boston bean
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Sep-12-09 07:22 AM
Original message |
Feminists / Liberals / Progressives - What is happening? |
|
Edited on Sat Sep-12-09 07:23 AM by boston bean
AUDIENCE MEMBER: You lie! (Boos.) THE PRESIDENT: It's not true. And one more misunderstanding I want to clear up -- under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place. (Applause.) edit to add transcript link http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/09/09/politics/main5299229_page2.shtml?tag=contentMain;contentBody
|
zippy890
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Sep-12-09 07:29 AM
Response to Original message |
1. a president tacking to the center to get legislation passed? |
|
American politics kinda like Bill Clinton. except this health care legislation has gotten further along in the process than any other in the history of our country.
by the way, as a fellow bay-stater- do you think Teddy would compromise to get people covered by insurance and increase regulation over the health care industry. Damn right he would.
|
enlightenment
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Sep-12-09 07:29 AM
Response to Original message |
2. I don't know about anyone else, but I was extremely disappointed |
|
to hear him say that - but NOT surprised.
It has stunning ramifications - much more dangerous than it is currently (which isn't good), because of the wider number of potentially affected individuals. Particularly so because it can be assumed that many who take the public option are already economically disadvantaged.
I suppose it can be argued that there is no guarantee of coverage by private insurance today, which is true - but that doesn't make it right. Still, it's an easy audience to throw under the bus, isn't it? *sigh*
|
csziggy
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Sep-12-09 07:38 AM
Response to Original message |
3. In order to allow abortions, the Hyde Amendment will have to be overturned |
|
Something that is not going to happen anytime soon.
That is a separate fight from getting some form of Health Care enacted. I'm disappointed Obama seems less of a fighter than I had hoped, but not surprised. Democrats have not been fighters for most progressive issues for a very long time.
What's our alternative - vote for real progressives that don't have a chance of getting into office and let the right wingers get their candidates in? As little as we like it, we are better off with centrist Democrats than with any form of Republican in office.
|
get the red out
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Sep-12-09 08:46 AM
Response to Original message |
4. Fighting one political war at a time |
|
No matter how we feel about it, he is being prudent. There is no way he could get any health care passed if it included any abortion funding. I absolutely HATE that, but it is still true, no matter how I feel. There really aren't any moral victories here, if we loose health car reform by going for everything that makes the right (and too much of the so-called middle) foam at the mouth with rage we still end up with many many people dying because they can't get health care. No, that's not optimal, but it is better than sliding even further into the void of almost non-existent coverage and more cries for an outright ban on all abortions.
Very tough spot, but only one political war can be fought at a time. Too many people have been so brain washed against choice that it may take many years of gradually more liberal reforms and legislation to get some sense into people. From association with the people in my local, we are damn lucky every year that abortion isn't criminalized, too many people would like that more than anything. In fact, as anti-abortion as many people are, I voted for the President in hopes of keeping abortion legal enough to keep a call for banning birth control off the radar, that's what the right ultimately wants. We aren't in a good spot on choice in this country and very lucky that there is still a majority of people that don't want it criminalized, since it (and being gay) has become the only sin most churches in the US care about these days. Brain washing has had a huge effect.
|
cally
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Sep-12-09 08:59 AM
Response to Original message |
5. Women are thrown under the bus one more time |
|
Edited on Sat Sep-12-09 09:01 AM by cally
He's saying that women won't fight for our rights and we probably won't. I truly wonder if a woman President--Hillary Clinton--would have done this. She's a fierce advocate in the State Department for women.
On edit: I was not a huge Hillary fan for many other reasons. She's a strong supporter of women's rights.
|
JerseygirlCT
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Sep-12-09 09:34 AM
Response to Reply #5 |
|
I've seen far too many female politicians do the same to think that Hillary would have been any different.
|
katandmoon
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Sep-12-09 09:04 AM
Response to Original message |
6. I have NEVER seen a president so eager to throw his supporters under the bus as Obama |
Berry Cool
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Sep-12-09 09:40 AM
Response to Reply #6 |
11. I don't think you folks are being fair to call it "throwing under the bus." |
|
The sad part is, this country has backtracked since the 1970s when it comes to women's rights and the wingnuts have convinced a lot of people, through the religious right, that either abortion is EVIL or, if they privately admit they wouldn't want to see themselves or their loved ones without it as an option, they'll be damned if they pay for other people to get one. Then you have the nimrods who don't want to pay for someone else who is DYING OF DISEASE to get well, much less anything else.
In this climate, government-subsidized abortions that are acknowledged as such just aren't going to fly. It's going to take more time for that to happen. Hillary could not make it happen either; don't kid yourself. She would see that clearly and she, too, would do the same as Obama has. Don't lie to yourself and tell yourself that just because she has a vagina she would stick to her guns. She's a politician and she knows what is possible and what is not.
Sadly, I think we have no choice but to wait for the majority of these wackjobs to die off and for a new generation to be in place in which the successfully inculcated children of these wackjobs are a teeny tiny minority. In the meantime, should we go without government subsidized health care just because we can't get the whole pie, including abortions for those who need them?
|
omega minimo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Sep-12-09 09:32 AM
Response to Original message |
7. csziggy is wrong about strategery but right about the Hyde amendment |
|
which made the first statement currently true.
What about the second? "Federal consience laws"? :evilfrown: That allow licensed professionals to refuse to dispense medication, based on their bigotry towards women??
csziggy: "What's our alternative - vote for real progressives that don't have a chance of getting into office and let the right wingers get their candidates in? As little as we like it, we are better off with centrist Democrats than with any form of Republican in office."
That is arguable at this point.
|
JerseygirlCT
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Sep-12-09 09:33 AM
Response to Original message |
|
sad to see Democrats hiding behind something as odious as the Hyde amendment.
|
Skidmore
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Sep-12-09 09:36 AM
Response to Original message |
10. He's following the law of the land. Before we have a collective meltdown |
|
and start stoning the man, know what we are talking about. Currently, the Hyde Amendment is the law of the land and would have to be overturned before federal funds could be used for abortions. This is nothing new.
|
boston bean
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Sep-12-09 09:45 AM
Response to Reply #10 |
12. The Hyde Amendment is added as a rider every year to the medicaid appropriations. |
|
It prevents women with lesser means access to health care.
Also, what about Bush's 11th hour conscience rule executive order? That is not the "law of the land", it was bush's final gift to the fundies, and can be undone by Obama with a stroke of a pen. But it is being examined by the faithers in Obama's administration. Who knows when he will undo that! Looks like from his statement above, that he will not.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Fri Apr 26th 2024, 07:49 AM
Response to Original message |