Well, to be fair, Democrats are doing everything they can to make the GOP more palatable by women, by embracing hateful crap like the Stupak amendment.

I don’t think they’re making the GOP more palatable, they’re just joining in the alienation in an incredibly stupid fashion.

As a student at a top-5 law school like Michigan, you ought not to be hanging around with a lowlife Cooley Law Schol grad like Stupak.  :(

“The GOP may not be sexist, sure. It’s just doing every single thing a big bunch of sexists would do when they were engaging in big fun sexism for the whole family, which may lead the less savvy among us to suspect sexism might be at play.”

You can change out “sexism” for “racism,” “elitism” and “corporatism,” too, of course. We’re not supposed to look at what they DO; only what they SAY. (Of course, they also tell us that we’re not supposed to extend anyone else that courtesy.)

that night I went out drinking with Bart Stupak and bet him that the House of Representatives would never be so stupid as to effectively ban all private insurers from voluntarily covering abortion), but I’m back.

Wait, what? I guess I don’t understand the details of the amendment, I thought it was like, the public option wouldn’t cover abortion, *private insurers* are being stopped from covering abortion? And this thing passed?

Thank God we worked our asses off getting the Democratic party control of Congress and the White House…

@typist - the amendment says that no one who uses federal subsidies can use them to buy a plan that offers abortion coverage. Since insurance companies like to keep overhead down by offering relatively few plans, and the size of the market using said subsidies is in theory very large, the worry is that insurance companies will simply choose to make all their plans subsidy-eligible and drop abortion coverage.

Interesting to note that the GOP woman running for U.S. Senate in California, Carly Fiorina, is very likely going to be on the receiving end of a… erm… teabagging at the hands of the wingnut base of her own party.

Via TPM:

A California Republican aiming to unseat Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) next year has gotten a boost from conservative Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC).

DeMint announced last night his Senate Conservatives Fund was endorsing state Assemblyman Chuck DeVore over former Hewlett Packard chief Carly Fiorina. The group supports only “rock solid” conservatives, organizers told supporters on a conference call last night as election results came in.

DeVore “will work with me to shake things up,” DeMint said, and “vote the right way ...
stand up in our conference meetings and say, ‘Folks this is wrong let’s turn this thing around.’”

DeMint’s fund already has endorsed Republican senate candidates Marco Rubio in Florida and Pat Toomey in Pennsylvania.

——SNIP——

The news comes as Fiorina officially entered the race via an editorial in the Orange County Register where she asked “those who expect more from our government to join me in making a change for the better.”

Erick Erickson, editor of RedState.com, also appeared on the call and noted that DeVore served in the Reagan White House. He criticized Fiorina for backing the stimulus and noted recent polling showing both of the candidates are within 10 points of Boxer.

I’m really not sure what exactly their problem is with Fiorina, who was a consultant for the McCain Campaign last year, other than the fact that she has lady parts.

But by all means, teabaggers… keep giving the boot to the quasi-moderates in your own party.

Charlie Crist would probably be a shoe-in to win the U.S. Senate seat in Florida next year, but since he’s apparantly not conservative enough for you whackjobs (or more accurately, not heterosexual enough), you morons are gonna get him booted in your party’s primary, and open the seat up to be taken over by a Democrat, just like you did when you booted the very electable Dede Scozzafava last week in NY-23.  That seat was yours for the taking, and you literally just handed it to the Democrats.

And then you tried to call that a “win” for your side?!!?  Is the sky red in your world or something?

So please… keep pushing to the right, and in a few more election cycles (and after a large chunk of your base demographic dies off), you’ll go the way of the Whigs.  Then we can split the Democratic Party in two, progressives on one side, douchey blue dogs on the other.

DTG in STL: that is the best idea yet! (the Dem party spliting) BTW, I would have voted for Scozzafava over Owens. She is actually more progressive then him. She was on NPR Friday talking about how fed up moderate Repulicans are with the radical right, and that there are more of them then the party thinks.

Wait, what? I guess I don’t understand the details of the amendment, I thought it was like, the public option wouldn’t cover abortion, *private insurers* are being stopped from covering abortion? And this thing passed?

Not precisely.

What the Stupak Amendment will do, if it winds up in the final legislation, is effectively prohibit abortion coverage for anyone who gets insurance through the exchange, whether it be private insurance or the public option.  This would apply to anyone who purchases on the exchange, whether they are getting government assitance or not… meaning even people fully paying their premiums out of pocket would lose abortion coverage on insurance purchased through the exchange.

What will not be affected, in theory, would be private insurance that one either has through their employer or that one has bought outside of the exchange.

At least that’s my best understanding of it.

The reason why it’s completely absurd and offensive is that it goes FAR beyond the restrictions imposed by the Hyde Amendment, which most of the Democratic Caucus had no problem abiding by.  Had it only been the Hyde Amendment rules, it simply would have prohibited abortion funding for those receiving insurance through the public option.

OK, this probably will incur a Learn To Google response, but until this debate I didn’t know that people used insurance to pay for abortions.  I thought it was a purely out-of-pocket thing.

Please remember that women have medical conditions that require late term abortions.  These abortions cannot be covered thanks to Stupak, and if you think private insurance is going to cover something when the’ve been shown a loophole to avoid paying for it, you haven’t been paying attention.

If a much wanted baby does not form correctly, say there’s no amniotic fluid, which means the organs won’t develop and there’s no chance of life, yet a high chance of infection that can threaten the mother’s life and her ability to have other children…such as a family member of mine just had to go through…terminating this pregnancy will not be able to be covered.  Who’s going to pay for a day or more in the hospital?

Women will have to hang out until they are septic and in danger of death before anything can be done, and then just in the ER, which probably means a hysterectomy.  But that’s okay, right?  Slutty McSluts, even if married and carrying wanted children, deserve punishment for failing to carry the wages of sex to term.

And if abortions don’t have to be covered, and abortions are the solution to many high risk conditions, then why should insurance companies cover pregnancy at all?  They don’t like to anyway, but if they have a way out of covering women should there be severe complications, why cover anything but the most basic of deliveries?

They are already forced by law to provide 24 hours in the hospital after a delivery.  Left to their own devices, they were kicking women out after 8 hours.  (If a woman wants to check out ASAP, fine, but most women are better off staying put, and certain tests on an infant aren’t effective until 24 hours after birth) 

Insurance companies do not want to pay for ANYTHING.  Stupak just expanded the ever-living shit out of Hyde.

Am I crazy, or would it be feasible for feminist groups to get together and start some non-profit organizations specifically to provide abortion insurance? If the private insurers do drop abortion coverage so that they can rake in the subsidy dollars, that leaves a huge gap in the market, which we might be able to fill. Even though such organizations could not accept federal money either, being non-profit would enable them to keep premiums low. If said organizations also sold contraception at normal retail prices, they could a) use the proceeds to fund the payouts and b) reduce the likelihood that payouts would be required, allowing even lower premiums.

Am I nuts to suggest this?

Her loss, Jesse.

Now then, Caren:

And if abortions don’t have to be covered, and abortions are the solution to many high risk conditions, then why should insurance companies cover pregnancy at all?  They don’t like to anyway,

Why not?

This medium kills tone: I don’t doubt the insurers’ reluctance, but I’m unclear on what’s behind it.

I prefer to think of it as “the Republicans have a problem with every even moderately decent and sane human being.”  They have become the party of the batshit crazy and pig ignorant (and damned proud of it!!!) good ol’ boys and the predatory rich white f**ks.  This not a very large demographic base and an inherently unstable coalition.  Of course they also have special problems with women, people of color, and non-Christians.

Please remember that women have medical conditions that require late term abortions.  These abortions cannot be covered thanks to Stupak, and if you think private insurance is going to cover something when the’ve been shown a loophole to avoid paying for it, you haven’t been paying attention.

As loathesome as the Stupak Amendment is, that’s not completely accurate.  The amendment does provide exceptions which allows abortion to be covered for cases in which the life of the mother is at risk, as well as cases in which the preganancy was the result of rape or incest.

http://documents.nytimes.com/the-stupak-amendment#p=2

1   SEC. 265. LIMITATION ON ABORTION FUNDING.

(a) IN GENERAL. - No funds authorized or appropriated by 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 where a woman suffersˇfrom a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself, or unless the pregnancy is the result of an’ act of rape or incest.

Granted, I imagine the restrictions on what constitutes a “life-endangering physical condition” are probably going to be extremely strict.

Karalora, one problem I see with that is the people who would need it most, probably are the least likely to seek it out and buy it.
Most people blind themselves to the dangers of pregnancy. I’ve tried to talk to “pro-life” friends about it, and they basically have convinced themselves that complications are extremely rare and almost never life-threatening. And certainly nothing would ever happen to them or their friends, and they don’t want to even think about it. There’s even a kind of magical thinking, I suspect, that convinces them that the only times pregnancy goes wrong is when the mother-to-be doesn’t want the baby anyway.
A first trimester abortion is relatively cheap and a person can probably take care of it with the help of friends, a payday loan, etc. Not as good as having it covered by insurance, but it will be feasible for a lot of women who can’t afford a baby.
But late-term abortions, ectopic pregnancies, twins where one is alive and one is dead, are complicated, dangerous surgeries to deal with, and are therefore expensive. They are also unusual enough that few women would think to have insurance just for that. In fact, many people have a superstitious feeling that planning for a worst case scenario can cause it to happen.

No, this amendment needs to be gone from the reconciliation version, so I guess this is another contact your Senators and reps situation.

And Hershele—what other medical condition that costs over $20K if everything goes *right* is entered into voluntarily by the patient? And then the insurer has to cover the baby, too. What makes you think that insurers wouldn’t want to avoid paying for pregnancies? There’s an example on record—Blue Shield, iirc, had a habit of going over women’s medical records after they got pregnant to fine preexisting conditions to use as excuses to drop them.

“As loathesome as the Stupak Amendment is, that’s not completely accurate.  The amendment does provide exceptions which allows abortion to be covered for cases in which the life of the mother is at risk, as well as cases in which the preganancy was the result of rape or incest.”

How the fuck would that even work?  Generally insurance either covers something or it doesn’t.  Are they going to start issuing Schroedinger’s policies where you have coverage if you get raped before needing it but don’t if you weren’t?

How the fuck would that even work?

Honestly, I don’t know.  I’m just basing that on the verbiage of the amendment:

except in the case where a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself, or unless the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest.

How those exceptions specifically get implemented is completely beyond me.

@ Samantha, if some or even most women chose not to avail themselves of such a service…there’s not much we could do about it. But that doesn’t seem to be a good reason not to try providing it to the women who would use it.

I’m dead serious about this—is this something we as feminists could do?

Just saw this quote from the President and my jaw dropped “this is a health care bill, not an abortion bill” because it shows how goddamn ignorant even “progressive” men can be about women’s health.

Abortion is healthcare, Mr. President, you weenie.

I think what the President, in his conciliatory way, (i.e. nicer and more conservative-sounding than I’d like) meant by that remark is “This is a [providing] health care bill, not a [screw around with abortion] bill.” I recognize the troubling implications of that statement, but the idea (don’t let them make this fight about abortion, because that’s strictly an attempt to muddy the waters) is sound, imo.

Elective abortions: sometimes not covered by insurance, like elective nose jobs. Medically-indicate abortions: currently covered by insurance.

The language of the amendment is almost completely useless. Fscking being pregnant places a woman’s life at risk, so this will be entirely at the option of your doctor, which means that white professional women will get the benefit of the doubt and poor and minority women, well, they’re all just sluts anyway, especially the ones who already have children to take care of. And panty-sniffers will be going after the records of any doctor who certifies “too many” of the lives of his patients as being at risk.

But I disagree with Jesse: the Republican party isn’t anti-woman, any more than they’re anti-black or anti- any other minority. They’re perfectly comfortable with all of those sorts of people just as long as they know their place.

Just saw this quote from the President and my jaw dropped “this is a health care bill, not an abortion bill” because it shows how goddamn ignorant even “progressive” men can be about women’s health.

Abortion is healthcare, Mr. President, you weenie.

I think a little more context to what the president said to Jake Tapper is needed here.  While that specific sentence certainly comes off as quite patronizing without having read the rest of what he said, his bigger message seemed to be that we already have the Hyde Amendment, and that further restrictions are neither wanted nor needed, and that the whole debate over the Stupak Amendment this weekend is only moving away from the intended goal of the bill - extending healthcare coverage to more people, and making it more affordable.  Earlier this summer, most pro-choice members of the Democratic Caucus agreed to move forward with the understanding that the rules of the Hyde Amendment would apply to this legislation, and that it would necessarily put some restrictions on coverage for abortion.  It was their understanding that the language of the Hyde Amendment is self-evident, and so no further amendments needed to be included.

I think what Obama was criticizing was the fact that the whole debate got sidetracked by an issue that many had thought was a settled matter - that the Hyde Amendment would apply, but that no further restrictions would be tacked on.

Here is the rest of President Obama’s conversation:

“I laid out a very simple principle, which is this is a health care bill, not an abortion bill,” Obama said. “And we’re not looking to change what is the principle that has been in place for a very long time, which is federal dollars are not used to subsidize abortions.”

Saying the bill cannot change the status quo regarding the ban on federally funding abortions, the President said “there are strong feelings on both sides” about an amendment passed on Saturday and added to the legislation, “and what that tells me is that there needs to be some more work before we get to the point where we’re not changing the status quo.”

...

“I want to make sure that the provision that emerges meets that test—that we are not in some way sneaking in funding for abortions, but, on the other hand, that we’re not restricting women’s insurance choices,” he said.

I guess my take is that he’s saying that the Hyde Amendment is acceptable, but the Stupak Amendment is not.

The Hyde Amendment sucks, but it’s a battle that we were never realistically going to win… it’s been the law for over 30 years, and unfortunately, it’s not likely going away anytime soon.

What the Stupak Amendment does is take the Hyde Amendment and makes it look downright progressive in comparison.

DTG, you missed the part of the interview where he continued to yammer on about finding common ground with the sort of people who murder doctors. I WANT to like and support President Obama but sometimes he makes it so fucking hard. And I’m sorry, but it’s blinding male privilege to dismiss abortion as not an issue of healthcare, at the very least the President screwed up with his phrasing.

Pardon, that was an earlier quote from Gibbs speaking for the White House about Stupak re: finding common ground. I still find the whole thing smarmy and uncomfortable.

The GOP has for too long neglected its truck drivers!  They have lost social status, and along with that, America is doomed!

Unless they are restored to their role as the proper providers of sperm for American womanhood, humanity is also doomed.

OK, this probably will incur a Learn To Google response, but until this debate I didn’t know that people used insurance to pay for abortions.  I thought it was a purely out-of-pocket thing.

You’re certainly not the only person who didn’t know this.  The extreme irony is that many of the anti-choice people who don’t want to pay for abortions with their tax dollars are already paying for abortions through their private insurance.  The leaders of the anti-choice movement have made a great effort to hide this fact.

Then we can split the Democratic Party in two, progressives on one side, douchey blue dogs on the other.

There’s a big problem with this plan.  Which group gets to keep the Democratic label?  Brand loyalty is a huge factor in election (that’s how Bush Jr. won, after all).  Election are decided by swing voters, with most voters just going with their party.  A progressive party might get those independent votes, but at the expense of the large base that just votes for whoever has the (D) behind their name.

But isn’t it a “free market” decision for an insurance company to decide which procedures they will cover? And isn’t it “big government interference” when the insurance companies are told they can’t cover abortion?

I don’t know if the GOP (or some dem’s for that matter) are any good at math. Considering the ages women are during their childbearing years (roughly 13 - 40), it is conceivable that an enormous majority of the 40 million women who have had abortions since 1973 are alive and well. And voting. Don’t know if they ever think about that.

It’s good to hear that someone else is having a shitty November.

I’m so sick to death of the Dems not having real party leadership. Civil rights should not be a negotiable part of the party platform. If you have people in the party who believe that you can treat whole segments of the American population like second class citizens, particularly when they have abided by the laws of this country, then you have no place in the party.

Here’s an awesome opinion piece from the WSJ. And by “awesome” I mean “horrible.”

My favorite part is actually a flippant little parenthetical comment: abortion (the preferred term is “reproductive health care”).

I think that could work as a good litmus test - if you attempt to condemn all “reproductive health care” by conflating it with abortion, you’re a horrible human being. Don’t get me wrong, abortion is an important part of reproductive health care, but even if you’re opposed to abortion, you have no excuse for being opposed to reproductive health care in general, other than just being a monster. His excuse for being opposed to reproductive health care, of course, is that it’s all just a euphemism for abortion, much like how pro-lifers are all dead convinced that Planned Parenthood centers are nothing but abortion clinics.

How those exceptions specifically get implemented is completely beyond me.
Comment #18: DTG in STL on 11/09 at 10:22 PM

It’s always an interesting exercise to challenge anti-choicers on the actual implementation of shit like this (Not implying that DTG is an anti-choicer):

I mean, does the woman have to file a rape complaint?  What if the suspect is acquitted?  Wouldn’t this mean all women under whatever the particular age of consent is in that state victims of rape, even if the “rapist” is also underage - since by definition they can’t consent.  What will count as rape? 

the same goes for the well, abortion is OK only if you’ve used protection, but not if you’ve had unprotected sex.  Again, what counts and who/how the fuck gets the task of peeping Tom - does just presenting a receipt for the Trojans count- or do you actually have to bring in the defective condom?

It’s always an interesting exercise to challenge anti-choicers on the actual implementation of shit like this

According to the trolls on the previous Stupak thread, the implementation plan may or may not consist of hidden cameras and the banning of international travel and trade for all Americans.

Because they’re fucking whackjobs.

For the last few months I kinda wished we only had the House of Representatives and no Senate, but now that I think about it the advantage of having a bicameral legislature is it gives them time to weed out stupid amendments like Stupak.

The Democratic leadership needs to make sure they don’t put any pro-life Democrats on the conference committee. This will mean Stupiak is deleted from the bill as the differences between the House and Senate versions are reconciled (they already tried putting something like Stupak in the Senate version. It failed miserably).

I don’t believe the blue dogs have the guts to be held responsible as the ones who, when we were closer to health care reform than at any time since Harry Truman, defeating the bill just as it was about to pass over a social issue. I just don’t believe they would actually go through with that.

According to the trolls on the previous Stupak thread, the implementation plan may or may not consist of hidden cameras and the banning of international travel and trade for all Americans.

Because they’re fucking whackjobs.
Comment #33: Well, what?  on 11/10 at 01:51 PM

And they accuse Dems of spending money the country doesn’t have.ROFL, ROFL, ROFL.

DTG, you missed the part of the interview where he continued to yammer on about finding common ground with the sort of people who murder doctors. I WANT to like and support President Obama but sometimes he makes it so fucking hard

This SO MUCH. I have nothing in common with Fetus humpers. I wish he’d STFU about common ground. They aren’t going to like you President Obama, no matter how many wishy washy statements you make about abortion, or any think else for that matter. I feel like he’s throw progressives under the bus.

feel like he’s throw progressives under the bus.

That’s because he is. He is NOT a progressive, and he never was. He never intended to do anything BUT throw us under the bus.

I know the right wing likes to say that everyone on the left was high on Obamajuana last year, but some of us saw this coming. Many of us voted for him as the lesser of evils, but he was not ever much more than that.

He was still the FAR lesser of evils, though.

I’m so sick to death of the Dems not having real party leadership.

The Dems have perfectly good leadership—what they lack is good followership. 

I was with you then, Well, what?.  I’ve been disapointed by Obama, but I expected to be.  I’d like to like and support him, but he makes it damn hard, just as his rabid (as opposed to pragmatic) supporters do.  And yes, there were tons of them here.  I stopped posting here for nearly six months and read very rarily for nearly that long.  And I never said anything outrageous about Obama, just pointed out he was not the great hope and change icon so many so fervently believed (rosily hoped?).  Defenately the much lesser of evils, but still, never was a progressive and likely never will be.

Helen—

Obama is to the left of Bill Clinton, circa 2000 Al Gore, and John Kerry. Baby steps, you know?

And to the left of late ‘70s Jimmy Carter. Also. As Palin would say.

Still much to the right of LBJ (on DOMESTIC policy, anyway) but again, baby steps.

Liz Cheney’s sex appeal
Huh! I dunno, she reminds me more of Kathy Griffin, who once said about her husband “No one ever meets my husband and says ‘Oh, you’re married to her? Wow! Lucky guy! Whatta babe!’ “

I actually wasn’t disappointed by Obama until his bold, decisive action on DADT in May—because I didn’t think he’d fix anything anyway.

I may have disappointments with Obama, but then again I don’t have my self-image wrapped up in how quickly or noisily I register my discontent throughout the world.

I may have disappointments with Obama, but then again I don’t have my self-image wrapped up in how quickly or noisily I register my discontent throughout the world.

Here’s your cookie.

Mighty Ponygirl: I find your arguments on how the death penalty is crueler than life in prison unpersuasive. First of all, plenty of death row inmates and prisoners do commit suicide. Others lose hope and want to commit suicide but are forcibly prevented</b> (which is really the only ethical thing to do if you have someone in custody). Second of all, a prisoner being scared of death and unwilling to accept it doesn’t mean the death penalty is crueler than life in prison. A prisoner might want to die but be unable to muster up the stomach to actually do it. There are a lot of things that are hard to stomach, yet ultimately reduce pain and suffering (heart surgery, abortion, etc.) People in general avoid scary, dramatic changes and stick to routine, even if the routine is horrific and the change might be less painful overall.

This doesn’t mean I’m for the death penalty. I’m not. Neither is Lymis from what I can tell. I think his/her point was that you can’t plead against the death penalty on high moralistic grounds of compassion or preserving one’s humanity. You can’t pretend you’re <i>destroying your humanity and choosing hate over compassion by killing someone but are oh-so-much more humane and moral because you’re caging them for the rest of their lives. You’re not. The death penalty is wrong because it’s unfairly applied (like, Jim Crow level unfair) and because it does no particular good. It’s not wrong because we’re somehow on a higher moral plane if we don’t execute.

Ack, bad tags. I apologize.

Meet Heather, the new *female* marketing strategist for the GOP:

http://bit.ly/fxv3G

(satire)