Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditThe House of Representatives voted yesterday to pass its health care reform bill (HR 3962) only after approving an amendment introduced by Rep. Bart Stupak that would prohibit any plan purchased with any federal subsidy from covering abortion services--even with private funds.
Stupak argues that women with subsidized insurance policies could buy separate abortion-only "riders" with their own money much like they might purchase a dental or vision rider. The problem here, as my colleague Emily Douglas points out, is that "such an abortion rider doesn't exist now, and the legislation does not provide for its creation."
Moreover, even if new legislation is written, the result would be the essential equivalent of a ban on abortion coverage because most women are unlikely to buy additional coverage for something they don't expect to ever need. In other words, women would have to plan in advance in the event they need an abortion despite the fact that abortion is a legal medical procedure for women concerned with unplanned pregnancies.
Read Douglas' post for a thorough unpacking of what the Stupak-Pitts Amendment actually means for any woman accessing healthcare through health insurance exchanges.
The bottom-line is that Stupak's amendment goes much further than current law in restricting access to abortion. If the amendment becomes law, women would lose health benefits they have today. This violates the spirit of health care reform, which is meant to guarantee quality, affordable health care coverage for everyone, and the letter of Candidate Obama's promises on the campaign trail. Act today to turn back this assault on women's health care rights and urge your Senators to oppose any such restrictions in their version of the bill.
PS: If you have extra time on your hands and want to follow me on Twitter -- a micro-blog -- click here. You'll find (slightly) more personal posts, breaking news, basketball and lots of links.
Share this article
Peter Rothberg
Your guide to expressing informed dissent to war, racism, sexism, environmental degradation and market-based solutions to social problems.
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
I have a better idea...
kill the entire bill.
Posted by YourJomamma at 11/10/2009 @ 4:46pm
Yea, YourJomamma, We have finally reached a meeting of minds left and right! The healthcare legislation should be trashed as it is unacceptable to all!
Posted by BigPasture at 11/10/2009 @ 5:00pm
I have a better idea...
kill the entire bill.
Posted by YourJomamma at 11/10/2009 @ 4:46pm | ignore this person | warn this person
no - that's a bad idea...
now we have an argument going...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/10/2009 @ 5:49pm
Big Pissture-Your kind is the Tom Price kind,stupid and unacceptable. Kill the bill,probably before it gets more conservative. The next thing Iwill see on the Bill is the United Health letterhead.Isn't anybody ashamed of guys like Max Baucus and Kent Conrad that told us how long they worked on the Bill? Does anyone know who employs those two? If you guessed we do you were right.So after our long six month wait we are treated to an ever more conservative bill that stiffs like BarneyYo Mamma and Big Pissture still can't enjoy after reading the latest installment of Righty Times. We watch a clown like Price put down women and what has been the response? If I was the Democratic National Committee I would have a commercial starring Tom the Objector running coast to coast. We have to show the Republican party for what it is,a party that puts down women in public on a regular basis. Is anyone awake in Washington or have we moved on to the next issue that can be looked at 10 or 15 different ways.
Posted by whatozz at 11/10/2009 @ 6:19pm
Besides, this whole process does nothing for health care "reform"....nothing at all.....
it is nothing more than another govt boondoggle...designed by the same people who handled Fema during Katrina, the Post Office, and as an extra bonus....
the Swine flu vaccines...a fine showcase of things to come.
Examine how the govt ran, managed and delivered , to us, the people,....the Swine virus vacccines, complete with shortages, lost shippments, low production, confused dosage recommendations, and the terrorists at Gitmo getting deliveries...
but we all know they will handle the health care of our children much better...
does anyone here think the Smiling Pelosi will use the bill she is parading around ? Or will let anyone she cares aboiut anywhere near it?
and the issue for our buddy , Peter?
Abortion....
the entire bill should be aborted with predjudice.
Posted by YourJomamma at 11/10/2009 @ 6:29pm
Posted by whatozz at 11/10/2009 @ 6:19pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Guess I will always be waiting for the proabortionist leftist to explain why if a man in my state causes a woman to abort her child he is a first or second degree murderer, but if the woman and her doctor do the same it is not murder but exercising her right to choose? Does that mean only a woman and her doctor can play God?
Sounds like your warped reasoning should be able to tackle the job watozz!?
Posted by BigPasture at 11/10/2009 @ 6:38pm
Peter, Your piece implies things would get much, much worse for women - are you sure about this? I wonder if you have or could find solid statistics on the extent of current abortion coverage by the top insurance companies. How many people have actual policies which cover precisely what, in terms of abortions? Are you so sure there's not already an 'assault on women's rights' vis a vis weak coverage? Peace, Phadreus
Posted by winyahn at 11/10/2009 @ 6:51pm
If the Republicans are supposed to be so anti-woman, why did they nominate one for V.P. I also presume she was a woman when the Republicans elected her as governor.
John D. Froelich
Posted by balataf at 11/10/2009 @ 7:46pm
Here's my proposal: "Medicare eligibility shall henceforth extend to the entire U.S. population."
Posted by kirquaker at 11/10/2009 @ 8:56pm
Why is it that the Right claims an exemption from paying for a legal medical procedure when I have to pay for a war that I oppose? How do you reconcile that?
Posted by kirquaker at 11/10/2009 @ 8:58pm
Posted by BigPasture at 11/10/2009 @ 6:38pm |
Its not an abortion if the MOTHER didn't choose to terminate the pregnancy...it's a MISCARRIAGE, idjit.
And your backwards-ass excuse for a state apparently hasn't progressed beyond the dark ages.
<According to medieval common law, assault against a pregnant woman causing miscarriage after the first trimester was homicide.>
Posted by snowball777 at 11/10/2009 @ 9:34pm
Why is it that the Right claims an exemption from paying for a legal medical procedure when I have to pay for a war that I oppose? How do you reconcile that?
Posted by kirquaker at 11/10/2009 @ 8:58pm
Hmmmm.....maybe there were a whole lot more votes to go to wars and fund them, for the `benefit' of all perhaps, than those who want to fund "a legal medical procedure" that is kinda, sorta, possibly...personal and not even medically necessary?
Posted by Happy at 11/10/2009 @ 9:36pm
Thank you, Peter. I emailed one of my senators.
I never bought Obama's "we can agree to disagree" rhetoric about abortion. You can go to Notre Dame and make polite speeches, but when push comes to shove the anti-choicers will stick to their anti-woman agenda. And that's where a real progressive, or Dem, or whatever Obama is, has to take a stand.
Posted by RLawrence at 11/10/2009 @ 9:44pm
Perhaps you'll note that the war in Iraq was predicated on specious reasoning, and kinda, sorta, possibly not even necessary..
But that doesn't get to the crux of the question, which was framed in the context of a specific example. Further, how can the Right, which says it fears the role of 'bureaucrats' coming between doctors and patients, insert itself between women and reproductive experts? Ridiculous.
Posted by kirquaker at 11/10/2009 @ 9:48pm
the whole bill is a bunch of oligarch enriching poopoo.
good luck.
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/10/2009 @ 10:17pm
Perhaps you'll note that the war in Iraq was predicated on specious reasoning, and kinda, sorta, possibly not even necessary..
But that doesn't get to the crux of the question, which was framed in the context of a specific example. Further, how can the Right, which says it fears the role of 'bureaucrats' coming between doctors and patients, insert itself between women and reproductive experts? Ridiculous.
Posted by kirquaker at 11/10/2009 @ 9:48pm
And how many link-ups between a sperm and egg were "necessary"? If a woman want me to pay for her abortion for having sex w/another male, maybe I should have a freebie w/her? With protection (for me) of course....LOL!
Sorry, the best way for me NOT to insert myself into the picture, as a representative of the Right, is not be asked to pay for it! You however, can donate funds to a National Abortion-On-Demand Foundation.
Ridiculous is exactly right!
Posted by Happy at 11/10/2009 @ 10:38pm
"I have a better idea...
kill the entire bill."
for once, maasch, we agree, but for completely different reasons.
and i think the stupak amendment must be unconstitutional.
Posted by darladoon at 11/10/2009 @ 11:55pm
Why is it that the Right claims an exemption from paying for a legal medical procedure when I have to pay for a war that I oppose? How do you reconcile that?
Posted by kirquaker at 11/10/2009 @ 8:58pm
1. Because it's the law of the land called the Hyde amendment. Nor is it in the constitution that we have to pay for you to murder your own child.
2. Because you don't get to subject the nation to suicide just because you don't believe in defending the nation against it's enemies.
Posted by antisocialist at 11/11/2009 @ 12:16am
Its not an abortion if the MOTHER didn't choose to terminate the pregnancy...it's a MISCARRIAGE, idjit.
And your backwards-ass excuse for a state apparently hasn't progressed beyond the dark ages.
<According to medieval common law, assault against a pregnant woman causing miscarriage after the first trimester was homicide.>
Posted by snowball777 at 11/10/2009 @ 9:34pm | ignore this person | warn this person
You just PROVED there is only one IDJIT in the argument 36 states the death of unborns not aborted murder while 14 don't!
Posted by BigPasture at 11/11/2009 @ 12:18am
The Stupak provision is just part of the shell game meant to distract everyone while they pass a crappy health bill.
Posted by koroviev at 11/11/2009 @ 12:35am
My Story and Experiences with Abortion Over Forty Years
In 1966, I became pregnant, a teenager, 16, who knew nothing about birth control. Abortions were illegal at that time and my mother insisted we go to Las Vegas to find one. I was taken in a car (without my mother) to a house in the outskirts of Vegas to have an abortion. I had $600 stuffed in my bra to pay for it. My boyfriend and his parents helped with the costs. After having a blindfold put upon my head and told to strip naked in the living room, I freaked out. I wanted to speak to my mother, I wanted to leave the suburban house with no knickknacks. Luckily, I was taken back to the hotel and my mother, luckily. The alternative is too hard to imagine. I have three beautiful children now and seven grandchildren, I might not have had if I went through this abortion. I had a baby girl six months later and put her up for adoption. I never saw her, but for years every baby that cried I believed was mine. This is most likely the most difficult thing I have ever done in my life, especially at that time.
Now we are in the midst of Healthcare Reform. The anti-abortion folks are out in force making sure that no one ever has an abortion. Most would make it so that even if the mother's health is at stake, no abortion would be allowed. As I began to feel so happy this will not effect me anymore, my daughter is forced to have two abortions in less than a week due to health related problems. She is sad, I am sad, both of us would have loved another child in the world, if it were meant to be, but it was not. My daughter finally found a job last month, after over a year of looking for one and it is a good one. She has had to take off of work due to clots and cramps and the abortion procedure done twice to her in a week.
Posted by LindaCA at 11/11/2009 @ 12:35am
continued.....She has had to take off of work due to clots and cramps and the abortion procedure done twice to her in a week. No one would choose for this to happen to them. Believe me, not one woman who has an abortion chooses to do so lightly. This is a serious procedure and those anti-abortion people should not act like women are going out willy-nilly and having abortions.
Thankfully, I never had to go through this abortion procedure. Although it was not legal at the time I wanted one, I chose not to go through a possible surgical procedure that could have prevented me from ever having children, or killed me during this awful back alley time in abortion history. Many women were dying due to these procedures in the 66-67. My daughter could have died if she did not have this abortion procedure! Not a very difficult choice to possibly die or have the procedure. Of course she had the procedure. She has two young children and a husband who count on her. I can only imagine if I had been in her spot in 1967, unable to get a procedure to save my life. Women should not have to make a choice to go through a pregnancy they do not want, or possibly die if they do so. Just this week it has been made so clear once again, how women need to make a choice to save themselves and their lives. A government or private insurance company should not be allowed to choose for a woman and her doctor. Call it private insurance or a public plan, if you do not allow women to make a choice about their own bodies, you are forcing the choice that they make. We don't want to go back to those dark days of 67, when abortions were preformed in houses without knickknacks, clunking silverware in the kitchen, blindfolds and who knows who performing the abortion. Not one person would want this for th
Posted by LindaCA at 11/11/2009 @ 12:37am
cont'..... We don't want to go back to those dark days of 67, when abortions were preformed in houses without knickknacks, clunking silverware in the kitchen, blindfolds and who knows who performing the abortion. Not one person would want this for their daughter, believe me. The awful part is that my daughter doesn't have health insurance, nor do her babies. She had to go to a clinic that did not give her the best of care and nothing for pain. She had emergency surgery a week ago and because they did not "get it all out" they had to perform the abortion again. Please listen to this story and don't let this abortion debacle stop us from good quality healthcare and allow women to get the care they need, whether it is an abortion or not.
One more thing…when did religion deserve a place in our laws and policy? Abortion is opposed by many for religious reasons, yet our constitution separates church and state. Since when did our policies turn so much toward religious zealots instead of human lives and freedom to choose how we live? Isn't this what our forefathers warn of? Combining church and state and allowing the church to run our laws? We left England to avoid the proclamations of the church, let's let women choose and let men choose how they wish to live without religious proclamations and demands on how others live. We chose to be free, now let us be free from the religious fanatics that try to make us live as they choose! Choice is our right and a necessity to have freedom. We should not allow these fanatics to take our freedom away.
Posted by LindaCA at 11/11/2009 @ 12:40am
Peter, bust this out brother: Number of American women with Blue Cross, United, Aetna regular ol' abortion coverage? Any corp only cover rape / fetal bad news abortions? Age coverage begins? The Nation please investigate!
Has there ever been an evangelical-rightwing-Xtreme-hate-rally-thing at Blue Cross, United, Aetna corporate headquarters?
At abortion money approvin' Blue Cross, United, Aetna corporate lobbyist?
Or at abortion money approvin' corporate Blue Cross, United, Aetna donation lovin' congress person?
Even a mean letter from Dobson, Pat Robertson to million $$$$$ abortion money payin' Blue Cross, United, Aetna corporate?
From these godly dogooders to an abortion money approvin' corporate Blue Cross, United, Aetna donation lovin' congress person??
From Sarah I'd Oppose Even If My Own Daughter Was Raped Palin to money payin' Blue Cross, United, Aetna corporate?
Posted by winyahn at 11/11/2009 @ 12:45am
You just PROVED there is only one IDJIT in the argument 36 states the death of unborns not aborted murder while 14 don't! Posted by BigPasture at 11/11/2009 @ 12:18am |
And I live in one of them (witness Scott Peterson), but did they apply the existing murder statutes?
Or did they need to pass additional legislation with language like "viable fetus" or "unborn quick child" to declare the miscarriage of a wanted unborn to be homicide (or feticide)?
And why does that additional legislation often include language like this?
<This section does not authorize the prosecution of any person in connection with a termination of pregnancy pursuant to chapter...> - Florida
<Homicide does not include legal abortion or instances of death during normal medical, therapeutic or diagnostic testing. A mother shall not be prosecuted for the death of an unborn child unless the death was a result of criminal behavior.> - OK
<The state's Supreme Court noted that it had in earlier cases concluded that "a fetus, having reached that period of prenatal maturity where it is capable of independent life apart from its mother,..."> - S.C.
And it's 37 states...with only 19 extending that protection to the entire span of the pregnancy like OK and TX.
A synopsis of the state of these laws in each:
http://tinyurl.com/yfzgrhm
So the short answer to your original query is...because that's how your state legislature wrote the law, BP.
Posted by snowball777 at 11/11/2009 @ 05:53am
The best way past this type of problem in new health care legislation is to REVOKE the hyde amendment.
Abortion foes can't seem to understand that they are already winners. Abortion isn't mandatory. Any woman whose conscience tells them that abortion is wrong need not have an abortion.
Roe v. Wade is win-win in this respect.
Yet, because by federal law the practice is a legal one, I see no problem in allowing the procedure insurance coverage. This way, we again have a win-win. If someone doesn't need or want the coverage, they can choose a plan without it.
Posted by erazma at 11/11/2009 @ 06:56am
Droop,Santi,and Big Pissture-You three can be the co-presidents of the vTom Price fan club. It will be called the shout em downers. If either of you three treated your wife like that you would be out of your house. That is your party,the know it alls. That is the rub,rub ity with money the new American way.
Posted by whatozz at 11/11/2009 @ 08:13am
Posted by LindaCA at 11/11/2009 @ 12:40am | ignore this person | warn this person
this is very fine. thank you.
Posted by emile duBois at 11/11/2009 @ 09:01am
and i think the stupak amendment must be unconstitutional.
Posted by darladoon at 11/10/2009 @ 11:55pm
I believe ther whole govt in the health care business as a competitor with insurance companys is unconstitutional.
The idiots in Pelosiville want competition? Then let more than 3 insurance companies compete in my state. And regulate the lawyers....
This is a power grab by Marxists, communists and Progressives(all the same thing) who want to redefine the country in their image.
Kill the bill and come on 2010...hurry up...
Posted by YourJomamma at 11/11/2009 @ 09:08am
<i>Posted by erazma at 11/11/2009 @ 06:56am </i>
That misses the point because tax dollars still go to fund abortion. Here's the problem. When wars are initiated, they are defended (correctly or not) as public goods, which society as a whole is expected to pay for. Might there be a justification for "conscientious non-paying of specific taxes allocated for war funding"? One might argue for such a thing. I think you might have some real line-drawing and logistical issues, but it's an interesting position nonetheless.
Abortion, on the other hands, is consistently defended by its most vocal advocates as an individual choice. That demarcates abortion as very different. Simply put, if abortion is an individual choice, it's unclear why taxpayers who see it as murder should be in any way obligated to fund it. "If you don't want an abortion, don't have one" doesn't work unless you start with the presupposition that the pro-choice advocates are right (which is why, as an argument addressed to pro-lifers, it fails spectacularly). If the pro-lifers are right, your statement becomes "if you don't want murder to happen don't do it," and I think we can all recognize how ridiculous that statement is.
Posted by Thrawn at 11/11/2009 @ 09:16am
Posted by Thrawn at 11/11/2009 @ 09:16am | ignore this person | warn this person
how about tax payer funded school lunches? as a vegetarian I object to meat being served. why should I fund something which is against my beliefs?
as long as gov't pays for any medical procedure, it cannot discriminate against women in this way.
Posted by emile duBois at 11/11/2009 @ 09:29am
"If you don't want an abortion, don't have one" doesn't work unless you start with the presupposition that the pro-choice advocates are right (which is why, as an argument addressed to pro-lifers, it fails spectacularly). If the pro-lifers are right, your statement becomes "if you don't want murder to happen don't do it," and I think we can all recognize how ridiculous that statement is.
Posted by Thrawn at 11/11/2009 @ 09:16am
Clearly, I am coming from the view that pro-choicers are right. Granted, I am not trying to change minds of ardent pro-lifers. There's nothing new under the sun; all arguments dealing with the abortion issue have been made. You either agree with one or the other view morally.
Yet, when it comes to law and the health care bills, as with your 'war' analogy, the idea that government subsidy of a private insurance company means that YOU as a taxpayer are "funding" abortion is dubious at best. That is why hyde makes sense only in the most DIRECT sense.
The idea that government subsidy of a company that provides a policy that includes abortion means that 'some individual taxpayer opposed to abortion is paying for one' is ridiculous.
Posted by erazma at 11/11/2009 @ 09:39am
in the orthodox neighborhood in Jerusalem, rabbis throw stones at cars, which are driven on the sabbath.
some of those cars no doubt contain children, who could be injured or killed as a result of that.
Posted by emile duBois at 11/11/2009 @ 09:39am
"in the orthodox neighborhood in Jerusalem, rabbis throw stones at cars, which are driven on the sabbath."
I wonder if the act of throwing stones itself is a sin on the Sabbath in those neighbothoods....
we circle the toilet bowl.
Posted by YourJomamma at 11/11/2009 @ 10:02am
"This is a power grab by Marxists, communists and Progressives(all the same thing) who want to redefine the country in their image"
so, according to maasch, the largest health insurance companies are marxists (as said companies would be grabbing the vast bulk of the power).
maasch is the perfect encapsulation of the sheer, breathtaking level of ignorance among our rightwing colleagues.
somehow, in their twisted reality, the health insurance corporations, pharmaceutical companies and hospitals are marxist.
you ever read the german ideology, maasch? it's ridiculously apparent that you have NEVER read marx (or engels for that matter).
Posted by darladoon at 11/11/2009 @ 10:22am
what we need (obviously) is a single-payer system. it is not only the most cost-efficient option, but the most moral option.
Posted by darladoon at 11/11/2009 @ 10:23am
Droop,Santi,and Big Pissture-You three can be the co-presidents of the vTom Price fan club. It will be called the shout em downers. If either of you three treated your wife like that you would be out of your house. That is your party,the know it alls. That is the rub,rub ity with money the new American way.
Posted by whatozz at 11/11/2009 @ 08:13am
Who is Tom Price and why should I care about him?
And as I've said before, I'm not a Republican, I'm a libertarian who sometimes votes Republican, but mostly votes 3rd party.
Posted by antisocialist at 11/11/2009 @ 10:55am
And as I've said before, I'm not a Republican, I'm a libertarian who sometimes votes Republican, but mostly votes 3rd party.----Posted by antisocialist at 11/11/2009 @ 10:55am |
And as noted before...that's a cop-out.
Larry lives in a 'Solid Red" Congressional district (his "one" Republican vote) in California (where HIS choice for Governor, US Senator, or President is NEVER going to win).
So his claim to "independently-minded libertarian" is like a guy living in the desert proudly proclaiming how he never cuts down old-growth trees or never dumps trash in a lake.
Posted by Mask at 11/11/2009 @ 11:03am
republicans started claiming they were libertarians as soon as it was abundantly clear that dubya had destroyed the country (and, by extension, the world) with.......republican wet dream policies.
Posted by darladoon at 11/11/2009 @ 11:18am
"women's rights"? Rothberg is a moronic twerp! I know countless WOMEN that deplore abortion, seeing it for the vile, evil act of murder that it is! Yet, scum like Rothberg claim that the killing of innocent babies is part of "women's rights". Now, Peter, it's a right SOME women want, and SOME women don't want, moron! You twerps just cry "women's rights" because because it sounds a lot better than " the right to kill innocent huiman beings"! Today's "women's rights" groups do not support "women" they support a certain TYPE of woman: lesbians and liberals, and since Palin is niether of those, she's subject to non-stop attacks on herself and her family. Truly disgusting bordering on outright evil. I'm ashamed that our once great country is producing dirt like rothberg and his like-minded ilk!
Posted by barry25 at 11/11/2009 @ 11:39am
republicans started claiming they were libertarians as soon as it was abundantly clear that dubya had destroyed the country (and, by extension, the world) with.......republican wet dream policies.
Posted by darladoon at 11/11/2009 @ 11:18am
I became a libertarian in the early 1970s.
Posted by antisocialist at 11/11/2009 @ 11:53am
"I became a libertarian in the early 1970s"
1 out of 100,000,000
= .00000000001%
Posted by darladoon at 11/11/2009 @ 12:02pm
I'm ashamed that our once great country is producing dirt like me and my like-minded ilk! Posted by barry25 at 11/11/2009 @ 11:39am | ignore this person |
me too.
Posted by emile duBois at 11/11/2009 @ 12:07pm
This is a power grab by Marxists, communists and Progressives(all the same thing) who want to redefine the country in their image.
Kill the bill and come on 2010...hurry up...
Posted by YourJomamma at 11/11/2009 @ 09:08am
You had some agreeance until you said this. Then you crossed from being logical into the land of bipartisan inanity. It behooves you to stick to facts instead of this tripe.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 11/11/2009 @ 12:24pm
This is a power grab by Marxists, communists and Progressives(all the same thing) who want to redefine the country in their image.
Kill the bill and come on 2010...hurry up...
Posted by YourJomamma at 11/11/2009 @ 09:08am
You had some agreeance until you said this. Then you crossed from being logical into the land of bipartisan inanity. It behooves you to stick to facts instead of this tripe.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 11/11/2009 @ 12:24pm
Where was he wrong? I agree with JM completely on this
Posted by antisocialist at 11/11/2009 @ 12:46pm
If the Republicans are supposed to be so anti-woman, why did they nominate one for V.P. I also presume she was a woman when the Republicans elected her as governor.
John D. Froelich
Posted by balataf at 11/10/2009 @ 7:46pm
I'm sorry, I thought she was a bulldog with lipstick? Did I miss the joke somewhere?
And was she also a women when she resigned that governor's job before the end of her first term to go out and start making millions of dollars? That bulldog certainly knows a revolving door when she sees one!
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/11/2009 @ 1:10pm
This is a power grab by Marxists, communists and Progressives(all the same thing) who want to redefine the country in their image.
Posted by YourJomamma at 11/11/2009 @ 09:08am
You are truly an irrational idiot if you actually believe that statement to be anywhere near the truth.
We just spent eight years with you and the neocons trying to remake our country in its image...why do think the voters overwhelmingly voted for Obama?
Enough was enough and your side led us into this economic debacle. And it's your side that is slowing everything down to get out of it, too.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/11/2009 @ 1:24pm
"You are truly an irrational idiot if you actually believe that statement to be anywhere near the truth. "----Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/11/2009 @ 1:24pm
Stephen...you hit the nail on the head. Maasch (Jomama) sees his political world-view collapsing, from Dubya's failures to Obama becoming President to, with an improving economy, both a rejection of conservatism AND a likely Obama re-election in 2012.
Irrationality is now part and parcel of the Right. And they cling to the MOST irrational types as their "mentors" ....Beck, Limbaugh, etc....only making their situation worse.
Proof? They even called NEWT GINGRICH a "RINO" for endorsing Scozzafava in NY. If Gingrich is a "Repub in name only"....who DO they consider a "real Republican" these days???
Posted by Mask at 11/11/2009 @ 1:42pm
And was she also a women when she resigned that governor's job before the end of her first term to go out and start making millions of dollars? That bulldog certainly knows a revolving door when she sees one!
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/11/2009 @ 1:10pm
How would leaving the governorship no longer maker Palin a woman?
Posted by antisocialist at 11/11/2009 @ 1:48pm
"Where was he wrong? I agree with JM completely on this"
that's because YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT MARXISM IS.
now's your chance, larry: define marxism AND demonstrate how obama is a marxist.
Posted by darladoon at 11/11/2009 @ 1:51pm
Posted by darladoon at 11/11/2009 @ 1:51pm
Darla, not going to get you anywhere. Remember Larry thinks pretty much everything done since TEDDY Roosevelt was "Marxism".
By his definitions even Dubya and Reagan would qualify (though he'd be loathe to admit it!)
Posted by Mask at 11/11/2009 @ 3:15pm
Where was he wrong? I agree with JM completely on this"
that's because YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT MARXISM IS.
now's your chance, larry: define marxism AND demonstrate how obama is a marxist.
Posted by darladoon at 11/11/2009 @ 1:51pm
I've posted the Communist Manifesto and all of the elements that are either already incorporated or proposed by the Democrats.
I didn't say (nor did JM) that Obama was a marxist. But he has admitted being mentored since he was a child by marxists and was certainly influenced by them.
In his books, Obama admits attending "socialist conferences" and coming into contact with Marxist literature. But he ridicules the charge of being a "hard-core academic Marxist," which was made by his colorful and outspoken 2004 U.S. Senate opponent, Republican Alan Keyes.
However, through Frank Marshall Davis, Obama had an admitted relationship with someone who was publicly identified as a member of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA). The record shows that Obama was in Hawaii from 1971-1979, where, at some point in time, he developed a close relationship, almost like a son, with Davis, listening to his "poetry" and getting advice on his career path. But Obama, in his book, Dreams From My Father, refers to him repeatedly as just "Frank."
The reason is apparent: Davis was a known communist who belonged to a party subservient to the Soviet Union. In fact, the 1951 report of the Commission on Subversive Activities to the Legislature of the Territory of Hawaii identified him as a CPUSA member. What's more, anti-communist congressional committees, including the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC), accused Davis of involvement in several communist-front organizations.
http://www.newswithviews.com/Kincaid/cliff209.htm
Posted by antisocialist at 11/11/2009 @ 3:52pm
"I've posted the Communist Manifesto and all of the elements that are either already incorporated or proposed by the Democrats"
yeah, and you were way, way wrong.
Posted by darladoon at 11/11/2009 @ 4:06pm
you ever read the german ideology, maasch? it's ridiculously apparent that you have NEVER read marx (or engels for that matter).
Posted by darladoon at 11/11/2009 @ 10:22am
you are even a bigger idiot than I have thought...you keep on surprising me...
Posted by YourJomamma at 11/11/2009 @ 4:19pm
"I've posted the Communist Manifesto and all of the elements that are either already incorporated or proposed by the Democrats"
yeah, and you were way, way wrong.
Posted by darladoon at 11/11/2009 @ 4:06pm
Are you disputing that they are actually from the Communist Manifesto?
1.Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes. (Kelo v New London)
2.A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. (See Democratic Party)
3.Abolition of all rights of inheritance. (Estate Tax)
4.Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5.Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly. (Federal Reserve)
6.Centralization of the means of communication and transport in he hands of the state. (FCC)
7.Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. (TARP, Obama seizure of GM, AIG, Obama's green legislation)
8.Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture. (Unions)
9.Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country. (Urbanization of America)
10.Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc. (NEA, Fed funding of Education)
http://www.constitution.org/tyr/com_mani.htm
Posted by antisocialist at 11/11/2009 @ 4:21pm
Where was he wrong? I agree with JM completely on this
Posted by antisocialist at 11/11/2009 @ 12:46pm
We already know your politics and your view that everything liberal is evil. It doesn't at all surprise me that you agree with it and it doesn't make it any less wrong.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 11/11/2009 @ 5:32pm
antisocialist just laid it out, plain, clear, and positively factual! This country is just getting a taste of the misery coming it's way due to the left!
Posted by barry25 at 11/11/2009 @ 7:12pm
Where was he wrong? I agree with JM completely on this
Posted by antisocialist at 11/11/2009 @ 12:46pm
We already know your politics and your view that everything liberal is evil. It doesn't at all surprise me that you agree with it and it doesn't make it any less wrong.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 11/11/2009 @ 5:32pm
Are you saying you agree with the Communist Manifesto?
Posted by antisocialist at 11/11/2009 @ 8:37pm
Are you saying you agree with the Communist Manifesto?
Posted by antisocialist at 11/11/2009 @ 8:37pm
Don't bother with the strawman Anti. This has nothing to do with the Communist Manifesto.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 11/11/2009 @ 10:01pm
"3.Abolition of all rights of inheritance. (Estate Tax)"
this is just one (of many) instance(s) where antisocialist has it way, way wrong.
the estate tax in NO WAY represents an "abolition of all rights of inheritance"
not even CLOSE!
anti, give it up, dude. you're so f*cking stupid it makes my head hurt.
Posted by darladoon at 11/11/2009 @ 10:06pm
sorry, i didn't mean to say you were f*cking stupid, anti......but you posted this once before and it's just moronically off-base, and you know it.
Posted by darladoon at 11/11/2009 @ 10:29pm
"The hypocrisy is noteworthy. According to conservatives, no government or insurance company bureaucrat should come between you and your doctor--except when it comes to the most intimate and difficult choice women face."
-Harold Pollack
Posted by kirquaker at 11/11/2009 @ 10:56pm
"According to conservatives, no government or insurance company bureaucrat should come between you and your doctor--except when it comes to the most intimate and difficult choice women face"
and take all the viagra you need, and we'll cover it!
Posted by darladoon at 11/11/2009 @ 11:16pm
SAnti-If you have Barry 15's support that says a lot .At least he didn't scream through his computer at you. I ask this ,how do you calmly lay out your case versus the Red menace and just as calmly freely accept the course we have taken . That course is a two pronged war with Red China's hands in our cookie jar. No ifs ,ands, or buts about it.We have put our economy in harm's way over this "war" effort band somehow yopu can reconcile this in your mind.Is China still forcing abortion on its women to hold down its population? Is it O.K. because they are the sponsor of our war on terror?You like to go after other religions is there one in China? Is there a sense of spiritualism there?
Posted by whatozz at 11/12/2009 @ 08:32am
"Darla, not going to get you anywhere. Remember Larry thinks pretty much everything done since TEDDY Roosevelt was "Marxism". "----Posted by Mask at 11/11/2009 @ 3:15pm
Told ya....
Posted by antisocialist at 11/11/2009 @ 4:21pm
Posted by Mask at 11/12/2009 @ 09:02am
Posted by whatozz at 11/12/2009 @ 08:32am
How do you impose a time limit on self defense? Also, we are not engaged in a two pronged war. In Iraq, our soldiers seldom see any action. They are there now primarily as backup to the Iraqi military and police.
Red China would be just as much "in our cookie jar" even if we were not in Afghanistan or Iraq. The expenditures for those two theaters represent less than 1/10 of 1% of the US budget.
I am no respecter of much of China's policies including their forced abortion policies and their continued oppression of Christians and other people of faith.
However, if you are upset about the amount of US securities held by China, why aren't you protesting the Democrats flood of deficit spending. That deficit spending represents over 75% of our nearly 2 trillion dollar deficit. That's what creates the Chinese holdings in our securities.
Posted by antisocialist at 11/12/2009 @ 10:46am
antisocialist just laid it out, plain, clear, and positively factual! This country is just getting a taste of the misery coming it's way due to the left!
Posted by barry25 at 11/11/2009 @ 7:12pm | ignore this person | warn this person
In that case, glad to have you along for the ride.
Posted by schnellerheinz at 11/12/2009 @ 3:26pm
Are you saying you agree with the Communist Manifesto?
Posted by antisocialist at 11/11/2009 @ 8:37pm | ignore this person | warn this person
No, no, no, remember--Reagan made all that go away, singlehandedly!
Posted by schnellerheinz at 11/12/2009 @ 3:28pm
I have a hard time buying into our deficit has nothing to do with our"self defense". You really are thinking hard to come up with that term. Be honest we have 150,000 policemen stationed in Iraq. I am not sure how many mercenaries we are also paying there.You are saying we had a balanced budget under GWB with the numbers you just used. Since I like you, I will say your numbers are false. We have spent $1.5 trillion on the war not counting the mercenaries. I am going after your ideological viewpoint that shifts with the subject matter.I believe you know better when you use imflammatory terms such as Socialist and Marxist.Then you support the"capitalist" Chinese. The fact of the matter is I didn't support the bank bailout for one simple reason.Why do you let Jesse James rob the train and instead of throwing him in prison buy him a new suit and give him all the money he could ever imagine.That is what we did to our financial "giants".What has been our reward,unemployment like 1982-3.Back to the matter at hand,China did not become our largest bondholder since Obama took office we allowed that under your pal George.For the 30th time ,how do you go to "war" without paying as you go? Then tell me again we didn't borrow much for our"mission of self defense".
Posted by whatozz at 11/12/2009 @ 5:19pm
So, the Repubs are telling us that we cannot have abortion coverage in our health plans. Hummmm, how hypocritical can they be? The RNC is covered by Cigna which has covered abortions in the RNC health policies since 1991! Wonder- how many Repubs have taken advantage of that convenient coverage? OK for them but not for the rest of society. Now, that's an outrage!
Posted by nevadawoman at 11/12/2009 @ 8:46pm
I applaud Stupak for 2 reasons. First, I am pro-life. Secondly, this is exactly why federalizing healthcare in hardly a good idea.
Posted by tomonthebay at 11/12/2009 @ 9:10pm
Peter, How many American women have abortion coverage NOW? Need this as basis for your premise for this article. With which beloved babykiller corporations? Blue Cross, United, Aetna?
Has there ever been an evangelical-rightwing-Xtreme-hate-rally-thing at one of these Blue Cross, United, Aetna corporate headquarters? C'mon TN foment away! How bout with at abortion money approvin' Blue Cross, United, Aetna corporate lobbyists HQ? Or at abortion money approvin' corporate Blue Cross, United, Aetna donation lovin' congress persons' office?
Has Dobson, Pat Robertson fomented their minions to pay a visit to million $$$$$ abortion money payin' Blue Cross, United, Aetna corporate HQ?
Posted by winyahn at 11/13/2009 @ 10:57pm