If you think the issue is just abortion, you don't see the dangerous pattern emerging.

[madfloridian]

I have been reading the posts here that are defending the Stupak amendment. I see the technical analyses saying we are over reacting, that we need calmer heads, that we are not reading it correctly.

Last night Rachel Maddow covered it extensively. (Video) She understood that it was not about abortion. It was about a trend within the Democratic party to please the religious right movement. The conservative Democrats wanted to please not only the Catholic bishops with whom Nancy Pelosi met on Friday night before the vote.

They also want to please the evangelical movement which includes varied churches, one of which is the hijacked Southern Baptist church of which I used to be a member.

We have seen it over and over and over. We saw it happen when Tim Kaine was appointed chairman of the DNC. It was a culture shock after having a socially liberal chairman for 4 years. Kaine has at various times been opposed to abortion, stem cell research funding, same-sex marriage, civil unions, and many labor issues.

WASHINGTON - While Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine said he supports the $500,000 allocation in the budget bill lawmakers approved last month to fund adult stem cell research in Virginia, he does not want to see taxpayer money used for embryonic stem cell research.

“I don’t think we should be publicly funding it in Virginia,” Kaine, who is Catholic, said Tuesday during his monthly appearance on WTOP radio. “You will not see me proposing that. I think there are huge advances that can be made in adult stem cell research. I think that’s the way to go.”

..."The state also saw the swearing-in today in of a new governor, Democrat Tim Kaine, who opposes both same-sex marriage and civil unions. He has promised to sign the measure that places the amendment on the ballot after the Senate passes the proposal once more. Even more depressing is that measures that would have limited the scope of the amendment's discrimination were deep-sixed. (WashBlade):

Kaine spokeswoman Delacey Skinner said that the governor-elect will sign the bill to call for a referendum. Kaine supports the amendment and opposes civil unions, she said. She added that he is interested in discussing measures “to make sure people can still be able to contract with each other.”

Kaine on labor issues and right to work issues.

Kaine:"I am saddened that the House leadership has chosen the Washington style path of partisanship by rejecting a good and capable man...The Secretary of the Commonwealth has no - I repeat, no - role in the enforcement of Virginia's right-to-work law, a law I strongly support."

That told us a lot about the direction of the party.

At least he did not want to criminalize women or doctors. That was thoughtful.

"Promote abstinence; ban partial-birth abortion
I will reduce abortion in Virginia by enforcing current Virginia restrictions, passing an enforceable ban on partial-birth abortion, ensuring women’s access to health care (including legal contraception), and promoting abstinence-focused education and adoption. We should reduce abortion in this manner, rather than by criminalizing women and doctors."

We should really have been alarmed seriously recently when the DNC of which Kaine is chairman, and the OFA which is the reorganization of the Obama campaign....REFUSED to take a stand for gay rights in Maine. They not only refused to donate to the cause, they refused to even mention the amendment.

DNC, OFA distanced themselves from the Maine anti-gay resolution.

"The Executive Director of Organizing for America sent an email to Mainers telling them to vote. Someone I know just got it:

"Tomorrow is Election Day once again in Maine. It's as important as ever for you to get out to vote. And just like you did last year, bring friends, family, and co-workers with you when you go to the polls."

Funny thing (or not), OFA forgot to tell Mainers what issues are on the ballot and how to vote on those issues. For example, there's no mention of Question 1, the measure to repeal Maine's marriage equality law - i.e., repeal gay marriage - in the email (really big surprise, huh?)

What a waste of time and energy. Progressives in Maine are working their butts off to save marriage equality. The Democratic Governor of the State, John Baldacci, signed the marriage law, which passed the Democratically-controlled House and Senate. Baldacci and members of the legislature have been campaigning tirelessly to save the new law from being repealed. Yet, OFA, an arm of the Democratic National Committee, couldn't even say: Vote No on 1."

There are the words of Chuck Schumer in 2005 in which he effectively said the party could no longer afford to be pro-choice.

Schumer took women's rights off the table.

"So I called up Governor...our number one target is Rick Santorum...let him go back to wherever he lives, Maryland, you know you heard about it, he is Pennsylvania but he tried to get exempt from the school tax there cause he lives in Maryland even though he is a registered citizen of Pennsylvania. In any case I called up the Governor of Pennsylvania, Governor Rendell, I said who is the best candidate to beat Santorum. He there is only one person who could beat him but he won't run and B you wouldn't want him to. I said why wouldn't we want him to run, he said he's pro-life. He's a deeply religious Catholic man. Bob Casey."

"I said, those days are over Ed. Yes I'm pro-choice, but we need the best candidate. We can't insist that every democrat check off 18 different issues before they get (unintelligible) we could do that, we can't anymore. And so, we persuaded, Harry using his very...Harry has amazing insights into people...and we together persuaded Bob Casey to run. A poll yesterday...national...all the polls they did...Casey 51 Santorum 40. You should see Santorum nervous and walkin on the floor."

(unintelligible)

"And we're doing this in the other states."

So that is two groups, women and gays, whose rights the party no longer considers important enough to defend.

We should have seen it coming as well when the Democratically controlled congress in 2007 upped the amount for failed abstinence only education by 28 million dollars.

The uproar over the Stupak amendment is about abortion, but only on the surface. It goes so much deeper. Those here who defend it, those here who ridicule those of us who are truly angry about the sell-out....do not see that this is about religion taking over our party.

Don't ever forget the words of Simon Rosenberg that were quoted in the America Prospect about the DLC's formation.

"Simon Rosenberg, the former field director for the DLC who directs the New Democrat Network, a spin-off political action committee, says, "We're trying to raise money to help them lessen their reliance on traditional interest groups in the Democratic Party. In that way," he adds, "they are ideologically freed, frankly, from taking positions that make it difficult for Democrats to win."

Bottom line is that women and gays are considered among those issues which might make it hard for Democrats to win.

We have again caved in on the issue of abortion. We have caved to the right on their anti-gay agenda. Next comes contraception. After that who knows?

We deserve it if let them do keep doing it.

[madfloridian]

1. Correct me if I am wrong, but I have not heard male Democratic politicians

defend women's rightd since the Stupak amendment passed.

[lukasahero]

3. 4 running to fill Teddy's Senate seat in MA

3 men, 1 woman. Guess how they line up on support of the bill?

[pundaint]

190. I actually called each of their campaigns monday and asked

"How would the candidate vote on the exact bill passed by the house and why?" None of them had a policy person to respond. Khazei's campaign couldn't answer and refused to call me back. Capuano and Pagliuca's offices called back to say they'd vote "yes", and Coakley's people called back to say "no' but could only point to the Stupak amendment as the reason.

[lukasahero]

211. "but could only point to the Stupak amendment as the reason"

Well, yeah, that's the point. 1 woman, 3 men. Only the woman cares about the Stupak ammendment.

[librechik]

50. Everyone should inform themselves about the influence of The Family

look at Rachel's segment and get hold of Sharlett's book if you can--it's a stunner.

[juno jones]

55. And article by Bruce Wilson (troutfishing)

on DKos pertaining to Stupaks C street connections.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/11/9/802393/-Blindsided-By-Politicized-Religion.-Again.-And-2010-Looms.

[Go2Peace]

174. What's ironic is that they are doing this at a time when the fundie movement is crashing

It is unreported, but the movement has peaked and is on the downslide.

[defendandprotect]

185. We have to get C STREET and THE FAMILY out of Congress . . .

and out of politics --

Americans have to junk their fear of "god"-speak and decide that they

want government run according to the best free thought, the best free conscience

available -- and not "god" says crap -- !!!

[aquart]

189. Then BRAND THEM. Label and follow them.

Make them answer to their extremist views at EVERY stop.

[Captain Hilts]

204. Yes, they're on the back side of this trend. nt

[Hissyspit]

99. Here is video of Rachel's first segment on the issue:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=385&topic_id=400976&mesg_id=400976

[madfloridian]

117. Thanks I shared your link in GDP to some who were getting offensive...

I hope they watch and read the text.

Thanks for finding it.

[winyanstaz]

158. only one I have heard so far is Kucinich....

[madfloridian]

162. I am surprised how he has been attacked here.

Very little outrage for the ones who went along with Stupak, but all kinds of outrage because he voted his conscience.

[winyanstaz]

182. Yes and very little outrage about the loss of women's civil rights..

There seems to be a crowd in du pushing their own little agenda...makes me think they have bought a lot of stock in the medical industry or something.

[defendandprotect]

186. correct . . .and for a bill that doesn't even have a public option -- !!!!

They embrace compromise without thought -- and drop at the first hint of opposition!!!

:eyes:

[DemBones DemBones]

219. And Kucinich is Catholic.

[comtec]

194. nvm

found it.
my apologies.

[Cosmocat]

203. I think a point has to be made about Casey/Santorum ...

I am still trying to understand Stupak as an amendment and the politics behind it ...

But, I think the OP is taking a pretty big stretch on using Santorum/Casey as THE definitive point about the party and choice.

First, Schumer is a massive egotistical knucklead. His need to be on camera overrides what falls out of his mouth at times.

Second, he was right, however, that Casey was the only sure bet to beat Santorum. I don't get how somehow spinning beating SANTORUM was somehow a negative for the choice/life debate for those on the choice end. Santorum was BY FAR the greatest threat to choice in that he was 1) a complete and total right wing religious wacko 2) he was a VERY good, astute and powerful politician.

Casey may be in the very soft middle, but replacing Santorum with Casey was a MASSIVE positive for choice.

Also, make no mistake, Santorum was, and might still be, a very strong presidential candidate. And, be it in the senate or the white house, if he had his way, abortion "crimes" would be punishable by death.

I know this is going to get slammed on some kind of principle rationale. But, the choice came down to getting Casey in to beat Santorum or having Santorum remain in the senate and A LOT closer to being president.

[madfloridian]

206. You did not get the point of the OP at all then. Schumer said they could not afford..

to stand up for women's rights anymore.

We rationalized that away as well when we discussed here years ago.

It seems like you are saying the religious right views are more important than our party standing up for women.

That's a shame.

[madfloridian]

2. Bring it on....

the unrecs that is.

The party has caved to the religious right too often, time to speak up.

[lukasahero]

4. K&R

Just for the record.

[madfloridian]

12. Thanks..

I needed that. :-)

I saw the unrecs start at once, and it is so discouraging. Are they disagreeing with the topic? Are they wanting religious groups to have more say? Is is a personality thingy?

It's discouraging when they start before someone could have read it.

[MrMickeysMom]

88. Fuck the unrecs, I say...

I'll see their unrec and raise it by one rec!

[Techn0Girl]

118. What a well thought out and intelligent rebuttal ....

With people like you on our side defining the issues in simple four letter words that any Walmart shopper with a 7th grade education can understand .... who needs enemies?

The progressive movement does NOT need it's own TeaBag contingent thank you very much.

[MrMickeysMom]

169. "The progressive movement does not need..." -WHAT?

Sorry... couldn't hear what you were saying ... I think there's a little too much self importance in front of your post!


Who the HELL are you to define what "our side" is anyway?

[HillWilliam]

201. What you said!

K&R!

[juno jones]

57. But we're pragmatic that way and all.

We might call ourselves liberal but we know we will be defeated by the 'shining city of the hill' rhetoric so we are timid as to not anger our religious overlords much :sarcasm:

[madfloridian]

62. How true.

:hi:

[dotymed]

164. The Fundamentalist Bullshit

is just a distraction.They're trying to get a HC bill (BS) by
(past) the American people that will only help the insurance
companies. Sure they'll let people get all indignant about the
Abortion Issue, they'll yank Stupak and leave the insurance
company gift as a HC bill. BullShit. HR676 or keep fighting.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

5. Women and gays are being used as sacrificial pawns in the great chess gaime. K&R

What is really pathetic about all this is the supposed "liberals" here applauding the sacrifices.

[madfloridian]

6. I have been stunned at the defense of this amendment at DU.

People are getting vicious in their defense of it.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

8. It's the "Ends justifies the means" excuse writ large.

With a large dose of "women are whores" and "gays are whiners" thrown in for moral justifications.

All of it, of course, painted over with "I'm pro-choice..but..", and "Some of my best friends are gay..but"

[robinlynne]

10. I just figure they are all "visitors". No progressive could possibly support it.

No liberal could possibly defend it. No Democrat should have a kind word to say about it.

[QC]

30. The right wing takeover of this site has been in progress for two years now.

Maybe it wasn't as obvious when it was only the gays being told to sit down and shut up (something we've been hearing since the McClurkin and Warren uproars), but now it's all much more out in the open with the assaults on public education and choice. The point is that this is not a recent development--it has been in the works for at least two years now.

[Name removed]

112. Deleted message

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

[bluetrain]

152. Not just gays being told to hush up. The misogyny thrown at H. Clinton was mind blowing.

[winyanstaz]

160. You know I think your right. I have noticed more and more ....

posts that sound further and further to the right from the same people.
They also come in in packs right as soon as a new post is made and the first two dozen or so seem to mainly attack the post..for whatever reason.
Further down the post you will see some calm and reasoning posts that sound a lot more like Dems showing up.
I am seeing so called dems posting things that no dem should be happy about or settling for.

[tekisui]

68. They have truly become blinded.

The Democratic party became diseased when it recruited conservatives.

[bvar22]

159. Conservative Republican Arlen Specter is IN.

Liberal Democrat Dennis Kucinich is OUT.


The DLC New Team
Progressives Need NOT Apply

(Screen Capped from the DLC Website)

[defendandprotect]

187. Wow . . . DLC is endless poison . . . and some here don't get it ????

Or like it??????????????



AND just want to add to this that Arlen Specter is highly complicit in the JFK coup ...

at least in the still on-going 45 year cover up!!

[customerserviceguy]

140. I've seen viciousness in opposition to this amendment, as well

I'm not sure if the Stupak amendment has really done anything to assure the passage of universal healthcare coverage (or even a significant step in it's direction), but it has divided progressives quite nicely. I doubt that our conservative opposition is this upset about it, but I haven't been lurking over at freeperland lately.

[madfloridian]

144. Yes, indeed it has been divisive. It should be very divisive.

It should be a line in the sand for women. The party leaders refuse to draw those lines, but we must.

[customerserviceguy]

146. All I can say is

if it weren't for the Stupak amendment, healthcare legislation would be officially dead. That would earn the Democratic Congress the ire of people who need treatments that are completely noncontroversial, and would hand the Rethugs a victory.

Frankly, I don't see anything in the Stupak amendment that would prevent the states from doing their own supplemental abortion funding. I would imagine that the states where abortion coverage is commonly offered would do just that, and the states where abortion coverage is already quite limited would be the ones that would refuse to do this.

[madfloridian]

148. So you are saying we don't even need that majority.

Then they don't need my money and activism anymore.

If a majority goes to waste, it may not be there anymore.

[customerserviceguy]

154. That's exactly what the Rethugs want you to say

They want you to become as dispirited as they became when they went for John McCain (who they viewed as a 'moderate') a year or so ago.

Repukes do a lousy job of governing when they are in power, but when they are out of power, they are artful at blowing apart their enemies.

[madfloridian]

155. It is the Democrats who dispirited me. I expect more of them.

[customerserviceguy]

156. And that's precisely what the hard core wingnuts

felt about anyone who called themselves a Republican and voted for McCain, a man that lost mainly because he could not unite his base except by his futile pick of Caribou Barbie.

Not all Democratic legislators come from nice safe districts with large urban areas in them. If they did, then they wouldn't disappoint you, but if that's the only place they came from, there wouldn't even be enough of them in Congress to even discuss healthcare reform.

[madfloridian]

157. You are comparing me with the Palin supporters? Oh, come on.

That is pretty pathetic.

That is an example of what I mean about mindless defending.

[customerserviceguy]

161. No, you are missing my point

I just mentioned that the nomination of McCain was dispiriting to those on the hard right who preferred a Tancredo, Thompson, or Huckabee. The feeble attempt to re-energize them with Palin was more of a twisted insult as it became apparent how brainless she was.

I'm not asking you not to be angry. I'm not telling you not to be disappointed right now. And I'm certainly not asking you to abandon any principles you might have over what you really want to see happen.

What I'm trying to get you to see is that the Stupak amendment has two purposes, one is to divide us now that we have the White House and the first time in the history of this nation to move down the path towards a civilized healthcare system, and the other is to provide something for us to shoot down, and shoot down that reform in the process.

I've long maintained that trying to get healthcare reform this early on might well be taking on more than we can accomplish. IF we can get the economy running again, to provide jobs and customers for small businesses that make communities thrive, then we will be able to build the majorities of solid progressives ready to take on more controversial challenges.

However, if healthcare really is the Waterloo that the Rethugs would like to make it, we risk losing everything. We help them defeat us by letting us discourage each other.

[PVnRT]

197. So you think abortion should be one of those "state issues" then?

What other rights should be decided at the state level? Why should a woman in Nebraska have to travel hours to Wisconsin or Illinois to get a legal medical procedure done? Why is it OK to force women who think that, maybe, someday, they might need an abortion to have to pay extra to cover it?

You're sadly mistaken if you really believe that the Stupak amendment somehow guarantees that this bill will pass. Plenty of prominent House Democrats have vowed to vote a final bill down if it contains it, and the GOP is only interested in making sure everything the Democrats try fails, no matter what it is.

[defendandprotect]

188. For WOMEN and for the fact it has NO PUBLIC OPTION . . . !!!!

:crazy:

Americans overwhelmingly want a public option --

[joeybee12]

86. It's getting pretty crowded under this bus...

...we gays were the first, now women, and with Salazar being worthless in Interior, environmentalists also.

"Oh, but the other side is sooooooooooo much worse."

[PVnRT]

198. Just wait for Arne's education "reforms" to start rolling out

The teachers will join you under there. That will be OK, though, because their union isn't a "real" union.

[sohndrsmith]

113. Um... don't you mean "being used" denied, and discriminated against **more than they/we

always have been** "as sacrificial pawns in the great chess game," only WORSE?

... that's what I thought you said, but I wasn't sure.... ; )

[lovelyrita]

7. After historic wins in 2006 and 2008, the Democrats have

decided they don't need women or gays to support them? This is just wrong.

What makes Democrats different than Republicans? The party seems to be leaning anti-gay, anti-women, and pro-war. Something has to give here

[madfloridian]

9. Agree with you.

After historic wins...we sell out those who helped get us there.

:hi:

[Life Long Dem]

76. Do you agree with the President?

What if the rules say this doesn't belong here? That's not a moral question. A Blue Dogs question could be on principal though. The pretenders and the progressives come into play.

[lark]

104. NO - I don't agree with the president on many things

I do not agree that gay marriage is wrong, I do not agree that it is a good idea to cave in to the right wing all the time, I do not agree that rendition is a good idea, I do not agree in turning a blind eye to the absolute crimes committed by the previous administration, I do not agree that it was a good idea to keep MF*ng Lierman on as a chairman, I do not agree with paying Goldman Sachs 100% of the value home loan portfolios that are worth now 1/2 of that (thru AIG), I do not agree with giving Wall St. billions of dollars but a pittances for Main St.

[bbgrunt]

178. As republicans flee their party, many start infiltrating

the dems. Things are bound to change as the dems start commanding a bigger majority and absorbing those replicons and independents. The DLCers become the norm in the "big tent"

Strange--I think a lot of people supported Obama over Clinton because they didn't want the DLC in power and they thought Obama was not DLC. Funny how that worked out.....

People talk about how the repubicons are falling apart. Well, the dems are coming apart too. It is harder for us to flock to a 3rd party movement because we are ostensibly in power right now. But it will become easier and easier for traditional dems and progressives to do so the more the party drifts to the right.

[TornadoTN]

26. Anti-gay, Pro-war, Anti-women, and Pro-Corporatocracy

What a change from a year ago. I was so filled with hope and confidence that things would really change. Things have changed and I'm glad Obama is our President, but our party is in disarray - trying to run to the right and appease the GOP in the misguided notion that it will help them stay in power.

[madfloridian]

31. Valid points.

It really worries me.

[Jefferson23]

11. K&R, this is bullshit, and so is the health care reform we ended up with.

Until we have public funded elections, these trends will be harder and harder to fight back against.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

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

[Jefferson23]

15. The heath care bill has already been heavily compromised, this

step just makes it worse. There was nothing in her OP that is false, and to suggest this legislation will not be a detriment for women is naive.

[madfloridian]

16. I like your response...

though I could not see the one you replied to. You are right, it is just false to say there is no harm to women.

:hi:

[Jefferson23]

22. You're welcome madfloridian, I always enjoy your threads, the candid truth

can be uncomfortable for some. For me, this just means we need to fight back, not excuse.

[Gman]

32. to suggest this legislation will be a detriment for women is stupid

there are many, many organizations out there that are very happy with this legislation. I'm ecstatic with it.

[Jefferson23]

37. Yes, it is a celebratory event when women are denied what they are

entitled to under the law. :sarcasm:

[Gman]

40. What?? Entitled to under the law? What are you talking about?

Entitled to an abortion by law paid for by an insurance plan?? When did the law change to do that? Perhaps you think Roe v. Wade included insurance coverage or something? You have your facts terribly, terribly wrong. I wonder how many more people like you think the same thing.

[Jefferson23]

45. I don't have anything wrong,

Women PRIOR to the Stupak amendment would not be denied the right to an abortion paid for by insurance.


The Ban on Abortion Coverage
November 9, 2009
When the House narrowly passed the health care reform bill on Saturday night, it came with a steep price for women’s reproductive rights. Under pressure from anti-abortion Democrats and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, lawmakers added language that would prevent millions of Americans from buying insurance that covers abortions — even if they use their own money.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/10/opinion/10tue1.html?_r=1

You still feeling ecstatic?

[Gman]

53. Absolutely ecstatic, thank you!

Again, what in this bill denies women the right to an abortion? What? This bill does not overturn Roe v. Wade.

And there's an awful lot of speculation in that NY Times article.

[Jefferson23]

64. The bill denies women an abortion by the refusal of coverage, and you know it.

No one said it reverses Roe Vs Wade in the literal sense, so stop playing games here. Why don't you post evidence that the OP is not accurate.

[Tx4obama]

103. Gman, you are correct. Keep up the good work.

The Stupak Amendment does NOT affect a woman's RIGHT to have an abortion, it just prohibits federal/tax-payer money from being used to fund them.

From Politifact.com:

Here's what the Stupak amendment stipulated:

• The public option -- the government-run program on the exchange -- may not offer abortion except in the case of rape, incest or when the life of the mother is endangered.

• Private insurers that accept customers who pay with affordability credits may not offer abortion coverage except in cases of rape, incest or life of the mother. The affordability credits are subsidies the federal government intends to give to low-income people to help them pay for health insurance. Individuals may purchase abortion coverage, either as part of a policy or as a separate rider, as long as they do not pay with affordability credits or state Medicaid matching funds.

• Insurers may offer coverage that includes abortion or separate supplemental plans covering abortion. But customers must pay premiums entirely with non-government funds, and the insurer's administrative costs must be covered entirely by non-government funds. Insurers can't mingle funds from people who use affordability credits to buy coverage with those who do not.

• Insurers that offer a coverage plan that includes abortion must also offer a plan that does not include abortion.

http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2009/nov/09/health-care-reform-abortion-amendment/



Also this article sheds light on the truth: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/nov/09/nita-lowey/lowey-says-stupak-amendment-restricts-abortion-cov/


The FACTS are being twisted and misrepresented by the republicans AND the democrats!
Everyone needs to settle down and stop the BS about the abortion issue. It's not an abortion issue it's an INSURANCE COVERAGE issue.

[Gman]

123. Thanks, Tx4obama. The abortion issue is an absolute diversion

and it's designed to defeat meaningful HCR. I knew the GOP would come after it but I never suspected the purists would go this far and go this friggin' nuts. I suspect most are trolls.

And like I said in another OP

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8743160&mesg_id=8743160

My barometer is the AFL-CIO. If the AFL-CIO likes it, it's a good bill for working people.

http://blog.aflcio.org/2009/11/07/house-passes-landmark-health-care-reform

[Chulanowa]

150. So it doesn't harm their RIGHT to have an abortion, just their ABILITY to exercise it!

I'm not sure if you even realize it, but that's a completely disingenuous argument. This does harm a woman's right to choose by limiting it and restricting it, basically saying "you must be THIS rich to abort"

You're making the same argument that was made in favor of poll taxes back in the day. You should be ashamed of your ignorance on this.

[Tx4obama]

170. Do you honestly think....

Do you honestly think that there is a large percentage of abortions being paid by insurance?
The answer is NO.
First of all, insurance policies have deductibles which are normally pretty high, whereas an abortion runs between $350 to $900 dollars - much less than the average deductible.
Besides most women pay for abortions 'out of their pocket' due to privacy reasons.
And if you think the the 'poor' of America are getting free abortions from insurance companies that they can't even afford to purchase a policy from then that is just nuts.

You do not need to be rich to pay for an abortion.
And the prohibitions on the insurance companies that choose to participate in the 'exchange' are not not going to affect THE RIGHT OF A WOMAN TO HAVE AN ABORTION.

Stupak has NOTHING to do with "the RIGHT of a woman to have an abortion" - it is an INSURANCE COVERAGE issue - TWO very different things.

Women have a RIGHT to an abortion if that is what they decided to do.
Women DO NOT have a 'right' for federal dollars, tax-payer dollars, and federal subsidies to fund them.

[Chulanowa]

172. I'm saying that it's creating another limitation

Do I think the poor were getting insurance-paid abortions? No.

However, there are women who have gotten them, who do use them, and this amendment strips that ability from them.

Pay attention.

[Tx4obama]

173. No one is forcing them to buy insurance from the exchange. n/t

[PVnRT]

199. You're throwing around a lot of "facts"

without any evidence to back them up. Maybe you could provide those facts, or just admit you made stuff up.

You know nothing of poverty if you think that $350 is "no big deal" when it comes to paying for a medical procedure. Poor women have trouble shelling less than that out for everyday medicine and other care, how the fuck are they supposed to come up with more money?

[NuttyFluffers]

181. true. a right = a power, privilege, immunity, and ability. take one away, no longer a right.

you need to have the power (capacity) to do, the privilege (private law) to allow, the immunity from penalty, and the ability to exercise for something to be a right. without any one of them, you have a farce.

in this case (abortion):
- a man cannot get pregnant (as of current technology), therefore no power to have an abortion. a woman does, therefore power to have an abortion after becoming pregnant.
- a woman is allowed to get pregnant (no forced sterilization or contraception), she has the privilege to her own pregnancy or not thereof. she can access the condition that opens the option to choose abortion. she is also allowed to visit a doctor for an abortion.
- a woman is not penalized from having an abortion; she is immune from laws punishing her if she acted upon it.
- a woman has the ability to reasonably access personnel or means of having an abortion; she is not limited from travel, priced out of range, DENIED INSURANCE COVERAGE, have the only abortion clinic atop Mt. McKinley and only open from 11pm to midnight on Christmas Eve, etc.

if any of these conditions are not met, then her right to privacy about having an abortion is nullified -- for then she is at the mercy of other powers/people/structures to supplant the missing piece to her right.

very basic civics, should already be understood by most educated people. but a refresher course for those who may have forgot in these busy times...

[Chulanowa]

191. Basic civics and DU don't seem to mix recently

[tonysam]

212. Which is entirely legal per the USSC

Again, I submit some bloggers and talking heads like Rachel Maddow, many of whom were not around when Roe v. Wade was decided and didn't know about or forgot about the Hyde Amendment, were spewing misinformation about federal funding of abortions and about this legislation.

[Jefferson23]

216. 2. What does the Stupak amendment mean for me? Will my insurance stop covering abortions

SNIP, Well, there's some debate about that. Opponents, like Rep. Nita Lowey, D-N.Y., or Firedoglake's Jon Walker, contend that it would prevent women from purchasing insurance that covers abortion even if they buy that coverage with their own money. Walker, for instance, pointed to a passage in the amendment that says no funds appropriated in the bill could be used to "cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion." The amendment itself, however, is pretty clear that what that's referring to are specific individuals' or families' plans, not a plan or provider generally. (That is, Jane Doe's insurance can't include abortion coverage if she's getting government money to help pay for it, but Blue Cross can offer such coverage on plans not available to people receiving that money.)

Still, the amendment will have the effect of separating women into classes: Those who can afford to buy their own insurance without government help will have the choice of a plan that covers elective abortions, while those who need the subsidies won't have the option. They will be able to purchase separate coverage, but that won't be subsidized, and it strikes many opponents of the amendment as a pointless idea, and with good reason -- that would mean people planning for unplanned pregnancies.

And some hopeful news: 3. How much of this abortion stuff is likely to be in the final bill?

That's a very good question. At this point, it seems inevitable that some sort of abortion restriction will be included if and when the legislation makes it to President Obama's desk. It also seems likely that the exact language in the Stupak amendment won't make the cut.

House Democratic leaders, like Clyburn and his deputy, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, have said they believe the Stupak amendment will be removed from the legislation when the House and Senate iron out the differences between their bills in committee. Separately, Obama has indicated that he thinks the language needs to be changed. Plus, 41 House Democrats have signed a letter to Pelosi in which they promise not to vote for the final bill if it "contains language that restricts women’s right to choose any further than current law.

http://www.salon.com/news/healthcare_reform/index.html?story=/news/feature/2009/11/11/healthcare

[lark]

106. Sure, if you have around $1500, no problem getting an abortion

Otherwise, tough luck.

[Tx4obama]

125. WRONG...

You can find them for between $350 to $900
That is cheaper than most insurance deductibles.

If you think that insurance companies are handing out free abortions then you are mistaken.

[JoeyT]

109. I'm glad you're ecstatic.

Are you still going to be ecstatic when historic losses hit your party in the next election?
I'm not going to vote for misogynists, homophobes, or warmongers. I don't give a damn WHAT letter they stick next to their name.
So enjoy it while you can, because if this nonsense isn't taken out, when the actual liberals flee the party and Republicans take over again, they'll just kill it before it ever comes to pass.

So you just keep patting yourself on the back about what a great person you are to not give a rat's ass about women only don't pat too hard, cause if you injure yourself you're probably not going to be covered.

[Name removed]

120. Deleted message

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

[TheKentuckian]

46. What about existing law says that the government can order the procedure out of

private plans payed for with private money?

Defend the new law if you can and so desire but do not pretend there is no new law.

[ljm2002]

72. One thing I noticed about this amendment...

...is that it is the first time I am aware of where a law says that private insurance cannot cover something. This in itself seems like a bad precedent.

Sure, it does not create a universal prohibition, but the effects it will have are clear: it will cause private insurance to stop offering coverage that it is offering now.

Figures I have seen indicate that over 80% of employer insurance plans do offer abortion coverage. Now I don't know how limited that coverage is, but the fact is that insurance companies will jump at the chance to drop coverage for the procedure like a hot potato.

Here's hoping this onerous amendment is dropped. Of course it won't be. It might be modified slightly, but it will still be there. Our President is a compromiser who has already said that, while he doesn't want to "limit women's insurance choices", he also doesn't want to "sneak in abortion coverage". Pffft.

I don't want to sneak in Viagra coverage either. It's a recreational drug, it should be outlawed! If anyone knows how to start a campaign to that effect, I'm on board. It's unnecessary and immoral. (only partly sarcastic, here)

[boppers]

100. The amendment doesn't say that.

The reason there's been so much fighting is that people are making things up, and screaming about it, when the stuff they made up is a fabrication.

"a law says that private insurance cannot cover something"... wrong. The amendment specifically *exempts* private coverage, and says that public coverage cannot include abortion, with exceptions for rape, incest, and the life of the mother. The same as it would be under single payer, or medicare for all.

[Tx4obama]

105. There is a difference between private and exchange...

People are free to go outside of the exchange and purchase a private plan which includes abortion coverage.
The Stupak Amendment only affects policies within the public option exchange which is federally funded/subsidized.

[laughingliberal]

143. There are private insurance companies in the exchange

Forgive me if I misread you but it seems you believe the exchange is the public option. The public option will be one choice in the exchange. The other choices will be private insurance companies. They will be prohibited from offering coverage for abortions if they wish to be included in the exchange.

[Are_grits_groceries]

48. It's also about not having an effing religion

all up in the legislative process. Catholic Bishops had private meetings Saturday with Pelosi and 3 other Dems. The Stupak amendment was approved by the USCCB.

I don't want any bloody religion having that much of a say in the legislative process. I don't care who they are.

Then the reach of the Stupak amendment is huge:

In General – No Funds authorized under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act) may be used to pay for any abortion or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion, except in the case….

The big problem is that HR 3962 touches many insurance plans directly and indirectly.
<snip>
The plans on the new exchange are only a minority of insurance plans financially affected by HR 3962. The health care reform bill would also provide for a $10 billion temporary reinsurance plan for employer-provided insurance plans that cover early retirees. The reach of this temporary reinsurance plan could be huge, and, therefore, the reach of the Stupak amendment could be huge. Many large businesses, which employ tens of millions of Americans, would probably take advantage of the program. Since these large employer plans are getting some money from “this Act,” they could be required to stop providing coverage for abortions because of the Stupak amendment.
<snip>
The Stupak amendment would not just stop the insurance plans for the roughly 30 million people on the exchange from covering abortion. (That assumes the exchange is not expanded like some hope it will be.) There are many parts of the bill that provide some direct money to many employer-provided insurance plans. There is the retiree reinsurance plan, the small business tax credits, and the wellness program. A literal interpretation of the Stupak amendment could force employer-provided insurance plans to stop covering abortion for tens of millions of Americans. The long reach of the Stupak amendment could have huge ramifications on the current aviability of insurance coverage for abortion services.
http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2009/11/10/the-incredibly-long-arms-of-the-stupak-amendment-your-large-employer-insurance-plan-is-not-safe/

The money will reach so far and into so many places that abortion could be cut off for almost any woman unless they are rich enough to get around it. It 's a legal procedure. This is nothing but an end run around Roe v Wade.

If you are either ignoring what the amendment will do, you don't understand it or you don't care.

Don't you bloody well sit on your high horse and decree that people who are upset about this just don't know what is going on. We damn well do know what is going on and how it was done.

Why aren't people upset that the Stupak Gang brought this up at the 11th hour and demanded that it go through? Why aren't you smacking them for ramming through such an odious piece of legislation?

Why are their tactics and legislation just hunky dory with so many people?

[syberlion]

177. Any religious figures going to congress must file as a lobbyist

And the minute, no the split-second they do, that church MUST lose its tax free status, period. If they want to be in the business of legislating from the pulpit, fine, but they have to participate 100% and pay taxes just like the rest of us. The fact those Catholic bishops openly flaunted themselves and waded into the midst of a legislative issue, speaks to how far this country has drifted from the founding father's wishes of keeping government and religion separate.

One of the founding principles of this country was based on getting away from government and religion co-mingling. There was, and still is, the Church of England with the king as "supreme governor" of the church AND the country. The catholic church is a foreign entity where the clergy that visited our speaker of the house swears an allegiance to a foreign leader, the Pope. Who, by the way, is the head of the "Holy See" which is the "the universal government of the Catholic Church" according to the U.S State Department website.

So, not only do you have the co-mingling of church and state, you have a foreign government trying to help craft U.S. law. When did we become a member of the Papal State? What the men that forged this nation saw in Europe of the 1700's gave them enough information to demand the separation of church and state. Which is why it was important enough to put first on the list of amendments, free speech would not allow any one single voice, or religion to hold sway over others (won't go into the whole corporate media strangle-hold here).

I think it is a fairly safe to postulate no one is for abortion. What Roe v Wade established was the right to choose. That was in the American Supreme Court, not in England, not in France and not in Vatican City. Ever since that day, religion has worked tirelessly to create an American Theocracy. Why hasn't anyone challenged the constitutionality of "faith based" within the executive branch? Enough of this courting the fringe, religious right, sheeple. Until Faux News is exposed for the propaganda they are, the sheeple will always vote against their own interests.

Ok, thank you for the ability to rant at the idiocy that is the current state of affairs.

[Mithreal]

61. That you are a sellout? Lots.

[xxqqqzme]

42. Wait let me guess.....

YOUR right to make health care decisions, w/ your doctor has not been restricted. There is no legislation pending to strip you of that right? Am I right?

[rfranklin]

98. Thank you, Rahm...

who are you foolin'?

[treestar]

19. +1

A lot of the fuss on DU is due to the 24/7 media getting a chance to make drama out of every part of it.

[madfloridian]

24. "the fuss on DU"

Damn, all those fussy women folks. :eyes:

[nashville_brook]

23. wow -- so, if you don't like the way we're rolling back YOUR rights, it's b/c you don't "get it."

WEAK, dude.

[Gman]

34. Why is it you think the vast majority of the Democratic Party is stupid

and you along with the rest of the purists have such insight that no one else possesses? There is a very long list of organizations that love this bill. I suggest you take the abortion blinders off.

[lark]

108. I'm sure the insurance co's are doing a jig

Weak public option, everyone has to have insurance, and extremely few price controls. In the meantime, they are jacking up their policies to the max next year and will continue to do so for years to come.

[Vincardog]

35. The sausage making metaphor is what is being over done. There is no art in compromising your CORE

PRINCIPALS. The "dangerous pattern" of caving to the radical Reich and Fundamentalists is the problem. True 'Some people obviously don't get it.'

Typical over the top crap from the respondent.

[Gman]

43. The sausage metaphor here is probably the most appropriate place I've ever seen it used

Bottom Line: Unless the conference report specifically tries to overturn Roe v. Wade, AND it passes both the House and Senate, the purists have nothing to complain about. But they don't know that.

[Starry Messenger]

39. Exhibit A

[Mithreal]

58. Gman, you consistently make ad hominem attacks

Sharing the arsenal of rightwingers, A+ for wingnuttery

[JetCityLiberal]

73. That is ALL gman has ever

bs right wing attacks.

Pathetically transparent.

madfloridian always gets it, gman never gets anything but right wing bs.



Paul

[QC]

90. It's all he's done for eight solid years now. n/t

[PVnRT]

200. It's all he has

Putting him on ignore helps, since he's allowed to say whatever he wants here.

[Mithreal]

210. Some of the uglier opinions seem acceptable or encouraged

when they are not challenged. I think is why DU seems to have become more conservative and is occasionally ugly.

Of course, some of these wingnuts have been spouting their "moderate" nonsense for years.

[noamnety]

67. politics is the art of compromising

the rights of minorities in order to ensure the rights of majorities.

[Mithreal]

75. +1

[frylock]

82. the next time a conservative is made to make compromise..

will be the first time.

[ChadwickHenryWard]

95. What compromise?

What did we gain from this bill? What have we gained by doing away with abortion rights?

[Tx4obama]

107. Huh?

NO ONE is doing away with abortion rights.
The RIGHT TO HAVE AN ABORTION IS NOT AFFECTED by the HCR bill.
Women will still have the right to have an abortion with their own money as they always have been.
This is NOT and abortion issue - it is an INSURANCE COVERAGE issue.
You have NO right to have an abortion with federal money or federal subsidies.

[Mithreal]

115. Some people here are clearly interested in propagandizing

and increasing confusion for the sake of The Team.

[ChadwickHenryWard]

193. Bullshit.

This bill is taking away the ability of large numbers of women to get an abortion by prohibiting insurance companies from paying for it. This is a huge restriction on abortion rights, probably the worst we've seen in a generation. And it came from the fucking Democrats.

[DonCoquixote]

14. As usual, I hear you loud and clear

If we give the Christian Mujahadeen an inch, they will take a yard, and then proceed to throw whoever they want into the prison yard.

[TornadoTN]

17. We win two elections in landslide - and we run further to the right

I just don't get it anymore. This isn't compromise, this is just selling out.

[soarsboard2]

21. You Got it.

selling out.

[TornadoTN]

25. Welcome to DU! We finally get the upper hand ...

and instead of negotiating from a position of power, our leaders do everything they can to appease the right and make sure corporate feathers remain unruffled. The GOP, when they have power, couldn't care less about "compromise".

The healthcare bill really disappoints me in so many ways. This will be the biggest windfall for the insurance companies, while the rest of us will continue to see costs rise and care erode.

[havocmom]

47. +1

[JetCityLiberal]

78. +2, +3, +4, +5, +6, +7....

+1,000,000,000

thanks TornadoTN.

Paul

[treestar]

18. I doubt it is the religious right

but it could be the highly Catholic Hispanic vote, which helped us get over the top considerably.

[stranger81]

128. It wasn't a bunch of Hispanic Catholics who voted for the Stupak amendment . . . .

it was a bunch of white men bargaining away (or "compromising") rights that don't affect them. Per usual.

[Lost-in-FL]

176. I smell bullshit here. nt

[soarsboard2]

20. Dems Cave and Cave and Cave

and Pubs are adamant in being united.

and we wonder how their agenda gets passed.

[Ruby the Liberal]

27. K&R. Thank you for documenting this

It is a disturbing trend when looking at the big picture, which I failed to recognize when discussing Stupak with you and others yesterday.

Thanks for digging this all up and posting it so succinctly.

[madfloridian]

29. I appreciate your comment.

Thanks.

[dana_b]

28. k&r

you're right. We have to stand up and it's not about derailing healthcare. It's about not letting them (the religious faction of the party) take over AND pit the liberals against the rest of the party. they KNOW what they are doing and I truly believe that it is intentional. To make those who want to protect women's rights look like the bad guys who derailed healthcare.

[humbled_opinion]

33. Sometimes its hard to tell the difference between some of our

Democratic Leadership and the radical right Wing fundies. I swear you would think that there were repuke majorities in the House Senate and White House. Where has my party gone? Are we being abandoned? Next Obama will most likely send 40k or more surge troops to Afghanistan. Every one of whom die will be blood on his hands. Healtcare reform is starting to become a getting done verse a getting it done right? Mandatory payments to insurance companies under threat of punishment? Did Republicans right this bill?

ENOUGH!!!!!

[lady lib]

36. I just see it as always having to give a pound of flesh for every step forward.

Lately, we aren't allowed a clear victory. We aren't allowed to be truly happy and satisfied - there's always some special interest group that has to be appeased. I'm so very tired of it all.

[nightrain]

38. Stupak is a member of the conservative evangelical DC group--The Family.

As reported on the Thom Hartmann program this morning...

[Jefferson23]

41. Yea he is, here is a little more on the subject of C Street.

Secrets of C Street

by Jeff Sharlet

The Washington prayer group known as the Family may be in the news after several of its members had affairs, but it has been setting the agenda—and propping up foreign dictators—for years.

In this article, Jeff Sharlet, who has tracked the C Street House since 2002, discloses:

• That the group espouses a religious philosophy that holds God-anointed leaders are necessary for Christ’s second coming.
• A list of American politicians associated with the Family, most of whom are right-wing Republicans but also some Democrats, including, at one time, Hillary Clinton.
• How the group does not register as a lobby even as it behaves like one, offering foreign leaders access to its politicians at events like the National Prayer Breakfast.
• American politicians who travel on the Family’s dime and carry out its agenda abroad in countries like Serbia, Croatia, Kosovo, Albania, Bulgaria, Belarus, Sudan, and Israel.
• C Street’s support for foreign dictators like Yoweri Museveni in Uganda, Papa Doc Duvalier of Haiti, and Suharto in Indonesia.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-07-26/conspiracy-on-c-street/

[juno jones]

65. Bruce wilson "s (troutfishing, talk2action)

article on DKos about Stupak.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/11/9/802393/-Blindsided-By-Politicized-Religion.-Again.-And-2010-Looms.

Stupak was greeted happily by the repubs after his monkey wrench. Can we say 'religionist traitor'?

[Overseas]

44. Rachel Maddow had Jeff Sharlet on to talk about The Family too.

Many of our most conservative Democrats are also associates of The Family, the conservative cult with the C-Street dorm, that calls itself "The Christian Mafia" and has the motto of "Jesus Plus Nothing," that puts its cult's ideas about What Jesus Would Do ahead of the constitution and their constituents.

I'd like to see the Democrats most closely tied to that cult that believes its tenets more important than US law voted out of office. Even if they seem like harmless nice guys like Stupak. Or well established standard-bearers like Bill Nelson.

Here's part of Jeff Sharlet's March 2003 Harper's article about The Family:

Ivanwald, which sits at the end of Twenty-fourth Street North in Arlington, Virginia, is known only to its residents and to the members and friends of the organization that sponsors it, a group of believers who refer to themselves as “the Family.” The Family is, in its own words, an “invisible” association, though its membership has always consisted mostly of public men. Senators Don Nickles (R., Okla.), Charles Grassley (R., Iowa), Pete Domenici (R., N.Mex.), John Ensign (R., Nev.), James Inhofe (R., Okla.), Bill Nelson (D., Fla.), and Conrad Burns (R., Mont.) are referred to as “members,” as are Representatives Jim DeMint (R., S.C.), Frank Wolf (R., Va.), Joseph Pitts (R., Pa.), Zach Wamp (R., Tenn.), and Bart Stupak (D., Mich.). Regular prayer groups have met in the Pentagon and at the Department of Defense, and the Family has traditionally fostered strong ties with businessmen in the oil and aerospace industries. The Family maintains a closely guarded database of its associates, but it issues no cards, collects no official dues. Members are asked not to speak about the group or its activities.

The organization has operated under many guises, some active, some defunct: National Committee for Christian Leadership, International Christian Leadership, the National Leadership Council, Fellowship House, the Fellowship Foundation, the National Fellowship Council, the International Foundation. These groups are intended to draw attention away from the Family, and to prevent it from becoming, in the words of one of the Family's leaders, “a target for misunderstanding.” The Family's only publicized gathering is the National Prayer Breakfast, which it established in 1953 and which, with congressional sponsorship, it continues to organize every February in Washington, D.C. Each year 3,000 dignitaries, representing scores of nations, pay $425 each to attend. Steadfastly ecumenical, too bland most years to merit much press, the breakfast is regarded by the Family as merely a tool in a larger purpose: to recruit the powerful attendees into smaller, more frequent prayer meetings, where they can “meet Jesus man to man.”

In the process of introducing powerful men to Jesus, the Family has managed to effect a number of behind-the-scenes acts of diplomacy. In 1978 it secretly helped the Carter Administration organize a worldwide call to prayer with Menachem Begin and Anwar Sadat, and more recently, in 2001, it brought together the warring leaders of Congo and Rwanda for a clandestine meeting, leading to the two sides' eventual peace accord last July. Such benign acts appear to be the exception to the rule. During the 1960s the Family forged relationships between the U.S. government and some of the most anti-Communist (and dictatorial) elements within Africa's postcolonial leadership. The Brazilian dictator General Costa e Silva, with Family support, was overseeing regular fellowship groups for Latin American leaders, while, in Indonesia, General Suharto (whose tally of several hundred thousand “Communists” killed marks him as one of the century's most murderous dictators) was presiding over a group of fifty Indonesian legislators. During the Reagan Administration the Family helped build friendships between the U.S. government and men such as Salvadoran general Carlos Eugenios Vides Casanova, convicted by a Florida jury of the torture of thousands, and Honduran general Gustavo Alvarez Martinez, himself an evangelical minister, who was linked to both the CIA and death squads before his own demise. “We work with power where we can,” the Family's leader, Doug Coe, says, “build new power where we can't.”

<snip one para>

There they forge “relationships” beyond the din of vox populi (the Family's leaders consider democracy a manifestation of ungodly pride) and “throw away religion” in favor of the truths of the Family. Declaring God's covenant with the Jews broken, the group's core members call themselves “the new chosen.”


Read the full article at http://www.harpers.org/archive/2003/03/0079525

[mod mom]

59. Sharlet's book "The Family" is worth a full read. It explained a lot of questions I had

regarding why the religious right would go along with the cold hearted Republican party. I had no idea that those mega churches that popped up everywhere in the 80s & 90s were preaching against the social gospel. It makes sense of their popularity in the age of me, mine, more. It was convenient for the selfish to hear it was okay to turn their backs on the less fortunate because God wants others to pick themselves up by their own bootstraps.

How anyone of reason could think that Jesus preached free market economics and that the most powerful & rich were the chosen is beyond appalling!

[Overseas]

80. Grandpa Reagan made it okay to love and serve the rich.

He slashed taxes for the super rich and busted the damn unions to put the working class in their place.

Then the dutiful Sharia Christians built up some dogma to help people justify the massive transfer of wealth from the undeserving middle class back up to the Already Rich.

[bertman]

49. HIGHEST RECOMMENDATION!! Absolutely. It's about the PATTERN that's in play.

All of these people with their eyes on the Heavens, waiting and waiting for The Lord to arrive, need to look down to their history books and see what religion mixed with government has done to the world. How quickly they forget that our nation was founded by people who were trying to get OUT FROM UNDER RELIGIOUS GOVERNMENT. Of course, it was only the religious government THEY DIDN'T LIKE that they wanted to get out from under.

One big problem is that many Democrats only read the headlines or watch the evening news so they don't know the details. Last night my wife, who is a liberal but who has NO DESIRE to get into the nuts and bolts of politics, said that I must be pretty happy that the House had passed the healthcare reform bill. So, I proceeded to fill her in on my many misgivings with the "compromise" bill the House sent forward, including how they had slid in this prohibition on women being able to get health insurance with abortion coverage if they received any federal assistance at all. As I was explaining I could see her face becoming more and more grim-looking. Finally she said, "How can they do this? How can the Democratic party be behind anything like this?" (Great question, my dear)

Our dilemma is how to educate those who only see the bright headlines and know nothing about what's in the fine print.

Stupak and company, in collusion with some of the most reactionary fundamentalists in the GOP (Pitts and his fellow Family members) have tried to engineer a legislative runaround to negate a woman's right to choose. That it even made it into a Democratic-sponsored bill is beyond outrageous.

Apparently the funding the DLC, the DNC, and their spinoffs get from corporate sponsors is so substantial that they just don't need to support their core constituents. It will be interesting to see how they fare when they lose the support of women, gays, and the millions of male Americans who believe that women and gays should be treated as equals under the law. They have lost my support and I inform them of it regularly. I recommend that we all do the same. Never let them forget.

Thank you for your tenacious defense of our freedoms, Madflo.

[juno jones]

51. Next step: birth control

Especially the pill, the 'morning after', IUDS, and anything that might cause shedding of a fertilized cell group.

And forget sterilization, the catholics don't approve of it either. I gave birth twice in a catholic hospital. I remember the 'can't talk about that here' conversations relating to birth control that I had with my docs. It makes me wonder how many women didn't become educated or follow up because there was no post-partum discussions with their docs. I had to go to another hospital (thankfully in town so not a burden) to get my tubal ligation. Now if that catholic hospital had been the only game in town...

[Blue_In_AK]

52. I was turned on to a new site this morning

God's Own Party, Leah Burton. http://godsownparty.com/blog/7-must-read-books-dominionism-in-america/

We ignore the Dominionists at our peril. It's fun to laugh at them, but I think they're dangerous.

[juno jones]

70. They are dangerous.

If you haven't perused them already the diaries on DKos by troufishing and dogemperor are quite enlightening on the subjust. Bruce Wison (troufishing) is an investigative reporter who co-founded talk2action.org . Dogemperor is a survivor of a dominionist cult. Their diarys are chock full of primary rescources, videos and writings from the horse's mouth. These people are scary. And it seems the Catholic bishops are playing the game too, which is silly because the dominionists appear to be ruthless beyod the Vatican's dreams (which include the inquisition).

I've posted this before, but it's a great place to start.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/10/7/165650/170

[Blue_In_AK]

77. I see DogEmperor is collaborating with Leah on this book.

http://godsownparty.com/blog/introducing-alex-aka-dogemporer/

[madfloridian]

97. I have always had great respect for dogemperor's posts.

She's a she...that surprised me from your link. Great and passionate writer.

[Shallah Kali]

124. Glad to know DogEmperor is still around

I was worried when she stopped posting at Talk2Action and hope she was just taking a break not suffering from ill health or harassment.

[bluetrain]

153. Can we consider them dangerous and still laugh at prayer hair?

[Prism]

54. "God is in the mix." Oh, and power

I think we're seeing, more and more, a fundamental divide in people who are Democrats because it is the party that more closely adheres to their principles, and those who are Democrats for social reasons not dissimilar to why people vigorously support local sports teams and have favorite celebrities.

The ideologues, myself included, are furious. The blue-shirters are for whatever gives the politicians a win at the end of the day.

The question we now face is how much ideology the blue-shirts will throw overboard in order to eke out that win. Turns out, a disturbing amount.

Although I will say, it doesn't exactly stun me to find that the blue-shirts are typically the same people who never had much of a good word to say about liberal causes. For example, take the 2004 election. The people who were most vocal about blaming that loss on the gays are some of the most prominent blue-shirts today.

Funny that.

I am, however, totally blown away by the illiberalism on display with the anti-choice amendment. To actively, unapologetically launch such a strong, unbending assault on the constitutional freedoms of women all in the name of power is brazen power-worship on a scale I didn't really think possible. We're not even a year into this administration, and the kitchen sink is a distant memory for this cadre. One wonders what other policy surprises are in store for the most vulnerable among us.

[G_j]

56. great post!!!!

:applause:

[Egnever]

60. Love rachel but

when she has to spin the truth to make her point she loses me.Time and again last noght she stated that the stupac ended coverage for abortion. When thats not really true. It ends coverage for elective abortion.

Now the amendment is bad but theres no need to lie about what it does.

[Blue State Blues]

63. As another former Southern Baptist ...

I have been thinking for some time that this shift to the Right in the Democratic Party feels very familiar.

I remember talking to a former teacher at the Southern Baptist Seminary who was forced out during the take-over because he was too liberal. I remember their first targets were the seminaries and the Sunday School publishing resources -- taking over education. I remember the underhanded tactics, the deliberate way they took advantage of the moderates willingness to see one another's point of view and to try to be reasonable and work for compromise as if they were members of the same church family, people who had a common mission in spite of their differences, instead of opponents in a battle for survival.

What the Southern Baptist moderates failed to understand, is that the opposition was not dealing with them in good faith. To them, compromise is a dirty word. They do not view someone with a different point of view as part of the same church family or even an opponent in a fair game. Instead, they see anyone who doesn't share their views as enemies to be destroyed.

And in the end, they won. A relatively small group of right wing extremists gained control of the organization, of the schools, the foreign and domestic missions, the name and history, and all of the financial assets.

The evidence would indicate that similar forces are attempting this kind of take over within the "Big Tent" of the Democratic Party. I have no doubt the Family would like to follow this pattern, and I'm hoping for some serious push-back from liberal and progressive Democrats.

[Jefferson23]

66. Thanks for sharing that, I appreciate it!

[madfloridian]

149. I knew, taught, grew up with...many of the ones involved in the SBC takeover.

My dad was one who was fighting it as hard as he could. He did not live to see how bad it got, and I am thankful for that in a way. He was a true Christian, and he stood out among the faux ones.

One of the heads of the seminary in Louisville was nice kid with a pleasant kind family who did not teach him to despise his fellow human beings. And he was not taught to preach to others that birth control is evil.

I am more disillusioned for having known so many before the hijacking.

[conscious evolution]

214. Absolutely right

I remember watching it all go down in the early eighties.I knew it would turn out bad then.
What sucked was how other denominations(methodists,episcapalions,etc..)laughed about it and did not take the takeover seriously.
We have all paid the price for that mistake.

Lets not let it happen again.

Remember,everyone-Their MO is to infiltrate and subvert from the inside.

[Blue State Blues]

217. They reproduce like a virus

They get inside a larger organization, take control of key functions, then reshape the organization to do their bidding.

[Mithreal]

69. Will President Obama use his political capital from this HCR farce

to throw more bodies at Afghanistan, place more soldiers in Pakistan, escalate the privatization of public schools, and begin to dismantle entitlements. Oh wait, he was already working on those things.

Democrats will wonder what happened to our party as we absorb more and more of the leaderless former Republicans.

Or not, maybe we can stop it.

[Alcibiades]

81. That's the plan

That's why he's "dithering" on Afghanistan. He's already made up his mind: it's going to be an escalation. He also knows he's not going to get any support from real Democrats for anything after re recommits to escalation, so he's trying to get this "health care reform bill" before that happens.

And I actually support this turd of a bill. But I think that's what's going on.

[Greyhound]

131. Perhaps we should all go take over the Republik Party.

There is currently no party that clearly stands for human rights and I hear the red team is rebuilding.
:rofl:

[Mithreal]

137. They are going to pick up a lot of new frustrated people

If anyone has the nerve to do it, why not start showing up at their meetings and cause trouble.

You know the subtle kind.

They won't be surprised to see new faces.

And until they catch on and ask someone to leave, could do quite a bit of damage to their cause.

[noiretextatique]

71. black people got sold out a long time ago

yet another group that's continually asked to "take one for the team." fuck the team.

[Arugula Latte]

74. How do we counteract religious extremism?

Even here on DU, if you speak out against religion, some will tell you that you're out of line, that you're intolerant, etc. etc. It's like anything attached to religion has a free pass.

[conscious evolution]

215. Speak out anyway

They don't like it tough shit on their part.

[winyanstaz]

79. K & R.....

Thanks for this post..I love to see a brilliant mind at work :)

[Techn0Girl]

83. Pressuring OUR Democrats By Refusing To Vote For them is NOT Anti-Team....

It's how the system works.

The vote is the only real power the constituents wield. Heaven knows we don't have the hundreds of millions and the lobbyists and the PR channels.

But we do have our vote and without that vote they are out of office. Sure, the option is four more years of GOP but I am completely fed up with that being help over our head.

We elected these people to overturn what we hated about the Bush years. If the insist on becoming "GOP-Lite" than to hell with them. I'm letting them know that if this Amendment passes they lost my vote the next election. No compromises. It's not all right.

And President Obama, I'm talking to you now. I elected you on your platform to take us out of Iraq - NOT TO PUT 100,000 INTO AFGHANISTAN. I elected you on your promise to give us a public option and to remove "don't ask don't tell". I elected you to stop business as usual among wall street - NOT to give them a multi-TRILLION dollar handout. Live up to those promises or lose my vote next term.

I am so past compromises any more.

[mitchtv]

84. sorry ladies

but there's room at the back of the bus with the Gays. Time to make the "don't ask, don't give" pledge
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=221x150358

[NoSheep]

85. K&R

[TheKentuckian]

87. K&R and on many levels but the constant tail wagging the dog for

whatever reasons is enough for me.

There is an element that is way overpowered that will have to be put into place or they'll wreck everything ever irregardless of women, gays, kids, seniors, or whoever. There seems to be a group emerging that firmly pushes even the DLC types firmly into the middle which in turn shoves the actual left all but off the cliff. They aren't progressive, liberal, moderate, or centrist but just plain old Republicans with (D)'s next to their names. We can't get some of the crappers in the House to actually support anything on the platform at this point and a fair gaggle of them are actively opposing about everything we even loosely believe in, in the big tent sort of way.

[mnhtnbb]

89. If it's any consolation to you (and it's not to me) I have a right wing

friend from high school--devout Catholic--who thinks that the passage of the health care bill
spells the end of the democratic republic of the U.S.!!!!! Why? It's socialism.

I'm with you, MF, in being very disturbed to see the civil rights of women and gays being tossed
aside by the Dems to cater to the religious right.

[madfloridian]

94. I have family members...

who are Catholic and very Republican. They think it is wrong to discriminate against gays, and they have no problem with abortion. And they finally caught on to the socialism crap.

[Warren DeMontague]

91. K & R.

:kick: Thanks for another good one. :hi:

[katty]

92. K&R

[Odin2005]

93. We need to take out the Blue Dogs in the primaries ASAP.

:grr:

[BlancheSplanchnik]

96. K and R Stop the Christofascists!!

What more can I say?

Thanks madfloridian, this connection is so obvious, yet it was something sensed more than articulated. Thanks for putting it into words. It's SO fucking obvious.

I feel so torn---getting some kind of block in place, and some health care activated over the corporate strangle hold is a life or death issue for too many people---

yet bartering away a life or death WOMEN's issue in order to do it is not acceptable.

And then when you add in the incredibly evil foot in the door that this christofascist amendment represents........

[mckara]

101. Systematic Efforts to Make Women Second-Class Citizens!

We need an Equal Rights Amendment in the Constitution.

[valerief]

102. Big Rec!

The Jesusification of Merka is in full swing and the founding fathers are still rolling over in their graves.

They (the puppetmasters) won't be satisfied until we're all desperate slaves. Won't be long at this pace.

[freddie mertz]

110. MASSIVE K & R. It has gotten so bad that the knee-jerk apologists...

Jumped into their usual defensive dissembling and attack-the-messenger mode BEFORE they realized that the president was not exactly on their side.

Time will tell how this works out, but it was certainly "diagnostic" that the knee-jerkers ASSUMED the prez and other Dem "Centrists" would embrace the Stupak bill, because that has been the pattern since the new administration was sworn in.

We need thoughtful and HONEST contributions like YOURS, Madfloridian (and like RACHEL's), to cut through the smokescreen of lies, distortions, and right-wing attacks that are becoming all to dominant here.

THANK YOU for your hard work and your COURAGE.

[dmr]

111. This is why the Right Fringe can afford to go further & further right

As they go batty, and the Dems go right, it normalizes the right. Soon there will be no actual left anymore, thus mission complete. The right wing wins.

Did I articulate that well?

I REFUSE to go right. No way! No how!

Maybe it's time for me to go left wing batshit crazy!

[wayoutthere]

114. Is That Another Word For (Far Left)

[BeHereNow]

116. Proud to be 137th to recommend. People need to study the "family" as researched

by Jeffrey Sharlot.
Fundie nut cases occupy both side of the aisle in our "secular" government.
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2003/03/0079525

"Ivanwald, which sits at the end of Twenty-fourth Street North in Arlington, Virginia, is known only to its residents and to the members and friends of the organization that sponsors it, a group of believers who refer to themselves as “the Family.” The Family is, in its own words, an “invisible” association, though its membership has always consisted mostly of public men. Senators Don Nickles (R., Okla.), Charles Grassley (R., Iowa), Pete Domenici (R., N.Mex.), John Ensign (R., Nev.), James Inhofe (R., Okla.), Bill Nelson (D., Fla.), and Conrad Burns (R., Mont.) are referred to as “members,” as are Representatives Jim DeMint (R., S.C.), Frank Wolf (R., Va.), Joseph Pitts (R., Pa.), Zach Wamp (R., Tenn.), and Bart Stupak (D., Mich.). Regular prayer groups have met in the Pentagon and at the Department of Defense, and the Family has traditionally fostered strong ties with businessmen in the oil and aerospace industries. The Family maintains a closely guarded database of its associates, but it issues no cards, collects no official dues. Members are asked not to speak about the group or its activities."

DU notice Bart Stupak (D) among this list of members...


BHN

[BrklynLiberal]

119. Wish I could rec 100 times...

Your posts are always intelligent, coherent and make points about issues that need to be examined.

I have said much earlier that I would NEVER vote for Schumer....The man is a hypocritical opportunist.

[NMMNG]

121. Some of us have been screaming this at the top of our lungs for a long time

Yet we've been dismissed with claims that we're whiny, one issue voters, demanding ponies etc. We've been told we need to "reach out" to the other side and "build bridges". What we've been trying to tell them all along, and what they've never been willing to accept (but people are finally getting) is that you cannot "reach out to" them. You cannot "compromise" with them because their version of "compromise" means you give up much of or all of what you wanted and they get everything they wanted. You lose every time. There is no such thing as "compromise" in their book, and you cannot win the hearts and minds of people whose hearts are hard and whose minds are closed.

[pmorlan1]

122. BINGO

You are absolutely correct!

[Shallah Kali]

126. Sharlet's Latest: The Democrat's New Family Values: Thanks to CStreeter Stupak & his allies the GOP

The Democrats' new "Family" values
Thanks to C Streeter Bart Stupak and his allies, the GOP isn't the only party kowtowing to the Christian right
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/11/10/stupak_pitts/index.html

Joe Pitts can testify to that. It's a safe bet that until Stupak-Pitts, few Americans beyond Pennsylvania Amish country had even heard of the avuncular Republican, a former gym teacher who rarely attaches his name to legislation. And yet he's been a driving force in the antiabortion fight for more than three decades. It was Pitts, a "core" member of the Family, who helped bring antiabortion politics into the organization back in the early 1980s. The Family's focus has always tended toward foreign affairs and economics; Pitts merged the two with the red-hot politics of the abortion wars, quietly exporting free-market fundamentalism and draconian social policy overseas. Pitts and Stupak have joined forces on that front before, teaming up to try to turn President Bush's underfunded but laudable President's Emergency Relief for AIDS initiative into an antiabortion crusade. What they couldn't achieve abroad, they've now brought back home, and then some.

They had plenty of help, starting at the Family's C Street House. It's home not just to Stupak but also to antiabortion Democrats Mike Doyle of Pennsylvania and Heath Shuler of North Carolina, and two of the Senate's fiercest abortion foes, Oklahoma's Tom Coburn -- an obstetrician who once mused on applying the death penalty to abortion providers -- and South Carolina's Jim DeMint, famous for pledging to make healthcare reform Obama's Waterloo. Other Family associates lining up behind Stupak-Pitts include evangelicals Mike McIntyre, D-N.C., John Tanner, D-Tenn., and Lincoln Davis, a Democrat from Tennessee who once proclaimed that no Republican could "outgun, out-pray, or out-family me."

snip

Which raises the question: Who's pulling whom? Did backbencher Bart Stupak really come up with the bluff that led pro-choice Democrats to abandon not one but two compromises, one of which Stupak himself seemed to be signing off on earlier this summer? Or was it Pitts, an abortion-wars warrior since the 1970s, and a longtime leader of the House Values Action Team -- an off-the-record caucus of religious right organizations and members of Congress -- who drew up the blueprint?

snip

He may have been right about that. Right now, even the diluted healthcare reform bill that's limping toward more mauling in the Senate looks like the result of a historic vote. But as a weather vane, Stupak-Pitts tells us which way the wind is blowing. Last time the Democrats possessed this much power in Washington, the Dixiecrats tried to hold the party hostage. Now, it's the faith-based Democrats. Dixiecrats were racists, plain and simple; the faith-based Democrats are a more complicated bunch, a mix of genuinely moral conservatives, many of them to the left on economic issues, political cowards, and default Blue Dogs. They're anti-choice and anti-gay but, by God, they're about love, not hate, a gentler fundamentalism, a faith based in the conflation of Christianity and the Constitution, not the substitution of one for the other. So that's progress, right?

"Sure," says the Faith Table dissident who reports that the council of "progressive Christians" was not willing to even consider any deal that didn't leap past the Hyde Amendment into a new country -- or maybe it's old -- of abortion restrictions. "If you're playing horseshoes with James Dobson."

[Politicub]

127. I don't support the Stupak amendment in any way, shape or form, but I still do support the bill

I agree with everything you said in your post. Unless this amendment gets removed from the final bill, and this is assuming the senate will be able to get a bill through, it will mean that the fundamentalists are getting a toe-hold in the democratic party.

And as a gay man, this scares the heck out of me since one of the only tissue thin firewalls we have against an all out assault against LGBT folks is the dem's limited support of LGBT rights.

Sometimes I hate our two party system, but as a realist I understand that nationally we have a binary choice that we can make - we either get a republican president or a democratic one. And in every instance, even though they seem to be trending to the right, democratic candidates are more favorable.

But as for the overall bill, I support it based on this imperfect system that we have. There is good, bad and really bad stuff in the bill. But the good will help a lot of people and put us on the road to more reform later. I'm of the mind that if we lose this moment, it will be another 20, 30, 40 years until we see any HC legislation of any meaningful scope.

So when I defend the bill and the supporters of it, it doesn't mean I defend Stupak. I hate that the dems capitulated to the Catholic lobby of all things to include this poison pill. But at the same time, this highly flawed bill will do some good.

I guess the question is, at what cost? I don't know the answer to that, but many of the less fortunate don't have the luxury of waiting around and finding out.

[NAO]

129. The Bush win (?) in 2004 made them think they MUST cave in to the religious right

Bush was the WORST president ever, there was massive evidence that he was destroying the United States. He was so AWFUL that even Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn asked voters to vote for Kerry - something that was absolutely unprecedented.

Yet despite all that, Bush got the votes. The votes came from what I call "The Electoral Shock Troops of the Religious Reich".

Democrats were horrified, and began immediately to co-opt religious language and cater to the so-called "People of Faith".

It's a sad development, with very little upside, as far as I can tell.

[bigwillq]

130. Rachel was great last night (nt)

[varelse]

132. The party can no longer afford not to be pro-choice either

the party is between a rock, and a hard place.

[autorank]

133. We're shopped routinely. k*r

Kaine is an idiot. Sorry to say that as one who was invited to his inauguration in Williamsburg, Virginia (the last one held there was for Jefferson).

Jefferson and the authors of the Constitution had no such silly notions about being anti science. If fact, there are centuries of Iranian history where the rulers, Muslim and others, made statements about the importance of being open to science.

So Kaine isn't even at a par with 18th century intellectuals in this country or Muslim rulers in Persia/Iran. What an ass.

The party won on the young and black vote that normally doesn't show up and a lot of other people who don't show up. Why hadn't they voted consistently? Because of nonsense just like you point out.

So we win a big election, take both houses, and do it on the backs of real Democrats, people who believe in liberal/progressive governance and what do we get? A party leadership that runs after people who hate what the very people who won the election care about.

Virginia: Obama 1.8 million (when they thought he was a liberal)
Virginia: Deeds 0.8 million (a Kaine conservative Dem)

They're so dumb they can't even count.

[saracat]

134. K+R You beat me to it. I was just going to post about Kaine. I have been

dreading something like this since he became DNC Chair. Notice how he hasn't been speaking out on anything? Dean would have been very hard to control. Kaine is part of the cabal so he is silent. I agree 100% with your post. The indications that this admin would go in this direction were there as soon as the president "expanded" the office of Faith Based Initiatives. And now we also have "prayer treatments" paid for by federal dollars. This is all very frightening, combined with those who masterminded the financial collapse holding the reigns and Arne Duncan, who would abolish public schooling as we know it, why aren't the true liberal democrats screaming from the rooftops? Why? Why are they apologists for Stupak? And why are they actually happy about a rightward tilt?

[madfloridian]

138. Yes, I was going to mention the public money going to private religious schools...

but I figured I would save it for later. I expected to get blasted out of the water for this one.

I am to the point though that I think things are becoming intolerable when they control our party.

[waiting for hope]

145. This one is spot on - and schools are a

part of the bigger picture too. Just think, 20 years from now, all school systems are privately owned Charter schools teaching abstinence only sex ed, religious classes and a robust military after school program ... if people don't start seeing the bigger picture, the future will be frightening.

K&R

[sorrowspath]

135. The Catholic church wanted to turn us into a 3rd world theocracy

like the Philippines. In that country, the Catholic Bishops are unchallenged. They coerce the government into doing their will like forbidding artificial family planning (it's so backward out there,using a condom is excommunicable) resulting in population growth and children born into poverty that the Church can easily manipulate thus they can easily pass the blame to government despite being the cause of poverty.

If we let them get away with it, it's gonna be 1 step at a time. Slowly but surely.Until you wake up one day and find out that you're no longer a majority in your own country and when that happens,they're gonna push their agenda to the Democratic and Republican politicians, switching their support if their demands are not meet.If a democrat is in power,they will demand policies that undermine liberals and if not given to them,they will switch their side to the Republicans. Once the Republicans are in charge,they will get the policies that makes gay and atheist, 2nd class citizens of their own country. Next step will be to ask them for policy that undermines other Non Catholic Christian groups which the Republicans will refuse being mostly Protestant,then by the next election, they will switch side once again to Democrats.It will be a cycle of switching and switching until you wake up, find out that both parties have given them to much power making them seemed like the 3rd party.

With the US under their control, what better way to threaten liberal Europe besides economics?Withdrawal of stocks, support.The Catholic Church cannot coerce European Nations to adopt their policies without the backing of a prominent country.

Call it paranoia but it's not far-fetched. The first seed have been planted and what I just told you are the limitless possibilities. Question is do we allow them to continue to gain power or do we derail them before their influence became uncontrollable. Imagine US politics, Democrat vs Republicans with the US Catholic Church bidding.

[JackDragna]

136. To hell with the religious right.

To hell with the people who call me a traitor, apostate and communist. Nobody's rights are worth sacrificing for any political goal. Ever.

[femrap]

139. Underlining all of this Evangelical,

Mormanical, Fundamentical, and Catholical CRAP is the great need of men to control women's destinies. Now if they can control their bodies, that pretty much covers the destinies. Compulsory motherhood has a way of changing 'the pursuit of happiness.'

Plus if the United States doesn't have poor and working women reproducing, there is no Cannon Fodder for the next generation. You don't see A DRAFT, do you?

These politicians don't care about God or religion. Hell, do you think the likes of Pat Robertson, Falwell or any of the other Bible Thumpers care about women, life, goodness, fairness, happiness? All they care about is themselves and having power and money. PERIOD.

They're just playing propaganda with the people who are too afraid to think for themselves. And these fearful, stupid people are now empowered by these 'religious' nuts.

I am so tired of it. Women will have abortions. If it isn't safe and legal, women will die. If you don't want to have an abortion, don't have one. And if you are incapable of having an abortion, JUST SHUT THE FUCK UP.

Thank you.

[puebloknot]

141. K&R And why is Pelosi meeting with Catholic Bishops? How about meeting ...

... with a variety of groups from many religious/philosophical viewpoints? Or better yet, why not NOT meet with any religious types in honor of the principle of separation of church and state?

I'm not sure we "deserve it," but I'm as concerned as you are. I don't know how we stop letting them do the various things they are doing. We the Dem People are trying, but our leaders are caving at every turn. Short of meeting at the barricades, I don't know what we can do. And it's frustrating and depressing.

Thanks for another informative post. You do great work!

Edited to correct typo.

[dflprincess]

165. Can you imagine the howls if Bush had met with the Bishops over an abortion amendment?

But, as seems to be happening so often now, if the Democrats do it, then it's okay.

Sorry, but if I wanted to listen to the bishops, I wouldn't have left the church, and I sure don't want them writing legislation.

[DemBones DemBones]

220. Pelosi is Catholic. Pelosi is pro-choice.

[John Q. Citizen]

142. I see the pattern. The PO was a Republican market based solution. The first one. What's next?

[tonysam]

147. For Pete's sake, it's been this way for years

Catholics traditionally made up a large bloc of the Democratic Party vote--this has NOTHING to do with the religious right, i.e., the so-called Protestant evangelicals. The Democratic Party isn't a monolith like the GOP--it really IS a "big tent" party. Party members have disagreed about abortion for DECADES.

Rachel Maddow wasn't even ALIVE when abortion was illegal in this country, wasn't even BORN (she was still in utero) when Roe v. Wade was handed down, and was a toddler when the Hyde Amendment was passed. She doesn't know what in the heck she is talking about.

I seriously doubt anybody is going to worry about abortion or same-sex marriage when they go to the polls next November. If Obama doesn't get his act together about the economy, he can forget about a Democratic Congress to work with, let alone being re-elected.

Let's be honest: There is going to be NO real health care reform, so all of this handwringing over Stupak is just that, handwringing. Poor women will still be unable to have the federal government pay for abortions, just as it has been for 33 years.

[madfloridian]

151. Then that is to our shame. All of us.

[dflprincess]

168. Catholics made up a large voting bloc

but I don't recall politicians consulting the bishops on legislation in the past. If John Kennedy had done that he would never have been elected and he shouldn't have been.

Not all Catholics are wingnuts - there's a good part of the membership that leans left and gets sneered at for being "cafeteria Catholics". This sort of thing won't go over well with them either.

The church can't get Italian politicans to pay attention to it, why should American office holders be kowtowing to those bigots?

[SagefemmeCollective]

163. Time to start a Women's Party

The threat of starting a women's party is what ultimately increased the number of women representatives in Norway. Both of the parties are failing women.

[Lars39]

166. ahem:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8744983

[David Zephyr]

167. Brilliant. Proud to kick this up and to put the "R" by it.

OXOXOX

[scentopine]

171. Great job madfloridian - another ace post !

Liberals (this means just about anyone to the left of hard right) continue to be dragged along to the right with a prong collar around our necks - we can no longer blame this on the previous republicans. Dem leadership is frighteningly similar to the 1980 neo-cons.

History is repeating itself. It is compete madness. Another big fuck you to grass roots dems.

[Lost-in-FL]

175. THANK YOU!!! I am seeing a very ugly pattern on this bill.

:kick: :patriot:

[RainDog]

179. This is a stupid, stupid move. It is going against the future. Are democrats that stupid?

if the democrats want to make sure the vote is split against them by a third party, they are doing exactly what they should.

the religious right is making the republicans look like asses.

the democrats are making themselves look like asses.

way to go.

[JCMach1]

180. Triangulation, DLC has it and Obama

is following it...

So yeah, the plan is to continue kicking the progressive base in the face while coddling Catholics and Evangelicals...

:grr:

[Autonomy]

183. I don't buy it

The 'no abortion funds' portion of the bill was just an attempt to ensure the bill passed. It's just legislative sausage-making, not some kind of conspiracy or trend. Given the closeness of the vote, I am sure they realized it had to be included to get the bill passed.

[defendandprotect]

184. The ISSUE is organized patriarchal religion and its war on nature and women . . .

[leveymg]

192. Welcome to GOP Lite. "Moderate Republicans", aka, Blue Dogs, have taken over.

The progressive base was useful for getting them into power, now they think they can keep it by taking over the Republican Party.

[Dinger]

195. Sobering Thread madfloridian.

We need to act NOW, no, YESTERDAY. Then we need to vote accordingly.

[bread_and_roses]

196. A big K & R here, MF

But I'm too discouraged and dispirited by all this to even post a line in support. I about give up.

[pleah]

202. K&R

[seafan]

205. Thanks for highlighting the religious right's infiltration of the Democratic Party, madfloridian.

We've seen the terrible havoc the religious right brings--- Blackwater USA; corrupting the mission of our military; the Air Force Academy; our schools; state constitutions; and now, our federal government.


We've already had one Revolutionary War to break away from the kind of repression that destroyed people. There are the same forces at work today, that are methodically pushing us toward another war.


Religion has absolutely NO place in government. Those who pick up the sword/gun/bomb in the name of their religion should be struck down. Hard.



Thom Hartmann: 'The rising influence of evangelicals in the Democratic Party has blindsided many.', November 10, 2009


The House on C-Street is the source of another a bloody revolution that America will endure.


It is coming at us very quickly.






Again,thanks for your thread, madfloridian.



We have miles to go before we sleep.

[madfloridian]

218. Thanks for your post, seafan.

All of it ties together.

[Christa]

207. K & R nt

[BlueJazz]

208. Strange how you never see any restrictions put on Men's Reproductive Rights.

You would think that "spilling your seed" or a list of other "Men Things" would come into play when Laws (having to do with Sex) are made,...but Noooo..

Women really do get Fucked in more ways than one. :(

[voteearlyvoteoften]

209. Separation of church and state

Whatever happened to that ole quaint notion.

[jsmandrake]

213. WHY GRAVITATE TO EVANGELICALS/

I see your point entirely (thanks for the articulation)... and it has been an unnamed worry of mine for some time. Question... I am supposing that this Democratic interest in the evangelicals is born of those usual tools that power seeks---namely, money (as seen in the vast wealth of their mega-churches?) along with ready use of the madding crowd, no?