The signing of the executive order on abortion made me think of Goldwater....

[madfloridian]

and his words about the religious right movement in this country.

When I saw the picture of the signing in Seafan's Journal today it reminded me of when Bush and bunch of men in suits signed away a woman's right to decide about a late-term abortion.

I have not said much about the health care reform bill, but the bargaining with the religious right really upset me.


President Barack Obama signs an Executive Order that reaffirms the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act's consistency with longstanding restrictions on the use of federal funds for abortion, in the Oval Office, March 24, 2010. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

What Barry Goldwater once said about the religious right. I have posted it before, and it should be the way our Democrats believe as well.

From Liberals Like Christ:

Goldwater on the religious right, Falwell, and Robertson.

When Sandra Day O'Connor was nominated to the Supreme Court in 1981, some Religious Right leaders suspected she might be too moderate on abortion and other social concerns. Moral Majority founder Jerry Falwell told the news media that "every good Christian should be concerned." Replied Goldwater, "Every good Christian should line up and kick Jerry Falwell's ass."

He called Falwell and Pat Robertson detriments to the country.

The five-term U.S. senator from Arizona was equally unimpressed with TV preacher Pat Robertson. When Robertson sought the GOP nomination for president in 1988, Goldwater wasn't about to say amen. "I believe in separation of church and state," observed Goldwater. "Now, he doesn't believe that . . . I just don't think he should be running."
A few years later he told The Advocate, "I don't have any respect for the Religious Right. There is no place in this country for practicing religion in politics. That goes for Falwell, Robertson and all the rest of these political preachers. They are a detriment to the country."

And he saved his full wrath for those who use government to impose their religious views on others.

""There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God's name on one's behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both. I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in 'A,' 'B,' 'C,' and 'D.' Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of 'conservatism.' " (1909-1998) US Senator (R-Arizona) Source: Congressional Record, September 16, 1981

The deals were made to keep women in an inferior position when it comes to making decisions about their medical care.

We should have sounded more like Barry Goldwater. We should have made no deals with the likes of Bart Stupak.

[daleanime]

1. Too many deals made....

where deals shouldn't have been made.

[amborin]

2. K&R

[Cerridwen]

3. "...a woman has a right to an abortion."

"They think I've turned liberal because I believe a woman has a right to an abortion. That's a decision that's up to the pregnant woman, not up to the pope or some do-gooders or the religious right. It's not a conservative issue at all."

Apparently, it's no longer a "liberal issue at all," either.

Nope, our country hasn't taken a hard right. Not at all.

[madfloridian]

6. "That's a decision that's up to the pregnant woman"

Unfortunately our party doesn't think so.

[Cerridwen]

8. Well, in fairness to our party,

they only think that when it's for the "greater good."

It would appear that old feminist saw, "Feminism is the radical notion that women are people," forgot to mention we are also part of the "greater good."

Silly us. No wonder they can't trust us with our bodies; we can't take into account every god-damned, fucking way they can fuck us over throughout e-fucking-ternity.

[katandmoon]

4. And look at all the thanks Stupak got for that EO from his fellow anti-choicers!

[Cerridwen]

5. "reaping/sowing" "dogs/fleas" n/t

[Mithreal]

57. +1

[eridani]

7. What I feel like is as if I'm standing in my basement in a pool of backed up sewage

--and my neighbor comes over and throws his bucket of slops on me. A nasty expression of contempt that doesn't change my situation much.

[virgogal]

9. I'll be damned. I was a MA voter when Goldwater ran and Goldwater was

a dirty word around these parts.

Guess I'd better brush up on my history.

Thanks for the post.

[madfloridian]

11. Actually...

for a while I found myself supporting him...but best not to say it out loud. When I found out how extreme he got on some things...I backed off. Most of my family was Republican, but they were shocked I even considered it.

[laughingliberal]

12. Remember how extreme we thought he was? Something of a wakeup to see how far right we've tracked

in this country.

[madfloridian]

10. Their names.

Senator Bob Casey

Representative Bart Stupak

Representative Kathy Dahlkemper

Representative Marcy Kaptur

Representative Nick Rahall

Representative Jerry Costello

Representative Chris Carney

Representative Steve Driehaus

Representative Charlie Wilson

Representative Jim Oberstar

Representative Alan Mollohan

Representative Brad Ellsworth

Representative Henry Cuellar

Representative Mike Doyle

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/seafan/3799

[Kaleva]

15. Several of them are on Sarah Palin's hit list.

Here's the full list which I found reading a post here which linked to an article which linked to Sarah's Facebook page where she listed Dems who represent districts McCain and she won in 2008 and who had voted for "Obamacare".

"Ann Kirkpatrick (AZ-1), Harry E. Mitchell (AZ-5), Gabrielle Giffords (AZ-8), John Salazar (CO-3), Betsy Markey (CO-4). Allen Boyd (FL-2), Suzanne M. Kosmas (FL-24), Baron P. Hill (IN-9), Earl Pomeroy (ND-AL), Charlie Wilson (OH-6), John Boccieri (OH-16), Kathy Dahlkemper (PA-3), Christopher Carney (PA-10), John M. Spratt, Jr. (SC-5), Tom Perriello (VA-5), Alan B. Mollohan (WV-1), and Nick J. Rahall II (WV-3)."

[freddie mertz]

36. Figures Casey showed up. This was a line even Clinton would not cross.

Clutching at my barf-bag.

What is happening to the Democratic party?

[Tommy_Carcetti]

47. The numbers.

95.2%
95.6%
93.8%
96.2%
97.1%
95.7%
90.9%
94.5%
98.0%
97.3%
98.0%
88.6%
95.8%
98.6%

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/

All except Representative Ellsworth are in excess of 90%.

But go ahead praising Barry Goldwater, why don't you?

[madfloridian]

49. That really does enforce my belief that women's rights...

are the negotiating point.

Think about it. Women and their medical rights are considered throwaway by those Democrats standing with the president in that picture.

It is called being a scapegoat.

They vote with their party unless their religious views demand otherwise, they are the minority, but we cave to them each and every time.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

52. Whoo-kay. Spin it all you like.

The fact of the matter is that even amongst documentably solid Democrats, whoever they may be, there is bound to be a divergence of opinion on one issue or another. Listing their names on a "Hall of Shame" because they may disagree with you on a single issue is myopic and disengenous when you look at the true facts of the situation.

But go ahead--throw out as many quotes from Mr. Conservative as you so wish. As for me, I'll stick on the side of Democrats who have a long, verifiable history of voting with the Democratic Party, and who voted for the most important piece of Congressional legislation in the past 40+ years.

[Mithreal]

58. Not new to spin yourself, are you? Not like Dems should support the platform.

If you are a good dem, you don't just vote with dems a majority of the time. Think about it.

A good dem doesn't try to turn a health care bill into a sort of repeal of Roe v Wade.

You don't like that? Bite me.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

61. Okay, two things:

a) 90%+ isn't just "a majority of the time." That's what you call an overwhelming majority of the time. Moreover, if you wish, find me all the Democrats in Congress who have a 100% voting record with the party. Even the most blue of Democrats may deviate from the party's vote from time to time.

b) The executive order signed by President Obama yesterday didn't act anything remotely like a repeal of Roe v. Wade. Nor could an executive order serve to overturn a Supreme Court case. That happens from within the judicial system.

In conclusion, I shall be declining your invitation to bite you. Thanks, but no thanks.

[Mithreal]

64. Word games. You're right on a couple points, of course.

The platform is just a piece of paper.

Who expects 100% voting with the party? no one. On core issues, good dems don't insert anti-choice into critical bills. That is defining, not your percentage.

Yes, the EO isn't an overturning.

Defend the indefensible, go right ahead.

[FiveGoodMen]

67. "they may disagree with you on a single issue"

Some issues aren't negotiable.

[customerserviceguy]

13. If it weren't for that EO

the GOP would be the ones celebrating this week.

[madfloridian]

14. I simply gave my belief as a woman that the decisions should not be made...

because of religious views.

We have given up our rights so easily.

[customerserviceguy]

17. Look at it this way

If a nation were to establish a food stamp program for the first time, and 40% of that nation were vegans, don't you think they'd want to make sure that the program didn't pay for steak, but for rice and beans instead? If an EO were the way to get their support, would it be worth it to the people who might finally get a square meal of rice and beans a day?

[madfloridian]

18. Equating the rights of vegans to those of women...

Oh my.

[customerserviceguy]

39. In my example

who's talking about the rights of vegans? I'm talking about the rights of steak-eaters. What's wrong with my analogy?

[madfloridian]

44. Then you are comparing the rights of steak eaters to the rights of women.

Which is fine if you see it that way. :shrug:

[customerserviceguy]

46. What I'm doing

is comparing two different issues that have religious/moral/philosophical dimensions at their core, then analyzing how peace is made between the groups who are in opposition to each other on the two issues.

Under the HCR law with the Nelson amendment and the EO, women still have the right to seek and get an abortion. Under my fictional "no food stamps for non-vegetarian food" example, steak-eaters still have the right to purchase and consume steak.

It's all a matter of those who disagree with abortion and steak-eating having to have to pay for others who wish to excercise their freedom to do those things, that's all.

[TreeHugnLibra]

50. I think you make a really good point...

and let's flip it the other way. Let's say vegetarians and vegans united and were able to stop food stamps from paying for meat, or public schools from serving meat to children, based on their moral beliefs, and that their tax dollars should not be used to promote killing of animals. I have never known a right-to-lifer who is also a vegan. They would be up in arms, twisting some Constitutional right to fit into their viewpoint that guarantees the right to kill and eat whatever they want.

[customerserviceguy]

69. It would be interesting indeed

If eventually there were enough vegans and vegetarians in this country, they would indeed try to stop any Federal funding related to forms of agriculture that involve meat, or even dairy. They might even be able to outlaw the sale of meat and possibly dairy products. It's no different from when people used religious beliefs against alcohol to get the US to adopt Prohibition.

When countries go to far extremes, social unrest follows. When compromises are made in the middle, to allow those who wish to do something in a way that does not impact those who are against it, there is an equilibrium in society.

[madfloridian]

51. It's a whimsical bit of fluffery....women can die while doctors interpret laws.

laws that have been made to restrict the rights of women to make a medical decision with their doctors.

It's really not a matter that should be taken so lightly.

Trouble is that folks here at this forum are aware that if they question the bill or any part thereof....they will be either be ignored or treated badly.

[customerserviceguy]

70. If a woman has a doctor

who is in the business of performing abortions, then the two of them have a right to transact that business, within the framework of Roe v. Wade, as modified by the courts.

Letting an individual doctor, nurse, or pharmacist, or a hospital that is an arm of a religious organization make their own determination as to whether they will get into that business or not is something else entirely.

[madfloridian]

72. Perhaps you were unaware of this court ruling. Here is Ginsburg dissent.

A portion of it.

There are far more restrictions than Roe v Wade.

From 2007

Health of women IS off the table now. Here is Ginsberg's dissent.

"Today's decision is alarming," Ginsburg wrote for the minority. "It tolerates, indeed applauds, federal intervention to ban nationwide a procedure found necessary and proper in certain cases by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists....And, for the first time since Roe, the Court blesses a prohibition with no exception safeguarding a woman's health."

She added: "Retreating from prior rulings that abortion restrictions cannot be imposed absent an exception safeguarding a woman's health, the Court upholds an Act that surely would not survive under the close scrutiny that previously attended state-decreed limitations on a woman's reproductive choices."

One wonders how long a line that saves no fetus will hold in the face of the Court's "moral concerns." . . . The Court's hostility to the right Casey and Roe secured is not concealed. Throughout, the opinion refers to obstetrician-gynecologists not by the title of their medical specialties, but by the pejorative label "abortion doctors."

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/4/18/20138/3017

I get the impression women's rights mean little to you, that we are sort of just whining one issue people.

That's a shame, but that is your right. Our party leaders feel the same.

[customerserviceguy]

84. There are more restrictions, clearly

That's why I used the language: "within the framework of Roe v. Wade, as modified by the courts."

Many of those modifications come from the struggle of the two sides on this issue, to narrowly define some vagueness that was evident in Roe v. Wade, which took 1970's science and made it the basis of law. The whole trimester scheme for defining abortion rights was cooked up out of thin air, there's no basis for it in any other set of laws regarding abortion or pregnancy, and certainly not in the Constitution or any prior interpretations of it that I've ever seen.

What your referenced article from Daily Kos calls 'chipping away at Roe' comes exactly from the same sort of thing we're discussing here, and that is: What are the rights of the minority that is not abortion-rights oriented in this country? The language in Roe v. Wade already says that states may prohibit abortion after a fetus is viable, except for the preservation of the life and health of the mother, and the Ginsberg dissent you mention is from a case where the Court was being asked to decide if one of the procedures in use was in line with the spirit of that decision.

It seems that the people who oppose abortion were able to take the procedure known as 'intact dilation and extraction' and hang the label of 'partial birth abortion' on it. If the issue of abortion had been decided in the legislatures, as it had been done for several years before Roe v. Wade, this procedure (by any name) would likely have been banned or severely restricted. It was the Court's stepping into the situation that has caused it to be a political hot potato for a generation, continuing with full force today.

That's the political reality we live in, abortion is simply going to be something that has to be dealt with in a fashion resembling compromise. The EO was what brought the last four votes to the table, and it was one of the compromises that the President felt he needed to make to get those votes.

As for rights, the only one that I'm comfortable about having the taxpayers pay to guarantee is the right to an attorney for a poor person charged with a crime, and that wasn't even the case in this country fifty years ago (before Miranda). Does the government have to provide me with a gun to let me enjoy my Second Amendement rights, or does it have to provide me with a printing press to let me have my freedom of expression? Is the tax exemption for churches meant to enable freedom of religion, or is it merely an antiquated custom that needs to be done away with?

This legislation and the accompanying EO do not infringe in any way on the rights of those who wish to seek and pay for their own abortions. They are just as free to do so this week as they were last week.

[madfloridian]

87. Only women and gays are compromised by this party.

Your mindset is that we as women needed to be nice, fall in line, and accept that we are to be compromised in the name of bipartisanship.

No sense discussing it anymore if that is your position.

[customerserviceguy]

92. Interesting that you mention gay people

In the states that have had a chance to slowly approach the issue of equality, such as Washington, New Hampshire, and Connecticut, we have not seen the reversals on the way to equal marriage as we did in the states where the courts did the deciding. I'll agree, Massachusetts was the exception to what I just said, but that's only because the issue was never allowed to reach the ballot.

The abortion wars of the last generation were the outgrowth of the sudden mandated change in policy that Roe v. Wade represented. Now we are witnessing how court-imposed marriage equality has created stains on the constitutions of the vast majorities of the states, codified hatred that will take a generation to erase through the legislative process. If the Supreme Court decides in favor of equal marriage as the law of the land (and the current Court is not likely to do that) will we see the same backlash against gay and lesbian people that Roe v. Wade launched in the culture wars?

I did not say anything about anyone falling in line, being nice, or being some sort of doormat. If you equate having a taxpayer-provided abortion as being a woman, then there is no point in my discussing this with you, either.

[madfloridian]

94. You don't have to say the words.

The tone says it all.

[customerserviceguy]

95. It's extremely difficult to infer tone

from written words. One is much too likely to impose their own preconceived notions on top of the words, to give them a 'tone'.

[madfloridian]

97. One feels dripping contempt.

It's hard to hide.

[customerserviceguy]

99. You did pick a name wisely

You seem to be continually angry with everyone who does not march in exact lockstep with you. I've tried to be open minded, and to see other people's points of view here, and many people have given me the benefit of their knowledge and experience. That's what I get for my time and money here.

[a la izquierda]

89. I'm a vegetarian woman and I think your analogy blows

[customerserviceguy]

93. Concise, but you've failed to tell me

what 'blows' about it. Do you disagree with my contention that if a food stamp program were to be adopted in a country that is 40% vegan/vegetarian, that there would be a vigorous debate about that program paying for meat products? Would it be a forseeable outcome of the debate that the program would simply not cover the purchase of meat?

If so, I'd like to hear some elaboration of it.

[iamjoy]

22. Interesting Analogy

I'm not sure I agree with it, but I think I see where you are going. Vegans feel that killing or harming an animal is wrong in most if not all circumstances. While some keep that view to themselves, others proselytize it. Vegans believe that a fish has rights, just as people calling themselves "Pro-Life" think a zygote has rights. So each may ask why their tax dollars should fund something immoral, should fund something they consider murder. Let's not even go down the path of tax dollars funding an immoral war - that's an old argument. I credit yours for being fresh. And some find it odd the whole idea of Pro-Choice Vegans a little odd, as if a bee has a greater right to life than an unborn human.

Where analogies fall apart when it comes to abortion is that there is no way to separate any potential rights that zygote/embryo/fetus may or even should have from the rights of the woman carrying it.

[customerserviceguy]

41. Thanks for seeing my point

In this debate over HCR, and the accompanying EO, the statement in your last sentence is not even addressed. Neither the anti-abortion provisions of the Nelson amendment, or the language of the EO overturn any part of Roe v. Wade.

You raise a good point about war - would a nation that was 40% Quaker have gotten involved in Iraq or Afghanistan? They might not even have opposed imperial Japan or Nazi Germany.

Even though many people here are surrounded by folks who do not see a "zygote/embryo/fetus" (as you call it) as a full human being, there are those out there in vast stretches of the country who do. While many of them may be quite reluctant to tell a woman what she should or must do about her pregnancy, they are similarly reluctant to either pay for abortion through their tax dollars, or be required to participate, even minimally, in one.

The HCR bill as signed and as may be amended with the reconciliation bill allows for conscience clauses, the very thing that has been hotly debated here when pharmacists wanted to be allowed to not carry drugs or fill prescriptions for things that they found against their belief system. The President has wisely seen that there would be no possibility of HCR without these clauses, and therefore, he didn't even need to be persuaded at the last minute, in the way Stupak did.

[Mithreal]

59. So those were the only dems standing in the way, right.

The creativity put into rationalizing and excusifying is amazing.

I don't entirely disagree with your statement but it isn't verifiable or take into consideration other carrots and sticks opportunities.

Did Obama go and campaign against these folks like he did Kucinich? Did he tell them he would withhold campaign funds?

[customerserviceguy]

71. Ultimately, they were the last ones on board, weren't they?

Had they not gotten their EO and signing ceremony, enough of them would have voted to kill this bill.

It's like sports, all the baskets that the team makes in the game count towards the final score, but the last two or three point shot at the buzzer that puts them over the top is the one that "won the game". A little March Madness analogy there.

[Mithreal]

73. I understand where you are going with your argument

and it is not entirely unpersuasive. I saw evidence for the pressure on Kucinich. Can you supply me the evidence that anything similar happened with Stupak's crew?

I don't believe all those people who showed up for the photo op were NO votes either. Want some inkling why I think that? Stupak wouldn't name names, would he? Those folks would have been obvious if they voted NO. Since they wouldn't come out, I am going to continue to believe they were weak NOs and why shouldn't I. Pelosi knew how many votes they needed to worry about, yet where was the President's pressure. Again, evidence that Obama did anything like what he did with Kucinich, please?

Ultimately I think this EO benefits the President's image with the rightwing. Obama gets to appear willing to do something in support and compromise to anti-choice fanatics even if they are still pulling their hair out atm.

Any chance PO and SP are going to get that kind of attention and action from this President? He is non-ideological, no? He listens to what the people want and need, right? He has been doing his best to set himself up in a mythical center, never hid it. Any form of diluted progress is not supporting progressives though.

The sports analogy doesn't quite work unless one already believes what you are saying. We saw a lot of the preparation that went into this win. We saw who was marginalized and what was kept off the court. It's like sitting out your best players, the Progressives, PO, and SP, because the team made a deal with their opponent. The Regressives never made it to playoffs, we really didn't need to play them but the President put them in the game over and again. This big game was between the Democratic Party and PhRMA, big insurance and profit oriented hospitals. But it was fixed from the start, so no reason to even try and block that last shot. The team owner got his win and I never doubted he would get less than he was willing to fight for and the opponents' bets paid off big. Please do try and persuade me better if you can, I am just not buying it even with an analogy. Yeah, I know, the NCAA doesn't work like that, just messing with the game analogy.

[customerserviceguy]

82. Kucinich and Stupak were two different things

Kucunich went in with the President because of personal persuasion, including an airplane ride. Stupak and his group went in because they got the President to do what he's doing in that picture. I don't seem to recall Kucinich presenting a signed statement from the President saying that we'll work for either a public option or single payer.

I concede your point on the soft no votes, as I recall, Marcy Kaptur (in that photo) had already announced that she was going to vote yes a day or two before the vote. But the final vote came down to 219-212. That means if four 'ayes' became four 'nays', the bill would have been defeated. In that picture, there are thirteen Representatives (and a Senator); taking out the aforementioned Kaptur, is it folly to imagine that a third of the rest them would have been solid no votes without that signing ceremony? The President did not pressure them, they pressured the President.

Also, you really don't understand the right wing in this country if you think that the EO does anything to benefit his image with them. They're far more upset with him over HCR, a simple writing of "I will not fund abortion, I will not fund abortion..." one hundred times on Professor Stupak's blackboard will not mean anything to them. Stupak and the representatives pictured above think it will bring them political cover this fall, and they're sadly mistaken. They have managed to anger everyone on both the left and the right, and I doubt if more than two or three of them will win a very close election.

Maybe I should shy away from sports analogies (I like automotive ones, too, for some strange reason), but I'll take it one step further. The guy who sinks the shot at the buzzer is the one that the sports writers and commentators, and the fans give the credit to, but back in the locker room, it's acknowledged that it was a team effort. Anybody crowing about how they won the game with that last shot is going to have his backside snapped with a towel when he's least expecting it. That would summarize what I think is going to happen to the Stupak crowd in that photo op.

[Mithreal]

83. All right, take it easy.

[customerserviceguy]

85. I was

I thought that was a well-reasoned argument, that avoided hyperbole.

[Mithreal]

86. I meant, have a good one

:)

[customerserviceguy]

91. You, too!

And the flag in your post reminds me of the great place I spent 27 years of my life, enjoy the beautiful things the Northwest has to offer, than I can only sample from afar.

[Cerridwen]

16. Question: With this EO in place, do they have to re-address Hyde

each year as they've had to up until now? Or is it now a done deal with no vote/debate?

[riderinthestorm]

43. Kick for an answer to your good question. Anyone know?

If the EO means that the Hyde Amendment is now permanently in place, that is a really "big fucking deal" and a huge step back for the pro-choice movement.

[Mithreal]

60. +1

[sabrina 1]

80. A very good question. I don't know the answer, but

I do know that Republicans raised it during the voting airc. Stupak may have answered it. Maybe if you read his speech on the floor, the answer is there. I don't have time to look for it now, but I do recall someone saying that an 'executive order is not law, it can be negated by actual law' and the fear was that Democrats were just grandstanding to give cover to Stupak for his 'betrayal' of principles. I don't know if the Hyde Amendment coming up each year for renewal was what they were talking about. But Stupak did address those claims. I just don't remember his words, but he seemed to be saying that an EO was as good as a law. So yes, this is a good question.

[iamjoy]

19. At Least There Are Some Women In This One

but really, does what President Obama signed really change anything? I thought he was just reaffirming the Hyde Amendment first signed into law by President Jimmy Carter. It seems like it may be symbolic rather than new restrictions.

Not that the symbol isn't bad enough

[madfloridian]

20. Probably just symbolic, but painful to watch.

I suppose it had to be done to get the votes.

[iamjoy]

25. Focus On The Positive

It would be easy to see this and get angry or discouraged. Remember that President Obama's first week in office he overturned the Global Gag Rule. Also, think of women right now who have no health insurance and can't even go to the doctor at all who will be helped by this bill. Consider that we have a Democratic President, so if we do have another vacancy on the Supreme Court, at least we're unlikely to get another Scalia.

It may make it a little less painful.

I know, it's a helluva comfort when all I can offer is "it could be worse."

[madfloridian]

26. We support Obama, but we see the infiltration of the religious right...

into our party basically unchecked.

I see it as a problem.

We do support Obama and helped elect him.

[Arkansas Granny]

42. Good response. The religious right is a perfect example of the saying

"give them and inch and they'll take a mile". They see each of their "victories", no matter how small, as an excuse to intrude their beliefs even deeper into the government and into our lives. They are looking at the big picture and they realize that this constant chip, chip, chipping away will eventually result in the changes they want.

[madfloridian]

45. Yes, they will chip away more and more, and we must stop caving in.

At some point we must.

[riderinthestorm]

24. Symbols matter. "It's just a two minute prayer!"

Remember Rick Warren... LGBT Dems were warned right from the start that their rights wouldn't matter.

I see this EO as another one of Obama's moves that demonstrates to everyone that progressive positions on this matter are also similarly, cavalierly dismissed. In fact, like Warren's prayer, abortion rights advocates have just been served notice that abortion rights mean squat to this Admin.

That means something.

[madfloridian]

54. Two groups...

that are considered expendable...women and gays.

[Hippo_Tron]

77. It's the tactical equivalent of Kennedy removing missiles from Turkey that he was already going to

In order to get Khrushchev to take missiles out of Cuba.

That said, I agree that there is certainly a symbolic cost. The cost was worth it in the overall battle for women's rights IMO (passing health care went a long way toward ensuring that Ginsburg will be replaced by a Democratic President with a Democratic Senate) but it's still definitely not optimal. I think the President does recognize this and tried to minimize the symbolism by not inviting the press.

[ChicagoSuz219]

21. Nothing changed.

All the Executive Order did was reiterate the language in the Hyde Admendment, which is already settled law.

Abortion rights re: healthcare were neither expanded nor diminished.

[EFerrari]

29. No, Hyde is NOT settled law. The information has been posted here

over and over. You might go look at NARAL or NOW or Planned Parenthood's statments on the Google.

This is not "the same". This is an expanded encroachment on reproductive rights.

[ChicagoSuz219]

30. They're concerned about the Nelson amendment,

...which is being 'fixed' as soon as they finish Votarama.

[Hippo_Tron]

78. Hyde isn't settled law but it gets renewed every year without any serious opposition

If NARAL, NOW, or Planned Parenthood think that the votes and the political will are out there to seriously challenge Hyde then yes this might be a substantive step in the wrong direction. But if Hyde is going to continue to be renewed every year like clockwork then this isn't really changing anything.

[Canuckistanian]

23. Does an Executive Order trump legislation?

Seems to me that the EO is legally unenforcable if put against actual legislation to the contrary.

Or at least it could be easily challenged if it came to a court case.

[laughingliberal]

35. I think it depends on what it is

I'd like to know that because Bush changed some elements of the HIPAA laws by executive order allowing employers access to some of your protected health information. It opened the door for the Ensign amendment in the HCR bill. I would love to see that EO challenged and that amendment shot down.

[Ardent15]

27. K and R

[waiting for hope]

28. K&R

Thanks for this.

[omega minimo]

31. Spot on again ---- K/Rec

[saracat]

32. Thank you. Great post. It ought to serve as a "wake up call"

[madfloridian]

66. It won't though..

serve as a wake up call, that is.

We have given in to the religious right so long that it seems natural that we be expected to fall in line and accept their views on how to practice medicine.

[saracat]

68. Sadly, I concur.

[cornermouse]

33. k & r

[riderinthestorm]

34. Morning kick nt

[freddie mertz]

37. Happy to K & R on this fine morning.

Not so happy to see the public celebration of this shitty betrayal.

[Starry Messenger]

38. Seeing those two women there makes it even worse

Now they even have cover. Sickening.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[madfloridian]

48. Too many women accept it completely...

and I am not sure just why. Is it fear of being ridiculed? Maybe. It is fear of being thought to be against the party?

It is becoming easier and easier for both parties to use women as a way to get "bipartisan" measures through.

[krabigirl]

56. Yes, it's a fear of not being "holier-than-thou" than their other uptight colleagues.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

53. Wait, wait. Wasn't there supposed to be NO pictures? -nt

[krabigirl]

55. Yes..I am tired of the religious "right"..they are in both parties and their agenda is sick

[defendandprotect]

62. Agree with you . . . Separation of Church & State all the way .....

[fascisthunter]

63. yes, let's legislate religious views... fucking nutcases

[defendandprotect]

65. ... and note that GOP/Gov. Christie/NJ is trying to cut ALL family planning funding ....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8012389

Pandering to fanatics is not the way to go --

[madfloridian]

74. Yes, I heard that.

Dismantle women's rights, dismantle public schools. Not good for NJ.

[Matt Shapiro]

79. Good post

Christie is an extremist. New Jersey voters did not realize that when they elected him. He is destroying vital services for women, children, seniors, every vulnerable group, while raising property taxes and transit fares for the poor and middle income and protecting the rich and large corps by cutting their taxes. A real horror story.

A number of the commenters in this thread just don't get it. The Nelson language and the Executive Order go well beyond Roe, and will likely prevent millions of women from buying insurance that includes abortion coverage with their own money, and will effectively prevent them from having abortions, if they can't afford to pay for the procedure without insurance coverage. States will be allowed to ban abortion coverage completely in their exchanges. The dual check garbage will likely convince some (many? all?) insurance companies to stop writing abortion coverage at all to avoid the hassle.

As far as the impact on Roe, this court, as you pointed out, has been moving closer to overturning it. The extreme increase in abortion restriction imposed by the Nelson language and the EO, while having no "legal" impact on the "right" to an abortion under Roe, might just give the "five" the excuse they have been waiting for to finish the job and kill the right to choose. I hope not, but in my mind's eye, I can hear the court saying that the country is now "ready" to end the "sacrilege of baby killing." If even the Democrats are willing to restrict abortions to near extinction, it's time we (the court) just ended it.

No truly pro-choice legislator would/should have voted for this. No pro-choice president would have signed it or amplified it. The gift of hundreds of billions of dollars to the health insurance industry and big pharma was certainly not worth it. The political "win" was not worth it.

Anyone who cares about a woman's right to control her own body, and not be oppressed by government/religion, should stand up. Support the National Organization for Women (NOW), as it is the women's rights organization that has consistently taken the strongest position on this issue, without all the "while we support the health care bill" crap.

This so-called compromise is inexcusable.

[riderinthestorm]

96. Welcome to DU Matt Shapiro!

Thanks for a great post!

[Gman]

75. Another "I got mine" attitude, I see

retired teachers already have their health insurance for life so they can afford to complain about the HCR and not care if anyone has coverage or not.

[Loudmxr]

76. Oh its politics. We would not have needed this if the Demos hadn't been alseep.

You can't argue with the zealots so do something that doesn't mean anything and make them go away happy.

I must say I have learned that in show biz and politics. If you have to do something that doesn't cost you anything or very little to make someone who is unhappy happy. Do it.

All this document does is re state the Hyde Amendment which already is law. Ooops I may be wrong on that. There may be some civil rights thing I heard about but that can be modified later.

See...fungible. :smoke:

[Lord Magus]

81. The executive order is meaningless.

It says the same thing about abortion that the bill itself already said. The only reason that it exists is so that Stupak could back down from his grandstanding while pretending that he didn't really back down.

[madfloridian]

88. It just reinforces the fact that women are scapegoated by both parties.

It's convenient for getting stuff done.

[tbyg52]

90. Working 24/7, too late to rec, but kick and appreciation.

:applause:

[boston bean]

98. Obama has not undone Bush's last minute "Conscience Rule".

So what President it going to undo that and the new one he just made???????????????

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

100. Error: you can only recommend threads which were started in the past 24 hours