Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

At this point the Stupak=Hyde people are just lying.

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
 
Kurt_and_Hunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 09:13 AM
Original message
At this point the Stupak=Hyde people are just lying.
Edited on Tue Nov-10-09 09:25 AM by Kurt_and_Hunter
It was cute on Saturday night that people armed with talking points from whatever Team-Obama Bat-Cave dispenses lies-on-the-fly were claiming that Stupak does not expand Hyde. But some of the faithful may have believed it to be true because it feels good to think it.

By Monday, not so cute. KO and Rachel and NOW, NARAL, Planned Parenthood, the leaders of the House pro-choice caucus... even people like Dylan Ratigan with no obvious connection to the baby-killing industry, but who understand disparate impacts of policy in a competitive environmet... so many folks involved in this conspiracy to pretend Stupak is a new roll-back of reproductive health access and women's rights in general.

By Tuesday it is just people intentionally peddling a lie.

This happens at least once a week. Something unpopular happens. People who acknowledge the truth of it are smeared by the usual suspects as trolls or so outside the mainstream as to be deserving of ostracization.

Some lame distortion is peddled by the usual suspects as "debunking." Others flock to thank them for "setting the record straight."

A day or two later the original lie is believed by no one but we are already on to the next lie.


Refresh | +8 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
vaberella Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 09:17 AM
Response to Original message
1. It's similar to Hyde, but in no way equals Hyde. I haven't seen a person say that though.
It's definitely more restrictive on certain things. However, what I will not agree is that it's an attack on the poor--since this relates to health insurance reform and most poor people do NOT have health insurance. Secondly, that it denies a woman the right to an abortion. That's not true, abortion is still legal in this bill. You just have to pay out of pocket.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
uponit7771 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 09:20 AM
Response to Reply #1
4. I don't see Stupak adding any restrictions that are stupidly in place now. The sections of the laws
...that outline the restrictions are the same (my post below) word for word.

Obama said he supports the status quo which is the Hyde amendment
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
vaberella Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 11:18 AM
Response to Reply #4
35. Will read into it more.
I believe the restriction is that if a woman pays into a private insurance (and this is iffy because it's not the case all around) the insurance company can provide for abortion services. The thing is, this is not 100% done by every insurance company in every state. It depends. What I have been told is that currently the hide amendment would eliminate from all insurance companies (that is the ability to have those services) because of the language. So in effect when women used to be able to have their services paid trough their insurance because of them paying in (of course for the few that provided such services) they can't do that now. That's the jist of my understanding. personally I'm like if the choice was there, it shouldn't be taken away.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
uponit7771 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 09:18 AM
Response to Original message
2. Stupak sec 236 and Hyde 507 read damn near the same word for word
Hyde
http://www.nchla.org/datasource/ifactsheets/4FSHydeAm22...

Stupak
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/15284081/Stupak-Amendment-t...

Please list how they are tangibly different?!

Obama said he supports the status quo, right now Hyde is status quo
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Kurt_and_Hunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 09:20 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. I will humor you once... WHY DOES OBAMA SUGGEST STUPAK IS NOT THE STATUS QUO???
Edited on Tue Nov-10-09 09:23 AM by Kurt_and_Hunter
Is he part of the conspiracy now?

He said that Stupak needs to be worked on so that it is only Hyde and does not roll-back choice.

If it is merely Hyde then why does it need to be fixed?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
uponit7771 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 09:21 AM
Response to Reply #3
5. I did not hear or read of any suggestion, please link and quote where Obama said HYDE was not status
Edited on Tue Nov-10-09 09:22 AM by uponit7771
...quo.

Thx
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Kurt_and_Hunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 09:24 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. Edited to replace ambiguous "it" with "Stupak"
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
uponit7771 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 09:33 AM
Response to Reply #7
14. Sec, I'm reading Obama's statments on Stupak but I would thiink it 's because it's redundant
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
uponit7771 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 10:01 AM
Response to Reply #7
22. I read it, it's because it was injected despite Hyde being in force which prohibits federal funds...
..from being used to pay for abortions.

On the other hand someone has said Hyde gets voted on every year and Stupak wont be so that's a tangible change, if you get a congress that is notably full of courage and willing to tell the religious right to fornicate themselves Hyde can change quickly while Stupak doesn't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 10:05 AM
Response to Reply #3
23. Because it's permanent. That's it. NOW TELL US WHAT'S "THE BABY-KILLING INDUSTRY" IN YOUR OP.
Edited on Tue Nov-10-09 10:06 AM by ClarkUSA
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
uponit7771 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 10:08 AM
Response to Reply #23
24. RIGHT!! Hyde allows for yearly votes were Stupak doesn't
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Dr Robert Donating Member (381 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 05:05 PM
Response to Reply #3
80. he didn't, he just said that whatever the language, the status quo should be maintained
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
gravity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 09:44 AM
Response to Reply #2
20. The wording is more strict in the Stupak admendment
Which explicitly states that funds won't go to any plan that offers coverage for abortion itself. The Hyde amendment itself applies to the 'health benefits coverage' and doesn't mention the plans.

I am not a legal expert, but I believe the difference is that with the Hyde amendment, federal funds can support insurance plans but not the portion of the plan that offers abortion coverage, but those can be purchased from out of pocket. In the Stupak amendment, you have to purchase a supplemental insurance program to cover abortions and that coverage can't be listed on any exchange.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
uponit7771 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 09:59 AM
Response to Reply #20
21. You have to purchase a rider in which HCI's HAVE to offer in the pool if they're not ...
...going to offer it in their plans.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 03:11 PM
Response to Reply #21
74. that is baldly inaccurate
actually the opposite is true. If a company chooses to offer a plan that covers abortion they must offer a plan that is the exact same but that doesn't cover abortion. They don't have to offer a plan which does cover abortion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
dionysus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 09:24 AM
Response to Original message
6. poor little fella. obama being in office sure does give you the vapors.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
uponit7771 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 09:25 AM
Response to Reply #6
8. I don't understand their angst, sec 236 of Stupak=Sec 507 of Hyde almost word for word
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
dionysus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 09:32 AM
Response to Reply #8
12. hey, the ammendment sucks, but people are talking it up like it overturns roe v wade.
i can understand being upset about it, but people are being disingenuous about this. i think the opponents of reform are clinging to whatever they can right now. if we get this thing passed they'll all have a lot of egg on their faces.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
uponit7771 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 09:33 AM
Response to Reply #12
15. YEAP!! If Hyde is in force than Stupak is redundant!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
freddie mertz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 11:08 AM
Response to Reply #15
28. Keep saying it. It is not only not true..
...But even the president agrees with me that it is not true.

You guys ran out there downplaying the scope of the amendment, defending it, saying it meant nothing.

Now you have been, for all intents and purposes, been refuted by everyone from rachel Maddow and Claire McCaskill to the President of the Unites States.

You guys got caught out on the limb.

Time to admit it and move on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
freddie mertz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 11:05 AM
Response to Reply #12
27. The president has stated that it goes too far.
I agree with him, and wonder why you don't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
dionysus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 11:11 AM
Response to Reply #27
30. weak attempt to put words in my mouth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
freddie mertz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 11:13 AM
Response to Reply #30
32. Did you or did you not argue that there was nothing new in the amendment?
Fess-up time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
dionysus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 11:24 AM
Response to Reply #32
36. you tried to argue that i support the ammendment. i don't. but nor do i think the sky is falling.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
freddie mertz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 11:30 AM
Response to Reply #36
38. So you didn't CARE about it one way or another?
Pretty much the same thing, then.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
me b zola Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 03:01 PM
Response to Reply #12
73. The only people being disingenuous are the people supporting Stupak
I have written and called dozens+ congress critters in support of health care reform with a strong public option. I strongly support President Obama. I am one of the people who really need access to health care, so I have a lot riding on this. How freaking dare you assume that those of us whom are outraged at this assault on women dislike the President or oppose health care reform. I support the bill that the House passed Sat night, as weakened as it was and even with the poison pill it contained. But I will not sit quietly while religious fanatics make it more difficult for a woman to access health care that she may need, and I am glad that the President agrees with me.

I swear I don't understand the need for the divisions among us. Most of us are on the same team. But how fucking dare you assume that I should not speak up for women.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
geek tragedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 09:26 AM
Response to Original message
9. Now it's ANTI-OBAMA people pushing that lie.
Because they want to portray Obama as a liar for opposing Stupak without pushing for a repeal of Hyde.

It works both ways.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
nykym Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 09:29 AM
Response to Original message
10. Could the whole mess
be another diversion from the public option? It seems to have taken center stage in the debate at present.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
uponit7771 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 09:35 AM
Response to Reply #10
16. I think its good that it has because abortion was the reason why the regligious right wouldnt suppor
...HCR and now they have no excuse.

Stupak is a repeat of Hyde...
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
niyad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 09:39 AM
Response to Reply #16
18. since abortion was never part of this "health care reform" that thinking is disingenuous, to say the
least. the reichwingnuts were not going to support the bill, no matter what.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
uponit7771 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 09:43 AM
Response to Reply #18
19. I agree, the religous RIGHT though was excusing themselves from the debate of taking care of the ...
...sick and poor by saying HCR would fund abortions via federal dollars.

I've listened to the radio stations and Obama was right, they were lying out of their teeth when it came to abortion on HCR.

It was on night after night to the point Obama had to make a statement on the matter.

The religious right can't lie to themselves now...

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
niyad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 09:30 AM
Response to Original message
11. "the baby-killing industry"??? whatever point you were trying to make ended right there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
dionysus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 09:32 AM
Response to Reply #11
13. i just noticed that, wtf is up with THAT?
:puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Truth2Tell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-11-09 12:38 AM
Response to Reply #11
93. That's where I stopped reading. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
izzybeans Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 09:39 AM
Response to Original message
17. I must have misunderstood your previous OP on this subject.
Edited on Tue Nov-10-09 09:43 AM by izzybeans
Weird. Who is it that is lying again?

It seems to me that Obama agrees with NOW. He indicated that Stupak > Hyde and overreached established law. At first I didn't think so but reading the amendment carefully it seems pretty apparent that the language can be read that way. What is the baby killing industry? I've never heard of it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Aramchek Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 10:43 AM
Response to Original message
25. yet you provide nothing from the amendment to support your claims
have you even read the amendment?
or do you let Dylan Ratigan do all your critical thinking?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
TheKentuckian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 11:02 AM
Response to Original message
26. I'm not sure about lying but they are twisting themselves in knots to buy BS
Its easily an expansion though you're transforming the law from we can't fund that to we can't in any stretch of logic have money associated with that.

If people support that then they should just say it but there is no reason on Earth to pretend that these laws are the same thing.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SacramentoBlue Donating Member (11 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 11:08 AM
Response to Original message
29. New York Times editorial today: Stupak amendment "reached far beyond Hyde"
Edited on Tue Nov-10-09 11:10 AM by SacramentoBlue


The restrictions would fall on women eligible to buy coverage on new health insurance exchanges. They are a sharp departure from current practice, an infringement of a womans right to get a legal medical procedure and an unjustified intrusion by Congress into decisions best made by patients and doctors.

The anti-abortion Democrats behind this coup insisted that they were simply adhering to the so-called Hyde Amendment, which bans the use of federal dollars to pay for almost all abortions in a number of government programs. In fact, they reached far beyond Hyde and made it largely impossible to use a policyholders own dollars to pay for abortion coverage


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/10/opinion/10tue1.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
freddie mertz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 11:11 AM
Response to Reply #29
31. Stop making sense!!
Edited on Tue Nov-10-09 11:12 AM by freddie mertz
The would-be Obama-or-the highway thought-police have blown this one and through their knee-jerk stupidity, ended up on the OPPOSING SIDE of the president.

They have been proven wrong and unmasked as the thoughtless nuckle-draggers that they are.

It would be funny if it were not so pathetic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Jennicut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 11:15 AM
Response to Reply #31
33. I support the passage of the health care bill but thought the amendment was crap
Posted that many times here. But please, keep lumping people into two groups. It never gets old.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
freddie mertz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 11:18 AM
Response to Reply #33
34. That is a defensible position as you describe it.
but that is not what I was referring to.

I am talking about the "Stupak is the same as Hyde" crowd.

Those people have performed ignorantly and willfully so at best, and have now been exposed for what they are.

Do not take offense if you are not among them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 11:29 AM
Response to Reply #29
37. They're wrong. Women can buy supplemental insurance to cover abortion services. Link, quote -->
Edited on Tue Nov-10-09 11:31 AM by ClarkUSA
"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."

http://www.examiner.com/x-25800-DC-Political-Buzz-Exami...

Women have to do the same thing now.

The only difference between Stupak and Hyde is the former would be permanent. But since the language will never make it out of conference, things will go back to the status quo.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SacramentoBlue Donating Member (11 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 11:35 AM
Response to Reply #37
39. The NYT editorial in question called these riders "meaningless" for the following reason
Edited on Tue Nov-10-09 11:36 AM by SacramentoBlue
NYT, continued: "The restrictive language allows people to buy “riders” that would cover abortions. But nobody plans to have an unplanned pregnancy, so this concession is meaningless. It is not clear that insurers would even offer the riders since few people would buy them."
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 11:47 AM
Response to Reply #39
41. Bullshit. Women have to do the same damned thing now. Is flood/fire insurance "meaningless" too?
Edited on Tue Nov-10-09 11:48 AM by ClarkUSA
Nobody plans to have be flooded out or on a house fire, either. I don't expect my home furnishings to be stolen
but I buy renter's insurance, anyway. The male NYT editor is talking out of his ass and clearly doesn't realize that
women have to buy abortion insurance now.


Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SacramentoBlue Donating Member (11 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 11:51 AM
Response to Reply #41
42. Equally, Salon.com and the Huffington Post call these riders "nonsense" and "useless" in that order
The excerpts are below. By the way, women didn't have to buy these "riders" under Hyde, or did they?

Salon.com (Nov. 11, 09) : By the way, the argument that women can just purchase an additional rider is such insane nonsense. Abortions can't be planned for - it is a medical procedure for unplanned circumstances. So any woman purchasing a rider is just putting money into the pockets of an insurance company to protect against unforeseeable circumstances. The procedure (if performed chemically, i.e. with a two pill protocol) is only $300-500 anyway, so the coverage would likely cost more than it covers. http://open.salon.com/blog/alicia_phd/2009/11/08/the_st...

Huffington Post: It allows for a useless abortion "rider": Stupak and his allies claim his Amendment doesn't ban abortion from the Exchange because it allows plans to offer and women to purchase extra, stand-alone insurance known as a rider to cover abortion services. Hopefully the irony of this is immediately apparent: Stupak wants women to plan for a completely unexpected event.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jessica-arons/why-the-stu...

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 11:56 AM
Response to Reply #42
44. They're wrong, too. Repeat 3x: Women have to buy supplemental abortion insurance now.
Edited on Tue Nov-10-09 11:57 AM by ClarkUSA
How much you wanna bet that the writers of all the articles don't know that? And their reasoning is full of holes,
unless they carry home insurance because they are planning to have their house robbed or burned down in the
future.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
freddie mertz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 12:04 PM
Response to Reply #44
48. Keep trying. It just gets more and more ridiculous. nt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 12:42 PM
Response to Reply #48
70. It is ridiculous when people can't acknowledge/don't know the facts, isn't it? nt


Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 03:16 PM
Response to Reply #44
75. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 05:16 PM
Response to Reply #75
81. You're wrong. e.g. All the under-45 female members of my family have abortion insurance. nt
Edited on Tue Nov-10-09 05:18 PM by ClarkUSA


Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SacramentoBlue Donating Member (11 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 05:34 PM
Response to Reply #81
84. Do they have it in the form of a "rider"?
Or a supplemental insurance? Or is it simply part of the regular coverage?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 07:24 PM
Response to Reply #84
87. They carry supplemental insurance. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Prism Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 11:45 AM
Response to Original message
40. This is all very chilling
That women's reproductive health and freedom can be so breezily dispensed in the name of political expedience and a Democratic "win" should be cannon fire across the progressive bow. That it didn't slow down the propagandists for one instant should reveal precisely how disinterested many of the talking pointers are in the welfare of the American people.

The LGBT community is used to being dismissed in the name of the Party, but watching this happen to women in such a fundamental way, with the usual suspects not missing one single beat, with the villainization of those who ardently believe in choice as sacrosanct, the declarations of purism, the hatred, the disdain, the protectionism extended towards the politicians on the backs of women's constitutional rights.

Frightening. It's a testament to just how far the charismatics are willing to go. If they will not stand up for women, who will they stand up for?

The answer and the direction it implies shouldn't leave anyone feeling very good about what the Democratic Party is becoming and the core group who are pulling us in a very nauseating direction. Can an entire political movement be destroyed in the name of one man?

We're getting there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 11:53 AM
Response to Reply #40
43. Not really. Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz said that the language will be removed in conference.
Edited on Tue Nov-10-09 11:57 AM by ClarkUSA
The Stupak Amendment was included in the House bill as a means to an end: to move it forward into conference.


Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
freddie mertz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 12:15 PM
Response to Reply #43
53. And it was a mistake to defend it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-11-09 08:56 AM
Response to Reply #53
96. Says you. But it got the job done of moving the bill forward. Your stance would've killed the bill.
Failers like you never see the big picture.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
freddie mertz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 11:57 AM
Response to Reply #40
45. Yes. I too have noticed the one-man fanaticism.
Yesterday these clowns were all over the place, denying, defending, excusing, or just plain misrepresenting the content of the Stupak amendment.

Calling those appalled by it "haters" and worse.

We've seen it all before on almost every major issues, from GLBT to the war.

But THIS TIME they overplayed their hand and ended up on the opposite side of the man they thought they were defending.

They have gone so far to the fanatic, Republican right on issues that they no longer have any bearings whatsoever.

They have shown that they stand for nothing, that no principle is too dear to them not to be sold out in the service of their idolatrous hero-worship.

It's a good day for clear-thinking progressives, and bad one for the mindless legions of the bot-brigade.




Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 11:59 AM
Response to Reply #45
46. Yeah, all the one-man Hater/Failer fanatics are so very bitter while ignoring the facts. nt
Edited on Tue Nov-10-09 12:00 PM by ClarkUSA
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
freddie mertz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 12:03 PM
Response to Reply #46
47. Actually, I am enjoying watching you guys try to rewrite history...
You got punk'd.... but haven't got the stones to admit it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 12:10 PM
Response to Reply #47
51. lol! Team Obama is writing history, Bitter One. But if your delusions keep you happy, go for it.
You can't admit that the only difference between the Stupak and Hyde amendments is the former would be permanent.
But then again, honesty has never been one of your strong points.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
freddie mertz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 12:15 PM
Response to Reply #51
52. Blah blah. Everyone who is honest here knows what has happened.
And Clark is not going to win the 2004 nomination either.

Sorry to inform you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 12:33 PM
Response to Reply #52
63. That would leave out you. And they do know. And why do you keep bringing up Gen. Clark?
Edited on Tue Nov-10-09 12:35 PM by ClarkUSA
I'm not a bitter hater like you've been since you joined DU (the one CYA OP aside).

The only folks doing the smearing were were the alleged one-issue ideologues who were demonizing
anyone who didn't agree with their ranting and raving, despite the facts that said the Stupak Amendment
was not much different than the Hyde Amendment and the expectation among those who know better
that the language would be removed in conference after it accomplished the goal of moving the bill
forward into conference.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
freddie mertz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 12:35 PM
Response to Reply #63
65. Why?
Because Clark lost five years ago.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 12:40 PM
Response to Reply #65
67. So what? nt

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
sudopod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 04:43 PM
Response to Reply #52
78. So you're a flaming noobstick and C2k4 isn't.
What does that have to do with anything?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Prism Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 12:05 PM
Response to Reply #45
49. That's what got me
I mean, it would be kind of hilarious if the situation weren't so serious. The assumption that the President would be ok with the anti-choice amendment and the duly executed smearing of anyone opposed . . . but oops! The President is opposed to the amendment. Uhm, ignore everything the charismatics just spent several days quite vehemently saying.

Nothing screams "I have no principles whatsoever!" more than the display we just witnessed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
freddie mertz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 12:10 PM
Response to Reply #49
50. Right! They have been caught with their pants down...
....so used to moving ever further to the far right in presumed "support" of the president that they ended up like Wile E. Coyote, hanging over the gorge and looking down to the abyss they are about the fall into!

Hardly knew what hit 'em.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Prism Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 12:15 PM
Response to Reply #50
54. You nailed it
It's that assumption that the President would be defending a shift to the hard right on a fundamental piece of liberal policy. Where on earth would they have gotten that from? *innocent blink*

The fact the President's most ardent supporters were caught off-guard by him defending a fundamental liberal belief speaks so many volumes - about him and them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 12:19 PM
Response to Reply #50
57. Wow, what bullshit. Guess you can't admit that Dems did what they could to move the bill forward.
The only folks doing the smearing were were the alleged one-issue ideologues who were demonizing
anyone who didn't agree with their ranting and raving, despite the facts that said the Stupak Amendment
was not much different than the Hyde Amendment and the expectation among those who know better
that the language would be removed in conference after it accomplished the goal of moving the bill
forward into conference.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
freddie mertz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 12:25 PM
Response to Reply #57
58. You are just jealous...nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 12:26 PM
Response to Reply #58
60. Nah, I'm glad that I didn't join DU just to bash President Obama while posting the occasional CYA OP
Edited on Tue Nov-10-09 12:27 PM by ClarkUSA
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
freddie mertz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 12:41 PM
Response to Reply #60
69. You are obsessed. But you still got it wrong. nt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 12:57 PM
Response to Reply #69
71. No, I'm pleased that the HCR bill is moving forward by any means necessary despite the loud whiners
Edited on Tue Nov-10-09 01:01 PM by ClarkUSA

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
freddie mertz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 05:32 PM
Response to Reply #71
83. "By ANY means necessary"? Including gutting the bill and tossing
Women's rights into the shit-can?

How charming.

And how utterly wrong-headed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 07:40 PM
Response to Reply #83
91. Yes, Failer/Bitter One. Your hyperbolic outrage nonsense babble is amusing. nt
Edited on Tue Nov-10-09 07:43 PM by ClarkUSA
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 12:15 PM
Response to Reply #49
55. What "assumption that the President would be ok with the anti-choice amendment"?
Edited on Tue Nov-10-09 12:17 PM by ClarkUSA
Link to any statements from DUers who said that if you're being honest. :eyes:

The only folks doing the smearing were were the alleged one-issue ideologues who were demonizing
anyone who didn't agree with their ranting and raving, despite the facts that said the Stupak Amendment
was not much different than the Hyde Amendment and the expectation among those who know better
that the language would be removed in conference after it accomplished the goal of moving the bill
forward into conference.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Prism Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 12:18 PM
Response to Reply #55
56. I don't see the point in arguing it
As a rule, I try not to engage propagandists and apologists. That you're claiming you missed dozens of threads where the usual suspects tried hammering defenders of choice simply betrays the fundamental dishonesty of the effort.

Then again, I did watch someone wrongly argue basic American civics for six hours the other day in defense of the President, so I suppose I should be used to it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 12:25 PM
Response to Reply #56
59. Yeah, because you're making up shit in order to pat yourself on the back. nt


Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
freddie mertz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 12:27 PM
Response to Reply #59
61. Update: Clark still not winning 2004 primary.
Edited on Tue Nov-10-09 12:33 PM by freddie mertz
Can't you jut give it a rest?

You got the argument wrong on Stupak.

We all get it. Time to move on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 12:31 PM
Response to Reply #61
62. I'm over it, Bitter One.
Edited on Tue Nov-10-09 12:32 PM by ClarkUSA
I got the facts, motives and prognosis right on the Stupak Amendment, as a DU search will verify. You are put in
the odd position of approving of Pres. Obama for the only time since you joined DU because of your need to CYA.

I love it. :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
freddie mertz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 12:34 PM
Response to Reply #62
64. Unlike you, I agree with the president's characterization of the Stupak bill.
Why do you hate the president?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 12:37 PM
Response to Reply #64
66. That'd be the only time you've ever expressed approval for the President since you arrived here. nt
Edited on Tue Nov-10-09 12:40 PM by ClarkUSA

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
freddie mertz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 12:40 PM
Response to Reply #66
68. Well there was that time in the PA primary....
And that OTHER time in the general election...

But whatever you say, GO ClarkUSA!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 03:44 PM
Response to Reply #68
77. hmmmm.....does sound familiar....
.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
freddie mertz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 05:31 PM
Response to Reply #77
82. Yep. I was proud to support and vote for the man.
And I certainly do not "hate" him.

That's just nuts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 07:43 PM
Response to Reply #82
92. Sure...that's why you've been trashing the Prez since you got here minus the CYA OP today. nt
Edited on Tue Nov-10-09 07:45 PM by ClarkUSA
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 07:25 PM
Response to Reply #45
88. Sez freddie the clown who is always overplaying her hand.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
LatteLibertine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 01:03 PM
Response to Original message
72. We need to get the C Street cultists out of our government
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Teaser Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 03:41 PM
Response to Original message
76. Hilarious
got to say that I'm really enjoying this thread.

It's got it all: bad faith accusations from both sides, threats, insults.

I love being a nihilist sometimes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Odin2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 04:56 PM
Response to Original message
79. It effectively bans coverage of elective abortions. This is BS and unconstitutional.
Distinguishing different types of abortion violates a woman's right to her own medical privacy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
boppers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 06:11 PM
Response to Reply #79
86. It doesn't ban coverage of abortions.
Edited on Tue Nov-10-09 06:25 PM by boppers
It bans federally subsidized coverage of elective abortions that aren't necessary to save the life of the mother, and aren't the result of rape or incest.

Those are very different things.


edit: clarify, add specifics
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
PeaceNikki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 05:35 PM
Response to Original message
85. Willful ignorance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 07:27 PM
Response to Original message
89. Get off your fucking high horse..I've seen your blatantly
stupid posts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hippo_Tron Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 07:32 PM
Response to Original message
90. Are there any lawyers here that could offer their analysis?
Since the second-hand sources seem to be in disagreement, it would be wise to turn to the first hand sources to determine this for ourselves. Unfortunately if the differences are subtle enough then we may not be able to interpret the first hand sources without formal legal training.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
demwing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-11-09 12:38 AM
Response to Original message
94. Let's break this down in lay terms
Edited on Wed Nov-11-09 01:26 AM by demwing
"...OPTION TO OFFER SEPARATE SUPPLEMENTAL COVERAGE OR PLAN - Not withstanding section 303(b) nothing in this section shall restrict any nonfederal QHBP offering entity from offering separate supplemental coverage for abortions for which funding is prohibited under this section, or a plan that includes such abortions, so long as -- ...(3) any nonfederal QHBP offering entity that offers an Exchange-participating health benefits plan that includes coverage for abortions for which funding is prohibited under this section also offers an Exchange-participating health benefits plan that is identical in every respect except that it does not cover abortions for which funding is prohibited under this section."

1. nothing in this section shall restrict = THERE ARE NO RESTRICTIONS ON

2. any nonfederal = ANY ORGANIZATION (OTHER THAN THE FEDERAL GOVT)

3. QHBP offering entity = THAT OFFERS A QUALIFIED HEALTH PLAN (AS PER TITLE 1 OF THE BILL)

4. from offering separate supplemental coverage = FROM OFFERING A RIDER THAT COVERS

5. for abortions for which funding is prohibited under this section = "ELECTIVE" ABORTIONS

6. or a plan that includes such abortions = OR A PLAN THAT COVERS "ELECTIVE" ABORTIONS

7. so long as = AS LONG AS

8. any nonfederal QHBP offering entity = SAID ORGANIZATION

9. that offers an Exchange-participating health benefits plan = OFFERING A PLAN ON THE EXHCHANGE

10. that includes coverage for abortions for which funding is prohibited under this section = THAT INCLUDES "ELECTIVE" ABORTIONS

11. also offers an Exchange-participating health benefits plan = ALSO OFFERS A PLAN IN THE EXCHANGE

12. that is identical in every respect = IDENTICAL TO THE FORMER PLAN

13. except that it does not cover abortions for which funding is prohibited under this section. = EXCEPT THAT IT DOES NOT COVER "ELECTIVE" ABORTIONS.


Now read the layman's version =

"There are no restrictions on any organization (other than the federal govt.) that offers a qualified health plan (as per title 1 of the bill) from offering a rider that covers "elective" abortions, or a plan that covers "elective" abortions, as long as said organization offering a plan on the exchange that includes "elective" abortions, also offers a plan in the exchange identical to the former plan, except that it does not cover "elective" abortions."

Can it get any more clear? How can this POSSIBLY be twisted to mean that you cannot offer a plan in the exchange that offers "elective" abortions? Read the line: "that offers an Exchange-participating health benefits plan that includes coverage for abortions for which funding is prohibited under this section"

AGAIN: "an Exchange-participating health benefits plan that includes coverage for abortions for which funding is prohibited under this section"

How can their be such a plan if such plans are banned by this amendment? There cannot! The amendment does not ban these plans from the exchange, and (barring any evidence to the contrary not presented here) anyone who says differently is incorrect.

I don't care how famous they are, or what TV show they star in, or what internet videos they produce, or what organization they represent. Call me any name you like, it doesn't change the reality of the words as they appear in the amendment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Egnever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-11-09 12:57 AM
Response to Reply #94
95. Sweet post
Should be an OP
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-11-09 09:05 AM
Response to Reply #94
97. That's right. Your excellent lawyerly analysis = NARAL, NOW, etc. are full of shit. nt
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 Jul 11th 2014, 03:35 PM
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