NARAL issues strange statement on Obama's executive order on abortion

[Ean Juan]

NARAL, the pro-choice group, has just issued a statement purported to address President Obama's executive order used to appease Bart Stupak into supporting the health reform bill. But NARAL condemns Bart Stupak's "demand" regarding abortion language in ths health reform bill, saying nothing about President Obama's executive order itself. Could anyone figure out what NARAL means?

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE March 21, 2010

Statement on Executive Order
Washington, D. C. – Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, issued the following statement regarding the agreement between some members of Congress and the Obama White House to issue an executive order regarding the ban on federal funding for abortion in the health-care legislation.

"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."

[ProSense]

1. Good statement. Stupak is an asshole.

"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."

[enlightenment]

4. Are you suggesting that the first bolded clause and the second

bolded sentence go together?

I think you need to brush up on clauses. The reference to the 'goal' refers not to the legislation discussed in the first sentence, it refers to the second full sentence:

Today's action is a stark reminder of why we must repeal this unfair and insulting policy.

The goal to achieve is to repeal the policy that Obama signed into law with an executive order - in order to do that, they'll need more pro-choice lawmakers in Congress. The goal has nothing to do with the passage of the bill, it has everything to do with repealing this egregious part of it.

[Ms. Toad]

2. All Obama has the legal authority to do

is to articulate the executive branch's understanding of the law - he has no authority to change the law.

They are saying (by not commenting) that his statement has no legal effect; the only thing that was significant about the drama was that anti-choice politicians were holding the bill hostage for nothing more than restatement of existing law.

[robinblue]

3. Obama did not have to issue the signing statement.