jenmito
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Mar-21-10 02:16 PM
Original message |
| An executive order would be a win-win... |
|
Edited on Sun Mar-21-10 02:18 PM by jenmito
Per MSNBC-The executive order will explicitly say that the health care bills passed by the house and senate would adhere to the Hyde amendment which says no federal funding would go towards abortion.
Lynn Woolsey and her pro-choice colleagues approve of this potential executive order and think it's a GOOD thing as do all the other Dem. congressmen speaking on MSNBC. So we'd get MORE than enough votes for this bill AND we'd have language re: abortion that some think is less restrictive than the current Nelson amendment.
|
| DURHAM D
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Mar-21-10 02:19 PM
Response to Original message |
| 1. Next - get rid of the Hyde amendment. nt |
| jenmito
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Mar-21-10 02:21 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
| 3. The point is that this is not an abortion bill so the status quo should stay in place. |
|
This executive order would make that clear.
|
| demwing
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Mar-21-10 02:20 PM
Response to Original message |
| 2. Then it ought to be tied to a "robust" PO |
| phleshdef
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Mar-21-10 02:24 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
| 6. I think you know that executive orders don't carry the power to create entire govt programs. |
| demwing
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Mar-21-10 05:03 PM
Response to Reply #6 |
| 11. Well, since we're counting our wishes |
| jezebel
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Mar-21-10 02:22 PM
Response to Original message |
| 4. Yeah but Stupak is apparently not even satisfied with that. nt |
| LiberalFighter
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Mar-21-10 02:24 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
| vaberella
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Mar-21-10 02:25 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
| 8. If he votes yes or no, he needs to go. n/t |
| denimgirly
(929 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Mar-21-10 02:24 PM
Response to Original message |
| 7. What's odd is why it is taking so long to announce (right now it is just speculation)? |
|
Edited on Sun Mar-21-10 02:24 PM by denimgirly
Is Stupak trying to negotiate something more in the order?
|
| jenmito
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Mar-21-10 02:47 PM
Response to Reply #7 |
| 9. He's holding a press conference at 4pm. n/t |
| customerserviceguy
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Mar-21-10 02:48 PM
Response to Original message |
|
affect the Nelson amendment. All it would do is to state what Stupak refuses to believe is already in there.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts)     |
Wed Apr 24th 2024, 04:24 AM
Response to Original message |
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
