TPMDC
Top WH Aides Sitting Down With Women's Groups, Faith Leaders On Stupak
Christina Bellantoni | November 11, 2009, 6:55PM
Share
Send to a friend!
Women's rights groups enraged over the Stupak amendment included in the House health care bill passed Saturday got some time with Obama administration officials today, but the president's aides also will be huddling with faith groups as the negotiations continue.
As we reported earlier, the head of the National Organization for Women went to the White House to voice her dismay over the last-minute deal to vote on the amendment.
White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel was among the expected attendees, but Obama did not attend.
"As part of our ongoing outreach surrounding health insurance reform, staff met with today with representatives of the women's rights community. Staff will also be meeting in coming days with leaders from communities of faith and other groups involved in the effort," said White House spokesman Reid Cherlin.
Other Stories Featured at TPMDC
Join the Conversation!
Leave a comment
Follow us!
PollTracker
Most Popular
- Gavin Newsom Throws Tantrum In First Interview Since Dropping Gov. Bid
- The Public Option Dead End
- Al Gore: I'll "Outcrazy the Crazy"
- Harry Reid, and What Happened to the Public Option
- Schumer: We'd Like Republican Support, But 'We're Not Going To Not Pass A Bill'
- Bachmann: 'I Don't Understand Why The Democratic Party Would Be Opposed To Me'
- What Did We Learn From Saturday's Health Care Vote
- San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom Loses Patience in CBS5 Interview
- Dean: There's No Real Insurance Reform In Health Care Bills
- Coburn: I Acted As Ensign-Hampton Go-Between
- Lieberman Repeats Claim That Public Option Not Part Of 2008 Presidential Campaign
- Senate Agrees To Debate Health Care Bill
- Is Everybody Disappointed In Obama?
- Bernie Sanders: 'My Vote For The Final Bill Is By No Means Guaranteed'
- November 22
- I Call Bullshit.
- HCAN: "It's a Shame Not a Single Republican" Voted To Allow Debate
- Steele: 'Moderate Democrats Sacrificed Their Principles'
- THE EXPERT AS THE DANGEROUS WHORE
- Intel Inside? Prove It.
- Where Does This Leave Us?
- Filibuster Thwarted ... For Now
- I Call Bullshit.
- Is Everybody Disappointed In Obama?
- Establishment Reality
- THE EXPERT AS THE DANGEROUS WHORE
- The Cast Has Assembled
- Bernie Sanders: I Want My Leverage!
- Clinton Not Attending Health Care Event Because it's Politicized?
- Time to contact the FCC
TPM Stories Now Surging on Digg.com
TPM Top News
© 2009 TPM Media LLC. All Rights Reserved.
bluebell
November 11, 2009 7:18 PM
So women's rights and faith are mutually exclusive? How, well, how Republican of them to frame it that way.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kash79
November 11, 2009 7:54 PM in reply to bluebell
You never miss an opportunity to dumbdown the conversation.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
November 11, 2009 8:22 PM in reply to kash79
Well, I'm just another dumb woman too dumb apparently to highly value the token woman meeting.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kash79
November 11, 2009 8:23 PM in reply to bluebell
You being dumb has nothing do to with you being a woman. Just want to make that distinction for you.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
November 11, 2009 9:03 PM in reply to kash79
So how many pro-choice faith groups do you think they invited to the faith portion of it?
Bluebell made an entirely accurate description of propaganda value of how it was done.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kash79
November 11, 2009 9:20 PM in reply to AJM
I was sure you'll follow. With Blue Bell my disagreements are on her dems = repubs argument which in fact is a dumddown argument but nothing more. She never made personal attacks like you. she never called me riled things like "unwanted child"
So I don't think you deserve a civil answer.
By the way, you claim you voted for the "drill-baby-drill" McCain/Palin ticket coz you thought he would do more on Climate Security?
Seriously, how can anyone who supports women's rights vote for McCain and Palin? Don't answer. It isn't worth much. I'm just bringing that up to hold you for your convictions.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stroszek
November 12, 2009 8:24 AM in reply to AJM
Ah, nothing like a Sarah Palin voter to lecture everyone else about their unfaithfulness on abortion rights and church/state separation.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
November 11, 2009 9:05 PM in reply to kash79
You can make that distinction for her by recognizing when she is right and you are wrong and by trying to refrain from being patronizing.
So far you are failing on all counts.
Also, do you think that Bluebell is more or less likely to vote Democratic or for Obama (very different from voting Democratic in my experience) in the future? Talk about dumb.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kash79
November 11, 2009 9:24 PM in reply to AJM
Ha! She is wrong. Just coz someone was invited to the WH doesn't mean it was a play from the Republican playbook? Go and watch Palin smile and wink or something. Coz you have a weird way of trying to resolve an argument between two people when you're not one of them.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
November 11, 2009 9:32 PM in reply to kash79
taht isn't what she said.
She said:
So women's rights and faith are mutually exclusive? How, well, how Republican of them to frame it that way.
I don't think you understand what she is saying.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kash79
November 11, 2009 9:37 PM in reply to Indie Pro
Which itself is a distorted interpretation, of course. Along with the "Republican framing" argument. Read the WH statement. It doesn't indicate they were trying to make that distinction at all.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
November 11, 2009 9:42 PM in reply to kash79
ah, the last race horse finally crosses the finish line. I think you understand her now.
so I guess you'll admit that this:
She is wrong. Just coz someone was invited to the WH doesn't mean it was a play from the Republican playbook?
has nothing to do with what she said.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kash79
November 11, 2009 9:46 PM in reply to Indie Pro
But she also said "How Republican of them to frame it that way" which especially in the context where he had said Dem = Rep on several other posts makes my understanding perfectly reasonable.
Anyway, I don't want to get into a argument with you, coz I know you'll not quit. You can go for hours and that's very much a compliment.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
November 11, 2009 9:56 PM in reply to kash79
well that's no fun. Though it made me laugh to read. Thanks for the laugh.
I think she's stretching what's in the release, but I think framing an argument where on one side there is the "women's rights community" and on the other side is "communities of faith" is a common republican framing. But like you, I don't think that was the intent in the release.
Regardless of her stretching, I think her main point is that the two are not exclusive. People of faith can be advocates of womens's rights.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kash79
November 11, 2009 9:59 PM in reply to Indie Pro
While her main point was to depict W.H. in an unfair light, I'm glad we both finally agree on something
two are not exclusive. People of faith can be advocates of womens's right I agree.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
November 11, 2009 11:18 PM in reply to kash79
I thought I recalled that you were the one who thought it was too personal to be asked to imagine what it would be like to be an unwanted child or to be forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term. So just how personal do you think it feels for such a child to live in that situation? Just how personal it it when a woman is told by the government at the behest of 'faith' organizations what to do with her womb?
If being asked to imagine what it would be like to be an unwanted child, makes you think that I called you an unwanted child you have serious issues.
As I said, a climate bill based on nuclear could have passed Congress by now under McCain saving all life born and unborn on the planet. If he wanted to drill in the interim that would be a small price to pay. Obama is going to pass a something totally useless on climate. You can get back to me when he does.
Oh, and so sorry you didn't realize that you were conducting your private admonitions of Bluebell on the modern day equivalent of a party line.
Until then enjoy your tapped phone.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kash79
November 11, 2009 11:52 PM in reply to AJM
You have short term memory loss or else you're lying. Personal attacks are not helpful, especially when you make them without reading the comment, as you did yesterday.
Palin is not going to turn on the "nucular" button tonight mistaking it for the White House garage door knob. Sleep carelessly, you're safe.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stroszek
November 12, 2009 8:29 AM in reply to AJM
Based on your vote for Palin, it apparently wasn't so bad that you could pull yourself up from wallowing in petty sore loserdom.
Bwahahahaha. As if we needed a reminder just how f'n insane the PUMAs are...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Kuyleh
November 11, 2009 10:26 PM in reply to Indie Pro
He can't spell "because." Or put whole sentences together. I highly doubt he gets what she's trying to say.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kash79
November 11, 2009 10:28 PM in reply to Kuyleh
Thank you for your key contribution to the discussion. Coz
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stroszek
November 12, 2009 8:23 AM in reply to Kuyleh
He gets what she's trying to say, he's just pointing out that it's an idiotic distortion from someone with a compulsive penchant for masturbatory faux-outrage.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stroszek
November 12, 2009 8:26 AM in reply to Indie Pro
He understands what she's saying, he just understands that it's a silly way to interpret it... it's an example of how anything can be hyperbolically spun into an "insult" by those who are driven more by bizarre hatred of the personalities involved than a genuine interest in improving people's lives.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
November 12, 2009 9:19 AM in reply to Stroszek
how does this, his comment:
She is wrong. Just coz someone was invited to the WH doesn't mean it was a play from the Republican playbook?
show an understanding for what she said?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Docb
November 11, 2009 7:48 PM
There is separation of Church and State that needs to be honored...I do not want to pay for the Viagra for the congressional coots and others but Congress made sure that my taxpayer dollars do!
Women's rights have been decided by Roe v Wade...This is an end run around the the law by MEN... The Dems who voted for this must be removed! Shameless!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
oskieoskie
November 11, 2009 9:53 PM in reply to Docb
So, you think health insurance reform should fail if it doesn't allow tax dollars to pay for elective abortions?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
November 11, 2009 11:25 PM in reply to oskieoskie
Yes. Preferably just long enough for us to get rid of some 40 conservadems and a bunch of Republicans and replace them with legislators willing to put Medicare for all in place.
If the bill excluded Catholics from certain kinds of health care -- say that difficult pregnancies wouldn't be treated because unless the Catholic woman could prove that she had tried to avoid the pregnancy by some means other than the rhythm method -- would you think it should be passed?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stroszek
November 12, 2009 8:32 AM in reply to AJM
Newsflash genius, Medicare for All would be held to the Hyde Amendment, automatically denying anyone access to abortion coverage.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stroszek
November 12, 2009 8:41 AM in reply to AJM
And just so we're all still clear on AJM's worldview:
Passing Health Care Reform = Not Worth Limiting Insurance Options for Abortion Coverage
Electing Sarah Palin = Worth Destroying Abortion Rights Entirely
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ejg3
November 11, 2009 10:00 PM
Considering the length of the health care debate the metaphorical full term abortion we may see is health care reform. Or is it checkmate by the bishops taking out the queen?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
aikbay
November 11, 2009 10:04 PM
No doubt Rahmbo will tell the pro-choice people to STFU and kiss Obama's ass because he's a Democrat. Meanwhile. the conservatives will have their asses kissed because y'know your base doesn't have anywhere to go anyway.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
the true enduring majority
November 12, 2009 4:39 PM
Newsflash: The Stupak Amendment isn't going to be in anything that goes to the Presidents desk. It won't survive the Senate or conference. Despite the what some of the Conservadems in the Senate said, it won't make it.
Stupak Amendment was added to get the bill through the House over the objections of a few DINO's. Hell, according to Clyburn the Amendment only won ten votes. It was enough to get us over the line.
I really have to wonder whether some choice commenters here are addicted faux-outrage and just need something to be angry about, or whether they are just truly retarded. As a note, I'm not talking about commenters with whom I vehemently disagree, but can make a solid argument based in fact.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?