Thank you Mr. President. You have now officially kicked me under the bus.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100324/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_care_overhaul

Obama signs order on abortion in health care bill

By ERICA WERNER, Associated Press Writer – 5 mins ago

WASHINGTON – With little fanfare, President Barack Obama signed an executive order Wednesday designed to ensure that no federal money can be used for elective abortions under the nation's new health care legislation.

The order had been demanded by a key bloc of anti-abortion Democrats as the price for their support for the health overhaul legislation that narrowly passed the House Sunday night.

Since then it's been criticized by anti-abortion groups who say it has no actual impact other than restating restrictions on abortion funding already in the law. Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., leader of the anti-abortion Democrats, insists that's not the case, but lawmakers supporting abortion rights did not object to the order because they said it made no difference.

Obama invited Stupak and other lawmakers to the Oval Office for the signing of the order but made no effort to draw attention to it, and no media were allowed in the room....

:D

to try and offset.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

:thumbsup:

Also to try and offset, but to no avail.

I mean...what the hell???

:freak:

And they hid the signing ceremony.

And they hid the signing ceremony so as to minimize the impact of the whole thing.

He was looking for an out...

after a little attention. He's not that deep.

reconciliation. that's the rules.

This bill saves the DINO's face. And gives Obama their vote on other upcoming bills.

Obama didn't have the press so the right couldn't make political hay from nothing.

the hyde amendment already prevents federal funds from being used for abortions.

it's political theater.

and needed extra reassurance about something that was already settled.

Perception management

But we have a board of people who couldn't look at the reality of the health insurance bill, nor accept the fact that there were indeed MANDATES. They don't get reality; they just believe what they are told.

If I was against the bill, yet saw this current thing to apease stupak as political theater, that makes me sort of evil?

sigh. complex thought is an amazing thing, try it now and then.

it doesn't even make any sense.

"If I was against the bill, yet saw this current thing to apease stupak as political theater, that makes me sort of evil? "







http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8008227&mesg_id=8008852

Oh and one more thing...

I WILL NOT BE SILENCED. Cheers. LOL

I appreciate your time and consideration.

of your misinterpretation is what someone else actually meant?

That REALLY doesn't make sense. Esp. since you can't track whose "train of thought" you're driving off the track. :spray:

I really appreciate it.

relevant.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

with "death panels".

I think the Hyde Amendment- shit, I can't even type those words without thinking of that corpulent fuck and his stupid "the flag is falling" speech- should be overturned and done away with, but that's a separate battle.

I think it's reasonable for this bill to maintain whatever the status quo was prior, if someone can show some definitive proof that this will make reproductive choice access measurably worse, I'm all ears.

I appreciate your time and consideration.

The GOP has made abortion a dirty word, even when the abortion is medically necessary. Obama and the Dems have capitulated to right wing demagoguery, and this paves the way for future action. The fact that "nothing has changed" is meaningless; it's the image that matters.

Look at this health insurance bill fiasco? We were showing you how the bill would hurt people, how it was NOT a social program, how it required MANDATES for people but not for insurance companies that had loopholes built into the law. I read the Senate bill, I know where the loopholes are. But no one listened to the facts: they went for the pretty public relations.

This event is public relations and will energize those who want to take away my rights.

The GOP has made abortion a dirty word, even when the abortion is medically necessary. Obama and the Dems have capitulated to right wing demagoguery, and this paves the way for future action. The fact that "nothing has changed" is meaningless; it's the image that matters.

Look at this health insurance bill fiasco? We were showing you how the bill would hurt people, how it was NOT a social program, how it required MANDATES for people but not for insurance companies that had loopholes built into the law. I read the Senate bill, I know where the loopholes are. But no one listened to the facts: they went for the pretty public relations.

This event is public relations and will energize those who want to take away my rights.

The majority of Americans are pro-choice. The largest peaceable assembly on the DC mall, in 2004, was for reproductive choice (I was there- were you?) ... you want to talk about PR? Symbolic acts? Let's fight the Hyde Amendment. Let's get leadership that isn't afraid to stand up for personal self-determination & the right of citizens to control their own bodies and make their own decisions.

But that's not what the health care bill was about, and sinking it, and the numerous good things it DOES do (expands medicaid, ends denials for Pre-existing conditions) over a, as you put it, "symbolic act", wouldn't have helped anyone or their rights.

When your body and your life is used as a battleground and a bargaining chip, when your gender is second class or lower than a zygote, when it's more important to appease Repukes than women and when you're told to not worry your pretty little head about it, THEN come back and tell us it doesn't make any difference.

politics is about give and take. I'm certainly sensitive to the issue of abortion and it being used as a battle ground for womens rights in general.

But at the end of today, the current rights women still have regarding abortion have not been affected by this bill.

Granted your point regarding perception and symbolism has valid grounds, but in the long run, it still will take a movement to keep your reproductive rights your own.

The pro-choice movement has certainly suffered set backs lo these many years, but give the fact that is a massive political hot potato, (made so by the ultra right wing), it will be used and continued to be used as a divisive tool until reason returns to this nation and gives all women the full rights they deserve over their bodies.

Until that time, it will be used and continued to be used as a devise to get things the dems want and for the repubs to get things that they want. And as a result, there will be much political theater.

If there was ground that was lost, it was lost purely in a, as you say, symbolic role, but not in an actual legal loss.

Does this symbolic loss portend future losses? No one knows and it's up to us to make sure that it doesn't.

Although stupak is far from my favorite dem, he is still a dem. In the larger context of what the democratic party is up against, in the short term, even political symbolic sacrifices must be made in order to push the ball forward to a point, where being pro-choice in this nation is not looked upon as being evil by the right. I know that day will happen. but until that point, there will be times were the cause will take two steps forward and one step back. Today, was a symbolic one step back, but that certainly does not mean that the cause will not take two steps forward in the future.

Voting out the DINO's and pressuring congress with yet another symbolic bill to improve women's rights will undue this unjust symbolic act, but again, at the end of the day, although symbolic as it was, it still doesn't change the law.

Cheers.

"Does this symbolic loss portend future losses? No one knows and it's up to us to make sure that it doesn't. "

So you admit there could actually be a real loss from this. Thanks for seeing that.

Now, my problem is that considering the way that Dems have treated abortion rights, I have very little faith the Democrats can or will "make sure it doesn't" happen that abortion goes the way of Medicare for all.

being a traditional Democrat, rather than the center right we are currently experiencing, we won't have med for all, nor a public option, nor a single payer, ever.

Until we get progressive dems into office, nothing will change from the status quo.

We will get nothing but political theater.

We are still at war, we still torture people we praise wealth over compassion, we care little for womans rights and we play to the lowest common denominator.

If at the end of 4 or 8 years none of these things have changed or at least improve to a degree, I think we can safely assume that's just the way, very sadly, given the political winds, how things will be for a while. I'm not a doom and gloom type persay, but I feel we are entering into some really dark times.

California is in its worst crisis in a long time and the "answers" all seem to be coming from the radical right. The left is attacked on a daily basis and, in the end, the solutions we get will be neoconservative (or neoliberal economically speaking).

"But at the end of today, the current rights women still have regarding abortion have not been affected by this bill. "

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8008227&mesg_id=8008962

"If there was ground that was lost, it was lost purely in a, as you say, symbolic role, but not in an actual legal loss."

"Does this symbolic loss portend future losses? No one knows and it's up to us to make sure that it doesn't."

The president set a precedent and yes, we know that it portends future losses.

"Until that time, it will be used and continued to be used as a devise to get things the dems want and for the repubs to get things that they want. And as a result, there will be much political theater."

Your point is understood, your peaceful tone is appreciated. We should not have to fight the same battles over and over again and maintain a "movement" to continuously fight for legal rights once achieved. Yet there's always something trying to regress the progress of the past.

However, it doesn't help when those detractors and regressives are on one's own side, whether "DINO's" or those here saying this doesn't make any difference. They mean it doesn't make any difference to THEM -- and I refer them back to my previous post you replied to.

"In the larger context of what the democratic party is up against, in the short term, even political symbolic sacrifices must be made in order to push the ball forward to a point, where being pro-choice in this nation is not looked upon as being evil by the right. I know that day will happen."

Politics is not a football match. Women's lives are not INCIDENTAL to political convenience for Dems and faux Dems. The day will NEVER come that the Repukes don't try to portray women's rights as evil and women's bodies as the property of the state. It is up to DEMOCRATS and their platform to stand firm against that tide of bigotry, hatred, hypocrisy and authoritarian arrogance.

Yes, let's overturn the Hyde Amendment. But that's not what this fight, or this bill, was about.

There are two types of victories: substantive ones and public relations ones. Sometimes, the substantive overtakes the PR: the toppling of Saddam's statue in Iraq was a PR event staged by a PR company (Rendon, I believe). That PR victory overtook reality for awhile, but in the end, the piper had to be paid, and Iraq was eventually seen for the debacle it was.

But sometimes, the PR victory becomes the path to the substantive victory. 37 years of PR from the Catholic Church, the Right Wing, the fundamentalist Xtians, talk show hosts, have made it impossible for public officials to talk about abortion rights without public embarrassment. And that's a victory.

I was watching an old "WKRP in Cincinnati" recently: Mr Carlson's wife is pregant and both are older--late 40s I think. Carlson's mother actually suggests an abortion, not because she's a "babykiller" but because she is worried about the wife's health and the difficulties of a late in life pregnancy. This show was in the late 70s. I can't imagine that show airing today. That's what a public relations victory does. It marginalizes supporters and forces officials who support those rights into the shadows.

Today, Obama joined that PR war--against abortion rights. He allowed himself to be reported on as he signed a piece of paper saying that no public funds would go to abortion. It's not a substantive change--right now. But it is an offensive in the PR war, and on the wrong side. In the same way that the constant 37 years of PR has made it impossible to talk about abortion rights openly and normally (like WKRP), a Democratic president's support of Stupak's beliefs, in public, leaves those of us who actually defended clinics and supported abortion rights under the bus. Obama's "stunt" for Stupak actually aids and abets the enemy of women's rights in their PR war. And the PR war begets the social changes that we have seen across the US with states like North Dakota without abortion services for most women in the state. In many places in the US, it's already the back alley abortion because the RW has managed to shut down the clinics. And it's the PR war that made it so.

Because that will have far more bearing on the future of reproductive rights in this country than this ever will.

Yourself? :shrug:

Nothing left to be said after this. DUers (and real Dems) either get it or they don't.

Your post spells it out pretty clearly though. If they don't get "it" now, they'll never get it.

Its not a Health CARE Reform Act. Its a Health INSURANCE Reform Act. If everyone in the media would stop calling it a Health Care Reform Act, my blood pressure would go down several points.

Kucinich was correct - it is a start. A foot in the door. That's all it is.

We need Single Payor.

It is a health insurance bill.

If he wanted to make a big symbolic act he would've invited the media and made a big show out of it like Bush did when he signed the late term abortion ban. The fact that the press wasn't invited sends the message that he was forced to cave to these people and that he wants to keep it as quiet as possible, not that he's proud of the fact that he has to sign this crap.

The argument SHOULD be to strike down the Hyde Amendment--but that is a separate action and thus a separate argument from HCR. This pro-choice woman will fight to do so, but I'm not going to get distracted by these kind of political stunts that have no impact beyond somewhat neutralizing the radical right.

It doesn't "neutralize the radical right." It alters public perception, it miseducates, it proves what Democrats will or won't do to their own constituents, even if it is political pantomime.

It reinforces the position of those who use women's bodies as their battleground.

But I am also keeping track of the PR war. One can do both at the same time.

The PR war will be particularly tough given the right wing control.

I worked for a number of Democratic candidates over the years--nothing big. Voter reg, phone banking, low level stuff. But I always felt a strong conviction that the party was connected to my principles.

In the past decade, it has gotten harder and harder to feel that way. I still like Boxer and will vote for her. She's in trouble in California at the moment. High unfavorables and the RW is gunning for her. Feinstein is hanging it up so there will be a new Dem against a known moderate pro-choice Republican, Tom Campbell. The problem is that once he gets to DC, he'll be subject to party discipline. There is a lot of anger against Washington and I could see either seat (or both) going GOP and that's not good. On the other hand, can I trust the new Dem to back the things I believe in? I don't know.

The GOP has made abortion a dirty word, even when the abortion is medically necessary. Obama and the Dems have capitulated to right wing demagoguery, and this paves the way for future action. The fact that "nothing has changed" is meaningless; it's the image that matters.

Don't you see the sky is falling?

The GOP has made abortion a dirty word, even when the abortion is medically necessary. Obama and the Dems have capitulated to right wing demagoguery, and this paves the way for future action. The fact that "nothing has changed" is meaningless; it's the image that matters.

Look at this health insurance bill fiasco? We were showing you how the bill would hurt people, how it was NOT a social program, how it required MANDATES for people but not for insurance companies that had loopholes built into the law. I read the Senate bill, I know where the loopholes are. But no one listened to the facts: they went for the pretty public relations.

This event is public relations and will energize those who want to take away my rights.

You weaken yourself by posting this. Join with others who are protecting your rights. Everytime you post things like this you are moving that much further from where you want to be. Think about it.

When you do, come and talk to me.

I did that kind of work for years. And I fundraised and I marched and did voter reg and phone banked.

And donated money, when I had it.

When you do all those things, then you tell me what to do.

The GOP has made abortion a dirty word, even when the abortion is medically necessary. Obama and the Dems have capitulated to right wing demagoguery, and this paves the way for future action. The fact that "nothing has changed" is meaningless; it's the image that matters.

Look at this health insurance bill fiasco? We were showing you how the bill would hurt people, how it was NOT a social program, how it required MANDATES for people but not for insurance companies that had loopholes built into the law. I read the Senate bill, I know where the loopholes are. But no one listened to the facts: they went for the pretty public relations.

This event is public relations and will energize those who want to take away my rights.

Yet, it is seen as worth fighting.

But, then, if we actually want the Democratic President and Democratic Congress to have the spine to work on our behalf, we are... what, traitors?

Or, is it only because this just affects poor women, and not those who you associate with?

Barack's new order is permanent without need for further action.
Yes, it's another betrayal by "our" President.

Tesha

:evilfrown:

there's no more room under that bus anymore...you're in the waiting line for the next bus to be knocked under.

:P

:spray:

It's hard to save face without the media present to record it and beam it back to your constituency.

The Hyde Amendment already applied to this bill - Stupak got himself into a corner of idiocy and the prez pulled him out and got his group on board by doing this.

That's all.

That's a huge issue.

Can you imagine if a Democratic President signed a bill denouncing the 1964 Civil Rights bill? It wouldn't do anything, wouldn't change any laws. But it would make it ok to trash Civil Rights because, after all, the Democrats are doing it.

It's under the bus.

When I say nothing has changed, I mean by this bill or today's action. Federal funds could not be used for abortion before it, or after it.

This president is not denouncing the right of women to choose.

and your comparison to a prez signing a bill denouncing 1964 is ludicrous. As for "under the bus", can't you come up with something a little better?

weak sauce, dear.

the hyde amendment already did this.

this was nothing more than political theater.

So I would love to know how you were kicked under the bus?

If this is nothing, then why keep the press out? All it does is make me suspicious. I thought we were in an era of "new open government".

Let's face it.

The GOP has made abortion a dirty word, even when the abortion is medically necessary. Obama and the Dems have capitulated to right wing demagoguery, and this paves the way for future action. The fact that "nothing has changed" is meaningless; it's the image that matters.

Look at this health insurance bill fiasco? We were showing you how the bill would hurt people, how it was NOT a social program, how it required MANDATES for people but not for insurance companies that had loopholes built into the law. I read the Senate bill, I know where the loopholes are. But no one listened to the facts: they went for the pretty public relations.

This event is public relations and will energize those who want to take away my rights.

winning, even if it means turning into a party that resembles republicans.

ergo, they will be hit hard in nov, for basically screwing their base.


knr

That's exactly right.

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

I like Boxer, always have. And she at least stood up for abortion rights in the Senate. I will probably vote for her for that reason.

What part of that don't you understand?

And an executive order can easily be undone.

Your outrage is misplaced.

It gives force and teeth to the Democratic commitment against women at very least.

Nothing changed. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE educate yourself.

And how they lead to other things.

The GOP has made abortion a dirty word, even when the abortion is medically necessary. Obama and the Dems have capitulated to right wing demagoguery, and this paves the way for future action. The fact that "nothing has changed" is meaningless; it's the image that matters.

Look at this health insurance bill fiasco? We were showing you how the bill would hurt people, how it was NOT a social program, how it required MANDATES for people but not for insurance companies that had loopholes built into the law. I read the Senate bill, I know where the loopholes are. But no one listened to the facts: they went for the pretty public relations.

This event is public relations and will energize those who want to take away my rights.

by showing your outrage over what is purely a political maneuver to get the votes Obama needed.

You're the one saying the president "kicked me under a bus" -- even though this means NOTHING.

And the more YOU promote the idea that it does, the more harm you do. You should be out there assuring women that NOTHING has changed.

Since when?

Just to let you know:

I remember when abortion was illegal

When the Webster decision occurred in 1989, I got heavily involved in the ProChoice movement. I don't know what activism you have or have not done, but I defended clinics, raised money for clinic defenses, and stood against "bearded patriachs" from Operation Rescue (Randall Terry's organization) at 5 AM on Saturdays to prevent clinics from being closed down.

Now, when Obama can trash women's rights symbolically, the forces that have been in operation since 1973--the Catholic church (that still marches every January), the fundamentalist right, the clinic bombers--are given a sense of rightness about their cause. Even Obama, you see, supports them ideologically. That's how it appears.

You obviously have some kind of blind spot.

THE POINT I AM MAKING to you, is that by you propagating the MYTH that something has changed, that Obama has somehow THROWN WOMEN UNDER THE BUS, you are FEEDING INTO THE GOP's hands. You are doing their work for them.

Is THAT what you want?

NOTHING has changed. The Hyde Amendment still stands. There is NO NEW LEGISLATION. This is PURELY a political move to insure the passage of healthcare reform. Women would be BETTER SERVED if you assured them of that -- and let them know that Obama does NOT support the pro-lifers. And that this signing is NOT symbolic but purely POLITICAL. A means to an end.

I don't know how much clearer I can be than that.

And by the way, I remember when my sister went to a back alley in Chinatown to get an abortion but couldn't go through it because the place was a pit and the "doctor" was a sleazy bastard who didn't really look as if he knew what he was doing. Instead, she was forced to have the child and put her up for adoption. So I'm WELL AWARE of what it was like in the days gone by.

That's a huge change. And that's what the problem is.

There are two types of victories: substantive ones and public relations ones. Sometimes, the substantive overtakes the PR: the toppling of Saddam's statue in Iraq was a PR event staged by a PR company (Rendon, I believe). That PR victory overtook reality for awhile, but in the end, the piper had to be paid, and Iraq was eventually seen for the debacle it was.

But sometimes, the PR victory becomes the path to the substantive victory. 37 years of PR from the Catholic Church, the Right Wing, the fundamentalist Xtians, talk show hosts, have made it impossible for public officials to talk about abortion rights without public embarrassment. And that's a victory.

I was watching an old "WKRP in Cincinnati" recently: Mr Carlson's wife is pregant and both are older--late 40s I think. Carlson's mother actually suggests an abortion, not because she's a "babykiller" but because she is worried about the wife's health and the difficulties of a late in life pregnancy. This show was in the late 70s. I can't imagine that show airing today. That's what a public relations victory does. It marginalizes supporters and forces officials who support those rights into the shadows.

Today, Obama joined that PR war--against abortion rights. He allowed himself to be reported on as he signed a piece of paper saying that no public funds would go to abortion. It's not a substantive change--right now. But it is an offensive in the PR war, and on the wrong side. In the same way that the constant 37 years of PR has made it impossible to talk about abortion rights openly and normally (like WKRP), a Democratic president's support of Stupak's beliefs, in public, leaves those of us who actually defended clinics and supported abortion rights under the bus. Obama's "stunt" for Stupak actually aids and abets the enemy of women's rights in their PR war. And the PR war begets the social changes that we have seen across the US with states like North Dakota without abortion services for most women in the state. In many places in the US, it's already the back alley in Chinatown because the RW has managed to shut down the clinics. And it's the PR war that made it so.

By YOU saying thing like Obama has thrown us under the bus, you are only feeding into the BAD PR. Instead you should be EDUCATING people, letting them know that was simply a political ploy -- that changed no laws -- in order to get the much needed HCR.

Don't feed into it. Fight against it by educating other women to the point. Otherwise the GOP wins the PR war.

and they support domestic terrorism in case that doesn't work.

for expensive breast, uterine, and other female cancer drugs, this HCR bill needed to pass. Roe v Wade still stands, as does the Hyde amendment, just as before.

The two most important things President Obama can accomplish during his terms in office are HCR and appointments to the Supreme Court. If abortion rights are important to you, Nikki, please consider the latter. If HCR had not passed, Obama might have been a one term president, and I shouldn't have to remind anyone what impact another repub presidency would have on the balance of power in the high court and on Roe v Wade. If freedom of choice is as important to Nikki as it would seem, the mere thought of Roe v Wade falling should fill you with dread, as it does me.

And women are losing that one, and Obama is helping.

or are you just engaging in typical Obama-hate? For your sake, I hope it's the latter.

have been kissing the ass of the GOP from the beginning and continue to do so.

big fatwet kisses from day one.

............
.........................




..............

Are any of you paying attention to what's going on out there or are the knee-jerk stereotypes about us true?

Obama has been reaching out to the GOP to give them just enough rope to hang themselves. This is POLITICAL THEATER. How hard is that to understand?

The least you could do is read the argument.

Please read my responses.

No, you've just bought the talking points being used to placate people...nothing more.

IT WAS JUST A TWO-MINUTE PRAYER!!!!

opponents of abortion say "it has no actual impact other than restating restrictions already in the law," while abortion proponents didn't object because it "made no difference."

So how are you more under the bus now than you were before?

I am a strong and ardent abortion rights supporter. But I fail to see the big whoop here. It was theatrics. And when I think about it in economic terms, I can't be too upset that a $350 abortion ($600 or $700 if your beyond the first trimester) won't get funded by the government, compared to a $25,000 C-section or a $75,000 breast cancer surgery and treatment regimen. We'll lend you the money if you need an abortion. Honest. Just say the word, and we'll take up donations here: we could get it in about two minutes.

(P.S. I'm not trying to be callous. I just think this is being blown up for reasons other than reality.)

This bill was hailed as 'reform'. It was suppose to be a reform of the old crap to make things better. The Democrats celebrated and jumped up and down, clapping because they had done 'something' no one could do for blah blah years by voting to 'reform' health care.

As far as women who need an abortion to live are concerned it did nothing. It was not reform. They were excluded...but then, they are only women so who gives a shit?

and I realize this EO just upholds the Hyde amendment but symbolism does matter.

THANK YOU.

another stupider than stupid argument that it doesn't matter because it didn't change anything but it was drafted and signed by the president but that's okay because it doesn't matter because it didn't change anything.

:crazy:

:)

Now we're cheering for the status quo? :eyes:

:crazy: Making such a lucid statement sounds quite crazy. We're not supposed to remember, eh?

so now we need to hear from you too? :eyes:

Isn't OET a better place to vent one's hyperbole and exaggerations
and play the victim? :shrug:

they should be used by now to having their status relegated to incubators and their bodies and lives used as battlegrounds and bargaining chips. What's the BFD.

It's not like it was about PENISES.

There are two types of victories: substantive ones and public relations ones. Sometimes, the substantive overtakes the PR: the toppling of Saddam's statue in Iraq was a PR event staged by a PR company (Rendon, I believe). That PR victory overtook reality for awhile, but in the end, the piper had to be paid, and Iraq was eventually seen for the debacle it was.

But sometimes, the PR victory becomes the path to the substantive victory. 37 years of PR from the Catholic Church, the Right Wing, the fundamentalist Xtians, talk show hosts, have made it impossible for public officials to talk about abortion rights without public embarrassment. And that's a victory.

I was watching an old "WKRP in Cincinnati" recently: Mr Carlson's wife is pregant and both are older--late 40s I think. Carlson's mother actually suggests an abortion, not because she's a "babykiller" but because she is worried about the wife's health and the difficulties of a late in life pregnancy. This show was in the late 70s. I can't imagine that show airing today. That's what a public relations victory does. It marginalizes supporters and forces officials who support those rights into the shadows.

Today, Obama joined that PR war--against abortion rights. He allowed himself to be reported on as he signed a piece of paper saying that no public funds would go to abortion. It's not a substantive change--right now. But it is an offensive in the PR war, and on the wrong side. In the same way that the constant 37 years of PR has made it impossible to talk about abortion rights openly and normally (like WKRP), a Democratic president's support of Stupak's beliefs, in public, leaves those of us who actually defended clinics and supported abortion rights under the bus. Obama's "stunt" for Stupak actually aids and abets the enemy of women's rights in their PR war. And the PR war begets the social changes that we have seen across the US with states like North Dakota without abortion services for most women in the state. In many places in the US, it's already the back alley abortion because the RW has managed to shut down the clinics. And it's the PR war that made it so.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I'm sorry you take such guff for caring for those who are so badly affected by this.

:yourock:

How are you doing?

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Sid

Nice to see my favorite unrec'er. How are you? It's been awhile. :)

My mom's college roommate had an abortion on a kitchen table in NJ. Guess what? She had to pay for that illegal abortion.

You're not thrown under the bus. Women prior to Roe v Wade were under the bus. And back in the day, we didn't have access to OTC morning after pills either.

And when Obama can trash women's rights symbolically, the forces that have been in operation since 1973--the Catholic church (that still marches every January), the fundamentalist right, the clinic bombers--are given a sense of rightness about their cause. Even Obama, you see, supports them ideologically. That's how it appears.

When Webster occurred in 1989, I got heavily involved in the ProChoice movement. I don't know what activism you have or have not done, but I defended clinics, raised money for clinic defenses, and stood against "bearded patriachs" from Operation Rescue (Randall Terry's organization) at 5 AM on Saturdays to prevent clinics from being closed down.

If I'm worried, you should be worried.

Because it's easier to blow off a real activist than to listen to one.

Any step back is a step back. Any capitulation -- you KNOW that Democrats do not stand solidly for women's rights. Be honest.

That was when they sent abortion back to the states, and some states eviscerated the right.

Interesting how few other things go back to the states.

and here's to Echo In Light and other men who do get it and are willing to say so :toast::yourock:

people just forget to answer.

Is that like actually like DOING something?

As one good DU friend said, a lot of DUers seem to think activism is manning the phone banks while they watch their 401k accounts grow.

use the words "do" or "responsiblity" :yoiks:

And who's been there on the front lines.

It's getting up a 4AM, driving down to a clinic, getting coached in non-violent resistance, and having the other side film you while all of this is going on. They target the regulars.

Does that mean you won't take up a collection and pay for my abortion? ;)

It's true that the EO didn't change the language in the bill, but it's not true that the language in the bill "just" extended Hyde to the exchanges.

Previously, the abortion could not be paid for, directly, with federal funds. Now, even women buying insurance with their OWN MONEY cannot get a policy that covers abortion without jumping through accounting hoops, and making the insurance company jump through accounting hoops. The bill's language extends the effect of Hyde to PRIVATE money.

Many people believe that insurance companies will just stop covering abortions - for anyone, not just customers paying their premium in part with subsidies. I don't have a crystal ball, so I won't claim that (although I think it's likely - in the states that already require abortion coverage to be bought separately, there are no abortion coverage riders offered). It also may require women in group policies to affirmatively state that they are buying coverage for abortions. That's not clear, but seems to be suggested by the structure of the "separate funds."

What's changed is that abortion coverage has been taken out of "comprehensive insurance" - even for people paying with THEIR OWN MONEY - and put in a special little boat all by itself. You may call it "symbolic" but it also serves as a precedent to define abortion as something OTHER than "health care" and to segregate women's rights from everybody else's rights.

And spare me the cries that "abortion is cheap!" Yes, first trimester abortions are relatively inexpensive, as medical procedures go. But later abortions required to protect the woman's health (not covered by the exceptions) ARE NOT CHEAP.

By offering and signing this Executive Order, Obama put his stamp of approval on all that.

"What's changed is that abortion coverage has been taken out of "comprehensive insurance" - even for people paying with THEIR OWN MONEY - and put in a special little boat all by itself. You may call it "symbolic" but it also serves as a precedent to define abortion as something OTHER than "health care" and to segregate women's rights from everybody else's rights."

:kick:

and, although a 1st trimester may be considered cheap, to a woman raising a couple of kids alone on a low income, that's a lot of money. That's the difference between having the rent this month and not having all of it.

Maybe deliberately? Thank you for spelling it out again.

as one wag put it. Or as another (Upton Sinclair) put it "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!"

It all goes to the point of people not wanting to see the warts in this legislation that they feel they must support.

And, lest I be misunderstood, I do support the law. I think it will do some good (although not for me), some of it for people I know. But I won't willingly blind myself to its faults and implications, and yes, I WILL hold a grudge against those who insisted on this in order to support the overall bill.

Thank you. :)

I'd give credit where it's due if I could, but the best I can do is disclaim authorship.

:)

I'm writing that down.

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

I appreciate your time and consideration.

to let everyone know (by executive order) that your tax money will not be dirtied by paying for abortions regardless of need?

What male condition is there for which a president has signed an executive order stating that tax paid medical care will not be available?

I'm curious.

...Wait...still thinking.....

Alert on them and hope the mods are fair.

Mods have been very helpful/timely when needed since the last announcement....

And to you all. I appreciate it.

Here's something I wrote upthread:

There are two types of victories: substantive ones and public relations ones. Sometimes, the substantive overtakes the PR: the toppling of Saddam's statue in Iraq was a PR event staged by a PR company (Rendon, I believe). That PR victory overtook reality for awhile, but in the end, the piper had to be paid, and Iraq was eventually seen for the debacle it was.

But sometimes, the PR victory becomes the path to the substantive victory. 37 years of PR from the Catholic Church, the Right Wing, the fundamentalist Xtians, talk show hosts, have made it impossible for public officials to talk about abortion rights without public embarrassment. And that's a victory.

I was watching an old "WKRP in Cincinnati" recently: Mr Carlson's wife is pregant and both are older--late 40s I think. Carlson's mother actually suggests an abortion, not because she's a "babykiller" but because she is worried about the wife's health and the difficulties of a late in life pregnancy. This show was in the late 70s. I can't imagine that show airing today. That's what a public relations victory does. It marginalizes supporters and forces officials who support those rights into the shadows.

Today, Obama joined that PR war--against abortion rights. He allowed himself to be reported on as he signed a piece of paper saying that no public funds would go to abortion. It's not a substantive change--right now. But it is an offensive in the PR war, and on the wrong side. In the same way that the constant 37 years of PR has made it impossible to talk about abortion rights openly and normally (like WKRP), a Democratic president's support of Stupak's beliefs, in public, leaves those of us who actually defended clinics and supported abortion rights under the bus. Obama's "stunt" for Stupak actually aids and abets the enemy of women's rights in their PR war. And the PR war begets the social changes that we have seen across the US with states like North Dakota without abortion services for most women in the state. In many places in the US, it's already the back alley abortion because the RW has managed to shut down the clinics. And it's the PR war that made it so.

'Cause, if it were NOT wrong, then there would be no reason for the government to not pay for it.

Wrong.

Not illegal.

Not illegal (yet & again) - but wrong: That's the message from our president.

Good point.

This is really dumb.

Just give it a pass. Go on with your day.

And have a nice one. A little tea, a hot bath, maybe some cookies.

That sounds pretty good actually. :)

Cheers.

I wrote a lengthy one, then decided it wasn't worth the effort...

This signing was symbolic... it was merely a statement saying an already existing law would be enforced... it was hardly a bus throw.

What next? Armageddon?

Now go do something nice for yourself. It's been a long day. :toast:

Why are Democrats defending Hyde's assault on poor women seeking reproductive services? It boggles the mind how much of Reaganism has infected our body politic.

A true progressive party would be agitating for repeal of Hyde's abomination, not bowing down to yet another executive order enforcing it.

But this bill wasn't the best place to repeal, considering how hard it was to get the votes.

That said, imo the Democratic party is not truly progressive at this point.

as a stand alone bill. Look at the various polls that are stored on pollingreport.com. There is far LESS support for federal funds being used than for keeping it legal. http://pollingreport.com/abortion.htm

beliefs by unfairly punishing poor women is in itself repulsive and one of the most blatant signs of the direction of the party.

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

There are two types of victories: substantive ones and public relations ones. Sometimes, the substantive overtakes the PR: the toppling of Saddam's statue in Iraq was a PR event staged by a PR company (Rendon, I believe). That PR victory overtook reality for awhile, but in the end, the piper had to be paid, and Iraq was eventually seen for the debacle it was.

But sometimes, the PR victory becomes the path to the substantive victory. 37 years of PR from the Catholic Church, the Right Wing, the fundamentalist Xtians, talk show hosts, have made it impossible for public officials to talk about abortion rights without public embarrassment. And that's a victory.

I was watching an old "WKRP in Cincinnati" recently: Mr Carlson's wife is pregant and both are older--late 40s I think. Carlson's mother actually suggests an abortion, not because she's a "babykiller" but because she is worried about the wife's health and the difficulties of a late in life pregnancy. This show was in the late 70s. I can't imagine that show airing today. That's what a public relations victory does. It marginalizes supporters and forces officials who support those rights into the shadows.

Today, Obama joined that PR war--against abortion rights. He allowed himself to be reported on as he signed a piece of paper saying that no public funds would go to abortion. It's not a substantive change--right now. But it is an offensive in the PR war, and on the wrong side. In the same way that the constant 37 years of PR has made it impossible to talk about abortion rights openly and normally (like WKRP), a Democratic president's support of Stupak's beliefs, in public, leaves those of us who actually defended clinics and supported abortion rights under the bus. Obama's "stunt" for Stupak actually aids and abets the enemy of women's rights in their PR war. And the PR war begets the social changes that we have seen across the US with states like North Dakota without abortion services for most women in the state. In many places in the US, it's already the back alley abortion because the RW has managed to shut down the clinics. And it's the PR war that made it so.

You're not about substance, just about name calling.

I am of the opinion that people really like flame wars, no matter how much they say that they don't. Sometimes it is the only way they read anything of substance.

If you come on a thread specifically to insult someone, then you are doing the flaming. If you really don't like the thread, do what I do: ignore it. Let it drop. It's not worth the effort. The fact that you don't understand the symbolic value of what the President did today is really sad. But then, women's rights are always down the list from other things. And yet women have been the most dependable Democratic voters.

you can't get an abortion through your private company. BTW...the "subsidies" are not "subsidies" but tax credits.

Hopefully it pays well.

:)

:thumbsdown:

Look I get the idea. The notion that the government should control women's bodies is an obscene position and it's obscene that we would lend credibility to people who take that position.

But the fact is that anti-choicers are a political force to be reckoned with and if we don't act strategically, they will win and reproductive rights will no longer exist. And sometimes acting strategically means sacrificing a symbolic gesture to ensure that the next justice will uphold Roe.

One of the more offensive things I've seen from this Administration.

"Obama's just trying to show bi-partisanship!!!111"

"Rick Warren isn't as bad as you all want to paint him!!!111!!!"

"It's just PR, it doesn't mean anything!!!11111!"




Sorry but symbolic acts have consequences and they matter. Those of you who want to diminish the import of this Executive Order on abortion are as myopic as those who said that Rick Warren's prayer meant nothing sinister to the LGBT movement (when in fact, it crystallizes so much of what's wrong with this Admin's approach to LGBT issues).

This EO codifies this Admin's position on abortion, and codifies it in the most restrictive way possible. There is significance to this, and long term ramifications.

to be outraged about the Stupak order when it is really the 'prayer' that you're still angry about.

when remembering those of our sisters who have fought amd suffered so that we women and minoritys can enjoy the freedoms we have being seen as swinging back in time and yet it is also an injustice to ignore what our president is having to deal with in regards to the whole spectrum of politics. i am more angry at we the people, we do those that have fought before us the injustice of walking in their shoes by facing the same odds they have with the same determination regardless of finding ourselves with the threat of losing our highly valued creature comforts, internet access being a strong deterent for far to many

have to depend on federal funding to do it. I am pro choice and I find this very offensive. This was not an abortion bill, it was supposed to be a health insurance bill. Not a bill I think is effective or that will be very helpful, but it had nothing to do with anyone's abortion agenda.

Let the people who want to deny a woman's right to choice step out in the open and try to get the issue to stand or fall on its own instead of hiding it on legislation that is not about abortion.

I gave you a rec and you are still at 0. But at least I can give it a kick. Why does it bother people so badly when we disagree with Obama and his legislation and finagling? He is not above criticism; he is not above dissent. He has not dealt honestly or fairly with his base. Those who want to think otherwise are free to do so, but so are those of us who do not. You do not enhance Obama's image or your own when you behave badly. In fact you make him look even worse. For heavens sake get some perspective. You can't hide what he is doing by trying to hassle people who comment on it. I for one just become more determined to speak my mind. And that is what I am going to do. No matter what names I am called or how I am pushed not to speak. If you don't like it, don't read it or block it. Or call names. I don't care. It reflects on you most of all, not on the people who are under attack.

weird