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

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 $$$

no, the problem is with them getting money. they have zero interest in medical information; Operation Rescue runs them. they are not legitimate medical establishments. they are front groups.

j0hn we've been around and around on this before to no good effect. there probably isn't a point, given that we agree in principle.

but i do think you are ascribing way too much power to "ceding rhetorical ground". any ceding done over the past few decades is a symptom of, not cause of, anti-abortion forces in this country. ("forces" meaning anything -- organizations, settled laws, proposals, american public opinion, treatment in pop media, etc)

and if legislation tied federal $$$ to standard quality medical information, then they wouldn't get any money. problem solved.

xp

If I read or hear one more Republican screaming about the procedural issues and the concessions being made (and sometimes withdrawn) to various states and congresspeople I am going to start screaming. They pretend as if Republicans have never engaged in such arm-twisting negotiations to pass bills, voted for earmarks, deem & pass, reconciliation, etc.
I didn't watch Obama get interviewed on Fox, but apparently most of the 20 minutes consisted of him being asked about things like that rather than about the substance. Plus one of those questions where the interview plays around with math to suggest that the Dems are destroying Medicare and Medicaid as if Republicans ever cared about either one.

right now i think they're more focused on discrediting the CBO report.

I mean from the pov of pro-lifers, Planned Parenthood isn't a "legitimate medical establishment" either, really. they're an abortionist front group dontcha know

xp

I mean from the pov of pro-lifers, Planned Parenthood isn't a "legitimate medical establishment" either, really. they're an abortionist front group dontcha know

right, but they're performing services under the auspices of the AMA. there are standards, and they're easy to determine, it's not like there's any argument about whether abortion is a legal medical procedure. it is. an "abortionist" is just a doctor. so, we don't really need to engage the pov that there's anything to be discussed there, any more than we need to take into account Christian Scientists on the question of whether medication is a sin.

what do you mean there's no argument? i'm absolutely confident my side of the argument is true, but that's not the same thing is it. you always compare the anti-abortion position to something that is totally fringey like xtian science, you really can't do that. it isn't.

this editorial made me so fucking mad:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748704743404575127540906168462.html

I know there are 1000 things that should make me discount this, beginning with "WSJ" and continuing on to "Fred Barnes" but still, the amount of bullshit irrelevancy in this is astounding.

christian science healthcare plan would solve out-of-control medical cost$

goole and velko both otm

you always compare the anti-abortion position to something that is totally fringey like xtian science, you really can't do that. it isn't.

that a lot of people agree with it doesn't legitimize it imo. how many people believe we should be able to pray in school? the anti-abortion position is that unscientific whether it has broader support or not -- I mean, if we put evolution to a national referendum, I can pretty much guarantee there'll be Young Earth Creationism in schools after the election. Fortunately, "lots of people agree with my insane position" isn't something we're bending to on that side yet. Give it time tho!

how is anti-abortion unscientific again?

1) abortion is a legal medical procedure
2) the end

with democrats like iatee on board though I know we can look forward to lots more "acknowledging" the alleged complexities of this issue until women's rights have been further eroded in the name of party unity

Isn't it general lack of party unity/discipline that's responsible for right-erosion?

no I'm afraid the rot is in the wood Philip

i really don't understand you j0hn. the fact that half the country, half!, is uneasy about/doesn't like/flat out hates abortion doesn't legitimize their ideas it TO ME, but they VOTE, that's the PROBLEM, they don't NEED legitimization, they have POWER

the way you are arguing here, it's as if you believe the democratic party's squishiness on reproductive rights CAUSED the "pro-life" movement to come into being.

do you think if "we" were rhetorically hard line all the time, that half of the country -- and the people who represent their sentiments -- are going to go away? give up? rhetoric is not the base issue here, as i said before.

lots of things are medical procedures that are in ethical grey areas, like lobotomies.

j0hn I am pretty firm on my moral convictions, but I don't think that anyone who disagrees with them is objectively, scientifically wrong and must be treated as such. in fact, the only people I know who do act like that are a. orthodox religious people b. you.

John, so how do we get 60 Dems elected in the Senate and a required majority in the House who will take the women's rights position? And if we do not have enough such votes, do we just leave health care alone under the current system?

the way you are arguing here, it's as if you believe the democratic party's squishiness on reproductive rights CAUSED the "pro-life" movement to come into being.

goole, it's not they caused it to come into being: it's that they gave it, and continue to give it, power & legitimacy. it doesn't matter whether half the country & the people who represent, etc., "go away," nor is it even desirable - these are entitled to their beliefs & to peaceful protests & even civil disobedience: they should follow the dictates of their consciences within the confines of the law & human decency. but the people who protect & uphold the constitution need not concede any ground to people who object to its content, and abortion's constitutionally protected, for the moment, anyway.

j0hn I am pretty firm on my moral convictions, but I don't think that anyone who disagrees with them is objectively, scientifically wrong and must be treated as such. in fact, the only people I know who do act like that are a. orthodox religious people b. you.

you're a treat iatee. this has nothing to do with anybody's moral convictions. luckily, moral convictions are a private matter. are you arguing that abortion is not a legal medical procedure? I bet I can show you a law that says it is!

kinda am feeling J0hn on this line of argument, although I'm not sure that anything less than a civil war will actually decide the issue one way or the other

The whole inability to deal with science OR sex OR wimmin is just part of the 'other side' in the cold civil war we seem to be having.

John, so how do we get 60 Dems elected in the Senate and a required majority in the House who will take the women's rights position? And if we do not have enough such votes, do we just leave health care alone under the current system?

finally, before I clock out for the afternoon (I think Morbius has the 3-11 today): this is the correct and sane q imo - but of course, despite the people who get all pissed with me, I'll say again, I think the bill should be passed. I don't think kissing the asses of people who oppose a matter of settled constitutional law is a victimless strategy, though, and I think the people who'll pay most dearly for the ground ceded by such a strategy are 1) poor women who can't afford to take care of more children and 2) the children themselves. I think that's worth pointing out, especially in a time when so many Democrats, on the evidence, are keen to turn matters of medical science over to a popular vote.

this abortion debate has "nothing to do w/ anybody's moral convictions"

um...

are you trying to say anything other than "abortion is currently legal"?

I'm pro-choice and have even helped out friends who have had abortions, but to say that anti-abortion stance is "unscientific" and thus invalid is pretty silly. The reasons pro-lifers don't like the idea of abortion aren't just limited to fundamentalist Christian dogma, you know.

so many Democrats, on the evidence, are keen to turn matters of medical science over to a popular vote.

give me a fucking break j0hn, this isn't what i was arguing and you know it. drive by bullshit like this is conduct unbecoming.

That said it's funny and characteristically ironic that the political stance that says "Keep government out of my health care!" the loudest is also the one that most wants government to tell women what they can or can't do with their bodies.

cept for them it's not an issue of what 'they can and can't do with their bodies' but it's a moral issue about murder

Given how no one purportedly reads the bills in their entirety, how hard would it be to sneak de facto abortion funding in (without actually mentioning the procedure)?

Yeah but why can't we trust the free market on this matter? I thought it was the shining beacon of capitalism even more important than democracy!