Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

NOW, NARAL displeased with Obama-Stupak deal

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
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 11:35 PM
Original message
NOW, NARAL displeased with Obama-Stupak deal

NOW, NARAL displeased with Obama-Stupak deal

Updated 10:20 p.m.
By Garance Franke-Ruta
Washington Post

The president of the National Organization for Women said her group is "incensed" about the impasse-breaking deal between President Obama and a group of anti-abortion Catholic Democrats that seems likely to allow historic health-care reform legislation to pass the House later Sunday night, saying the planned presidential executive order "breaks faith with women."

Other reproductive rights groups, as well as abortion opponents, are also displeased with the compromise.

In 2007, then-Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign had promised abortion-rights supporters that he would work to overturn the Hyde Amendment, which NOW President Terry O'Neill said Sunday would instead be given fresh weight by Obama's executive order.

"Through this order, the president has announced he will lend the weight of his office and the entire executive branch to the antiabortion measures included in the Senate bill, which the House is now prepared to pass," she said.

"Obama does not support the Hyde Amendment," his campaign staff told RH Reality Check in response to a questionnaire from the reproductive rights group. "He believes that the federal government should not use its dollars to intrude on a poor woman's decision whether to carry to term or to terminate her pregnancy and selectively withhold benefits because she seeks to exercise her right of reproductive choice in a manner the government disfavors."

On the 35th anniversary of Roe v. Wade in 2008, the landmark Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion, he again laid out his commitment to abortion rights: "I will continue to defend this right by passing the Freedom of Choice Act as president," he said. That act would bar discrimination against exercising abortion rights in benefits, facilities, services or information.

But the deal struck with Rep. Bart Stupak (Mich.) and other antiabortion Democrats saw Obama promising to issue an order declaring: "The act maintains current Hyde Amendment restrictions governing abortion policy and extends those restrictions to the newly created health insurance exchanges."

Said O'Neill: "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."

She added: "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."

The National Right to Life Committee is no happier with the deal, and issued a statement saying it remains strongly opposed to the legislation and warning that "a lawmaker who votes for this bill is voting to require federal agencies to subsidize and administer health plans that will pay for elective abortion, and voting to undermine longstanding pro-life policies in other ways as well."

The group called the legislation a "pro-abortion bill" and said: "The executive order promised by President Obama was issued for political effect. It changes nothing. It does not correct any of the serious pro-abortion provisions in the bill."

The NRLC sees seven objectionable pro-abortion provisions in the legislation.

NARAL Pro-Choice America shared NOW's objections. "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," NARAL President Nancy Keenan said in a statement.

The Planned Parenthood Federation of America issued a statement of regret but did not go as far as NOW and NARAL in condemning the deal.

"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," said Cecile Richards, president of PPFA. She also said her group is "grateful" that the executive order does not "include the complete and total ban on private health insurance coverage for abortion that Congressman Bart Stupak had insisted upon."

As a consequences of the deal, Frances Kissling, the former president of Catholics for Choice, called for abortion rights supporters to renew their push to repeal the Hyde Amendment.

"I hope the choice movement now decides to play hardball with Democrats, including the President, and insist that an all out effort to overturn the Hyde Amendment is required if Democratic office holders and candidates want our vote in 2012," she told The Post. "I for one have decided that I simply will not vote for another elected official until Hyde is overturned and I hope others will do the same. There is no reason for prochoice voters to accept Democratic pussyfooting around on repealing Hyde."


http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2010/03/now-naral-displeased-with-obam.html


------------


And I agree with Kissling that the Executive Order to pander to Stupak should create a new

push to repeal the Hyde Amendment --

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 11:39 PM
Response to Original message
1. Or provide an abortion rider fund
So that anyone who wants the coverage can get it and get an abortion. That makes a lot more sense than creating another cultural wedge.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 11:40 PM
Response to Original message
2. Nobody wants to agree with the obvious. Okay, I will.
"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," said Cecile Richards, president of PPFA. She also said her group is "grateful" that the executive order does not "include the complete and total ban on private health insurance coverage for abortion that Congressman Bart Stupak had insisted upon."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laughingliberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 11:47 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. +1 nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Captain Hilts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 11:45 PM
Response to Original message
3. Women's rights are negotiable. Nothing new here....move along...nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fumesucker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 11:58 PM
Response to Original message
5. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flyarm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-10 12:18 AM
Response to Original message
6. Obama and democrats have proven that corporate profits are more important to them
than what millions upon millions have spent a lifetime fighting for..our reproductive rights..that is plain and simple to see today..andc anyone who doesn't see it ..doesn't want to or they work promoting propaganda..

I blame NOW and NARAL..because they were warned of this,verbally and in writing, when they supported Obama!

Neither will ever get another dime from me, as they were warned of this over and over by many, many of their members...and we were ignored by the leaders of these two groups.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saracat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-10 01:01 AM
Response to Original message
7. The executive order was shameful. And this from the president who "promised" to make FOCA
the first bill he signed. What BS.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
deedee77 Donating Member (15 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-10 01:05 AM
Response to Original message
8. Have hope
It's an executive order, it can easily be rescinded. Plus I have some doubts about whether or not he can really use his executive orders for something like that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flyarm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-10 01:54 AM
Response to Reply #8
9. nope..hope is rope a dope....I deal in reality. eom
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 Thu Apr 25th 2024, 04:48 PM
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