They Didn't Need Stupak's Vote And Still Decided To Throw Women Under The Bus Anyway

[Me.]

They did it in an effort to preserves the majority. And they didn't even have the decency to show it to the pro-choice caucus before releasing it to the press. When reconciliation comes there will be fixes for everything but women. Women constitute the majority of voters so how does that compare to the Stupak 6> Maybe this is another of those 'we can win them back moves".

[robinblue]

1. NOW: In Stupak deal, "President Obama Breaks Faith with Women"

IT was not nec. for Pres Obama to this. Anything for a bill is the WH mantra. Sad.


Forum Name General Discussion
Topic subject National Organization for Women (NOW): In Stupak deal, "President Obama Breaks Faith with Women"
Topic URL http://www.democraticunde...dress=389x7975023#7975023
7975023, National Organization for Women (NOW): In Stupak deal, "President Obama Breaks Faith with Women"
Posted by Ean Juan on Sun Mar-21-10 10:13 PM

for immediate release (3-21-2010):
The National Organization for Women is incensed that President Barack Obama agreed today to issue an executive order designed to appease a handful of anti-choice Democrats who have held up health care reform in an effort to restrict women's access to abortion. Through this order, the president has announced he will lend the weight of his office and the entire executive branch to the anti-abortion measures included in the Senate bill, which the House is now prepared to pass.

President Obama campaigned as a pro-choice president, but his actions today suggest that his commitment to reproductive health care is shaky at best. Contrary to language in the draft of the executive order and repeated assertions in the news, the Hyde Amendment is not settled law -- it is an illegitimate tack-on to an annual must-pass appropriations bill. NOW has a longstanding objection to Hyde and, in fact, was looking forward to working with this president and Congress to bring an end to these restrictions. We see now that we have our work cut out for us far beyond what we ever anticipated. The message we have received today is that it is acceptable to negotiate health care on the backs of women, and we couldn't disagree more.



http://www.now.org/press/03-10/03-21a.html

[xchrom]

8. Recommend

[riderinthestorm]

2. And the language of the EO basically codifies "segregationist" and "inequal"

treatment for women under this bill.

It's pretty ugly. See Cerridwen's thread containing the actual language.

[Gman2]

3. Women's health rights becoming such a small part of the equation,

present charity monies could certainly be devoted to that, even discounting the prolife funds that would be lost. I see it as OK. Not perfect, but the job will get done. It can be perfected later.

[Fleshdancer]

4. Oh, but didn't you hear? Obama is the "most pro-abortion president in history"

and this executive order "does absolutely nothing to stop abortions on demand" and "if women can use federal funds for abortions, then abortions will rise by 30%!!!" This was the actual republican response to the Stupak deal. I couldn't make up this level of crazy if I tried.

This entire situation is insulting.

[Me.]

5. As Michael Moore Pointed Out

Abortions in that 'Catholic Country' are practically free and yet they have 10-20% fewer abortions than we do.

[vi5]

6. Shut up and soak in the history....

Mmmmmmmm.....reformy......

(in case it wasn't clear, this is sarcasm. You shouldn't shut up. You should keep yelling and being pissed off. I agree).

[Me.]

7. I Pretty Well Figured Out It Was

:sarcasm:

But thanks for the heads up. :evilgrin:

[in_cog_ni_to]

9. They always think they can "win us back" because

they always DO (not me, but female BO Primary voters). If women want their rights protected, they have got to stop voting for men over women candidates. It's that simple. Hillary could have walked into the WH easily had every Democratic/Progressive/Liberal woman in this country voted for her. I am so damn sick of saying it (blue in the face!), but women MUST stick together to protect our rights. It's the only way.

Hope and Change, my ass. It's the same old crap....men deciding what women can and can't do with their bodies. I'm sick of it.

[vi5]

10. I don't disagree......

...but I fully believe that Hillary would have cut the same deals that Obama has to get this done. Let's not forget Pelosi has been doing a lot of this work and lot of the negotiating and pushing and nudging and the give and take. And she's a woman. And a strong one at that. It's not an Obama vs. Hillary thing. It's the pathetic and corrosive climate of DC politics in general and nobody is exempt from it.

I think it's more a matter of Republicans still controlling and dictating the terms of the debate and the language and the dialogue and Democrats being horrible at messaging and horrible at properly evaluating the tone of the country and at pushing back and at not taking their core constituencies for granted. And it's not just women. It's gays, it's unions, it's pretty much the entire base that they do this with. This particular example (HCR) is just most specifically and egregiously offensive to women and those who actually support women's rights.

[Me.]

11. Sick Of It Too

And while not wanting to revisit the primaries I don't know that either would stand by us, it's not the DLC way. But you are right about women voting for women but they have to be progressive women. Those that stood by Stupak today made me ill too.

[DCBob]

12. The executive order changes nothing in the bill.

it only gives the Stupakers a face saving way out.

[Me.]

15. What Stupak Thinks He Accomplished Today Is To Have Made Hyde Permanent

Up to now it had to be voted on every year. We will see if the EO changes that for it's sure to be challenged in the courts, especially as the word segregate was used in the language.

"Contrary to language in the draft of the executive order and repeated assertions in the news, the Hyde Amendment is not settled law — it is an illegitimate tack-on to an annual must-pass appropriations bill."

[DCBob]

16. I dont think the EO does that...

An EO cannot trump law.

[Me.]

17. I'm Hoping That Also

[stray cat]

13. Women won't get insurance?

[Me.]

14. Having Insurance

And being able to use it on 'whatever' a woman's need may be are 2 distinctly different matters. Further, it gives added protection to hospitals and pharmacies not to administer to a woman's need. So if someone needs the morning after pill and a druggist says no, that no now has more protection. But none of this applies to you does it?