Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

DeGette Agrees To Executive Order Making Hyde Permanent On Behalf Of Pro-Choice Community - FDL

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
WillyT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-20-10 09:02 PM
Original message
DeGette Agrees To Executive Order Making Hyde Permanent On Behalf Of Pro-Choice Community - FDL
DeGette Agrees to Executive Order Making Hyde Permanent on Behalf of Pro-Choice Community
By: Jane Hamsher Saturday March 20, 2010 3:28 pm

<snip>

According to the Huffington Post, Diana Degette has agreed, on behalf of the pro-choice caucus, to the language of an executive order that the President will issue to address Bart Stupak’s concerns regarding the health care bill.

The Washington Post confirms that the executive order would effectively make the Hyde amendment permanent, rather than having to be renewed each year in the Appropriations bill. DeGette says that she would “would support that option, so long as Stupak’s provision is not given another vote.”

Members of the pro-choice caucus have said they will take their cues from DeGette.

Degette has steadfastly refused to release the names of the pro-choice members of the caucus who signed her letter saying they “would not vote for a conference report that contains language that restricts women’s right to choose any further than current law.”

Betsy Markey is one of the signatories of the Degette letter, and as she told me herself, she well knows that the language in this bill violates that pledge. They all do. But as the representative of the pro-choice caucus who agreed to the deal with the President, in the absence of the rest of the names on the letter, Degette is the one who has responsibility within the pro-choice community for whatever the Executive Order says.

I’ve asked DeGette’s office for the exact language that DeGette agreed to, and also for the names of the cosigners.

The buzz in the pro-choice community is that the Executive Order will simply restate Hyde — as if they hadn’t been working for years to repeal Hyde. And perhaps the signing statement will stop there. I find it hard to believe that the anti-choice members of the caucus who have held out this long will find that persuasive, especially when they’re carrying the banner on behalf of American’s United for Life, who want no money from the bill to go to Planned Parenthood clinics regardless of what it is used for. That’s what they have been holding out for all along.

Perhaps Stupak and his block were just looking for an out however, an excuse to drop their fight and vote for the bill without looking to the anti-abortion community that they just gave in to political pressure. And perhaps the anti-abortion community will be appeased with a simlly making Hyde permanent. It would be totally out of character, but I guess it could happen.

If, on the other hand, the President signs an executive order that satisfies the demands of the AUL, it could do to Planned Parenthood what they’ve already done to ACORN. And that could have very far-reaching effects. The “money is fungible” argument that Stupak has been advancing (which Rachel Maddow has addressed) could be applied to employer deductions to purchase health insurance, or money for small businesses to purchase health care, and on and on.

Where do you draw the line?

DeGette is taking an awful lot on her shoulders by being the only one to approve this. She’s in a D+21 district, which is why she can take the political risk of being the head of the pro-choice caucus in the first place. She gets enormous support from pro-choice donors, and the primary filing deadline in Colorado is May 27. When we put calls into likely 2010 pro-choice voters into her district last week, over 800 of them added their names to a statement telling her to oppose the bill unless the anti-choice language came out.

At this point, it appears that the only ones who know what the executive order will say are those who have signed off on it, a short list that includes DeGette and whichever members of the Stupak block were persuades to cast their votes.

If Obama issues a signing statement, someone is going to be disappointed. Either the Stupak defectors will not be delivering for the AUL, or Diana DeGette will have single handedly agreed to turn Planned Parenthood into the new ACORN.

I’ll be on David Sirota’s radio show at 9am ET Monday morning discussing it.

<snip>

Link: http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2010/03/20/degette-agrees-to-executive-order-language-on-behalf-of-pro-choice-community/

Whoop... there it is!

:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-20-10 09:06 PM
Response to Original message
1. An Executive Order, Sir, Can Make Nothing Permanent
It can be rescinded at will, by any President in future, including the President who issued it in the first place. This is merest atmospherics....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillyT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-20-10 09:16 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. Then Why Bother At All ???
If it is "mere atmospherics", why make a DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT sign on to such an obvious fake?

You think the "pro-life" side will be fooled, or even satisfied?

Do you think the folks from NARAL, NOW, and women in general will be satisfied with this "symbolic gesture" to the phonies on the right???

If I were Obama... I wouldn't touch this with a ten foot teabagger.

:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beetwasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-20-10 09:21 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. It Gives Stupak Political Cover
So he can claim he got something for his vote.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-20-10 09:24 PM
Response to Reply #6
11. Exactly, Sir
Tossing him a Kleenex to wipe it off before he leaves....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillyT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-20-10 09:24 PM
Response to Reply #6
12. Oh I Get It Alright... Just Wonder About The Future Support Of The Women's Movement...
It's getting damned crowded hear under the bus.

:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-20-10 09:23 PM
Response to Reply #4
9. If it gets him 5 or 6 votes, that could be the difference of winning or losing
It will anger NARAL and NOW, but if the choice is passing the bill or not - he will likely do it, because it changes nothing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-20-10 09:18 PM
Response to Reply #1
5. Thanks - I thought that and have seen many rescinded every time
the Presidency has changed hands.

I suspect that this will likely not be changed until the opinions in the country shifted on allowing federal money to be used. So, in affect - it will do nothing. As long as opinion is where it is, the Hyde amendment would continue to be renewed. When it changes, the executive order would be rescinded.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-20-10 09:06 PM
Response to Original message
2. Can't executive orders be reversed?
Edited on Sat Mar-20-10 09:07 PM by FrenchieCat
They are not more permanent than the amendment already in place.

Repeating the rule doesn't change the rule...
only a law could reverse the amendment or change it.

so I don't see anything happening here that does anything,
other than pacify some pro lifers for the moment,
in fiction only. That's probably why DeGette
doesn't give a shit.

But thanks to those against the bill for trying.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluestateguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-20-10 09:06 PM
Response to Original message
3. Fact is this (re: Hyde Amendment)
the votes have never even been close to there in the House for repealing Hyde in over 30 years anyway.

Along with all of the anti-abortion Democrats and Republicans, there is a large number of pro-choicers in both parties who just cannot support government funding of abortions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-20-10 09:21 PM
Response to Reply #3
7. It also does reflect the popular sentiment
Pollingreport.com has an archive of polls on abortion, most include the question on federal financing. The most recent shows 67% of the population is against it. http://pollingreport.com/abortion.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillyT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-20-10 09:22 PM
Response to Reply #3
8. Yes... And Shame On Them All !!!
It's a legal procedure. The Supreme Court said so.

But I'll give you the Hyde Amendment in perpetuity, if you'll agree to forced vasectomies on males who shouldn't be allowed to breed.

:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluestateguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-20-10 09:24 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. Done deal
nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillyT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-20-10 09:29 PM
Response to Reply #10
13. LOL !!!
Would solve a few problems, eh???

;)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 23rd 2024, 04:32 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC