Around 40 Dems line up against Federal Abortion Funding in health bill.

[saracat]

Wonderful. This is what the Democratic Party is reduced to thanks to Rahm chmpioning these people. But heck, we have the majority. We won, right? Who are these forty and why are they called Democrats? Sorry. I am a "purist" :sarcasm: These are not Democrats by any definition.


http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/64611-around-40-dems-line-up-against-federal-abortion-funding-in-health-bill


Around 40 Dems line up against federal abortion funding in healthcare bill
By Jordan Fabian - 10/24/09 04:02 PM ET
Approximately 40 House Democrats are prepared to block healthcare reform legislation from coming to the floor should the bill include federal subsidies for abortions, said Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) Friday.


Stupak, who is conservative on social issues, told CNS News that he has organized the voting bloc to support his amendment that would strip the abortion provisions from the legislation. House Rules Committee chairwoman Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.), according to Stupak, said that there is "no way" her panel would provide a vote for his amendment.


The group of 40 would join House Republicans in voting against procedural measure that would draft rules for debating the bill on the House floor. Passage of the measure is necessary for the House to hold a floor vote.


"There’s about 40 like-minded Democrats like myself -- we’ll try to take down the rule," Stupak said. “If all 40 of us vote in a bloc against the rule -- because we think the Republicans will join us -- we can defeat the rule. The magic number is 218. If we can have 218 votes against the rule, we win.”

With 177 Republicans in the House, Stupak would need at least 41 Democrats to cross the aisle and vote against the rule. Stupak's amendment was originally defeated by the House Energy and Commerce Committee during mark-up.

[la_chupa]

1. I agree

I'm all for the big tent but when people call themselves Democrats and are anti-choice or anti-freedom of marriage it's clear that tent has gotten too big.

[jaxx]

2. Always abortion.

If it was ever repealed the pubs would go up in smoke.

[JuniperLea]

3. TROLLS!

The Dem party is infested with TROLLS!

[saracat]

4. trolls provided by Rahm Emmanuel, who insisted that ant-choice Dems be

promoted. Acheiving the majority was too important to "risk' on prochoice. See how they vote now.

[ThomCat]

35. That's because Rahm clearly doesn't consider women to be an

important constituency. He doesn't consider anything that helps women to be important. Same for LGBT people, which overlaps of course. That's why he is willing to ignore LGBT issues and throw us under the bus.

You have to wonder who he DOES consider important constituents. Is it only rich corporate donors? Is there anyone else?

[progthinker]

105. Also

infestid with lice

[sinkingfeeling]

5. Why all the noise? The Hyde Amendment is in affect.

[Ruby the Liberal]

14. Beat me to it. Noise for the sake of noise?

[saracat]

16. Noise to grab publicity for their "pro-life stance." And if they get 41 votes , they can

derail health care till they put a stupid provision in barring abortions of all kinds with fderal money. They are appearing to the Conseruloon Dems.

[Ruby the Liberal]

22. They don't need to go there. Reference Hyde Amendment..

Federal monies are not allowed to be used to fund abortions. Its already the law.

[saracat]

28. Thats why this attempt is strictly for publicity to let the loons know we supporft them

Midterms are coming up. Gotta get the loon vote.

[dana_b]

6. afraid of conservatives and repubs

so it's easier for the dems to sacrifice an issues that they roar about. Of course it also happens to be an issue that is vital to women. We're expendable.

[saracat]

10. WE are expendable to them as are the unions. GBLT, and human rights.

I just don't understand why this is acceptable. Why are those that do not support a basic plank in our party considered Democrats. I guess "choice' is no longer a criteria to be a Democrat.

[TheWraith]

7. Stupak was elected in 1992, without any help from Rahm Emanuel, but thanks for playing! nt

[saracat]

8. But the facts are Emmanuel backed bringing in prolifers. His theory is they were more electable in

conservative states.Heath Schuler and Bob Casey were two of his picks.There are others as well.Thank you for not being aware, but hey, these folks probably don't bother you.

[sandnsea]

9. Except when life is threatened, rape or incest

Same as it is now.

I am certainly not willing to sideline health care reform over abortion. Birth control, yes. But not 100% coverage of abortion.

[saracat]

13. No one has asked you to. The point is Democrats are supposed to support "choice'

and these RW Dems are willing to sideline ALL health care over their perception that some woman may have a federally funded abortion. And I believe the support of choice is a basic plank of the Democratic Party. Those who do not support choice are not really Democrats just as those who are opposed to gay rights are not Democrats.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

15. Thank you for the clarification. We'll make a note of that, O Grand Puba.

:eyes:

[saracat]

17. Yeah, well many dems these days don't think "choice" is important. And the stand by these 40

proves it. Women are not respected as equals, even yet. And support for "choice" is erroding and most don't even care.

[Nikki Stone1]

81. It's part of the Democratic platform, written last year.

And you are attacking a fellow DUer why?

[sandnsea]

18. Four of five bills do not have the abortion language

Only one does.

And not requiring insurance to pay for abortion 100%, is not the same as not supporting choice.

[saracat]

27. Will the PO pay for mens reproductive treatment?

[sandnsea]

34. What reproductive treatment? n/t

[saracat]

36. Penile implants, vasectomy's or viagra. Stuff like that.Is federal funding axed for those as well?

Just curious.

[sandnsea]

41. I said women should have 100% birth control coverage

Tubal ligations, abortion in cases of health, rape, etc. That's the same as men's reproductive health care.

Abortions are a separate issue that should not be allowed to sideline health care reform. Since the abortion language is only in 1 out of 5 bills, it would appear the majority of Democrats agree with me.

Why don't you spend your time fixing your state instead of attacking the people who are trying to make progress in spite of idiots from your state getting in the way.

[saracat]

43. Been there done that and probably more than most. My state sent its

money to the Blue states and didn't support its own. That is why we are red. I remember having to fight to put reproductive rights for women in our state platform and there was an issue with that in the national platform and, in as much as the unions are being dissed and gay rights also aren't up for discussion, the Democratic Party isn't really Democratic anymore. They present us with a bill that only covers 10 million people in certain states, mandates for everyone and taxes benefit package insurance. None of those 5 bills cover everyone.This is progress to you?

The Unions, Rachel Maddow, Ed Schultz, The Congressional Progressive Caucus ,all know the proposed heath care is worse than nothing.The maybe someday brigade is hoping that this will be a "stepping stone". Just like maybe someday women will have parity with men in health issues. And these 40 jerks, apparently they don't want abortion funded under ANY circumstances.

I am not even asking that abortion be included but I do say knuckling under to these folks is shameless. I will, however never support a public option that is not available to all Americans. If we can't get health care for ALL, and a real public option while controlling both houses and the WH, we are a disgrace.

[sandnsea]

63. No, the 40 jerks want the Hyde Amendment language

just like the other 4 bills use. That's all. They're only opposing the abortion language in the Waxman bill.

This is why the left loses. Some "guru" gets everybody all riled up, without getting their facts straight, and then they wonder why everybody else rolls their eyes at them.

The Baucus Bill could well be worse than nothing. But a public option isn't going to fix it. The HELP language on premium variance and out of pocket caps, increased Medicaid, and increased subsidies is the only thing that will really fix it. People wouldn't be able to afford their Medicare premiums if they weren't taxpayer financed, and they won't be able to afford the full premium of a public option either. That's the Big Lie in this whole debate. But whatever, if it keeps progressives on board and sets up a system that can be transformed to single payer, it's worth it.

You do understand that NO health care system can claim to cover absolutely everybody due to the very simple fact there will always be people who Just Don't Pay - anything.

[saracat]

68. it is really odd to me how other countries can achieve universal health care and we have all

the excuse in the world WHY we cannot. It is all BS. We actually can have whatever we want it is just that the dirty little secret is they don't really want it.

[sandnsea]

73. If people don't sign up

They won't be covered. Anywhere. That's a lot of what the calculation on the 3% is. People who just won't pay, for one reason or another.

Of course we can have universal coverage for everybody. You live in a state filled with people who don't want it so why do you act confused as to why it isn't happening. Heaven forbid you pay attention to educating people in your state instead of bitching about the Democrats who are trying to make progress for the people in their states.

[saracat]

77. Perhaps we could have done a better job of educating if the DNC didn't take all our money to

go to candidates in blue states leaving little for our own. Heaven forbid the wealthiest Democratic State Party in the country, which just happened to be red, should be encouraged to support our own. Maybe then we wouldn't be red. Perhaps those states making this alleged "progress" could spend their own money on their campaigns instead of robbing other states. Or maybe they might like to return our money so we too could move forward?

[sandnsea]

85. Here's the 2008 filing

Not seeing where Arizona sent all its money out of state.
http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/dcdev/forms/

Look up Oregon's Democratic Party. We raised nearly $5 million, so I don't know where you get the idea you're the wealthiest in the country either.

[saracat]

86. the DNC said so.

[saracat]

87. Nothing there. internal error.

[Nikki Stone1]

91. Why are you attacking Arizona when the CONGRESS is deciding on health care?

You really like to nitpick, don't you.

[Nikki Stone1]

82. Maybe because saracat's state is not IN CHARGE OF THE HEALTHCARE BILL

How stupid do you have to be?

[saracat]

88. SHHH> Lets keep that quiet. It gives us a lot of power. Sorta like my

ability to derail Health care by the sheer act of posting on DU.LOL!:rofl:

[Nikki Stone1]

90. All hail, all powerful saracat!

Can I have a new car?

[GirlinContempt]

100. "If people don't sign up They won't be covered. Anywhere.

That's a lot of what the calculation on the 3% is. People who just won't pay, for one reason or another." BZZZZ! Wrong, try again. Even if you don't apply for your health card in Canada, you still pay taxes. So you still pay. And the number of residents who don't apply for their FREE health card? I can't even find a statistic on it, but I can't imagine it's very high. Especially as the health cards are in many provinces photo ID as well, and can be used in combination with other ID to get things like passports, drivers licenses, etc.

[Nikki Stone1]

83. I got creamed yesterday for saying just what you did about the public option

It will have to be taxpayer financed.

[Freddie Stubbs]

23. Yes, Democrats are supposed to be for choice, but many Democrats don't want to pay for that choice

[saracat]

25. I guess women's health-care just isn't equal to men's.

[Freddie Stubbs]

101. Many people don't want to pay for other people's non-medically necessary procedures, especially if

they find the procedure to be immoral.

Your body, your choice? Sure. Just don't force me to pay for it.

[saracat]

103. Non medically necessary? Are you a doctor? Are you able to diagnose all specific cases?

What about mental issues resulting from unwanted pregnancies? What about shingles and other conditions that are aggravated by stress? What about post partum depression? Are you going to argue they "brought it on themselves"? Are we going to pay for them? Perhaps that should be excluded too? What about the illness that stem from poverty as the result of having to bear a child they can't afford?

The short sightedness contained in that kind of reasoning is amazing. Society and the taxpayer will eventually"pay" for this no matter what the circumstances. Abortion isn't a cosmetic surgery.And if a child results, we will be paying for two .

And why is it I will have to pay for viagra even if I find that immoral? What about if I find birth control immoral? Should I have to pay for that? What about penile implants so men can lead a fuller life? Should we have to pay for those? What about the "morality of treating drug addicts? What if I find treating them immoral? Some Doc think treating HIV folks is "immoral". Do we support that? Why should we pay for folks sexual choices? How far are some willing to take the just don't make "me" pay for it argument? using this we will end up just like the current insurance companies. And while I would not use abortion to derail health care, in fat, I object to these Democratic congressman doing so, The use of the "don't make me pay for it argument" is extremely repulsive, offensive and Republican in every way.

[Freddie Stubbs]

110. A doctor would need to provide a medical diagnosis indicated by the abortion was necessary

[tmyers09]

11. Of course it would be mother fucking Bart Stupak.

Son of a bitch!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

12. The "not as bad" Democrats(R) strike again.

[LynneSin]

19. I am a fighter for Abortion rights but it should not be in the healthcare plan

Getting healthcare passed is way too important. We can fight for choice in other battles.

[Hekate]

20. Sadly I do agree. My pro-choice Rep introduced an amendment for that reason...

I was dismayed when she brought it up in her town hall meeting in September, but she was very clear: let the Hyde Amendment stand, it's the law anyway, and DO NOT let health care reform get derailed by the culture wars.

Because we all know that this would be just one more excuse to squash health care reform for another generation.

I wish our country was not this way -- but it is. We just have to keep trying to change it every day, knowing there are some battles along the way that we will lose for a time.

Hekate

[LynneSin]

24. It's not a happy thing for either of us to admit

but sometimes we have to look at the big picture and what is most important!

[KakistocracyHater]

98. birth control is central to women's lives, unless you want to be octo-mom

too? We'd all be having stair-step children; imagine what effort it takes to feed even just 6 children breakfast, then get them to school. How much 1-on-1 time would you really have with each child? These questions are for everyone here. How much does it cost, per week, to feed 6 children breakfast & dinner, assuming school lunch? Quiverfull, do you really think this is a 'side' issue?

[saracat]

26. I don't like the fact that women's health care isn't considered as important as

mens' geriatric or childrens.My post wasn't about "including abortion" anyway, though I do think it should be included. it was about the "respect" we now accord to anti-choice Dems. btw, why is compromising everythign so popular? We could have had a real health care bill, but we aren't demanding it. This proposed bill covers as Rachel Maddow says, only uninsured people in some states. Why is this worth fighting for? I don't understand the selectiveness contained in this bill and why people even think its a good thing. It is like we are hoping to someday get real health care just like maybe someday women will have health care parity with men. If we can't demand these things while we have control of both houses and the WH, we really aren't much of a party.

[LynneSin]

29. First your points are very valid

but when it comes to choice, I'd rather keep it separate from healthcare. And you have to understand that it bugs the bejesus out of me to say that, but I look at my poor nephew who came down with H1N1. Kid didn't quite fit in college so he dropped out and found temp work, but temp work means no health insurance. He wasn't going to go until his sister came down with it next a day later and FORTUNATELY the family doctor was nice enough to do a '2 for 1' visit if they both came together.

But what if he didn't have that option? Nineteen with no job and no education beyond HS - healthcare reform is going to benefit people like my nephew and the tens of thousands across the country in the same exact position.

I would rather fight for choice be it's own battle and let Healthcare get passed.

[saracat]

31. I understand your position very well. I desperately need health care as well.

My husband and I are both unemployed and we are draining out retirement to pay for health care. I have a rare orphan disease that requires me to be treated for the rest of my life. We arwen't old enough for Medicare. Health care is one of my number one issues.But I can't support a heathcare plan that doesn't include everyone. I am not fighting for abortion to be included but I am merely pointing out that this confirms that women ave no health care equality.And this congress isn't going to get it for them.Actually, none of the health care bills are going to do much for anyone. That is the reality. And that angers me tremendously. We have a chance to do this right and we are compromising it away.

[LynneSin]

32. Well then we agree to disagree, I won't sacrifice those without healthcare for my one issue

sorry, I can't be considered that selfish. Choice will have it's date in congress but to claim my uterus is more important that the millions of Americans without any healthcare or going broke because of inadequate coverage - well that's just wrong.

[saracat]

33. Did you read what I wrote? I didn't say anything like that.

Where to I say that I would sacrifice millions without heathcare? I said I need health care as well and this is so far a lousy bill that doesn't cover everyone. I will not support health care that doesn't cover everyone because it will not work to fix our problems.I will continue, along with the Unions and the Progressive Caucus to demand health care for ALL Americans.
I live in a red state as well. Many here don't care that our residents will be "without heath care or going broke because of inadequate coverage". Whst is wrong is covering very few when we have a chance to cover ALL.

[GirlinContempt]

38. It's been really depressing

to watch the backwards 'progress' of this issue. I can only imagine how awful it must be if you're an American who needs this service.
I just can't understand it.

[Nikki Stone1]

92. Lynne, you are misquoting saracat and, quite frankly, if you have an ectopic pregancy, death is

possible without an abortion. Maybe I won't write my congress-critters and let women die, eh?

[GirlinContempt]

37. It's pathetic, though, that people who call themselves 'pro-life'

would try to block a bill that would save and protect lives (MANY more lives than aborted fetuses) because of abortion fears.

Of course, we all know 'pro-life' is a misnomer anyway.

[saracat]

40. Thank you. I was beginning to think I spoke a language no one understood.

come to think of it, maybe I do!

[GirlinContempt]

47. Of course thinking, caring people

who're faced with this problem, of giving in to the anti-abortionists or basically hurting people who really need this healthcare, they have to give in. At least for now. It's sad. I just can't believe these people still call themselves 'pro-life' and I can't believe how crazily focused they are on it. Jeeze.

[sandnsea]

42. That is what Saracat would have us do

Block a bill that would save lives in order to hold out for abortion law that doesn't even exist today. Women, TODAY, cannot get federal funding for abortion except in cases of rape or incest, or to save their health or life. Why isn't she on a crusade to change that law in her own state, and then allow that to filter across the country.

[GirlinContempt]

44. I never saw her say that anywhere.

Where did she say that?

And, I stand by the irony of 'pro-life'.

[saracat]

49. Thank you. I didn't say that anywhere. Some see what they want to see.

And you are correct about the irony of pro life.

[sandnsea]

55. This is not her first post on the topic

She's been told repeatedly that the Hyde Amendment already regulates federally funded abortion. There's no issue here.

So why does she continue to bring it up? What good can come of it? The only thing that can come of it is derailing health care reform to fight for abortion rights that don't even exist today. What ist he result? Millions of people die.

[saracat]

57. What the heck is wrong with you? I do not support using this to derail anything and I am aware of

Hyde amendment and said I consider this disgraceful and a publicity stunt.And this OP IS my first post on this topic of these congresspersons.

[sandnsea]

58. If this were your first post on the topic, fine. It's Not.

Pay attention to something that is an issue and winnable. I don't know what those 40 Dems are doing, I don't care. I don't care about women's groups who have used the same issue to raise money either. I don't have to play. You don't have to play.

Use your energy for something important.

[saracat]

66. Demanding respect for women is important to me.I have never posted on these

40 congessional folks before.If respect and equality for women isn't "winnable". nothing is worth supporting. GBLT is apparently not "winnable", nor is health care for all. And why do you disdain the women's groups? And why don't you care about what democratic congressperson, who represent all of us, and whose actions diminish the respect of womens rights?

I remember when folks like you were so quick to praise Gore for conceding because that fight wasn't worth winning either. A stolen election wasn't worth getting worked up over . Don't rock the boat. Nothing matters to some but guaranteed winning even if we win nothing.

[sandnsea]

67. If you want to pretend

you've never posted on abortion in the health care bill before, fine. I can't talk to someone who chooses to live in a fantasy world.

This was decided 30 years ago. This health care bill isn't going to be any different. If you want to change the federal funding laws, that's a separate fight.

[saracat]

70. AFAIK, I havent. I know for certain, I have never posted anything about

these 40 jerks. In general, I have always thought abortion should be covered. i am not dealingv with either issue. I am just pointing out the respect we currently give pro-lifers.

[Nikki Stone1]

97. Saracat, Sandnsea is just yanking your chain. She clearly dislikes you personally

and is using the message board to make up crap about you. I think she has me on ignore because she hasn't replied, so let's have some fun with this and ignore her. :)

[Nikki Stone1]

96. Sandnsea, instead of wasting energy fighting someone on the internet, DO SOMETHING USEFUL!

Stop this silliness.

[GirlinContempt]

65. The question is why do Democrats continue to bring it up, and use it

as an issue and an attention grab? It's disgusting, and it deserves attention. There is NO REASON for these people to be talking about blocking this, and it's ironic, stupid and many many other things.

Why are you so angry about this? I never saw a single post that claimed what you said it did, and if you're dragging some past brouhaha in to this new thread, I'm not interested in getting involved in it. A DU poster isn't derailing health care reform, the idiots making an issue out of a non-issue in government are.

[sandnsea]

69. Yes, why do Democrats continue to bring it up, and use it

as an issue to derail health care reform. Exactly. The Democrat in question being Saracat. She has been posting on this for months, and every other nitpicky thing she can find to attack the health care bill.

[saracat]

72. That just isn't so. I had no idea how bad these bills were until recently.I was insisting on a PO

for ALL until recently. How many times do I have to post that I am not askibng for abortion to derail health care? I only began to really oppose the PO when opt out was brought into it.

[GirlinContempt]

80. ELECTED DEMOCRATS

*THEY* (people mentioned in OP) are the ones derailing health care reform, them and the insane right wingers. Not a poster on DU who's sharing a story/blog/whatever.

No wonder this bill is such a mess, if basically anonymous internet users on a message board are 'derailing' health care reform, and have so much power over it. :sarcasm:

Guess what? Discussing issues around the health care bill is a good thing. I haven't seen her posting lies, rallying support to stop health care reform, etc. If you can't discuss what's happening with this issue, what's the point of having a discussion forum? I refuse to judge a poster based on someones claims of something they've done elsewhere or in other threads at another time. I didn't see it, I haven't seen it, and I'm not interested in getting involved in your ongoing dispute.

I'm posting about this thread, and what I see in it. And I think you're way out of line.

[Nikki Stone1]

89. +1 ......and thank you.

Well, well stated.

[GirlinContempt]

99. Too bad I have to *keep* saying it

Yeesh...

[Nikki Stone1]

111. I know.

:(

[saracat]

45. No I would not. But I won't support a bill that doesn't cover ALL Americans.

I just said it was shameless that these 40 would use this issue in this manner.

[sandnsea]

51. This is not an issue

I don't know why they're doing what they're doing, but I do know why you are.

[saracat]

52. really? Do you? Veiled innuendo again. I brought this up for the reasons I stated.

My issue is health care for all, and I am also an ardent Feminist. I am proud to be and women have not achieved any kind of parity in this nation.That includes health care.I am not prepared to compromise on either issue in any meaningful way.

I understand why abortion cannot be covered but that doesn't mean I can't express the disdain for the jackass pro-life congressmen who would use it to prove their conservative credentials and as a wedge to health care.

I support health care for ALL Americans, and see no necessity to settle for a virtually empty bill. neither do a lot of other folks as well. I suppose you know the reason of the unions, the Progressive Caucus, Ed Schultz , Rachel Maddow, and all the others as well. They must all be evil.

[saracat]

53. And it has never been an issue to you.

[sandnsea]

56. Federal funding of abortion has been decided

It was an issue to me back in the 70s when the Hyde Amendment was first enacted.

Why don't you pay attention to something important - like making sure Kyl doesn't change the opt-out to an opt-in?

[saracat]

60. Why do you insist on posting in threads that you think are unimportant?

Surely it is a waste of your valuable time?And why do you deliberately infer and state that I have said things that I have not?

[sandnsea]

64. Focusing on winnable issues is important

And getting red state people to do that is equally important.

Getting the votes on cloture is what's important now.

[saracat]

71. Ah yes, and who determines what winnable? the lovely DC dems that sponsored the

compromise ridden crap called the health care bills? The wonderful opt out taxed benefits plan? Only available to the uninsured in cedrtain states? Covering only 10 million? But heck it might be winnable.

[Nikki Stone1]

84. With 60 Dems in the Senate, the winnable issues should be better than what we've got

I get the feeling that the WH wants mandates with little to no ability to control prices. That is why what is "winnable" has been so circumscribed.

[Nikki Stone1]

94. Well, it needs to be revisted.

And sandnsea, why are you so upset about all this?

[Nikki Stone1]

95. And why, pray tell, is saracat doing what she is doing?

Come on--let's get to your real motivation here. You clearly have something against saracat beyond this issue. Let's hear what it is.

[Nikki Stone1]

93. Boy sandnsea, you like to misrepresent people. Or maybe just saracat.

Are you one of those silly people still fighting the primaries?

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

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

[dysfunctional press]

30. wouldn't they have to repeal the hyde amendment first, in order to fund abortions?

:shrug:

[ecstatic]

39. $300 treatment vs $300,000 treatment

I think abortion should be covered, but it would be silly to stop healthcare reform completely in it's tracks over it. There are people with cancer and all sorts of diseases who need reform now. We all know abortion is used as a cultural wedge issue. As someone else pointed out, an exception is made for health of mother, incest, and rape. In the meantime, the rest of us should just try to practice safe sex if we can't afford an abortion. Either that or save up $300. Sometimes you have to choose your battles. Keep voting for liberal democrats and eventually we can overcome conservadems, etc.

[saracat]

46. i agree but this proposed reform won't do anything for most of those folks.

[Nikki Stone1]

48. Saracat, this is just disgusting. Are they trying to keep the poor poor?

That's all I can figure.

[saracat]

50. Yeah, it is isn't it.but all I was trying to point out was how acceptable

being against choice has become in the Democratic Party. And some responses have confirmed this. 40 Congressmen fighting against an abortion inclusion that may or may not exist.And no one see this as appalling.What has become of the Democratic Party?

[Nikki Stone1]

59. The right wing has won the fight against women?

That's hideous.

[Nikki Stone1]

61. Maybe we need to write a thread about why abortion rights are important

The young people don't remember what things were like or what they could be like.

[depakid]

54. Yet people on this board still have a pathological hatred for Nader

`

[ohheckyeah]

62. Abortion is first and foremost a medical procedure

and thus should be in any health care reform bill. All of the moral posturing is nothing but smoke and mirrors. Abortion is a MEDICAL decision between a woman and her doctor. I'm truly sick of all the moralizing bullshit and those who would cave in to it.

[saracat]

74. It should be yes. I doubt it will ever be because as a poste upthread

stated many"Democrats" so called don't want to pay for it.This is why these 40 congessman are pertinent. We have become the GOP, or at least it is now, in 2009, acceotable to be like them on the abortion issue. I do not suggest we "derail" health care for this. I understand the Hyde amendment, but the fact is, we are no longer pro choice in any relevant way and it is disgraceful IMHO.

[ohheckyeah]

75. If we just cave in and let the gop frame the issue it will never

change.

[saracat]

78. True.

[Freddie Stubbs]

102. So is penis enlargement, but I doubt that many think that should be included

[saracat]

104. That is considered "cosmetic surgery" and I doubt you will find anyone that considers abortion

cosmetic surgery.

[Freddie Stubbs]

106. It is an elective procedure which is often not medically necessary

[saracat]

108. "Often " an interesting choice of words. My point is, "WE" will be paying MORE

for the consequences that stem from not "paying" for an abortion and the argument of the morality is specious at best and it is revolting that a Democrat would use it. We all must pay for "war" though many are opposed to the morality of it, and morality applied to medical conditions is reprehensible.There are a myriad of medical conditions the "moral" yardstick could be applied to, and once we start down that slope, we are fully entrenched in the GOP ideology.

[Odin2005]

76. Fuck these DINOs!

:grr:

[saracat]

79. Agree.

[truebrit71]

107. Agree too...

...:grr:

[mrmpa]

109. No coverage for what's legal, will it cover what's illegal

Okay, these democrats won't cover a medical procedure that is legal, will they allow coverage for substance abuse (illegal use of drugs), detox after your third DUI (crime)? Are these 40, democrats or moral demagogues?