Skip to main content

First, I'd ask you to please read this.

There's no point in my trying to restate how Digby sets up the basic premise I want to build on, which is that as outrageous and horrible as it is to define down what rape is, there's much more at stake.

If you can't or won't look, I'll simply say this: You're meant to recoil in horror at that redefinition. And if the bill's proponents are lucky, you'll spend all your time doing that. Because then you'll miss out on the fact that H.R. 3 is also the killing blow capping 30 years of consistent losses on abortion restrictions. And if you don't care about that, you might also miss that the bill hides under its skirts a gigantic (some might say, "job-killing") tax increase.

Surely, though, tax increases are nothing in comparison to the enormous insult delivered by the rape language and restrictions on choice? Perhaps true, but again I'd urge you to read how Digby treats the matter, and also to consider that it might be wise to expand the potential coalition in opposition to this bill to include as many allies in as many walks of life as possible. This isn't and shouldn't be a fight limited to the choice community alone.

Why not?

In H.R. 3, Republicans revive the mid-90s "Istook amendment" theory of the fungibility of money to include under their definition of "taxpayer funding for abortion" all tax deductions, credits or other benefits for the cost of health insurance, when that insurance includes under its plan coverage for abortion.

So if a company provides health care benefits for its employees, and the plan they pay for includes coverage for abortion, the company becomes ineligible for the normal federal tax deductions and credits that are the usual reward for providing benefits. That's a gigantic tax increase. If you pay for your own coverage directly, no deductions, credits, etc. for you, either, if the plan you select offers abortion coverage. Whether you or someone on your plan ever gets one or not. All deductions associated with your health care costs are disallowed.

That, apparently, will impact approximately 87 percent of private insurance plans on the market today. And that included, until recently, the plan provided to employees of the Republican National Committee.

The RNC, of course, dropped that coverage like a hot potato once it "found out" what the facts were. But why did they do it?

"Money from our loyal donors should not be used for this purpose," Chairman Michael Steele said in a statement. "I don't know why this policy existed in the past, but it will not exist under my administration. Consider this issue settled."

Not a word about money from taxpayers. Steele surely didn't know that Republicans in the House would later introduce such a bill. But then again, the fungibility theory underlying the bill has been in the Republican bag of tricks since at least 1995. It just didn't occur to Republicans that it might apply to them, just like it never occurred to them to check whether they were paying for abortion coverage. But now that they've safely jumped out of the way, the other 87% of you are screwed.

And by the way, there's no difference or barrier between targeting abortion and doing the same in the future for benefit plans that cover contraception.

Or for that matter, chiropractic or other medical alternatives. Or medicine in general. (Ask a Christian Scientist about that.)

Or, I suppose, prohibiting the use of federal funds granted to local police departments that might be dispatched to respond to emergencies at that company.

Frankly, I'm not sure why, under this theory, individuals should even be eligible for federal tax deductions, credits, etc. if they make private purchases from such a targeted company. After all, all money being fungible, it could well be said that you're using "federal dollars" that are in your pocket by virtue of any tax deduction you take (whether related to health care or not) when you buy products from such a company, and that those "federal dollars" are going into the coffers of a company that uses them fungibly with the dollars they're using to pay for their health care plan.

"Small Government Republicans," ladies and gentlemen.

Could such a bill actually pass, though?

Recall that during the health care debate, the champions of the choice community in Congress were convinced to jump out of the way of the eventual Stupak/Nelson driven "compromise" language on the theory that it went no further than Hyde, and that Congress had become used to passing Hyde amendments, anyway, so why endanger the health care bill by objecting now?

The proponents of H.R. 3 make the false (but possibly attractive) argument that this "just codifies" Hyde, and since pro-choice champions once agreed to get out of the way of such measures, they might as well agree to do so again. I'm not so sure that the Senate wouldn't jump out of the way again, on precisely that theory. There's a far better chance of it being blocked as a stand-alone measure, of course. But that would almost certainly not be the end of it. It'd come up as an amendment time and time again. Just see how quickly Republicans in the Senate got a vote on total health care repeal even after Democrats comfortably insisted that that could never happen. The same play would work for H.R. 3.

And what would the White House do with such a bill? Again, it smoothed the path to the passage and enactment of the health care bill on the premise that it didn't do anything more than continue Hyde, and would be faced with the same argument again. I'm not so sure they don't jump out of the way, too. Chris Bowers couldn't get a definitive answer when he asked point blank just last week.

Q    Next week the House is going to pass a bill called the No Taxpayer-funded Abortion Act.  And there’s a not insignificant chance it will pass the Senate as well.  What would President Obama do if that got to his desk?

MR. AXELROD:  Well, you know it is unfortunate that the health care debate has now shifted there.  We’ve got a lot of challenges that we need to deal with, primary challenges that we’re facing -- the economy -- and the President outlined some of them last night.  Obviously this is a very divisive issue.  And one would hope that we don’t take that path and repeat old debates and divisions to the exclusion of dealing with things that are so fundamental right now for the country on which there’s some consensus.

So I haven’t seen -- I don’t know what exactly will pass Congress.  Obviously, his position on this issue is well known.  And we believe that it was addressed responsibly in the health care bill in the first place.  But I mean, I just don’t know what’s coming, so it would probably be precipitous of me to say -- to even accept your hypothesis that it’s going to arrive.

To return in part to Digby's point, take the rape provisions out, and still left with a disastrous bill, just on the issue of choice alone. But to go beyond that, you're in fact got a bill that paves the way for using the tax code to select every American's health care options for them, direct from Washington.

(Now, who do we know that particularly hates that idea?)

If the anti-choice zealots can successfully enact a law that gives the federal government the inroads and leverage to impose tax penalties on the availability of abortion services coverage, what prevents their using the same power to penalize contraception coverage? And that's just the smallest theoretical step you can make from the abortion issue. Nevermind that the theory is the same whether they want to reach into other areas of medical coverage, or anything else they'd like to get their hands on. Same sex partner benefits, for instance? Health benefits won through collective bargaining by public employees' unions? You can all certainly imagine more.

And you should try to imagine them. I would encourage you to try to think about how they could come up with a way to burn your own favorite issue group, no matter what it might be. Because this theory gives them the power to do it. And if it's left to the choice community advocacy groups to fight the battle on their own, it'll be over pretty quickly, and the "Small Government Republicans" will be right on your doorstep next.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Wed Feb 02, 2011 at 05:08 PM PST.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
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

  •  Defeat HR3 facebook group (17+ / 0-)

    http://www.facebook.com/...

    Thank you David.

    Bumper sticker seen on I-95; "Stop Socialism" my response: "Don't like socialism? GET OFF the Interstate highway!"

    by Clytemnestra on Wed Feb 02, 2011 at 05:10:56 PM PST

  •  In terms of language (16+ / 0-)

    I have come up with what I think is an even better term than "antichoice".

    People who oppose abortion are for forced birth.

    Because that's what they want to do.  Force women to give birth, whether they want to or not

  •  The Republicans will "reluctantly" strip it out (16+ / 0-)

    All in the name of compromise of course and there will be strong, perhaps veto proof, bipartisan support for this rest of this abomination and both sides will declare victory. The only real winners will be the "values" crowd and the losers will be womens' reproductive rights.

    I'm sick of the dance. It's kabuki and it's bullshit.

    "Given the choice between a Republican and someone who acts like a Republican, people will vote for a real Republican every time." Harry Truman

    by MargaretPOA on Wed Feb 02, 2011 at 05:13:33 PM PST

    •  Actually, we should use the rape clause (14+ / 0-)

      to rip the veil off their underlying motivation for being anti-choice: it's about hatred and fear of women. Why can't we message that? They just shined an enormous spotlight on the nest of squirming snakes under their pretense that it's all about the precious innocent lives of "unborn children."

      I don't understand why we don't take better advantage of opportunities like this. They would DESTROY us if we made a misstep like this. We should be focused on their utter contempt for women constantly.

      And we have to hammer their callous unconcern for post-fetal children. Look: they want women to carry to term fetuses with horrendous, expensive congenital (pre-existing!) medical conditions — and then repeal a bill that guarantee these "precious innocent" children can ever get health coverage. Is there any more striking hypocrisy than that? Please, let's start ramming this down their throats! Any of you who have a callous reactionary as a congressperson, get on it! (I don't so I can't help here)

      Jennifer Brunner for Governor of Ohio 2014

      by anastasia p on Wed Feb 02, 2011 at 05:40:42 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Wow! (5+ / 0-)

        And we have to hammer their callous unconcern for post-fetal children. Look: they want women to carry to term fetuses with horrendous, expensive congenital (pre-existing!) medical conditions — and then repeal a bill that guarantee these "precious innocent" children can ever get health coverage. Is there any more striking hypocrisy than that?...

        Well said!

        "The world is my country, all mankind are my brethren, and to do good is my religion." ~ Thomas Paine

        by third Party please on Wed Feb 02, 2011 at 05:51:49 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  the minute that baby (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Pandoras Box, Calamity Jean

        passes through the birth canal it's NOTHING but callous disregard. What if that baby is poor, gay, Muslim, Jewish, black, or has special needs? They don't care: "Not my problem." And what about a 2 day- old Iraqi baby we kill in war? "Oh well." That's somehow ok for these dunderheads. It's ALL about punishing women- you got it.

        Presenting a falsehood next to a fact is neither equivalence nor journalism. It's irresponsible.

        by CoExistNow on Wed Feb 02, 2011 at 07:12:12 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Progressive reframe needed before I... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Clytemnestra, tekno2600

    ...charge out reinforcing GOP "logic" in some attempt to use hypocracy [sic] to shame them into acting responsibly.

    (-9,-9) pragmatic incrementalist :-P

    by Enterik on Wed Feb 02, 2011 at 05:15:56 PM PST

    •  Patients' Freedom of Conscience would be my (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Enterik, peregrine kate

      reframed terminology. I'd avoid using the word "choice" too much because it has come to be associated only with abortion choice. However, this really is about being able to say we want the freedom of conscience to pick a wide range of options in our health plans and not have Republicans dictate that it cannot offer contraception, family planning, abortion, chiropractic, or perhaps even sex and relationship counseling (I know Republicans hate that).

      Be ashamed to die until you have won some victory for humanity. --Horace Mann

      by tekno2600 on Wed Feb 02, 2011 at 05:38:11 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  For framing to work, though, Dems would all have (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mchestnutjr, peregrine kate

        coordinate their messaging from a common set of talking points. So, when Repugs say this is about abortion, the unified response is to say "This is actually about freedom of conscience." That changes the narrative to other freedom of belief issues, like people religious beliefs about medicine, cultural values, personal values, etc. It says, don't try to impose your values on me through the tax code. But, instead most Dems will probably just take the bait and talk in Repug's frame about how this is either pro-choice or anti-choice.

        Be ashamed to die until you have won some victory for humanity. --Horace Mann

        by tekno2600 on Wed Feb 02, 2011 at 06:01:20 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  This bill would give them the foot in the door (4+ / 0-)

      they need to argue defunding anything they don't approve of.

      -- We are just regular people informed on issues

      by mike101 on Wed Feb 02, 2011 at 05:39:52 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Reduced Access to healthcare due to higher costs (0+ / 0-)

      will result in a dramatic increase in infant mortality and adult morbidity.

      (-9,-9) pragmatic incrementalist :-P

      by Enterik on Wed Feb 02, 2011 at 06:17:14 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  It gets bigger than being pro-rape? (11+ / 0-)

    lols those crazy fucks do like to push boundaries.

    I'm gonna go eat a steak. And fuck my wife. And pray to GOD - hatemailapalooza, 052210

    by punditician on Wed Feb 02, 2011 at 05:16:00 PM PST

  •  tax code to select every American's health care o (13+ / 0-)

    tax code to select every American's health care options for them

    but aren't they against the GOVERNMENT TAKE OVER OF HEALTH CARE?!!!!

    this has never been a raped pregnant women's issue, or even just a women's issue its everyone's issue

    and the Republicans/Teabaggers are handing it to us.

    Bumper sticker seen on I-95; "Stop Socialism" my response: "Don't like socialism? GET OFF the Interstate highway!"

    by Clytemnestra on Wed Feb 02, 2011 at 05:16:48 PM PST

  •  Jon Stewart will talk about it tonight (4+ / 0-)

    Republicans secret dream = the impeachment of Bo the Dog LOL

    by LaurenMonica on Wed Feb 02, 2011 at 05:17:26 PM PST

  •  It's pretty easy to tell the difference (10+ / 0-)

    between dems and repubs.

    When dems are in the majority ... we see lot of bills that are designed to help the middle class.  Whether or not they would or could actually accomplish what they are designed to do is another matter.  But they are at least consistently designed with singularity of purpose.

    Republicans design bills to fuck with democrats.

    It's so obvious I can't imagine ow anyone can not see it.

    I'm not afraid of guns! I'm afraid of the people that obsess over owning them.

    by Detroit Mark on Wed Feb 02, 2011 at 05:20:17 PM PST

  •  Federal reserve note: all cash is federal money (3+ / 0-)

    Ergo abortions and other activities defined as such by the Republicans cannot be funded with U.S. dollars.

    look for my DK Greenroots diary series Thursday evening. "It's the planet, stupid."

    by FishOutofWater on Wed Feb 02, 2011 at 05:21:11 PM PST

  •  More Kermit Gosnells to come (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    irmaly, theran, sngmama, majcmb1, soaglow

    This is why everyone looked the other way for the thirty years he was operating.  He represented a safety valve for the political and religious hypocrits.  That is how Congress and the state lawmakers rationalize the harm the Hyde Amendment has done to women.  They can keep their skirts clean, like the catholic bishops while closing their eyes to the misery their dimestore morality causes.  

    Abortion is Healthcare.  It's time U.S. politicians treated it as such without segregating it from the rest of healthcare.  End Hyde, Stupak, Helms and any other clones lurking around contributing to the second-rate healthcare Americans get.  

    Don't look back, something may be gaining on you. - L. "Satchel" Paige

    by arlene on Wed Feb 02, 2011 at 05:25:04 PM PST

  •  On the bright side (0+ / 0-)
    ACME Coathangar is currently trading at $1.13 on the DOW.  Get in now, this is priced to explode.

    _"George, when I want your opinion I'll give it to you!" -Dick Cheney 2002_

    by oopsaDaisy on Wed Feb 02, 2011 at 05:25:26 PM PST

  •  So, "keep your hands off my health care" (7+ / 0-)

    is once again for republicans only and the rest of us can suck it up and stop complaining while they intrude into our lives with their hypocritical morality.

    I note that when R's daughters have abortions, or their girlfriends outside of marriage need abortions, that's ok (see story about R running in Oregon who had a gf who needed some "help"). So the trip to Switzerland, which was what happened at my high school pre-Roe,  will be back for those who can afford it.

    This makes me want to throw up.

    Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read. Groucho Marx

    by marketgeek on Wed Feb 02, 2011 at 05:25:46 PM PST

  •  they want to remove all healthcare (6+ / 0-)

    starting with women's specific needs.

    who votes for these haters?

    •  "But Obama is a Muslim ...." (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      tb mare

      That's who.

      My friends and neighbors, that's who.

      My kids schoolteachers .. the guy at the gas station and the cop down the street.

      They have all been lied to, and provided KFC doesn't run out of chicken, nothing, NOTHING, upsets their complacent little world!

      We do not forgive our candidates their humanity, therefore we compel them to appear inhuman

      by twigg on Wed Feb 02, 2011 at 07:50:03 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  MORE REPUBLICAN HYPOCRISY (7+ / 0-)

    Let me get this straight.  We can give tax breaks to corporations that ship jobs overseas but we can't give tax breaks to employers who provide health care that allows for abortion.  Sounds like another WTF moment (in the words of idiot palin).

    We should have a link on this site for postings about nothing but republican hypocrisy.  Because I have repeated for years - if it weren't for hypocrisy the republicans would have nothing.

    I am calling my republican congressman tomorrow to express my outrage for his co-sponsoring this bill.

    How dare anyone try to redefine the definition of rape to suit their political agenda.

    Hey Boehner - where are the jobs?

  •  Bill could be called Pro-Child Preditor law, for (5+ / 0-)

    child victims of rape are not protected.

  •  If all money is fungible (5+ / 0-)

    why on EARTH is any of my tax money going on to support the Catholic Church on ANY level? Shouldn't this mean that there should no tax money going to even indirectly support Catholic schools? I want that stopped right now because I don't support pedophile-enables (e.g. Catholic bishops)

    Jennifer Brunner for Governor of Ohio 2014

    by anastasia p on Wed Feb 02, 2011 at 05:35:52 PM PST

    •  Since most churches interfere in politics, in (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Calamity Jean, tb mare

      violation of the rules of their tax exempt status, why don't we just TAX ALL CHURCHES.

      I think if they want to perform charity work, they could form separate tax-exempt organizations for that, like the Catholic Charities organizations. But, the church itself, which is primarily in the business of mind control, should not be subsidized by my taxes to perform mind control on its followers.

      Be ashamed to die until you have won some victory for humanity. --Horace Mann

      by tekno2600 on Wed Feb 02, 2011 at 06:07:01 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Using social issues to divide (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mike101, tb mare, Eric Nelson

    and to hide legislation in. Wow. Why isn't anyone else reporting on this?

    The more you can increase fear of drugs and crime, welfare mothers, immigrants and aliens, the more you control all the people. Noam Chomsky

    by willkath on Wed Feb 02, 2011 at 05:46:09 PM PST

  •  The other trick wingnuts have played is to claim (0+ / 0-)

    that the act of performing a deduction incurs a tiny accounting charge, so therefore government monies (public funds) are being "co-mingled" with your salary (private funds) whenever deductions are made, and thus you shouldn't be able to use a deduction for anything they don't like. In the specific case I am thinking of, it was allowing tax deductions for a certain amount of political giving, and/or allowing paycheck deductions to go to political donations. It is, of course, absurd to attempt to account for the "cost" of dealing with a deduction for just that one thing, and it is then a further stretch to say that this therefore means you are disallowed from spending the money however you like, because of the 1/10,000th of cent of cost involved having the money go in or out of your hands.

    Be ashamed to die until you have won some victory for humanity. --Horace Mann

    by tekno2600 on Wed Feb 02, 2011 at 05:53:30 PM PST

  •  so much for "FREE MARKET" republicans (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    buckshot face, CoExistNow

    along with everything else they want to stand squarely between a legal product and the men and women that wish to purchase it from insurance companies that wish to sell it!!!!

    They screamed about government coming between doctors and patients in the health care reform law, but they not only stand between doctors and patients, but peep into windows to make sure victims resist enough, and they interfere with the free market system.  

    Hypocrites every way you turn.

  •  The thought behind this (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    irmaly, MizKit, roadbear

    legislation moves beyond money -- it moves into removing the basis for rape allegations in a criminal complaint.  No force, no rape.  No bruises. No rape.  No dead body, no rape.

    I will refrain from stating my deep feelings about why Republicans want to diminish the factors which build the foundation for rape -- of children, women and men.

    " My faith in the Constitution is whole; it is complete; it is total." Barbara Jordan, 1974

    by gchaucer2 on Wed Feb 02, 2011 at 05:55:19 PM PST

  •  I think this might be (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Calamity Jean, CoExistNow

    a lot of sound and fury to satisfy their base, but it is a lousy way to do it.  

    They were in complete power and control for 8 years and did nothing, and that made the base furious.  So now when they know it really has no chance of passing, they start up again, being as vicious as they possibly can, just to appease their base.

    I still don't believe that the republicans really want to get rid of abortion, because it is one of their key issues to rally the base.  So they have to be as vile and nasty and mean hearted as possible, because they want to convince their base that they are serious this time.

    I could be wrong, but I don't think so.  They wouldn't be as deliberately as evil if they thought it had a chance of passing.  If they get what they want, they lose.

    •  It's playing to the base (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Joan McCarter, Calamity Jean

      for 2012: "Just think, abortion would be illegal in this country if it wasn't for the Democrats and that black man in the White House!" They're counting on the short memory of most of their followers; they'll have forgotten all about 2001-2009 by the time 2012 rolls around.

      And this is an end around Roe and other court cases; sure, you can get abortions but we're going to make it as difficult as possible. For the rich Republicans, it'll be no problem; they'll send their wives and daughters on "spa vacations" to Europe or Canada and just look how much good it did them! Meantime if you're poor or middle class you're SOL -- even if your abortion is medically necessary you'll have to jump through numerous hoops to get one, if you can even afford it.

      Now to try to end the wars we ask our gay and straight soldiers to fight. -- Chris Hayes

      by Cali Scribe on Wed Feb 02, 2011 at 06:58:34 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Abortion is a right of all women. If an entity's (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    arlene, twigg, roadbear

    "conscience" (whether it be a catholic church or just some bible thumpin yahoo) is "offended", Cut. Their. Funding.
    Any group, [especially tax evading exempt institutions], must comply with the laws of the land whether they like it or not.  And this goes doubly for institutions receiving federal funding imo

    The original conscience clause legislation passed in 1973 in the wake of Roe states, according to the Congressional Research Service, that public officials may not require individuals or entities who receive certain public funds to perform abortion or sterilization procedures, or to make facilities or personnel available for the performance of such procedures, if such performance "would be contrary to [the individual or entity’s] religious beliefs or moral convictions."

    This provision has allowed even major medical facilities (such as Roman Catholic hospitals) to refuse to deal with abortions without jeopardizing their ability to receive public grants and contracts or affect their tax-exempt status. A new rule promulgated late in the Bush administration expanded and particularized the exemptions, stating that health workers may even refuse to provide information or advice regarding abortion. The Obama administration has rescinded the Bush rule, but says it plans to leave some kind "reasonable" exemptions in place.

    Shiny object indeed. The Republicans negotiate with extreme provisions they know won't pass just to move the goal posts further to the right and force/trick the Democrats into accepting what the Gop wanted all along.

    If Democrats want to win tough, they would do as the Republicans would do: Take it to the far end of their goals - Attack the Hyde amendment. Make every & any effort to eliminate it completely and let the Republicans come back from that assualt
    Debbie Wasserman Shultz is not fooled - Kudos to her.
    Thx DW

    I don't want your country back..I want my country forward - Bill Maher

    by Eric Nelson on Wed Feb 02, 2011 at 06:09:07 PM PST

  •  Small Gov't (4+ / 0-)

    Only applies to the government that they don't like.

    When it comes to shit they do like?

    Massive, massive government intrusion.

    Where is a lefty cowboy (if you will) screaming about the right wing jackboots trying to take away your liberty?

    The right wing phonies are all about liberty. Preserving their liberty to make sure that anyone who disagrees with them has little liberty remaining.

  •  It sounds like getting straight answers out of (0+ / 0-)

    the White House on this is almost as hard as getting a straight answer on their plans for Social Security.

    If there is no accountability for those who authorized torture, we can no longer say that we are a nation of laws, not men.

    by MikePhoenix on Wed Feb 02, 2011 at 06:16:42 PM PST

  •  Can we talk? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    roadbear, CoExistNow

    Sharia law is being implemented by the Republicans.  Otherwise titled, of course.

  •  this is a LOGICAL result after decades of (0+ / 0-)

    pathetic-0-crats sucking up the space reserved for "leades".

    I wonder if patty murray and maria cantwell will:

    - do their usual go along get along schtick? OR

    - do what the fascists have done about anything and everything they didn't like for 30 years, and fuck it up??

    so many years of 'impeachment' off the table and welfare for rich pigs

    (and pro-choice messaging, tactics and strategy too focused on the affluent )

    and the reich wing is gonna push as far as they can get away with.

    rmm.

     

    Yond Cassius has a lean and hungry look; He thinks too much: such men are dangerous

    by seabos84 on Wed Feb 02, 2011 at 06:31:42 PM PST

  •  Wouldn't the cold calculus of ... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    arlene, dorkenergy

    ...fiscal conservatism conclude that a taxpayer funded abortion is far less expensive than a lifetime of welfare, food stamps, unemployment insurance, Medicaid, and perhaps even a lengthy prison stay?

  •  The US isn't immune to the Egyptian Flu. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Calamity Jean

    "A mind is a terrible thing"- Glenn Beck's followers

    by buckshot face on Wed Feb 02, 2011 at 06:56:00 PM PST

  •  This is Good for Democrats... (0+ / 0-)

    Apparently the GOP plans to run on a Pro-Rape platform in 2012.  Yeah, that should bring in the women's vote!

    (Somehow my message got posted to the wrong thread, so here it is again.)

  •  Why wouldn't this change criminal definition too? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Calamity Jean

    So, a woman is drugged and raped and impregnated, but not allowed an abortion with her insurance because that's not the definition of rape as it pertains to insurance law.  But it is rape criminally?  How does that make sense.  And guess what strategy defense attorneys start using to get their rapist clients off the hook or a much reduced sentence.  "ladies and gentlemen of the jury.  My client made a bad mistake in judgement.  But it was NOT rape! Hell, even the congress of the United States passed a law that says so.  Your honor, I rest my case".

    "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, have you reached a decision?"

    "We have, your honor.  We find the defendant not guilty."

  •  thanks, david. (0+ / 0-)

    i'm tied up with another project, but emailed myself the link to your story, and will read it when i get clear. thank you. can you update with essential links from your comment thread?

    The Addington perpwalk is the trailhead for accountability in this wound on our national psyche. [...you know: Dick Cheney's "top" lawyer.] --Sachem

    by greenbird on Wed Feb 02, 2011 at 10:40:41 PM PST

  •  Urgent Help is Needed (0+ / 0-)

     Is there anyone here who can write a definitive statement about the tax penalities.  My TEA PARTY rep is in town and I would love to have a clear statement that everyone at those meetings will hear.  Now the one today will probably be Seniors, who don't want anything except services for themselves and won't try to understand how the implications of this would apply to them.

    But there is a bigger meeting on Sat, so I am literally begging for help.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site