TYT: Obama Caves on Abstinence-Only

[The Northerner]

Run time: 03:31 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Zmi27wgzNg   Posted on YouTube: April 01, 2010 By YouTube Member: TheYoungTurks Views on YouTube: 302   Posted on DU: April 01, 2010 By DU Member: The Northerner Views on DU: 2313

 

[mwrguy]

1. This is insane.

Cenk is absolutely correct.

[HowHasItComeToThis]

8. AGAIN??????????????????

[mzmolly]

2. "Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) added $50 million in annual funding for five years ..."

"Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) added $50 million in annual funding for five years to states for abstinence programs -- a provision that survived the tumultuous process that ensued."

We should have fixed this in reconciliation.

However...

"The legislation also includes $75 million a year over five years for a new "personal responsibility education" program, which would fund programs that teach youths about abstinence and contraception."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/26/AR2010032602457.html

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

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

[theFrankFactor]

4. C'mon 3D Chesser's. Explain this fucking limp dick move by Spockama...

Keep it comin' Cenk! I LOVE the sound of truth and courage!

[RainDog]

5. so why the fuck did you put it in the bill? why did you waste 250 million on a failed program?

really.

I'd like to know why my tax dollars go to support religious bullshit - b/c that's what abstinence only is.

...and the religious right gets to force women to pay for abortions themselves, rather than as part of healthcare.

Obama looks more and more like a misogynist.

[HughMoran]

7. You mean why did Orrin Hatch have this inserted in the bill?

"So in September, Sen. Orrin Hatch offered an amendment to restore Title V via heath-care reform, which (much to the outrage of liberal groups) just squeaked through the Senate Finance Committee with a 12–11 vote. A similar amendment, offered in the House by Rep. Terry Lee from Nebraska, died in committee."

This is what you get with the Senate Bill.

[RainDog]

9. maybe I should say... Obama, why did you offer the McCain/Romney bill

instead of a democratic party bill.

or I should say, Obama, why did you put an anti-choice women in the position to use this 250 million to further undermine a woman's right to privacy.

[HughMoran]

10. Ahhh, the old moving goalposts theme

:boring:

[RainDog]

11. lol. I said, "maybe I should say"

because those are things that I find repulsive too.

there are no goalposts, but you keep telling yourself that.

and you make sure you go and work for those of us who gotv in 2008 because I will never do that again.

I am amazed at what a disappointment Obama has been. it's sad, really. He has brought me to the point of total cynicism about American politics.

I can't tell my children to vote for him after the choices he's made.

so, yeah, you make some little quip and think you're really clever but the point is that Obama has lost support by his actions and no little cliched comeback will change that.

[HughMoran]

12. OK, so you hate Obama

Good for you. :shrug:

[RainDog]

13. sigh

you have no clue.

in any case, why don't you just put me on ignore? I'll do the same.

bye.

[HughMoran]

15. If it pleases you,

Shut out anybody who doesn't argue with you, I really don't care. :shrug:

[ihavenobias]

14. People who are disappointed and critical "hate" the president? Where have I heard that before...

Why do Liberals hate Bush?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1841821/posts

PS---Hate in this case implies an irrational and incredibly intense dislike. Are they some who actually hate the president, particularly on the right? Yes, of course. But let's not paint all critics, especially progressive critics, as people who "hate Obama".

[HughMoran]

16. I have bias

[Mithreal]

17. It's easier to label others "obama haters" than make any effort to understand.

[HughMoran]

19. It's easier to respond to another poster than talk directly to the source

Oh! Gotcha!

[Mithreal]

22. Hugh, I actually can and will. Thank you for the invitation.

You are savvier than what you put on display here.

Click ihavenobias author's profile wrt "I have bias" or something similar you said.

"Hopefully people realize I'm poking fun with my screen name. Of course everyone has bias to an extent, we just need to be aware of it and check ourselves to make sure it's not regularly clouding our judgment."

I will also respond to the Obama hate comment. Skinner doesn't like that sort of talk applied to fellow DU'ers. Want me to dig up the source or can you find it yourself?

If you want me to challenge your other ideas let me know. Able and willing as always, just not usually interested.

[HughMoran]

26. I think your first sentence says it best

My biggest issue is people taking themselves too seriously here.

BTW, Orrin Hatch pushed the language into the Senate Bill, the response was an amendment by Baucus that included Obama's favored language. So, basically Cenk is full of it and this whole thread is based on, well, not much. See what I mean about taking oneself too seriously (applies to those who 'woot' it without understanding what they're wooting.)

"Hatch pushes abstinence only in health reform

By Matt Canham

The Salt Lake Tribune
Updated: 09/29/2009 09:31:35 PM MDT

Washington » A Senate committee voted late Tuesday to bring back federally sponsored abstinence-only education, tucking $50 million a year into the broader health reform package.

The Senate Finance Committee narrowly approved the amendment offered by Utah GOP Sen. Orrin Hatch on a 12 to 11 vote with Democratic Sens. Kent Conrad, N.D., and Blanche Lincoln, Ark., siding with the panel's 10 Republicans.

The amendment was approved over the objections of the committee's chairman, Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., who offered his own amendment that would create a program that would teach about abstinence, contraceptives and life skills, such as financial literacy.

Baucus's amendment -- with a price tag of $50 million annually -- also was approved by the committee.

Hatch and Baucus argued about the effectiveness of abstinence-only education programs, continuing a debate between the two parties that has gone on for years -- and because of the dueling votes will continue as part of the health reform debate. The amendments would still need to go before the full Senate and House.

President Barack Obama's budget calls for a comprehensive sex education program similar to that offered by Baucus, while phasing out the abstinence-only program vigorously supported by his predecessor, former President George W. Bush. "

http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_13449319

[CherylK]

30. That story is from September, why wasn't it stripped or fixed in reconciliation?

Why did this waste of money survive, to win Repug support?!



:wtf:

[HughMoran]

31. Your guess is as good as mine

But I can tell you that it had little to do with Obama as he certainly didn't favor the abstinence only plan that Hatch inserted. I'm not an expert on reconciliation and I'm not sure if they felt they needed the two Dems who voted for it.

[rpannier]

39. Gotta love the Senate

So they approved both at a cost of 50 million dollars each.

That's what galls me every time I hear those idiots talk about fiscal responsibility

[dgibby]

27. It's part of the meme of the true believers.

Anyone who is critical of/disagrees with Obama either hates him, wants him to fail, is intellectually dishonest,etc. I'm particularly fond of the theme that we are intellectually inferior, that we have poor or no reading comprehension skills, and cannot possibly begin to understand what Obama is doing.

[ShamelessHussy]

34. zzzZZZzzz

brings back 'fond' memories of lunch time in grade school.

[lysosome]

40. To be fair, the thing was buried under, what, 25000 pages?

There's a lot of shit in this bill. A lot of shit we don't like.
But it broke the republicans.

To say Obama "caved" on this is unfair. What could he do? Veto it? He didn't write it, and no president signs a perfect bill.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

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

[democracy1st]

18. K & R

[Mithreal]

20. Obama kept all sorts of lefty proposals off the table, paraphrasing Obama himself.

Others were supposed to focus on keeping righty proposals off the table, not Obama. He's above those sorts of petty squabbles.

Plus this is good for his conservative righty cred.

[athenasatanjesus]

21. If I were president Abstinence only is something I would cave in to to be bipartisan.

Then I would have more room to be partisan on the more important issues with which right wing stupidity is truly harmful.

[Mithreal]

23. What did you get in exchange, dear leader?

[AtheistCrusader]

25. You think abstinence only education isn't truly harmful?

Where have you been the last 8 years as teen pregnancy rates INCREASED, along with STD rates?

Your 'truly harmful' meter needs calibration

[athenasatanjesus]

29. That has more to do with the degrading of culture then anything

And the degrading of culture has a lot more to do with economic imbalances then anything so I'd focus on those and give in on issues like this that are a lesser problem thats if I were going to bother being bipartisan in the first place.

[Mithreal]

32. If we didn't have a massive deficit, we could "afford" useless or actually bad programs and policies

that make some constituents happy.

Is science back or not?

Are the adults in charge or not?

When do we begin this discussion about all the policies that not only don't work and are harmful, but are also spending us into oblivion? And I know the government should be spending us out of the depression but our reps for the most part, including Obama, seem to have little stomach to face the real structural problems, let alone fight for progressive solutions and why should they. Raggedy patches at best are all we have gotten.

This isn't directed at you so much, but why defend the indefensible? Costly and wrong but oh so right for the wingnuts seems weak at best.

Rightwingers can accomplish more because they don't put up with shit from the other party.

[RainDog]

33. exactly. n/t

[AtheistCrusader]

37. Wrong.

Those numbers started climbing before either recession. It was a direct result of republican sex education policy. It is EVERY time and EVERYWHERE it is tried.

[RainDog]

28. so right wing stupidity is not truly harmful when teenagers get pregnant because of bad policy?

abstinence-only stems from the religious right. it has nothing of value to add to this society.

but it's funny how many misogynists come out of the woodwork when the issues deal with women's lives.

Because, let's face it, women are the ones who deal with the consequences of such ass-backward stupidity such as "abstinence only" for sex education, as has been demonstrated since people started fucking.

Just ask Palin and her daughter.

Were you around back in the 60s? Would you have been okay with some segregationist crap in a bill because... you know, there are more important things than equal rights.

The encroachment of religious stupidity into government policy is truly harmful. In addition, it alienates a significant voting bloc.

As of March, 16% of Americans identified as atheist. Their disdain for religious right intrusion in policy/politics is shared by many who identify as religious but liberal.

In recent years, the story of American religion has been hyped up in fire and brimstone thanks to our previous president, a self-proclaimed born-again Christian, and the massive evangelical movement that influenced him to enact policies that were consistent with religious perspective: the global gag rule, abstinence-only sex education, and marriage-promotion programs, just to name a few. But those days are over. These policies, to borrow some vocabulary from religious folks, have been an abomination -- imposing one narrow definition of morality on a broad and diverse group of people the world over. Talk about not walking humbly with your God. (I wish they were over, but apparently not.)

It wasn't divine intervention that ousted George W. Bush from office. It was millions of Americans -- some Christians, some Jews, some Muslims, some confused -- who wanted an ethical, not necessarily a religious, president. Pew reports that in 2008 Democrats and Barack Obama made significant gains among Hispanic Catholics, Hispanic Protestants, and other minority Catholics and Protestants. A majority of black Protestants, seculars, Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, Jews, and Asian Christians also voted Democratic. A new day dawned in Washington -- one where humility and a sort of quiet faith replaced the ego and fanaticism of yesteryear.

Americans didn't just reject the politics of the religious right. They rejected the hubris and simplistic nature of strict religion. The "Faith in Flux" report declares: "About half … became unaffiliated, at least in part, because they think of religious people as hypocritical, judgmental or insincere. Large numbers also say they became unaffiliated because they think that religious organizations focus too much on rules and not enough on spirituality, or that religious leaders are too focused on money and power rather than truth and spirituality."

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=how_do_americans_really_feel_about_god

aligning with the religious right is stupid, electorally.

http://culturepress.wordpress.com/2009/04/27/atheists-the-hot-new-voting-block/

In every presidential election since 1988, he wrote, the ranks of what pollsters call “the religiously unaffiliated” has grown. In 2008, some 12% of the electorate — or 15 million voters — identified themselves as nonbelievers. That’s bigger than the Latino vote (9%), the gay vote (4%), or the Jewish vote (2%), and it’s competitive with the African American vote (13%).

so, maybe it's not a good idea to throw a voting bloc under the bus that's BIGGER THAN THE AFRICAN AMERICAN VOTE.

just saying.

[liberation]

36. "Bipartisanship" and "governing" are two very different things...

And btw, "bipartisanship" only implies benefit for both parties, it says nothing about whether or not it benefits the people.

Governing however, in a democratic society, implies doing the bidding of the people.



There is no fucking mandate anywhere in the constitution about "bipartisanship" (or requiring it for that matter). Where are you guys getting this red herring from? It stinks, and it has been out there for a few months... it wasn't properly cured, or pickled... it is now a health hazard with all that growing mold in it. Some of you seem to have eaten too much of the fungus.

[AtheistCrusader]

24. AAAAAAAAAAaaaaaa this has to be a mistake

TELL ME THIS IS A MISTAKE

[liberation]

35. Yeah, they are just "mistakes" and they always err towards the right, just out of pure coincidence..

the DLC swears....

;-)

[skeptical cynic]

38. Bait-and-switch HCR from a bait-and-switch candidate/president

This is a surprise?

[Loudmxr]

41. I think some of you are still hung over from the "flawed bill" drinking game.

I stand in opposition to this flawed bill. :beer: It musta sent some of you into alcohol poisoning. The Senate bill was F'd up in many ways. But still its historic.

[20score]

42. .