CREDO To Send Coat Hangers To Pro-Choice Dems Who Voted For Abortion Restriction Amendment

That's my phone company! Way to go!

I hate to admit it but I understand the connotation of coat hangers as it relates to abortions. I had an abortion at age 19 way before it was legal. I was scared to death and was introduced to someone who could "take care of it". Unfortunately, I ended up in the hospital with a massive infection. The doctor at the hospital I ended up in was a prince of a man and didn't report it to the authorities. In those days they did that. He felt sorry for me.

All plans will have to foot the bill for botched illegal abortions!

The Law of unintended consequences.

Hangers? Really? Erick Erickson would be proud. Regardless of the accuracy of the sentiment, this is a dumb move along the lines of MoveOn's "BetrayUs" ad, and will only marginalize Credo, who've done good things until now.

Do we not see that this Stupak amendment is an invidious ploy, a trojan horse to scuttle substantive health reform?
Attention is being diverted from the public option. This is a setup from the eminence grise of the White House, Rahm Emmanuel: we will focus the liberal ire on this amendment, then negotiate, water it down, in exchange for a public option. At that point, the liberals will just be relieved that we haven't de facto repealed Roe v. Wade.
Democratic Centrists and the Obama White House, have for presumably different reasons, (the former, pathetically tactical, the latter simply sheer personal financial interest) outrageously bludgeoned any chance for real Health Care Reform, labor reform or climate change reform.
All polls are pointing to huge democratic losses in 2010, due in large part to a lack of base democratic enthusiasm. Again, and again, the white house is playing into the Bush outrage card to try to hoodwink liberals into supporting a weak status quo agenda against the assault of the other, the heinous republican party. The latest announcement of the 9/11 civilian trials has been timed strategically to deflect democratic base outrage against their own party to opposition to the outlandish, fascist statements on the right.
My own supposition is that Obama has retreated on most of his reforms due to his realization that his Democratic majority is very weak, with at least a 1/3 of the party anathema to any substantive reform at all.
While it may also be true that a small portion of voters that supported Obama in 2008 were actually moderate to conservative, Obama should not be chasing the center for their vote. He should be reaching out from a position of moral strength and conviction and trying to persuade them that progressives are right on certain issues.
All too late now. 2010 is around the corner, and thereafter we will have a minority in Congress. Then of course, it is all down hill, until the Republicans can take over all reins of power again and prove how extremist and incompetent they are to an Attention-defecit disorder American electorate. The slow, decadent decline of a Byzantine empire...

With all due respect, shouldn't we send packs of birth control pills, since birth control pills can be used as a morning after pill, which would entirely negate the need for the largest range of abortions - e.g., unplanned pregnancy? So no need for melodramatic coat hangers?

I just think that the people so focused on abortion...

(....I am not including lousgirl, who had to go through a terrible and no doubt terrifying experience...)

...are failing to take note of the fact that the birth control and abortion landscape has changed rather dramatically not just in the last 40 years but in the last 10 years.

Thanks to new low-dose oral contraceptives, we are potentially at a point where we could DRASTICALLY reduce need for abortion even more in this country. Shouldn't abortion be safe, legal and RARE, as President Clinton used to say?

Okay, how is this any smarter than sending Rock Salt to Olympia Snowe?

If ever there was a trap set, a herd of liberals is standing at the ready to fall face-first into it. In turning the health care debate into a fight over abortion, which is exactly what the anti-reformers want, you're going to tank it. Way to go.

Abortion is a seperate issue. The language in the Stupak amendment does not prevent women from exercising their right, it just re-emphasizes a law already on the books that prevents federal funding of abortion. Thus, a publically-funded health care plan would not pay for an abortion. Who, I ask, is incapable of locating a Planned Parenthood clinic in their area?

When liberals get to be just as gullible as the teabag crowd, be afraid.

And as a reminder, the whole "Obama doesn't support the public option" 'leakage' nearly worked out for the opposition. Yet another trap you fell into... with enthusiasm no less.

It's like herding cats, though not nearly as amusing.

"I don't recall you screaming about the Catholic Church tanking health care in favor of the rights of the fetus, KFreed."

Of course not, because I'm not stupid enough to expect the Catholic Church to support abortion as part and parcel of a health care reform bill. There's no sense squealing about it as we all know where the Church stands on abortion. Nevermind the Catholic Church... making this about abortion won't get you either health care reform OR progress on women's reproductive rights. Instead, you'll get squat because you don't have sense enough to read the writing on the wall or understand that with compromise over time we'll all be better off in the long run. It helps to have more of a handle on long-range vision than a tse tse fly.

"We may have to elect another Congress to do it. One committed to repealing the Hyde Amendment and to voting for single payer."

And when will that be? In the year 2059? Not going to happen in an all-or-nothing fight, not now and not in 2059. It will happen incrementally as does all progress.

So you'll cut off your nose to spite your face? Now there's progress.

Oh, and you "saw" that Obama didn't support a public option? How many times did it take for him to repeat it? You sheep all caved in as soon as TPM and Huff Post claimed to have anonymous sources "suggesting" the contrary. Give me a break.

somebody explain this to me. if you have uninsured women who wan health insurance, and they choose the government plan, does that not mean taxpayers are paying for her abortion, or am i misunderstanding this?
as the law stands now, federal tax $$ cannot be used to fund abortions, so this should be a non issue, right?

now, if the woman wants to pay for her abortion with health insurane she purhases herself, then she should be allowed to do so.

CREDO mobile- you just got yourself a new customer. BRAVO!!!!

Normally I am not in favor of such "in your face" tactics, but this is serious business...I came of age just as abortions became available, but I remember all the stories of botched back room abortions. The very idea of returning to them is unthinkable, and if these people either DON'T remember, or chose not to, a graphic reminder is in order.