The Nelson amendment is not in the President's bill

[ProSense]

The Nelson amendment was voted down.

The compromise language picked up from the Senate bill was worked out later:

Reid’s most crucial political compromise was on abortion, the biggest bone of contention for centrist Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), an abortion opponent who failed in his attempt to amend the bill on the floor with stronger language shielding federal insurance subsidy funds from paying for abortion services and rejected previous compromises offered by Reid and Sen. Bob Casey Jr. (D-Pa.), who both also oppose abortion rights.

After private talks between Reid, Nelson and other Democrats that ran late into Friday night, however, Nelson signed off on the new language and other provisions that cleared the way for him to support the healthcare bill. The language is complex but the biggest change is that states would be permitted to prohibit plans sold within their borders through the health insurance exchange from covering abortion services. “I will vote for healthcare reform because it will deliver relief from rising healthcare costs to Nebraska families, workers, rural communities and employers,” Nelson said.

The early response from abortion-rights supporters was positive, as Democratic Sens. Barbara Boxer (Calif.) and Patty Murray (Wash.) issued a joint statement saying they preserved the principle that women can use their own money to purchase abortion coverage through plans on the insurance exchange. Though the senators emphasized they preferred the original abortion language in the bill, "compromise was necessary to get a healthcare bill for the American people, and this compromise achieves that."

"We said we would not accept language that prohibited a woman from using her own private funds for her legal reproductive health care -- this compromise meets that test," Boxer and Murray said.

link

[Beetwasher]

1. Shhh! You're Raining On Perfectly Good Pissing

n/t

[Clio the Leo]

8. lol NT

[Jennicut]

2. Thanks for the clarification.

[saracat]

3. KOS states that the abortion language of Nelson is retained in the President's Proposal

http://m.dailykos.com/stories/2010/2/22/839511/-The-Obama-HCR-Proposal.html


"The public option is not included, and the Nelson abortion language remains. And a major element that's been key for the House, and which earlier leaks from the White House indicated would be included isn't there: the national exchange. It's possible that they couldn't figure out how to jam that in to a reconciliation package"

[freddie mertz]

4. I saw that too.

Do we even have a final copy yet?

[ProSense]

5. Who or what is "KOS"?

Maybe instead of someone's opinion in a blog post you should rely on the facts.

[saracat]

13. Dan Pfieffer of the WH outlined the President's Proposal. David Dayden was on the conference call

but you are of course the greater authority:sarcasm: We are talking about proposed language, not the nelson Amendment itself.I suppose whether the Senate language is Nelson or not is subject to interpetation. It seems some think the language is anti -choice but the pro-lifers think it is pro-choice because it allows women to purchase abortions which will not be "allowed " under their insurance seperately from their insurance provided they can find another insurance comapany willing to provide them as they aren't offer under the federal program.Iinterpet it as anti -choice as women will be forced to purchase insurance from private carriers who aren't allowed to provide abortions.

[ProSense]

15. Who the hell is David Dayden?

"We are talking about proposed language, not the nelson Amendment itself."

We are saying you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

[saracat]

18. I am saying you can't differentiate .You do know Dan Pfieffer?

and I don't know Daydan either. Apparently he is a blogger but then I don't know you either! At least Dayden isn't just an anonymous poster on a discussion board. You seem to think your opinion is more important than his. You both are entitled to your opinions.He gets a little more credibility for apparently having better sources, such as Pfieffer and writing under his own name. But you both should be treated respectfully, as should I. but that isn't going to happen.Apparently only one POV is allowed.

[ProSense]

19. "and I don't know Daydan either." What?

The Nelson amended didn't pass. It's not in the bill. In fact, nothing like it is in the bill.

Do you know reality?

[saracat]

22. I NEVER said it did. The reality is that the Senate language on abortion is retained.

The reality is I do not personally "know" either you or David Dayden. I do know Pfeiffer. I know who and what he is.That is reality.

[ProSense]

24. YES

you did.

[saracat]

25. I didn't say it passed. I admit that was a poor choice of words. I meant to say the Nelson abortion

language survives.And I believe it does.

[ProSense]

26. "Poor choice of words"? Your claim is bogus. n/t

[saracat]

31. The basis of nelson was not allowing women to purchase abortions with federal funds.

It was a reinforcement of Hyde.The current wording still upholds Hyde and requiures women to purchase abortion coverage seperately, from an insurance company that will offer it.So women still have to pay a mandate but not be covered for a reproductive care. That is not BOGUS.

[ProSense]

36. "It was a reinforcement of Hyde." Wrong

The Nelson Amendment was nearly identical to Stupak:

“As written, the Senate health care bill allows taxpayer dollars, directly and indirectly, to pay for insurance plans that cover abortion. Most Nebraskans, and Americans, do not favor using public funds to cover abortion and as a result this bill shouldn’t open the door to do so,” said Senator Nelson.

“The amendment we offer today mirrors the Stupak language added to the House health care bill,” Nelson said. “For more than 30 years, taxpayers’ money hasn’t been used for abortions, a standard that has the broad support of the American people. This rule now applies to federal health programs covering veterans, federal employees, Native Americans, active duty service members and others, and should extend to those covered by any new health care bill.”

[karynnj]

40. No it wasn't - it was an amendment to the language that

Reid, Dodd, Harkin and Baucus wrote for the bill that combined the HELP and Finance committee bil. The intention of that language was to KEEP THE STATUS QUO - aka the Hyde amendment. It was written to counter the Stupak amendment that made it worse. The Nelson amendment sought to amend the Reid et al language to something closer to Stupak - and it failed.

It does not require that abortion insurance be bought seperately, but insures that no federal funds go to that part.

[vaberella]

65. Your statement is correct. n/t

[karynnj]

39. The language did not survive - the amendment failed

The final language was Reid's.

[Cha]

42. You can't get any more clear than that..and

yet. :crazy:

[karynnj]

38. It is the language of the bill that was voted on

They aren't allowed to have the portion paid by federal funds.

[phleshdef]

6. And that nobody KOS blogger you posted a link to is WRONG.

That blogger posts a link back to an FDL blogger and their "source" and that person sais:

"Neither is any change beyond the Senate bill of the abortion funding provisions."

For one, that person isn't referring to the Nelson language. The Nelson language failed. For two, the abortion funding provisions, to my understanding, STILL JUST REITERATE EXISTING LAW THAT HAS BEEN PRACTICE FOR YEARS IN TERMS OF FEDERAL FUNDING FOR ABORTION.

Your blogger source did not do their homework and because of it, you are misinformed and are spreading that misinformation.

[saracat]

10. Maybe you are okay with th language of the Senate Bill. I am NOT.

The Blgger, david dayden who was on the WH conference call with Dan Pfeiffer, , said abortion language of Nelson was retained, not the Nelson amendment. Most articles call that "he Senate language".The Senate language discriminates against women.And that is not misinformation. One could argue it is acceptable becasuse it conforms to hyde, which is an abomination and olne could argue, as the pro-lifers are doling this morning that if funds abortions because women are allowed to pay seperately for one out of their own pocket if they can find an insurance company who will offer one seperately.

[phleshdef]

12. If you have a problem with Hyde, thats fine, but stop distorting what the Pres's bill does.

The President's proposal doesn't even deal with the abortion issue at all. Which means the OP of this thread is 100% correct in every single way, period. And the Senate's abortion language is NOT the Nelson language. There is no refuting that.

[saracat]

14. That seems to be a matter of interpetation.

[phleshdef]

17. No, its a matter of words and what the dictionary has to say about certain ones.

[saracat]

20. The dictionary knows whether Senate language is the same as

abortion language used by Nelson?Seriously?

[karynnj]

43. It is not the Nelson language, but Reid's

It does conform to Hyde, because it was not the intent of anyone to try to "move" the issue of abortion forward. It is definately not the right time. Do you really think the entire reform should be sacrificed for abortion.

[karynnj]

37. McJoan, an excellent poster is simply wrong there

and no one in the thread is likely to challenge her.

[LiberalFighter]

7. How many women will buy abortion coverage?

Or maybe the better question would be how many women will buy abortion coverage expecting that they may need it?

I'm sure women plan to have an abortion. :sarcasm: IMO this will increase the number of unwanted births.

What happens if a woman needs to abort because of their health. Would that still be covered if they don't have abortion coverage?

[polichick]

9. Like Nelson will ever have an unwanted pregnancy - asshole...

I can't believe we're still dealing with this issue in 2010.

[asdjrocky]

11. I find it unreal that this is even talked about.

Aren't they Dems? Don't Dems believe in women's reproductive rights any more?

[saracat]

16. Apparently not so much. We have anti-choice dems running for office in my state

and the liberals are okay with it. Winning is everything.I actually had a DUer tell me choice wasn't part of the dem platform and we were "pro-life'. I linked to the platform.How sad is that? there is no question that women's reproductive rights aren't as important to Dems as they once were.

[polichick]

21. That's crazy! If they don't agree with such an important piece of the platform...

...women voters need to say to hell with them! If Dems have lost their way this much, it really is time for a new progressive party.

What state are you in, if you don't mind my asking?

[saracat]

23. Arizona.And we have incredibly restrictive anti choice legislation that was passed as

soon as Napolitano hauled her butt out of here and we no longer had her veto pen. I am told the anti -Choice candidates are acceptable because it might help with the hispanic vote.Thats the attitude. Ntionally this brought us Casey and Schuler. We are supposed to be "grateful" for that.

[polichick]

27. This attitude will lead to the end of the party imo - who needs two Republican parties? nt

[karynnj]

45. Casey is a Democrat, son of a Democratic politician

There is much more to being a Democrat than being pro-choice. There are positions on economic policy. Casey is actually closer to the Democratic party that supports helping the poor and believes in unions.

The Democratic party has to stand for more than being pro-choice.
,

[polichick]

46. Sorry, I won't vote for an anti-choice Dem. nt

[RainDog]

49. Pro-Choice is about economics and equal rights and science over religion

Pro-choice is not simply about upholding Roe v Wade.

Those who think it is such a narrow issue will never be able to persuade women otherwise who realize what is at stake.

Pro-choice is an EXISTENTIAL issue. An issue of being. Do women have a right to privacy and from intrusion into their very existence by religious groups to which they do not subscribe.

that's what it's about.

[karynnj]

50. Please defend how pro-choice has anything to do with science

It also has nothing to do with equal rights. Now, if a male partner were allowed to determine whether a woman could have an abortion or not - you would have a case.

In addition, as I said Casey says Roe vs Wade is settled law. That means he is NOT working to overturn that right.

[RainDog]

52. I wasn't talking about Casey in particular

however, your response indicates to me that you don't understand what I said when I noted that it was an issue that deals with existence. Do women have a right to privacy? That is the way in which it deals with equal rights. Men have a right to bodily privacy. The state cannot tell them they may or may not use a form (absolutely agreeing that it's not the preferred) birth control or use a surgical procedure that would save their lives.

It does deal with science because those who oppose choice enough to try to roll it back are motivated by religious belief, not science. To me, they are no different than the Terry Schiavo cult. It very, very well does have to do with the primacy of science over religion.

In other words, pro-choice is not simply about Roe v Wade, as I said the first time. It indicates a set of beliefs, whether you want it to or not, for many people.

You cannot get around this truth. It's not a legal truth. That's what you're trying to argue. I'm not. I'm noting that for me and women I know, it is an existential issue.

[karynnj]

53. You are ignoring that men can not get pregnant and

that at some point, there is potential life that is viable enough to deserve some rights that conflict with the mother. Roe vs Wade recognizes this by treating the last trimester differently than the first. That is a legal truth - as well as scientific truth - and is proven by the fact that if nothing is done, in most cases, a baby is born.

Although I think Roe vs Wade represents a good compromise, I think it is always true that there is a potential life involved - if there weren't, you wouldn't need an abortion. To me, it more like a Terry Schiavo cult to argue that there is nothing special there and call it is just a "surgical procedure". It is not science, but your value system. Now, it is reasonable for you to follow your value system rather than that of some religion. But, claiming yours is "science" is not true. It is two competing value systems. Under Roe vs Wade, for many months, you are free to follow your value system.

I understand what you said, but you did not understand what I said. What I raised was an example of a pro-life Democrat, whose values are actually well in the mainstream of the Democratic party. On abortion, he goes as far as he reasonably can - saying it is settled law. Now, that is further than you go from your own point of view and it is far enough that it does not conflict with women who are entitled to have access to an abortion under Roe vs Wade.

[RainDog]

54. "always potential life" is a non-scientific bullshit phrase

and you are making up a statistic that does not exist. you do not know how many zygotes are spontaneously aborted (that must make "god" an abortionist too, huh?)

You ASSUME the majority of pregnancies result in a zygote attaching to the uterine wall because it fits your prejudice. Your belief is predicated on some b.s. you either made up or heard from someone who is lying.

I agree with Roe v Wade in that abortion is regulated according to trimester divisions. There is NOTHING to indicate that Roe v Wade fails to take issues of viability into account. I also don't know any women who do not understand this issue.

It is a surgical procedure. If a mother's life is endangered, that mother and that father are the ones who have the right to make that difficult decision. That is none of your business and no business of any church. If a mother has an abortion because the fetus is dead, it is a surgical procedure. No woman should have to carry a fetus to term that is dead because of some religious idiots view that a dead fetus is sacred.

because you note that abortion is a medical/surgical procedure. But beyond all the bulllshit, that's exactly what it is whether you like it or not. If a fetus cannot sustain life outside of the womb it is not a person. there is no way around this issue. it is not a person. all of your rhetoric will not change that.

Your propaganda is not very good. It is a common tactic to claim "oh, you're like Schiavo" or Bush or whatever when someone notes that religious belief predicates both positions while calling something a surgical procedures puts it in the proper perspective because abortion is a medical situation that is never a matter or... oh, it's thursday and I'm 7 months pregnant. I think I'll go have an abortion.

...which is they way the issue is presented by the anti-choicers too often. I've read it and I've heard it. That pov amounts to a deep and abiding hatred of women whether you know it or not.

The reason the issue needs to be discussed as a medical procedure is because that's what it is.

And it is none of your business is a woman finds herself in the situation in which such a procedure is necessary.

Your position assumes women are so craven that they would abort a viable child for no reason whatsoever.

that's sick.

[karynnj]

56. You are in denial - if there were no potential of life, there would be no abortion

"potential" includes within its definition the possibility that it will not happen. At the point that the zygote does not attach itself, no one is considering an abortion. Now, I KNOW there are people who attack birth control arguing that it, because it often prevents this, is abortion. However, there is nothing in the current debate that has anything to do with birth control. To be perfectly clear, I am 100% in favor of birth control if you do not want to become pregnant. In addition, from polls many, but not all, pro-life people are willing to accept both contraception and the morning after pill. At that end of the spectrum, a huge percent of people give 100% of the rights to the woman - and nothing in this bill affects that.

Roe vs Wade's different rules were based on the concept of how viable the baby is. That is what I was saying.

I am assuming nothing and the example you give is ludicrous. No one is saying a mother show carry a dead fetus. In any pregnancy, I do think the decision should be the mothers (and hopefully the fathers, but if their is disagreement, it should be the mother) and their doctors within the parameters of Roe vs Wade. I also think that it is denial to not think of the fetus as a potential life - because it is. That is not religion and, for what it is worth, I am Jewish and my religion has far more openness to abortion than Catholicism and many other Christian churches.. It is simply science or fact - best demonstrated by the fact that if the woman does not have an abortion, there is some real probability, actually pretty high, that she will have a baby. (I think this is obvious enough that there is no need for a science experiment to prove it.) If there was no potential life, you would not be pregnant. The very word "pregnant" carries meaning of potential - even in uses not related to childbearing. Now, that probability will change dependent on the timing and the circumstances. It is most definitely not based on hatred of women to think this.

As I said, I am pro-choice. But, I think it is very wrong to use language diminishing the seriousness of what is happening and it is hurtful to many women. In cases where the pregnancy is terminated due to the woman's health or the health of the baby, many women will feel the same grief that is common with miscarriage. The grief is because of the loss of an anticipated birth of a child. Nothing I said indicated that the reason for an abortion was likely to be cavalier. Your comment that it's just surgery can more easily be interpreted as suggesting that it has no greater significance than removing a benign tumor. Now, I doubt that is not how you meant it, but that is how it sounds to many people.

[RainDog]

58. yes, people ARE saying women should carry a dead fetus to term.

this has already happened. and yes, it IS ludicrous. it is sick. it also falls outside of the "life of the mother" restrictions.

apparently you've not followed this very well if you don't know that women have been ostracized in their religious communities for this very thing. In fact, these situations have resulted in many women becoming pro-choice after they deal with reality rather than some religious fairy tale or lies about women.

and while you may be pro-choice, the arguments that are put forth are not. I could, at this moment, go find tons of commentary from anti-choicers who paint women as that very "oh I'm 7 mos pregnant I'll go have an abortion before the prom" bullshit. they do. and it represents a hatred of women. it does. how can you not recognize this for what it is? this is the sort of argument you hear from anti-choicers. go to a clinic and hear them if you don't believe me.

that's what anti-choice is all about... forcing women to use their bodies in support of religious bullshit. because the truth of the matter is women don't have more abortions now that they are legal. the truth is that abortion doesn't kill as many women because they're legal. if you don't believe me, go look up stats on abortion rates.

the IUD, a form of birth control, prevents a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterine wall, so, yes, people who are anti-choice also argue this is not okay. it is an accepted form of birth control, tho, that doesn't require hormones so it is better for some women than the b.c. pill.

and if a woman has to abort a wanted child for health reasons... that's still a medical procedure. It's still no one else's business beyond the family and a doctor. Yes, people will grieve the loss of a fetus but that doesn't change the truth that this is a medical procedure.

others have no right to interfere with that mourning, either.

the reason I present this in the terms in which they are considered for health care is because of the cult of zygote worshipping idiots who lie about those same zygotes... that have no consciousness, that are a blob of cells so microscopic no one would be able to i.d. it as anything.

I am VERY PRO LIFE. I am pro healthcare, education for children, social safety net... those are pro-life positions. Attempting to deny women health care based upon a religious belief that is not their own is tyranny.

[karynnj]

61. Again, you are going to extremes that have nothing to do with what I said

1) Every doctor would cal aborting a dead fetus a valid medical decision. There is nothing in any bill that disagrees with something like this. The fact that there are communities extreme enough to want this is lamentable and I certainly was not defending that.

2) As to anti-choice arguments, you were the only one who brought up that kind of argument - I didn't. Nice strawman there. Everything I said argues that it is a deeply serious, emotional and often heartbreaking decision. The very opposite of this.

3) We do NOT want the line between abortion and contraceptives blurred as the most extreme religious groups do. We have, for most purposes, won the argument on using contraceptives. To people against birth control, they are equally against birth control pills and the IUD.

4) I am pro-choice in that I think Roe vs Wade is the best solution. It is clear that you and I will never agree on which arguments are best for defending a pro-choice position. I also think it likely that we do agree on what the law should be - if you think that Roe vs Wade is appropriate. (Though I notice that you question my definition of my own position, which is rather presumptuous. It is likely that it is because I am older, thus a different generation, that I think the wording you use ends up inflaming an issue where there really are good people on both sides who disagree.)

Denying that there is a potential life and diminishing the moral aspects, which most women do consider in making what they feel is a moral decision, may make abortion a less emotional issue, but that is not reality. In fact, all your examples are cases where the reason is medical for either the child or mother or deal with contraceptives. Why do you avoid the times when it has to do with being the wrong time in your life or economics? (Note - I said I agree with Roe vs Wade - meaning I do not think that anyone other the woman should make that decision.)

Also, I never said it was not a medical procedure, I said it was not "JUST" a medical procedure.

[RainDog]

62. one last...

to clarify - I wasn't saying that you made those claims - I am saying that those who talk about this issue from the anti-choice perspective do. I talked about those to indicate that those attitudes, to me, reflect a deep and abiding hatred of women. I believe that. I do believe that those who fixate on a zygote to the exclusion of a living, breathing female demonstrate they do not value women's lives.

because, as I've noted before, in the catholic church, priests know that situational ethics are the reality. not the dogmatic position of the hierarchy and their sycophants.

there was a case, just a couple of days ago and posted here, about a nine year old who was raped by her stepfather and ended up pregnant with twins.

priests in Brazil, where this occurred, would not condemn this child for not giving birth because he stepfather had raped her. The big wigs in the Vatican are calling for the priests to be ex-communicated.

a church with this view has nothing to say to me or other women about the value of human life.

...not to mention their long-standing coddling of pedophiles. anyone who thinks this church isn't a lying putrid instrument of power... I have a bridge to sell you.

EVERYONE I know who is pro-choice also supports Roe v Wade. I don't know why you bring up issues of anti-choicers if you recognize that Roe v Wade is valid. the anti-choicers do not accept that women have a right to privacy.

As far as claims to moral aspects, etc... these, again, are between a woman and her doctor and her family, not a politician, not a clergy member. It is NONE of their business because. Women are not the property of the church.

As far as "why I avoid those times when the issue is economic?" well, as I noted before, Roe v Wade and acceptance of the same acknowledges that no one supports the flaccid and corrupt argument from anti-choicers that women seek abortion as tho it's just a trip to the ice cream store.

that you would even bring this up is something I do not understand because, again, it is a question that stems from a hatred of women.

...because Roe v Wade does not indicate that people have abortions because it is economically "inconvenient" (what a way to phrase it - again loaded with loathing for women) and doctors do not perform abortions because it is "economically inconvenient" when their are compelling reasons (viability) that reflect a more complex issue rather than birth control.

if you accept the IUD as a form of birth control, then you accept that a first trimester abortion is none of your business. it doesn't matter why someone does this. it is none of your business or anyone else's.

so, the reason I avoid talking about various reasons women have abortions before viability is of issue is because it is no one else's business. it is no one else's business even tho it is an emotionally-laden issue. this is why it is useful to discuss it for what it is - a medical procedure. Even tho it is an emotionally-laden issue, it is still a private issue and a church may not impose its beliefs on others. it's that simple.

religious groups may not force their opinions on others at the level of federal law... or state law... or personal day-to-day life.

so, if we know that there are not more abortions, but merely safer ones, with legal abortions, an anti-choice position becomes a de facto anti-woman position because it values a religious dogma over a human life. A REAL human, not a "potential one."

"Potential humans" are all over the shower floor when young men jack off. the church hates that too. this demonstrates that the church has nothing of value to say to anyone about sexuality. They knowingly hid pedophiles for decades. This demonstates this is a totally corrupt institution, imo, that deserves no ones attention, other than to deprive them of the right to do business in the U.S.

If any other institution had knowingly harbored and sheltered pedophiles for decades, that institution would be sued out of existence in the U.S. Because they sanctify the abuse children (and women, in the case of zygote fetish) by their actions, they have nothing worthwhile to say to any American. imo they SHOULD have been sued out of existence and their assets sold off to provide for the poor of the world that they exploit. just a few of those art works in the Vatican could feed and clothe a lot of children. why doesn't the church look at itself instead of women's sexual lives?

but I will leave you with this question: if a man is on a battlefield, in a war to secure oil reserves for the U.S., and that soldier kills a three-year old child, why doesn't the church call that man a murderer? is it because they employ situational ethics and absolve that soldier because his actions are for money and the state? or why do they say that's okay while it is not okay to allow a female to have an abortion if she accidentally becomes pregnant?

.. edited to add... I apologize for the nearly impossible to read post on this earlier. I thought I had deleted things and had not, thought I had separated sentences and had not, so it was difficult to read. this issue infuriates me and that is reflected in my posts.

[karynnj]

63. As I said I was a Jew, why are you asking me to defend indefensible actions and policies of the

Catholic church?

I have a very hard time responding to your scattershot black or white attacks. By that I mean, that you seem to believe that because I took issue with you on things you said - that I am not fully pro-choice and responsible for the entire range of things said and done by anyone who is anti-choice.

Your rant that anti-choice is anti-women is beside the point as I am not anti-choice. You seem to think you made a big point with your equation of an IUD to a first trimester abortion, but I already said that I agree with Roe vs Wade that, I think, has no restrictions in the first trimester. (In addition, the equivalence is really to allowing abortion in the first week or (maybe two just to be generous).

You completely still ignore my point that you seem to be avoiding the truth that some abortions are not because of health issues, rape or incest. This was true even before abortions were legal. I was in college and lived in a dorm in the late sixties and early seventies. Then, when it was far more dangerous, illegal and much harder to do, there were abortions because girls feared how their families would react or knew it would end their education or because they were not in committed relationships. Now, it is legal and safer and society is more accepting, but it is hard to believe that there are not some with the same reasons

What I said is very close to what every leading Democrat has said on abortion. I could find quotes from John Kerry, President Obama or either Clinton - if you asked. All have made a point of saying that abortions should be rare and all have gone out of their way to speak of the seriousness of it.

[RainDog]

66. because my stance is not about you

I'm not talking about you. I'm talking about those who try to force women to give birth against their will. if that doesn't apply to you, no problem.

I do not ignore your point about abortion for reasons other than health. I said it is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS. or, more to the point, NO ONE'S BUSINESS BUT THE PERSON INVOLVED.

and I noted that it is none of your business because Roe v. Wade establishes when reasons, other than the health of the mother, are valid.

if a female gets pregnant by accident and safe procedures exist that make it possible to terminate a pregnancy, and this is legal under the guidelines of roe v. wade

IT IS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS WHY A WOMEN HAS AN ABORTION.

can that be any clearer? if you don't like it that a women gets an abortion because she is not ready to be a parent for whatever reason, if this person is adhering to law as laid out in roe v wade..

IT IS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS!!!!!!!

get it? can I make myself any clearer?

[karynnj]

67. I never said, in caps or not in caps, that it was

Find me a sentence where I did. It seems to me that you are talking to yourself here. I even said, when referring to some pregnancies being for non-medical reasons, that I supported Roe vs Wade and if their situation fit, I had no problem with it. Maybe I should have put it in caps, but that really is not necessary.

I think you need to ask yourself why my comments so upset you. I never suggested that abortion should be less available or more restricted. Whether you like it or not, abortion is not equivalent to removing a benign tumor - and any conversation that suggests that will likely offend all anti-choice people and a significant portion of the pro-choice people. So, if you want to gain people on the margins, it is not helpful.

[RainDog]

68. why your comments upset me?

well, first you make the anti-choice arguments.

then you say you're pro-choice and repeat anti-choice arguments.

then you think I'm talking about you when I'm talking about those who are anti-choice and where they come from.

then you have to ask "what's wrong with me" because I find it highly offensive that a known organization that exists to harbor pedophiles thinks it can have a say in policy regarding female lives because of their religious beliefs.

surely there are enough young children all ready in existence. the church doesn't need to force birth on women to provide pedophiles with victims.

I put all caps because the basis of Roe v Wade is a woman's right to privacy. I repeated that in caps to emphasize this in case anyone misses that point.

yes, I am shaking my fist at the sky because I detest the religious right.

I am not trying to convince anyone of anything. I would think that's pretty obvious. I am trying to insult those who are anti-woman, those who align with pedophiles. I want them to be ashamed that they would have the gall to try to enforce their religious beliefs on others.

the law is set and anyone who doesn't like it can fuck off as far as I am concerned, including anyone who wants to run as a democrat. if someone is anti-choice, I will work against that candidate for the sake of all women's freedom in this nation.

I don't care about working with the religious right because they do not make political decisions based upon reality. I grew up among them all my life and I know they are my enemy and the enemy of any woman who thinks she has the right to make decisions for herself.

I'm not a politician. would never want to be one.

but if one women reads my rants and finds something in them to help get beyond the thumb of the religious right then that's a good thing. If not, then I'm happy if I have pissed off the religious right by my comments.

if you view someone as hostile to your interest, why would you want to engage them in dialogue? as we've seen, that does no good at all. just ask Obama, who has lost the confidence of a generation of new voters because of his pandering to conservatives.

[karynnj]

69. My arguments are not anti-choice arguments - and you are incoherent here

The fact is that there are many people who are pro-choice, but recognize that abortion ends a potential life. The fact that anti-choice people use that and then go further to argue that at any point in a pregnancy that means abortion is wrong, does not change the fact that to many of us it is a true statement. Think about it - you say you have two children. I bet as soon as you knew you were pregnant, your thought was "I am going to have a baby".

As to me taking comments as responding to me - you made them responding to me - with no statement to say anything about it not being directed to me. Not to mention, even here you are ranting about the Catholic church, which I do not belong to and did not defend - and I did not question your feelings towards it.

But, I am through with this discussion, other than to say that I think it is important for people to at least try to see where the other side is coming from.

[RainDog]

70. take care.

I stated repeatedly that I was not addressing you directly.

I noted repeatedly in more than one comment that there are cases of abortion that are more complicated than a first trimester abortion.

the term "potential life" is a semantic issue. I have never said in any of these comments that women do not acknowledge what the trimester divisions of Roe v Wade mean.

No matter what, abortion is a private issue between a woman and her doctor. I trust that the overwhelming majority of women are responsible and can be trusted to make decisions with their doctors.

As I've noted, more than once, the number of abortions hasn't changed significantly. However, the number of deaths related to women and abortion has fallen.

If the number of abortions are not significantly different, whether the procedure is legal or illegal, the issue is about a medical procedure and whether or not women have safe access to the same. The issue is not about whether or not "potential life" is involved. get it? there is always "potential life" involved, if you want to look at it in those terms, but there is also the case of an actual life that is saved by having rational health policy.

I'm not incoherent at all. I told you I was raising my fist to the sky in anger.

Some of us have real reasons to detest things that powerful religious people have done to them or others in the name of god.

[RainDog]

55. oh, and just to note

my response stems from a rep in my state who wants to be senator. he has actively worked to roll back women's rights with the current health care bill.

he will find it very hard to win where I live with his actions and IF he is the candidate, I will actively work to defeat him. but his positions on other things are also more in line with republicans than with democrats.

so, in that case, with someone who is actively working to make women second-class citizens, that person will never get my vote and, as I said, if that person is the candidate, I will make sure that EVERY woman I know where I live joins with me to keep him out of office so that democrats get the message that this candidate is not acceptable to me and those I know, both male and female, in my town. The democrats need to carry my town to win. they will not if I can help it if that guy is the nominee.

There is no compromise for women on their essential rights to privacy and equality. They should not be made to bear an economic burden they cannot handle because a church doesn't like it that they had a birth control failure. it's none of your fucking business.

if this guy says it's settled then that's either a sop to the anti-choice assholes or he's lying. in either case, I do not want someone to represent me who has the view that women are not entitled to equal rights under the law.

if you don't like it, I don't care.

I have two children I love dearly. I got to make that choice... other women have the right to make that choice too.

get your fucking religion out of women's lives.

[karynnj]

57. You do realize that if you elect a Republican over a Democrat,

that you are making it easier for the Republicans to take over the majority and their agenda will then be what is acted on in the Senate. In addition, the person you will have helped to elect will likely vote against you on everything. I do think you should fight as hard as you can against him in the primaries.

Not to mention - I said I was pro-choice. In addition, I said nothing about my religion, which is Jewish. Many values I have which we call Tikkun Olam are similar from the Social Justice of the liberal Catholic churches or values that liberals, who are agnostic or atheist have from their own roots. The question I would ask on Casey is given all the issues he is very good on, given that he accepts Roe vs Wade, why does it make sense to list him as a problem?

[RainDog]

59. that's why I'm talking about it now

so that the democrats can know the fallout if they pick that candidate.

current pols seem to think we should vote with them no matter what. well, the only power we have is in our vote and I will withhold that vote until democrats present a candidate that represents the position of the democratic party.

it's really inconsequential to me to have a dino in office when that dino has a voting record that is against the democratic party.

why bother? it's WORSE to vote for an anti-choice democrat, to me, than to have a republican who doesn't lie about his views behind a party affiliation.

and, you know, if democrats want people to vote for them because republicans will otherwise control the senate... funny, but that argument carries less and less weight when the democratic party doesn't support the democratic platform and legislation and executive decisions reflect the will of conservatives rather than those who voted them into office.

again, the only power voters have to say no to this sort of democratic party is to withhold your vote. If they want our vote then they can put actions behind words.

Casey isn't in my neck of the woods so people will vote as they will in his district. If his voting record reflects principles the democratic party says it wants to enact based upon the way it advertises itself, the voters will decide.

I realize pols have to make statements to appeal to this or that group, but it disgusts me that religious zealots seem to be so much more worthy of an appeal for their votes than those who have voted with the party for decades only to see the party dismiss those voters.

[RainDog]

30. When the democrats embrace pro-lifers

it's time for women to look for another political party.

they may not have enough numbers to win a race but they have the numbers to cause anti-women democrats to lose.

and sometimes that's what you have to do with your political power - you show the Democrats they cannot win without women's votes and you show you will not vote for them if they try to oppress women with religious laws.

sad that it sometimes takes something like this, but when women refuse to vote for anti-choice candidates, they'll figure it out soon enough.

[saracat]

32. I refuse to vote for -choice Democrats. A prominent DUer asked me

if there were any GOP who were better than ANY Democrats because I said not ALL Democrats were good.I said Susan Collins was better than Ben Nelson because she was pro-choice but I wouldn't vote for either. But I admit , when push comes to shove, choice is my line in the sand.I have absolutely zero respect for any anti-choice Democrats.They are not Democrats as far as I am concerned.This is a human rights issue and if they do not support human rights, they do not get my vote.

[RainDog]

34. I will NEVER vote for a anti-choice democrat either

because if the democrats also decide to throw women under the bus, they no longer represent my values.

I will vote third party, will not vote for that particular candidate or will sit out an election all together and let the democratic party know why.

democrats cannot win without the votes of women in this nation.

[saracat]

35. Wrong thread Delete

[polichick]

48. +1

[polichick]

47. +1

[RainDog]

29. no, I do not think they are democrats

Democrats do not try to impose their religious beliefs on others.

[saracat]

33. +1000

[jenmito]

28. K&R. Thanks for setting the record straight.

:hi:

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

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

[CTyankee]

44. Pro, do you know whether this language would deny an abortion to a woman

to preserve her health? Not her life, but her health?

[karynnj]

51. Not Prosense, but NOTHING in this legislation denies access to abortion Period.

Now, as to paying for it, the Hyde amendment allows it for rape, incest, and danger to the life of the woman. I guess it comes down to how you interpret "danger to the life of the woman".

(Here from a pro-choice website - http://www.hyde30years.nnaf.org/ )

The ACLU, suggests that the health of the woman might be more liberally defined.

"Passed by Congress in 1976, the Hyde Amendment excludes abortion from the comprehensive health care services provided to low-income people by the federal government through Medicaid. Congress has made some exceptions to the funding ban, which have varied over the years. At present, the federal Medicaid program mandates abortion funding in cases of rape or incest, as well as when a pregnant woman's life is endangered by a physical disorder, illness, or injury.

Most states have followed the federal government's lead in restricting public funding for abortion. Currently only seventeen states fund abortions for low-income women on the same or similar terms as other pregnancy-related and general health services. (See map.) Four of these states provide funding voluntarily (HI, MD, NY,1 and WA); in thirteen, courts interpreting their state constitutions have declared broad and independent protection for reproductive choice and have ordered nondiscriminatory public funding of abortion (AK, AZ, CA, CT, IL, MA, MN, MT, NJ, NM, OR, VT, and WV).2 Thirty-two of the remaining states pay for abortions for low-income women in cases of life-endangering circumstances, rape, or incest, as mandated by federal Medicaid law.3 (A handful of these states pay as well in cases of fetal impairment or when the pregnancy threatens "severe" health problems, but none provides reimbursement for all medically necessary abortions for low-income women.) Finally, one state (SD) fails even to comply with the Hyde Amendment, instead providing coverage only for lifesaving abortions.

http://www.aclu.org/reproductive-freedom/public-funding-abortion

[CTyankee]

60. I ask this because my daughter had pre-eclampsia in her pregnancy.

Luckily, the baby was far along enough to be delivered immediately by C Section. But if it had happened earlier there would have been a real problem. I don't know where the dividing line is, but I do know that if a woman can't afford the doctor to do the later term abortion, she might have suffered irreversible damage to her health.

THAT is my concern. My daughter could have been hostage to just this kind of situation and I can tell you, the anguish the family feels is pretty bad...imagine if it were your own daughter in jeopardy...

[vaberella]

64. 95% of DU would disagree. Although I didn't read it.

Not that I thought the Nelson bill was anything as bad as the Stupak.