–updated–
“It may not happen in my lifetime, or Dick Cheney’s, but hopefully by Easter. … “I found Rahm. I created him. I made him what he is today. I am so sorry.” – President William Jefferson Clinton (at Gridiron Dinner)
“There is no deal yet,” according to Major Garrett, with Rep. Bart Stupak. Politico is reporting that Stupak is a “yes.” That’s the way reporting goes today. Garret also reports that the White House does not believe an executive order is necessary (UPDATE (4:10 pm): here is the text, which has been agreed upon, bringing Rep. Stupak and others to the yeah column – Dems now have the votes, plus a “pad”). However, if Speaker Pelosi says it’s required to meet 216 “or to pad that number a little bit,” Pres. Obama is willing to further appease the Stupak pack. Reports are that the language being floated for the executive order is being received favorably, but that the anti abortion House pack may want it sent forward before giving their vote.
The finale, that Obama is considering an executive order on abortion is not only unnecessary, but also creates yet another political football regarding abortion. A Democratic majority and President, aided by the first female Speaker of the House, once again moved the marker on abortion, doing so willingly. It sets up what is similar to the Global Gag Order, which seesaws back and forth between every Democratic and Republican administrations, only if Obama’s executive order manifests, instead it puts pressure on subsequent president’s to sign it or start another cultural war. Obama and the Democratic majority have played the abortion issue stupidly, emboldening the conservatives in the Democratic Party, while marginalizing progressives, who have been squeezed.
Incredibly, as you’ll see in the video here, Megyn Kelly asks Garrett how an executive order would change the fact that women could pay for an abortion with a separate check. This so called analysis is stunning, Kelly asking how the presidential order will change the two-check factor. Evidently Ms. Kelly wants women who get health coverage through the exchanges to not even be able to purchase reproductive services like abortion with their own money. Is she misinformed to think Democrats are going to ban abortion through health care? Embarrassing analysis from a professional woman on Fox that is inexcusable on facts alone.
Republicans are saying all sorts of things about the current health care bill. Sen. Lamar Alexander say that “if it does pass, it would be a historic mistake.” Even as bad as the current Democratic bill is, and it’s bad, the effort by Democrats isn’t a mistake. This country desperately needs health care reform, but this bill isn’t reform, it’s simply an expansion of the current system with onerous demands on the public to pay for it. If Republicans were honest they’d admit that if they were in charge they’d be forced to enact some sort of health care “reform,” with tort reform likely leading the way. In fact, I bet their candidate for 2012 will pledge to do just that. Still, no matter how bad the bill, at least Democrats made an effort at changing the status quo.
Unfortunately, Pres. Barack Obama didn’t use his presidency, his considerable rhetorical gifts, or his political heft until a full year into the debate. The most gifted politician, beyond Bill Clinton when he was at his best, one can only imagine the health care package we could have had if he’d put all his muscle into what was actually needed from the start. We’ll never know, because he simply didn’t have the courage or the sense of purpose until everything started to fall apart.
Today we’re left to follow the bouncing headlines. Stupak is a “yes,” but… maybe not. Fox News reports “he’s still a no for now.” Obviously, Mr. Stupak thinks he can squeeze Pres. Obama for more. Never mind that there is no funding of abortion in the current bill, Mr. Stupak wants more, with the Democratic leadership willing to kowtow to the minority even at this late date.
Another headline flashes, the Democrats have 216, then comes no, they don’t yet.
The next headline… The Pro-Choice Caucus won’t take any further prohibiting language on women’s rights; then we hear they’ll accept an executive order that simply repeats what’s already in the current bill.
The only thing we know for sure is that later today, at around 8:30 pm eastern time, the House will assemble to vote on the final piece of health care reform. When it passes, it then it goes to the Senate.
No doubt, it’s exciting for Democrats to be on the cusp of 216 votes to move health care legislation forward, regardless of how bad a bill it is. I know long-time Democrats who have been working on this their whole lives. They’re nervous, excited and disappointed, because they know all too well this bill isn’t enough, while also knowing Obama and the Democratic leadership didn’t go for what was actually possible.
When the Democrats make history in the House today, it won’t change that reality.
Meanwhile, the public still prefers the public option over what Democrats are offering. It proves both political parties are not listening to the people, but actually believe they won’t pay a price for ignoring you.
So, as historic as passing health care is, the fact that Democrats are doing it with a bill that the majority of Americans don’t want, compared to the public option, is truly an astonishing underachievement.
However, when compared to what Republicans offered up at this moment in American history, which was absolutely no contributions whatsoever, Democrats come out ahead.
They’re still unlikely to be rewarded in November.
I agree:
“However, when compared to what Republicans offered up at this moment in American history, which was absolutely no contributions whatsoever, Democrats come out ahead.
They’re still unlikely to be rewarded in November. “
Hello djjl.
We also know how the media would savage Dems if they failed to pass anything, with Republicans saying they “won.”
That said (and to add), I believe Dems could turn this into a referendum in November on the public option if there were *real* leaders in the Party.
but there aren’t, it would appear
Maybe it will give them courage.
HCR Related:
The Most Important Chart of the Century
“The latest U.S. Treasury Z1 Flow of Funds report was released on March 11, 2010, bringing the data current through the end of 2009.
“What follows is the most important chart of your lifetime. It relegates almost all modern economists and economic theory to the dustbin of history. Any economic theory, formula, or relationship that does not consider this non-linear relationship of DEBT and phase transition is destined to fail.
“It explains the “jobless” recoveries of the past and how each recent economic cycle produces higher money figures, yet lower employment. It explains why we are seeing debt driven events that circle the globe. It explains the psychological uneasiness that underpins this point in history, the elephant in the room that nobody sees or can describe.”
The Debt Saturation Point:
http://www.swarmusa.com/vb4/content.php/282-THE-Most-Important-Chart-of-the-CENTURY
Must Read:
Fact Sheet: The Truth About the Health Care Bill
http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2010/03/19/fact-sheet-the-truth-about-the-health-care-bill/
Dems Don’t Have the Votes at 2:20 PM, The Hill
My Representative is voting No:
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/88129-democrats-dont-appear-to-have-216-hours-before-a-healthcare-vote
Stupak is still a no as of 3:15.
That is correct, cmugirl.
NBC reporting he’s to hold a news conf. @ 4pm.
An “astonishing underachievement” is an accurate assessment, and even managing that required allowing the “political football regarding abortion” a prominent role. I know the hope is that this will be the basis for future positive steps — but since this foundation remains firmly in the for-profit world of corporate health insurance, my expectations are exceedlingly low.
Heya JoyceA.
Agreed.
Yes, I also thought that phrase “astonishing underachievement” was well turned.
Here’s where to follow tweets on the health reform, which I got from Pelosi’s office:
http://twitter.com/HealthReformNow
Stupak to speak in 2 minutes
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/35973455#35973455
Here’s what the White House just put out, via Dan Pfeiffer:
______________
Today, the President announced that he will be issuing an executive order after the passage of the health insurance reform law that will reaffirm its consistency with longstanding restrictions on the use of federal funds for abortion.
While the legislation as written maintains current law, the executive order provides additional safeguards to ensure that the status quo is upheld and enforced, and that the health care legislation’s restrictions against the public funding of abortions cannot be circumvented.
The President has said from the start that this health insurance reform should not be the forum to upset longstanding precedent. The health care legislation and this executive order are consistent with this principle.
The President is grateful for the tireless efforts of leaders on both sides of this issue to craft a consensus approach that allows the bill to move forward.
A text of the pending executive order follows:
Executive Order
- – - – - – -
ensuring enforcement and implementation of abortion restrictions in the patient protection and affordable care act
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” (approved March __, 2010), I hereby order as follows:
Section 1. Policy.
Following the recent passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“the Act”), it is necessary to establish an adequate enforcement mechanism to ensure that Federal funds are not used for abortion services (except in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the woman would be endangered), consistent with a longstanding Federal statutory restriction that is commonly known as the Hyde Amendment. The purpose of this Executive Order is to establish a comprehensive, government-wide set of policies and procedures to achieve this goal and to make certain that all relevant actors—Federal officials, state officials (including insurance regulators) and health care providers—are aware of their responsibilities, new and old.
The Act maintains current Hyde Amendment restrictions governing abortion policy and extends those restrictions to the newly-created health insurance exchanges. Under the Act, longstanding Federal laws to protect conscience (such as the Church Amendment, 42 U.S.C. §300a-7, and the Weldon Amendment, Pub. L. No. 111-8, §508(d)(1) (2009)) remain intact and new protections prohibit discrimination against health care facilities and health care providers because of an unwillingness to provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions.
Numerous executive agencies have a role in ensuring that these restrictions are enforced, including the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM).
Section 2. Strict Compliance with Prohibitions on Abortion Funding in Health Insurance Exchanges. The Act specifically prohibits the use of tax credits and cost-sharing reduction payments to pay for abortion services (except in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the woman would be endangered) in the health insurance exchanges that will be operational in 2014. The Act also imposes strict payment and accounting requirements to ensure that Federal funds are not used for abortion services in exchange plans (except in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the woman would be endangered) and requires state health insurance commissioners to ensure that exchange plan funds are segregated by insurance companies in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, OMB funds management circulars, and accounting guidance provided by the Government Accountability Office.
I hereby direct the Director of OMB and the Secretary of HHS to develop, within 180 days of the date of this Executive Order, a model set of segregation guidelines for state health insurance commissioners to use when determining whether exchange plans are complying with the Act’s segregation requirements, established in Section 1303 of the Act, for enrollees receiving Federal financial assistance. The guidelines shall also offer technical information that states should follow to conduct independent regular audits of insurance companies that participate in the health insurance exchanges. In developing these model guidelines, the Director of OMB and the Secretary of HHS shall consult with executive agencies and offices that have relevant expertise in accounting principles, including, but not limited to, the Department of the Treasury, and with the Government Accountability Office. Upon completion of those model guidelines, the Secretary of HHS should promptly initiate a rulemaking to issue regulations, which will have the force of law, to interpret the Act’s segregation requirements, and shall provide guidance to state health insurance commissioners on how to comply with the model guidelines.
Section 3. Community Health Center Program.
The Act establishes a new Community Health Center (CHC) Fund within HHS, which provides additional Federal funds for the community health center program. Existing law prohibits these centers from using federal funds to provide abortion services (except in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the woman would be endangered), as a result of both the Hyde Amendment and longstanding regulations containing the Hyde language. Under the Act, the Hyde language shall apply to the authorization and appropriations of funds for Community Health Centers under section 10503 and all other relevant provisions. I hereby direct the Secretary of HHS to ensure that program administrators and recipients of Federal funds are aware of and comply with the limitations on abortion services imposed on CHCs by existing law. Such actions should include, but are not limited to, updating Grant Policy Statements that accompany CHC grants and issuing new interpretive rules.
Section 4. General Provisions.
(a) Nothing in this Executive Order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect: (i) authority granted by law or presidential directive to an agency, or the head thereof; or (ii) functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This Executive Order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This Executive Order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity against the United States, its departments, agencies, entities, officers, employees or agents, or any other person.
THE WHITE HOUSE,
May the Women’s Movement RIP March 21,2010. Murdered by a Democratic President and a liberal female Speaker of the House.
We have now returned to the 1950s
What I just tweeted:
White House rubs noses of pro choice progressives in dirt with Stupak deal. Majority & women who got Obama elected stiffed.
From what I’m hearing, Obama didn’t need Stupak, who said he’d likely vote yes eventually. We shall see. If that is true, then Obama did it simply to pad the vote and say F*#! You.
Well, they did say it was going to be “historic,” LL.
And once again women are the sacrificial lambs. I will never forgive Nancy Pelosi, no matter what she does from now on. She threw her entire gender under the bus. Obama is one thing, but Pelosi should have at least had the gumption to tell these moralists where to go.
Speaker Pelosi started this whole Stupak ball rolling, JA.
She sure did and Obama was only too happy to enable all this.
If I was in the pro choice House caucus I would be absolutely livid.
I know she started it Taylor. To think I was thrilled when she became the FIRST FEMALE Speaker of the House. Simply because she couldn’t control her House. Once again a woman is kissing some guy’s a@@. I’m disgusted.
But don’t you know Jane there are only one set of morals and principles now accepted in this country.How MANY times have we heard Stupak is taking a principled stand? If patriarchy is you principle well I guess that is true.
Forget about it if your principles involve a woman’s autonomy over her own body or her right to privacy in medical decisions.
LL – many of my friends wonder why I care so much about reproductive rights and the right to choose for women. I’m beyond the age where I can reproduce so they claim I have “no horse in this race.” I fought for reproductive rights way back when; I worked in reproductive health for almost 30 years. Do you mean because I can’t bear children any more or have retired I shouldn’t care about what happens to future women? I have 2 daughters, 5 granddaughters. This is going to impact them eventually, no matter what anyone says.
Do we hear any puch back?………..crickets.
Yep, crickets. So far at least. Wonder if / when that pro-choice House caucus will speak up.
Their chosen representitive Degirette aproved it.
There is no way DeGrette was going to stand up on it.
What Dems see is an exec. order that doesn’t do anything, except repeat what’s in the Senate bill.
DeGrette’s “pro choice caucus” has been proven toothless.
Wouldn’t it be delicious if Obama didn’t put the exec. order forward after the bill comes out of reconciliation?!
Hey, it’s the Chicago way.
HA HA HA HA!!! Do you really think he has cajones?
What would be the correct word or phrase for this?
24 January 2009 via BBC
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7847651.stm
US President Barack Obama has lifted a ban (executve order) on federal funding for foreign family planning agencies that promote or give information about abortion.
23 January 2009 via U.S. News and World Report
http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/obama/2009/01/23/obama-reverses-abortion-funds-policy.html
Organizations that had pressed Obama to make the abortion-ban change were jubilant.
“Women’s health has been severely impacted by the cutoff of assistance. President Obama’s actions will help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies, abortions and women dying from high-risk pregnancies because they don’t have access to family planning,” said Tod Preston, a spokesman for Population Action International, an advocacy group.
What do you make of it? How many times where women warned they must vote for Obama to protect women’s rights.
Appeasement. Using this definition:
to yield or concede to the belligerent demands of (a nation, group, person, etc.) in a conciliatory effort, sometimes at the expense of justice or other principles.
You’re talking about the Global Gag Order, guyski, yes?
Comparing his executive order from Jan 2009 to the one he will soon be signing. Appeasement referring to Stupak. An odd contradition?
My Stupakistan tis of thee, sweet land of misogyny, of thee I sing, land where our foremothers tried, land where our civil rights are denied…
““““`
got this at another site.
heh-heh…
LL, *waves* Since you got that from me, I’d just like to add that Stupakistan didn’t start on March 21, 2010… it has it’s roots in May 31, 2008. That is all.
Yes, it surely did. In the back room as they made their selection.
BRAVO for that one. I love it.
Jane Austen says:
21 March 2010 at 4:58 pm (Edit)
I know she started it Taylor. To think I was thrilled when she became the FIRST FEMALE Speaker of the House. Simply because she couldn’t control her House. Once again a woman is kissing some guy’s a@@. I’m disgusted.
I flew across the country to be inside the Capitol for her swearing in. I was absolutely giddy at the prospect of her historic speakership. I know exactly how you feel.
I feel like crying. Women are really right back where we started. But so many don’t realize it. There’s a black cloud hanging over us and I do mean it. Those who oppose choice are feeling more and more emboldened now. And just maybe President Obama shouldn’t count on my vote in 2012.
By the way, the “pro-gay” provisions Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisc.) had hoped to include in the health care / insurance reform didn’t survive. Baldwin still had hopes until Thursday of this week.
I want whatever Ms. Baldwin is smoking.
We can’t even protect women!
This should be a giant wake up call to pro choice advocates. Stupak and his crowd claim to be pro life, but only when it involves abortion. They were willing to oppose health care for millions of people, including children with pre-existing conditions, if they didn’t get their way with the abortion issue. So let this be a lesson. We have to organize for and contribute to pro choice candidates, including the woman who is running against Stupak in the next primary. And boy am I going to donate to her! We need to work toward electing more women to Congress, period. No more Conservadems. If Bart Stupak sets the status quo for Democrats, I will no longer be one. This is scary stuff when a Democratic President is willing to go down this road. I listened to Howard Dean and he seemed to think that this was a fig leaf to save face but somehow I don’t feel reassured.
Unfortunately, Lynette, hoisting Stupak as some kind of hero reasserts the right leaning segment of the Dem Party, while humiliating the pro choice caucus.
Remember Nancy Pelosi when we talk about “electing more women.”
The truth is that women have no strong champion in politics today.
So sad…so true. we have no organizations they have all been co opted.
And Stupak’s district is pretty conservative. It’s mostly rural (while some parts have money – people with second homes on the lakes) and Stupak was the first Dem elected from there ever (or in a while). It’s really a Republican district. The only reason it has some Dem principles is that is a largely unionized district as well.
His primary challenger really doesn’t stand a chance.
he is Micheal Moore’s rep.
Connie Saltonstall is terrific.
Now that he’s voted yes on the bill, I’d say he’s shored up some things, but his constituents are furious at him.
That’s why the exec. order was such bullshit. He has been getting hate mail & livid calls about stopping health care because of abortion funding WHEN THERE ISN’T ANY FUNDING IN THE BILL.
I think he was bluffing about voting no.
Maybe not, but we’ll never know unless she gets some funding to get started.
But the problem is lynnette, they say they are progressives and then they get elected, and they cave. My very progressive congressman notified me yesterday he is voting for this bill, regardless of what he maintained he was willing to fight for. So who do you believe? Obama was no different–he sold the American electorate on “hope and change.” I’m still trying to figure out what has changed. He was going to be bipartisan. How many repubs are voting for this bill?
The Repubs were never going to be bipartisan because there are so few moderates left. They’ve gone so far over to the right it’s ridiculous. I think we need a new progressive movement in this country, JA. I think there is a hunger for it but we have no charismatic progressive leaders that can come up with the funding to run for the Presidency. At least I haven’t seen one. Obama is no progressive – I always thought Hillary was more progressive on domestic issues than Obama was and she really wasn’t all that progressive. They all still rely on corporate donations to run for office – that’s the problem. The hope and change was a marketing tool and it worked well. I’ll tell you, I wish I had the answer but I don’t.
You’re right, Taylor.
*Waves* back at ya Wonk the Vote
What do you want to bet the majority of young women are watching the basketball play offs today because that is what the men in their lives want to watch. They are distracted while their rights are being thrown away.
It’s just women over 40 who remember.
They are going to have to fight it out all over again.From what I saw during the primaries with many young women being intimadated to even say they were for Hillary I don’t hold out much hope.
I know what you mean, LL.
Sorry ladies but us gays didn’t expect shit from Obama or congress in this bill. It took two Clinton’s respectively to get HIV/AIDS services fully funded through Ryan White or the Early Treatment/Care Act. It wouldn’t be a pressing matter if states were not slashing HIV/AIDS services….
…and it’s a good thing you didn’t, Iceblinkjm!