand that nobody means what they say in these situations?

          Or maybe everybody in the Kabuki scene above was more or less sincere, either believing their own words (Pelosi, Waxman and Weiner), or, having no belief in sincerity in the first place, unable to conceive of the idea of insincerity either?  

          This was merely the part of the play where everyone was expected to mouth one set of lines... but everyone understands that this is the kind of play where the lines will change down the line, and nobody will expect the play to make sense as a coherent whole?   But then you get into the problem of whether a process built on not just one such deception, but a whole edifice of promises and commitments made and broken, really can yield an ethical and desirable outcome.   And then up will stand the realists and say "it has ever been thus" and up will stand the idealists and say "you can't lie, deceive and self-deceive your way to an honorable end."  

          I leave the resolution of that issue as an exercise for the reader.
           

          •  The debate hasn't even begun yet (0+ / 0-)

            For one thing, almost nobody here seems to realize how expensive this committment will be to them or their families or businesses.

            Every dollar flushed down the black hold of insurance company profits is a dollar that wont go to education, to savings, to spending on everything else. Its a LOT of money.

            The Dems and their pals the GOP may have gotten their way and gotten the politicians out of responsibility for another year or two, diverting us down a dead end that will slow government involvement in healthcare quality- but AT A HUGE PRICE.

            Business will be the ones to say, ENOUGH, I bet.

            They can't live on exports alone,

            Its not going to be pretty.

            STRATEGY TO WIN BOTH-CHOICE AND AFFORDABILITY-No DIVERSIONS! Support both sexes equality for all birth services, NOT negotiable-AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE FOR ALL

            by Andiamo on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 08:05:43 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I think (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Phoenix Woman

              I begin by wishing Weiner well... and you do not.

            •  EVERY MINUTE FALLING FOR THE ABORTION TRAP SCAM (0+ / 0-)

              is a minute NOT DISCUSSING AFFORDABILITY and a minute closer to them succeeding in killing AFFORDABLE health care reform by forcing a BAD BILL down America's throat.

              We need to be discussing how few people will be able to pay, not the abortion/gay marriage/Michael Jackson/whatever scam.

              Understand that the real battle is about affordability, really its about the approach that works, single payer, the discussion they are devoting MILLIONS to stopping. Abortion is part of their strategy, the red flag they are waving in front of us all, to make us angry...

              Ever seen a bull fight? Look at how the matador accomplishes his goal, BY MAKING THE BULL "see red".

              Dont fall for the trap.. Single payer is the only approach that works, and that would make abortion a moot point BECAUSE ALL HEALTHCARE WOULD BE COVERED, AND FREE.

              All Democratic men and women should agree, WE ARE EQUAL, IF WE MUST STILL PAY, WE ALL PAY THE SAME.

              Dont let the paid bloggers drag us down into another WEDGE ISSUE like they did with racism during the primaries, and election, etc.

              Abortion is a PLANNED diversionary tactic to prevent discussion of how unaffordable this bill is going to be for American families and prevent real reform. Every minute we spend arguing about this OPEN AND SHUT abortion issue is a minute we dont discuss AFFORDABILITY.

              STRATEGY TO WIN BOTH-CHOICE AND AFFORDABILITY-No DIVERSIONS! Support both sexes equality for all birth services, NOT negotiable-AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE FOR ALL

              by Andiamo on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 08:31:04 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

    •  But misses a key point: (30+ / 0-)

      On Rachel Maddow last night, it was pointed out that Stupak and Pitt are both residents of the C Street house ("The Family").  Pitt is apparently a "core" member of The Family and was the driving force behind this amendment.  The amendment accomplished several Republican purposes:

      1. Created an even more draconian anti-abortion situation
      1.  Split the Dems  and
      1.  Gave the Republicans a way to sabotage the health care bill.  They couldn't win by votes or issues, so they poisoned the bill.

      Apparently Stupak is as stupid as his names suggests and was a great puppet for Pitt.  The Republicans managed to exercise power through Stupak and the other conservative Dems.
      The fact that Stupak (and some other Dems) are so closely associated with The Family suggests to me that they are more likely to be informers for the Republicans than dedicated Democrats.  We need to look at their districts and see what we can do to them in the primaries.

      If, in our efforts to win, we become as dishonest as our opponents on the right, we don't deserve to triumph.

      by Tamar on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 09:45:37 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  In the case of Stupak, nothing. (8+ / 0-)

        Did you LOOK at his district?  It's the entire UP of Michigan and some of the most conservative counties of lower Michigan.  It's an insane district to try and campaign in -- why the Republicans won't even seriously contest it despite R+3 rating.

        Further, Stupak is a Yooper -- a native.  Born and bred.  He's got that job 'till he dies or retires.

      •  Yes, it was Republican sabotage (5+ / 0-)

        But I think Waldman is fair to say that it was expected sabotage - it really is the same wedge they've been using for 30 years.  And for writing this same analysis in language more sympathetic to the anti-abortion people, Amy Sullivan has earned the derision of Atrios (there's a new emotion for that guy) and his minions.  And somewhere in there Hamsher managed to call Catholic liturgy and teachings "voodoo", and holds this up as evidence of how intolerant the other side is.  No orthodoxies there, we're open-minded progressives.

        I can't find the person on this thread who said it, but it's time for reproductive groups to do less rallying the troops, and more bonafide convincing.  Whoever said it - kudos.

        I've heard pretty persuasive arguments about abortion being important overall, but I'm the product of a pretty pro-choice environment, and even I have to bridge some gaps to buy it.  When I stop and think about my wife having an abortion (for a whole host of reasons!) things get a lot messier.  Somehow acknowledging that messiness has become taboo, and forget about taking it off the table to accomplish something mostly unrelated but core to the progressive vision.

        What's supposed to be abroad a broad defense of women's right to conduct their lives as they choose is boiled down to a fight over a traumatic procedure that gives many people pause.  Is that really the right terrain to make a none-shall-pass stand for  women's rights?  I'm sure somebody will want to point out that I'm "a secret conservative" and "betraying the mission" of women's rights, to which I'd say, perhaps holding on to an orthodoxy that's now 30 years old is a different kind of conservatism, but conservatism nonetheless.

        •  How about taking away women's right to vote too? (8+ / 0-)

          After all, it's only a century old orthodoxy.

          I can't believe anyone would consider debating health care for millions versus the right of all women to control their own bodies.

          I guess I'm a conservative in this.

          "One cannot speak glibly of 'policy differences' and 'looking forward' and 'distraction' when corpses are involved." mcjoan

          by Helpless on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 10:33:15 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Why stop there? (0+ / 0-)

            Jesus Christ, you think you could get anymore dramatic?

            Stupak doesn't make abortion any less legal, any more expensive, or any less available than it is right now.

            But, health care reform, on the other hand, that's the difference between livelihood and bankruptcy for many people, and the difference between life and death for others.

            •  Dramatic? Don't you mean hysterical? (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              vcmvo2, susanthe

              WOMEN'S CIVIL RIGHTS are not a special interest!

              Remember, if Government can MAKE a woman bear a child, someday Government could PREVENT a woman from bearing a child. Same diff constitutionally.

              by Catskill Julie on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 11:09:08 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  not a civil rights issue (0+ / 0-)

                If it was then you could tell me in what way abortion is less legal with Stupak than it is now.

                And I would call a man "dramatic" if he said the same thing. There's nothing wrong with being passionately pro-choice--I consider myself passionately pro-choice. But there's nothing noble in pretending that this is more than it is and derailing health care reform (which is actual life and death for lots of people) in the process.

                Lets get this cleaned up in committee to remove even the appearance that this changes the existing situation, and then go after the bad actors in primaries.

                •  perhaps you should read this (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  rgjdmls

                  Remember, if Government can MAKE a woman bear a child, someday Government could PREVENT a woman from bearing a child. Same diff constitutionally.

                  by Catskill Julie on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 11:48:19 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I hope the language gets changed (0+ / 0-)

                    to remove the part that says that anyone who receives a subsidy can't have a plan that covers abortion. I expect that it will. Everything else in that op-ed was fear-mongering based on a lot of hypotheticals: "well what if this this and this happens, and then the insurance companies decide to do that that and that, and then a woman who has abortion coverage now might lose it." Very little of this makes sense because (a) abortions are cheaper than pregnancies--so there's very little reason for insurance companies to scrimp on them, (b) almost 90% of abortions are paid for out of pocket right now, and (c) this only affects people who get plans with government subsidies.

                    •  Profit motive and adoptions being a cash cow for (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      rgjdmls, i like bbq

                      churches is a very significant aspect of this that few realize is driving a lot of policies that claim to be about moral issues...

                      $50,000 or more profit per adoption is a powerful motivator that we should realize is many, many billions of dollars nationally when you look at the number of teen pregnancies and the financial impossibility of them paying for their own abortions, you see its really a system set up to do this evil thing of taking their babies for money.

                      STRATEGY TO WIN BOTH-CHOICE AND AFFORDABILITY-No DIVERSIONS! Support both sexes equality for all birth services, NOT negotiable-AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE FOR ALL

                      by Andiamo on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 08:11:02 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                •  you aren't passionately (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  vcmvo2, Catskill Julie

                  pro-choice if you're willing to sell women down the river with Stupak.

          •  It's not the ideas that are orthodoxical (0+ / 0-)

            it's the position.  Look at your response. I'm basically saying above that I'm pro-choice but I can see how reasonable people would have doubts, and that I think abortion is tactically and strategically (viz the last 30 years) a losing way to fight for women's right. Your response is:  

            I can't believe anyone would consider debating health care for millions versus the right of all women to control their own bodies.

            That's not engagement with my argument, that's disgusted outrage that I don't inherently see the merits of your position (which I take, absent clarification, to be that fighting for abortion rights is very important).  That's been my experience whenever I utter a peep of question about abortion with my pro-choice friends.  Doubly so because my dispute is really only about the strategic merits of using abortion rights as a vehicle to advance women's right, not with the need for greater equity for women.

            And that's why I would call it an orthodoxy.  All that said, I'd be thrilled if you'd debate my points on the merits - I think we'd both learn a lot.  Consider this an invitation to disagree with me. :)

            •  Not a civil rights issue? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              rgjdmls

              In the same way a poll tax is not a civil rights issue.  After all 90% of poor people could come up with the $ to pay if they really wanted to vote.

              And if 90% of women pay out of pocket, that's close enough.

              Jesus Christ! Listen to this bigot!

              This is too important to "hope the language gets changed".  We have gone along with Waxman/Pelosi promising a single payer floor debate.  The "robust" public option has been taken away from anyone with employer paid insurance.

              "One cannot speak glibly of 'policy differences' and 'looking forward' and 'distraction' when corpses are involved." mcjoan

              by Helpless on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 05:35:29 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  I don't really agree with you, but don't (5+ / 0-)

          disagree for the reasons you seem to think.
          Part of the problem is that men really are looking on this from the outside.  I've had 3 pregnancies (and 3 wonderful children born).  I can tell you that pregnancy and birth is an intensely intimate and private experience.  The idea that someone could force me to continue a pregnancy against my wishes, could force me to give birth, is positively horrifying.
           Forget abstracts like "a broad defense of women's right to conduct their lives as they choose" and think rape.  Forced pregnancy and forced birth is rape -- there's no other way to put it.  
          And if you look at the worst of the anti-abortion groups -- they are aggressive, violent, and want power over women.  Think rape.
          It's the reason women get so incensed about this.  I was in my 20's before abortion was legalized.  I'm the mother of 4 children and being a mother is my highest priority and greatest joy.  And still, the notion of someone forcing me (and now my daughters) to stay pregnant and give birth brings on the same sort of atavistic fear as does a violent criminal breaking into my house and assaulting my children.

          If, in our efforts to win, we become as dishonest as our opponents on the right, we don't deserve to triumph.

          by Tamar on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 10:34:06 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  The problem is... (0+ / 0-)

            that you are fighting a fight that you've already won. Nobody is taking away any rights from anyone. Abortion won't be anymore expensive, any less available, or any less legal with Stupak than it is right now. Enough with the theatrics.

            •  absolutely false (4+ / 0-)

              Right now, Medicaid doesn't cover abortions (unless states provide separate funding).  That's bad enough.  

              With this amendment, most private insurance companies will no longer cover abortion services unless the woman's life is at stake (not her health or her well-being --- she has to be in imminent danger of death from the pregnancy) because they can't offer these services if they accept people who are receiving subsidies.  

              If, in our efforts to win, we become as dishonest as our opponents on the right, we don't deserve to triumph.

              by Tamar on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 10:49:10 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  That's absurd (0+ / 0-)

                Not at all true...which would be clear if you read the bill. It's so wildly false that I would assume that it was intentionally misleading if I heard the same statement on a republican forum.

                The bill says that private companies must provide a choice to the consumer of a plan with and without abortion coverage. Chances are the 'with-abortion' plan is the same price.

              •  I can't believe this is happening in the 21st (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                vcmvo2, Tamar, rgjdmls

                century.  These people actually believe that their religious ideas are more important than access to health care.

                I've worked at a woman's health center and my sister worked for a nonprofit who funds foster care services.  Some women choose abortion because they can barely care for one child.  Sometimes this is because the mother has physical or mental health problems.  Some women bring children into the world they cannot take care of, and they wind up in the foster care system.

                Either way, these situations underscore the reality that our culture does not take responsibility for children's lives.  And it has nothing to do with abortion.  Yet the church acts as if this is the whole problem.

                •  Let's not lose people who might otherwise agree (0+ / 0-)

                  Your position here is disgusted outrage rather than engagement with the ideas of the above posters.

                  These people actually believe that their religious ideas are more important than access to health care.

                  Yes, that's pretty much how a lot of people approach religion - if their religion says it, it carries an awful lot of weight.  If we make the choice an either-or for those people we at least lose their support for things they might otherwise support (women being empowered) and we might mint some adversaries.

                  I've worked at a woman's health center and my sister worked for a nonprofit who funds foster care services.  Some women choose abortion because they can barely care for one child.  Sometimes this is because the mother has physical or mental health problems.  Some women bring children into the world they cannot take care of, and they wind up in the foster care system.

                  Props to you - you're doing an important thing for people in great need, and probably help a lot of women take an empowering step in their lives.  

                  Either way, these situations underscore the reality that our culture does not take responsibility for children's lives.  And it has nothing to do with abortion.

                  Then shouldn't this be what the signs and the mailers say, not focusing on whether a person has a right to abort a pregnancy or not?  Imagine that appendicitis had as grave consequences for people's future independence as abortion did - that is an appendicitis would totally alter your life.  Would the right way to help those people be to demand access to appendectomies for everyone?  It would seem to make a poor bannerhead...

            •  p.s. My husband's prostrate cancer (0+ / 0-)

              was devastating to him even though he's beat it (so far).  I don't call his feelings "theatrics."    

              If, in our efforts to win, we become as dishonest as our opponents on the right, we don't deserve to triumph.

              by Tamar on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 11:00:35 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  Who are the pro-lifers anyway? (0+ / 0-)

            Look, this:

            Forced pregnancy and forced birth is rape -- there's no other way to put it.  

            is an argument by extremes.  If laws that restrict abortion are the same as sanctioning rape, nobody is safe and we might as well get those shotguns the wingnuts are on about.  Argument by reduction to raw emotion is unwinnable (although it might be unlosable as well - I'm not clear on that), but I think it really oversimplifies who prolifers are.

            Many, many, many people are anti-abortion because the Pope is against abortion, and a bunch more because their flavor of religion is against it.  There are a lot of kinds of Catholics, many of whom are very progressive in lots of respects (obligations around charity, racial equality, etc.) but are against abortion.  I'm not very religious, but I think for a lot of people, the specific tenets of religion are grounded in their relationship to tradition, continuity, and respect for elders and the past as much as abstract commandments about right and wrong. To equate their position to rape is to write them off politically.

            So the battle that's being set up is people choosing one cultural mode (empowered woman) vs. another (keeper of traditional values).  My belief is that a lot of people want to merge those two and abortion keeps them in opposition.  After all many of those same people (>70% if you believe another poster) DO NOT want the government to outlaw abortion, they just don't want the government to encourage it.   That's what leads me to think that the best way to empower this women is to neutralize the abortion issue and go after the big issue: women deserve to make their own choices about their lives.  Choice is right word, and dealing with fetuses is the wrong battleground.

            •  The problem for me is that this amendment (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              rgjdmls, i like bbq

              Looks like judgment or bigotry disguised as religion.  On health care, it would be like refusing to treat people with AIDS.  Or the civil rights issue of saying that is OK to deny gay people the right to marry.  I don't think I can find common ground on this particular part of the healthcare debate with people who feel this way.  Especially when they were willing to sabotage the entire bill to get this amendment included.  Instead of fighting to include more healthcare services, they were trying to deny them to women.  So that's where my disgusted outrage comes from.

              Reproductive freedom means access for all women to contraception, safe and legal abortion, and prenatal and early childhood health care.  I've been waiting for the pro-lifers to become passionate about fighting infant mortality.  It just doesn't seem to be as important to them as ending abortion.  I don't think there's a way to reframe the debate so there's no conflict about that issue.

    •  What does that say about Waxman? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Miles, hideinplainsight, scarysota63

      Remember, if Government can MAKE a woman bear a child, someday Government could PREVENT a woman from bearing a child. Same diff constitutionally.

      by Catskill Julie on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 10:27:59 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Or Pelosi? (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Miles, hideinplainsight, susanthe

        "One cannot speak glibly of 'policy differences' and 'looking forward' and 'distraction' when corpses are involved." mcjoan

        by Helpless on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 10:33:43 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Indeed (3+ / 0-)

        Was Pelosi lying to Waxman?
        Was Waxman lying to Weiner?
        Was Weiner lying to himself?

        Or is the whole distinction between truth and lie incredibly naive and childish?

        Does anybody mean anything when they make a promise in Congress, or does everyone understand that it is all a great theater in which words are deployed to....

        ... move bills out of committee?
        ... shut people up?
        ... give something to the media to report, while the real work goes on behind the scenes?

        You gotta ask yourself.

        Does Weiner feel anything?  Does he feel betrayed?  Does he understand that he NEEDED to play the fool for Waxman?   Does Waxman feel anything about his words?  Did he know that Pelosi was lying to him, and simply pass the lie on to Weiner (and the public)?

        Do any of them understand that people were listening to their words, and (however foolishly) counting on their promises?   (Nah... they know that their public discourse is below the awareness threshold of the public.)

    •  Independent Bernie Sanders Can Save the Dems (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      divineorder

      from themselves. The House Bill is a hoax without a strong, robust public option & access to that option by ALL Americans. Sanders is NOT corporate owned, as all Republicans & many Dems are(I include Obama. Many progressives don't.) Bernie will fillibuster a Senate Bill without the strong, robust, PO & total access to that option. This will force corporate owned Harry to do reconcilliation-the only path to an actual bill that will not fail. The Dems could be in power for decades with the right bill. They'll have to choose the people over corporations to do it. Their history indicates they'll take the bribe money from K-Street as usual. It's up to them.

  •  Yep. (18+ / 0-)

    A progressive promise to derail a weakened public option would appear more credible if progressives had managed to force a floor vote on some progressive amendment this go-round.

    Sigh.  I'm focusing on supporting those vulnerable Dems who did the right thing Saturday.  Twice.

    Show Dems in R-Leaning Districts Who Voted For Health Care, Against Stupak: We've Got Your Back

    by Adam B on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 09:37:37 AM PST

    •  P.S. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      oysterface, vcmvo2, polar bear

      Unless y'all help out right now, this effort won't hit the REC list again.

      Show Dems in R-Leaning Districts Who Voted For Health Care, Against Stupak: We've Got Your Back

      by Adam B on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 10:00:15 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I disagree. (0+ / 0-)

      Had the Weiner amendment gone for a floor vote, many, many Democrats in vulnerable districts would have had to cast a politically uncomfortable vote on something that at best could get 120-130 votes.

      It's hard enough to pass universal health insurance as it is.  There simply is no need to ask members to cast politically uncomfortable votes on items that have zero chance of passing.

      The only thing the Weiner amendment would have done is anger other members.  CPC members, who I often agree with, are not the only members of the caucus.

      I think something such as increasing the already paltry subsidies and/or the minimum benefits package would have a much better chance of passage, and wouldn't have angered as much other Democrats.  Plus, President Obama and the Senate would have supported such an amendment.

      Operator, operator -- what's the number for 9-1-1? - Homer Simpson

      by jim bow on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 10:26:23 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  You hit the nail on the head (5+ / 0-)

    I stopped contributing to NARAL national after Dr. Tiller got killed.  I realized that even though I'd been contributing my dollars since 1980 that not one dime of their money (or mine) helped prevent that murder.

    So yes, I agree with you 100%.

  •  It Does Nothing for Most of Us (18+ / 0-)

    This whole huge bill does nothing for most of us. Most of us have insurance through our employers, part of our pay. Those people are not affected at all by this bill. Its Congressional sponsors say that most of that insurance is entirely compliant with all the requirements in the bill. The remaining few, that suck beyond belief, aren't bound by the requirements until 2019.

    So those of us with crappy, overpriced insurance that we get instead of cash from our jobs, get nothing. And the "tightened standards" will just make official the current mediocre or worse de facto standards in insurance. A decade from now.

    I'm glad that millions of people who can't get insurance from their employers now will someday (maybe in 2013) get some from a public option. But they can't get private insurance because private insurers don't want them. So this bill is thereby taking the burden of those people off the insurance corps. While guaranteeing those same corps that the healthiest (cheapest to insure) people will all be required to buy private insurance.

    Surprise! It's a gift to the insurance industry.

    And you're surprised that it also slashes abortion rights for millions?

    "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

    by DocGonzo on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 09:40:52 AM PST

    •  Recission, removal of lifetime coverage caps, (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Geenius at Wrok, Superribbie

      minimum spending on healthcare... I know there are more.

      That just isn't true. You can make the argument that it doesn't do enough, especially for cost controls, and I'd agree. It is, however, untrue that it does nothing.

      "I think a basic principle of our Constitution is nobody above the law" -Obama

      by heart of a quince on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 09:57:06 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Or they can't afford it (5+ / 0-)

      The House bill raises Medicaid to 150 percent of poverty, the Senate Finance bill to 133 percent.  Each bill contains about $900 billion in new subsidies or funding for coverage for lower-income people.  Not enough perhaps, but worth something to a lot of hard-pressed people.

      •  I love this Medicaide hooey, in particular. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        fernan47, MPociask

        As someone pointed out, I can "arrange" my affairs currently to qualify for Medicaid.  If this bill passes, I can qualify for Medicaid without the "arrangement" of affairs.  
        Medicaid is underfunded in every state.  My own bankrupt California has a lovely hang by the fingernail situation in place for the moment which will soon be appended with a rubberband. With luck, perhaps one can find a competent physician who will accept Medicaid. Can't wait for this health care "revolution" to pan out.

      •  plus removing medicaid qualifying restrictions (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Tamar

        for adults (That's mostly removing the requirement for a child?). That medicaid change plus the increase to 150% may be one of the biggest wins in this bill.

        "At the end of the day, the public plan wins the game." Sen. Ben Nelson

        by ferg on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 10:14:18 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  The problem is that you don't have to be anywhere (5+ / 0-)

        near poor for health insurance to be a crippling cost.

        The numbers vary, but the one of seen, from Kaiser Permanente, is more than $13,000 for family insurance.

        That would be 20% of the gross pay for a family that makes $65,000 a year.  One dollar in five is way too much to spend on health care, and $65,000 is about 20% over the median family income.

        Free speech? Yeah, I've heard of that. Have you?

        by dinotrac on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 10:18:48 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  plenty of stuff for employees (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sebastianguy99, Possiamo

      This Bill does not nothing meme needs to be killed because it's flat out not true. it could easily be used by AHIP and GOP to kill the whole thing. Now may be you want that, but I don't.

      Employers are required to provide insurance that meets the same standards as Exchange insurance.
      They have to cover at least 70% of individual coverage or 65% of family. If that's still leaves the employee with premiums costs of more than 12% of their income, then they can enter the Exchange themselves.
      Small Businesses (25 employees or less which in my area is practically half the businesses for blocks around ) get to go to the Exchange right as it starts.

      I'm glad that millions of people who can't get insurance from their employers now will someday (maybe in 2013) get some from a public option. But they can't get private insurance because private insurers don't want them.

      It doesn't matter if insurance companies don't want them, they have to take them anyways, What part of ban on denials for pre-existing conditions do you not understand? It takes effect immediately.
      There's high risk pool that kicks in immediately

      •  Pelosi's Meme (0+ / 0-)

        Let me quote from the clickable "answer wizard" out of Pelosi's office, presented in a frontpage DKos story this past weekend. Click on "currently insured", then "employer", you get:

        Nothing in our plan requires you to change what you have.

        Most employers already meet the standards in the House bill and will not require any changes. These changes will go into effect in 2019.

        According to Pelosi, this "reform" sets standards no different from what most employers already offer, and will not change them. The changes that are required don't take effect for ten years.

        So the "meme" that must die is "this health reform fixes the problem". As I said, it's good for several million of the hardest off of us. I'm not complaining about that. What I'm complaining about is that it does nothing for the vast majority of us. And we're not better off just because we're not poor, since medical crises bankrupt even the middle class. If you don't like those memes, take it up with Pelosi. I know I am.

        "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

        by DocGonzo on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 11:55:29 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  The beam in abortion rights advocates' eyes (12+ / 0-)

    I'm probably going to get about 750 HRs for saying this, but what the hell, because it's true: Those who are the most die-hard committed to abortion rights refuse to acknowledge that part of their role must be to persuade others who don't share their premises.

    "It's MY body, it's MY choice, there is no other being involved that might possibly have rights worth considering, go make your own choice and fuck you if you even think of talking to me about mine" is an excellent line of rhetoric if you want to drive people away from talking or listening to you.

    It doesn't win converts. Or win votes. Or raise funds.

    You want to win, you have to figure out a way to talk to people who aren't you.

    "The great lie of democracy, its essential paradox, is that democracy is first to be sacrificed when its security is at risk." --Ian McDonald

    by Geenius at Wrok on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 09:41:23 AM PST

    •  That's always been a problem (6+ / 0-)

      To someone who fundamentally believes an embryo is morally identical to a child, "it's my body" is a ludicrously unconvincing argument in favor of the right to terminate that embryo's existence. And, frankly, it should be. We wouldn't accept "it's my family" as an argument supporting the right of a father to abuse and kill his child. To abortion opponents, it's the same argument. We don't have to understand it, but we do have to accept the fact that they believe it.

      Not that the other side doesn't do exactly the same thing. Calling a clump of undifferentiated stem cells an inn'cent li'l baby isn't a convincing argument to anyone who doesn't already believe it.

      Mr. President, please don't allow your administration to go down in history as the biggest missed opportunity of all time.

      by phenry on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 09:52:36 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Loaded language helps nobody (7+ / 0-)

        I saw a sign on a house the other day, "An embryo is a baby!" It made me want to take a can of paint and add, "A toddler is a teenager!"

        Naomi Wolf has written of participating in workshops in which anti-abortion and pro-abortion-rights activists were put together and forced to confront the fact that -- whoa! -- their opponents are generally not drooling hellbeasts, but reasonable people whose arguments begin from different (and not even all mutually exclusive) premises. It is possible to find patches of common ground if you're willing to try. But the anti-abortion forces who see women as walking incubators and the pro-abortion-rights forces who see a fetus as nothing but a wart, who both refuse to acknowledge that the other side might have even a teensy little point, are not going to advance the discussion. They're just going to throw gasoline on the fire.

        "The great lie of democracy, its essential paradox, is that democracy is first to be sacrificed when its security is at risk." --Ian McDonald

        by Geenius at Wrok on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 09:58:45 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  I find this comparison false. (0+ / 0-)

        We wouldn't accept "it's my family" as an argument supporting the right of a father to abuse and kill his child.

        I agree that incendiary rhetoric gets us nowhere but faulty reasoning isn't helpful under any circumstance.

        •  That's exactly the point. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Geenius at Wrok

          To you and me, it's a false comparison. To them, it's not.

          We don't have to understand it, but we do have to accept the fact that they believe it.

          Mr. President, please don't allow your administration to go down in history as the biggest missed opportunity of all time.

          by phenry on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 10:19:47 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  ph, I do accept it. I will not influence anybody (0+ / 0-)

            whose positions are based on "feelings" and indoctrination.  And I won't try.

            •  Perhaps that's the answer, then. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Geenius at Wrok

              After all, this is an issue that ultimately hinges on a question that can never be objectively answered, but which has enormous ramifications on our attitudes toward life and freedom: the question of when human life begins. Perhaps there's no point in even trying to find arguments that will convince people on the other side.

              I'll say this, though: even if we stop trying to recruit people over to our side, I'm pretty sure they'll never stop trying to recruit people over to theirs.

              Mr. President, please don't allow your administration to go down in history as the biggest missed opportunity of all time.

              by phenry on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 11:36:42 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I can't see any reason to abandon logic. (0+ / 0-)

                It worked for me in the end.  I definitely accept that there may be rational debate as to when "life" begins (whereas, there is none to be had when breath is drawn upon the earth, let's say).  I have come to a personal conclusion which is my business and not to be foisted on anyone else.
                I was raised Catholic.  
                Conception was the "life" point promoted, along with the "sin" of homosexuality, earthly consequence to us all with arbitrarily called "amoral" behaviors, and a multitude of other nonsensical positions that don't hold water when held to critical light.  They were the tenets of emotional religiosity and they are a mighty force.
                I was, nonetheless, consistently exposed to logical thinking.  I was graced with a few firing brain cells, so it all worked out.  I can pander logic until the cows come home without regret.  Or hope of influencing the irrational.  But, you never know.

        •  False how? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Geenius at Wrok

          The logic is the same except for the age and location of the child.

          That's the point of contention:

          Some people see the unborn as children who are merely that much younger.
          Some people see them a clump of cells, no matter how many fingers and toes.

          Free speech? Yeah, I've heard of that. Have you?

          by dinotrac on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 10:22:26 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  The claim that I own my own body is not the same (0+ / 0-)

            I own someone else's body.

            •  Which has nothing to do with anything, because (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              MPociask

              that is not the bone of contention.

              The someone else's body is the bone of contention.

              You know that as well as I do.

              I'm curious -

              Do you believe that expectant mothers should drink, smoke, do drugs to whatever extent they please?

              Free speech? Yeah, I've heard of that. Have you?

              by dinotrac on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 10:47:46 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I was replying to what was stated in the thread (0+ / 0-)

                That was definitely a comparison to "I own my own body" and notions to the contrary, not a guess as to what the secret message was.  I am not responding to subtexts or intimation.  Logic demands that that be avoided in honest discussion.
                As to the behavior of pregnant mothers, it's none of my business.  I have tried to keep working on the emotionalism that I was indoctrinated with in these dicey waters concerning choice.  I see the only light in the tunnel to be rational thought.  Knee jerk emotionalism was no good to me or anybody else.

          •  Perhaps not false but hypocritical (0+ / 0-)

            Until "lifers" start adopting and supporting child services, publicly funded prenatal and neonatal care to where the US is #1 in infant mortality, it's hypocritical to say, "thou shalt not".

            "One cannot speak glibly of 'policy differences' and 'looking forward' and 'distraction' when corpses are involved." mcjoan

            by Helpless on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 10:47:39 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  That's a pretty sweeping statement...and (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              MPociask

              doesn't comport with my experience at all.

              Most of the people I have known who have adopted difficult-to-place children (age, health, etc) or who have served as foster parents have been pro-lifers.  If I attend different churches, that might balance out, but you are wrong to presume that pro-lifers are unconcerned with the result of their position.

              Free speech? Yeah, I've heard of that. Have you?

              by dinotrac on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 10:51:35 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Of course (0+ / 0-)

                But yet, the US is what, number 14, or is it 37 in infant mortality?  There should be no controversy here.  Why are we not #1?  because many of the anti-choice people believe in Nordquist who want's to get government down to where he can "drown it in a bathtub".

                "One cannot speak glibly of 'policy differences' and 'looking forward' and 'distraction' when corpses are involved." mcjoan

                by Helpless on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 11:12:34 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Have you been out of the country? (0+ / 0-)

                  We've been going through a major health care debate in this country -- even got a bill through the House of Representatives.

                  Our health care system is badly broken and needs to be fixed.

                  Free speech? Yeah, I've heard of that. Have you?

                  by dinotrac on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 11:24:14 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  And so, why have I not heard (0+ / 0-)

                    word one from "pro-life" people or organizations about how "[o]ur health care system is badly broken and needs to be fixed."

                    "One cannot speak glibly of 'policy differences' and 'looking forward' and 'distraction' when corpses are involved." mcjoan

                    by Helpless on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 01:57:51 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

    •  Yeah (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Geenius at Wrok, Alfonso Nevarez

      See also shanikka.

      Let the great world spin for ever down the ringing grooves of change. - Tennyson

      by bumblebums on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 09:54:25 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I believe support for abortion rights (12+ / 0-)

      Currently sits at something like 60%. [source].  Note that in the same source, 77% disapprove of any governmental intervention in reproductive rights whatsoever.  It is only through the efforts of an exceeding minority of misogynist ASSHOLES that the "pro-life" position exists at all.

      Pro-life is a pose, a stance.  It is not a principled stand.  It is a position that is assumed by fundamentalist, patriarchal Christians in order to maintain control over women through sex.  These folks don't give a wet shit about the lives of the infants that they pretend they are protecting.  If they did, they wouldn't also be the same yammering fuckheads who propose we teach abstinence-only sex education and block every possible attempt to give women contraception.

      This is about a movement largely composed of men who want sex to be about dominating a woman and humiliating her, and punishing her for having it after making it impossible for her to refuse.  There is a concurrent movement that seems to think rape is perfectly OK, and that issue also just got voted on by our lovely Congress and we saw exactly where those pricks stand . . . they are perfectly ok with men raping women and getting away with it.

      So, in closing, if there's anyone who has a need to convince people of something in this discussion, it is the Randall Terry column who enthusiastically cheer every time an abortion doctor is murdered.  Pro-life my CHAPPED ASS.

      I stand with Rep. Alan Grayson. Lead, follow, or get out of the way.

      by slippytoad on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 09:55:50 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  IT IS NOT PRO LIFE (7+ / 0-)

        It's anti-choice.

        Pro life is a Republican meme to make it sound as though denying rights to half our citizens is somehow noble. It's not.

        We should stop using it.

        We need two lists: those we will work to elect and those we will defeat. If you're not progressive, you're not a Democrat.

        by moosely2006 on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 10:05:59 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Thought experiment. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Geenius at Wrok, MPociask

        Think about the stage during the development of a human organism at which you believe it assumes full moral "personhood," such that it should be afforded all the rights, privileges, and responsibilities of anyone in our society.

        Now consider whether it might be possible for someone might rationally and with no ulterior motive ask themselves the same question and come to a different conclusion from you. Specifically, whether they might reasonably locate the dividing line between non-person and person at an earlier stage of development than you do.

        Now ask yourself whether by doing so, the other person always and necessarily becomes a fudamentalist patriarchal Christian who wishes to maintain control over women through sex.

        Mr. President, please don't allow your administration to go down in history as the biggest missed opportunity of all time.

        by phenry on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 10:10:40 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  i'm tired of this (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          joanneleon, esquimaux

          as an argument.

          it is a matter of personal belief and the law shouldn't get into personal belief when it comes to what happens inside anyone's body.

          i do not care to discuss this with anyone.

          i do not care to acknowledge others have personal beliefs that are fundamentally different than mine as a way to dialog.

          for me, it is the point at which conversations stops and we as a society take our hands off the issue.

          that is why pro-choice is an immovable position.

          We must practice `pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will.' Antonio Gramsci

          by fernan47 on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 10:26:11 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  "I do not care to discuss this with anyone" (0+ / 0-)

            Then don't get upset when your side loses because you couldn't be bothered to sell it.

            "The great lie of democracy, its essential paradox, is that democracy is first to be sacrificed when its security is at risk." --Ian McDonald

            by Geenius at Wrok on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 02:53:47 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  Yes (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          aimai, Catskill Julie

          Frankly, yes.  Because the pro-"life" movement is patently, obviously, and arrogantly not about "life."  It is about "controlling women."

          Show me where pro-"lifers" are handing out condoms and birth control pills.  These are perfectly rational ways to control the problem of "unwanted" pregancies, yet pro-"lifers" seem to be either unaware of them or vehemently opposed to them for reasons that are based on lies or just plain old fucking ignorance.

          If you're standing shoulder to shoulder with murder-approving Randall Terry, you're about crushing women's rights in this society and turning the clock back to the 18th century.  I don't give people much allowance otherwise.  So if you're telling me you advocate restricting women's abortion access, I could care less about what else you think.  You can make mouth noises all day long and I will flat-out ignore you because the movement you've stitched yourself to is NOT about life.  It is about control.  Period.  I refuse to entertain discussion otherwise because it's bullshit.

          I stand with Rep. Alan Grayson. Lead, follow, or get out of the way.

          by slippytoad on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 10:45:44 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Dennis Kucinich (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Geenius at Wrok

            Show me where pro-"lifers" are handing out condoms and birth control pills.

            Prior to 2003, Dennis Kucinich was one of the most ardently anti-abortion members of Congress. At the same time, he also supported measures to increase access to information about sex and contraception (see e.g. his co-sponsorship of H.R. 3469 in 2001).

            This is what happens when you lump ordinary people in with diehard activists. And that, young Jedi, is why you fail.

            Mr. President, please don't allow your administration to go down in history as the biggest missed opportunity of all time.

            by phenry on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 11:26:01 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Sir (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              i like bbq

              Had I encountered Dennis Kucinich prior to whatever event in 2003 you refer to, I would have labeled him as stubbornly, fucking stupidly wrongheaded.

              I completely stand by my statement.  If you're going to lie down with dogs, by god you're gonna get up with fleas.  Tough fucking shit for you.

              I'm a liberal. I think OUR rights are more important than YOUR fears.

              by slippytoad on Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 12:11:30 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  Thoughts: False argument (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          aimai, scarysota63, hikerbiker

          Think about the stage during the development of a human organism at which you believe it assumes full moral "personhood," such that it should be afforded all the rights, privileges, and responsibilities of anyone in our society.

          Afforded all rights and responsibilities: Generally age 18
          Afforded all privileges:  Generally age 21, but sometimes 18.

          The question is rather when, if ever, does the state have the right to dictate what a woman does with her body?  

          "One cannot speak glibly of 'policy differences' and 'looking forward' and 'distraction' when corpses are involved." mcjoan

          by Helpless on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 11:08:00 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  add to your "if they did" that if they (4+ / 0-)

        cared about children, they'd be on the front lines demanding that children be guaranteed food, shelter, a safe environment, and a decent education.  The anti-abortion groups are almost never the same ones advocating for children.

        If, in our efforts to win, we become as dishonest as our opponents on the right, we don't deserve to triumph.

        by Tamar on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 10:44:24 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Absolutely! (4+ / 0-)

          There is no honest discussion of this being "pro" anything.  It is "anti" women.  It is ALL ABOUT THAT.

          I stand with Rep. Alan Grayson. Lead, follow, or get out of the way.

          by slippytoad on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 10:46:26 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I'm finding it terribly frustrating (3+ / 0-)

            in this comment section, dealing with people (who seem to be mainly men) who seem to think that discussing women's right to protect their bodies from violation is somehow the same as deciding whether a car's computerized fuel injection system should be covered under warranty -- it sounds sort of like "yeah, it should be covered, but let's sit down and work out the costs and benefits and decide whether or not it's absolutely necessary."

            If it were about men's reproductive body parts, the discussion would sound very very different.  What if a man who wanted to get a vasectomy was told he couldn't because every sperm was a child in the making?  (and for that matter, he shouldn't be able to have sex without trying to reproduce -- that's biblical law)

            If, in our efforts to win, we become as dishonest as our opponents on the right, we don't deserve to triumph.

            by Tamar on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 10:55:29 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  That's an excellent way to put it (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Tamar, Catskill Julie

              Let's put vasectomy rights in the HCR bill.  Hell, let's put the right to get a Viagra prescription in the bill.  Attach it to the Stupid Amendment and make it so that if the Stupid Amendment passes, men can no longer get vasectomies or Viagra, period.  Covered or not.

              Let's see how that shit flies.

              I stand with Rep. Alan Grayson. Lead, follow, or get out of the way.

              by slippytoad on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 11:02:39 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

    •  Two thirds of the population support Roe v. Wade, (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      714day, fernan47, Catskill Julie

      How much more persuading is necessary?

    •  You get a recommend from me (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Geenius at Wrok, MPociask

      As I was just saying up-thread, somewhere abortion rights as a proxy for women's advancement crystallized into "progressive" orthodoxy.  On that day those who are against women's rights took hold of a big stick, and if this bill is any example, a lot of other progressive priorities took a beating with that same stick.

      There's nothing glorious about promoting abortion, nothing that says that if women have more abortions they're more empowered.  Somehow everyone's supposed to get the difference between pro-choice and pro-abortion and infer all the rest of the stuff about why it's important.

      On the other hand, there are lots and lots of non-abortion issues where women are routinely disempowered that could use the kind of firepower that's being ill-employed by NARAL and Emily's list.  Pay equity, for example.  More women being paid more is glorious, and every dollar is more decisions they can make for themselves (including getting whatever reproductive services they need).  The fact that women often depend on a spouse's healthcare (which this bill at least attempts to address).  We've gotta get the subject back to the bigger issue and get out of the muck.

      •  I really hate this crap (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        alizard, i like bbq, Gemina13, Keori

        I hate being told that women who want to make sure that there is no forced birth, and no needless deaths of women from dangerous pregnancies, should be spending their time on someone else's priorities. If you care a whole lot about equal pay--which, btw, has been a cornerstone issue for women's rights from the fucking get go--why don't you go raise money and fight for it. That's right--feminism doesn't mean a clean up of all the world's problems in aisle six every time you blow your ref. whistle. Feminism is not a floor wax, or a life raft, or a new form of plastic wear, or a janitor. Its women getting together to help women.

        Reproductive rights--that is, the right to control our bodies through rights against forced marriage, marital rape, rape, forced childbirth, laws making contraception illegal or unavailable and finally laws against abortion are central to women's struggle to achieve pay parity in the work force and to support their own families financially.  

        So fuck off. Abortion isn't "the muck" its the real life issue facing all women. and I say that as a woman who has been fortunate enough to have two live, wanted, births.

        aimai

      •  it appears that not only is abortion coverage (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        i like bbq

        going to be missing from the bill, but so will most other forms of woman's reproductive coverage.

        While I'm sure as a Lieberman DINOcrat, you're OK with this, no progressive can possibly be.

        Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

        by alizard on Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 04:15:31 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  How about this then (0+ / 0-)

      Remember, if Government can MAKE a woman bear a child, someday Government could PREVENT a woman from bearing a child. Same diff constitutionally.

      by Catskill Julie on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 11:03:27 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  The chance of Stupak-Pitts surviving (5+ / 0-)

    a conference committee, given the likely conferees and the probability that support for the final bill was the price of Pelosi's concession, is highly remote.  Still, this is a great chance to scream about abortion rights and to flame Stupak so as to make sure that it doesn't happen, and I'm glad that we're doing so.

    If the public option doesn't survive conference, it won't be the result of a trade to give Queen Olympia all that she desires -- it will be because they seriously believe that we don't have the Senate votes to get it done and reconciliation turns out not to be an option.

    On that last, I'm still waiting for a definitive opinion, written in blood, on whether there is any 60-vote hurdle that we have to clear if we do go through reconciliation.  There is even disagreement among commenters as to when reconciliation would take place -- prior to (which has been my understanding) or after the conference report is issued.  Some clarity on the exact process ahead of us, is we take reconciliation, would be most welcome.

    A mess of Bush Admin officials have gotten away with serious crimes! Grab a mop!

    by Seneca Doane on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 09:42:03 AM PST

    •  I also wonder whether a filibuster (6+ / 0-)

      would be such an awful thing, in the end.

      There's a saying among chess players: "The threat is stronger than the execution." Right now, the threat of a filibuster has Senate Democrats cowering in fear. Fuck that. Accept the gambit. Make the Republicans show whether their tactic has anything behind it. Make them stand out on the Senate floor reading from cookbooks and phone books. Televise their obstructionism around the clock.

      Let's see how that works out for you, anti-reformers.

      "The great lie of democracy, its essential paradox, is that democracy is first to be sacrificed when its security is at risk." --Ian McDonald

      by Geenius at Wrok on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 09:45:08 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I hope you're right. (3+ / 0-)

      The problem with that is I would have thought the HOUSE would have been the least likely to do this to us.

      "Grab a mop -- let's get to work. "
      -- President Barack Obama, Oct 2009

      by davewill on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 09:45:42 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  It isn't and here's why: (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        davewill

        House members represent small districts; Senators represent entire states.  Both have to go through both primaries and general elections to make it to Congress.  Smaller, concentrated populations, that the House members represent tend to be more homogeneous than entire states.  Also, Senate elections are a far more high profile affair than House elections.  Abortion is such a hot button issue that it it exceedingly difficult to make it through a statewide Democratic primary with the anti-choice position (or through a Republican one with the pro-choice position).  Thus, there are a large number of anti-choice Democrats in the House (and a fair number of ostensibly pro-choice Republicans), but very few of either in the Senate.  I can think of two anti-choice Democrats off the top of my head: Ben Nelson and Bob Casey.  And Casey, for one, is so in favor of healthcare reform that he's not about to muck it up by wading into the abortion issue.  

        Also, the problem in the House is that there is a sizable anti-choice contingent in the Dem caucus that all came out for the amendment and the supposedly pro-choice Republicans also voted for the amendment in an effort to bring down the whole bill.  In the Senate, even if Nelson were inclined to pull a Stupak (which is unlikely since he has other fish to fry that he seems to care more about), Snowe is unlikely to vote with him just to poison the bill--especially since she may well end up supporting it.

        I'mma let you finish, Barack, but the teabaggers have done about the most for international peace of all time.--The collective GOP 10/9/09

        by Superribbie on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 10:51:53 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  So I'm learning. (0+ / 0-)

          The political dynamics are interesting. Maj. Whip Clyburn was on the radio earlier today explaining exactly that. The jist I got from the part of the interview I heard is that the anti-choice folks DID have the votes to stop the bill without a vote on coathanger, and the leadership is basically counting on the Senate and the conference committee to save the situation.

          "Grab a mop -- let's get to work. "
          -- President Barack Obama, Oct 2009

          by davewill on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 04:19:34 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Stupak Pitts is red meat (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      buckhorn okie

      to distract from the fact that the HCR that came out of the house is steamy and smelly.

      We need two lists: those we will work to elect and those we will defeat. If you're not progressive, you're not a Democrat.

      by moosely2006 on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 10:06:59 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Sounds like another super secret deal to me that (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      slinkerwink, TomP, fernan47

      frankly, I just don't believe.

  •  How did it happen? (3+ / 0-)

    Who made the decision to allow the Stupak amendment, but not any others?

    Mr. President, please don't allow your administration to go down in history as the biggest missed opportunity of all time.

    by phenry on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 09:42:23 AM PST

  •  You missed one item (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    slinkerwink, Losty, MPociask

    Your analysis fails to account for the 11th dimensional chess board.

    Be patient wise one.   It is all planned.  

    I stand by my prediction from Sunday.

    Trigger opt out public option for removal of Stupak amendment.  And everyone can pat themselves on the back in congress like when they sent the buses to the superdome four days too late.   Compromise, isn't it grand.

     

    "Republicans drove the country into a ditch and now they are complaining about the cost of the tow truck"-Jim Cornette

    by justmy2 on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 09:45:18 AM PST

  •  So We Might (re) Gain a Progressive Abortion Righ (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Geenius at Wrok, moosely2006

    which is probably worth a few millions a year, and lose the public option helping increase the billions a year motherlode for commercial insurance.

    If I had to guess based on following the money, I'd guess it was more likely that the abortion issue is a means than an end.

    Although the author himself is a Christianist so I'm sure he was going to try to introduce it in any case.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 09:47:31 AM PST

  •  I don't understand why a deal with Snowe (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Superribbie

    would be necessary to come up with workable (read: neutral) abortion language in the Senate version of the bill.

    Any amendments to the bill that advances to the floor (without Stupak's language) would need 60 votes to come to a vote, no? There definitely aren't 60 votes for such restrictive abortion language in the Senate. In fact, I doubt there are 50. And on this fight, we'll probably have Lieberman with us (gasp), plus perhaps a couple Republicans.

    I guess the biggest threat would be that Nelson vows to filibuster the motion to proceed on Reid's initial bill unless Stupak is added. That would be one gutsy, infuriating move, which could then necessitate a deal with Snowe. Personally, I doubt he'd go that far, especially since it would mean he'd lose leverage in other amendment battles, now that Snowe would once again be in play.

    •  I have some doubts about that 60 vote thing. (4+ / 0-)

      I'll discuss them later. I think jumping right to 60 skips a few steps that are important, and may not come out the way everyone is assuming.

      None of this necessitates a deal with Snowe. It just happens that Snowe's position sits at the nexus of a deal that a lot of people would get at least something out of.

      •  Thanks, David... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        moosely2006

        I'll definitely be interested to see your thoughts on the 60.

      •  But does Stupak-Pitts even have 51 in the Senate? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        itskevin

        It gets Nelson and Casey and loses Snowe and possibly Collins.  Who else switches?  This looks like high-50s no votes here.  The more interesting is what happens in conference.

        I'mma let you finish, Barack, but the teabaggers have done about the most for international peace of all time.--The collective GOP 10/9/09

        by Superribbie on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 10:58:00 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Don't know. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          itskevin

          If not, then no problem.

          But it really would be something for the Senate to be the leftward pressure on a bill for once.

          And God help you if they manage to get 51 votes for identical language. That was looking more likely before Claire McCaskill reversed course earlier today.

        •  It looks closer than I thought... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Superribbie

          for this type of amendment.

          Say all Republicans (40), plus the following senators with weak/questionable pro-choice voting records (according to NARAL):

          Ben Nelson (7% record)
          Casey (can't locate, but he's declared pro-life)
          Conrad (43%)
          Pryor (29%)
          Landrieu (43%)
          Johnson (50%)
          Byrd (43%)
          Bayh (50%)

          Of course, Reid is mostly anti-choice too, but I doubt be would vote to advance legislation that might jeopardize the whole bill. But let's include him for the sake of this exercise.

          So that's 49.

          I believe Lincoln voted against Hatch's amendment in the Finance committee. But NARAL shows her at 50%, so she might vote for this sort of thing, especially with a tough election fight on the horizon.

          50.

          That gives us much less wiggle room than I originally thought. But a tie at 50 would go to us, since Byden would break it. And this also assumes that ALL Democrats with marginal NARAL records (above) vote against us.

          Plus, the above presumes that Snowe and Collins and all other Republicans would vote for it, when probably 1-2 of those votes would break our way.

          Interestingly, Baucus has a 100% NARAL record. Tester looks good too, based on '08 votes.

          This is a rough look at the possibilities, compiled from:
          http://www.issues2000.org/...
          http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/...

  •  I was on the road last night (8+ / 0-)

    listening to Air America as I drove.  I heard three different shows and I don't remember their names, but they all talked about the abortion issue.  One of them had a woman on who headed up an abortion rights group and she said that it was time to regroup.  I couldn't believe it.  She said that the Stupak amendment was slipped in at the last minute and they were caught off guard.  But, she said, they could regroup and get it removed from the legislation.

    Another woman called in and said that the Stupak amendment should be left in because we had to get universal coverage first and then fix the abortion problem after a few years.  She said that once the People tried the new health insurance program they would like it and it can be improved and abortion rights can then be restored.

    I was appalled.  What in hell is the matter with people?

    Might and Right are always fighting, in our youth it seems exciting. Right is always nearly winning, Might can hardly keep from grinning.

    by hestal on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 09:48:09 AM PST

  •  So basically, (7+ / 0-)

    The tragedy (or dark comedy, depending on how you look at it) is that Weiner allegedly withdrew his amendment again when he heard that the leadership would be disallowing all amendments across the board, so that they could block Stupak without having the political mess of picking and choosing between amendments individually. That, of course, worked out spectacularly.

    it sounds like the leadership stabbed Weiner in the back, along with pro-choice voters.

    Is that the correct short take on this?

    Al Qeada is a faith-based initiative.

    by drewfromct on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 09:48:39 AM PST

    •  I think if he was stabbed in the back... (4+ / 0-)

      it was after he painted a target on himself and presented them with an engraved ceremonial sword for the occasion.

      Who seriously looks at a situation with a bill that's being referred to five different congressional committees, may ultimately be sent through reconciliation, and has filibuster threats coming from 18 different directions and says, "Oh, a promise of a later vote, guaranteed? Sure! Good deal!"

      Now, that's all hindsight. But really, that wasn't a great bet, was it?

      •  So you're saying... (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        moosely2006, fernan47, Catskill Julie

        that Pelosi stabbed him (and by this I mean us) in the back, but that he was dumb enough to make it easy for her?

        That doesn't excuse Pelosi for her perfidy, any more than I could be excused for stealing candy from a baby. Let's be sure that if we're going to be placing blame, it goes where it belongs.

        From taking impeachment "Off the table" to gutting the Public Option (Never mind the fact that they gave up on Single Payer without a fight), Pelosi and her crew are shaping up to be the best "Democrat" speaker and House that the Rethugs ever had.

        Al Qeada is a faith-based initiative.

        by drewfromct on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 10:13:44 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'm saying... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          drewfromct

          that promises of votes in a process that has so many moving parts was a bad deal to entertain and to accept.

          The House committee chairs who kept telling Boehner on the floor the other day that they just couldn't honestly promise any particular result coming out of conference for the Stupak amendment weren't just being partisans or playing coy. Every decision made in the process changes all the possible permutations going forward. If Weiner thought he had a straightforward deal that was ironclad and couldn't possibly change with the circumstances, that was ludicrous. But I suspect he never entirely believed that.

          Look, he ultimately withdrew his amendment twice, by himself. He didn't have to do that. He would ultimately have lost, but that was already the assumption. He walked away both times.

          •  Thanks (0+ / 0-)

            for taking the time to clarify that.

            Pardon me if I stay disgusted with Democratic "leadership" that won't even try to enact Single-Payer, and tries to foist us with "Mandates" that subsidize the health care-denial industry with tax dollars. Now excuse me please while I root around the kitchen garbage for some used teabags.

            Al Qeada is a faith-based initiative.

            by drewfromct on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 11:28:55 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  Well, hey, at least (4+ / 0-)

    reliance on strategies that always seem to fall victim to situations like this one, in which Anthony Weiner spends the summer being lauded as a fearless hero and a champion, even as he ends up walking away from the fight twice.

    Well, hey, at least he got some free publicity and banked a few chips with progressives for that future mayoral run!

    I don't think NARAL is that great of an organization, so I'm not even going to bother there. (Basically all NARAL does grassroots wise -- regardless of the situation -- is send emails as far as I can tell.) Planned Parenthood actually did some organizing in support of the public option, even if they didn't receive much attention for it nationally, and they've been invaluable in certain states for their work to win state legislative seats.

    There's a suggestion that pro-choice organizations were aware of anti-choice amendments, but thought they'd taken care of the threat. Obviously, not.

  •  How good a job did bloggers do (4+ / 0-)
    At giving women voters the heads-up that their rights were in grave danger of being second-classed?

    I do note the FDL link.

    Please tell me other voices were doing more than telling FDL to hush up.

    •  given it was "100% predictable" (5+ / 0-)

      how odd that the only emails I was receiving months before Saturday's vote were from PP, asking me to take action.

      •  Yes. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        slinkerwink

        People got paid (with health benefits, too) to predict that problem and organize against it. But all you got was some emails immediately before the vote, asking you to make phone calls to government offices on a Saturday.

        Bloggers should definitely have stepped in to replace the multi-million dollar backed network of professional lobbyists on this, even as they were creating (and arguably succeeding with) the preservation of the public option, which they had to do because there was no institutional infrastructure in place behind it.

        Some ponies would probably also have been nice.

        Seriously, this is already someone's job. As in their actual profession.

        •  no, not the day of (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          vcmvo2

          actually for several months before the vote, asking me to take the action- call, email, write LTEs, spread the word via Twitter and Facebook, volunteer, etc.  also, emails encouraging Catholics to rally friends and family members to let their bishops know they disagree.

          I'm not privy to what efforts they took to lobby elected officials in the months leading up to Saturday.  but I find it impossible to believe that their entire effort was an email campaign to their supporters.  it's a good question, and one worth asking-- did you ask them?

          in my mind, PP works constantly to defeat the most nefarious threat to privacy rights-- the ever present, daily efforts to further restrict access via state law.  and to elect pro-choice state representatives:

          * Alaska: Three legislative targets won.
                  o SD K: Bettye Davis
                  o HD 19: Pete Petersen
                  o HD 27: Bob Buch
            * Arizona: Five legislative targets won.
                  o HD 11: Eric Meyer
                  o HD 17: Ed Ableser and David Schapira
                  o SD 17: Meg Burton-Cahill
                  o HD 20: Rae Waters
            * California: Three legislative targets won.
                  o SD 5: Lois Wolk
                  o AD 15: Joan Buchanan
                  o AD 80: Manuel Perez
            * Colorado: Nine legislative targets won.
                  o SD 19: Evie Hudak
                  o SD 21: Betty Boyd
                  o SD 26: Linda Newell
                  o HD 18: Michael Merrifield
                  o HD 27: Sara Gagliardi
                  o HD 31: Judy Solano
                  o HD 33: Dianne Primavera
                  o HD 36: Su Ryden
                  o HD 38: Joe Rice
            * Delaware: Four legislative targets won and statehouse flipped to pro-choice leadership.
                  o SD 4: Mike Katz
                  o HD 7: Bryan Short
                  o SD 10: Bethany Hall-Long
                  o HD 17: Mike Mulrooney
            * Florida:One legislative target won.
                  o HD 69: Keith Fitzgerald
            * Georgia: Three legislative targets won.
                  o SD 6: Doug Stoner
                  o HD 39: Alisha Thomas Morgan
                  o HD 44: Sheila Jones
            * Hawaii: Seven legislative targets won.
                  o SD 1: Dwight Takamine
                  o SD 5: Roz Baker
                  o SD 12: Brickwood Galuteria
                  o HD 1: Mark Nakashima
                  o HD 6: Denny Coffman
                  o HD 24: Isaac Choy
                  o HD 47: Jessia Wooley
            * Illinois: Four legislative targets won.
                  o SD 42: Linda Holmes
                  o HD 17: Beth Coulson
                  o HD 65: Rosemary Mulligan
                  o HD 84: Tom Cross
            * Indiana: Three legislative targets won.
                  o HD 86: Ed DeLaney
                  o HD 89: John Barnes
                  o HD 97: Mary Ann Sullivan
            * Iowa: Five legislative targets won.
                  o SD 8: Mary Jo Wilhelm
                  o SD 22: Steve Sodders
                  o SD 50: Mike Gronstal
                  o HD 75: Eric Palmer
                  o HD 84: Elesha Gayman
            * Kansas: Two legislative targets won.
                  o SD 18: Laura Kelly
                  o HD 23: Milack Talia
            * Maine: Two legislative targets won.
                  o SD 1: Peter Bowman
                  o SD 15: Deb Simpson
            * Massachusetts: Five legislative targets won.
                  o D-30th Middlesex: James Dwyer
                  o D-31st Middlesex: Jason Lewis
                  o D-34th Middlesex: Carl Sciortino
                  o D-Middlesex and Worcester Senate District: Jamie Eldridge
                  o D-Worcester and Middlesex Senate District: Jennifer Flanagn
            * Michigan:  Ten legislative targets won.
                  o HD 1: Tim Bledsoe
                  o HD 21: Dian Slavens
                  o HD 23: Deb Kennedy
                  o HD 24: Sarah Roberts
                  o HD 32: Jennifer Haase
                  o HD 37: Vicki Barnett
                  o HD 39: Lisa Brown
                  o HD 62: Kate Segal
                  o HD 91: Mary Valentine
                  o HD 101: Dan Scripps
            * Minnesota: Nine legislative targets won.
                  o HD 16A: Gail Kulick Jackson
                  o HD 17B: Jeremy Kalin
                  o HD 25B: David Bly
                  o HD 38A: Sandy Masin
                  o HD 38B: Mike Obermueller
                  o HD 41B: Paul Rosenthal
                  o HD 49B: Jerry Newton
                  o HD 56A: Julie Bunn
                  o HD 56B: Marsha Swails
            * Missouri:  Five legislative targets won and a pro-choice win in the open governor's race.
                  o HD 24: Chris Kelly
                  o HD 78: Margo McNeil
                  o HD 82: Jill Schupp
                  o HD 85: Vicki Lorenz Englund
                  o HD 91: Jeanne Kirkton
            * Montana: Six legislative targets won.
                  o SD 26: Lynda Moss
                  o SD 27: Gary Branae
                  o HD 8: Cheryl Steenson
                  o HD 20: Deb Kottel
                  o HD 62: Bob Ebinger
                  o HD 63: Jennifer JP Pomnichowski
            * Nebraska: Three legislative targets won.
                  o District 9: Gwen Howard
                  o District 11: Brenda Council
                  o District 21: Ken Haar (pending recount)
            * Nevada: Six legislative targets won and the state senate flipped to pro-choice leadership; state assembly now has a veto-proof majority of Democrats.
                  o SD 5: Shirley Breeden
                  o SD 6: Allison Copening
                  o AD 24: David Bobzien
                  o AD 30: Debbie Smith
                  o AD 31: Bernie Anderson
                  o AD 40: Bonnie Parnell
            * New Hampshire: Three legislative targets won, and the state senate is now majority female!
                  o SD 4: Kathy Sgambati
                  o SD 12: Peggy Gilmour
                  o SD 18: Betsi DeVries
            * New York: Three legislative targets won, and the statehouse is under a pro-choice majority, with Democrats taking the state senate and assembly for the first time since the Great Depression.
                  o SD 3: Brian Foley
                  o SD 7: Craig Johnson
                  o SD 15: Joe Addabbo
            * North Carolina: Four legislative targets won.
                  o SD 16: Josh Stein
                  o SD 24: Tony Foriest
                  o HD 41: Ty Harrell
                  o HD 44: Margaret Dickson
            * North Dakota: Two legislative targets won.
                  o SD 18: Connie Triplett
                  o HD 46: Kathy Hawken
            * Ohio: Three legislative targets won and statehouse flipped to pro-choice leadership.
                  o HD 20: Nancy Garland
                  o HD 22: John Patrick Carney
                  o HD 28: Connie Pillich
            * Oregon: Four legislative targets won.
                  o HD 49: Nick Kahl
                  o HD 50: Greg Matthews
                  o HD 51: Brent Barton
                  o HD 52: Suzanne Van Orman
            * Pennsylvania: Six legislative targets won.
                  o HD 13: Tom Houghton
                  o HD 33: Frank Dermody
                  o HD 70: Matt Bradford
                  o HD 151: Rick Taylor
                  o HD 156: Barbara McIlvaine Smith
                  o HD 157: Paul Drucker
            * Texas: Eleven legislative targets won (and one pending a runoff).
                  o SD 10: Wendy Davis
                  o HD 47: Valinda Bolton
                  o HD 52: Diana Maldonado
                  o HD 93: Paula Hightower Pierson
                  o HD 96: Chris Turner
                  o HD 101: Robert Miklos
                  o HD 102: Carol Kent
                  o HD 107: Allen Vaught
                  o HD 133: Kristi Thibaut
                  o HD 134: Ellen Cohen
                  o HD 149: Hubert Vo
            * Utah: Four legislative targets won, including the defeat of the anti-choice speaker of the house.
                  o SD 1: Luz Robles
                  o HD 23: Jennifer Seeling
                  o HD 45: Laura Black
                  o HD 49: Jay Seegmiller
            * Washington: Two legislative targets won and one still too close to call.  Re-elected pro-choice governor.
                  o 26th LD: Larry Seaquist
                  o 45th LD: Roger Goodman
            * Wisconsin: Ten legislative targets won and state assembly flipped to pro-choice leadership.
                  o SD 30: Dave Hansen
                  o AD 28: Ann Hraychuck
                  o AD 43: Kim Hixson
                  o AD 49: Phil Garthwaite
                  o AD 51: Steve Hilgenberg
                  o AD 57: Penny Barnard Schaber
                  o AD 68: Kristen Dexter
                  o AD 88: Jim Soletski
                  o AD 91: Chris Danou
                  o AD 93: Jim Smith

          I've always enjoyed your writing and respect your knowledge, David, but if you're being informed about PP's efforts by the likes of Jane Hamsher... I got nuthin'.

          •  By all accounts, PP did better than NARAL by far. (0+ / 0-)

            But "call your Congressman" emails didn't stack up to the kind of work that was done on behalf of the public option, which had considerably more in common with actual lobbying than your typical grassroots campaign ever did.

            "Call your Congressman" emails are generally about list-building and maintenance rather than serious advocacy. It's not that they don't have their place, or that calls to Congressional offices don't have any impact. It's that they're weak tea compared to publicly lining up votes on specific provisions, and talking to legislators in the language they understand.

            The public option campaign certainly had its faults, not the least of which was that nobody knew what defined the public option, let along a "robust" one until it was nearly too late. The result of that was an eventual abandonment of what eventually came to define the "robust" public option, despite the efforts that led dozens of Members to pledge not only to support it, but to oppose any bill that didn't contain such a provision.

            But compared to generalized email exhortations to call your Congressman and say, "stand strong on XYZ nebulous issue" wasn't likely to cut it on this, and indeed it didn't.

            I think they could have benefited from a plan more closely related to what happened with the public option: a public lineup of Members insisting that they'd block passage of a bill that contained provisions that undermined reproductive rights, up to and including conference reports.

            I notice, in fact, that that's actually what they're trying to cobble together now.

            •  You are woefully uninformed on this, David. (8+ / 0-)

              I know Planned Parenthood the best of all the reproductive rights groups and they were all over this for months, both in terms of real/serious field/public organizing and via their longstanding and very effective, professional and saavy lobbying efforts.  Just because you think that you know what their tactics or strategy were, does not mean that you actually do know. If you have a copy of Planned Parenthood's field and political plans for health care reform, please publish them on the front page. If not, it would be best for you to refrain from opining on their tactics/strategy, or at the very least, presenting your opinions as fact.

              Thank you.  

              Where are their votes?

              by mindoca on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 12:56:07 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  You may be right. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                slinkerwink

                Was there a bloc of votes assembled before the House vote that was pledged to defeating the bill if such an amendment were included?

                I see that they're trying to build such a bloc now, of course.

                But if you've got a copy of a letter dated prior to the House vote and representing 40+ votes pledging to vote against the bill if an amendment endangering reproductive rights was included in the House bill, then that would obviously have to settle things.

                •  No, I don't have that but I hope that you and I (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  casperr, vcmvo2, Elise

                  can agree that that was not the only possible tactic or strategy on this.  It might be your preferred strategy, as an outsider, but there are certainly others that we could both think of from the outside, not to mention those that might have been crafted with the input of House leadership, the CPC, the House Women's Caucus, etc.

                  Thank you.  

                  Where are their votes?

                  by mindoca on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 02:05:33 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Yes, it's my preferred strategy. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    slinkerwink

                    I don't think the other ones were very effective. And I think the presence of the Stupak amendment in the House bill is evidence of that.

                    I don't think that's an odd position to take.

                    It's not my position that your preferred advocacy group can't do anything right. It's that they didn't do very well with this, when they really could have.

                    Could they have done as well or better with another strategy?

                    Anything's possible. But if the answer is yes, that doesn't really help them much, since they chose the one they did, and it didn't help a whole lot.

            •  I think this is part of the reason for the (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              vcmvo2

              disagreement.

              I think they could have benefited from a plan more closely related to what happened with the public option: a public lineup of Members insisting that they'd block passage of a bill that contained provisions that undermined reproductive rights, up to and including conference reports.

              It's clear that PP did work at the grassroots level for months, not just in the week leading up to the vote.

              But if you're saying they didn't have a legislative strategy, then, there's a little less of disagreement. Obviously, grassroots outreach and legislative strategies are intertwined and all, but I think a lot of people are objecting mostly on the field aspect of PP's efforts and less so on the legislative side and media side.

              *** Also, NARAL and PP are so different in effectiveness and in grassroots work that it's not even funny.  Please don't lump them together. I don't think I've ever seen NARAL do anything other than build lists and send emails as far as grassroots outreach. PP does a TON more.

              •  Well, I'd rather not lump them together. (0+ / 0-)

                And that was part of the reason why I referred only to a community or network of professional choice advocacy groups.

                But despite everyone's desire not to lump them together, there's really nowhere else to put them, is there?

                Lots of people did grassroots and email campaigns for months. But if there were a clearer signal that the inside game and having a legislative strategy was going to be the key than having a bill referred to five committees and including reconciliation instructions for it in the budget resolution in April, then I can't think of what that signal might have been.

                •  Probably not (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  vcmvo2

                  But despite everyone's desire not to lump them together, there's really nowhere else to put them, is there?

                  Probably not, but if someone who cared about choice and wanted recommendations on donations, I'd say PP (especially to one of PP's c4s at the state level if the person was in a state where PP was particularly active and effective), but never to NARAL (unless there was a leadership change). Quality of work and effectiveness overall (despite what happened on Stupak-Pitts) is one reason, but Planned Parenthood has a good brand that plays well to single women and GOP-leaning pro-choice suburban women. From what I can tell, PP has also been making improvements over the years on their electoral work.

                  As far as the legislative strategy, I guess maybe it takes something like to give them a huge kick in the pants. I feel this way about a lot of progressive organizations, where they don't really kick into high gear until it's almost too late. (See labor response to anti-EFCA ads last year. Slow to respond and some legislative fumbles very early in the year were reasons why I opposed Mary Beth Maxwell possible appt as labor secretary when her name was being floated publicly.)

  •  How hard would be it be to do this? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Geenius at Wrok

    Dons asbestos underwear

    Leave Stupak-Pitts in if that's the price of getting the Health Care bill to Obama's desk.

    The minute Obama sets down the last pen used to sign the bill, both House and Senate introduce legislation to remove Stupak-Pitts. We ought to be able to get 50% votes for abortion rights in the House. We ought to be able to get Snowe in the Senate to replace Lieberman.

    It's crass, and offensive, and ugly. But it gets us a HC bill, and S-P is on the books for a matter of a few weeks.

    In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice; but in practice, there always is a difference. - Yogi Berra

    by blue aardvark on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 09:50:46 AM PST

  •  Snowe rises......again......this is like a soap.. (0+ / 0-)

    opera.

  •  So we did too little, too late. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    slinkerwink, 714day, Pakalolo

    Please tell us what pro-choice cheeto-munchers can do now.  

    Put us to work, David.  What's the best grass-roots strategy, at this point in the game?

    Consider adopting a homeless pet at PAWS.org (Progressive Animal Welfare Society)

    by hikerbiker on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 09:52:23 AM PST

  •  David, do you think these groups were caught (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Geenius at Wrok, drewfromct

    off guard because of the actions of leadership? I mean we all thought last week that neither Stupak nor Weiner would be voted on. That was the supposed trade off until leadership changed it mind.

    "I think a basic principle of our Constitution is nobody above the law" -Obama

    by heart of a quince on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 09:52:57 AM PST

    •  Maybe. (0+ / 0-)

      But if that was the case, it could only have happened because they weren't paying any attention to the actual dynamics of the House Democratic Caucus. The last three years have been marked by vote after vote in which Members in marginal districts, freshmen, etc. have been jumping ship in record numbers, supposedly to save their skins with swing voters and conservatives.

      How many poison pill amendments and motions to recommit do you need to see?

      Did the abortion rights community think it was somehow immune to the problem that has, most famously, plagued the gun control people this year?

      Hello?

  •  Critical point (5+ / 0-)
    But the basic rule is and always has been that the obstacles faced by those who want to change legislation grow exponentially as the process moves forward. That rule has application for those now clinging to "fix it in conference" strategies, those whose champions (it is now revealed in hindsight) played things too clever by half on single payer, and probably for those relying on the "they'll never dare" strategies floating around the opt-out, too.

    Why people believe Conference is some magic progressive elixir is beyond me.   As a matter of fact, those that believe should really think about who has the most to gain from keeping the excitement quelled as long as possible.

    "Republicans drove the country into a ditch and now they are complaining about the cost of the tow truck"-Jim Cornette

    by justmy2 on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 09:55:03 AM PST

  •  Excellent post! I was slammed (4+ / 0-)

    in a diary for pointing out the failures of PP and NARAL on organizing early around this issue, and getting their block in order. Now they have to organize after the fact, which is ridiculous.

    I work full-time with the FDL team on health reform thanks to your donations.

    by slinkerwink on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 09:58:36 AM PST

    •  Action against PP, NARAL, etc.? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      moosely2006

      So, if these organizations are failing us, do we just sit around? It seems like it's time to act against them. They have a Board of Directors, they have members, they need to hear loud and clear that we think they totally failed on this one. They ought to be shaken up, we need to see new people and new directions and more accountability from these people.

      If they have the networks and the funds and they aren't using them, then they are worse than useless -- they are a drag on any progress and a tacit endorsement for the anti-choice position.

      •  my suggestion (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        missLotus, mindoca, vcmvo2, QES

        if you want to become more informed about what PP is doing to advocate for choice, don't rely on blogs.  click here:

        http://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/

        the notion that PP did nothing but send emails the day of the vote is, at best, uninformed.

        •  and she continues to insist (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          willowby

          that they did nothing! Spreading misinformation about some of the best people in the grassroots seems to be an M.O. here. WTF!

          •  I usually don't ascribe dubious motives (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            vcmvo2

            but can't help but wonder why, especially now, they're actively discouraging donations to PP.  the cynical realist in me says FDL sees Stupak-Pitts as a potential cash cow for their own lobbying effort.

            one would think the better strategy would be for progressives to speak with a united voice, but apparently we're being asked to choose sides.  if that's the case, sign me up for the "Camp Richards" t-shirt.

            •  Exactly! (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              willowby

              A lot of Monday morning quarterbacking by people who have not done one thing with PP. Don't even know who Cecile Richards is and have been MIA on the women's productive rights battles for years. This blog is often dismissive of women's reproductive rights issues, and the proof is in some of these disgusting comments telling women it's OK to sign away their rights. Talk about poor organizing - this Stupak-Pitts end run around HCR was not discussed by anyone on FDL, Ameriblog or dkos until it was already a fait accompli.

              Now they criticize PP and its organizing ability? Give me a break!

    •  You were slammed for being uninformed, slink. (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      askew, vcmvo2, willowby, QES

      I ask you for the same thing that I asked David for above.  If you have copies of Planned Parenthood's field and political plans for health care reform, please publish them in one of your diaries. If not, please stop incessantly repeating something that is simply your opinion and not fact.  It undermines your credibility.

      Thank you.

      Where are their votes?

      by mindoca on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 01:01:29 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  David's right in his post. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        dclawyer06

        I work full-time with the FDL team on health reform thanks to your donations.

        by slinkerwink on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 01:34:32 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Because you say so??? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          vcmvo2, willowby

          Or because he says so??? Without backup.  Without substantiation.  

          As I said last night, the fact the we did not achieve the desired outcome does not mean that enormous effort did not go into the campaign -- including from Planned Parenthood.  After all, FDL did not get its desired outcome, and no one could accuse you all of not doing everything possible to make it happen.

          Thank you.

          Where are their votes?

          by mindoca on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 01:59:37 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Well, here's substantion for you (0+ / 0-)

            Cecile Richards keeps saying they were caught flat-footed on this issue. She said this issue came up on Friday night.

            Leaders from a number of reproductive rights groups told The Daily Beast they were shocked by the outcome of Saturday night’s vote, in which a group of 41 pro-life Democrats, led by Rep. Bart Stupak of Michigan, refused to support the overall health package unless their antiabortion amendment was included. More moderate pro-life Democrats had negotiated a compromise with the party’s leadership in which government funds would be banned from covering abortion in the exchange, but insurers could still pay for the procedure using funds collected through private co-pays. That agreement fell apart at the eleventh hour.

            "We totally believed and thought it was going to be OK, with some assurances," said Smeal, referring to conversations between pro-choice lobbyists and the House leadership. "And then all of a sudden this happened."

            ...

            Richards, of Planned Parenthood, said she wasn’t aware of any efforts, before Saturday’s vote, to extract promises from legislators to vote against a health bill that restricts abortion access. "Frankly, this issue came out Friday night," she said. Yet Stupak has been on the warpath since July, when he released a letter signed by 19 Democrats demanding a ban on abortion coverage in the exchanges.

            "Maybe we should have" created a more threatening pro-choice coalition earlier on, said Smeal. She continued, "Here we are playing nice guy again, we didn’t want to make a fuss, we agreed to a compromise that was already over-generous. And then, bango! These guys go in there like gangbusters. Pelosi was held up, like by bandits. Now the women are saying, ‘That’s it, it’s enough.’"

            They were out to lunch on this, plain and simple.

            http://www.thedailybeast.com/...

            I work full-time with the FDL team on health reform thanks to your donations.

            by slinkerwink on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 08:01:55 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  context would be good (0+ / 0-)

              And most of that quote is from Eleanor Smeal. They meant that somehow they should have done more, not that they weren't doing anything, as your "caught flat-flooted" implies.

              •  And again on what Richards said (0+ / 0-)


                Richards, of Planned Parenthood, said she wasn’t aware of any efforts, before Saturday’s vote, to extract promises from legislators to vote against a health bill that restricts abortion access. "Frankly, this issue came out Friday night," she said. Yet Stupak has been on the warpath since July, when he released a letter signed by 19 Democrats demanding a ban on abortion coverage in the exchanges.

                I work full-time with the FDL team on health reform thanks to your donations.

                by slinkerwink on Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 07:28:29 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  And again that is not context (0+ / 0-)
                  •  Adding to that is this diary (0+ / 0-)

                    that does give context to what has been going on since the Hyde Amendment. I've been watching this play out for a couple of decades longer than you. I'm not trying to say that PP shouldn't have screamed bloody murder, or some how prevented Stupak. I wish they had. But the reality is a lot more complicated. This BS about women's reproductive rights has been going on much longer than even Roe.

                    I do Diary Rescue, we rescued this the other night because very few people read it- here's the blurb so that you can see what it's about before clicking on it:

                    (warning - it's long!) shanikka ponders why the abortion debate hasn't changed much in the last 40 years and suggests how it needs to change in order to bring wider rights to women in We Won't Win the Stupak-Pitts War With The Same Old Same Old.

        •  Nope he's not! (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          willowby

          And repetition does not make it true!

  •  I found this story very interesting (6+ / 0-)

    It looks like the Republicans weren't the only ones that George Mitchell was yelling at on Saturday.  I was really surprised about this, though there have been other signs in recent months that Mitchell might not be as strong an ally as we once thought.

    One by one, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi had leaned on her rank-and-file Democrats for months to cast off personal prerogatives for the sake of a history-making health care bill.

    But for Connecticut Rep. Rosa DeLauro, this was too much to ask.

    So when Pelosi announced late Friday that she would allow an amendment strictly limiting insurance coverage of abortions, it touched off an angry yelling match between DeLauro and another Pelosi confidant, California Rep. George Miller, and tears from some veteran female lawmakers, according to people in the room.

    Some of the lawmakers argued that Pelosi was turning her back on a decades-long campaign by female Democratic members in support of abortion rights. Miller rose to Pelosi's defense, which resulted in an angry confrontation between him and DeLauro, said the sources.

    Miller told DeLauro that there were "more pro-life votes in the House than pro-choice" and that abortion-rights advocates had better acknowledge that reality.
    http://www.post-gazette.com/...

    •  DeLauro could've organized a block against (0+ / 0-)

      that bill because of the amendment, but she chose not to do so the bill could pass.

      I work full-time with the FDL team on health reform thanks to your donations.

      by slinkerwink on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 10:01:31 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  That was their big mistake, IMHO (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        fernan47

        I keep reminding people that one vote is not the end of a bill.

        When the leadership really wants to pass a bill, and it fails on a floor vote, they can amend that bill and bring it back pretty damned quickly.

        The bail out bill is the best recent example.  It failed in the House.  A few days later it was back on the floor with many supposed positive changes by Barney Frank and Nancy Pelosi.  When the public was outraged about the bill, representatives voted against it and it failed.  But it was not the end of the bill.

        I think that Pelosi's insistence that this bill pass on the first try was a matter of vanity by her, the leadership and the White House.  They wanted to make sure they could have their celebration and photo ops afterward.  They didn't want it to have to go through more than one iteration (which is a perfectly reasonable thing to expect with a bill of this proportion).

        They want everything to be worked out behind closed doors (and not democratically) so that they can go out on the stage of the House, put on their show, and vote with no surprises.  Everything is perfectly coiffed.  This is the Speaker's tragic flaw, IMHO.  She is obsessed with appearances.

        And to hell with whoever goes under the bus in the process.

    •  Pelosi miscalculated. Women's (4+ / 0-)

      hard-won civil rights are not 'personal prerogatives' to be casually tossed aside and taken up again later. Women in Congress and out are so exorcised because they understand that we simply can't allow this precedent to be set.

      Remember, if Government can MAKE a woman bear a child, someday Government could PREVENT a woman from bearing a child. Same diff constitutionally.

      by Catskill Julie on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 10:25:53 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  CHRIS MATTHEWS was ginning this up (4+ / 0-)

    with glee for months, salivating over this fight. Chris Matthews was the first I heard bring it up several months ago. Blinkers on--incapable of seeing the unequal treatment of singling out a legal medical procedure that ONLY women need for prohibition. What he calls 'abortion rights' I call civil rights of female citizens.

    Remember, if Government can MAKE a woman bear a child, someday Government could PREVENT a woman from bearing a child. Same diff constitutionally.

    by Catskill Julie on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 10:00:31 AM PST

  •  I really dont understand all the hand wringing (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Prairie D

    over the Stupak amendment:

    Firstly, the FEHB exchange (Federal employees health benefit) expressly prohibits any insurance company from offering a plan covering abortion - this has been true since Hyde, the reason of course is that since federal employees are paid by taxpayers, their benefits are paid by taxpayers and taxpayer money is not allowed to fund abortion. Thus any exchange insurance plan that is subsidized by taxpayer money, i.e. any indivdual that purchases a plan with subsidies automatically cannot have a plan offering to cover abortion.

    The only question now is what happens to those that choose a plan on the exchange and pay the entire premium out of pocket. This is easy to solve (on NPR, the commenter seemed to suggest this) - every insurance plan on the exchange has a duplicate - one covering abortion for full premium payers, one not for subsidized payments.

    Secondly, as for the public option not covering abortion, that was to be expected since the government is actually administering the plan, pro lifers would almost surely want this to not offer abortion coverage.

    On top of this, medicaid recipents do not get abortion covered through federal dollars, only 16 or so states actually cover abortion under Medicaid but using state dollars only. So really - you cannot call for abortion to be covered under all plans on the exchange (which is for people above 133 or 150 % of poverty levels), but then leave abortion to be covered by only 16 or so states for those under 133 or 150% of poverty levels. I dont quite understand the argument there.

    No Way, No How, No McCain

    by nerdngeek on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 10:01:10 AM PST

    •  FEHB (0+ / 0-)
      What does the F stand for?

      Here is a hint. It is actually one of the key words in the Hyde amendment.

      Regardless if the plans are private, I think there is big difference between the national exchange and a federal one.

      Both should offer the coverage, but you are minimizing the differences between the two.

      "Republicans drove the country into a ditch and now they are complaining about the cost of the tow truck"-Jim Cornette

      by justmy2 on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 10:14:31 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  even if it is a national exchange (0+ / 0-)

        rather than a federal exchange, we will still have varying levels of abortion coverage amongst people on the national exchange. Medicaid does NOT cover abortion except in 16 states - so essentially there is going to be a difference in treatment, regardless of Stupak or not. Stupak does not change this.

        No Way, No How, No McCain

        by nerdngeek on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 10:25:00 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  It's almost in there (0+ / 0-)

      This is easy to solve (on NPR, the commenter seemed to suggest this) - every insurance plan on the exchange has a duplicate - one covering abortion for full premium payers, one not for subsidized payments.

      This is allowed by the amendment, any plan offering abortion also has to have an otherwise identical plan not offering it.

      The Empire never ended.

      by thejeff on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 10:21:04 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  If it is - am I missing something big in this (0+ / 0-)

        kerkuffle ? If the Hyde amendment states that federal tax dollars cannot be used to fund abortion, then an exchange plan subsidized by federal tax dollars (in some form or other) cannot offer to cover abortion .. am I not right in assuming that?

        No Way, No How, No McCain

        by nerdngeek on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 11:22:25 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Right (0+ / 0-)

          No one using federal subsidies could not buy into the plan that offers abortion coverage.
          That does not prevent a plan on the exchange from offering abortion coverage. It simply won't be available to anyone getting a subsidy.

          The amendment specifically allows this, but requires any company offering abortion coverage on the exchange to also offer an otherwise identical plan that doesn't cover abortions. I think this is an attempt to prevent cherry-picking of wealthier customers.

          The big question is whether there will be enough of a customer base on the exchange not getting subsidies to make it worthwhile to offer a separate plan.

          The Empire never ended.

          by thejeff on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 11:30:24 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  it has zero marginal costs (0+ / 0-)

            ... if everything is the same except for offering abortion coverage versus not ... the premiums may or may not be margianlly different , but apart from that I see nothing else different.

            and exactly how much does an additional rider cost to add abortion coverage?

            No Way, No How, No McCain

            by nerdngeek on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 11:46:45 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  You seem to believe insurance companies will (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      justmy2

      offer two plans. They won't. They'll just point to the Stupak amendment, say "we can't get on the exchange if we cover abortion", and stop covering abortion entirely. There won't be an "exhange" plan and a "non-exchange" plan.

      Insurance companies will always try to weasel out of covering any procedure, and this amendment gives them an excuse.

  •  Another case of progresives underestimating the (6+ / 0-)

    opposition with the Stupak amendment.  Afterall, who in their right mind would hold up health care reform for the anti-abortion issue?  The anti-choice people, that's who!  They are operating on passion, not reason, and they don't care about anything else.  Theirs is crusade - a mission for god.  It has nothing to do with reason, policy (except theirs), doing what's right, fixing things, or making sense.  Expect the worst, the craziest and the unthinkable and then you won't be surprised by them.  And you'll be ever vigilant.

    The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. Bertrand Russell

    by accumbens on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 10:01:16 AM PST

    •  Not just any progressives but (4+ / 0-)

      those who are paid to organize, network and campaign on this very issue. They need to be taken to task directly for wasting our money and being counter-productive.

      •  Yes, it's when the "professionals" fail to (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        sbwoodside

        recognize who they are fighting that it's the most frustrating and disappointing.  To quote a comment by myself on an earlier diary on a similar topic:

        It amazes me that the "professional" progressives continually underestimate their opponents.  Their apparent lack of street smarts reinforces the idea of the la-la headed liberal.  The theocrats and conservatives are playing rough - street smart - and the appropriate response is to outdo them.

        Often, on the street, you've got to be crazier or willing to use overwhelming disproportionate force than your enemy to win or get them to back down.  Being nice doesn't work and hasn't worked.  What's more, being nice in the face of these crazies reinforces the image of liberals as push overs, which feeds into the idea that liberals are weak on defense.

        The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. Bertrand Russell

        by accumbens on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 10:30:53 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  NARAL -- Not our issue, not our problem (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          sbwoodside

          I think this is not a problem with progressives, but a problem with how single issue groups like NARAL have seen their place (or lack of it) in the progressive movement.  NARAL, like many feminist and environmental groups, grew up in a period where everybody had "their" issue, and saw themselves in competition with other "issues", rather than working in cooperation with progressives generally to build a politically potent and effective movement.  And rather than build a progressive political engine to do this -- say, by working to create a Democratic Party that actually had popular support behind it -- they've played the major parties off on each other, to promote "their" issues.

          This has been failing for 20 years, and they still haven't figured this out yet.

          In this case, by being outside of the progressive movement, NARAL's leadership saw the health care fight as "not their issue".  And since for NARAL, where "not our issue" meant "not our problem", I don't think it's that surprising that the organization did not deal with the health care fight in any systematic way.

          And once again, they prove what fuck ups they are by being caught naked on the HCR bill.  Pathetic.  But not surprising.

          "If another country builds a better car, we buy it. If they make a better wine, we drink it. If they have better healthcare . . . what's our problem? "

          by mbayrob on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 10:54:06 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  Relax. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Geenius at Wrok, Prairie D

    Just pass what's there.

    If you want to pass something later to amend it, you've got next year to make a major fuss about it and can bull it through in a partisan fashion if you're willing to.

    Don't act like the fight is ever over.

    •  Not what the story was actually about. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mcjoan

      But if you think the second session of a Congress, heading into mid-term elections, and carrying a 50+ Blue Dog caucus is a great time for moving a stand-alone abortion bill, well, best of luck with that.

  •  One disagreement, David. I don't believe Snowe (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    714day

    would win the thanks of progressives with a pro-choice, but anti-PO, position.  She'd have to be pro choice and pro PO.

    •  She doesn't care about the thanks of progressives (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wsexson, polar bear

      She's pro-choice and would want Stupak out, and anti-public option and would want that out, too.

      Progressives can take a flying leap, as far as she's concerned. I certainly didn't mean to suggest in any way that she gives a crap about them.

  •  I fail to understand how these GOPer backstabs (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wsexson

    nearly always succeed even when the perps carrying the butcher knives can be seen coming by one and all for months, even years, in advance.
    It's not surprising, that's about the best that can be said for it.
    I am a little amazed that abortion rights may be eroded on the floor of the legislature rather that SCOTUS.  I thought that right leaning body would be the source of the throwbacks.

    •  It has to do with not caring if a bill passes. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      714day, Redwood Rhiadra

      Or even preferring that it not pass.

      The people who always get squeezed are the ones who need the bill to pass, and have to decide whether to swallow the poison pills or not.

      More often than not, the Republican position on legislation is, "Well, if it doesn't pass, so much the better. The government sucks, anyway."

  •  Ah, hell, split the bill ... (0+ / 0-)

    ... as horrible as it may be in some people's minds, the 50+1 vote hurdle has the prospect of allowing both a public option and having one of the two bills go into Conference without the Stupak amendment.

  •  Great, a Sophie's choice. Public option vs. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    714day, hikerbiker, Catskill Julie

    Stupak-Pitts. Blech.

  •  hang on (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    askew, Elise, fernan47, polar bear, JC from IA

    according to George Miller this amendment was a last minute last ditch effort to get the bill passed because reform wasn't going to pass,

    There were a lot of last-minute changes to the bill, in particular the Stupak amendment. How did that come about?

    On Friday night, it became clear that we would not reach a majority vote if we did not allow an amendment to be voted on about abortion. Those negotiations were very serious.

    and that this was not predictable because there was already language in the bill that kept the status quo in line with the Hyde amendment. I don't think there's a whole lot that could have been predicted by those particular turn of events.

  •  Their efforts were only "next to invisible" (10+ / 0-)

    to those who aren't connected to them.

    As I noted yesterday in a diary, I have at least a dozen emails from the National organizations alone in the week before the vote all related to the Stupak Amendment. I have emails from them dated before the thing was ever MENTIONED here or elsewhere in the netroots.

    And then I have dozens of emails from state PP and NARAL organizations - Iowa, Illinois, and Florida - because I'm still on email lists from where I previously lived.

    So, they may have been "invisible" to you, but they weren't invisible to anyone paying attention and having a connection to those groups.

    This self-importance on the part of the netroots doesn't really help the cause of health care reform. It just makes it appear that ego is the biggest issue here - which is funny because ego is the biggest obstacle to getting health care reform passed in the Senate too.

    And I finished this letter with unshakable faith that the dream will be fulfilled for this generation, and preserved and enlarged for generations to come.

    by Elise on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 10:15:37 AM PST

  •  First, I doubt that Stupak thought up his (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    askew, fernan47, Catskill Julie

    strategy all by himself.  He does not have a history of being a brilliant strategist in the house, nor a reputation for it.  I am more interested in some information about who was pulling his strings.

    Second,you are trying to imply that House leadership pulled a fast one on Anthony Weiner based on nothing more that speculation that that is what in fact happened.

    Is this, then, to be the new meme from the WATB left wing?  Are we back to hating Pelosi?

    •  Answer: C-street (5+ / 0-)

      the path to defeating stupak runs through c-street. Expose his c-street residence, and get him to back down.

      •  Hell, expose that whole cabal, if that's what it (0+ / 0-)

        takes.  Kick all the religious types out of the room, while you're at it; they have no place at the table, AFAIC.

        What I would like to avoid is being mis-directed to focus on the players that the opposition wants me to focus on.

        I think this diary does just that.

    •  I am trying to imply... (0+ / 0-)

      that Weiner seriously miscalculated. Whether or not it was with some suspicion of what would eventually happen, I don't know.

      But I don't think he could have been blind to it.

      As for Stupak, it hardly matters whose idea it was. There's been an abortion limiting amendment threatened on every bill spending federal health money since forever. They hardly had to know who was offering it to be able to organize against it far earlier than they did.

  •  Sigh more outrage to follow (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JC from IA

    "Now the shoe is on the other foot, and the abortion rights community must await the super secret plan that looks, right up until the last minute, like they're being thrown under the bus."

    And watch the outrage and upset and contention on DKos as this happens.  

  •  Public option is not weakened (0+ / 0-)

    Medicare +5 was a bad idea, and would have sabotaged the public option.

    Negotiated rates will mean more doctors sign on to participate in the plan, and therefore it will be a better insurance plan.

    We saw this play out in Connecticut. The states plan paid doctors so little, that hardly any doctors wanted to participate.

    The result was a health insurance plan where you couldn't get a doctors appointment.

    This weakened PO meme has to die.

    •  Hmm and yet the bill allows (0+ / 0-)

      payment cuts to Doctors for Medicare to continue on schedule ... how do you reconcile that with your claim that this would discourage Doctors from seeing patients???

      What the difference between a Blue Dog and Republican? Not much.

      by noofsh on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 11:28:00 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Link to important book, interview: (0+ / 0-)

    Suggestion: Compare with Competitors
    Our economic competitors, the other industrialized nations.

    Awesome radio interview:

    http://www.wnyc.org/...

    Health Care Bill Perspectives

    T.R. Reid, veteran foreign correspondent for The Washington Post and the author of The Healing of America: A Global Quest for Better, Cheaper and Fairer Health Care, discusses what's in the current health care bill and puts it in a global perspective.

    Media Reform Action Link http://stopbigmedia.com/

    by LNK on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 10:21:56 AM PST

  •  Talk About Blaming the Victims (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    averageyoungman, Catskill Julie

    Perhaps Anthony Wiener didn't offer his amendment on the floor for the same reason Planned Parenthood and NARL were relaxed -- anti-blastocist-fetishism organizations had been assured by "leadership" that there would be no amendments allowed.  They were then betrayed by "leadership", which, basically, lied to them about allowing amendments.

    I will encourage my representative, Mike Thompson, and my senators Boxer and Feinstein to vote against any conference report that contains the Stupak Amendment or any rough equivalent.

    Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer can sleep in the bed they made.  And so can Barack the-Hyde-Amendment-is-an-American-tradition Obama.

    This aggression will not stand, man.

    by kaleidescope on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 10:27:23 AM PST

  •  I love how it's getting pinned... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    slinkerwink, landrew, Catskill Julie

    On the pro-choice people, so that if they manufacture a hero to come save us from the threat these politicians created, the collective sound heard 'round the base will be less of a blood curdling scream, and more of a sigh of disappointment.

    Meanwhile, both the Admin and Congress are the manufacturers of this clusterfuck.  

    In any case they've repeated the pattern, and chipped away at our resolve, and chipped off nearly every mandate-balancing measure, with the help of their centrist apologists.

    It's still blowing my mind that there is a possibility they could have taken a step back on reproductive rights, mandated junk insurance and managed to kill the piece of reform people liked the most, the PO, and we're not even in conference.

    I have no doubts the loopholes will doom any good tis could have done for the uninsurable.

    Fired up for 2010? HA!

    Slap happy is a platform.

    by averageyoungman on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 10:30:45 AM PST

  •  What about pulling an anti-Stupak stunt in (0+ / 0-)

    the future, assuming that some form of the amendment makes it into law?  In the next Omnibus spending bill insert language rescinding Stupak-Pitts.  In fact, I think we should be doing that to abolish the Hyde Amendment once and for all.  With strong majorities we have the ability to undo many years of gains that the abortion opponents have made.  Force the anti-abortion Democrats to choose between getting pork for their districts or having the anti-abortion measure remain in place.  The Democratic leadership needs to keep errant members on a short and tight leash.

  •  I don't think anyone was blindsided (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JC from IA

    I think that the abortion-rights groups saw this coming from day one, and saw it as a good fund raising issue...so they backed off until they could cash in. Just like the GOP saw this as a good way of firing up their anti-abortion base.

    Both are complicit in a general strategy to suck money and energy out of the population over a hot-button issue without either ever actually winning a real battle (a real battle meaning something that substantively affects anyone's ability to get an abortion). It's mostly theater at this point.

    The problem in this case is that health care reform is being held hostage by this issue.

  •  Why single issue groups are a dumb idea (0+ / 0-)

    This is what I like to call The Dead Of Environmentalism Syndrome].  Single issue groups, by creating silos of professional activists, led to competing "interest groups" of activists that went to the American public looking more for money than for any kind of deep support.  You went to the tables of public discussions looking for your "share" of the scraps, and no one cared about building larger coalitions of progressives, much less building broad political movements that could really pass policy.

    The leadership of NARAL and other traditional feminist organizations have been at least as bad.  Having spent their working life times wearing single-issue blinders, NARAL's attitude appears to have been that if it wasn't "their" issue under discussion, it didn't concern them.  In other words: what they didn't know, couldn't hurt them.

    Right.

    "If another country builds a better car, we buy it. If they make a better wine, we drink it. If they have better healthcare . . . what's our problem? "

    by mbayrob on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 10:41:32 AM PST

  •  Thanks for throwing Planned Parenthood under the (11+ / 0-)

    bus, and the whole women's movement and pro-choice movement to boot.

    They have been fighting this for decades, doing amazing work to preserve the limited access American women have to abortion services on the ground as best they can.  Welcome to the fight, guys.  Hope you will stick around after this one vote, because poor women, and military women, and others who depend on federal health care have been denied this for a very long time.  

    This myth that Planned Parenthood and other groups didn't mobilize until the day of the debate is totally wrong.

    I've got an email from NOW dated July 23 in my inbox talking about Stupak and asking me to take action.  In mindoca's diary last night other folks posted evidence that pro-choice groups have been mobilizing for months.

    No, they don't f*cking blog about it.  So I guess it didn't happen did it?

    Everyone thought the deal was done, it blew up.  We still have a chance to fix this going forward.  But hey, the netroots should totally blame the women's movement and the pro-choice groups instead of Stupak and the Bishops.

    •  For some reason (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      askew, vcmvo2

      everyone around here just vomits up whatever bullshit talking points Jane has been circulating recently. It's embarrassing.

      •  Thats nice...accusing David of being fed (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        slinkerwink

        talking points by Jane Hamsher...

        Things get more constructive by the minute...

        "Republicans drove the country into a ditch and now they are complaining about the cost of the tow truck"-Jim Cornette

        by justmy2 on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 12:51:38 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  they passed (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          vcmvo2

          "not constructive" quite a while ago. We now have this utter stupidity, which is based on lies being circulated as fact.

          •  You realize DKos is co-sponsoring that right? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            slinkerwink

            Or is that the point you are making..

            and can edit your sig a bit to be less explicit?

            "Republicans drove the country into a ditch and now they are complaining about the cost of the tow truck"-Jim Cornette

            by justmy2 on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 02:10:22 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  That what Jane claims (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              vcmvo2

              but there hasn't been a single announcement saying "Daily Kos" is participating in a the boycott (whatever that means). I assume it means Markos is going to sign the letter? I don't know. Once again, Jane is full of shit.

              •  Well, other than the fact that it isn't (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                slinkerwink

                "Jane"'s effort, you would be onto something...

                http://gay.americablog.com/...

                You may want to write Markos about blogs sending out press releases to major media outlets tarnishing his name...google it if you don't believe me....

                You are being blinded by your preconceived notions.  I really think taking a step back would be helpful....

                "Republicans drove the country into a ditch and now they are complaining about the cost of the tow truck"-Jim Cornette

                by justmy2 on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 03:55:35 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  READ SLOWLY. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  vcmvo2

                  Both John and Jane have alleged that "Daily Kos" is boycotting the DNC and OFA. As far as I can tell, however, not a single person in any way connected with "Daily Kos" has ever written a single thing about "Daily Kos" boycotting those entities.

                  •  Ok... I will read slowly (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    slinkerwink

                    Once ....again,..... Jane is..... full.... of..... shit.

                    Hmmmm....that is still 100% incorrect.  Even after reading it slowly.  

                    You are saying she is lying about a press release from someone else that she cut and pasted.

                    I noticed you responded to Barb's message about her open thread mention, so I am assuming that I don't really need to prove anything else.  Which is why I said you shouldn't let you distaste for Jane skew your ability to look at each individual issue.

                    And if your point is they should have said Markos instead of Daily Kos, I think you may misunderstand how things work.  If the Washington Post supports something, that doesn't mean everyone that works for the paper does.  It is a independent entity and its leadership has endorsed the petition.  We the community, don't really get a say.

                    "Republicans drove the country into a ditch and now they are complaining about the cost of the tow truck"-Jim Cornette

                    by justmy2 on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 04:07:50 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

      •  It's beyond embarrassing. If the front-pagers (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        vcmvo2, willowby

        are going to abandon doing any analysis and just parrot talking-points from another blog, perhaps they could choose one that isn't run by someone so uninformed.

    •  I think the author has it wrong (0+ / 0-)

      There definitely was advocacy well in front of the amendment.  What I think no one counted on was betrayal.  The Democratic leadership kept signaling that there was no way they would allow Stupak's amendment to come to a vote.  Well,they caved.  So blame the leadership and not the advocacy groups.

      They also betrayed the single payer movement.  So, what else is new.  New year, new President, same old horseshit politics.

      What the difference between a Blue Dog and Republican? Not much.

      by noofsh on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 11:25:19 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  At the very least (6+ / 0-)

      I hope people recognize that no matter what happened on this vote, that many pro-choice groups do a ton of really effective work that don't get a whole lot of publicity, especially at the state level. Stopping contributions b/c of this is a terrible idea.

  •  Healthcare Plans (0+ / 0-)

    I had no idea health care plans today paid for elective abortions. Mine covers very few elective operations and I'm 99% sure abortion isn't one of them. My coverage is pretty darn good through my company too.

    How many people's health plans would actually be affected by this?

  •  A woman's right to choose is important... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    hikerbiker

    ..it really is.

    I'm outraged by possible scenarios where a min.wage working mother has to choose between paying extra for an abortion policy rider or buying asthma medication for her child.

    But Stupak, Pitt, The Family, the Bishops, and the Teabaggers are all just witless foot soldiers for the Big Money Party.

    There are billions of dollars at stake here. Wall Street and the InsurCo's are going to pull off a coup while we're all mesmerized by this Punch & Judy show.

    Who's watching the "army of lobbyists" in DC this week?

    BushCheney Inc. - They lied to me, they lied to you, they lied to our troops.

    by jjohnjj on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 10:53:07 AM PST

  •  What a mess! (0+ / 0-)

    You call this HCR?  I can it a freakin mess on many levels.

    What the difference between a Blue Dog and Republican? Not much.

    by noofsh on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 11:21:29 AM PST

  •  NO DEAL if the deal is to trade the public (0+ / 0-)

    option off against getting rid of Stupak.

    They are two separate issues and should be worked separately. Pres. Obama is for the PO and against Stupak, so this Congress should take note.

    As for the single payer vote, does it really matter whether it was brought up for a vote (and risk repub tactics to vote for it as a poison pill) or not? Let's go after real victories, not symbolic votes which are relatively meaningless.

    •  Repub votes as a poison pill (0+ / 0-)

      Now that's poison that tastes like candy.  If that ever happened, and it wouldn't, it would be an incredible shock.

      Bottom line, there was no justification not to allow a vote on single payer.  Just more betrayal.

      What the difference between a Blue Dog and Republican? Not much.

      by noofsh on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 11:36:02 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Whip Clyburn Stupak got us 10 votes (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Catskill Julie

    http://politics.theatlantic.com/...

    I urge people to read this article.
    According to the Demo whip Clyburn. Stupak only got them 10 votes, not 40. This means that a conference bill without Stupak to pass will only need 10 arms twisted not 40. This is much more do-able.

  •  Bold Progressives already out for some blood: (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wsexson, WanderMan

    Just got this email:

    This week, "Blue Dogs" and other bad Democrats voted to kill health care reform. They betrayed us on this core Democratic issue.

    It's payback time.

    Can you chip in $25 to help run online ads in the districts of 10 bad Democrats?

    Together, we can hold them accountable to Democratic voters back home who trusted them with their time, money, and votes. You can see all 10 targets at the above link.

    Poll after poll in "conservative" states shows that voters want health care reform -- and yes, they want the public option. Yet these bad Democrats put their corporate contributors ahead of their constituents.

    Here are some of our targets:

    Scott Murphy (D-NY). Murphy won a special election in April with ads featuring President Obama in a district Obama won. He told voters "the United States is facing a health care crisis." Yet Murphy voted against Obama's #1 domestic priority: health care.

    Heath Shuler (D-NC). In 2006, Democrats spent millions helping Shuler win what is now a safe seat. As chief "whip" for the Blue Dogs, Shuler recruited other Democrats to vote against health care reform.

    John Barrow (D-GA). Barrow won his 2008 Democratic primary solely because Obama endorsed him in a highly African-American district -- a district that Obama won by double digits.

    Suzanne Kosma (D-FL). Kosma represents a district near Rep. Alan Grayson, but is the polar opposite of Grayson. Instead of being bold and having a people-powered campaign, she is corporate-funded and consistently votes against the people.

    Mike Ross (D-AR). Ross is a top Blue Dog who Keith Olbermann featured for selling out to his insurance contributors. Our PCCC poll showed that Arkansas voters want a public option by 56% to 37%.

    Fortunately, health care reform squeaked by without their votes. But If we don't hold bad Democrats accountable when they betray us on core Democratic issues, they will do it over and over again.

    Can you chip in $25 to hold them accountable?

    Then, please forward this to others. Thanks for being a bold progressive.

    --Aaron Swartz, Stephanie Taylor, Adam Green, Andrew Perez, and the PCCC team

    http://boldprogressives.org/

    Single Payer is the Moral Option. Educate for single payer today.... Visit Physicians for A National Health Plan www pnhp com

    by divineorder on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 11:34:49 AM PST

  •  This was a brilliant article (0+ / 0-)

    David your analysis shows true understanding of the legal process.

    Fascinating and useful.

    It's crazy NOT to complain to the Dems when they surrender. Why are we on this site, if not to influence policy? (202-456-1111 White House)

    by WanderMan on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 12:44:06 PM PST

  •  I love how the guys call themselves pro choice (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Catskill Julie

    before they proceed to tell us gals how to do to pass the laws, how not to pass the laws, how the laws don't mean what we think they mean, how everything is OK unless it's HIS wife, and on and on and on,  all about a law that doesn't affect their bodies.
     Probably the same guys that lie on the couch for days when they get a cold, whining about how they're suffering.

  •  Clinton, right on time (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    slinkerwink

    To this point, it's been the public option -- championed by those yahoo, know-nothing, pajama-wearing Cheeto munchers -- that, weakened though it may be, has ridden the most traditional, predictable and effective path to inclusion in the final bill: get your ducks in a row early, and fight hard every step of the way to keep them there, no matter how appealing each successive excuse for stepping out of line may seem at the time.

    And so today, Clinton marches up in front of the Senate Democrates and says, "Pass something!  Anything!  Not passing anything would be worst of all!" In other words, "Don't think of the left eye of a camel." -- don't think of failure.

    You get the subtle message?  It's time for all you bozo Democrats to panic so we can start slithering around and getting our fixes in.

    Not just Women's health care, but a few other "expendables" are going to get thrown under the bus if we panic like Clinton and Emanual want us to.  But then I'm just one more yahoo, know-nothing, dfh.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site