So where is our president speaking out on the egregious Stupak Amendment? Isn't he a husband

[saracat]

and father of two daughters? Isn't he going to use the bully pulpit to speak out? Or is this a nonissue?To him?

[Drunken Irishman]

1. Is he a husband and a father? I don't know.

:shrug:

[emulatorloo]

6. man I just learned to do smilies again --

+++++++++++

:shrug: :toast: :shrug:


++++++++++++

[babylonsister]

2. You're picking on the prez? I'm SHOCKED! nt

[saracat]

4. really? I notice you don't answer? Why didn't or doesn't he take a stand on this?

Or maybe you don't think this is important enough to deserve presidential attention?

[babylonsister]

12. Maybe getting a health care bill passed for all Americans is more

important to him and many Dems in the House at the moment. No, wait. I'm sure it is. Amendments can be changed. But you rant on, sara! :thumbsup:

[saracat]

19. For ALL americans? Are you kidding. This bill doesn't cover ALL Americans and was never intended to

Go back and read the statements of the president himself. this was never about ALL Americans.

[babylonsister]

32. Will it make many Americans' lives better? Why are you so negative?

Nevermind. My original premise sticks; you just don't like the prez.

Bye!

[saracat]

37. I don't care about the Prez either way. He is likely a nice guy.I hate the Bill.

It stinks. it could have been great but it isn't. We caved to the RW Dems. Why? And for a bad bill no less.

[Hutzpa]

53. If you spend more time in the dungeon

you never know, it might help.

[Jennicut]

3. Is he in the Congress? I thought he gave up that job...commenting on

amendments before a bill is even passed?

[emulatorloo]

7. stop making sense.

Right this minute just stop it with your sense making.

[saracat]

8. He could speak out opposing it. Any citizen can, Crap, he went to congress

to twist their arms on HCR, why can't he do something about this? Why is this allowed tom pass? Why. I know he can't "stop" it but his opinion might carry some weight. Because I know he won't veto the HCR even if this is in it.

[karynnj]

16. I doubt he wanted to derail the bill

[Jennicut]

17. A President can do many things, but Congress gets to vote on amendments.

It passed, it is a crappy deal. But I choose to blame some cowardly blue dogs in Congress who most likely will want nothing to do with Obama like Deeds did and probably lose in 2010 if they are up for reelection. The base won't come out for them, they will have to get conservative votes.

[TheWraith]

20. Which would not change a single vote, and WOULD make Obama look poweless.

We have a president, not a magic wand.

[saracat]

39. He would look like he "tried" and was principled, which would be better than "looking"

like you endorse political expedience at the expense of women's rights in order to look like you have a win that is anything but.

[TheWraith]

56. Looking like he tried...

Something a few hundred people on the internet care about, as opposed to creating a narrative of defeat in the mass media that would completely undermine the passage of the healthcare bill.

[Autumn]

5. All that matters is getting a bill passed.

A hell of a lot of so called democrats seem to be fine with it. Fuck them.

[saracat]

10. Democrats voting against choice and banning abortion in private insurance. We should be ashamed.

[Aramchek]

18. they didn't ban abortion in private insurance. there is just no subsidy for it.

[Jennicut]

22. and it is already restricted in many states to begin with.

[saracat]

24. They have banned abortions in any private insurance in the exchange.

And they have made the hyde Amendment "permanent" as opposed to renewal.

[Aramchek]

33. you just want a reason to be pissed.

[saracat]

36. Oh and this is just "meaningless".

[Aramchek]

47. the bill has passed, and it will save lives. is that meaningless??

[saracat]

49. not meaningless but few if any more lives will be saved because it doesn't cover many people.

More lives could have been saved but this wasn't about people. It never was. One could argue that lives would be saved if we didn't go to war either. And that would save many more lives.The sad part is we sacrificed our priciples and our soul to get a very shallow bill and we removed rights from our citizens in the process.. We can "hope" the bill is changed but it isn't likely.And the final bill has not yet passed. if we want change NOW is the time to ask. Soon it will be too late.

[polichick]

64. delete - wrong place

[joeycola]

61. Then it is effectively banned for those women. Simple as that.

[Autumn]

21. No saracat, We should NOT be ashamed.

those sorry fuckers who voted for it and who support it should be ashamed. Bastards :grr:

[saracat]

25. That is true Autumn. They should be ashamed. I am ashamed of them.

[emulatorloo]

11. Get the bill passed, cut the dumbass amendments before the final bill

Rangel vs. Boehner----Rangel WON!!! Hahahaha.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8738618

Video of the Fight - Rangel Refuses To Guarantee Stupak in final bill
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x400060

[babylonsister]

13. Exactly. But that's too complex.

:crazy:

[Tarheel_Dem]

26. Don't take the air out of sara's "righteous anger". I mean, what would she do..

without it?

[saracat]

31. So , this is no big deal is it? not to you? Fine.I get that.

[Tarheel_Dem]

78. If only we'd elected John Edwards...that paragon of virtue. Do you...

realize that women's issues would have been a colossal joke when Edwards' true nature came to light? I'm not sure why you think this president should have a camera at the ready, to comment on every amendment, that hasn't even gone to conference yet.

Your indignation is misplaced.

[saracat]

29. But they won't cut it from the final Bill . Even the ProChoice Caucus admits that.

The Senate, according to the ProChoice caucus chair is even more consxervative on abortion than the Houzse. this is a doine deal. And insurance carriers willlove it as they will no longer have to cvover abortion.If the exchanges pribvate insurers don't neither will those that do not subscribe.

[CakeGrrl]

9. Oh FFS...

So if he doesn't speak out against EVERY idiotic action proposed/passed in Congress during his term, he's a complacent, disengaged failure?

:wtf:

Why stop there? Where are ALL the congressional parents of daughters in Washington? Where's the SoS? Former President Clinton?

Why is this amendment the sole responsibility of the President to decry? Or do you just want to make up some perceived slight he committed to keep bashing him?

[saracat]

14. So this is a minor deal to you?I guess you agree this isn't of sufficient import to comment.

The president is the one that sets the tone but, the others should speak out as well. the silence is deafening. Women are indeed dispensable.

[emulatorloo]

28. Get the bill passed, cut the dumbass amendments before the final bill

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8739881#8739960

[CakeGrrl]

38. What tone is there to set after the amendment PASSED?

He does not control that, and there is still the process of finalizing the bill that gets signed.

Anyone with reasonable cognitive skills knows this is a shitty amendment. I don't need him out there decrying it to tell me that.

And for anyone who isn't paying rapt attention to these proceedings, how much of this detail will they know, or how much do you think the MSM will bother to explain for the average viewer?

If it's still there in the final bill, that'll be a problem. I'm just not into freaking out at these incremental steps that are not the final result.

[saracat]

41. My goodness. the same argument that was used before this passed.

The Stupack Amendment wouldn't pass, I was told.The time to protest is NOW. Do you understand the final Bill is too late/ You don't think Obama is going to veto this if it is in the final Bill do you? That is what this is about. He can't veto HCR.

[CakeGrrl]

44. He isn't going to do the big stuff in front of the cameras, which is why

the "Show me so I know it really happened" types don't think he's done a damned thing. What they cannot physically SEE with their own eyes doesn't exist to them.

I don't know who told you about this amendment not passing, but take it up with the "Dems" who voted for it.

I'm quite confident the President did a shitload of work behind the scenes to get HCR to this stage that no other president has managed in many years. And I'd bet he has something to say about this amendment during the next phase of this work, even if I don't actually see him do so at a bully pulpit.

[saracat]

50. Do you think he was actually against Stupak/ And if he is, and it is included in the final bill what

does that say about his ability to negotiate to protect choice?

[CakeGrrl]

55. Yes

I believe the President, who was endorsed by NARAL, would not have supported the amendment had he been a member of the House who had a vote.

As for the final bill, I'm confident that he will work behind the scenes to remove the amendment as indicated on another thread. Are you prepared to credit his negotiating skills if the amendment is excluded as much as you might consider him a failed negotiator should it remain in the bill?

[saracat]

58. Absolutely I would. I have credited the President before. I just read on open left that

he said he would work to remove this and I am praying that this is so.

[glowing]

15. Doesn't matter to him.. His daughters will be just fine.. They will never have to worry

about needing an abortion.. They can be flown out of the country if need be; while the rest of our daughters are resorting to coat hangers, falling down stairs, and other "internet" abortion treatments that may kill them.. Everytime these fuckers make abortions harder and harder to recieve, means more and more women in harms way...

[bigwillq]

34. Yup

Obama and his family are just like every other politician and his/her families. He's one of them. Always will be.

[CakeGrrl]

45. Well then let's stop electing POLITICIANS to run the country.

Problem solved.

:eyes:

[PolNewf]

23. Obviously this is all Obama's fault!!!11!!1!! n/t

[Kdillard]

27. You do understand that this just passed right and it is late at night on a Saturday.

Also the bill has not even been voted on yet. Not to mention that the Senate has not put up their own bill to vote on. There are a lot of steps left before this gets to affect anyone and still time to let everyone know exactly why it should be removed or amended again. Instead of your premature bashing of the President why don't we wait to see if the House even passes the Health bill and go from there.

[saracat]

30. This is an abomination and I am asking why the preside4nt doesn't speak out. After the Bill is final

it will be too late.

[jenmito]

35. The bill is FAR from final!

[saracat]

40. I get that. Which is why the time to speak out is NOW

When it is final it will be too late.

[BeyondGeography]

42. John Edwards is a husband

Is he the father, too?

[saracat]

43. Silly Comment.What has that to do with the President speaking out about Stupak?

Or do we now support anti choice? Do democrats support the permanency of the Hyde Ament ment replacing the renewal? Do democrats support banning private insurers whomn participate in the exchange from covering abortions?

[ipaint]

46. Yes they now do.

The march to the right continues unabated.

[saracat]

48. Apparently so. And there is really something wrong here as none of our AZ Dems in red districts who

are in real danger voted for Stupak as it might have been supposed they would.Instead, they stood their ground, leading me to think something else is going on. I don't know what, but it doesn't seem good to me.

[Blue-Jay]

51. Oh brother.

[stevenleser]

52. Presidents usually refrain from commenting on bills this early in the process.

Before the bill goes to reconciliation, its pointless to do so.

[CreekDog]

54. I would answer but you asked a rhetorical question

:think:

[blogslut]

57. Wanna play Hyperbowl?

I hear John Boenher is up for a game.

[Hippo_Tron]

59. Politics is a dirty business

In an ideal world politicians would address controversial issues head on. In the real world they have to maintain a certain degree of ambiguity about their stances in order to maintain a coalition.

The best thing that can be done is to get rid of this garbage in conference.

[joeycola]

60. Sitting on the fence as usual!!

[freddie mertz]

62. I'm pretty sure he was on board and encouraged this action

Anyone got any evidence to the contrary?
What a disappointment he has been.

Makes you nostalgic for Clinton at his worst.

[ClarkUSA]

63. "Makes you nostalgic for Clinton at his worst." You mean the guy who passed DOMA, DADT, NAFTA...

... deregulated Wall Street and the media, screwed up HCR badly enough to lose a 40 yr. old Dem House majority, enacted GOP-style welfare "reform", put a retarded man to death to prove he's "tough on crime", fucked an intern with a cigar/got blowjobs in the Oval Office (and very deliberately lied to the American People about it), got impeached by Congress for perjury, and made shady but VERY lucrative deals in his post-presidency with dictators and despots while occasionally flying on Ron Burkle's Air Fuck One?

Nostalgic for former DLC chairman Bubba and the constant soap opera surrounding the three-ring circus that accompanied him and his wife?

No, thanks.

[freddie mertz]

67. Yes, sadly, I do.

Clinton caved to right-wing pressures just like Obama is doing today.

And DOMA, DATD, and NAFTA haven't gone anywhere since the new administration came into office, have they?

It is more of the same.

Except now we have a craven mortgaging away of women's basic reproductive rights.

Thus my point.

[ClarkUSA]

68. It is sad and it's also Obama hating bullshit.

President Obama is bringing Americans long overdue healthcare reform that Bubba and Hillary fucked up royally. As for DOMA, DADT, and NAFTA, there's plenty of time to address these Bubba fuckups AFTER he gets HCR passed since he still has quite a few years left to his term. BTW, there is already legislation in Congress addressing the repeal of DADT: http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=repeal+DADT+patrick+murphy&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

Funny how I didn't see you and other Failers moaning about the Hyde Amendment until now even though the HCR never covered abortions to begin with because of it. The Stupak amendment is a legislative redundancy that reiterates the Hyde amendment and your hyperbolic BS about "craven mortgaging away of women's basic reproductive rights" is evidence of your intellectual dishonesty and obvious bitter dislike for President Obama.

[freddie mertz]

70. I don't hate Obama, but you already know that.

It's just a sadly typical GDP effort to attack the motives of anyone who dares to criticize him or any other Democrats on matters of policy.

You go on to presume much, but in fact know less than nothing about me or my advocacy work in the area of womens' rights, which probably dates to before you were born and certainly before the primaries of five-six years ago when you presumably selected your curiously out-of-date "handle."

As for the legislation, which I assume you must support since you defend it so aggressively.

What seems to be new in it is the extension of an abortion ban to any PRIVATE entity who chooses to participate in the HCR "Exchange."

This is an expansion of Hyde into new territory, and thus constitutes a further assault on womens' reproductive rights.

Not that you seem to care a whit about this.

[ClarkUSA]

71. lol! Sure you don't. FYI, I've been watching you since you arrived here.

Your bitterness is so-o-o obvious... :eyes:

BTW, this DUer speaks for me and many Democrats:

"I have absolutely no problem with the way the abortion section is written, as long as it pay for abortions that were the result of rape, incest or if the health of the mother is at risk -- which it does.

People can either pay for their own elective abortions or buy a supplemental policy that covers it. Much like they do for elective breast ehancements, face lifts and botox. Should tax payers have to pay for those elective procedures as well?

Elective abortions are legal, but that doesn't mean they should be tax-payer funded."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8739881&mesg_id=8741656

-------------------------------------

I'll wait until the final bill in order to comment on an amendment that has yet to come out of conference. FWIW, folks who can afford
10K premiums can use their "private funds" to go to Planned Parenthood. And I know of many friends and acquaintances who have
never used/had insurance or Medicaid and they still managed to have multiple abortions.

As for your prediction re: the outcome of Stupak amendment: it seems alot of anonymous folks at DU seem to think they know the
outcome of legislative events before the happen. I am dubious, but even if your worst fears came true, I am still in favor of HCR
because I have family members with pre-existing conditions who would no longer be denied insurance come January 2010 if it
passed. The legislation will also cover 96 percent of Americans by 2015, while reducing the deficit by tens of billions of dollars
by 2019. Not too shabby.

The perfect should not be the enemy of the good. There are many years ahead to tweak legislation, as Congress did with Social
Security and Medicaid.

Nostalgia for Bill Clinton (and defending pro-life Kucinich while decrying the Stupak Amendment), my liberal Democratic ass.
When one of your relatives gets insurance without caps after January 2010 despite a pre-existing condition, be sure to rant
about the Stupak Amendment to them, because I could care less about your bitter whining about the injustice of not forcing
taxpayers to pay for elective abortions.

[freddie mertz]

72. I can tell that you crave an echo-chamber my friend...

And I am so glad to learn that you "have been watching me" as part of your effort to police and suppress expression in this forum.

But I predict now that you will not succeed in your quest, either me me or the many others who will continue to speak out on matters of basic rights and social justice..

The abortion language was opposed on the amendment vote by a large majority of House Democrats.

I agree with them and would have struggled mightily when faced with the agonizing choice to either vote for a bill with such a terrible clause or to vote no on the first serious effort since Clinton's to get health reform passed.

That includes the all-important pre-existing condition clause, which would have a direct impact on me if I had to change jobs.

Good luck with your police work.

[polichick]

65. Is Viagra still covered?? nt

[ClarkUSA]

66. You'll hype up any OP in order to trash all things Obama because of your ongoing bitterness.

But you'll defend John Edwards' two-faced amoral hypocrisy with your last breath. We get it.

[Phx_Dem]

69. What does being a husband/father have to do with taxpayers paying for ELECTIVE

abortions. I have absolutely no problem with the way the abortion section is written, as long as it pay for abortions that were the result of rape, incest or if the health of the mother is at risk -- which it does.

People can either pay for their own elective abortions or buy a supplemental policy that covers it. Much like they do for elective breast ehancements, face lifts and botox. Should tax payers have to pay for those elective procedures as well?

Elective abortions are legal, but that doesn't mean they should be tax-payer funded.

[dsc]

73. actually no it doesn't

the health exception specificly states that the health concern must be one that leads to potential death. One that lead to say sterility, wouldn't pass muster under this.

[Phx_Dem]

75. Actually, it does.

"The amendment offered by Representative Bart Stupak, a Democrat, bans the proposed new government health insurance plan from covering abortions except in cases of rape, incest or where the life of a mother is threatened."

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE5A705320091108

"Threatened" does NOT mean potential death. Swine flu is a threat to your life because you could die from it, but it doesn't mean you're going to.

[dsc]

76. Unlike you I am relying on the actual text not a reporter

http://docs.house.gov/rules/3962/Stupak3962_108.pdf

In general, No funds authorized or apporpriated by this act (or amendments made by this act)may be used to pay for any abortion or to cover any parts of the costs of any health plan that includes abortion, except in the case where a woman suffers a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed.

The words are pretty clear here. A pregnancy which only resulted in a certainty of sterilzation but no chance of death wouldn't be able to be paid for.

editted to replace link. Also I forgot to mention that I had to type the text since I couldn't cut and paste.

[saracat]

77. I am so sick of alleged liberals classifying an often tragically necessary women's

medical procedure with plastic surgery. Do you think any woman really "wants' an abortion, or looks forward to It. What kind of sick comment is that? Perhaps you think women enjoy hysterectomies or breast removal?

[IndianaGreen]

74. I am sure Obama cares for abortion rights as much as he cares about LGBT rights

In an intellectual sort of way.

:think: