TPMDC
NOW Unhappy With Abortion Compromise: 'Obama Breaks Faith With Women'
President Barack Obama
Share
Send to a friend!
While House Democrats are hailing President Obama's executive order on abortion as a breakthrough that will help the final passage of health care reform legislation, at least one group is not happy.
The National Organization for Women (NOW) issued a statement this evening declaring that the group is "incensed" by the move. NOW President Terry O'Neill said in a statement emailed to reporters that Obama's executive order was "designed to appease a handful of anti-choice Democrats who have held up health care reform in an effort to restrict women's access to abortion."
O'Neill accused Obama of trying to "lend the weight of his office and the entire executive branch to the anti-abortion measures included in the Senate bill, which the House is now prepared to pass."
She continued:
President Obama campaigned as a pro-choice president, but his actions today suggest that his commitment to reproductive health care is shaky at best. Contrary to language in the draft of the executive order and repeated assertions in the news, the Hyde Amendment is not settled law -- it is an illegitimate tack-on to an annual must-pass appropriations bill. NOW has a longstanding objection to Hyde and, in fact, was looking forward to working with this president and Congress to bring an end to these restrictions. We see now that we have our work cut out for us far beyond what we ever anticipated. The message we have received today is that it is acceptable to negotiate health care on the backs of women, and we couldn't disagree more.
Late Update: Planned Parenthood issued a disappointed-sounding statement, but is not as tough on Obama as NOW.
Cecile Richards, President of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said:
We regret that a pro-choice president of a pro-choice nation was forced to sign an Executive Order that further codifies the proposed anti-choice language in the health care reform bill, originally proposed by Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska. What the president's executive order did not do is include the complete and total ban on private health insurance coverage for abortion that Congressman Bart Stupak (D-MI) had insisted upon. So while we regret that this proposed Executive Order has given the imprimatur of the president to Senator Nelson's language, we are grateful that it does not include the Stupak abortion ban.
The NARAL statement doesn't criticize Obama, but instead says the decision is "deeply disappointing."
On a day when Americans are expected to see passage of legislation that will make health care more affordable for more than 30 million citizens, it is deeply disappointing that Bart Stupak and other anti-choice politicians would demand the restatement of the Hyde amendment, a discriminatory law that blocks low-income women from receiving full reproductive-health care. Today's action is a stark reminder of why we must repeal this unfair and insulting policy. Achieving this goal means increasing the number of lawmakers in Congress who share our pro-choice values. Otherwise, we will continue to see women's reproductive rights used as a bargaining chip.
Comments (129) | 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.
Sailormarlowe
March 21, 2010 6:16 PM
Obama & NOW break faith with women. Ain't no difference. It's all a sham, honey.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
gonzo
March 21, 2010 6:59 PM in reply to Sailormarlowe
WTF would you know about women, jackass. Inflatable plastic and KY jelly aren't the same as the real thing.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
March 21, 2010 9:40 PM in reply to gonzo
HA!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AhTrini1
March 21, 2010 7:35 PM in reply to Sailormarlowe
As a pro-choice woman, I say NOW need to shut the fuck up.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
happycozy
March 21, 2010 8:01 PM in reply to AhTrini1
I agree. This bill will help millions of working class women.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
geofu54
March 21, 2010 8:04 PM in reply to AhTrini1
Amen, sista. Amen.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
crystalstair
March 21, 2010 9:15 PM in reply to AhTrini1
Ditto.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
March 22, 2010 9:18 AM in reply to AhTrini1
Hear Hear!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
TeresaInPa
March 22, 2010 2:49 PM in reply to AhTrini1
you are a pro-choice woman? BS!
If you were not so gullible you would know that Obama just stabbed women in the back (which doesn't surprise me given the sexism during 2008) for his own right to crow some more about how historical he is.
This legislation is republican lite crap and it throws women under the bus.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
KarinJR
March 21, 2010 7:48 PM in reply to Sailormarlowe
Yeah, how dare he offer affordable health care to millions of American women without in any way affecting current law on abortion.
Stupak's Executive Order states, basically, that Obama will enforce the bill as written. In exchange millions of women will be better off tomorrow.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Unnamed Former Party Official
March 21, 2010 6:18 PM
Get a grip. They negotiated for 10 months and got a memo restating existing law.
NOW, please recognize when you've won and let these guys save a little face. We want their votes - on this and other Democratic priorities.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
March 21, 2010 6:29 PM in reply to Unnamed Former Party Official
From Natasha Chart:
Under the Senate system which makes abortion part of the initial purchasing decision, a woman's employer, male partner or parents can all potentially prevent her getting insurance coverage for it, whereas now, it usually doesn't come up because most private plans just cover it. Now, of the one in three women likely to need an abortion in her life, millions of women never have to have that conversation. Under the current wording of the health bill, that second check is the federal spousal and parental notification law that never managed to pass. Then if the administrative expenses and familial approval weren't enough, the second check creates a stigmatizing paper trail for anyone worried about public pressure or vulnerable to retribution by disapproving superiors. Even people who might support abortion might be pressured into dropping plans that cover it and one way or another, abortion coverage will end. That's always been the point of both the Stupak amendment and Nelson's Senate compromise, which will simply work more slowly to eradicate insurance coverage of abortion. And you might say, well, it's just writing another check for $1. Or you might say, hey,
It is high time that the pro-choice side starts single issue voting.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
March 21, 2010 9:41 PM in reply to AJM
If the pro-choice community became single issue voters, Democrats would hold even more seats because many Republican women are also pro-choice and would only vote for a Democrat.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
booch221
March 21, 2010 9:47 PM in reply to FreeRider
WHAT???
You're full of it...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
March 21, 2010 10:40 PM in reply to FreeRider
Yes, that would be one of the good things that would happen.
Further, people who support abortion are usually pretty good on all other issues. I haven't checked but I'd bet that a higher percentage of those Democrats who are pro-choice were for public option.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Humanity_Critic
March 21, 2010 6:18 PM
All Obama did was just reaffirm the Hyde Amendment, nothing else. Enough with the hyperbole already.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
clonecone
March 21, 2010 6:24 PM
Terry O'Neill is the queen of all PUMAs. She hates Obama and never misses an opportunity to criticize him. She's one degree removed from the birthers.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AhTrini1
March 21, 2010 7:37 PM in reply to clonecone
ROTFLMAO
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
March 21, 2010 6:28 PM
NOW? Are they still around? *yawns*
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
geofu54
March 21, 2010 6:29 PM
As a pro-choice (also "pro-life" as I define it) woman I'll say this: Terry, go f**k yourself.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lester
March 21, 2010 6:30 PM
What?!!!! Didn't Obama just reinforce the existing law--in form of Hyde Amendment? He never extends the existing law, nor diminishes it.
NOW, or whatever it is called, needs to get a grip.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
crystalstair
March 21, 2010 9:17 PM in reply to lester
Hyperbole is the tool of the desperate.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
calchala
March 21, 2010 6:33 PM
I understand her point of view but this was not necessary, especially not today. This is done for fundraising, pure and simple. She didn't get the Stupak language, so he figured the next best thing would be to attack the President.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CranialRectalLoopback
March 21, 2010 6:34 PM
Gee, who could have seen that coming? How can expect a President to stand for something when he has no backbone to stand for anything. But NOW is not blameless. How many "supporters" of NOW did they allow to walk out on this legislation?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
gonzo
March 21, 2010 7:01 PM in reply to CranialRectalLoopback
Your candidate lost. She's a great SecState, but get over it already.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
baltimore
March 21, 2010 6:34 PM
if men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
GayIthacan
March 21, 2010 6:36 PM
Of course it was 'appeasement', honey.
That's political-speak for 'Appearing to give someone something in order to save face while, in reality, giving them nothing at all.'
Apparently NOW plays that same game.....
For Christ's sake - the Executive Order gives abortion foes NOTHING THAT IS NOT ALREADY FEDERAL LAW!!!!!!!!
What is so fucking hard to understand about that simple fact?????
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ema
March 21, 2010 7:40 PM in reply to GayIthacan
The Hyde Amendment is a temporary rider. It only applies to certain federal funds and has to be voted on and renewed each year. President Obama just did away with those little nuisances and made it permanent and applicable to the newly-enacted health exchanges.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Measure for Measure
March 21, 2010 8:11 PM in reply to ema
I didn't know that. Cite? But even if that's true, this so-called temporary rider has been in place since the 1970s.
Pass. The Damn. Bill.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ema
March 21, 2010 9:37 PM in reply to Measure for Measure
The is an appropriations limitation that has to be passed annually by Congress.
But even if that's true, this so-called temporary rider has been in place since the 1970s.
Most comments: NOW's statement is just, you know, hysterics; the executive order doesn't change anything.
Me: No, NOW's statement is accurate (see change from temporary to permanent).
You: Who cares? Just pass the bill.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
March 21, 2010 9:44 PM in reply to ema
This executive order reaffirms Hyde as is. So if Hyde is temporary, that's what this order reaffirms, genius.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
March 21, 2010 10:52 PM in reply to FreeRider
No. The order stays in place until and unless Obama rescinds it or the Congress overrides it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Measure for Measure
March 21, 2010 11:18 PM in reply to FreeRider
I'm not sure that's the case Free Rider, based on the White House's statement:
http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/03/white-house-statement-on-abortion-compromise.php
So a rider that has been renewed annually by Congress since the 1970s is now supplemented by an executive order that could be reversed by any President.
Thanks for the link ema. I wouldn't characterize something that's been annually renewed since the 1970s as "Temporary", but this is interesting nonetheless. Methinks this is a vanishingly small setback for pro-choicers, compared with the enormous advance in progress represented by HCR.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Honey Bunches Of Stoats
March 21, 2010 8:47 PM in reply to ema
The Hyde amendment is indeed a "temporary" rider that has been attached to specific bills, like Medicaid funding. However, even without this executive order, the HCR bill is very strict with regards to federal funds and abortion. To act as though the executive order somehow makes the extremely restrictive language within the bill worse is an overstatement. The bill already says that abortions can't be paid for using federal funds.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
seccotine
March 21, 2010 6:36 PM
Two reasons women's freedom of choice has lost steam recently: the repub-fascists -- and the ridiculous, offensive posturing of statements like this one from NOW. How irresponsible supposedly progressives can be???
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ally
March 21, 2010 6:36 PM
This is Disappointing for Women. The Senate Bill still adds Restrictions on Insurance Options for Women.
Women, especially Pro-Choice Women - have the right to be disappointed or disgusted - that there are NO Health Related Restrictions on Insurance for MEN in these Bills.
When we start seeing Laws passed Restricting Medical Procedures for Men (Equality) - then Women will have less reason to be disappointed.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ally
March 21, 2010 6:38 PM in reply to ally
But We Needed to Pass Some form of Health Insurance Reform Right Now.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
clonecone
March 21, 2010 6:43 PM in reply to ally
You really should look up the definition of a proper noun.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
elle a
March 21, 2010 10:30 PM in reply to ally
love the mimic.
and yeah, i think the EO is just to allow stupak to save face.
i also understand that these organizations have to say they are deeply disappointed blah blah, hey, thats how politics works
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
acamus
March 21, 2010 6:44 PM in reply to ally
okay, but from a realpolitk pov, do you think this will be more likely to come to be if Obama and Dems are undermined on the passage of HCR, thereby facilitating a greater likelihood of the republicans seizing control of Congress?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
booch221
March 21, 2010 9:56 PM in reply to ally
As far as I know, this bill doesn't cover penis enlargement...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
destor23
March 21, 2010 6:37 PM
NOW should help fund a primary challenge against Stupak. That's the answer. And yes, I'd have liked Obama just to have told the jerk to shut up but if he could be swayed for an executive order that reiterates existing law it was not that big a loss for our side, if it was a loss at all.
The real problem here is Hyde and the idea that abortion is treated any different than any other medical procedure or that abortion is a special issue where you don't have to let your tax dollars get anywhere near it but war isn't.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
docrocktex
March 21, 2010 6:38 PM
Can someone please send them a memo explaining that this executive order just reaffirms existing law? Thanks.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
destor23
March 21, 2010 7:09 PM in reply to docrocktex
While I agree with you, little statements do matter. They add up. Part of the problem with this whole issue is the notion that abortion is somehow morally wrong or terrible when it's really just a medical procedure that's nobody else's business.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
March 21, 2010 7:54 PM in reply to destor23
I'm pro-choice and I am furious with Stupak and his preening, posturing. NOW's failure to understand that this exective order is a fig leaf, a tiny bone of undeserved dignity preservation tossed to someone who was administered a much-deserved political beating is exactly the kind of dogma-blind hackery that's reduced it to it's current state of total irrelevancy.
But, much as I respect you, I have to take issue with your assertion that it's just a medical procedure. I'm with you on the privacy and whose decision it is, and must be, but for the overwhelming majority of the people who make up the pro-choice majority, it is not, has never been, and will never be "just a medical procedure."
The overwhelming majority of people who are pro-choice have some level of moral discomfort with it, ranging from fuzzy unease to outright revulsion, depending on the person and usually depending on how far along it is. Indeed, I dare say virtually no one is a pro-choice absolutist. No one, for example, would say that aborting a pregnancy in the ninth month is "just a medical procedure" that's strictly a matter of private personal choice on the part of the woman.
The rights NOW purports to defend don't exist because of NOW's strident rhetorical discipline, but rather, because of the support of a bare majority of Americans who count themselves pro-choice but whose personal feelings about it are ambivilent at best. If pro-choice advocates choose to alienate rather than acknowledge and face the moral complexity that most people percieve, they risk losing everything.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
March 21, 2010 8:30 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
True to a point. The problem is that it's a theological or theoretical moral complexity until it's your teenage daughter. Then it's where is the clinic? There isn't one for x hundred miles? Really? Who knew?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
crystalstair
March 21, 2010 9:33 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
Nice nuanced summation of the views of many of the women I talk to about this issue.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
booch221
March 21, 2010 10:00 PM in reply to crystalstair
Yes, thank you for that. You sum up my feelings exactly.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tinmanic
March 21, 2010 6:39 PM
Somehow I doubt that NOW's condemnation of the health care bill will convince any anti-choice Republicans to vote for it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Rich in NJ
March 21, 2010 6:40 PM
How does the Executive Order change existing law?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
calchala
March 21, 2010 6:44 PM in reply to Rich in NJ
It doesn't. There is no change to federal law under Hyde.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Rich in NJ
March 21, 2010 7:57 PM in reply to calchala
That's what I thought. So NOW's concerns are non-factual.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
booch221
March 21, 2010 10:02 PM in reply to Rich in NJ
Stupak's concerns were non-factual. NOW's concerns are non-factual. Different sides of the same coin...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Honey Bunches Of Stoats
March 21, 2010 9:22 PM in reply to calchala
More than that, the executive order doesn't even change the limitations that are already outlined in the bill itself. This statement from NOW reeks of political theater.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Watt Childress
March 21, 2010 6:42 PM
Perhaps there are other readers who want to understand this concern, regardless of whether it changes your positions on the insurance mandate package. If so, you may wish to check out the discussion at the following link:
http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2010/03/21/white-house-released-executive-order-to-media-without-showing-to-members-of-pro-choice-caucus/
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
March 21, 2010 6:47 PM in reply to Watt Childress
The firebaggers are holding a "discussion"? Now, that's something I'd like to see!
Fuck Hamsher and her band of nihilists. I'm sure she's crying in her beer with her old friend Grover Norquist.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ws84
March 21, 2010 7:30 PM in reply to FreeRider
Liberals circling the wagons.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
March 21, 2010 9:13 PM in reply to FreeRider
Here is a sample:
The bill itself is a tragedy. The fact that this administration has completely corrupted the entire Democratic Party is beyond grief.
Now compare Obama's campaign promises with what he has done.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
March 21, 2010 9:39 PM in reply to AJM
Here's a sample: snooze.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
booch221
March 21, 2010 10:04 PM in reply to AJM
The Tea Baggers have completely corrupted the GOP.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
March 21, 2010 10:36 PM in reply to booch221
Also true but they weren't much to begin with.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Unnamed Former Party Official
March 21, 2010 7:13 PM in reply to Watt Childress
FDL?
Last time I posted over there I got a whole bunch of ad hominen attacks and no reasoned response at all.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
March 21, 2010 7:59 PM in reply to Unnamed Former Party Official
You're repeating yourself. "I posted there" is synonomous with " I got a whole bunch of ad hominen attacks and no reasoned response at all." Unless you just posted to join the chorus of cheers.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Watt Childress
March 21, 2010 8:30 PM in reply to Unnamed Former Party Official
That's unfortunate.
I've posted a bit at FDL, though not as much as TPM. Both sites have helped to inform my perspectives. Both have added to progressive discourse on public policy, in my estimation. I've also seen plenty of mean spirited f-bombs tossed out at both locations.
Here's a prayer for healing in the wake of the insurance mandate package. Regardless of our respective positions on this legislation, it's important to acknowledge that the debate has left the left with collateral damage.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
March 21, 2010 9:52 PM in reply to Watt Childress
Jane Hamsher is dead to me!! Dead! Dead! Dead!
Joining forces with Grover Norquist to take down this White House is beyond the pale.
Jane Hamsher is not a progressive; Jane Hamsher is anti-establishment shrew. Whoever is in power is the enemy to her.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
March 22, 2010 10:12 AM in reply to FreeRider
I agree. I removed my name from their mailing list I am so disgusted with her.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Riesz Fischer
March 22, 2010 2:20 PM in reply to lousgirl84
You agree with FreeRider's sexist language, calling her a "shrew"?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
booch221
March 21, 2010 10:06 PM in reply to Watt Childress
The right hasn't escaped unscathed, rightly so.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
loria
March 21, 2010 6:44 PM
NOW is having a fit over an executive order that would reaffirm existing law. Over at the Republican press conference they are having a fit over what they call the expansion of federal abortion coverage. If you listen to them you might think Hyde was repealed.
Which is it?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
March 21, 2010 6:48 PM in reply to loria
Oh, please don't ask for facts. This is all a political game. It doesn't matter what is in the bill, they only care that Obama is going to put points on the board. The Republicans only want to keep him from putting points on the board. None of them care if anyone gets any healthCARE.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
calchala
March 21, 2010 6:55 PM in reply to bluebell
Of course they care. Unfortunately we're not living in the climate where something like that would be possible.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnonymousCoward
March 21, 2010 7:09 PM in reply to bluebell
Nor do you, based on your opposition to this bill.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
March 21, 2010 7:51 PM in reply to AnonymousCoward
True dat.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ws84
March 21, 2010 7:27 PM in reply to bluebell
It sure seems that way, doesn't it? We got a little March Madness going on?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
March 21, 2010 7:39 PM in reply to ws84
Yes, and as a former Iowan, I would have taken a lessson from UNI. Nothing is impossible if you work hard enough for it, whether it be beating Kansas or universal healthcare. Or you can just assume you're going to lose and settle for the NIT of healthcare bills.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
we r all husseins
March 21, 2010 8:50 PM in reply to loria
Maybe it's really the Jekyll and Hyde Amendment.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
crystalstair
March 21, 2010 9:37 PM in reply to we r all husseins
Good one.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Geoff Johnson
March 21, 2010 6:45 PM
There's nothing all that interesting here frankly. Of course NOW is going to make a statement saying they are angry about this compromise, how could they not? They are strongly opposed to the Hyde Amendment, want it done away with, and would of course want Obama to back them on that. Having Obama implicitly side with Hyde (regardless of the context) is obviously not going to make them happy, and it would be odd if they did not react angrily (for one thing, their members and supporters would likely demand it).
Certainly NOW must have seen the possibility of something like this and recognize that the expression of their view will not change anything, but it's one of those "don't do this crap again or we'll really get pissed" kind of statements that nominal political allies routinely fire at one another. NOW is simply saying that Obama likely just lost some of his political capital with their constituents, and they'll presumably expect something in return down the road.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
calchala
March 21, 2010 6:47 PM in reply to Geoff Johnson
I just think it's for fundraising frankly. Though this could have waited a day.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Geoff Johnson
March 21, 2010 6:50 PM in reply to calchala
I agree that's also definitely a factor.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
acamus
March 21, 2010 6:56 PM in reply to calchala
yes, looking at the bigger picture, a day or two wait would have been acceptable. This was definitely a fundraising move.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Quitty
March 21, 2010 7:40 PM in reply to acamus
Actually, it's probably better that they did it today. It would have gotten more attention if they had waited a day or two. There's so much other news happening today, this statement from NOW will hardly get reported anywhere.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
acamus
March 21, 2010 7:47 PM in reply to Quitty
That's probably true. I guess with everything considered, it's the principle of the thing. I basically agree with NOW's agenda and this move seems to undermine the overall success of that agenda.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Measure for Measure
March 21, 2010 8:14 PM in reply to acamus
Actually, since this press release will have zero effect on the final outcome, I don't care what NOW does. Give them credit for not being a PIA this past week: they could have torpedoed the Stupak fig-leaf, if they were hopelessly stupid.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
booch221
March 21, 2010 10:09 PM in reply to Geoff Johnson
Who cares if they get pissed off? F-them!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
johnnyba
March 21, 2010 6:55 PM
I don't think it's just fundraising. This is not the first time that NOW has demonstrated that they are just as extreme and unreasonable as the anti-abortion crowd.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
March 21, 2010 7:03 PM in reply to johnnyba
Extreme and unreasonable? I'd say extreme and unreasonable is the fact that women and girls seeking abortions in South Dakota have to wait for doctors to fly in from Minnesota to do a few quick abortions and fly out to maintain their safety. That's the kind of extreme and unreasonable you get when one party has been fighting against abortion and the other has been capitulating to the fanatics.
NOW is not an attractive group. Abortion is not an attractive procedure. Some folks fight the unpopular fights and the only people who thank them are the poor, the young and the vulnerable. They have no voice. No Congressman will ever pose with them. NOW defends them.
But hey, go F**K NOW, they aren't way cool Obamabots.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnonymousCoward
March 21, 2010 7:11 PM in reply to bluebell
NOW, like anti-choice Republicans (and, depending on whether you think Stupak is malicious rather than just stupid), is trying to turn the debate over health care reform into a debate over abortion. That's their decision, of course, but it's inconsistent with actually getting something done.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
March 21, 2010 7:44 PM in reply to AnonymousCoward
Hey, don't let me get in the way of getting "something" done. But don't expect me to confuse "something" with universal healthcare.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnonymousCoward
March 21, 2010 7:57 PM in reply to bluebell
You're right, it's not universal, in that it only helps 30 million people. Pretending that isn't significant just goes to show how little you care about substantive reform.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
March 21, 2010 8:11 PM in reply to AnonymousCoward
It does not necessarily help them. It tells them to buy an insurance policy. Sure, it subsidizes some (until it runs out of money, which it will being underfunded) but most it just orders to buy insurance. It promises a lot more than it delivers which the public will eventually figure out.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnonymousCoward
March 21, 2010 8:39 PM in reply to bluebell
It also mandates minimum essential coverage and limits cost-sharing. Perhaps most importantly, an insurer may not impose *any* cost-sharing on preventive care measures, which means that people will be encouraged to go see the doctor on a regular basis. It also provides for appeals processes, bans recission, and a host of other reforms I've explained to you time and time again.
Also, because the subsidy is an entitlement as part of the tax code, it's not a question of appropriations. In order to end the subsidies, Congress would have to take affirmative legislative action to change the statute.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
deek
March 25, 2010 3:57 AM in reply to bluebell
Where was NOW before (sorry) now? It's not only the choice issue. Women pay more in premiums and likely deal with family medical issues more than men. So, HCR should concern women--who also get paid less and live longer--more, right? I heard some noise from NOW when Stupak first came up, but should they not, per above, have been front and center the entire time? Me thinks that Obama as president, rather than Hillary, is a driver. Just my opinion though.
The executive order does suck, but blaming it on Obama is ridiculous. Also scuttling the entire bill goes against women, who will gain the most from it. Come up with a strategy to resolve the Hyde amendment, but don't do something that limits the best interest of the group you represent.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ally
March 21, 2010 7:03 PM in reply to johnnyba
wtf?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
johnnyba
March 21, 2010 11:24 PM in reply to johnnyba
Like I said, extreme and unreasonable. Great job proving my point blubell.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tpmgary
March 21, 2010 6:56 PM
Transparent posturing, at this point.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Leftflank
March 21, 2010 7:05 PM
NOW takes their acronym too seriously, they should have waited & made a less selfish statement & much more realistic.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
StarkyLuv
March 21, 2010 7:13 PM
Wow. Did NOW just play right into the old stereotype of women being dramatically and unnecessarily emotional? The Executive Order doesn't change the legislation, it is just a fig leave for the Stupak Group to hide behind for all the "pro-lifers".
Geez.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
nanorich
March 21, 2010 7:19 PM
Does anyone actually belong to NOW ever since the LA NOW president endorsed McCain/Palin?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
scotartt
March 21, 2010 7:23 PM
Dear American Left,
There comes a time when you just need to harden the f**k up and understand that legislation is messy and by necessity a COMPROMISE. So suck it up you won't get all that you want all the time - FFS you are about to achieve a historic first for the USA in getting an effective health system that the rest of the developed world has had successfully for 20, 30, 50 years!
This is a big historic win for your middle class, your working people and your poor unemployed and un-and-under-insured. In the face of the most vehement, noisy, and ridiculous opposition I've ever seen ... it's a huge plus for your country and your people. Niggling about freaking details ... pffft.
Shut up and sing the praises.
Niggle about the extra details after the mid-term congressional elections.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
March 21, 2010 8:02 PM in reply to scotartt
So when women seek to protect their own lives they are, in your estimation, being hyper-emotional?
And this after watching quite a number of male legislators getting hysterical.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
scotartt
March 21, 2010 8:16 PM in reply to AJM
I didn't say anything about women being hyperemotional at all. the only reference to the vehment and noisy is a reference to the loons in the tea bag movement and on fox news.
I'm talking about tactics and strategy. your choices are:
1> bill is perfect in all respects and is defeated. you have nothing.
2> bill is imperfect in at least some respects but its major point is victorious. you have something.
and later on, legislation can be amended with more legislation. so when you get some evidence that the bill imperfectly protects pregnant women, at that point you can have a debate about this point.
instead of denying care to say, women with breast cancer, just because your bill didn't perfectly protect women who are pregnant and desire an abortion - something that politically you already know is a massive hot potato (for right or wrong) and gets your entire bill defeated.
it seems to me that getting any sort of health care up in the usa is a huge win for the american people, depsite the many flaws i'm sure the legislation probably contains. it's the EPIC WIN that the left should be focused on here, not the myriad of miscellaneous miniscule fail.
but maybe instead of getting this done obama should have come out like he originally planned and addressed our parliament instead and we could have toured him around a government-funded health care system that's got very successful outcomes all round.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
scotartt
March 21, 2010 8:19 PM in reply to scotartt
"and later on, legislation can be amended with more legislation. so when you get some evidence that the bill imperfectly protects pregnant women, at that point you can have a debate about this point."
god that's clunky. it should have read "at that point you can have a debate about this ISSUE".
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
March 21, 2010 8:34 PM in reply to scotartt
The law already fails to protect pregnant women. Some states have ONE clinic that does abortions one or two days a week.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnonymousCoward
March 21, 2010 8:42 PM in reply to bluebell
Is it really this hard for you to understand that this bill isn't the place to have this fight?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
March 21, 2010 9:05 PM in reply to AnonymousCoward
It's not the place to have the fight but the President is participating in the fight with his executive order. You just want NOW to pretend he is not.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnonymousCoward
March 21, 2010 9:26 PM in reply to bluebell
I want NOW to realize that the executive order is a restatement of existing law. It changes exactly nothing, and pretending that it "continues the fight" is absurd. It maintains the existing trench positions.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
March 21, 2010 8:23 PM in reply to scotartt
Sorry. It was intended to go Starky Luv but it told me I'd timed out and had to log in and I didn't realize I'd have to re-direct it.
And, no, if any other demographic group in the country had be relegated to having only part of their health care provided, you would not be telling them to shut up and sing the praises.
And on a guess, you would be one of the people who during the primary would have been claiming that Obama would be just as strong on choice as Hillary.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
scotartt
March 21, 2010 9:01 PM in reply to AJM
no, i am sure the bill is full of faults for all sorts of demographic groups.
none of those flaws are so important the bill can't be praised for it's historic importance on the major issue at hand.
and also no, i didn't advocate anything about hillary or obama and their positions on the 'right to choose'. because 1, i'm not american as should be clear from my comments, and 2, i have no idea what their respective positions were.
but i have seen essentially good social-democratic legislation in my own country be defeated by incessant carping on single-issues from the left, in the media and the parliament, leaving the bills to be defeated by the conservatives in the upper house and a greater good go unheeded because of technicalities with what are essentially side issues. it makes up the 'atmospherics' that surround the issue and can influence the public debate negatively.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
March 21, 2010 9:17 PM in reply to scotartt
No, there is no other demographic groups whose rights to medical care have been deliberately interfered with.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
scotartt
March 21, 2010 9:37 PM in reply to AJM
So, the bill says that all women have no medical care?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
March 21, 2010 10:50 PM in reply to scotartt
By interfered with, I mean how would you react if men were required to purchase private insurance coverage for surgery for prostrate cancer (unless it could be shown to be an imminent threat to their life) on the grounds that it would interfere with the government's interest in the production of more children?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
scotartt
March 22, 2010 12:15 AM in reply to AJM
If the choice was health care bill with such an clause, or no health care bill at all, I would accept that proviso.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
March 22, 2010 8:33 AM in reply to scotartt
And, of course, react favorably to advice to shut up and sing the praises?
Picture yourself coming before the medical board to argue that although most prostrate cancers grow slowly and although the genetic signature of your particular tumor is not one of the few kinds identified as aggressive yet your brother had a similar tumor which developed rapidly and killed him, so you should be allowed the surgery.
Make you feel like a first class citizen, does it?
This bill makes it illegal to 'discriminate' against an institution which subjects a woman to this type of situation. And for some women, this has not be hypothetical:
ALSO, Catholic hospitals endorsed this and believe you me, they are anti-abortion. SO anti-abortion I was not even allowed to have a medically necessary hysterectomy in one, thankyouverymuch. ASSHOLEs! Which one of these MEN have EVER had to contend with their uterus and a Catholic institution??????? REPEATING A LIE DOES NOT MAKE IT TRUE!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Buckeye Terrorist Fist Jab Nation
March 21, 2010 8:05 PM
Yo NOW:
Shut the fuck up.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CityGuy
March 21, 2010 9:12 PM in reply to Buckeye Terrorist Fist Jab Nation
Indeed.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Kevin Sutton
March 21, 2010 8:19 PM
NOW is an organization that represents and advocates for womens' issues. The executive order reaffirms a policy that they are vehemently opposed to. (As well as this Democratic party ordinarily) So they say as much.
I can't imagine anyone can claim to be surprised that they would be vocal about it, or honestly believe that if they kept quiet as or after their concerns are traded away in various policy negotiations that their concerns would still somehow be acted upon. I mean, when the Democrats stopped being so pro-gun control it made them more electable but it certainly didn't help the cause of gun control. Womens organizations perhaps see the same course.
Moreover, it's not like this press release or these objections will prevent the healthcare bill from becoming law, nor did any of them even say that the bill should be killed over it. So this comes down to some people just not wanting to hear any dissension over possible weak points in the bill.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Theda Skocpol
March 21, 2010 8:24 PM
NOW is way off base. Universal access to affordable health coverage by right IS the most important women's issue, period, and all Obama did to help the legislation pass was restate longstanding law on abortion funding. Abortions are far from the most important health service women and their families need, and it would have been a travesty for either pro-choice or pro-life extremists to derail this crucial reform.
The idea that NOW is condemning the culimination of a century-long struggle for health reform boggles the mind. They are the ones on the wrong side of history -- and they are revealing the pettiest side of single issue advocacy politics.
Abortion rights obsessives are caught in a time warp. Middle class women have access to abortion; the poor do not. That is unfair, but feminists lost that battle decades ago. Obama is right to build a broad coalition for this bill -- and he has been absolutely right not to divert into a fruitless battle over symbolic pro-NOW statements.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
March 21, 2010 8:54 PM in reply to Theda Skocpol
Yes, that is unfair isn't it but they're only poor people so who gives a damn. Even my Catholic mother of six aunt (a social worker) could tell you why a 12 year old girl might find an abortion to be the very most important healthcare service she needs.
It just boggles the mind how much effort goes in to getting us to close our minds in the interest of pretending to do something we're not really doing (there is no right to universal affordable healthcare in this bill) after pretending that we're going to fix later what we're now told to shut the f**k up about lest it interfere with party spin.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
deek
March 25, 2010 6:53 AM in reply to bluebell
"Abortions are far from the most important health service women and their families need, and it would have been a travesty for either pro-choice or pro-life extremists to derail this crucial reform."
-Theda
"It just boggles the mind how much effort goes in to getting us to close our minds in the interest of pretending to do something we're not really doing (there is no right to universal affordable healthcare in this bill)
-bluebell
What a contrast!
Bluebell, please see the big picture. If more women gain coverage under this law--likely, since they make less and tend toward single-parenthood than men--would not the better strategy be reform what we already have? All this talk of "I won't support the Dems anymore" is so ill-considered. Democrats, along with HCR brought us Medicaid and Medicare. How many women's lives has the latter, since women live longer, saved? Probably millions, while also alleviating the suffering of many more.
I am a liberal man. I regret others of my type have stooped to heinous attacks, but I think a broader perspective adds needed context.
Does that mean Hyde should stand? EFF NO!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jeffcogs
March 21, 2010 9:32 PM in reply to Theda Skocpol
I agree with Theda Skocpol. Apparently what NOW wants is for the Democrats to show their ceremonial support for abortion even if it means healthcare reform will fail. I tried that once when I lived in Florida and voted my conscience: In 2000, I voted for Ralph Nader even though I'd been a lifelong Democrat. What did my little show of support for the Green Party get me? It got me eight years of George Bush. Sorry, NOW, but give it up. Abortion is already legal and is here to stay, so please don't derail healthcare reform just to make a point about abortion. I'm a pro-choice Democrat, but this isn't NOW's day. It's a day for healthcare reform. (And for what it's worth, I used to donate money to NOW until it became very clear that their local organizers didn't like me because I was male, and didn't want me around. So I quit donating.)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ema
March 21, 2010 10:57 PM in reply to Theda Skocpol
Universal access to affordable health coverage by right IS the most important women's issue, period....
Hopefully, at some future date the politicians will compromise and make abortion and, say, treatment for STIs for female patients only illegal and we'll be able to finally get universal access to affordable health coverage.
Abortions are far from the most important health service women and their families need, and it would have been a travesty for either pro-choice or pro-life extremists to derail this crucial reform.
It goes without saying that when it comes to female patients of reproductive age, and just them, they may only be permitted access to some health services if they give up access to other safe, effective, and legal health services.
Also, clearly it's not a travesty at all to have politicians, the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, and perfect strangers like you tell women what their most important health needs are.
Abortion rights obsessives are caught in a time warp.
Can imaginary, propaganda creations be caught in a time wrap? In any case, back in real life, battling over legislating women of reproductive age into become wards of the State is not fruitless. A government that can force women to carry to term can also force women to be sterilized, or have C/S, or terminate pregnancies against their will.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Buckeye Terrorist Fist Jab Nation
March 22, 2010 12:46 AM in reply to Theda Skocpol
This.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Jesus1000
March 21, 2010 9:24 PM
Are you saying that the President breaks faith with men or women who murder their own children and shamefully argue that they have right to commit murder? How will they feel if someone tries to murder them and their is no one to help save their lives? God have mercy on America!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
booch221
March 21, 2010 9:42 PM
"NOW Unhappy"
F-them. I'm so sick of abortion politics and the extremists on both sides. They remind me of the NRA and gun nuts. I just donated to Stupak's primary opponent, but I'm equally disgusted with NOW.
Both of you--just go away!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
March 22, 2010 9:16 AM in reply to booch221
Now and Naral do this shit every time we have a democrat in office. They did the same thing to Clinton. Nothing is ever good enough for them. Nothing changed with this bill so they need to take their whining asses somewhere else. No one even cares what they have to say anymore because they have marginalized themselves.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
booch221
March 21, 2010 10:13 PM
Extreme and unreasonable? I'd say extreme and unreasonable is the fact that women and girls seeking abortions in South Dakota have to wait for doctors to fly in from Minnesota to do a few quick abortions and fly out to maintain their safety.
Well then get to work and elect candidates that will repeal the Hyde Amendment. But don't try to deny health care to 32 million Americans.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
March 21, 2010 10:42 PM in reply to booch221
They got to work -- NARAL in particular -- and elected Obama who pledged to do the reverse of Hyde. They've a right to be pretty disgusted.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
August 22, 2010 11:46 AM
Thank you for the mp3 dinle information your provide.mp3 indir
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?