McJoan at DKos: How Bad Is the Stupak Amendment?...really bad.

[madfloridian]

How Bad Is the Stupak Amendment?

Because of the limits placed on the exchanges, most of the participants will have some form of premium credit or affordable subsidy. That means most will be ineligible for abortion coverage. The idea that people are going to go out and purchase separate "abortion plans" is both cruel and laughable. If this amendment passes, it will mean that virtually all women with insurance through the exchange who find themselves in the unwanted and unexpected position of needing to terminate a pregnancy will not have coverage for the procedure. Abortion coverage will not be outlawed in this country. It will simply be tiered, reserved for those rich enough to afford insurance themselves or lucky enough to receive from their employers.

The amendment is expected to pass with relative ease. Republicans will join with anti-choice Democrats to push it over the finish line. Once the amendment passes, the bill is cleared for a vote, and all parties expect that vote to succeed. Today looks likely to end with a historic, and important, vote. A vote that is a first step towards helping more than 30 million people secure health-care coverage, and making sure hundreds of millions are better protected from the vagaries of the insurance industry. But Stupak's amendment is a bitter start. It is, however, not the end. Even if it muscles into the House bill, it will also have to pass in the Senate, and then survive conference, before it becomes law.

If you have any doubt that the anti-abortion bill will remain alive and well to the end...then I have Florida swampland to sell you.

Chris Bowers at Open Left asks if the leadership got played.

Open Left covers the Stupak Anti-choice amendment

# No Progressive Block, apparently due to Obama reassurance. To my knowledge, no pro-choice Democrats have threatened to vote against the bill as a result of this. Apparently, this is because of a rumor going around Congress that President Obama promised Henry Waxman that he will "personally" work to remove the language in conference. I feel so reassured.

# No other amendments. No other amendments (Medicare +5% public option, single-payer) will be voted on. Just the Stupak amendment. Apparently, the leadership felt it needed to placate Stupak, but not single-payer or robust public option supporters. Once again, the Regressives play hardball better than the Progressives.

# Did the leadership get played?: Stupak claims that the bill will pass no matter what happens to his amendment. If that is true, then he really played the leadership on this, since they appear to have only allowed his amendment in order to get the votes for passage of the overall bill.

# Timeline: The Stupak amendment will be voted on after the debate is over. This means around 7:15 p.m. eastern. A final vote on the overall bill will take place at around 9 p.m.

# Chance of passage: Stupak is claiming that he has "about 220 votes" for his amendment. Update: Now Stupak claims he was 225 votes.

Based on various reports and whip counts I have seen publicly and privately, I can count 46 Democrats who might vote for the amendment. In order for it to pass, Stupak needs 41, plus all Republicans.

This amendment by Stupak, a Democrat supposedly, is anti-choice. It is about controlling the rights of women.

Our party just keeps on letting women be expendable.

And we have let them do it.

[madfloridian]

1. And they will keep on doing it.

Because we let them.

Vicious circle.

[tmyers09]

2. Fuck Bart Stupak.

Fuck him. I hate him so much. He is a piece of shit and I am ashamed that he represents my state.

[chimpymustgo]

41. Fuck NANCY - "robust public option and now this!" - Pelosi.

And we're supposed to "trust" them in conference. It would be hilarious if it weren't so heartbreaking.

[inna]

3. .

[madfloridian]

4. More on the topic from McJoan

"Those ten Democrats?

Boren, Bright, Childers, Davis (AL), Griffith, Marshall, Melancon, Minnick, Loretta Sanchez, Taylor

Loretta Sanchez? Really? That's a head scratcher, as is the full list of 15 members who voted against the final rule. It's the 10 above, plus these five:

Jason Altmire, Brian Baird, Frank Kratovil, Heath Shuler, and Ike Skelton

So we pretty much know the 15 who are going to vote against their party, their President, their constituents. They get every damned thing they want, with a watered-down public option and with the odious Stupak amendment, and turn around and thumb their noses at leadership on the procedural votes. At what point does leadership get around to the realization that appeasing these assholes just empowers them?"

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/11/7/801842/-HCR...

[madfloridian]

5. kick

[tnlefty]

6. K & R!

I don't know whether I feel sick just because of this or whether it's the anger as a result of this.

Thanks for the info. I'm REALLY going back under the bus now.

[madfloridian]

7. Here are the 64 Democrats who voted with Stupak and against women's rights.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/11/7/801996/-64-...

Thanks to KagroX at Daily Kos:

"AL-2 Bright, Bobby; AL- 5 Griffith, Parker; AL-7 Davis, Artur; AR-1 Berry, Robert; AR-2 Snyder, Victor; AR-4 AR-4 Ross, Mike; AR-4 Ross, Mike; CA-18 Cardoza, Dennis; CA-20 Costa, Jim; CA-43 Baca, Joe; CO-3 Salazar, John.

GA-2 Bishop, Sanford; GA-8 Marshall, James; GA-12 Barrow, John; KY-6 Chandler, Ben; IL-3 Lipinski, Daniel; IL-12 Costello, Jerry; IN-2 Donnelly, Joe; IN-8 Ellsworth, Brad; IN-9 Hill, Baron; LA-3 Melancon, Charles; ME-2 Michaud, Michael.

MA-2 Neal, Richard; MA-9 Lynch, Stephen; MI-5 Kildee, Dale; MI-1 Stupak, Bart; MN-7 Peterson, Collin; MN-8 Oberstar, James; MS-1 Childers, Travis; MS-4 Taylor, Gene; MO-4 Skelton, Ike; NM-2 Teague, Harry

NC-2 Etheridge, Bob; NC-7 McIntyre, Mike; NC-11 Shuler, Heath; ND Pomeroy, Earl; OH-1 Driehaus, Steve; Wilson, Charles; OH-9 Kaptur, Marcy; OH-16 Boccieri, John; OH-17 Ryan, Timothy; OH-18 Space, Zachary.

OK-2 Boren, Dan; PA-3 Dahlkemper, Kathleen; PA-4 Altmire, Jason; PA-10 Carney, Christopher; PA-11 Kanjorski, Paul; PA-12 Murtha, John; PA-14 Doyle, Michael; PA-17 Holden, Tim; RI-2 Langevin, James

SC-5 Spratt, John; TN-4 Davis, Lincoln; TN-5 Cooper, Jim; TN-6 Gordon, Barton; TN-8 Tanner, John; TX-16 Reyes, Silvestre; TX-23 Rodriguez, Ciro; TX-27 Ortiz, Solomon; TX-28 Cuellar, Henry.

UT-2 Matheson, Jim; VA-5 Perriello, Thomas; WV-1 Mollohan, Alan; WV-3 Rahall, Nick; WI-7 Obey, David.

[proud2BlibKansan]

16. I understand Skelton's vote

I don't like it but he is in a very red district. It's a miracle he gets elected at all. I would have been surprised if he had voted differently.

[madfloridian]

25. Republicans in bluer districts vote with their beliefs overall.

Their party does not waver on their stances.

It is just like I said..women's rights are expendable. They figure they can treat us like this and still get the money and votes.

I never had an abortion, I never will as I am too old for one. But we have allowed the religious right to take this issue and control it.

Birth control is next, and Dems are already wavering.

[PerpetuallyDazed]

46. OH's Ryan & Kaptur... so disappointing.

I won't forget that vote.

[ecstatic]

8. I don't agree with the amendment at all, but people without insurance have abortions all the time

It's not just a procedure for the wealthy. It costs around 300 (maybe less).

[fl_dem]

12. its $500 to $600

here in FL last I heard.

[ecstatic]

63. Depends on where you go

As I said, I do not agree with the amendment, but poor women and the uninsured have been paying for their own abortions all along. I suspect that those who have plans that cover abortion cannot relate to what poor/uninsured women have been through.

[madfloridian]

23. It is about the right of a woman to make the decision herself.

That is my point.

But we give in so easily anymore.

[NoUsername]

9. Slight correction here.

From the article cited in our OP:

"Abortion coverage will not be outlawed in this country. It will simply be tiered, reserved for those rich enough to afford insurance themselves or lucky enough to receive from their employers."

Rich people don't have abortions. They have what's called a D & C (Dilation and Curettage). That way, they can go a nice hospital and avoid all the hassle the "commoners" have to go through when trying to get past the protesters at the abortion clinics. Plus that way, they can continue to call themselves "pro-life" and continue to support the "pro-life" movement with their contributions. After all, they didn't have an abortion. They merely had a D & C.

[Garbo 2004]

14. In pre Roe v Wade days, in high school I was surprised that so many girls had to have D & C's.

Usually their parents were well off. I guess they found cooperative doctors. The poorer kids just got knocked up.

[pundaint]

10. "Our party just keeps on letting women be expendable" WRONG!

Our party, the Republicans and Democrats - one party with two names, just keeps on letting PEOPLE be expendable. Government now acts solely for the benefit of corporate interests.

Either that of like the parent who made his kid smoke a whole pack of cigarettes to impress upon him how disgusting they really are, our congress figures the way to stop the Insurance Companies and Pharma from gouging the American public is to make them take more revenue until they get sick of it.

[Solly Mack]

11. K&R

[fl_dem]

13. how about a bumper sticker that says

if you like the Health Care Reform, thank women and girls whose reproductive rights were sacrificed in order to get the reform passed.

On another note...the democrats that voted with Stupid Ass Stupac need to return their democrat cards right now and switch parties so as not to fool us and themselves another minute.

[UtilityCurve]

15. ":Sacrificed?"

Okay, I'm confused. Someone please explain to me how any woman who could've gotten an abortion under the status quo will be less likely to be able to get one under the House bill. I might agree that the bill does nothing to make it more affordable, but leaving it as affordable (or not) as it is NOT a ritual sacrifice. Not getting what you want is not the same thing as losing what you have, especially if you don't have it!

[fl_dem]

19. yes.

its a back door attempt of obstruction.

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/newsroom/pres...

The Stupak/Pitts amendment would purportedly allow women who want comprehensive reproductive health care coverage to purchase a separate, single-service rider to cover abortion. But such abortion riders do not exist because women do not plan to have unintended pregnancies or medically complicated pregnancies that require ending the pregnancy. These so-called ‘abortion riders,’ which would be the only insurance policy through which abortion care could be covered in the ‘exchange,’ are discriminatory and illogical. Proposing a separate ‘abortion rider’ or ‘single-service plan’ is tantamount to banning abortion coverage since no insurance company would offer such a policy.

[UtilityCurve]

21. I still don't get it

That's an excellent exposition of the way the bill would work, but it doesn't provide an illustration of the only case in which I would accept the word "sacrificed:" One in which a woman gets less assistance under the bill than she does currently. That one could propose a system in which she would get more assistance than under the status quo and to call the failure to provide the proposed alternative a "sacrifice" is just newspeak--spin. The word is "neglect" or "neglected." A sacrifice would entail losing something already in one's possession. The only reason to want to obscure the distinction between the two concepts (sacrifice and neglect) is that "sacrifice" has more power in it than "neglect," leading to outrage rather than hand-wringing.

But I do not wish to endorse the practice of redefining words (equating neglect with sacrifice, for example) in order to manipulate the emotive power of the words; that's the practice many have condemned of Bush-Cheney-Yoo saying "torture is what *I* say it is."

[madfloridian]

27. You don't believe in a woman's free choice apparently.

You should feel quite welcome here as most people here are fast becoming anti-choice out of necessity to defend congress.

[UtilityCurve]

35. WTF?

No, I get the free choice thing (that's the law, pure and simple), I just don't get the (heaven help me for this neologism) "freer" choice thing. By refusing to make the choice "freer" (easier-to-make-in-the-affirmative-from-an-economic-standpoint), how is yesterday (November 7)'s woman harmed? I get that she's not helped, but there's a world between the two.

I refuse to defend Congress, subscribing to Mark Twain's attitude toward it. I also refuse to allow language to be mangled to allow injustice to be masked, even if it means language cannot be mangled to allow justice to triumph. It's that whole ends-means thing. The better the quality of the tools we use, the better the quality of our products.

[fl_dem]

65. I think

someone is trying to exhaust people with their verbiage. Thanks for stepping in madfloridian, I was out of pocket for a few.
I stand by my opinion that Stupak/Pitts are fools and dissapointed with the actions of a handful of so called Democrats.

[Avalux]

17. It'll be stripped out in conference. I'm not getting worked up about it - yet.

However, there will be consequences for the Dems who voted for it. They are the target, not the amendment itself.

[Motown_Johnny]

18. +1

[nightrain]

20. even more "uniquely American" compromises. women are expendable?

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[madfloridian]

26. That is one of the worst personal attacks I have seen here.

Your words:

"You vile, hypocritical piece of shit."

That's a shame to see it.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[madfloridian]

29. I took great pride in my journals about the FL primary. Here's a list.

I was right about the situation.

Updated list of my journal postings about the Florida primary fiasco.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/...

Florida Democrats invade Georgia
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/...

Dean told not to plan a vacation in Florida.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/...

Court decision on March 17 could determine who Democratic nominee is.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/...

Florida Democrats thought they would only lose "half" the delegates.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/...

Dean says FL and MI would not negotiate with the DNC...took it public
instead.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/...

Florida, Michigan and the Jackasses That Over-reached
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/...

Tampa op ed: "Arrogance Cost Florida Chance To Influence Election"
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/...

Terry McAuliffe wants to change horses in the middle of the stream.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/...

From instigator to victim. It was a Dem who introduced the early primary
bill in Florida.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/...

How it began last August....how Florida Democrats began their propaganda war
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/...

Jeremy Ring (D-FL) said "relevance is more important than "partying" in
Denver.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/...

The worst part is that this very day FL Dems still shift blame....
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/...

Is Hillary's campaign being run as a "shadow DNC" for her benefit?
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/...

More Florida shenanigans and more insults to Dean from that state.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/...

Think I exaggerate about Florida's attitude? Here's a county chairperson's
rant against Dean.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/...

Enough of this. Florida Democrats now threaten Dean and the DNC with a
"voting rights probe".
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/...

The "appropriate legal official" to "investigate" Dean and the
DNC...is...Gonzales.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/...

Nelson: "I will lead the delegates to Denver whether or not the DNC plans to
let them in."
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/...

Two summaries of the DNC committee ruling about Florida.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/...

Florida sowed the seeds of a propaganda war against the DNC.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/...

Proof. Vindication. Both Florida parties did it for "relevance." From March.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/...

The latest Florida propaganda tactic here about attacking the DNC...local
email.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/...

Florida's Geller joked about his amendment: "sarcasm and audible laughter in
chamber"
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/...

One Florida county is saying there will be further bloodshed. Much argument
here today.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/...

Florida Democratic Party website building anger toward the DNC
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/...

Democratic activist sues over loss of Florida delegates
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/...

"Dean was conciliatory and offered DNC help for the state"..hour long phone
call
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/...

Gelber admits they did not fight the GOP about the primary.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/...

"Primary bully Florida ought to be ashamed"...four articles catch on to
Florida's primary ploy.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/...

Bill Nelson today will file a bill for regional primaries...but first he had
to get your attention
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/...

Bill Nelson today: "DNC penalties unacceptable, unacceptable, unacceptable"
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/...

Carl Levin and Terry McAuliffe made a deal about primaries in 2004.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/...

Email from Florida DEC chairs saying not to give to the DNC or candidates.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/...

Pelosi says it is not Florida's fault at all. So if the speaker says it I
must be wrong.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/...

"Florida Democrats are all for it"...March 2006. All for the early primary
that far ahead.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/...

Details on how Florida worked with the GOP to set the early primary date.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/...

Nobody sued Terry McAuliffe when he said Michigan's delegates would not get
near Boston.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/...

Nelson and Levin of Michigan file the bill today. It's getting deeper
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/...

My postings about the heartbreak of the Florida primary fiasco.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/...

Florida Dems at convention have button that says "Screw Dean"...very classy.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/...

Senate leader ponders suing 'rogue states' over primary
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/...

[Tommy_Carcetti]

30. Advocating for disenfranchisement is NEVER the correct side of the argument. Never.

But being thick-headed and/or obsessed with personality will do funny things to some people.

And in the end, it is the badge of dishonor, the scarlet letter, that you will always be forced wear. Well, I hope you are proud of yourself.

[madfloridian]

32. "the badge of dishonor, the scarlet letter, that you will always be forced wear."

I don't mind that at all.

I saw your post where you threatened to never let me forget what I wrote. That is fine with me. I found out later that my primary posts had quite an impact that I did not know at the time. Pleased me.

So you said you would not let me forget. Here's a start on helping you as we remember them.

I was right about the situation.

Updated list of my journal postings about the Florida primary fiasco.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/...

Florida Democrats invade Georgia
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/...

Dean told not to plan a vacation in Florida.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/...

Court decision on March 17 could determine who Democratic nominee is.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/...

Florida Democrats thought they would only lose "half" the delegates.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/...

Dean says FL and MI would not negotiate with the DNC...took it public
instead.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/...

Florida, Michigan and the Jackasses That Over-reached
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/...

Tampa op ed: "Arrogance Cost Florida Chance To Influence Election"
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/...

Terry McAuliffe wants to change horses in the middle of the stream.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/...

From instigator to victim. It was a Dem who introduced the early primary
bill in Florida.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/...

How it began last August....how Florida Democrats began their propaganda war
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/...

Jeremy Ring (D-FL) said "relevance is more important than "partying" in
Denver.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/...

The worst part is that this very day FL Dems still shift blame....
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/...

Is Hillary's campaign being run as a "shadow DNC" for her benefit?
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/...

More Florida shenanigans and more insults to Dean from that state.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/...

Think I exaggerate about Florida's attitude? Here's a county chairperson's
rant against Dean.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/...

Enough of this. Florida Democrats now threaten Dean and the DNC with a
"voting rights probe".
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/...

The "appropriate legal official" to "investigate" Dean and the
DNC...is...Gonzales.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/...

Nelson: "I will lead the delegates to Denver whether or not the DNC plans to
let them in."
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/...

Two summaries of the DNC committee ruling about Florida.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/...

Florida sowed the seeds of a propaganda war against the DNC.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/...

Proof. Vindication. Both Florida parties did it for "relevance." From March.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/...

The latest Florida propaganda tactic here about attacking the DNC...local
email.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/...

Florida's Geller joked about his amendment: "sarcasm and audible laughter in
chamber"
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/...

One Florida county is saying there will be further bloodshed. Much argument
here today.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/...

Florida Democratic Party website building anger toward the DNC
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/...

Democratic activist sues over loss of Florida delegates
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/...

"Dean was conciliatory and offered DNC help for the state"..hour long phone
call
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/...

Gelber admits they did not fight the GOP about the primary.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/...

"Primary bully Florida ought to be ashamed"...four articles catch on to
Florida's primary ploy.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/...

Bill Nelson today will file a bill for regional primaries...but first he had
to get your attention
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/...

Bill Nelson today: "DNC penalties unacceptable, unacceptable, unacceptable"
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/...

Carl Levin and Terry McAuliffe made a deal about primaries in 2004.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/...

Email from Florida DEC chairs saying not to give to the DNC or candidates.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/...

Pelosi says it is not Florida's fault at all. So if the speaker says it I
must be wrong.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/...

"Florida Democrats are all for it"...March 2006. All for the early primary
that far ahead.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/...

Details on how Florida worked with the GOP to set the early primary date.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/...

Nobody sued Terry McAuliffe when he said Michigan's delegates would not get
near Boston.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/...

Nelson and Levin of Michigan file the bill today. It's getting deeper
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/...

My postings about the heartbreak of the Florida primary fiasco.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/...

Florida Dems at convention have button that says "Screw Dean"...very classy.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/...

Senate leader ponders suing 'rogue states' over primary
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/...

[Tommy_Carcetti]

34. Your posts were all focused personalities and taking sides. It was a quite convenient distraction.

As long as you focused on personalities--i.e. Candidate/Person A GOOD, Candidate/Person B BAD--you could distract people here from what you were really advocating, and that was the disenfranchisement and stripping of all effect of 2 million legally cast votes made by Florida Democrats. Including, may I add, my own. And frankly, I just don't take all that kindly to that and people advocating against my own vote being counted and given effect.

I'm not saying you are a Snidely-Whiplash, rotten-for-being-rotten, one dimensional villain here. But here's what happened--you liked Howard Dean, Howard Dean became chairman of the DNC, and while Howard Dean was chairman of the DNC, the DNC made of the very worst decisions it has ever made in its history--that was to strip the power and effect of 2 million votes legally cast by Florida Democrats.

Now, even the DNC was smart enough to realize what a horrific decision it had initially made, and it did rectify the situation, albeit many months later.

But because the initial decision was made at a time when Howard Dean was chairman of the DNC, and you like all things Howard Dean, you felt the need to defend it at all costs. And defending the inexcusable, even if you claim it was simply out of loyalty to a particular personality, is still wrong. And it will always be wrong. And as long as you continue to defend yourself for it, you will be wrong. Period.

Because you seriously fail to understand that personalities will come and go. Principles, like the right to vote, and the right for one to have legal effect given to their vote, are universal.

Your long-winded posts, making the issue seem like it was all about Person A or Person B or Person Z, may have fooled some people, but they never fooled me. Am I bitter about it? You're damn right I'm bitter about it. And for good reason.

Good day, Ma'am.

[madfloridian]

36. So you did mean it?

That because I was right, that Florida Democrats lied right out in the open and blamed the party chairman for their wrong-headed votes...that you will never forgive ME?

That is truly amazing stuff there.

You won't forgive me for what Florida Democrats did.

Amazing.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

40. Go ahead and spin, spin, spin away. You only dig yourself deeper into a hole.

It was the DNC who made the horrible decision to strip the power and effect of ordinary Floridians' votes, all because of a petty little spat between state and national party leaders. Read that? The DNC. And for the simple reason that Howard Dean was the DNC chair at the time, and you just love all things Howard Dean, you--like a fool--decided to advocate for the indefensible.

Hell, even the DNC in its delayed wisdom realized it screwed up, and by continuing to maintain that incredibly stupid position there was a serious threat that we would have ended up with a Republican in the White House. (And that would have meant zero, nada, zilch debate on health care reform, let alone a bill being passed in the House, whether you like it or not.)

But not you, apparently. Apparently, in your own little world you are too important to admit you are wrong.

Well, all your posts have done is to give me about much respect for your point of view as I have for those of Jeb Bush, Katherine Harris, Tom DeLay, the 5 Supreme Court justices of the majority of Bush v. Gore, and
anyone else who thinks it is a-okay to deny one the right of his or her vote.

[madfloridian]

45. I was right. I was glad it made a difference. I was undecided until FL did that.

Here are even more if you are interested.

You said you would never let me forget...that's ok. I don't want to forget. Our Democrats here are still like that...they don't stand up for things that are important. I am finding out for the first time since 2003 how much money we can save by not donating. For your info we don't donate to DFA anymore either. For various reasons.

I learned what happened to voices that stand up against the status quo.

Michigan moved ahead of New Hampshire, then called for DNC to punish NH
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/...


From instigator to victim. It was a Dem who introduced the early primary bill in Florida.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/...

How it began last August....how Florida Democrats began their propaganda war
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/...

Jeremy Ring (D-FL) said "relevance is more important than "partying" in Denver.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/...

Think I exaggerate about Florida's attitude? Here's a county chairperson's rant against Dean.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/...

Enough of this. Florida Democrats now threaten Dean and the DNC with a "voting rights probe".
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/...

The "appropriate legal official" to "investigate" Dean and the DNC...is...Gonzales.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/...

Nelson: "I will lead the delegates to Denver whether or not the DNC plans to let them in."
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/...

Two summaries of the DNC committee ruling about Florida.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/...

Florida sowed the seeds of a propaganda war against the DNC.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/...

Proof. Vindication. Both Florida parties did it for "relevance." From March.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/...

The latest Florida propaganda tactic here about attacking the DNC...local email.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/...

Florida's Geller joked about his amendment: "sarcasm and audible laughter in chamber"
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/...

One Florida county is saying there will be further bloodshed. Much argument here today.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/...

Florida Democratic Party website building anger toward the DNC
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/...

Democratic activist sues over loss of Florida delegates
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/...

"Dean was conciliatory and offered DNC help for the state"..hour long phone call
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/...

Gelber admits they did not fight the GOP about the primary.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/...

"Primary bully Florida ought to be ashamed"...four articles catch on to Florida's primary ploy.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/...

Bill Nelson today will file a bill for regional primaries...but first he had to get your attention
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/...

Bill Nelson today: "DNC penalties unacceptable, unacceptable, unacceptable"
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/...

Carl Levin and Terry McAuliffe made a deal about primaries in 2004.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/...

Email from Florida DEC chairs saying not to give to the DNC or candidates.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/...

Pelosi says it is not Florida's fault at all. So if the speaker says it I must be wrong.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/...

"Florida Democrats are all for it"...March 2006. All for the early primary that far ahead.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/...

Details on how Florida worked with the GOP to set the early primary date.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/...

Nobody sued Terry McAuliffe when he said Michigan's delegates would not get near Boston.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/...

Nelson and Levin of Michigan file the bill today. It's getting deeper
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/...

My postings about the heartbreak of the Florida primary fiasco.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/...

Florida Dems at convention have button that says "Screw Dean"...very classy.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/...

Senate leader ponders suing 'rogue states' over primary
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/...

[Tommy_Carcetti]

54. Ring, Dean, Geller, Gelber, Nelson, Levin, McAuliffe, Pelosi. You obviously don't get the point.

It was never about any of those persons, nor was it about any of the candidates. Anyone who says that what I'm angry about is rehashing the primaries doesn't get it. It's not about that. It's about my vote, and the vote of millions of others in my state. Voting rights are the bedrock of any other rights one can claim are fundamental. Without the right to vote, there are no other rights.

I will never, ever apologize for my dismay over anyone who thinks my right to vote and right to have my vote count towards something. I will go down to the very bitter end fighting on that concept.

In your original post, you call someone who's voted with his party 96.2% of the time a "supposed Democrat", all because you happen to disagree with him on one single issue, as far as I know. You claim he doesn't respect other people's rights. Yet for months upon months you had nothing but the utmost contempt for the most fundamental of all rights, and to this day you incredulously remain unapologetic about that position. You are a hypocrite of the highest degree. You have absolutely no credibility to talk about rights when you do not respect the highest right of them all.

[madfloridian]

55. So this is all about the FL primary?

You certainly are bitter.

You said you wouldn't let me forget it. That's okay, I am proud of my posts.

You can keep trying to shame me, that's okay.

The FL Dems voted as the GOP told them to do, and then they lied.

I consider voting an important right, but I did not take your vote away which is really a silly claim.

I would like honesty and integrity in my party, and without that there is a question about how to vote.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

57. You supported taking away my meaningful vote, which makes you as part and parcel guilty...

....as had you actually taken my vote away.

In the end, yes, you are a nobody. You put together a pretty little post with a link here and there, but beyond that, you have no impact on anything in the great world beyond DU. And frankly, yes, I am an anonymous internet nobody too. But I still must call shennanigans on anyone--whether a powerful elected official or an internet nobody--who ever insinuates that the right to vote and have such vote counted is anything less than sacrosanct.

And yes, I am bitter. You've got that damn right. I am bitter. With cause, mind you.

[madfloridian]

58. Well, someday I hope you get over your hatred of me and your bitterness.

It's not healthy you know.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

59. I don't hate people.

I do hate people's deeds when they are deserving of hate.

[madfloridian]

60. Well, since I am a target of yours, I hope you get over it.

It's not bothering me at all, but your anger must be hurting you.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

61. You don't understand. There's nothing to get over.

Ego can be the greatest obscuration of them all.

[madfloridian]

62. Heh heh

[madfloridian]

33. You said: "And I will be there to remind you every step of the way."

That's okay. It's fine if you want to do that.

[PeaceNikki]

24. Here is PP's statement on it:

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/newsroom/pres...

<snip>

“While Rep. Stupak claims that his amendment simply applies the Hyde amendment to health reform, nothing could be further from the truth. The Stupak/Pitts amendment would result in a new restriction on women’s access to abortion coverage in the private health insurance market, undermining the ability of women to purchase private health plans that cover abortion care, even if they pay for most of the premium with their own money.

“The fact is, the majority of private health insurance plans currently offer abortion coverage, and the Stupak/Pitts amendment would result in the elimination of abortion coverage in the new insurance market created under health care reform. The Stupak/Pitts amendment upends the carefully crafted compromise in the House bill and unambiguously restricts women’s access to care.”

“Rep. Stupak’s amendment would dramatically shift current federal policy related to abortion coverage and would undermine the principle of abortion neutrality in health care reform. A vote for Rep. Stupak’s amendment is a vote to weaken women’s access to comprehensive reproductive care and to take away private benefits that women currently have.

“Rep. Stupak’s proposal to codify the Hyde amendment in health care reform would force women who want comprehensive reproductive health care coverage to purchase a separate, single-service rider. Such an ‘abortion rider,’ whereby abortion care could only be covered by a single-service plan in the exchange, is discriminatory and illogical. Women do not plan to have unintended pregnancies or medically complicated pregnancies that require ending the pregnancy. In fact, about half of all pregnancies in the U.S. are unintended, and abortion is not something that women plan to insure against. As a result, an ‘abortion rider’ policy is unworkable. Women would not choose to purchase it, and would subsequently be unable to obtain the care they need. Proposing a separate ‘abortion rider’ represents exactly the type of government interference in the health care marketplace that conservatives purport to vehemently oppose.

“As a health care provider, Planned Parenthood would very much like to see health care reform passed. But the Stupak/Pitts amendment would put women’s health in jeopardy and undermine real health reform.”

[UtilityCurve]

37. Eliminate

"the Stupak/Pitts amendment would result in the elimination of abortion coverage in the new insurance market created under health care reform"

How do you eliminate something before it exists? Aren't you simply not creating it in the first place? Precluding it? Forestalling it? That would be like removing an officeholder from office before she's been elected!

I thought the bill added to the number of insureds. If 100% of the newly-insured get less than the, what, 85% that are insured today, how do the 85% lose anything? Is PP suggesting that employers will drop abortion coverage in their plans? Never going to happen in the public sector!

[madfloridian]

38. Did you read this part?

"Because of the limits placed on the exchanges, most of the participants will have some form of premium credit or affordable subsidy. That means most will be ineligible for abortion coverage. The idea that people are going to go out and purchase separate "abortion plans" is both cruel and laughable. If this amendment passes, it will mean that virtually all women with insurance through the exchange who find themselves in the unwanted and unexpected position of needing to terminate a pregnancy will not have coverage for the procedure. Abortion coverage will not be outlawed in this country. It will simply be tiered, reserved for those rich enough to afford insurance themselves or lucky enough to receive from their employers.

The amendment is expected to pass with relative ease. Republicans will join with anti-choice Democrats to push it over the finish line. Once the amendment passes, the bill is cleared for a vote, and all parties expect that vote to succeed. Today looks likely to end with a historic, and important, vote. A vote that is a first step towards helping more than 30 million people secure health-care coverage, and making sure hundreds of millions are better protected from the vagaries of the insurance industry. But Stupak's amendment is a bitter start. It is, however, not the end. Even if it muscles into the House bill, it will also have to pass in the Senate, and then survive conference, before it becomes law."

Most private insurance now covers it, with this amendment women would lose that coverage.

[UtilityCurve]

43. Read it

Are you under the impression that employers will buy insurance "through the exchange," as PP describes it? Not so. The exchnages are not exclusive markets through which all insurance must be bought and sold; employers can still sign one-on-one with insurance companies, or self-insure. Limitations only apply on the policies sold "through the exchange." Those are ONLY the newly-insured who are not currently being covered by employers. If you're suggesting that employers will dump their existing plans wholesale and force people to buy through the exchanges, you're buying the Republican line that the exchanges will swallow the existing system.

If you are referring to the slice of the insured population that buys directly from insurers (no employer involved), once again, I have seen nothing that requires that market to operate through the exchanges. The exchanges are an addition to the existing Rube Goldberg system, and not a substitute for any part of it--at least nothing I've read here says differently. If those policies currently cover abortion, as you suggest (and I'd be surprised if most do, because only a state mandate could make them so and wouldn't state legislatures take the same approach as the House is?), are you of the impression that can no longer be offered once the exchanges begin to operate?

[madfloridian]

44. Sounds like you have not understood that this is about women's rights.

I don't even know where you are getting the other stuff.

I think they are using women as a scapegoat to appeal to the ones who are in both parties, who are part of the religious right who want to take women's rights to make decisions about health care away.

It is the same religious right who are against rights for gays.

It's a crying shame our party caved like that.

[UtilityCurve]

47. Where it's at

I figured I'd get the story from Pelosi's office (http://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/legislation?id=0327 ) and the NYT (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/06/business/06exchange.h... ). According to both, exchanges are just added onto what exists already and don't preclude the operation of current arrangements. I can't make anything else out of what these two sources say.

You have something different? I don't know where you're getting that stuff; PLEASE refer me to it!

[madfloridian]

48. The Stupak amendment expands the exclusion of abortion coverage...

I have posted clearly in this thread about it, others have posted clearly.

[UtilityCurve]

50. Clearly wrong

The NYT states that the House bill bars "any insurance plan that is purchased with government subsidies from covering abortions." http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/08/health/policy/08scene...

No employer-provided plan is or will be purchased with subsidies. Right?

No non-employer-provided plan currently federally subsidized covers abortion (Medicaid, etc.). Hyde Amendment, etc., since the 70's. Right?

That leaves non-employer-provided plans currently not subsidized (individually-purchased plans). Those can currently cover aborttion (but most, I'd bet, do not--I've got no evidence of that, just a hunch--if the plans weren't so miserly, they'd hardly be excoriated so badly!). If they remain unsubsidized (because the subsidy doesn't reach down low enough to reach that person or family's income), they're not barred from covering abortion. Right?

Who loses existing abortion coverage? MadFL, it's simple math: No one.

Can you point to any analysis of the bill that explains how anyone loses something she has? I've read and reread the PP press release and the closest thing I can find is the statement: "The fact is, the majority of private health insurance plans currently offer abortion coverage, and the Stupak/Pitts amendment would result in the elimination of abortion coverage in the new insurance market created under health care reform." Unfortunately for PP and the truth, according to the NYT, none of those existing private health insurance plans will be required to abandon abortion coverage because none of them will be a part of the "new insurance market" which is designed to reach uninsureds, not change the insurance of already-insureds. (I think that's what Obama and Pelosi mean by "if you like your current insurance and doctor, you can keep them.") An insured woman may have to forgo the subsidy to keep coverage, but that leaves her in exactly the same situation she found herself in this morning (same policy, same premium, same coverages, same cost). Finding yourself in exactly the same situation is rarely, if ever, referred to as "losing" something. This morning, some people might've gained a subsidy, but that doesn't mean someone lost something as a result; it's not a zero-sum economics exam question.

The closest thing I can find is that a woman with abortion coverage through an employer plan loses it if she becomes unemployed; but that already happens. What happens next depends on whether the bill passes or not. Under current law, she gets Hyde-bound subsidized health care (no abortion coverage) or no insurance coverage (unless she buys it in the private market, which PP says will likely offer abortion coverage). Under the bill, a new option arises: Insurance coverage that excludes abortion, if you take the subsidy. If you reject the subsidy (which is the option you effectively exercise today if you buy individual insurance), you can buy whatever you like. PP says most buys include abortion coverage (again, I'm skeptical), but why does the offering of a subsidized, Hyde-bound insurance plan eliminate the existing plan. As PP says, there's a new market: One that offers subsidized insurance with no abortion coverage. Stay out. It's what you may be doing already!

Repeatedly posting an assertion without illustrating how it could even happen (hypothesize any facts you want, really!) not only fails to prove its truth, it suggests deep misunderstanding of what the House bill contains, for good or ill. The fact that PP doesn't provide such an illustration either, despite their vastly greater motivation and expertise, and which would be a powerful tool in their effort, is strong evidence that it cannot do so, as a matter of the proposed law--and logic.

[madfloridian]

51. So you drew lines through all your words because...

you understood that what I said was right after all?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

"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."

[UtilityCurve]

52. Hardly

I dropped in an HTML code in error. Debugged post appears "above."

[UtilityCurve]

53. Louise and the Private Market

Louise Slaughter is a local representative; she assumes, without proof, that private insurers will drop abortion coverage. She is singularly unimpressive in the logic department.

Why? Because some people will get subsidies to buy insurance that excludes it? I'm sorry, but the profit-seeking insurers have no interest in selling a lower-cost product (insurance without abortion coverage) than a more expensive one (insurance with abortion coverage)? The latter products already exist; the administrative cost of continuing to offer it is basically a stamp and an envelope. If she had suggested even a full-goose nutty reason why this product would wither on the vine in the presence of the new, subsidized, no abortions-allowed product, I might think the Rules Committee Chairperson has a clue what she's voting for. In the meantime, it's all fearmongering and we've seen too much of that in this debate about health care reform; I'm afraid Rep. Slaughter got infected; i wonder if her insurance covers that infection?

[madfloridian]

56. The bottom line is that you are rationalizing that women got screwed

in the Stupak amendment.

We have done that too long, excused every vote.

[UtilityCurve]

64. I might not have used the word "screwed" in this context

But yeah. Glad to see you've abandoned your fantasy that the House bill makes the current situation worse for some women; I was getting worried.

Now, wouldn't the anger and energy be better directed at the Stupak and Blue Dog Democrats? Just because they're in other states doesn't mean you can't do something about (or to) them; lots of people packed bags and crossed state lines to campaign for the president last fall (in my home state of New York, which was a as safe for Obama as any, tons of people from this area went to Ohio to campaign, and you see how that worked). Excuse nothing. Extract a penalty if it be thy will.

[bertman]

31. "Once again, the Regressives play hardball better than the Progressives."

Sounds good except the Progressives NEVER even learned to play hard ball.

This amendment is a disgrace to the Democratic party.

The three North Carolina assholes who voted for this should not be considered Democrats. They are DINO's.

[madfloridian]

39. Video: Rachel discusses the Stupak amendment on MTP

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

[chill_wind]

42. Recommended. n/t

[Nikki Stone1]

49. K & R

,,