Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Pro-choice movement dealt serious blow with passage of Stupak amendment

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-08-09 05:31 PM
Original message
Pro-choice movement dealt serious blow with passage of Stupak amendment
Pro-choice movement dealt serious blow with passage of Stupak amendment

Pro-choice lawmakers and organization leaders are firing back after the House passed its landmark health care reform legislation late Saturday night. The bill included what's known as the Stupak-Pitts amendment, language offered by Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) and Joe Pitts (R-Penn.) that prohibits federal funds from being used for abortion services in any health exchange be it public or private.

Currently, most private insurers cover abortion related services but that practice will cease if Stupak's amendment remains in the finalized version of the legislation. Try as they might, the Congressional Pro-choice Caucus couldn't stop the anti-abortion language from being included in the House bill. The co-chairs of the Caucus, Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY) and Congresswoman Diane DeGette of Colorado issued a joint statement voicing their outrage over the inclusion of the amendment. "Placing onerous new restrictions on a woman's right to choose sets a terrible precedent and marks a significant step backwards," said the legislators; and yet, both women voted for the final bill.

The President of NARAL Pro-choice America, Nancy Keenan, delivered a more blistering attack saying, "It is unconscionable that anti-choice lawmakers would use health reform to attack women's health and privacy..." Keenan continued, "Reps. Stupak and Pitts took their obsession with attacking a woman's right to choose to a whole new level. We will hold those lawmakers who sided with the extreme Stupak-Pitts amendment accountable for abandoning women and capitulating to the most extreme fringe of the anti-choice movement."

Planned Parenthood Federation of America also released a statement condemning the anti-abortion language. PPFA President, Cecile Richards said the amendment "violates President Obama's promise to the American people that no one would be forced to lose his or her present coverage under health reform." Richards added that the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and its supporters "simply used health care reform to advance their extreme, ideological agenda at the expense of tens of millions of women."


Offering a woman a choice to buy extra insurance in case she has an unplanned pregnancy is just insulting.

While the amendment would prohibit abortion funding through the exchange, its advocates have tried to explain that women could purchase a separate, single service rider to cover abortion related expenses. The problem with that, critics maintain, is that no woman plans for an unplanned pregnancy or one that has serious complications which ultimately call for an abortion. Thus, purchasing a separate "abortion policy" makes no sense.


Hubby and I are finding out just how much easier life is since we are not donating for the while. While we are waiting to see which course the party takes, we are becoming very comfortable with not donating and then being disappointed.

We were passionate from March 2003 on until about February this year. We cared about change, we cared about winning a majority. We still were active. But we are biding our time now and enjoying the extra stuff we can buy with the donation money.

And we are sitting back and watching the latest rationalizations and excuses for letting down a main constituency of the party.
Refresh | +33 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
AllentownJake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-08-09 05:33 PM
Response to Original message
1. Where are you going to go?
You going to vote Republican...

of course I don't mean that but it is the typical attitude.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-08-09 05:35 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. I know what you mean.
I just assume they don't need us. :shrug:

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
AllentownJake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-08-09 05:38 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. The GOP trembles at what it's base thinks
Democrats tremble at what the GOP thinks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
polichick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-08-09 05:41 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. Ain't that the truth!? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
AlinPA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-08-09 08:22 PM
Response to Reply #4
12. That is accurate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
debbierlus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-08-09 11:44 PM
Response to Reply #3
24. Until they realize that we will not eat their shit every time they serve it up

They will continue to ignore their base.

It is at their own peril. Once they become Republicans, we don't have leadership and they are very nearly there.

They are leaving us with absolutely nothing to lose.

I am so angry I can't see straight.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
democracy1st Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 12:55 AM
Response to Reply #24
40. +1
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Jennicut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-08-09 05:45 PM
Response to Reply #1
7. The blue dog Dems that voted for it don't deserve support from Dems
Edited on Sun Nov-08-09 05:46 PM by Jennicut
in their next elections. Are they that much different then the Rethugs who run against them? I guess they are a bit better but I am pretty pissed. And I did want this bill to pass but the amendment was added in to keep the bill hostage.
By the way, Stupak has lived at C street...I think he still does. Pathetic tool.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
AllentownJake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-08-09 05:48 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. I think they should have counted votes in March 2009
not in November of 2009....for the past 7 months democrats have been fighting democrats instead of fighting republicans.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Jennicut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-08-09 06:20 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. Not sure we had the votes then but some Dems are not really Dems, are they?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
BolivarianHero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-08-09 11:34 PM
Response to Reply #8
23. Well no shit...
All conservatives are the enemy regardless of which letter is within the parentheses.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Norquist Nemesis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-09-09 02:25 AM
Response to Reply #7
27. I'm all for big tent, but dammit! on core issues what's the point of Con-lite?
That's the type of "majority" that it seems Rham brought us. And frankly, we need to get a handle on this FAST!!! I live in DuPage County...it was a thrill to even have the opportunity to vote for a Democrat on ballot the last three elections, even knowing there wasn't a snowball's chance in hell they would come close to being elected at any level.

But now, what we are starting to see is Republicans who are "moderate" are now registering as Democrats in local elections. These are people who have been elected to office for several terms! They are not switching parties because their point of view has changed and they are now aligned with Democrats, but it's because they cannot even get in the race as a Republican and it's hard to find a Democrat who could seriously challenge them in the primary.

I'm not looking for ideological purity, but I'm certainly not willing to just blindly embrace the Republican's trash. These people weren't taking my interests, "values", and political beliefs into consideration before they petitioned as Democrats...why would I trust them to do so now?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Jennicut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-09-09 05:38 AM
Response to Reply #27
28. Yes, I think that Rahm thought that any type of Dems were better
then no Dems in those seats. Perhaps he was correct in that those types were the only ones that could get elected but I think we should offer people a chance to vote for a liberal. Sometimes they surprise you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
placton Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-09-09 06:51 AM
Response to Reply #7
29. NO
it wasnt JUST the Blow Dogs that voted for this - when the bill passed, most Dems voted against women happily
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Beacool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-08-09 10:19 PM
Response to Reply #1
16. Jake, if the amendment remains in the final bill
many of us will probably sit on our hands next election since there won't be much of a difference between either party.

For now, I'll wait and see what the final bill looks like when the senate is done with it.

;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Demeter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-08-09 11:06 PM
Response to Reply #16
19. Choice Isn't a Movement, It's the Law of the Land
and I am really tired of having to listen to those who cannot get pregnant pontificating on what a pregnant woman MUST do. It's none of their damn business.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Beacool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-08-09 11:25 PM
Response to Reply #19
22. I don't think that is what Jake means.
He's a good guy. But I get what you're saying.

:pals:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hello_Kitty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-08-09 05:35 PM
Response to Original message
2. K and R. eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
polichick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-08-09 05:44 PM
Response to Original message
6. Score one for the Christian Taliban - what a mistake to draft "centrist" Dems...
I hope they are all challenged by progressives ~ even in so-called Republican areas.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-08-09 08:02 PM
Response to Original message
10. Pro-Life groups still don't think the Stupak amendment goes far enough.
They are not going to be satisfied with anything we do. We might as well take a big chance and take a stand on something Democrats should be standing for anyway.

The Hill on the Stupak amendment.

National Right to Life says the amendment is a blow to the Obama administratino's "pro-abortion smuggling operation":

"The Obama White House and top congressional Democratic leaders spent months concealing and misrepresenting provisions that would directly fund abortions through a government plan, and subsidize premiums for private abortion plans. Today's bipartisan House vote is a sharp blow to the White House's pro-abortion smuggling operation. But we know that the White House and pro-abortion congressional Democratic leaders will keep trying to enact government funding of abortion, and will keep trying to conceal their true intentions, so there is a long battle ahead."

Family Research Council praises the Stupak amendment but blasts the larger bill:

"This is a huge pro-life victory for women, their unborn children, and families. We applaud this House vote which prohibits the abortion industry from further profiting from taxpayers by using government funds to pay for the gruesome act of abortion. I congratulate the bipartisan coalition that for months has worked to ensure that abortion is not covered in the bill.

...""Unfortunately, H.R. 3962 is a seriously flawed piece of legislation. The Speaker's bill still allows rationing of health care for seniors, raises health costs for families, mandates that families purchase under threat of fines and penalties, encourages counseling for assisted suicide in some states, does not offer broad conscience protections for health care workers and seeks to insert the federal government into all aspects of citizen's lives. Speaker Pelosi is using the guise of health care reform to push her version of social engineering onto American taxpayers. Additionally, the legislation would place a crushing debt on both current and future generations."


It's a shame we caved to the religious right which will never be satisfied.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
democracy1st Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 12:57 AM
Response to Reply #10
41. they never will til its ended,what a weak party we have in the dems
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
AdHocSolver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-08-09 08:13 PM
Response to Original message
11. This appears to be a legislative poison pill.
They add an amendment with something that supporters can hate to dull enthusaiasm.

Time for a lot of voters to contact those who voted for this amendment, and explain that continued support for this amendment will be a political career-ending action come payback time...er, at the next election.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-08-09 08:35 PM
Response to Original message
13. There is a danger when people get too comfy with not donating.
When I try to explain to the DSCC, the DCCC, and the DNC why we won't give right now....they do not have a clue what I am saying. That is a major problem. When I say we need to take firm stands....they say to the effect of what do I mean?

We were pretty large donors to the Dean campaign since early 2003. We were happy to do it. Now we don't even donate to DFA until we see a mindset for real.

:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Justitia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 02:23 AM
Response to Reply #13
45. I've been a generous donor for as long as I can remember. I've been a democracy bond holder since
they were invented. That changed Saturday night. I was so pissed after staying up late to watch what happened, I immediately went online and canceled my democracy bond. I also unsubscribed to Organizing For America and told them why.

Never in a million years did I see myself doing that. Saturday night was the last straw.

I am still giving automatically each month to DFA.

I will ALWAYS give to Planned Parenthood.

I still give to individual candidates. I probably have at least 15 requests on my desk this very moment.

I am one of those people who keeps track of votes.

I'm still pissed about the $$$ I gave to Stephanie Herseth and Maria Cantwell when they first ran for office.

And now Claire McCaskill is on my shitlist too.

Actions have consequences.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Roosesvelte Donating Member (85 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-08-09 10:00 PM
Response to Original message
14. It Got The Bill Passed
That's what matters.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
bluetrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-08-09 10:03 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. It legislated misogyny and classism. Legalizing bigotry is not a win for the left.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-08-09 10:24 PM
Response to Reply #14
17. No, that is not all that matters.
The Democratic party just told women they are inferior and unable to make their own decisions. The Democratic party just told women they need the religious people to make decisions for them.

That matters.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
placton Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-09-09 06:55 AM
Response to Reply #14
30. thanks for your comment
Ms. Pelosi
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
M_A Donating Member (59 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 06:25 AM
Response to Reply #14
47. but it didn't
the blue dogs still voted against the bill and the only republican to support HCR did not cross the aisle due this amendment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-08-09 10:27 PM
Response to Original message
18. The Democratic party sent women a message. Stupak has more power than we do. .
And that is a shame.

They as much as said his narrow bigoted view is the right one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hawkeye-X Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-08-09 11:07 PM
Response to Original message
20. I'm glad my congresswoman opposed the Stupak amendment loudly
She's Diane DeGette.

I want her to personally kick Stupak in the balls. Repeatedly.

Then get a promise (under the threat of nut kicking) from Mr. Waxman to strip the language out COMPLETELY.

Hawkeye-X
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Justitia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 02:25 AM
Response to Reply #20
46. You have a fabulous representative there, kudos. -eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
question everything Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-08-09 11:18 PM
Response to Original message
21. Stupak-Pitts amendment?
I don't get it. According to the OP Pitts is a Republican Congressman who did not vote for the bill (since only one Republican did) so what was he doing an inserting an amendment which actually was added?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Mithreal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-09-09 12:35 AM
Response to Original message
25. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hippo_Tron Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-09-09 02:23 AM
Response to Original message
26. We had to swallow some serious shit to get the bill through, no question
Do I think it was worth it? Marginally, but yes. Can I empathize with those who don't think it was worth it? I absolutely can. The Stupak Amendment is a disgrace and people who are trying to make light of it are dead wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
demwing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-09-09 07:03 AM
Response to Original message
31. "purchasing a separate "abortion policy" makes no sense."
No one plans on catastrophic illness, either. By that logic, all health insurance for the healthy makes no sense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-09-09 12:21 PM
Response to Reply #31
35. Wow.
You really are defending this amendment with all your passion.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
demwing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-09-09 12:32 PM
Response to Reply #35
36. I think the amendment was a waste of time
because it doesn't do anything except provide political cover, and that didn't even work, because many of those that voted for the amendment did not in turn vote for the bill.

However, I reject the idea that the amendment restricts access to health care in any new way, or expands Hyde in some way, or makes abortions less legal in some way, than has already been done way back in 1977.

It's just wrong. It isn't the truth. We shouldn't be saying it is, and demonizing good dems (including the 40+ women in the US House) who support the HCR bill.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
UtilityCurve Donating Member (18 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 12:39 AM
Response to Reply #36
39. Thanks!
I was beginning to think I had gone nuts and that no one else was reading what I was reading; I got pretty roughed up at http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph... for saying the same things. You are quite correct.

I was so unnerved by the ferocity of my opponents in that discussion that I actually forced myself to read Section 222(e) of H.R. 3962 tonight (as well as the House Rules Committee summary of Stupak); I am REALLY disappointed with how fast and loose people are playing with the facts on paper (okay, on the computer screen with the Congressional Record on it!) in order to advocate their position. If truth (accuracy) sets us free, falsehood (inaccuracy) must surely enslave us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
boppers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 01:28 AM
Response to Reply #39
43. I had the same experience.
Turns out that NOW, NARAL, and a bunch of other groups are full of shit, and are spinning out massive truckloads of misinformation, presumably (as a guess) to increase funding.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
joeycola Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-09-09 07:04 AM
Response to Original message
32. And probably 99.9% will vote for the next person with a D following their
name.........

And we are sitting back and watching the latest rationalizations and excuses for letting down a main constituency of the party" :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
bertman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-09-09 08:05 AM
Response to Original message
33. Recommend. Let Stupak sign up with the Republican party if he's so "pro-life before birth".
These people need to be primaried, even if it means losing a seat or two or three. The party will be much stronger with reps and Senators who vote for Democratic core values than with a crew that picks and chooses from the Democratic menu AND the Republican menu.

I agree with your strategy of no donations until the course changes. So do my artist friends who are now reaping the benefits of NO DONATIONS TO DLC, DNC, DCCC.

And since the party can make up for our withholding of funds by simply getting more "donations" from their newest beneficiaries, Wall Street, Big Pharma, Big Insurance, and the War Industry, I have a feeling they won't be needing us Little People.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-09-09 11:37 AM
Response to Reply #33
34. They don't need us financially now.
We feel more comfortable not giving. So let them get their money from the ones they are catering to.

Makes sense to me.

What worries me is that I am angrier about it today than I was yesterday. The totality of the sell out is sinking in.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
bertman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-09-09 04:50 PM
Response to Reply #34
38. "The totality of the sellout is sinking in." Which is only reaffirmed by Robert Gibbs' assertion
that President Obama is seeking to "reach concensus" on the issue of whether women will be allowed to purchase insurance that covers abortions.

I voted for the fighter for the Urgency of Now, and now see that I got the conciliator, and the acceptor of the "possibility of later--maybe".

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
juno jones Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-09-09 12:44 PM
Response to Original message
37. K&R! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
UtilityCurve Donating Member (18 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 12:58 AM
Response to Original message
42. Found it (finally)
Yesterday, in a different colloquy, you asked me where I "got this stuff," meaning where did I get the impression ANY insurance policies could be offered outside of the exchanges, and thus would be exempt from Stupak restrictions.

Heaven help me, but I read the bill tonight; Section 301 of the bill makes participation in the exchanges voluntary by using the word "facilitate" instead of "mandate" (or a similar word). Section 302 sets forth the standards for plans (the word most consumers would use is "policy," but that's because people are people, not lawyers) to participate in these "facilitation" mechanisms. It does not require that they participate, nor does it prohibit them from selling or being sold outside the exchanges. (I guess they used the word "exchanges" to mirror "stock exchanges"--they're not the only way to buy stock, either, but they sure are the easiest and the one most people turn to.)

For anyone curious about where they stuck Stupak, it's at Section 222(e) of the bill.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
boppers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 01:38 AM
Response to Original message
44. Count the spins....
Just off the bat:

"most private insurers cover abortion related services but that practice will cease if Stupak's amendment remains in the finalized version of the legislation".... SPIN, there's no reason that private insurers can't offer the same plans.

"new restrictions on a woman's right to choose".... SPIN, the federal funding restriction is from the 70's.

"no one would be forced to lose his or her present coverage under health reform"... SPIN, if you have private coverage that covers abortion, you can keep it.

"While the amendment would prohibit abortion funding through the exchange" SPIN, federal funding is prohibited, state and private funding is not.

This is fear-mongering and misinformation.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Aug 22nd 2014, 07:43 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC