TPMDC
Déjà Vu All Over Again: Why Abortion Imperils Health Care One More Time
Speaker Pelosi, Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI), President Obama
Share
Send to a friend!
For the third time in less than six months, the issue of abortion threatens to kill health care reform. The initiative is fragile enough without abortion, yet more and more it's becoming clear that abortion is the one, final issue that must be resolved if Democrats are to succeed. But this time, there's much less legislative wiggle room than before and Democrats are scrambling to figure out what, if anything can be done.
The logjam is a familiar one, and comes down to simple political arithmetic. For health care reform to pass, he House must pass the Senate bill word for word, then make minor tweaks to it through the budget reconciliation process. But Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI)--and, if we take him at his word, about a dozen of his Democratic colleagues--say they won't vote for health care again unless the Senate's abortion language is made more restrictive--a demand that seems like a legislative impossibility.
That leaves House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in an extremely tough position. Follow the numbers: All Republicans will vote against health care reform; 219 Democrats voted for the bill the first time around; three of them are no longer in the House. That leaves 216 Democrats in the House who've already voted for reform. Because of vacancies, Pelosi needs 217 votes to pass a bill. In other words the most optimistic scenario will require her to flip a single member who voted "no" on the House bill in November.
Which wouldn't be too hard. A number of "no" votes have said they're keeping an open mind on the Senate bill, and some sound downright ready to vote for the thing.
Enter Stupak.
If Stupak makes good on his threat, and turns a dozen--or 10 or seven--reform supporters against the bill, then it's probably game over. It would put Pelosi and President Obama in the position of having to flip more members toward supporting the bill than they conceivably can.
So the abortion language in the bill can't change, and the Stupak 12 won't vote for that language. Is that game over?
Not necessarily. Stupak is once again engaged with House leadership. Yesterday, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said one possibility is that Stupak could be given a vote on strict abortion language in separate legislation (a heavy, if not impossible lift in the Senate). There are also murmurings on the Hill that there are steps the White House can take--a signing statement, perhaps, or an executive order--that could sway Stupak and his entourage. Stupak met yesterday Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA)--a progressive, but a seasoned legislator, and a deal-maker well trusted by his colleagues. So real efforts are underway to find a solution. But can they find one?
Comments (197) | Join the Conversation!
Leave a comment
Follow us!
Most Popular
TPM Stories Now Surging on Digg.com
TPM Top News
© 2010 TPM Media LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Viva!America!
March 5, 2010 10:10 AM
Stupak is the reason I have always believed that had Coakley won we STILL would have been arguing about HCR. And lord knows what else would have come up.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
admiralmpj
March 5, 2010 10:24 AM in reply to Viva!America!
I'm afraid that's a very good point. What was it that Will Rogers always said??
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Brownbagger
March 5, 2010 10:40 AM in reply to admiralmpj
Yes, he said: Ancient Rome declined because it had a Senate; now what's going to happen to us with both a Senate and a House?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SFCWallace
March 5, 2010 11:01 AM in reply to Brownbagger
"Ancient Rome declined because it had a Senate..."
No, ancient Rome declined because it had a Senate that was more interested in their personal gain and power than listening to the will of the people...
RCP Average 2/2 - 2/28 -- 40.8 50.3 Against/Oppose +9.5
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Brownbagger
March 5, 2010 11:08 AM in reply to SFCWallace
Will Rogers said that? Not one of his wittiest lines.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
March 5, 2010 11:16 AM in reply to Brownbagger
No, Sallust said that. Will Rogers didn't have the balls to.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Brownbagger
March 5, 2010 11:21 AM in reply to again
Sallust also had the balls to say: Small communities grow great through harmony, great ones fall to pieces through discord.
Kind regards.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
March 5, 2010 11:45 AM in reply to Brownbagger
But that throwaway, almost 'Hallmark' line would hardly capture why he's worth the few hours or so it would take to read his work.
And Sallust himself created much discord through his work - not to mention through his own corruption.
The question is whether you want to read about corruption by someone who has both suffered under it and created it. I'd say: yes, since they have apparently enjoyed a deeper familiarity with it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Nikkiru
March 8, 2010 9:26 AM in reply to again
I believe what Will Rogers actually said was "I don't belong to an organized political party. I'm a Democrat."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SFCWallace
March 5, 2010 11:19 AM in reply to Brownbagger
The hyperbole was all mine...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Brownbagger
March 5, 2010 11:23 AM in reply to SFCWallace
Will Rogers you are not.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SFCWallace
March 5, 2010 11:37 AM in reply to Brownbagger
True...but I do a really good Roy Rogers...
"Happy trails to you..."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Brownbagger
March 5, 2010 11:50 AM in reply to SFCWallace
That's better. Kind regards.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
GayIthacan
March 5, 2010 11:22 AM in reply to SFCWallace
Gee - this poll number would be meaningful - if being 'Against' the current bill indicated anything measurable.
However, since one can be opposed to it because it either goes TOO FAR or NOT FAR ENOUGH, this poll result is - how can I put this - MEANINGLESS. :D
Being 'for' or 'against' abortion or gay marriage or the draft is one thing. But being 'against' something where the opposition can mean multiple things? Useless in determining any sort of 'consensus' on the issue.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SFCWallace
March 5, 2010 11:41 AM in reply to GayIthacan
True...it just means that over 50% of the country is "against" the current pending legislation...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
human
March 5, 2010 12:03 PM in reply to SFCWallace
which would mean something if there was a poll indicating that the same majority even understands what's in the bill, as opposed to what the wingnuts say is in the bill.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SFCWallace
March 5, 2010 12:11 PM in reply to human
Ahh...the famous "If we could just get our message out" argument...Harry's the one who released the bill less than 48 hrs before the vote...any ire about the inability to explain what's "really in it" should be directed at him.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SFCWallace
March 5, 2010 12:13 PM in reply to human
Wait!...that was 2 months ago!!! Y'all still can't get the "what's really in it" message out there?...Now that's not all Harry's fault.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cal Gal
March 5, 2010 1:05 PM in reply to SFCWallace
Republican Talking Point Alert!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SFCWallace
March 5, 2010 1:28 PM in reply to Cal Gal
Republica...yes. Talking point...no, unless you're one of the ones here who consider all opposition to be propaganda/talking point.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
expatjourno2
March 5, 2010 11:31 AM in reply to SFCWallace
The only reason it polls that way is because you fucking Repukes lied about it. When you ask Americans about the things actually in the bill -- like the public option -- as opposed to the things you Repukes lied about -- like death panels and a givernmentn takeover of the health care system -- the American people support them.
Eat shit and die, Repuke.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
expatjourno2
March 5, 2010 11:38 AM in reply to SFCWallace
Ancient Rome declined because it had Republicans.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SFCWallace
March 5, 2010 11:43 AM in reply to expatjourno2
If the Republicans were the invading barbarian horde, doesn't that make the Democrats the corrupt Senators of Rome?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
March 5, 2010 11:55 AM in reply to SFCWallace
Rome declined because 'when something cannot continue, it will stop,'
Blame the GOP, the Dems, the Senate, the Progressives, the Tea Partiers.
But the fact may simply be that we are at the end of empire.
Like every empire in decline, we are in debt, and militarily overextended.
We can only hope to transition as gracefully as Britain did. But it wasn't painless for them.
And for the record, GB has a 12% debt to GDP ratio, just like the US and just one percent below Greece.
The IMF bailed out the Brits in the 1970's. Perhaps they will rescue us, too.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Docb
March 6, 2010 12:19 PM in reply to admiralmpj
Stupak lies..he was called out on ABC News..Call the media and then call congress to not cave to the lies 1.866.338.1015..Outrageous 'C'Streeter fogets that Americans can really read the bills and do the research..
Why are we allowing the likes of Stupak and the REPUBLICANS to kill 45,000 Americans every year??? My congresswowman DeGette sent out an email denying the existance of the 12 stupak allies--think this is part of his lie package!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Mimi katz
March 5, 2010 11:33 AM in reply to Viva!America!
I think everyone is greatly overcounting the number of progressive House members who will vote against the bill on this final go-round. This is where Pelosi's margin will come from--people like Barbara Lee who represent districts with many people who need health care reform. In this respect the Senate bill is better than the House bill, which had Stupak's language. The women in this group especially aren't going to let health care go down at the hands of Stupak and his pro-pre-born gang. Health care will pass the House with more than enough votes, and this is where they will come from.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
March 5, 2010 12:49 PM in reply to Viva!America!
And frankly, what's more valuable, covering EVERYONE with a public option or covering a few thousand abortions every year?
Dems need to step back and look at the bigger picture here. Stupak will go down sooner than you think, but we'll have to live with this half measure of a health bill for the rest of our short lives.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dogger
March 5, 2010 10:31 AM
Ironically, there is good reason to believe that universal health care will reduce the number of abortions.
The decision to terminate a pregnancy is affected by Friends, Family, Faith and Finances. Women who aborted listed multiple reasons in a 2004 AGI Survey. 73% included inability to “afford a baby now” within their list of reasons, with 23% citing that as her most important reason.
In America, a woman must decide whether she can afford medical care during pregnancy, for the first 18 years of the child's life, and for the remaining childhood of other children. For women on the margins with no insurance, such concerns may border on absolute terror. Even those who have insurance today have no guarantee that they won't lose it before all children are grown. Many women decide that the financial cost is too great or uncertain, and that they cannot afford a new child.
Women of civilized countries must consider economic factors, of course, but health care cost is not one of them. They have guaranteed coverage, for their lives and the lives of their children. I don't suggest that universal health insurance will prevent all financially motivated abortions, but for the uninsured it would totally eliminate a major cost factor for giving birth and raising the child. For some, perhaps many, lifetime health insurance would give them the assurance they need to continue their pregnancies.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Rick Jones
March 5, 2010 11:05 AM in reply to Dogger
Good point. Oh yeah, and F*** Bart Stupak. If his anti-choice legislation is that important, it should be able to stand or fall on its own. Health care and insurance reform for the already and soon to be living is much too important to throw it away on this. The abortion battle will go on regardless.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SocialJusticeForAll
March 5, 2010 11:14 AM in reply to Rick Jones
Planned Parenthood should be able to stand on its own without federal funding. Abortion is not healthcare.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Clavis
March 5, 2010 11:18 AM in reply to SocialJusticeForAll
An abortion is a medical procedure. If Viagra can be covered by health insurance, abortions sure as hell can be.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SocialJusticeForAll
March 5, 2010 11:50 AM in reply to Clavis
Abortion and viagra are not the same. Medical procedures were also done (done, a kind choice of words here) on peoples viewed as sub-human in Nazi Germany. The results from abortion are equal to, or worse, than these experiments when compared to a fertility pill.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Clavis
March 5, 2010 12:51 PM in reply to SocialJusticeForAll
That's right. Taking a drug that flushes a blastocyst from one's body is identical to murdering adults in medical experiments.
You're a psychopath with no concept of reality. Take your religious idiocy and go hunt witches.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SocialJusticeForAll
March 5, 2010 1:01 PM in reply to Clavis
A human blastocyst is still human.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cal Gal
March 5, 2010 1:07 PM in reply to SocialJusticeForAll
Cut your fingernails much? Your hair? I'm pretty sure you don't jerk off, because sperm cells are human, too. Every sperm is sacred. You know you shed skin cells every second? Doesn't that just make you CRAZY!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SocialJusticeForAll
March 5, 2010 3:24 PM in reply to Cal Gal
A hair cell or other type of cell can never grow naturally into a human being. A human blastocyst is a unique, naturally growing human being at conception. Watch a video on human development backwards from the baby’s birth and tell me at which frame you want to kill the child.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Clavis
March 5, 2010 4:08 PM in reply to SocialJusticeForAll
Once again, you're dishonest. Notice the cute little trick you pull there -- "A human blastocyst is a unique, naturally growing human being at conception". No, it isn't. You're full of shit. Again, you deliberately play with the meaning of "human being". A fertilized egg isn't a human being. A human being is. A single cell has no brain, no mind, not even a nervous system. You cannot just dismiss the distinction between a person and a future person so that you can use the same word to describe two completely different things. You're making crap up, because crap is all you've got.
"Watch a video on human development backwards from the baby’s birth..." Yeah? Fine; if you run the film backwards of the Mona Lisa being painted, eventually you end up with a blank canvas. Hey, I have this blank canvas right here, and I'll sell it to you for $1 million, since it's a potential Mona Lisa, right?
Stop dishonestly manipulating words to try to change the truth. Something that WOULD HAVE MAYBE GROWN INTO A PERSON IF YOU LET IT is NOT the same as a person. Why is that so difficult for you to understand? Oh, right, you're a zealot who doesn't WANT to understand.
Go away and let us adults discuss adult stuff.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SocialJusticeForAll
March 6, 2010 10:41 AM in reply to Clavis
Darrius said it well below. Defining "X" as sub-human is the most common license to mistreat "X".
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
March 10, 2010 8:04 PM in reply to SocialJusticeForAll
Pretending something is a human being when it isn't also leads to morally abhorrent outcomes. An fertilized human egg by itself does not have even have the potential to become a human being. You have to add a womb. It is that combination which has the ability to produce a human being.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Clavis
March 5, 2010 1:27 PM in reply to SocialJusticeForAll
Thank you for confirming my theory that every time you attempt to speak scientifically, you demonstrate your further ignorance.
You can't win an argument by reducing definitional precision. You're throwing around words like "person" and "human" without defining them, because you're deliberately and dishonestly allowing the cultural, everyday meanings of those words to confuse the issue. No, a single cell is NOT as much a "human" as a functional, adult human being. You're a liar and a fool for suggesting otherwise.
If you think a human being without a functional brain is every bit as much a human as one with, I'd be happy to help you prove your theory by removing your brain from your body and feeding it to pigs. (I'm sure you'll be just as intelligent and articulate then as you are now, for one thing.)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Progressive Party
March 5, 2010 11:35 AM in reply to SocialJusticeForAll
at risk to the mother's health....you views are full of shit!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Rick Jones
March 5, 2010 11:36 AM in reply to SocialJusticeForAll
Social Justice, are you saying that all Planned Parenthood does is advise in favor of and/or perform or pay for abortions? Abortion work is like 3% of what they do. Come on. Are you against contraception, education on how to avoid pregnancy, providing primary health care?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SocialJusticeForAll
March 5, 2010 11:57 AM in reply to Rick Jones
My friend, since we are off the abortion topic. Do some research on divorce rates and effectiveness of the pill compared to natural family planning.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Clavis
March 5, 2010 12:52 PM in reply to SocialJusticeForAll
Nobody cares about your ignorant opinion. You're clearly a lunatic who believes in fairy tales. Did you know that 100% of aborted souls go straight to Heaven? How can you be against that?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cal Gal
March 5, 2010 1:09 PM in reply to SocialJusticeForAll
NATURAL family planning!!! OMG, you ARE a religious freak.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SocialJusticeForAll
March 5, 2010 2:20 PM in reply to Cal Gal
Fertility and pregancy are natural.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Clavis
March 5, 2010 3:48 PM in reply to SocialJusticeForAll
So is death. So is miscarriage. Religion, on the other hand, is NOT natural. It is a sickness. Go get well. Somewhere else, preferably.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
scapegoat
March 6, 2010 11:20 AM in reply to SocialJusticeForAll
A grisly Nazi experiment proved UNnatural Family "Planning" a mother-killing fraud -- simply scaring prisoners caused them to ovulate out of cycle and drop additional eggs during their "infertile" phase. NFP was invented by GAY and straight PLAYBOY PEDOPHILE PRIESTS to impose ABSTINENCE on "unworthy", WRONG-GENDERED wives and trick them into unwanted pregnancies from OLDER DEFECTIVE SPERM anyway for the pedophiles! Stupid suicidal NFP BROOD MARES have much higher rates of intersex GAY children -- hence fresh recruits for the corrupt priesthood! Viagra also leads to abortions, you moron! If you actually believed your own crapola on zygotes, you'd be attending COFFEE-ABORTED TAMPON funerals 24/7! As for childbirth complications, google obstetric fistulas and molar pregnancies to get a clue.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Progressive Party
March 5, 2010 11:38 AM in reply to SocialJusticeForAll
at risk to the mother's health....your views are full of shit!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Powkat
March 5, 2010 11:43 AM in reply to SocialJusticeForAll
Oh, yes it is. It's a medical procedure. And in case you're too young to remember, when it was illegal women were willing to risk their lives to have it done. So re-criminalizing it will NOT stop women from having abortions. Legal abortion IS the moderate position - no one is forced one way or the other.
If men got pregnant abortion would be a sacrament.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cal Gal
March 5, 2010 11:44 AM in reply to SocialJusticeForAll
You really don't know much about what Planned Parenthood does, do you?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SocialJusticeForAll
March 5, 2010 12:23 PM in reply to Cal Gal
If an answer matters, sadly I do.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Lapsed Catholic
March 5, 2010 3:51 PM in reply to SocialJusticeForAll
Sadly, I think no matter what is explained to you, your skull is too dense to let it through.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
March 5, 2010 1:07 PM in reply to Dogger
This is exactly the "big picture" thinking I've been advocating. People from both sides of the aisle get so wrapped up in the minutia, that they forget the original goal....covering ALL Americans at a reduced rate.
Sad.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Phoebe Fay
March 5, 2010 10:34 AM
Stupak is a fetus fetishist. I absolutely refuse to call him "pro-life." Anyone who would block health care for 30 million people is pro-death for actual living, breathing people.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Joekuh
March 5, 2010 10:43 AM in reply to Phoebe Fay
The man is standing up for what he believes in. Cant fault him for that. They're working on a solution. This will get done now. It HAS to get done now.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dorn76
March 5, 2010 10:46 AM in reply to Joekuh
What he believes in is rolling back the law of the land, so yeah, we CAN fault him.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
agio
March 5, 2010 10:48 AM in reply to Joekuh
I have a feeling the man is standing up for getting his name published in the newspaper as often as possible, and not much more.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cal Gal
March 5, 2010 11:45 AM in reply to agio
Ditto.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Clavis
March 5, 2010 10:54 AM in reply to Joekuh
The man is not standing up for what he believes in. He's using abortion as a political tool. Current healthcare subsidies fund abortion through private health insurance. He hasn't said one word about that. The language that was already in place didn't "fund abortion". He's being dishonest about what the law would have done. He's using people and their health to extract concessions and gain political power. He's a scumbag.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SocialJusticeForAll
March 5, 2010 11:19 AM in reply to Clavis
Ad hominen arguments lose. If President Obama and Speaker Pelosi truly believe that the HCR bills and WH Plan do not fund abortion and do not promote abortion, as she stated in the HC summit and he stated in September on national television, then include the Stupak ammendment and pass HCR.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cal Gal
March 5, 2010 11:48 AM in reply to SocialJusticeForAll
Demonstrating again just how little you understand ... about the legislative process as well as about Planned Parenthood.
They CAN'T pass the Stupak Amendment. It's part of the House bill and the only way to get HCR done is to pass the SENATE bill. And then later tinker with it using budget reconciliation. THAT's where Stufpack should try again to get his amendment through.
What IS it with these jerk offs that ALL that matters to them is abortion? That EVERYTHING is about abortion? Don't like abortion? Don't get one. Sheesh.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SocialJusticeForAll
March 5, 2010 12:34 PM in reply to Cal Gal
Add the Stupak language, fix the Senate bills and pass HCR. Don't use the process as an excuse.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cal Gal
March 5, 2010 1:02 PM in reply to SocialJusticeForAll
Yeah? Just how do you propose to get HCR past the Senate again? You're looking awfully like someone who doesn't WANT to see HCR pass.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SocialJusticeForAll
March 5, 2010 1:14 PM in reply to Cal Gal
I disagree. Pass HCR with the Stupak language.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Clavis
March 5, 2010 1:39 PM in reply to SocialJusticeForAll
You still here? Shouldn't you be canoodling with that Shooter guy?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
March 5, 2010 1:19 PM in reply to SocialJusticeForAll
This is one plausible way to go about it. It's the same tact many are advocating for the public option, except they are excluding it to add it in reconciliation.
Why not just add the Stupak language and strip it out in recon?
I'm beginning to think HCR is being driven by NARAL.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Schmed
March 5, 2010 12:03 PM in reply to SocialJusticeForAll
Ad hominem arguments lose.
So do sweeping generalizations.
BTW, calling Stupak a scumbag is not an argument. It's a premise, and fairly indisputable at that.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Schmed
March 5, 2010 12:05 PM in reply to Schmed
One more thing: ad hominem is only fallacious when directed at the opponent, not the subject of the argument. Care to know why?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Clavis
March 5, 2010 12:53 PM in reply to SocialJusticeForAll
It wasn't an ad hominem argument. You're a liar and a fanatic. Nobody here cares what you think. Go away and worship your ancient superstitious nonsense.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CityGuy
March 5, 2010 11:29 AM in reply to Clavis
Co-sign Clavis.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Powkat
March 5, 2010 11:45 AM in reply to Joekuh
The man is standing up for Blue Cross which gave him a big fat donation. This way he gets to suck up to the bishops and keep his corporate masters happy, It's a twofer.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
March 5, 2010 12:01 PM in reply to Powkat
He's a C Streeter, it's not the bishops he cares about.
C Street makes 'the bishops' (and we are talking about a radical group within the church that signed that letter) look like Gloria Steinem.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
xargaw
March 5, 2010 1:12 PM in reply to Joekuh
Yes, I can fault him. He is zealot and this is orchestrated by his minions at "C" Street (Rep. Pitts (R)his roomy former room at "C" St. has a hand in this). Abortion is a legal medical procedure in this country and even the Hyde Amendment should be offensive to women. As long as abortion is legal, it should be a non-issue. He is trying to force his religous beliefs on others and his religous beliefs have no place in Congress.
Rachel Maddow chipped away at Rep. Stupak last night and his "C" St. connection. He claims he was strictly a boarder at "C" St., however there is evidence that he is lying about his association and that he is deeply involved with "The Family." I hope she continues to peel away at the onion because we don't need people with religous aggendas. We need people that represent their districts with regard to civil governance.
I consider myself a person of faith, yet I have little patience with these fundamentalist types that believe everyone must embrace their tenents of belief.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Joekuh
March 5, 2010 1:43 PM in reply to xargaw
I'm also a person of faith, but I also believe that I shouldn't push my beliefs on others. If that's what's going on with this, get this windbag off his soapbox. ASAP.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SocialJusticeForAll
March 5, 2010 11:21 AM in reply to Phoebe Fay
A person is a person no matter how small. –Dr. Seuss
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
human
March 5, 2010 11:48 AM in reply to SocialJusticeForAll
like the 30+ million who currently walk the earth that you're willing to let go broke and die based on your opposition to a legal medical procedure.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Clavis
March 5, 2010 12:58 PM in reply to SocialJusticeForAll
What a stupid thing to say. Do you realize that your cutesy little Dr. Seuss saying adds nothing to the debate, and only makes you sound even more like a trite cliche-spewing nitwit?
A person is a person because they have a brain and can think and reason. We don't give important jobs to 2-year-olds, even though according to your logic, they're every much "persons" as you or me (well, me, anyway).
Only in 2010 America can someone say that a fertilized egg deserves more rights than a foreigner accused of material support of terrorism.
Tell you what? Since you think blastocysts are persons, why don't you nominate a blastocyst to run for President in 2012? That ought to work out great for you!
You really should stop typing. Every time you leave a comment, you sound more and more ignorant and religiously blinded.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Darrius
March 5, 2010 2:52 PM in reply to Clavis
You don't get to decide what makes a person a person.
When people start deciding what is a person and what is not they always mess things up.
Once upon a time the court said that a Black person was not a person. Now the courts says that a corporation is a person.
Defining "X" as sub-human is the most common license to mistreat "X".
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Clavis
March 5, 2010 3:07 PM in reply to Darrius
I'm not deciding what is a person and what isn't. The religious zealots are when they accuse people like me of supporting mass murder because we believe in the right of a woman to terminate a pregnancy.
Now, I'm all for a national discussion of what the cutoff point should be. Carl Sagan once postulated that the point at which brain activity begins -- when the fetus starts thinking -- might be a good boundary. But people like Stupak and the idiots commenting here arent interested in a respectful meeting of the minds. They think they have God on their side and they've already demonized people like me. So don't go lecturing me as the one who should be more considered. Go talk to the other side.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mjshep
March 5, 2010 1:41 PM in reply to SocialJusticeForAll
Does this include, say, an eight cell blastocyst? If you believe this then you make no sense, logically, medically, ethically or morally. You are just a poor fool who has been deluded by fallacious church doctrine and "pro-life" blather.
No where in the Bible does it state that an embryo has a soul or is a "person."
Nothing in medical science states that a embryo is actually a "person," other than by its DNA structure. Are you protecting DNA? If so, what about all the unused products of in vitro fertilization? What about all the spontaneous abortions (a significant percent of all fertilized ovum)?
"Pro-life" is just a cover for "we want to control women's bodies."
Besides, I don't think Dr. Seuss' comment means what you think it means.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wyt
March 5, 2010 11:25 AM in reply to Phoebe Fay
I wouldn't call a single one of these subhumans "pro-life." That term only makes sense if the opposite position is either "pro-death" or "anti-life." Yet it's not. Compassion for life far more often favors a decision, when there's any reason for a serious question about it, to abort a fetus - which is not in any serious sense a human being, nor possessed of a "soul." To favor the fetus over the living is the sort of inversion of values that makes Satan giggle with glee. They only thing these vermin are "pro" is slavery - of the woman as a baby-making machine, and of children forced to be born to circumstances which cannot sustain them. It's time the press dropped the outrageous "pro-life" label entirely.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SocialJusticeForAll
March 5, 2010 11:34 AM in reply to wyt
50%, or more, of the dead due to abortion are women. Abortion hurts women, born and unborn.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Powkat
March 5, 2010 11:51 AM in reply to SocialJusticeForAll
Making abortion illegal and/or hard to get hurts women. Women often express regret; put them back in the same situation and most of them would make the same choice. Women were willing to risk their lives when abortion was illegal; women have been having abortions since the beginning of time. Did you know that at one time the Catholic Church did not oppose abortions that occurred before 'quickening'? Which is about 3 months in. Also known as the 1st trimester.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SocialJusticeForAll
March 5, 2010 12:58 PM in reply to Powkat
I respectfully disagree.
http://www.catholic.com/library/Abortion.asp
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Clavis
March 5, 2010 1:30 PM in reply to SocialJusticeForAll
Yes, let's get our facts from the Catholic Church. LOL No wonder SJCA is eager to have children recognized as adults -- he wants exoneration for his perverted lusts! Admit it, SJ, you're a pedophile.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Powkat
March 5, 2010 5:05 PM in reply to SocialJusticeForAll
And how appropriate that your citation includes the approval of "you shall not suffer a witch to live.' Because that attitude didn't end any innocent lives.
Well, guess I don't understand because my body is a sink of inequity. Cough, misogyny, cough
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
human
March 5, 2010 11:52 AM in reply to SocialJusticeForAll
prohibiting a legal medical procedure also results in the death of women--why do you value one over the other? Quite the shifting morality you have there.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Phoebe Fay
March 5, 2010 11:59 AM in reply to SocialJusticeForAll
100% of the dead from illegal abortions are women.
Banning abortion doesn't stop it. It just makes it go underground, where it kills a fair percentage of the women who seek it out.
Then, to add to the body count, we have the women who can't get a legal abortion, and so opt for the risk of pregnancy instead, even when it's likely to kill them.
Check out maternal mortality stats in any country that has draconian abortion bans. The death toll of actual women is very real.
But hey, you go ahead and comfort yourself with your fetus fetish and feel very righteous about putting a collection of cells above the rights of living, breathing women.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mikedrevguy
March 5, 2010 11:59 AM in reply to wyt
the numbers currently being shared for how many abortions are performed, how many women die from said procedures are misleading and (as the poll numbers mentioned above) are meaningless.
The procedure of abortion refers to a medical procedure that
1 - yes terminates the life of a growing fetus and removes him/her from the mother's body.
2 - when a fetus has been stillborn - through no means of external intervention - the procedure to remove the stillborn fetus is labeled 'abortion.'
so, for the statistic '50% of the dead are women undergoing the abortions' to have any validity - we'd have to know more - are these women who have died representing women who are mis-carrying and undergoing medical procedures to save the mother's life, regrettably unsuccessfully. Before we can make any logical rather than emotional response to this burning question of the day - we need to have a more transparent representation of the numbers.
that being said - if the current language that Stupak seeks is implemented, how would it limit the insurance coverage of women undergoing medically necessary procedures to save their life - or would the mothers (and fathers) not only leave the hospital emotionally scarred because they're going home to an empty nursery - but financially scarred because they now face an $80K hospital bill that their insurance can't pay because, yes, said mother underwent, medically speaking, an abortion. The vast majority of Americans (human beings) will never undergo an elective abortion procedure to terminate their (our) babies. But what about those who don't have a choice?
It's an emotional issue from all sides - and as much as possible, let's keep the numbers as transparent as possible.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Phoebe Fay
March 5, 2010 12:40 PM in reply to mikedrevguy
When idiot boy above said 50% or more of the deaths from abortions are women, he's referring to fetuses, not the women undergoing the abortion. Only the fetuses count. The women involved are simply vessals with no rights. That's how it works out there in extreme anti-choice land.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mikedrevguy
March 6, 2010 10:34 AM in reply to Phoebe Fay
point taken - thanks for that clarify -
but the lack of distinction between procedures that terminate pregnancy and those that remove the stillborn remains.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
acf_ma
March 5, 2010 10:47 AM
If they want to ban abortion, then let them try directly, otherwise as long as it's a legal medical procedure, it should be covered by any insurance.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
leolabeth
March 5, 2010 10:52 AM in reply to acf_ma
A-frakking-men.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jdb316
March 5, 2010 10:59 AM in reply to acf_ma
Barring a constitutional amendment (not happening), that can't happen because of the Roe v. Wade ruling. Their only hope of completely banning it would be if a state's abortion law got to the Supreme Court and the Court overturned Roe v. Wade. If the court actually took up such a case, I could actually see that happening.
If Stupak and others are totally against abortion, that's certainly their right. But I urge them to remember something that Mike Huckabee said once, that there is a lot more to being "pro-life" than being "anti-abortion."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SocialJusticeForAll
March 5, 2010 11:29 AM in reply to jdb316
Agree on the more point and also remember history.
When laws permitted slavery, they were wrong. When laws permitted child labor, they were wrong. When laws permitted a lack of suffrage to women, they were wrong. When laws allowed domestic violence they were wrong. When the holocaust used power to kill innocent Jewish and Slavic people, it was wrong. Abortion is wrong.
American people do not want to fund abortion as part of healthcare. Abortion may be legal but it is still wrong.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cal Gal
March 5, 2010 11:54 AM in reply to SocialJusticeForAll
Disregard any sentence that starts "the American people want..."
I call BS. YOU, dear SocialJustice, are NOT "the American people."
Nor are you AND all your friends combined. Nor YOU and all the other people at the church you go to.
The American people want everything for FREE. The American people want to eat as many Big Macs and french fries as they can and still have six-pack abs.
Now if YOU want to think a four-cell blastocyte has a soul, go right ahead. Just leave me and my reproductive organs alone.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Powkat
March 5, 2010 11:54 AM in reply to SocialJusticeForAll
That is just your opinion. And I don't remember when you became the arbiter of truth.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SocialJusticeForAll
March 6, 2010 10:45 AM in reply to Powkat
Study history, critically think about related laws that mistreated people, then form your opinion.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
masanf
March 5, 2010 11:36 AM in reply to acf_ma
Elective abortions are the only medical procedure I know of whose supporters feel should be mandatory for insurance companies to cover . The Stupak allows for the payment of abortions if they are necessary to protect the life of the mother or in cases of rape or incest. So the only abortions it bars the federal government from paying for are elective abortions that have no medical necessity. That makes such abortions no different from hundreds of other elective procedures THAT NEITHER THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OR INSURANCE COMPANIES WILL PAY FOR. And if you think Medicaid or Medicare does pay for such medically necessary procedures, you are an idiot. The Senate language changes that dynamic because it allows programs that are subsidized by the government to offer abortion coverage. No one has of yet made an even remotely non-lame argument explaining how someone can be in a taxpayer subsidized exchange that pays for abortions, while at the same time not using government funds to pay for that abortion.
When it comes to medically unnecessary procedures, abortion supporters want an exception carved out for abortion and abortion only. Unless of course the commenters here are in fact arguing that taxpayer subsidies should pay for face lifts, liposuction, buttocks enhancements, breast augmentation, penile enlargements, laser hair removal etc. If you are, I apologize.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Clavis
March 5, 2010 11:43 AM in reply to masanf
Blah, blah, blah. Go away, loser.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
human
March 5, 2010 11:47 AM in reply to masanf
Elective abortions are the only medical procedure I know of whose supporters feel should be mandatory for insurance companies to cover .
Then you don't "know of" much, or you're just lying to make a point, or both. There are tons of medical procedures that should be required to be covered by insurance. I don't even think it should be required for all plans, and none of the Democrats are saying it should, but a woman shouldn't be prevented from buying a plan that covers it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Powkat
March 5, 2010 12:00 PM in reply to masanf
Yeah, I just love the 'rape, incest' exception. Because it tells me just where those folks are coming from. They are not so much 'pro-life' as they are anti female sexuality. If abortion is wrong, it is wrong, period. If you are willing to make exceptions based on HOW a woman got pregnant, and punish her if she chooses to have sex then you are a big fat hypocrite.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Progressive Party
March 5, 2010 12:10 PM in reply to Powkat
your views are immoral amd speak to the total lack of understanding of separation of church and state...no doubt you are willingly to force your views on others and to that end, fuck off!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Powkat
March 5, 2010 12:23 PM in reply to Progressive Party
I force my views on no one. Your are entitled to believe that abortion is a sin, but abortion is legal. If you think it is wrong don't have one. Don't let your children have one. Show up at rallies and express your opinion. Make it illegal and you are forcing your views on everyone, including me. You are also entitled to think that sex is sinful, you are entitled to belong to an organization that backs up that view. You are entitled to be opposed to same sex marriage - but you are not entitled to make that the law of the land. I am sick of people inserting their religious positions into politics. I have strong religious beliefs - but they are private and expressed within a religious community - I try to live my values but that does not include imposing them on others.
You have a nice day, now.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
March 5, 2010 12:11 PM in reply to Powkat
In fairness to 'social justice' I think there is some middle ground possible.
Abortion is grossly overused in this country - even people who work for PP can tell you that.
We have the technology to prevent the need for so many abortions.
In part what we lack is the social conscience to use it.
The best way forward for abortion rights isn't 'abortion on demand' but 'safe legal and rare'.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Powkat
March 5, 2010 12:41 PM in reply to again
And who gets to decide what is too often? One to a customer? Maybe a formula based on age and number of children, the way doctors used to decide whether or not a woman could have her tubes tied? Maybe sex education that includes birth control methods and health care that includes birth control, prenatal care, and universal coverage for children are the answer. But that seems less likely every day.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
xargaw
March 5, 2010 1:31 PM in reply to again
Technology is on the cusp of making the abortion issue irrelevant. (too bad for the GOP) The anti crowd has been railing the last few years about the "morning after pill" which is now available without a prescription. The "morning after pill" is birth control and is not abortion, but they still are against it because what they are really for is controlling women's reproductive rights. Drug induced abortion is a reality and used abroad regularly. Even if abortion were outlawed, the non-invasive alternatives will make it widely accessible and a completely private matter. The issue of abortion is slipping through their fingers as a political issue as well it should.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ema
March 6, 2010 12:48 PM in reply to again
Abortion is grossly overused in this country - even people who work for PP can tell you that.
Could you define "grossly overused" and provide some data supporting the "abortion is grossly overused" assertion?
We have the technology to prevent the need for so many abortions.
Again, define "so many". And could you be more specific about this technology. Will it cover both therapeutic and elective abortions? How about unintended pregnancies in birth control users vs. nonusers? How will it solve the problem of people who don't use contraception because they [mistakenly] think that they're not fertile, etc.?
In part what we lack is the social conscience to use it.
How do you know this?
The best way forward for abortion rights isn't 'abortion on demand' but 'safe legal and rare'.
Could you articulate why a safe and effective medical procedure shouldn't be available, you know, "on demand"? Perhaps you meant to say that unintended pregnancies should be rare (and, hopefully, legal)?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
libdevil
March 5, 2010 12:26 PM in reply to Powkat
This. Exactly this. It's not about protecting the babies, it's about punishing women who have sex.
And this smokescreen about 'elective' procedures is BS too. A torn Achilles tendon doesn't threaten my life, and it isn't caused by rape or incest, but I can get it repaired and my insurance (which I'm privileged enough to have) will cover it. It's as elective as most abortions, and considerably more elective than many abortions that are barred under Stupak's theocratic rule - note the lack of a health exception. Oh, sure, some women will go blind, or lose their fertility, but unless they're gonna die, they either need to go bankrupt to pay for the procedure or suffer.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Schmed
March 5, 2010 12:13 PM in reply to masanf
Elective abortions are the only medical procedure I know of whose supporters feel should be mandatory for insurance companies to cover.
Inductive flaw big enough to drive a Mack truck through: I'm a big supporter of rotator cuff surgery even though it's elective. I feel that my insurance company should cover it. Guess what? My insurance company agrees with me! Now I can continue to shovel driveways and brush my hair!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
March 5, 2010 12:30 PM in reply to Schmed
I am against selling patients on elective surgery that turns out to be less effective than nonsurgical procedures.
Look at the effectiveness of all these crappy knee surgeries.
Or stents.
The cheaper methods, including prevention, are often best.
Ask dr. Dean Ornish of ucsf. It's a racket, a surgery racket.
(surgical abortions are not part of this racket - they are not aggressively selling the procedure and the price is stable.)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Schmed
March 5, 2010 12:55 PM in reply to again
While I generally agree with you, sometimes elective surgery is really the only effective treatment. I went through 2 years of useless (and painful) PT before I went under the knife for the cuff repair. I resisted the surgery until my doc showed me the increasing fraying of the damaged tendons (caused by bone spurs that had to be removed) and explained that if that continued, surgery would eventually become impossible.
That Masansf didn't "know of" this elective surgery only goes to disprove his basic premise (which was my point in the first place).
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
March 5, 2010 1:13 PM in reply to Schmed
I hear you on the cuff surgery.
I grew up playing competitive sports and have run marathons since my teen years and have friends across the 'wide world' of endurance sports.
At various times the ortho surgeons rec'd surgery for most of us.
The lucky ones were chickens who feared surgery. We all went to yoga instead. (Phys therapy had been useless.) But yoga first alleviated the pain and then all but erased it. I later learned that in many cases, the yoga stretches were realigning kinked joints.
Very broadly speaking, this is where dr. Ornish is coming from in heart disease treatment. It aligns with journalist Maggie mahar's work in 'money-driven medicine'.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
March 5, 2010 1:29 PM in reply to Schmed
I forgot to add this:
in all our chem and bio classes, the physical therapy wannabes were the best. Smart, earnest, practical. Not like the pre-meds at all. Good team players and the training to be a pt isn't meager.
And yet the valley girl cum hippie who taught my gentle yoga class is the one who fixed my knee. Not the pt.
What is that all about? That's what ucsf's dr dean ornish is exploring with heart disease and the NIH's Esther sternberg is investigating with arthritis.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ema
March 6, 2010 12:26 PM in reply to masanf
So the only abortions it bars the federal government from paying for are elective abortions that have no medical necessity.
What is the mortality from carrying a pregnancy to term? (A*: 1 in 10,000/yr.) Now compare that with the mortality of [legal] abortion (1 in 263,000) and defend your assertion that elective abortions have no medical necessity.
Just because women elect to carry pregnancies to term does not mean you get to magically discount the fact that terminating a pregnancy is more medically advantageous vs. continuing the pregnancy.
*Williams 21 ed, p 1518
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SocialJusticeForAll
March 5, 2010 11:40 AM in reply to acf_ma
Remember Roe was NOT enacted directly.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cal Gal
March 5, 2010 1:01 PM in reply to SocialJusticeForAll
Neither was Brown v. Board of Education.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SocialJusticeForAll
March 5, 2010 1:39 PM in reply to Cal Gal
In reference to Brown, Civil Rights legistation was, after about 10 years, enacted directly.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SocialJusticeForAll
March 5, 2010 1:40 PM in reply to Cal Gal
In reference to Brown, Civil Rights legistation was, after about 10 years, enacted directly.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Rakkasan
March 5, 2010 10:50 AM
Hmmmmmmm........... It's moments like this that I wish Speaker Pelosi were more like Tom Delay. No doubt he'd be able to bring the good Congressman around to his way of thinking.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mastershake1
March 5, 2010 10:51 AM
Stupak's argument is ridiculous. Tax cuts are fungible and put money into the pockets of individuals and corporations that later give money to abortion providers, so why not ban tax cuts too?
Somebody should leaf through Stupak's campaign donors to find corporations who also gave money to Planned Parenthood and point out that by his logic, he is supporting abortion providers.
If the guy is going to make this an issue, then by all means I'd suggest that somebody should run some campaign ads pointing out his hypocrisy.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dorn76
March 5, 2010 11:17 AM in reply to mastershake1
Very nice statement of the hypocrisy of his position.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ft
March 5, 2010 11:06 AM
Thank you. The Stupaks of the House, not the Gijalvas, are the problem.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ETSpoon
March 5, 2010 11:06 AM
Why is this guy a Democrat? And why wave the bloody fetus at this late of date?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
masanf
March 5, 2010 11:13 AM in reply to ETSpoon
Hey Jackass, he has been "waving" it since the beginning. Why do you think it is a problem now?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SocialJusticeForAll
March 5, 2010 11:23 AM in reply to masanf
Masanf, good point.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
March 5, 2010 12:20 PM in reply to masanf
Masan,
why not answer your own question - I can't possibly guess at your answer.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ETSpoon
March 5, 2010 4:21 PM in reply to masanf
Thanks for the info, Asshole.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Clavis
March 5, 2010 11:06 AM
If we had liberals in Congress who could raise the same stink right-wingers are allowed to, Stupak would be nailed to the wall with the accusation that blocking healthcare reform means that a lot of mothers *and* fetuses will die unnecessarily. Of course, that's probably okay to a scumbag like him -- after all, if a baby dies because the mother was poor and unwed, then God must have been punishing her!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
masanf
March 5, 2010 11:15 AM in reply to Clavis
Please, as if you have any concern at all for the unborn. Stupak has indicated he is more than willing to vote for this thing, and he proved it by voting for the House bill the first time. The Stupak language passed in the House, so it it not the pro-lifers who are holding up the bill.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Clavis
March 5, 2010 11:20 AM in reply to masanf
"The unborn"? What a stupid little phrase. Did Frank Luntz write that for you? You don't know a thing about me, you sanctimonious fool. "Please" yourself. Go pray to your ridiculous fairy tales.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cal Gal
March 5, 2010 11:59 AM in reply to masanf
Yes. It. Is.
Really, people. Can't you just follow the news?
The ONLY hope for HCR is having the House pass the Senate bill.
"The bill" now means the SENATE bill, sans Stupak but with the Hyde Amendment (preventing federal funding of abortion) STILL the law of the land.
What more do you want? They the Pledge of Allegiance should add "without abortion" to the already egregious "under God"?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Powkat
March 5, 2010 12:10 PM in reply to masanf
The 'unborn' -is that anything like the undead?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cornelius
March 5, 2010 11:08 AM
Rep. Stupidpak is not the problem. It's everyone fighting over the crumbs, that's the problem. And thanks to this sellout leaderless President who negotiated down to the crumbs this is where we are. It's a pathetic sad unending drama. This President has set the bar so low at the demand of corporate America that what's left won't have any real benefit to those in need. And PLEASE don't tell me this legislation "provides" coverage for 31 mill people. They have to buy in for premiums they can't afford. And w/o cost controls those that can afford it today will not be able to afford it tomorrow because the rapacious appetite for profits demanded by the Wellpoints of this country can not go unabated. And the Pres sends them nasty letters.
Should we wait till they devour everything or take a stand for coverage for all Americans? That's the real issue that must be resolved.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jdb316
March 5, 2010 12:02 PM in reply to Cornelius
I guess that depends on if you're willing to wait for another 15-20 years to get another shot at going through the same crap, while millions more die or are bankrupted because of the current system.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cornelius
March 5, 2010 3:44 PM in reply to jdb316
You make my point. Yes, millions more will die because this legislation offers little to no benefit. Without cost controls you know (as it is today) that the Wellpoints of America will continue the rape of America with rate increase, claim denials, the tripling of premiums for those with preexisting conditions, etc. And they will have 3 years to plan it all out. And what do the uninsured do for the next three years? Tell me. All these giveaways will leave all of us right were we are today.
Can we at least get a PO in the legislation so that costs can then be controlled. How about a Medicare buy-in or lowering the Medicare age to 55. Like this year. Asking for to much?
The President AND the Congress have sold out. And they will do anything to stay in office. So they offer up warm beer and call it expensive champagne.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Clavis
March 5, 2010 11:08 AM
Isn't the problem, time and time again, that individual "Democrats", whether it's Lieberman, Stupak, Nelson or Webb, have decided (or have been convinced by someone else) that there is more to be gained by publicly stabbing Obama and the Democratic leadership in the back than there is to be gained by being a team player? Don't we get to get our campaign donations back? Why do they get to call themselves Democrats if they take DNC money but help the Republicans more than their fellow Democrats?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CityGuy
March 5, 2010 11:32 AM in reply to Clavis
Co-sign (again) Clavis.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
masanf
March 5, 2010 11:12 AM
"There are also murmurings on the Hill that there are steps the White House can take--a signing statement, perhaps, or an executive order--that could sway Stupak and his entourage."
I laugh that anyone thinks that is even a remote possibility.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Sailormarlowe
March 5, 2010 11:13 AM
No govermnent-funded abortions, no death panels, no tax increases. These stipulations are not negotiable.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
masanf
March 5, 2010 11:17 AM in reply to Sailormarlowe
No tax increases in a bill written by the Democrats? Hahahahahahahahahaha, that is the most hilarious thing I have read all day. Christ, the Democrats can't congratulate the Super Bowl champs at the White House without proposing a tax increase to go along with it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Clavis
March 5, 2010 11:23 AM in reply to masanf
Sailorhomo, why keep avoiding me? You Republican he-men sure talk tough. You two should get a room. I'll bet that Ashburn has some room in his love nest for you two mos.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Clavis
March 5, 2010 11:24 AM in reply to masanf
Dude, you and sailorhomo are never going to make a baby with the dirty acts you two engage in, so why all the hue and cry about abortion? Just go enjoy your sin, you Sodomites!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Gooner
March 5, 2010 11:16 AM
He's simply:
1) trying to be a martyr for the anti-abortion crowd, and/or
2) angling to be bought off/have his friend in the loathsome "Stupak block" bought off
I can't imagine Pelosi or Obama will not crush someone if they are the vote that kills healthcare, so I'm positive about all this coming to fruition, but this nonsense about how this bill funds abortion when in fact it goes to every length to try to prevent that, is complete bullshit.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
masanf
March 5, 2010 11:23 AM in reply to Gooner
Goes to every length to try and prevent it? Give me a fucking break. If it did, then the Senate members should have had no problem passing the Stupak language.
Money is fungible. You can't have someone receive taxpayer subsidies in a federally subsidized exchange and then turn right around and claim it is possible for them to use their own money to pay for an abortion. It doesn't work that way, and everyone knows it.
PS It is bloc, not block.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
human
March 5, 2010 12:02 PM in reply to masanf
the Stupak amendment is just another excuse for moronic jackoffs such as yourself to oppose HCR(which you would oppose anyway because of your moronic unhinged opposition to anything Obama proposes), the Senate provision is more than adequate to satisfy the demands of those who oppose a legal medical procedure for women--if it's good enough for anti-abortion Democrats such as Casey and Nelson, then it's good enough for everyone.
Really, I can't wait for this pass just watch the head of every teabagger and gooper explode--with the added benefit of everyone realizing that it's not the caricature that you idiots have created.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
A Missouri voter
March 5, 2010 2:17 PM in reply to human
I do not like disparaging terminology like "moronic jackoffs," but otherwise I agree with Obamaman's thesis here entirely. I am at least as anti-abortion as Rep. Stupak, but I think that his grandstanding on this point is appalling. The current language in the Senate bill will not make any of us any more complicit in other people's abortions than we already are. Unless one is outraged that Catholics are currently paying for abortions through their private insurance companies, why make a stink about the effects of these exchanges that would be set up? One suspects that this is all just posturing as a means of opposing health care reform while wrapping oneself in the mantle of religion. Speaking as a pious Catholic who takes Church teaching about care for the poor seriously, I am sickened by this hypocrisy.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CityGuy
March 5, 2010 3:39 PM in reply to A Missouri voter
Well, some common sense from a Missourian. No surprise to me. And while I tend to be pro-choice (let's face it, no one's "pro-abortion")I agree totally with your conclusions.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Clavis
March 5, 2010 1:33 PM in reply to masanf
Good point. By that same logic, we must immediately eliminate ALL money paid out to faith-based organizations, including tax breaks. After all, money is fungible, so any money received or saved thanks to government help will go towards prosyletization, which goes against the 1st Amendment. Sounds good!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Gooner
March 5, 2010 2:46 PM in reply to masanf
Well, then I guess Stupak should watch every penny that goes out of Washington and make sure that none of those pennies ever make it to an abortion provider. Those billions in farm subsidies? Better make sure Daddy Farm Owner doesn't give a single dime of that to his daughter who might use that dime to get an abortion, or otherwise that abortion is government-funded!
The reality is, the Senate language goes as far as necessary to prevent women from getting TOTALLY LEGAL abortions.
PS- I enjoyed how you pointed out an erroneously placed 'k' but did not disagree that this little group of blackmailers are loathsome.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
woundedduck
March 5, 2010 11:25 AM
Let's start a nutsack drive where we collect nutsacks from across the country and send them to the White House and. Temporarily using the donated sacks-o-courage, Obama will finally have the ability to put Stupak in his place.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
barbara63
March 5, 2010 11:26 AM
It seems to me, TPM is giving Stupak just what he wants -- attention. If he his threats didn't make headlines, he might not issue them.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Weeferdog
March 5, 2010 11:30 AM
What's that awful smell? I know! It's the stink of desperation, coming from Sailorman and Masanf and SFC!
Suck it up, losers. All your fulmination and lying and tea-brewing and screaming is swirling the drain.
Come back and see us when HCR passes, and when Obama crushes your Confederate Party's sacrificial lamb in 2012.
Weeferdog
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cal Gal
March 5, 2010 11:41 AM
Cuz Stupak's God thinks it's better that deformed babies are born than that poor women receive prenatal health care.
Idiot.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SFCWallace
March 5, 2010 12:04 PM in reply to Cal Gal
God said that?...Did he tell you or did you get it second hand?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cal Gal
March 5, 2010 12:58 PM in reply to SFCWallace
God told STUPAK that, dummy. Or else why would he vote the way he does?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Marinus van der Lubbe
March 5, 2010 1:05 PM in reply to SFCWallace
You must really think youre quite witty. Youre not...it's the echo chamber inside your empty skull. But...I wanted to thank you. I have read through your entire thread and having been constipated prior to that, your insights allowed me a grand evacuation.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SFCWallace
March 5, 2010 1:23 PM in reply to Marinus van der Lubbe
Glad to assist you in any way that I can.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
March 5, 2010 1:59 PM in reply to Marinus van der Lubbe
Uh, uh. Already used that one. I liked it much better the first time I read it. Talk about echo chambers!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Marinus van der Lubbe
March 5, 2010 2:07 PM in reply to JorgeOrwell
Its a rubber stamp for you who troll...youre just ex-lax in here. You remind us what it is we need to shit out. And your idiotic attempts at making your point reminds one of a 4-H Club arguing about who brings the burgers and who brings the potato salad. You dont hold any water and this is just some weird narcissistic time out for you. Youre a pedestrian in the fast lane of a highway here. and like I said, very good for constipation.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
March 5, 2010 2:15 PM in reply to Marinus van der Lubbe
I guess we did clean your pipes. You're stinkin' up the place. Feel better?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Marinus van der Lubbe
March 5, 2010 2:21 PM in reply to JorgeOrwell
Please, your feeble attempt at humor is as weak as most of your posts. If i had to describe you, it would be that you were the guy who with a fistful of $50's still couldnt get laid in a whorehouse.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
KeithL
March 5, 2010 11:46 AM
Stupak is preparing to run for Governor. This is a two-fer for him. He is genuinely monomaniacal on this issue. All of his years as a resident on C Street, unaware of The Family or any religious leanings of a friggin "house" that's registered as a church, this fruit has been bleating about abortion.
The fact that he is seen as "tough" and "forthright" on an issue which so-called moralists mindlessly support is simply GREAT for Bartboy. The fact that he's on the front page of every Michigan newspaper is, for his political ambitions, priceless. The fact that 45,000, LIVING, ACTUALLY BORN people may die every year he blocks reform, Eh! The cost of doing politics.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SocialJusticeForAll
March 5, 2010 12:51 PM in reply to KeithL
What about the 3,400 innocents per day that don't get the choice to live?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Clavis
March 5, 2010 1:01 PM in reply to SocialJusticeForAll
They're in Heaven. What are you complaining about? Would you rather they be in Hell? That's it, isn't it -- you want them to be born so that they can sin and then go to Hell, so you can wallow in joy at their suffering! You're a sick person. You need help.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Powkat
March 5, 2010 4:51 PM in reply to Clavis
Naw - he's ticked because the Catholic Church got rid of limbo.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SocialJusticeForAll
March 6, 2010 10:32 AM in reply to Powkat
Why the Catholic attacks?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
BeeClone
March 5, 2010 11:58 AM
he idea is to stop women for having abortions then Rep. Stupak is delusional, what he is stopping is the hope of stemming the tide of America that die each year for lack of coverage.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tommyo
March 5, 2010 12:09 PM
So now Obama's worried about his presidency if this bill fails? He should have been thinking along those lines when he sold out his supporters and appeased his way to this piece of shit, insurance corporations give-away of a bill.
If Stupak, due to his fucked-up religious zealotry, kills this bill, so be it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
March 5, 2010 12:57 PM in reply to tommyo
Thank you. Stupak is wrong, but he is a mere distraction from the bailout of the insurance industry that is the mandate.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Morbo
March 5, 2010 12:13 PM
Here's what comes to mind every time I have to look at Stupak's sanctimonious mug:
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
beccajo
March 5, 2010 12:14 PM
I notice that Mr. Stupac has the support of the Catholic bishops. Are
these the same bishops who protected the priests who sexually abused the
young boys (mostly) and actually a few girls? I would not be blindly
accepting their endorsements. Most citizens want to protect our living
children...not just the "unborn". Also, it is certain Mr. Stupac has very
good insurance by virtue of his government job. If he checks his policy he
will see that the company he chose also pays for abortions. How can he be
so hypocritical? Most of us want all our children to be protected, not just
the "unborn". The Hyde amendment has been in effect in our government for
years. This prevents public funds from being used for abortions. This
rule has been law for years. Why does he think it has been changed. The
comments here today are correct...he is planning to run for Governor. This
situation is keeping his name in the news 24/7. Wait for him to reference
it in his run for governor. Turn him off!..don't do him any more favors!
beccajo...
insurance by virtue of his government. If he checks his policy he will see
that the company he chose also pays for abortions. How can he be so hypo-
critical. This insurance is paid in part from his salary and the company
is sure to be one of the largest in our country.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
phastphil
March 5, 2010 12:18 PM
Is anybody running against Stupak in his Primary? If someone did would they stand a snowballs chance in hell? Primary this jerk!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
beccajo
March 5, 2010 12:28 PM
I am sorry my previous comment got so screwed up! I hope it was readable
to the extent you understand my feelings. Also, I want to emhasize that
Mr. Stupac is a member of the "C Street" group. This is very revealing.
These politicians are indoctrinated in that group, and all his denials
are worthless. The book written about The Family puts Stupac squarely in
the middle of it. They have an agenda, and he is dedicated to their
philosophy just as much as he is to his bishops. All the members of this
group are suspect, and many many members of Congress are connected to it.
beccajo
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Powkat
March 5, 2010 12:29 PM
I wish I lived in a country where sanity was the default attitude.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cleavet
March 5, 2010 12:31 PM
I was laid off in October 2008, and at the time my wife was four months pregnant. What worried me the most during my time off was not losing our house, although we were paying two mortgages (one on an unsold house, one on the current place), and it was not putting food on the table. It was health care for my wife and my child-to-be, and for the kids. I was lucky in that I found work in late January that offered health insurance, and benefits kicked in less than three weeks before the birth.
May I suggest to everyone here that we write Rep. Stupak and respectfully point out that many pregnant women who currently cannot afford care will benefit from this bill?
Pro-health care is pro-life.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Joe Bob
March 5, 2010 12:49 PM
For a supposed Christian, Stupak has no problem with bearing false witness. I listened to him blatantly lie about the abortion language in the Senate bill, as well as his own proposal, during an interview on NPR yesterday afternoon.
Stupak kept repeating that the Senate bill is a dramatic loosening of the laws governing federal funding of abortion and that all his proposal does is preserve the status quo. Both assertions are false. Under the Senate bill the Hyde Amendment remains the law of the land, meaning no federal funds directly pay for abortion.
Stupak’s proposal is based on the rationale that the federal government providing a subsidy for a private insurance policy that covers abortion is equivalent to a program like Medicaid directly reimbursing an abortion provider. Stupak’s proposal would not maintain the status quo; it would expand the Hyde Amendment into the entire private insurance market for individual policies.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cal Gal
March 5, 2010 1:14 PM in reply to Joe Bob
Good point. Has anyone checked to see if any of the myriad health care plans available under the Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan cover abortion? How about the plan Stufpack has chosen?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Gooner
March 5, 2010 2:52 PM in reply to Cal Gal
Steele and the Republicans were actually busted on this recently.
Someone had to point out to Steele that for YEARS the RNC had provided insurance which covered abortions, and that (by this ridiculous game of any-penny-spent-on-insurance-which-cover-abortions-is-in-fact-sanctioning-abortions) by proxy the RNC was contradicting one of its primary principles.
No doubt that there are millions spent by the federal government that in some circuitous way finds its way into health insurance policies which cover abortion- Stupak and his buddies are trying to do the impossible. Namely, prevent any money ever spent by the federal government from ever making its way to an abortion doctor.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dilirius
March 5, 2010 12:51 PM
"Abortion may be legal but it is still wrong."
So is torture and the war in Iraq. Can we have an amendment to the next defense bill that says no taxpayer dollars can be spent on military activities in Iraq or by any agency of the federal government whose employees participate in torture, since it is wrong and I disagree and don't want my tax dollars spent on something I consider immoral?
I'm sure I could think of dozens of things I believe are immoral and wrong and for which federal tax dollars are spent, so I should be able to get an amendment that prohibits federal tax dollars being used for each and every one of those things I consider immoral and wrong.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SocialJusticeForAll
March 5, 2010 2:17 PM in reply to Dilirius
My friend Dilirius: your statement towards abortion compared to the Iraq War and torture reflect a misunderstanding, probably innocent, of the moral gravity of abortion (52 million dead)--the right to live is the foundation upon which all other human rights are based.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Powkat
March 5, 2010 4:54 PM in reply to SocialJusticeForAll
Uber Catholic. Always forget that pride is a sin.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SocialJusticeForAll
March 6, 2010 10:33 AM in reply to Powkat
More Catholic attacks. Why?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
scapegoat
March 6, 2010 12:14 PM in reply to SocialJusticeForAll
Because Catholics commit most of the world's genocides (Crusades, Inquisition, 9 million "witches", New World Conquest slaughter of 65 million indigenous people, WWI & II, Viet Nam, Rwanda, etc.) matricides, child sex trafficking, Jesuit slave trading and owning, assassinations (Lincoln and JFK), to name a few Vatican crime sprees. My own Catholic mother burned all my skin off when I was in first grade as her permanent abstinence excuse to avoid more childbirth bladder and bowel incontinence from NFP "accidents". I applaud self-defending bashing of bashing KILLER Catholics. Now somewhere there is a holy zygote tampon funeral missing its VILLAGE IDIOT (you!) pall bearer! But don't turn on the car radio as you rush over there because the news is full of the latest Vatican sex scandals!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SocialJusticeForAll
March 6, 2010 2:43 PM in reply to scapegoat
Quit the Catholic hate speech. No one is perfect. You can pick any other group and make an equivalent list.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
scapegoat
March 6, 2010 8:40 PM in reply to SocialJusticeForAll
NOBODY beats the mother-killing, child-raping Catholic Church in the genocide department, you criminal cult apologist! How about YOU quitting the hate speech against women who defend themselves against KILLER FETUSES. Now go slobber over your coffee-aborted tampon "babies" and send mash notes to your Nazi pedophile Poop!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Fire
March 5, 2010 12:51 PM
There are times I feel happy about things...other times I might not feel as happy but I understand I am in a great place and my problems are not really problems compared to others who have what might be called real problems...but what concerns me most is not how intelligent American people are but how gullible we can become when listening to others... instead of using our intelligence, we tend to follow others without applying any logic because we refuse to use our intelligence to think...most of us can tell the difference between the truth and a lie or at least have the ability to research information which we are not familiar with...but we seem to gravitate to a position and refuse to budge...thus positioning ourselves where our intelligence is wasted...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
March 5, 2010 1:40 PM
Come on guys. I know you want to see something passed so Obama can say he got SOMETHING, but don't let the IMPERFECT be the death of the practical.
You have to look at the big picture. THIS bill being discussed with its mandate and lack of antitrust regulation will actually burden the middle class, not free it.
Call your senators and demand the Public Option as the line in the sand. It is the compromise from single payer, after all.
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
GTFOOH
March 5, 2010 3:08 PM
If I have to be pursueded by Stupaks dogmatic right to life position, I guess I can hope someone else has been born that can take his seat in congress.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Measure for Measure
March 5, 2010 8:15 PM
Stupak could publicly call for a single Republican Senator to partner with him on this. That Senator would only need to agree to cloture: he would only need to agree to an up or down vote on HCR.
If no Republican takes him up on the author, Stupak could claim a) I tried, and b) I am more pro-life than any Republican senator.
If a Republican caves, then we can Pass the Damn Bill with the House's abortion language.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Measure for Measure
March 5, 2010 8:16 PM in reply to Measure for Measure
I mean, "If no Republican senator takes him up on the *offer*, Stupak could claim..." Sheesh.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
P White
March 6, 2010 9:12 AM
Where are the faces of these other Representatives. Shouldn't they be pictured along with Stupak. Shouldn't we be reminded with every story who is going to be responsible for the demise of any health care reform for a generation? They want the power, let's see them crawl up on that cross.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
March 6, 2010 12:49 PM
Now, can somebody help me out here? Is health care reform about holding costs down and covering more people or is it about expanding coverage for abortions?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
March 6, 2010 2:37 PM
Romneycare is what the bill before Congress is based on. This article talks about how it's doing nothing to keep costs down.
http://www.boston.com/business/healthcare/articles/2010/03/06/health_rate_hikes_flout_new_state_cap/
Are we going to have the same cost/affordability problem nationally if this bill is passed? It's hard to imagine we won't.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Mauimom
March 8, 2010 12:14 PM
I came here to find the NAMES of the 10-12 members who are going to vote with Stupak. Where are they.
Frankly, I think the bill stinks, and I'll be delighted to see it go down, but it's rather ironic that its demise is due to Democratic feebleness: not taking Stupak out earlier, and letting the insurance companies and drug manufacturers write this thing in the first place [while excluding advocates of single payer from the discussions.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
June 13, 2010 12:27 PM
While I generally agree with you, sometimes elective surgery is really the only effective treatment. I went through 2 years of useless (and painful) PT before I went under the knife for the cuff repair. I resisted the surgery until my doc showed me the increasing fraying of the damaged tendons (caused by bone spurs that had to be removed) and explained that if that continued, surgery would eventually become impossible.
That Masansf didn't "know of" this elective surgery only goes to disprove his basic premise (which was my point in the first place).
m65 kamagra
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?