US POLITICS: AMERICANS, PLEASE WELCOME YOUR NEW PRESIDENT... SCOTT BROWN!

oberstar was more complicated than just being a lefty, iirc he was a possibly stupak 12 member

Stupak 12 is that like the Stalag 13

would happily put Bart Stupak in a fucking labor camp, personally

its like blink 182

http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff269/GangstaJim/Cute.jpg

Stupak 12 shortly before embarking on their first regional tour

HOTTT

Oberstar switched, WTG MN!

Ah, here's the GOP line of argument forming:

these projections assume:

– 10 years of taxes
– 6 years of program implementation
– $500B in medicare cuts that will not happen

Which means, they are meaningless

Sounds remarkably like the basis for the bush tax cuts.

The GOP will definitely demagogue the cbo numbers, make shit up, cable news will have hacks from both sides make points and yell at each other and the circle of life will continue

Hi, guys: read The Corner this morning.

To quote The Man Who Fell to Earth, “If I stay here (The Corner), I shall die.”

they seem to be getting nervous, details beyond that i don't think i can stomach

http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2010/03/health_care_overhaul_to_get_fr.html

Framing of the issue is what's important here. Prochoice people will live to rue all the ideological concessions being made to get votes on this bill. The ground that's being given is important.

not disputing your point or trying to fight at all i promise, genuinely wondering what ground you think is being given? the idea that its OK to oppose abortion?

the idea that abortion is a health care procedure needed by many women rather than some moral third rail separate from health care

don't really care about ideological concessions so much as legal concessions tbh

...

you realize that there isn't really a distinction between the two in this case, right

like, ideology and framing is malleable and constantly changing, I'm not worried about the terminology of debate shifting. what would be worrisome is actual legal precedent for outlawing abortion/making it prohibitively expensive to obtain

x-post

i.e.: oppose abortion all you like, but it's a health care procedure, just as family planning & mental health (including substance abuse) are part of the health care spectrum - these are all issues on which the right has successfully lobbied to get ground given in order to further their own positions (i.e., that there's something wrong with abortion, that there's something shameful about family planning, that addiction is a moral weakness). letting these guys control the spin on this question is catastrophic for real people who need these health care services. read Carole Joffe's new book, it'll take you an afternoon -- she's nakedly "biased" (i.e. sane on the issue of settled law in re: abortion) but spells out what the real human costs of abandoning the dialogue to the other side have been.

im just not sure anything is being give up in this specific legal battle.

hasnt this framing of abortion been the case for a decade at least? isnt that how we ended up with the hyde amendment? is it really being "given up" here? and given that pelosi and hoyer are refusing to negotiate with stupak, who is giving up the concession?

again this is an issue were all passionate about, and im not trying to turn on anyones self-righteousness buttons. but i have a hard time thinking that the way abortion rights have been treated throughout this process represents a new way that its being framed vs. the last decade-plus

I don't think anyone is saying it's new, I think people are saying it's wrong, stupid, short-sighted and should stop.

c'mon, we have bishops and nuns fighting about this, as abortion battles go that's at least funny.

i.e.: oppose abortion all you like, but it's a health care procedure, just as family planning & mental health

I'm not sure a majority of dems even *believe* that abortion should qualify as just a standard health care procedure, and I'm very sure that a majority of americans don't. you're asking us not to give up ground that we don't have.

why – did Armond White wish bishops and nums had been aborted?

xpost

I don't think anyone is saying it's new, I think people are saying it's wrong, stupid, short-sighted and should stop.

― smoking cigarette shades? it doesn't even make any sense. (HI DERE), Thursday, March 18, 2010 1:31 PM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

sorry i thought j0hn was saying that ideological concessions were being given up in this bill--im thinking that the concessions were given up in 1976 when the hyde amendment first went into effect

im just not sure anything is being give up in this specific legal battle.

it has to do w/availability of services to the very people who'll benefit most from insurance they presently don't have. abortion should be something any woman can get at her local hospital - there's no need for any special clinics, but there are all kinds of politics that prevent hospitals from receiving funding from various places if they provide abortions, or even refer a patient for one. ceding rhetorical ground has the direct effect of furthering this sort of nonsense approach to basic medicine. poor women who rely on public transportation, and sometimes can't tell others that they need an abortion (or just don't want to - it's nobody's business) can't just call in sick and travel 200 miles to get an abortion; they need the service from county medical. the movement afoot, seen here in Obama's overtures toward anti-choice politicians, is toward characterizing abortion services as "special," and encouraging hospitals to allow objections of conscience extending across all staff, etc - the effect is limitation of access. increasing access begins with talking sanely about abortion services and characterizing them not as some special field but as part of health care.

i agree with that! but im saying: what is congress, or obama, doing, that the democrats havent been doing since 1976? please understand its not a "this bill is good on choice" (its not) or "who cares" (i do), its more--i just dont think "were giving up ideological ground" is a great take on HCR, or on its attitude toward abortion rights.

I'm not sure a majority of dems even *believe* that abortion should qualify as just a standard health care procedure, and I'm very sure that a majority of americans don't..

iatee it's a little troubling how happy you are to concede basic rights to majorities

'Obama's overtures towards anti-choice politicans' vs.

'Obama did what it took to get the votes for this bill to pass (and yes, it did require votes from people who are anti-choice) and now some of these women might get health insurance'

i agree with that! but im saying: what is congress, or obama, doing, that the democrats havent been doing since 1976?

haha nothing I gotta concede - they sucked then and they sucked now! just 'cause they've always sucked doesn't mean you don't gotta keep asking for better

iatee I don't think you really appreciate the burden that insurance-with-caveats places on these women (nor do I imagine you give a shit beyond wanting to argue with me about whether the Democrats are really doing something awesome for everybody)

just 'cause they've always sucked doesn't mean you don't gotta keep asking for better

I agree but procedurally, it's better to get healthcare reform and continue arguing about abortion rights than not to get healthcare reform and continue arguing about abortion rights.

iatee I don't think you really appreciate the burden that insurance-with-caveats places on these women

they currently have a burden of not being insured at all

xpost yeah I support the bill I'm just complaining about how it sucks that the Democrats continue treating this basic health care right like a bargaining chip

YES I KNOW IATEE THERE'S ACTUALLY ALSO OTHER STUFF TO THINK ABOUT

I'm used to being the wall rather than being the guy talking to one, sorry

everything's a bargaining chip! this is politics!

I mean yeah this is a 'basic health care right' but so is...basic health care! and that's what's currently being bargained over!

Democrats continue treating this basic health care right like a bargaining chip

I don't understand. It sucks that Republicans don't like the bill and thus it requires that pro-choice Democrats negotiate with anti-abortion Democrats to get HCR passed? Aren't you just saying that it sucks that there are people who vote for anti-abortion politicians?

I mean, I agree but...

well - look for example at what're called CPCs- "Crisis Pregnancy Centers" - these are Right to Life front groups that falsely advertise as being somehow in abortion services, then apply scare tactics, spread misinformation, and do whatever it takes to stop the women who've shown up at their doors from getting abortions. These places got over 60 million dollars in federal funding between 2001-2006. Think about that for a second: what these places are; what "services" they provide; your tax money; mine. Funding that might have been allocated to research; to mothers in need; anywhere, really. "But more people will get health care" doesn't really offset "federal funding for campaigns of misinformation." It's not clear to me whether there'll be funding for CPCs under the health care bill, but really, would you be surprised?

yes i would be

who was in control of the executive and legislative branches between 01 and 06?

(I tried to find where O stands on this issue; he campaigned against it. My point is, ceding rhetorical ground on this is the sort of thing that results in CPCs getting federal money. It is important to hold one's ideological ground on these issues for reasons like this.)

who was in control of the executive and legislative branches between 01 and 06?

yes yes I know g, democrats good, republicans bad

seems to me the problem is not with CPC's getting money, but with holding them to legitimate standards re: medical information.

like the easy way to close that loophole is to just write legislation spelling out clear standards for receiving federal $$$