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

meanwhile, idiots say idiot thing, film at 11:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/18/iowa-congressman-and-glenn_n_504633.html

Glenn Beck and Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) expressed harmonized outrage on Beck's radio program Thursday about news that the House might vote on the health care reform package this Sunday. Voting on a Sunday, they said, was offensive and heretical.

for as we all know, Jesus never healed on a Sabbath....oh wait.

Yeah, and there was that whole 'Terri Schaivo' thing on Palm Sunday 2005, too, but never mind that.

ha that cheered me up. if we're down to that level of complaining the donks might have this in the bag.

You mean the Sabbath that was changed from Saturday to Sunday by that venal, worldly child molestery known as the Vatican?

*throws shit grenade. runs.*

lol @ "child molestery"

I mean, petty squabbly shit like that... Why not just say that you just piss on Jews and Muslims and SDAs and whatnot?

Glenn Beck and Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) expressed harmonized outrage on Beck's radio program Thursday about news that the House might vote on the health care reform package this Sunday. Voting on a Sunday, they said, was offensive and heretical.

genuine lolz

Nothing is ever settled.

lol liberals

Live from the Catskills, it's JOE THE BIDEN

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNyMu2xuAMI

"poor women who can't afford to take care of more children" = covered by Medicaid, which hasn't covered abortions for years (despite the fact that these are exactly the people who can't cover even the nominal cost of an early-term abortion)

all the current hoo-ha is over the insurance exchanges, which will mainly cover the middle class

just want to be sure we know exactly which women are under discussion here, i.e. not poor ones

in that particular discussion it seems like there's two issues: the first is that state legislatures can simply ban any abortion coverage on their own exchange if they choose to. i think reid put this in to mollify nelson. the second is that if even if abortion coverage is allowed on a particular state's exchange, people wishing to be covered for abortions have to pay via a separate check.

the first issue - about the state's ability to ban abortion coverage for largely middle-class people on the insurance exchange - seems fraught with all kinds of federalist questions which i am not qualified to speak about. clearly i think it would be a bad idea for states to enact this kind of ban. apparently something like five states already ban abortion coverage completely?

and i feel j0hn on the second issue - about having to pay with a second check - even if you're not being subsidized! it's not burdensome or complicated, frankly, but there's something symbolic about it that i think may be new. at least i'm not aware of any "two checks" policy in any health insurance scheme to date.

wtf is that jesse jackson sat next to o'reilly in the biden clip??

It is, and at one point there's a distinct 'talk to the hand' move on Jackson's part.

j0hn d you sir are a hero

on a different note, i guess we can all be happy that bipartisan bullshit is back

whoops http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_immigration

harmonized outrage

There's something kind of non-substantive about a good percentage of arguments amongst lefty types these days. Like John D paraphrase: "it's a shame that D's aren't better about defending abortion rights." And I'm pretty sure no one disagreed that it's not some kind of shame, but that they just think its wrong/pointless to expect anything else of the politicians they support/tolerate? Or they just disagree with giving voice to this disappointment or something?

im having trouble gauging your stance on the matter so this isn't directed at you, but expressing regret doesnt cut it imo and it doesnt bode well for national-scale reproductive rights that more than half of the posters on this supposedly predominantly lefty board are so nonchalant about throwing the issue under the bus

I only ever skim this thread these days, but John D otm basically.

I normally try to empathize with pro-lifers just cuz you know, they're people too, but lately I've come to the conclusion that placating their "concerns" is extremely corrosive to the whole idea of reproductive rights. Abortion IS a medical issue---the right to which has been enshrined in law, and which is rooted in a woman's inalienable privilege to decide what happens to her body.

Like what is this two checks business? And what, really, is the rational, medical argument for leaving abortion out? What if a woman has a complicated pregnancy and the only way to manage it/save her life is to induce an abortion? Will her preterm coverage suddenly bottom out? Like, if she didn't even WANT the abortion?

This ought to be obv, but the question of abortion's actual ~medical~ utility was resolved ages ago.

all the "gov't can't tell you what to do with your body" rhetoric in the world has zero impact on ppl who think another fully human body is involved; I think everyone should've figured that out by now.

so what

the main issue is that the govt HAS said that you can do what you want with your body---it ought to be settled, but the left keeps conceding that ok maybe it isn't there ARE some yucky abortions that maybe we should curtail

and while I firmly believe abortion is a feminist issue, the fact that it is medical is somethin the left maybe doesn't emphasize enough? then tbh it's also something the med establishment soft peddles a bit too---the OB sites for my clinical rotations were listed with their abortion services, in case students didn't want to rotate thru such depraved dens of iniquity. wtf

I think you should be forced to do abortion rotations if you want to be a doctor. Period. It would weed out all of the doctors that are fucking it up for women everywhere.

then again I'm coming from a position that holds that staunch pro-lifers aren't fit to be physicians. one step away from JWs being in charge of the fucking blood bank imo

xp!

then again I'm coming from a position that holds that staunch pro-lifers aren't fit to be physicians.

100% agree with this. this goes for pharmacists who don't want to fill birth control scripts as well.

I kind of want to go to convert to Christian Scientist, go to pharmacy school and hold some poor pharmacy hostage by staunchly refusing to fill anyone's prescriptions for anything while alerting the news to my principled stance.

This would totally end in tears for me, I know.

so what

You're a fucking genius

interestingly, I have a few pro-choice legally but pro-life philosophically fellow students that think I am basically a bad person for thinking that. I mean, these ppl would still perform medically indicated abortions, but aren't comfortable with it, and think there needs to be a diversity of opinion in the medical field. and while I'm I'm favor of diversity of opinion, I cannot countenance the idea that some of your future MDs would feel righteous and good if they withheld care from a woman seeking it. they'd grimace through surgery on an ACTUAL murderer, but perform an abortion? no sir!

/so what/

You're a fucking genius

^_^

Wait suddenly Morbs is sticking up for nuance or something?

think there needs to be a diversity of opinion in the medical field

Haha, plz send these ppl to me for immediate trepanning and administration of leeches.

all the "gov't can't tell you what to do with your body" rhetoric in the world has zero impact on ppl who think another fully human body is involved; I think everyone should've figured that out by now.

morbs otm!

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.

― goole, Thursday, March 18, 2010 2:28 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

You could argue that in a privileged/wealthy society, rhetoric is the base issue to everything.

i am interested tho--what do you and gbx and j0hn think would happen if "we" (the democratic party?) went rhetorically hard-line (i guess this involves kicking anti-choice democrats out of the party?) and refused to concede anything in the debate?

yes but what does that mean? srsly? so they hold spiritual beliefs that disallow abortion (and believe me, the prolife movement is inextricably rooted in an appeal to the supernatural, and the fact that there might be an exact moment that a blastocyst becomes a ~human~): what, then, are we in favor of choice supposed to do? according to y'all, a hardline stance is a bad choice, as is an appeal to law (it's already legal you guys)---what does that leave?

ha xp to max

a multilateral stance that allows for certain concessions in the hopes of reaching a larger, stable goal, i.e., electoral politics?

It's not about conceding the debate, it's about reframing the terms of the debate to make your position stronger.

sorry not 'multilateral'

or: what is there to concede?? that abortions can be sucky for some people? ill grant that, it's not exactly an easy thing for many women to do. but, again, so what. lots of things are emotionally trying, but that's no reason to limit them

a multilateral stance that allows for certain concessions in the hopes of reaching a larger, stable goal, i.e., electoral politics?

vague as hell imo. again: what concessions ARE there in this? no coverage under a natl plan?

It's not about conceding the debate, it's about reframing the terms of the debate to make your position stronger.

in which case: abortion is a medical issue, full stop.

i mean i think one problem with this conversation is that were not being clear about what 'concessions' were talking about? there is a certain apocalyptic tone to some of the posts on this thread, like democrats have given up a major, major point in the abortion debate, when essentially nothing is changing since the hyde amendments first passage in 1976. no federal funds are going to abortion now, none were ten, twenty, thirty (or for that matter forty!) years ago, and none will once this bill is passed.

"You're gonna have to take this baby from my cold, dead hands."

http://www.worsethanhitler.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/scalia.jpg

Personally, I think hammering the legal aspect of abortion is exactly correct, and that informing people who are against it that they are free to attempt to change the law to make abortion illegal and also free to avoid professions and circumstances where they may encounter it as much as they can, but, since abortion has been granted constitutional protection, arbitrary restrictions on it are unconstitutional and should not be tolerated.

xp: I am going to say this again; the issue is not that something is being given up, the issue is that something continues not to be fought for. What you are seeing is a strong reaction to yet another lost opportunity to correct something that has been wrong for 34 years.

xp: I am going to say this again; the issue is not that something is being given up, the issue is that something continues not to be fought for. What you are seeing is a strong reaction to yet another lost opportunity to correct something that has been wrong for 34 years.

^^^ this

also, like, what if you frame it this way:

-- do you believe that what takes place between a doctor and patient ought to be private from everyone else in the world?
-- yeah
-- ok then

because abortion is ALREADY LEGAL, this should be a foregone conclusion; a woman should be able to see a fukkin GP (imo) and get an abortion and just not have to worry about picketers and going to a special clinic and talking to a counselor (unless she wants one) and what the fuck ever. it is a procedure that has real, tangible, medical uses, and that is not dangerous most of the time. ergo: it should just be on the fukkin menu imo. but for some reason (lol politics), very few liberals are willing to be that forthright and, more importantly, that non-chalant about it. abortion as a right is a big deal. if you are pro-choice, however, i think you should be comfortable with the idea that, much of the time, medically, abortion really ISN'T a big deal. THAT's the stumbling block here, imo.

i realize that it might be bad politicking, but i wish some fucking liberal would have the fortitude to just come out and say that "abortion is just like this medical thing that happens between women and their care providers. it's legal, there's compelling reasons for it to remain that way, let's just move on. the ~debate~ is over." i dunno. i mean i know that HALF the country has POWER and HATES abortion but fuck 'em. making concessions in the public discourse just gives them reason to believe. crush their dreams, tbh

i realize that it might be bad politicking, but i wish some fucking liberal would have the fortitude to just come out and say that "abortion is just like this medical thing that happens between women and their care providers. it's legal, there's compelling reasons for it to remain that way, let's just move on. the ~debate~ is over." i dunno. i mean i know that HALF the country has POWER and HATES abortion but fuck 'em. making concessions in the public discourse just gives them reason to believe. crush their dreams, tbh

you cant really just call a debate "over" dude!

i mean, HOW does one crush their dreams? try and cram anti-hyde amendment language into your health-care bill? but the health-care bill wont pass! and that wont crush their dreams--it will embolden them!

i wish some fucking liberal would have the fortitude to just come out and say that abortion is just like this medical thing that happens between women and their care providers. it's legal, there's compelling reasons for it to remain that way, let's just move on. the ~debate~ is over

this would be so awesome.

interesting nyt article this morning about how the issue for congressional democrats now is less will there be enough votes to pass HCR (there will, apparently), but which of them facing tough elections in november will be given permission by the leadership to vote "no" on HCR.

also in today's nyt, a nice editorial about the benefits of the HCR bill. apologies if these have been linked before.

sure i can! ppl didn't use to think that blacks didn't deserve to vote or be in the same schools as white people, but eventually everyone that thought that had to get used to it.

put it this way: if i cannot in any way concede that abortion should, under some circumstances, be rationed/disallowed, then what else there for me? the right to abortion is not a political issue for me. most democratic legislation IS political---maybe school vouchers really ARE a good idea! i think there a host of reasons they are not, most of them informed by ethical concerns, but i'm willing to place that in the court of public opinion. but not abortion. a woman's right to choose is a civil right. the end.