Skip to main content

Sen. Barbara Boxer said today in an interview with HuffPo's Sam Stein and Ryan Grim that efforts to add Stupak's Coathanger amendment in the Senate would very likely fail.

"If someone wants to offer this very radical amendment, which would really tear apart [a decades-long] compromise, then I think at that point they would need to have 60 votes to do it," Boxer said. "And I believe in our Senate we can hold it."

"It is a much more pro-choice Senate than it has been in a long time," she added. "And it is much more pro-choice than the House."

Boxer's reading of the political landscape might seem like the hopeful spin of an abortion-rights defender. But it was seconded by a far less pro-choice lawmaker, Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.)

"It would have to be added," sad the Montana Democrat of an amendment that mirrored that offered Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) in the House. "I doubt it could pass."

The procedural aspect of that could, however, get a little dicey should Ben Nelson and Bob Casey actually try to introduce an amendment on the floor as they are threatening to do. Expect to read more from David on that aspect soon. The key thing seems to be to convince Nelson and Casey to forgo pushing this amendment, and that could be what Boxer is intending to do. Casey, when he's had time to think about it, might realize the potential of this effort in blowing up the overall healthcare reform bill entirely, and back off. Nelson might not give a crap if he blows it all up.

But there's one person that can exert some influence over Nelson, and that's Barack Obama, who stated very clearly yesterday that the Stupak Coathanger amendment goes too far in restricting women's access and in changing the "status quo" on federal funding for abortion. Perhaps a little direct pressure from the President on Nelson would dissuade him from pushing his own restrictive effort.

That statement from Obama, perhaps as well as some education from her fellow pro-choice colleages, seems to have swayed Claire McCaskill. Yesterday she stated that the Senate could live with Stupak, displaying a profound misunderstanding of how bad the amendment really is. So her tweet last night backtracking that statement was most welcome.

There's still a great deal of potential for mischief making by ConservaDems over this issue, and it's by no means gone. But the potential for keeping it out of the final Senate bill, and hence the conference report, is much greater today.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 11:38 AM PST.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Boxer is awesome! Take THAT Carly Fiorina!!! (13+ / 0-)

    I'm proud of my senator!

    "The two pioneering forces of modern sensibility are Jewish moral seriousness and homosexual aestheticism and irony." Susan Sontag

    by Shane Hensinger on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 11:39:31 AM PST

  •  I am all for fighting this to the end... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Shane Hensinger, MCMetal

    but would accept it if we could only pass with the current ammendment...lets keep fighting for now...

    Obama - Change I still believe in

    by dvogel001 on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 11:40:33 AM PST

  •  Kill Stupak? Harsh dont ya think? (14+ / 0-)

    The Republican party is sabotaging America's recovery for political gain

    by A Runner on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 11:40:38 AM PST

  •  Oh, geez...ANOTHER Casey pushing anti-choice... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    phenry, Greasy Grant, MCMetal, OldAthena

    Pennsylvania is SO lucky to have such diehard Republicrats! /snark

  •  Interesting headline. Go D-Box! (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    droogie6655321, Rich in PA, MCMetal

    When an old man dies, a library burns down. --African proverb

    by Wom Bat on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 11:41:44 AM PST

  •  Hopefully this is a strong enough message (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    phenry, mollyk

    from our Senator from CA that this healthcare debate shouldn't become about abortion.

  •  Yes, stripping the use of private funds (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Superribbie, sacrelicious, BachFan

    via private insurance, does take things just a BIT farther, doesn't it?  Duh.  

    Eliminate abortion access for millions, in exchange for slightly reducing abusive practices by insurance companies.  Talk about a devil's bargain ...

    "The extinction of the human race will come from its inability to EMOTIONALLY comprehend the exponential function." -- Edward Teller

    by lgmcp on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 11:42:21 AM PST

  •  Good to see Democratic women (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Actbriniel, A Runner

    Who know what the score is!

    Women should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their women.

    by droogie6655321 on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 11:43:21 AM PST

    •  And (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DelRPCV, Joe Beese, susanthe, OldAthena

      What is the score?

      Women with money matter?

      (Yup, I'm angry and bitter about how readily folks will throw down the gauntlet on Stupak-Pitts knowing that it merely extends 30+ years of already existing law to previously-privileged women.)

      If you don't stand for something, you will go for anything. Visit Maat's Feather

      by shanikka on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 11:45:16 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Right on (4+ / 0-)

        Dump Hyde along with Stupak-Pitts.

        Your new Democratic Party: Billions for the bankster boys and not one dime for abortions. Even if it's your dime.

        by Mimikatz on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 11:46:31 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  For Once I'm Going to Highlight My Signature (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          If you don't stand for something, you will go for anything.

          I believe that says it all.

          If you don't stand for something, you will go for anything. Visit Maat's Feather

          by shanikka on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 11:50:44 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  that would be good (0+ / 0-)

          but Hyde might have to wait (much as I agree with you). We can at least draw a line in the sand with Stupak because that is the line they are crossing now.

          Language is wine upon the lips. -Virginia Woolf

          by valadon on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 12:45:06 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Hyde's Been Waiting for 30 Years (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            And if you read my diary from this morning you'd understand that you cannot permanently kill Stupak-Pitts precisely because it is Hyde, just writ large on a group of women that folks are proving in their rhetoric are far, far more important to them than those who have suffered for the past 30 years.

            I accept that this is the way it is.  I just wish folks would stop lying about being for "women's rights" when they pick and choose so obviously who is worth fighting to the mat for.

            If you don't stand for something, you will go for anything. Visit Maat's Feather

            by shanikka on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 01:55:21 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I'm not opposed (0+ / 0-)

              I think Hyde is just as demeaning, if not more, because it set a precedent, and for that reason it may be easier to derail Stupak immediately because we have Hyde as our reference. Stupak goes beyond Hyde, as you well know, and therefore we can demand the stripping of it. Then we tackle Hyde.

              I am a very Liberal woman, Shanikka, and I'm with you.

              Language is wine upon the lips. -Virginia Woolf

              by valadon on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 02:18:05 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Stupak-Pitts Expands Hyde in Only *One* Way (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                It expands the bans that already have existed for years against the use of private money by recipients to get around bans on the use of public money for a purpose deemed "socially discouraged."  As I wrote this morning, that is the only thing it does if you're honest.  It takes Hyde and just makes more women -- women who have largely ignored the impact of Hyde for 30 years all while screaming about women's rights -- subject to its prohibitions.  It deprives them of the workaround that they have benefitted from the past 30 years.

                This tactic is not new.  Not in law, anyhow.  So, if one is going to attack a disease, one does it at the source.  And I'm tired of poor women and dispossessed women routinely being left behind in this fashion, at least without some folks being radically honest about why they are willing to leave them behind at this or any other time.

                If you don't stand for something, you will go for anything. Visit Maat's Feather

                by shanikka on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 02:22:57 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  which is ridiculous on it's face (0+ / 0-)

                  we know, for instance that the public healthcare system that will be put in place once we pass healthcare will be bought and paid for by private premiums...but that didn't stop ConservaDems and their pals in the RW and clergy from bringing up some bogus claim that tax payer funds would be used for abortions.

                  They have one agenda, as we know, to prohibit abortion altogether. We have to fight smarter than they are. If we had some way to get rid of both, I would join in in a heartbeat. I reject any infringement on a woman's right to privacy and I abhor the imposition of social morality upon us.

                  I definitely agree with you that we women dropped the ball and that we had become more!

                  Language is wine upon the lips. -Virginia Woolf

                  by valadon on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 02:32:23 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

              •  Here! Here! Down with Hyde! (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                I'm with you two. I wish more progressives would have the... um... spine...  to pretty much say what needs to be said, Hyde itself is wrong and needs to be repealed, instead I witness ever Democrat in power, including those in the progressive caucus, jump all over themselves to say they will make sure Hyde is retained, that they don't want this to upsurp Hyde's language, etc.

                Would it be such a bad thing for a Dem in office to say I don't support Hyde and think it should one day be repealed?

  •  Women ARE the Democratic base (10+ / 0-)

    The Dems leadership needs to understand that women aren't just part of the Dem base, we ARE the Dem base.  Millions of women have been voting Dem for 32 years in large part to protect reproductive rights.  If Harry Reid doesn't keep Stupak-Pitts out of the Senate Bill thebn he isn't going to get the support of women, and without women, he isn't going to win.  Period.  

    Andf this isn't a theocracy regardless of what the Family and the Bishops want.  

    Your new Democratic Party: Billions for the bankster boys and not one dime for abortions. Even if it's your dime.

    by Mimikatz on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 11:44:15 AM PST

  •  Isn't the amendment just business as usual (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    for the loony Right? Bring in guns, gays, gods, and abortion to rip apart any reform that threatens their corporate overlords. The attempt was inevitable. That it won is another mark of shame for the Democratic Party.

    Problem with it losing in the Senate, which seems extremely likely, is what then happens in the House when the bill goes to conference?

    Everybody talkin' 'bout Heaven ain't goin' there -- Mahalia Jackson

    by DaveW on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 11:46:23 AM PST

    •  I think Pelosi (0+ / 0-)

      will have 218.  She released some people to vote no after she knew she had it this time, and a big chunk of the amendment supporters voted no anyway.  Plus, I can't see people like Marcy Kaptur, Jerry Costello and Tim Ryan voting no on the bill just because the amendment got stripped out.

      I'mma let you finish, Barack, but the teabaggers have done about the most for international peace of all time.--The collective GOP 10/9/09

      by Superribbie on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 01:52:53 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Stupak has woken a sleeping giant (10+ / 0-)

    Four days ago, the pro-choice movement was complacent, lazy, and inattentive. Now it's angry, energized, and ready to spring into battle. I feel like it's 1992 all over again, lining up with throngs of other volunteers to do clinic escorts and counter-demonstrations.

    Nice going, Bart!

    Mr. President, please don't allow your administration to go down in history as the biggest missed opportunity of all time.

    by phenry on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 11:48:25 AM PST

    •  Good fight, (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      wrong battleground. I don't believe this was ever about choice or abortion. It was about torpedoing healthcare reform.

      Everybody talkin' 'bout Heaven ain't goin' there -- Mahalia Jackson

      by DaveW on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 11:53:01 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  it's not about torpedoing healthcare reform (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        its about making Obama fail.

        FOX potatoes watching their snooze NuZZZZ. Shhhh. They think its news.

        by 88kathy on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 11:58:32 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Same thing. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          88kathy, justmy2

          Everybody talkin' 'bout Heaven ain't goin' there -- Mahalia Jackson

          by DaveW on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 12:21:09 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  No, Health care is the target (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            Obama is only a side bonus.

            The Republicans can not allow meaningful health care reform. If it passes and works, it'll be proof government can work and it'll be a generation before the country buys into the government is the enemy bull again.
            It'll be untouchable, just like Social Security and Medicare until enough people forget what it was like before.

            It's worth sacrificing the next couple election cycles to stop.

            The only real question is have they already gutted it far enough.

            The Empire never ended.

            by thejeff on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 01:04:16 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  and about reminding women, even the Speaker (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        what our place is

        Remember, if Government can MAKE a woman bear a child, someday Government could PREVENT a woman from bearing a child. Same diff constitutionally.

        by Catskill Julie on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 12:09:39 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Let move beyond this (0+ / 0-)

          beying a sexist issue. This isn't about Men vs Women, but rather about the seculars vs the religious.

          National polls have shown that men actually support abortion rights as much or even more than women do.

          •  Nope. It's about civil rights. (0+ / 0-)

            Whether men are pro-choice isn't the issue, although many are, like the men in my family, and it is much appreciated. Some (male) commenters on this site still relegate this to mere "special interest" status, implying that women should not be so excited about it. We should be able to see "the bigger picture." They are actually surprised by the strength of our reaction to Stupak.

            When ONLY women are specifically singled out it's discrimination. Equal protection under the law also applies to WOMEN. If the differential was race instead of gender some would find it easier to understand.

            Regarding the "our place" remark, I was just alluding to the recent comments by Republicans that Pelosi should "keep her place."

            Remember, if Government can MAKE a woman bear a child, someday Government could PREVENT a woman from bearing a child. Same diff constitutionally.

            by Catskill Julie on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 02:01:12 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  If men could get pregnant, your point would be... (0+ / 0-)
            somewhat valid.

            But, they can't. Kinda hard to say "get past sexism" in a discussion of an issue that directly effects the only ones who could get pregnant.

            Also, if you having been paying attention to Dailykos lately, let me invite you to the past few days of major diaries where men allover the site have been coming out making disparging remarks in their support of Stupak. A person named Meteor Blades wrote a diary that was front paged writing about all the nasties MB was witnessing and even getting from other male posters.

      •  definitely a C-Street and Republican (0+ / 0-)

        win win amendment...

        "Republicans drove the country into a ditch and now they are complaining about the cost of the tow truck"-Jim Cornette

        by justmy2 on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 12:28:59 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  It is about abortion and creating a wedge (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        714day, OldAthena

        It was pressure from the Family, a Christianist cult, and from the Catholic Bishops, that did this.  It really was about abortion, and about driving a wedge through the Democratic Party.  Stupak, a notorious dim bulb, was just following orders.

        Imagine the repercussions if the most retrograde abortion legislation in a generation passed when there were huge Dem majorities in both houses and a Dem held the White House.  George Bush could only dream about an amendment like this.  The Dems would lose big in 2010 and thereafter and Obama would sleep in the Oval Office for the remainder of his single term.

        That's why I think the Dem leadership will ultimately kill the amendment.

        Your new Democratic Party: Billions for the bankster boys and not one dime for abortions. Even if it's your dime.

        by Mimikatz on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 12:31:27 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  What evidence is there (0+ / 0-)

          That Stupak is a "notorious dim bulb"?

          Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

          by Anthony de Jesus on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 12:37:21 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  He was described as such by Chris Hayes (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            On Olbermann's show.  ("Not the brightest bulb on the porch" were his words.)

            I also heard him so described on Kos a month opr more ago when tghere was discussion about promarying him.  he was said to be not too bright but his views reflected his constitutents.

            Your new Democratic Party: Billions for the bankster boys and not one dime for abortions. Even if it's your dime.

            by Mimikatz on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 12:48:15 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Since I think he basically outmanuevered (0+ / 0-)

              And manipulated progressives, Blue Dogs, and Republicans to bring about what he wanted, that doesn't say much for those groups.

              Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

              by Anthony de Jesus on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 01:31:10 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Stupak was a tool (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Superribbie, Newsie8200, wsexson

                In my opinion.  Pitts, a core member of The Family, seems to me to have been the driving force here, and Stupak was manuvering with the help of Pitts and some of the Blue Dogs.  What Stupak did is stupefyingly contrary to the interests of the Democratic Party, as I tried to point out.  

                Bart didn't do this all by himself.  He had lots of help, and much of it was from across the aisle. And from the Catholic Bishops, whi actually do support health care, as long as they get their way on abortion.  This means at least some of the impetus was to damage the Dems generally, not just Obama, and most was to promote the cause of controlling women's bodies.

                Your new Democratic Party: Billions for the bankster boys and not one dime for abortions. Even if it's your dime.

                by Mimikatz on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 01:38:01 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

          •  Um, the idiocy of his (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            amendment is more than conclusive.

            Everybody talkin' 'bout Heaven ain't goin' there -- Mahalia Jackson

            by DaveW on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 01:13:20 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  Senator Casey is no longer advocating (10+ / 0-)

    for the Stupak amendment.

    Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.), the Democrat most closely identified in the Senate as antiabortion, doesn't believe the health care reform bill should place new restrictions on the procedure, his spokesman said Monday.

    "Senator Casey thinks that health care reform should not be used to change longstanding policies regarding federal financing of abortion which has been in place since 1976," spokesman Larry Smar said. "He voted for amendments in the HELP Committee that would maintain neutrality on abortion. Until Senate bill language is released it is premature to discuss next steps."

    Obama 7/09: "Don't bet against us" (unless the Dems screw it up).

    by Drdemocrat on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 11:48:52 AM PST

  •  If, God forbid, the coathanger amendment makes it (0+ / 0-)

    ...What would a decent legislative remedy look like to ensure women have access to abortion services? Anyone have ideas?

    •  How about a ban on war funding? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      This is where the Progressives are in the driver's seat.  They can force things down to the wire because they really don't want more escalation, just like the Blue Dogs really don't want health care reform.

      Your new Democratic Party: Billions for the bankster boys and not one dime for abortions. Even if it's your dime.

      by Mimikatz on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 12:36:09 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  How about an amendment to ban public funds (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mcjoan, wry twinger, wsexson, susanthe

    from being used to launch Hellfire missiles from unmanned drones at Pakistani villages?

    There might be some, y'know, some pregnant women down there.

    BushCheney Inc. - They lied to me, they lied to you, they lied to our troops.

    by jjohnjj on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 11:53:18 AM PST

  •  My rep, Boxer, makes me proud. Feinstein, (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    no so much.

  •  as far as it goes (0+ / 0-)

    Good news, but it still doesn't guarantee that the amendment won't be in the conference bill. That's looking like the real battleground.

  •  Abort Stupak! n/t (0+ / 0-)

    Oba-MA bumaye! Oba-MA bumaye!

    by fou on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 11:59:38 AM PST

  •  I'm (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    714day, darthstar

    glad Boxer is one of my Senators.

  •  You missed a key quote: (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    valadon, wsexson, Catskill Julie

    "When we sat down to do health care, I thought there was an understanding that we would be abortion-neutral," she said. "In other words we wouldn't change anything on abortion; that federal funds couldn't be used but of course private funds could as long as this was legal. And Roe v. Wade is the law of the land."

    This is what should hold back Casey and Nelson and anyone else and really is what Obama was referencing.  There is an understanding not to confuse health care with side issues like abortion, an agreement on both sides.  

  •  How exactly do you implement (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    714day, OldAthena, Catskill Julie

    and administrate a provision that says "allowed only in cases of rape and incest...?"

    Do all women who want an abortion against the provision have to lie?

    Do doctors have to become abortion police and determine if a woman really was raped or not?

    Do they take DNA samples if a claim of incest is made?

    It's not just immoral it's impossible.

    Healthcare reform is the boot that's kicked over the rock to expose the teabaggers to the light...

    by wry twinger on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 12:03:49 PM PST

  •  Someone should introduce a "No ED Coverage" (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    714day, bay of arizona, JC from IA

    amendment and watch heads explode as all of the Republicans and talking heads on TV start screaming, "They're trying to take away our erections," "Little Death Panels," and "Get the government off my balls!"...oh, wait, noone would ever suggest removing government support for penis enhancement...that's a sacred cow, that one.

    Thank goodness we have people like Boxer who aren't afraid to say that the anti-abortion bullshit is exactly that, and doesn't have a prayer of making it into the final bill.

    I always take life with a grain of a slice of lemon...and a shot of tequila.

    by darthstar on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 12:06:31 PM PST

  •  I see Claire finally "saw the light" (0+ / 0-)

    I'm disappointed in Casey...I like him otherwise, but he is Catholic. Nelson, well it's to be expected.

    I am confident this regressive measure will not be in a final bill. The compromise was in Hyde (that is bad in itslf), and no further dismantling of women's health concerns can be tolerated.

    Language is wine upon the lips. -Virginia Woolf

    by valadon on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 12:07:57 PM PST

  •  Voting to kill Stupak? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    That sounds a bit harsh, don't you think? I didn't think Congress could vote to kill anyone anymore...

  •  Gillibrand spoke out storngly on Senate floor (6+ / 0-)

    against Stupak.

    Proposing that women instead purchase a separate abortion rider is not only discriminatory but ridiculous. It would require women to essentially plan for an event that occurs in the most unplanned and sometimes emergency situations.

  •  Claire's (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    ignorance makes one wonder how many House Democrats had no clue what they were really voting for either.

  •  I just think this is a red herring... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JC from IA

    We should be vigilant - but this can provide cover for the nay-sayers when they run in 2010.  It really ticks me off that they are using women to hide behind - very, very spineless (that is the nicest thing I can say).

    "The Constitution does not just protect those whose views we share; it also protects those with whose views we disagree." -- Ted Kennedy

    by mollyk on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 12:12:56 PM PST

  •  Okay, this is a start (0+ / 0-)

    But we need to pressure DNC, DSCC, DCCC.

    KOS made the right call yesterday.  Declare a boycott until Stupak is removed.

    What the difference between a Blue Dog and Republican? Not much.

    by noofsh on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 12:20:47 PM PST

  •  WOMEN PAY-ATTENTION "Not the Only Battle" (3+ / 0-)

    "A White male senior editor sexually propositioned a young female Copy Assistant, telling her that 'If you give me a blowjob, I will give you a permanent reporter job.'"

    We have in the house a MAN who wants to tell a women what she can do with her body.....

    We have in the Senate a MAN who believes women should pay more for  Healthcare because it's more expensive to have babies....

    We have one of the Leaders in the RNC a "MAN" saying Nancy Pelosi needs to be put in her place......

    and here at the NY Post we have a MAN telling a women if she gives him a Blow Job she can become a permanent reporter so are we really surprised by the pattern of actions coming from men of the Republican Party and C Street

  •  It appears more and more that this battle will (0+ / 0-)

    be fought with the religious right.

    What will be the best way to defeat the religious right, which certainly has its cult-members in the Senate?

    •  First, expose them (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wsexson, susanthe, JC from IA, OldAthena

      More info about the Family, for instance.  Expose those who belong to a cult.  I'm sure most of their constituents don't know about this.

      Second, fight the Catholic Bishops.  This isn't a theocracy, and neither they nor the backwoods fundamentalists can dictate to the rest of us.

      Finally, expose the contradictions.  These are the very people who say that government shouldn't get between people and their doctors, but who them want to ban a procedure for religious reasons.  These are people who most resemble the Taliban, wanting to impose their own version of Sharia (religious law) on the rest of us.  Drive a wedge between the economic conservatives/libertarians and the social conservatives.

      Your new Democratic Party: Billions for the bankster boys and not one dime for abortions. Even if it's your dime.

      by Mimikatz on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 12:44:47 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Study the Faces (0+ / 0-)

    "Those who cry out the loudest against abortion are the ones born of  unwanted pregnancies, or aborted in a previous life, and the experience is stamped in their characters.

    You see them picketing abortion clinics during the morning drive by hours. They look like zombies, marching up and down, a super serious, wrenched-from-the- pre-birth womb look on their faces.

    Always, in any conversation, they slip in their personal driving force at the end. 'Would you like that to happen to you?’" Because it happened to them!"

      – Michael Stephen Levinson (slightly modified)

  •  Don't fall for this happy talk/crap - again. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Listen to both her and Baucus's choice of words:

    "Very likely", and "I doubt it."

    After everything else that's happened -  we're suddenly suppose to trust Max Baucus or Harry Reid??  

    From our pal Nate Silver:

    "...I was surprised at the number of Democrats who have solid pro-choice voting records but who nevertheless voted for Stupak Amendment."

    The smell of pre-election fear drives every politician into rabid animals. Don't turn your back on any of them.  Not this time.  Not this year.

  •  Nice Headline (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I have images of Reid calling a roll call vote.  The majority wins and then they all walk over to the House office building and literally kill Rep. Stupak.

  •  It is highly likely that health care reform (0+ / 0-)

    fail as a direct result of the abortion 'debate'. Both sides are right and both sides are wrong, and never the two shall meet.

    Paranoia, paranoia, everybody's comin' to get me

    by Fitness Bob on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 01:30:52 PM PST

  •  Great news (0+ / 0-)

    i hope boxer is right.

    "I think a basic principle of our Constitution is nobody above the law" -Obama

    by heart of a quince on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 01:42:54 PM PST

  •  ATTENTION: Tonight on FRONTLINE (0+ / 0-)

    on PBS there is a repeat of the excellent program with T.R. Reid called 'Sick Aound The World'. An absolute MUST SEE for all those interested in ammunition for the global health care arguments.

  •  Here's a great way to lose (0+ / 0-)

    Reasonably and soberly take the "middle ground" or stare decisis status quo position. Look statesemanlike. Then have the Repugs keep pushing and pushing that "bipartisan" compromise Overton window to the right, and to the right, and to the right again.

    I hate these fuckers. I will say hate. It is HATE. I hate them.

    Here is why. Here is how they negotiate. Let's say Democrats own a business, and Repugs are a customer walking in to the store:

    D: "That item is $100, please."

    R: "Outrageous! That's not worth $100!"

    D: "Well, let's say we split the difference, then, that
    sounds reasonable and bipartisan, I'll let it go for $50."

    R: "What's with you damn liberals? $50 is un-American!"

    D: "No need to shout. Let's say we be bipartisan and find a statesmanlike compromise. I'll give it to you for $25, halfway, fair is fair."

    R: "That's an outrage! $25 is too much."

    D: "Well you need to make a reasonable offer then"

    R: "Let's say I offer you $13. We split the difference, how about that? I'm such a good bipartisan, I'll even throw in the 50 cents!"

    D: "OK, you are a really bipartisan negotiator, let me tell you! $13 it is."

    R: "NO way. How could you want $13 for this item! I'm insulted. I'm going to stamp my feet!"

    D: "You can do that, but I'm drawing a line in the sand! I'm making a pledge! I will not sell this item for less than $13!"

    R: "Well, I won't buy it for that. But, looks like we are at an impasse. If you care to make a bipartisan compromise, I might. Say, how about $7?"

    D: "Uh... crying, whimpering well, sure, $7 then."

    R: "What kind of price is that! I demand a bipartisan compromise!!!!"

    D: "What would that be? We already have done compromise after compromise!"

    R: "Yes, but I represent the CENTER, you need to be a CENTRIST! Or are you some kind of liberal islamocommiefascistathest?"

    D: "Well, $6 then?"

    R: "Insulting! You asked for $7 and you're lowering it only to $6!??! If you were bipartisan you'd agree that $3 is a fair price, right down the middle, a centrist approach!"

    D: "I am going home now. Here, have it, free. Thank you very much. Maybe at least you'll be nice to me now."

    R: "Liberal commie fascist islamoathiests! Totally ineffective, remove them from office!"

    Republicant's: the new Xeno's paradox. An asymptote. You keep getting halfway there, and halfway again, and halfway again, you will never actually get there.

    Democrats, the new Chamberlain, proclaiming again and again the dawn of a new "peace in our time" with Republicant's.

    You cannot "split the difference" with militant revolutionaries. It is not possible.

  •  If we can kill it, great (0+ / 0-)

    If we can't, let's not kill healthcare over it?  Can we all agree on that?

    "I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent."

    by Futuristic Dreamer on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 02:07:38 PM PST

    •  no (0+ / 0-)

      I don't agree, and I don't appreciate your willingness to sacrifice women's choices for some weakassed INSURANCE bill.

      •  I don't appreciate your willingness to sacrifice (0+ / 0-)

        the health of women, children, and men, who would be helped by this bill even if it doesn't cover abortion.

        You will have the choice to get an abortion it just won't be covered by government subsidized medical insurance.  Given the choice between having to pay for abortions out of pocket and having to pay for all medical care out pocket, I'd rather just pay for abortion, and not all other kinds medical care too.  Why do you have a problem with that?

        "I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent."

        by Futuristic Dreamer on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 04:19:31 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  for starters (0+ / 0-)

          I have to wonder why you aren't asking why this amendment needed to be in the bill to begin with?

          There are private insurance plans that cover abortion. This amendment would remove that from PRIVATE plans.

          I'm sorry that you are more concerned with this amendment, which was written by rightwing religious nutcases, with every intention of making an end run around Roe v. Wade. The Hyde Act ensures public money won't be used for abortion. This amendment isn't necessary. Hyde covers it.

          So, instead of selling your sisters down the river, why not ask why this has to be in there at all?

  •  Actually (0+ / 0-)

    Casey backed off of that.  

  •  Urban Dictionary Entry. . . (0+ / 0-)

    "We had a chance to change the world and opted for the Home Shopping Network instead." -Stephen King

    by Y00per on Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 12:22:45 AM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site