Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Congressman Dingell: Call Bart Stupak on His Lies about Abortion - EmptyWheel

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
WillyT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-21-10 11:10 AM
Original message
Congressman Dingell: Call Bart Stupak on His Lies about Abortion - EmptyWheel
Congressman Dingell: Call Bart Stupak on His Lies about Abortion
By: emptywheel Sunday March 21, 2010 8:35 am

<snip>

John Dingell says he is going to try to persuade Stupak to drop his efforts to sink healthcare with his anti-choice efforts.

The Congress is a place where we represent our people and where we serve our conscience. I strongly disagree with Bart, I think he’s wrong. But he was my friend. He is my friend. We hunt, we have campaigned together, and I’m going to try and show him the error of his ways. And I’m also going to try and see to it that we beat him on this because this is a matter of the utmost humanitarian and economic concern to this nation.


As of right now, the deal that Stupak made with Pelosi is off–he has postponed his press conference and Henry Waxman and Lynn Woolsey have said there is no deal on abortion.

But that leaves the problem of whip count. If Democrats lose all the people who had signed onto the Stupak deal, then they will have to get the vote of every single remaining fence-sitter to be able to pass the bill.

Which probably means it’s not going to pass unless some of those anti-choice Stupak supporters will flip and vote for health care anyway.

I’ve long said that Dingell would be the most likely person to persuade Stupak to let this pass. Not only is Dingell the living history of efforts to pass health care, he has been a mentor to Stupak over his career. So the man who most wants to pass this bill (from a sense of personal destiny) also has a bit of leverage to persuade Stupak.

What I’d like to see Dingell do–aside from talking to Stupak personally–is call Stupak out on his lies, his utterly false claim that the Nelson language doesn’t already restrict access to choice more than it is restricted now, and that only his language would preserve the intent of the Hyde Amendment.

But that’s simply an out-and-out lie.

Not only do Stupak’s claims about the fungibility of money fall flat (as Rachel explains), but his language would add onerous new barriers to choice for women everywhere. As a key GWU study shows,

In view of how the health benefit services industry operates and how insurance product design responds to broad regulatory intervention aimed at reshaping product content, we conclude that the treatment exclusions required under the Stupak/Pitts Amendment will have an industry-wide effect, eliminating coverage of medically indicated abortions over time for all women, not only those whose coverage is derived through a health insurance exchange. As a result, Stupak/Pitts can be expected to move the industry away from current norms of coverage for medically indicated abortions. In combination with the Hyde Amendment, Stupak/Pitts will impose a coverage exclusion for medically indicated abortions on such a widespread basis that the health benefit services industry can be expected to recalibrate product design downward across the board in order to accommodate the exclusion in selected markets.


Now, Stupak can claim he’s simply making a principled stand so long as the media refuses to call him on his lies. But if Dingell called him on it–if Dingell pointed out that this is not a principled stand, but rather an opportunistic effort to exploit a historic moment to attack women’s reproductive rights–then he will not have cover for his actions.

Bart Stupak is not only threatening to kill health insurance reform out of desire to impose his beliefs on women around the country. But he’s doing so using out and out lies.

And it’s time somebody called him on those lies.

<snip>

Link (w/Videos): http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2010/03/20/congressman-dingell-call-bart-stupak-on-his-lies-about-abortion/

Looks like something went wrong with the Executive Order cover for Stupak.

:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
RainDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-21-10 11:23 AM
Response to Original message
1. hells yeah quote
if Dingell pointed out that this is not a principled stand, but rather an opportunistic effort to exploit a historic moment to attack women’s reproductive rights–then he will not have cover for his (Stupak's) actions.

Stupak is doing harm to the entire democratic party by trying to shit on women.

Since he declared war on women, it's time to send his ass home for good.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillyT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-21-10 11:29 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. Exactly !!!
And it is the utmost in Cynicism. Women who have fought hard for their reproductive rights are NOT gonna go over to the Republicans, and they must be furious that the party they support, THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY, is tossing them under the bus right now.

I know I'm furious!

:mad:

:nuke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RainDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-21-10 11:42 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. it's almost enough to make me believe in god...
...that at the moment when Stupak is trying to roll back equal rights for women in the name of his religious doctrine, the leaders of that same group are under fire for failure to protect the children that were their moral charges.

HOW MUCH MORE KARMA CAN YOU GET?!?!?!?!

The "look, this is the reality" of it all is stunning - a clear statement that this group has no moral authority to determine anyone's rights concerning the choices they make with their own bodies.

I trust women to make individual choices in consultation with their medical providers more than I will EVER trust that group of creeps.

If the Catholic church hospitals do not want to provide health care to women that is the law of the land then they can go out of business and let those who respect the rights of 50% of the population.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cilla4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-21-10 11:51 AM
Response to Reply #4
6. Only if it passes.
Great connection you make though, between Stupak and pedophilia in the self-same institution. Sadly, terribly, ironic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RainDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-21-10 12:06 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. the thing is -
if someone tries to legislate against a group of people based upon his or her religious belief, then they bring that belief into the sphere of public discussion.

to get down to it, if Stupak wants to claim his version of god gives him the right to deny rights to women, then we all need to look at that version of god and see if there is any reason to give it validity in the legislative process.

let's look at the history of christianity and the scholarly work on the bible that shows it is not accurate, that the gospels themselves contradict one another on Jesus' lineage, for instance, to prove points in an argument at the time they were written (which was also well after anyone who was alive - there are no "eyewitnesses" in the gospels, contrary to any claims otherwise.)

we can look at claims of infallible humans and see from the records of history that this is a religious doctrine that has no reality.

we can look at our laws, beyond the ones pertaining to equal rights for women and know that any claim of rights for potential lives are based upon romance, not reality - legal or scientific.

And then we can look at current events and wonder why people whose lives are based upon fantasy can claim to tell anyone what to do in reality.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mopinko Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-21-10 11:40 AM
Response to Original message
3. the blue dogs are folding around him, tho.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillyT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-21-10 11:47 AM
Response to Reply #3
5. Thank You For That !!!
:kick:

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu May 09th 2024, 01:02 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

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


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

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

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

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC