The Regressive Block

by: Chris Bowers

Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 18:00


As the Progressive Caucus continues its whip count to determine if there is enough support in the House to pass a health care bill tied to Medicare +5% rates, Democratic Representative Bart Stupak is leading an effort to kill the entire health care bill. He is doing this through an attempt to find 40 Democrats who want to add restrictions on abortion funding that will be more regressive than those already in place under the so-called "Hyde Amendment", barring federal health care funds to be used for abortions.

If Stupak succeeds, he will kill the entire health care bill. This is because such restrictions will cause Democrats to lose scores of pro-choice votes, which combined with Republicans will be enough to defeat the entire bill. Stupak knows this, but apparently doesn't give a damn.

Fortunately, it looks like his effort is not going to succeed:

A leading pro-life Democrat said Friday he is "not very confident" that Congress will clearly stipulate a ban on federal funding for abortions in healthcare legislation

Good. The Regressive Block apparently isn't coming together. Still, this is something to keep an eye on. It would be pretty heinous, though also not particularly surprising, if reproductive rights actually worsen under Democratic governance. Democratic fear of offending Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh knows few boundaries.

Chris Bowers :: The Regressive Block

Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

The Regressive Block | 178 comments
Good. (4.00 / 2)
It's nice to see confusion among the ConservaDems this time. The Republicans won't support anything but aren't big enough of a force to matter, so it's really up to Progressives to hold firm and hopefully sit by as the ConservaDems fold.

Yes, Virginia, there are progressives in Nevada.

It's not just Beck and Limbaugh (4.00 / 1)

  Though I'm just as appalled as anyone as the Democrats' rush to appease those two (and other) nazis.

  That said, the abortion stuff is a big reason why Obama's had trouble getting organized religion behind him to help him frame health care for all as a moral issue. I was at Mass a couple of weeks ago, and the priest touched a bit on health care in his homily. He was surprisingly progressive, stating that health care should be a right, not a privilege, and that we have an obligation to help the least among ourselves, and that we should support healthcare reform that leads us towards that goal. Very refreshing, actually. He didn't mention abortion directly -- but he did add a couple of statements about "respect for life at all stages". So to me that was the big "but".

  Tightening abortion restrictions won't win the Republicans over, of course, but it WILL bring a lot of organized religion around to our side, and that can make a significant difference. I don't know if Obama's done this, but it might be a big help to meet with (nonwingnut) religious leaders and reassure them that the Hyde amendment won't be liberalized under healthcare reform. That might be all they need to hear.

 Stupak, of course, is coming from a whole different direction -- he's just using abortion as an excuse to kill reform, as you said -- but there's no reason Obama and progressive Dems can't pre-empt him.  

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn


I disagree. (4.00 / 2)
Hatred of women is only something they are allowed to talk of, openly, without fear of repercussions. It doesn't mean it is the only pathology they have. Selling women out will not bring them to the Democrats so long as we still have Jews, gays, blacks, working class people etc. in our party.

And really, once you have betrayed all of those people, are you still a Democrat in any way shape or form?

Montani semper liberi


[ Parent ]
Who do you mean by "they"? (4.00 / 1)
I think the commenter was referring to the possibility that the Catholic hierarchy might be brought around to endorse health care reform.  Are you arguing that the Catholic hierarchy would never endorse a health care reform bill because Democrats have Jews, gays, blacks, and working class people in our party?

[ Parent ]
Anyone who hates women enough (4.00 / 4)
to be anti-choice is not going to be a good ally. Do the math. If the priest in question really loved human beings (if he were, say, a good shepherd to the Lord's sheep), he would not be letting his prejudice get in the way of supporting healthcare reform. The fact that he is tells you everything you need to know about his true priorities.

Not to mention, it's simply wrong to throw women overboard in an attempt to please the haters.

Montani semper liberi


[ Parent ]
Hates Women? (0.00 / 0)
What does that have to do with reasonable (as in banning third trimester abortions) protections for life?

[ Parent ]
Forced childbirth is wrong. (4.00 / 1)
I know we've already had this conversation, and you didn't get it, but it's wrong.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
And yes, hate. (4.00 / 1)
It's grotesque that you believe women, in the third trimester of a healthy, normal pregnancy, like to go out and have abortions just for shits and giggles.

Unless you hate them, why do you believe they are depraved?

Montani semper liberi


[ Parent ]
Shits and Giggles (4.00 / 3)
Ya never know with those female types.  They get so emotional and cry and want to know what you are feeling and shit.  Who knows what they'll do??


[ Parent ]
No, I think its ideology (0.00 / 0)


[ Parent ]
Women have abortions (0.00 / 0)
because of ideology? That makes no sense. It makes them even more depraved then, doesn't it?

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
Oh, now you're being silly (0.00 / 0)
come on, Sadie

[ Parent ]
So you tell me (4.00 / 2)
why you believe women in a healthy, normal third trimester pregnancies run out and get abortions for no good reason whatsoever.

You must believe that it is something they do, otherwise you wouldn't want to make it illegal. We don't need laws to prevent people doing things they don't do.

Montani semper liberi


[ Parent ]
Two reasons Sadie (0.00 / 0)
partly because of the narrowly-defined, hyperindividualism that our society has had over the past three decades, but I think it's also simply because women are people, and people are flawed. All of humanity shares that predicament.

Feminism was about making women equal; it didn't make them perfect. And since late stage pregnancies by definition involve a life that is almost fully formed, then I think society has to step in and protect that life, against the sometimes flawed decisions that people make. Don't we use our laws to do just that, for a wide range of scenarios?

Liberalism used to encourage us to examine different aspects of an issue, and weigh them, and reason until we had an opinion based on a synthesis of facts and varying ideas. I worry if liberalism is turned into an excuse for throwing aside half an argument, and executing decisions on pure, short-term self interest.


[ Parent ]
So you really do believe (4.00 / 2)
women run out and abort healthy, normal pregnancies in the third term.

That's just crazy. You are not even living on planet earth.

Montani semper liberi


[ Parent ]
you mean like Dennis Kucinich before 2003? (4.00 / 1)


[ Parent ]
I was talking about the Catholic hierarchy (0.00 / 0)

  What you said describes Republicans, and I agree, they're hopeless. But I think the non-wingnut churches could be powerful health-care reform allies if we allay their abortion concerns -- which we pretty much do already.  

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

[ Parent ]
The non-wingnut churches (4.00 / 3)
are already our allies, and they are pro-choice. There is no such thing as a non-wingnut anti-choice church.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
Well, not quite (4.00 / 2)

 The Catholic Church is not in the same league as the fundie wingnut churches that have spawned the Dobsons and Haggards and Perkinses of the world. Those churches are actively hostile to poor people, nonwhites, and non-Christians, and push for social policies that punish the economically disadvantaged.

 The Catholic Church, on the other hand, very much retains and pushes for a preferential option for the poor, and also opposes non-just wars and the death penalty, which the fundie wingnut churches embrace enthusiastically. In fact. it's probably accurate to say that fundie wingnut churches are political organizations masquerading as religious ones.

 The DO agree on the abortion issue. But that's always been a core teaching of the Catholic Church. And given its other distinctions, the Catholic Church is FAR more reachable on health-care reform than the fundies. They're not all the same.  

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn


[ Parent ]
In my opinion, the Catholic Church (4.00 / 4)
is a conundrum. Catholics themselves are often progressive, because they actually take religion seriously. But the hierarchy does stuff like threatening to excommunicate Democratic leaders.

I can't believe the hierarchy will ever be on our side, but I think the best of that church already is so it doesn't matter.

Montani semper liberi


[ Parent ]
I almost always agree with you .. (4.00 / 3)
The Catholic Church is not in the same league as the fundie wingnut churches that have spawned the Dobsons and Haggards and Perkinses of the world.

but I gotta disagree with you here .. Bill Donohue and the Catholic League?  Raymond Arroyo(and EWTN .. and yes .. Mother Angelica has been a long time Republican .. way before the whole abortion debate even got started .. I read her book) .. the priest abuse scandal(which they are still trying to cover up .. even today)


[ Parent ]
That's the Opus Dei faction (4.00 / 3)

  And yes, they're much more in line with the Dobson fundies than the mainstream Church.

  But they don't speak for the entire Church. They're just the ones who get media time, because our media seems to think only the wingnuts speak for Christianity.

  That said, my parents are sympathetic to that faction (don't ask), and they find Donohue embarrassing.  

 

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn


[ Parent ]
Not to mention the Spanish Inquisition (4.00 / 1)
In the New and Old worlds.

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."


[ Parent ]
Except ... (4.00 / 1)
Mother Angelica had the backing of JP II ... and likely Benedict .. don't fool yourself .. EWTN has church blessing .. they have nutjob right-wingers on all the time(like Little Ricky Santorum) .. yet never give a forum for Democrats .. not even the Bob Casey types .. maybe your parish priest hasn't hopped in bed with the Republicans .. but in the Philly area they have

[ Parent ]
But the thing about the Catholic Church is (4.00 / 6)
yes, they have spawned wingnuts but they have also spawned heroes. The Rightwing Protestants never have. They really are just a political movement wrapped in religious language (and tax exemption).

There is no Evangelical equivalent to the Caholic Worker Movement, or the Berrigan brothers, and there never will be, because the Religious Right was born in the ashes of the defeat of Jim Crow.

Montani semper liberi


[ Parent ]
Dorothy Day (4.00 / 3)

 No fundie church has ever had a Dorothy Day, and no fundie church ever will. Her philosophy is just too antithetical to fundie values.  

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

[ Parent ]
Not to be confused with (0.00 / 0)
Doris Day.

LOL, I never can resist that.

I think we need a few more of both.


[ Parent ]
On a serious note (0.00 / 0)
It's my understanding that Dorothy Day was quite conservative on social values.

[ Parent ]
Maybe so... (0.00 / 0)

 ...but the culture back then was far, far different. There were almost no social liberals back then.

   

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn


[ Parent ]
I don't understand what that means (0.00 / 0)
her conservatism was an integral part of her life and philosophy, and was as someone who had lived quite liberal mores in the Roaring 20s.

Unless I remember her story wrongly, feel free to push back on that.


[ Parent ]
I assume we're not calling the black churches evangelical? (4.00 / 2)
Because on doctrine they largely are, and MLK and his entire generation (excepting Malcolm X) came out of the black church.

[ Parent ]
Evangelical <> Fundamentalist (4.00 / 1)

  Evangelicals DO NOT like to be lumped in with the fundie hate churches. It is true that the media -- the blogosphere included -- doesn't often make that distinction well.  

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

[ Parent ]
I know (4.00 / 1)
but is there really any difference? They are anti-progressives  who use religion as an excuse for intolerance.

For example, have you ever met an evangelical who was not homophobic? Because I never have, and I looked for a long time.

Montani semper liberi


[ Parent ]
I mean Evangelical (0.00 / 0)
not in the traditional meaning but in the way they use it themselves.

You know, they used to be called Fundamentalists, until that developed a bad flavor, then they started calling themselves "Evangelical." Who knows what they'll be calling themselves tomorrow and no, the Black church is no part of them. It is much older and more progressive, more traditionally Christian.

Montani semper liberi


[ Parent ]
Don't many, many black churches call themselves evangelical? (0.00 / 0)


[ Parent ]
Yes, (4.00 / 1)
but they mean it in the traditional way.

The Religious Right is so slippery with the nomenclature, it's probably simpler (though still generous) to call them "non-traditional Christians." Because really, they have no doctrine, no liturgy, no priesthood. They are not Christians in the way anyone who lived during the first 1800 years of the faith would recognize the term. They just make things up as they go along, they have no religious principles in common but only political ones.

Montani semper liberi


[ Parent ]
What religion, old or new, does not make things up as they go along? (0.00 / 0)
The difference is that some started making things up a very long time ago, so we start thinking that their fairytales have more validity than some other mythology.

All religions were made up by people.

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."


[ Parent ]
Yes (0.00 / 0)
but some are crazier than others. The Religious Right is about as crazy as it gets.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
Relative insanity (0.00 / 0)
was not the point of your comment, was it?

But if its insanity you want to take as basis for the discussion, I think its rather nutty to try and make the case that one way of believing in fairytales is any less crazy than another.  

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."


[ Parent ]
No. (0.00 / 0)
What you call fairytales inspired Martin Luther King.

You think you are a bigger man than he was?

Montani semper liberi


[ Parent ]
The same fairlytales inspired witch hunts, spanish inquisition. (0.00 / 0)
and allowed the catholic church to turn a blind eye toward the gathering holocaust in Europe, not to mention the radical american right that you are so exercised about, are you putting King in the same group as these?


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."


[ Parent ]
No, you are. (0.00 / 0)


Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
Bill Donahue is aobut as "Catholic" as you are.... (4.00 / 3)
He appointed himself as a "catholic" leader, even though he has no authority from the Church to do so or speak for them.  In fact, he has been sharply criticized by Church leaders for "going rogue" and impersonating a Church official.  He is not an official representative of the Church, merely a wingnut who has a very high opinion of himself.

One other famous wingnut is Domino's pizza founder Tom Monaghan who views himself as a religious leader as well.  He built his own little Catholic paradise in Florida, including a Cathedral... well, a chapel.  Seems that the Church didn't like Mr. Monoghan ordaining himself as a Church leader, and they denied consecration of his "cathedral" and refused to place a priest there as well.  Ooops!  

Must be frustrating for a religious wingnut to not be able to get everything they want just 'cos they are rich.  You'd think they'd follow the route of Henry VII and just make their own church like other wingnuts do.

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!


[ Parent ]
Ha! (4.00 / 2)
I was familiar with the first part of Monaghan's story, the part where he built his own little princedom, but not the part where Mother Church refused to issue him a bishop!

That's gotta sting.

Montani semper liberi


[ Parent ]
His Ave Maria law school also lost its accreditation... (4.00 / 3)
...it seems that the Bar isn't too keen on a curriculum that has God's law superseding U.S. law.

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!


[ Parent ]
Always a core issue? (0.00 / 0)
Not really.  The epistles are not all about abortion and pretty much only about abortion.  In the history of a 2,000 year old church this is relatively recent and has overshadowed virtually every thing else.

The opposition of the Catholic church defeated the last Catholic to run for President.  Like W really wants to stop abortion and did much good any where.


[ Parent ]
It's not just women. (0.00 / 0)
If the Religious Right is to be believed, the good news of the gospel is that Christ Jesus died to keep the faggots down.

Never could find that in my Bible but I guess it's because I have the old version.

Montani semper liberi


[ Parent ]
Nothing to do with Beck and Limbaugh (0.00 / 0)
Stupak is a socially conservative, fiscally progressive Democrat.  He's doing this because he truly believes it is the right thing to do.  You can disagree with that stance, but don't question his motives.  

What's his problem with the Hyde Amendment? (4.00 / 1)

  That should satisfy his moral objections, if indeed his effort is about that. I have my doubts.  

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

[ Parent ]
You don't understand.... (4.00 / 1)
...he feels that any health insurance plan that covers abortion in the exchange would violate the Hyde Amendment, since the premiums would be subsidized by the Federal Government moneys.  

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!


[ Parent ]
If only... (4.00 / 3)

 ...they'd use that logic with wars.

 I hate fundies.  

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn


[ Parent ]
*I* question Stupak's motives. (4.00 / 1)
Anyone evil enough to harp on abortion while doing nothing to curb unwanted pregnancies, improve adoption services, strengthen comprehensive sex education, or provide prenatal care for expectant mothers isn't acting in good faith.  Check this guy's record.  Has he done any of these things in addition to merely opposing abortion?  Does he oppose war and the death penalty?  If not, then all his bluster about protecting the sanctity of life is only a pack of lies designed to mask depraved indifference thereto.



[ Parent ]
You don't understand the "pro-life" philosophy... (4.00 / 5)
...it has nothing to do with babies... absolutely nothing.  This seems odd to us, since their marketing is entirely about "saving babies", but if you talk to their leaders, they could care less about babies.  That's not what its' about.  Saving babies is just marketing.

In short, the fundamental idea behind this philosophy is that the human reproductive organs are God's "special place" which cannot be tampered by humans in any way, shape or form.  It's a special "temple" of God as a vehicle to produce another life form.  Because of that, any tampering (i.e. abortion, contraception, playing with yourself) must be strictly forbidden.  That's why reasoned arguments about reducing unwanted pregnancies, contraception, child support after birth, women's health never work with them.  They don't care about the pregnancy part or what happens after birth.  Any attempt to prevent pregnancy is in violation of the "temple", and once the baby is born, it's outside the "temple" so who cares what happens to it.  All that matters is that the "temple" is preserved.  The child and mother are secondary.

Unfortunately, their fixation on this idea is so intense, that it's become almost cult-like.  In fact, I think it violates the second commandment prohibition of worship of idols.

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!


[ Parent ]
In the further reaches of the evangelical world, this temple doctrine may hold. (4.00 / 1)
But the evangelicalism that I am familiar with from my personal life is actually interested in the babies, more than the naughty parts.  The doctrine I was taught was that the soul is implanted in the body at conception, so fetuses and even blastocysts have souls, and if you abort them you are not only killing them, but you're preventing them from ever accepting Jesus, being baptized, etc, and so dooming them to eternal hellfire as well.  

The "do dead babies go to hell" question is controversial among evangelical churches, and some teach a divine mercy on those who never reached the age of awareness.  But there are certainly some who think the aborted babies are going to hell, and in my experience that was a primary motivator for an awful lot of them.  

The farther you get from mainline Christianity the more numerous and more bizzare are the beliefs.  There is no one evangelical doctrine past that point, and I don't deny that your "temple" people are out there too.  I do say that there is a healthy contingent that is actually obsessed with the babies, rather than the naughty parts, though.  Those are the ones that I knew.


[ Parent ]
If dead babies go to hell (4.00 / 1)
then why don't they practice infant baptism? That's the rational position, if you really do believe in such an inhuman doctrine.

But no one, really no one who truly cares about babies can believe it is a good thing to force them onto people against their will. Babies are absolutely helpless.

It just doesn't fit.



Montani semper liberi


[ Parent ]
Well, their beliefs about proper baptism are even more set in stone. (4.00 / 3)
They didn't name an entire sect the Baptists for nothing.  Baptism absolutely cannot be performed before the Age of Reason, which they've pushed down to about 7, if you'll believe it.

From what I've seen, they finesse the hell-for-children issue depending on the situation.  If your kid just died of leukemia, they'll give you a sunny cheer-up speech about divine mercy on the innocents.  If you're trying to walk into an abortion clinic, it's back to babies in hell.  The doctrine is extrapolated from the text so they get to go with what's convenient at the time.

The baptism doctrine is extremely clear though, at least to their minds.  No babies allowed.

What's more frustrating is that the soul-at-conception doctrine is, AFAIK, based only on some poetry in Psalms about "knit my bones together in the womb."  Not a lot of support for making it their single greatest political priority.


[ Parent ]
It's worse than that (4.00 / 1)
the only reference to abortion I've ever been able to find in scripture is in the Old Testament, where God offers to perform them personally on unfaithful wives.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
Most mainline christian doctrine is really hard to extract from the Bible (4.00 / 1)
The trinity hinges on a careful interpretation of a Greek verb tense that Jesus uses in a verse.  Not to mention how little hell of the devil is actually talked about, particularly since the Protestants decided to get rid of the Apocrypha, you know, the one book of the Bible that is actually focused on the Devil.

[ Parent ]
But in traditional Christianity (4.00 / 1)
the Bible is only one source of authority. In my church, for example, we rely on scripture, tradition and reason. No one of those by itself could be sufficient.

Throwing out tradition (not to mention reason) is one of the reasons the Religious Right is such an incoherent mess, theologically speaking.

Montani semper liberi


[ Parent ]
Fair (4.00 / 2)
But it should be repeatedly pointed out how a-Biblical the supposed Biblical literalists are.  The more Catholic/Orthodox your congregation gets, the more logical it is to be deviating from Bliblical text.  

But Catholics, Anglicans and Lutherans don't go running around talking about how the Bible is the one complete answer, or (for the most part) trying to use the Bible as a science textbook.


[ Parent ]
True. (0.00 / 0)
They are too busy worshipping the Bible to read it.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
Tradition? (0.00 / 0)
Give me a break. Respect for tradition underpins most of the vile things human beings do to each other.  

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."


[ Parent ]
Like I said (0.00 / 0)
no one of those elements is, by itself, sufficient.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
The viepooint I was presenting... (4.00 / 1)
...comes from communicating with hyper-Catholics... They have a particularly significant focus against contraception, which is less intense or absent in protestant denominations (although that is changing with many evangelicals starting to adopt a Catholic viewpoint on the issue).

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!


[ Parent ]
Aha. That would explain it. (4.00 / 1)
Purgatory and infant baptism go a long way towards solving the hell problem.  Evangelicals don't have either, and in my limited experience their minds are rather more seized by the problem of hell than Catholics'.  I never knew as many Catholics though.  This was East Texas.

[ Parent ]
Yeah, fear of hell isn't a big thing with Catholics.. (0.00 / 0)
...it's more about guilt for not meeting impossibly high expectations.

In the Jewish faith, the mention of hell is so downplayed it's practically nonexistent.

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!


[ Parent ]
Much like in the actual text of the bible :) (4.00 / 2)


[ Parent ]
If they cared about the babies (4.00 / 2)
they'd be protesting outside of the in vitro clinics rather than the abortion clinics.

Now, that doesn't necessarily mean that there is a difference between the leadership and rank and file on this (and I would argue that there definitely is).  But there is as much, if not more zygote massacuring at the in vitro clinics.


[ Parent ]
It's also about coersion (4.00 / 4)
Men having ownership over women's reproduction rights. This is pretty universal. Not just with Christian fundies.  

Save Our Schools! March & National Call to Action, July 28-31, 2011 in Washington, DC: http://www.saveourschoolsmarch...

[ Parent ]
It's only about coercion. (0.00 / 0)
No one who cares about babies forces them on people who don't want them.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
It's also about coersion (0.00 / 0)
Men having ownership over women's reproduction rights. This is pretty universal. Not just with Christian fundies.  

Save Our Schools! March & National Call to Action, July 28-31, 2011 in Washington, DC: http://www.saveourschoolsmarch...

[ Parent ]
I grew up in a right wing (4.00 / 1)
evangelical church, and while there's a range of different ways that people come to various degrees of opposition to abortion, I've never heard of "organs being God's sacred place".

In the abstract, the pro-life movement's philosophy is a strong, sustained and visceral reaction to using immediate self-gratification as the rubric for solving moral dilemnas.

In the '60s and the start of the "Awakening" as Strauss and Howe would call it, there were great movements for social equality for all citizens, from black and Hispanic Americans to Native Americans, from women to gays. The radical's demand was the inclusion of all groups equally in the system (and that the system itself would have to change to accommodate them). But at some point in the '70s, the pressures of the time began to change that to a demand to break away from the system itself, either through Black Power, the Indian rebellion, feminist claims of "artificial constructs of gender", and a general argument made by the New Left that nothing was normative. We had gone from the utopianism of the Old Left to the dystopian (and sometimes Nihilistic) New Left, where narrow individualism was the arbiter of moral decision-making. And you see that in the language of the more extreme pro-choicers, who consider abortion to simply be a choice of medical procedures. The abortion equation has two variables, the woman, and the child, but the Me decade allowed some to simply ignore the aspect of the child, declare it a reproductive rights issue, and march on their merry way.

The New Right beat us to that kind of thinking by a few years on the question of morality in economic equality and empowerment (economic democracy), when the writings of Friedman and Rand (et al) caught fire, and the Goldwater movement began to take over the Republican party. Taxes, regulation, and the re-distribution of wealth were considered an assualt on personal freedom...an outrageous and malicious attempt to suffocate self-expression and self-fulfillment.

Change takes place slowly, and so it took several years before this kind of reasoning won a large following. But by the early '80s, it was large enough to cause big counter-reactions in American society: amongst mostly social conservatives, the rallying cry against the new individualism was the pro-life movement. For mostly social liberals, the rallying cry against the new individualism was against Reaganomics, yuppies, and Wall Street greed.

If we had good leadership, like an FDR, or Truman, or even an Eisenhower, those issues would have been settled then and there. But we didn't, and instead both political parties learned how to use cultural issues like abortion for electoral prowess, and the subsequent divisions allowed the Establishment thru Reagan & Clinton to make the economic side of the new individualism the dominant Ruling Principle. Meanwhile, the cultural discussion became stagnant to the extreme, picked up some very weird groups on both sides (not to imply that there are just two sides), and everybody started using that to demonize each other.

And here we are! Years later, tossing out ridiculous caricatures of each other, while the economic Establishment masturbates in its own wealth, even as the country slides into Third World status for more and more of us.

Ain't that America, you and me, somethin' to see baby!

As an aside, I think you do stumble on one thing: the concept of the "saintly proletariat" seems to be back in favor amonst some on the left (who idolize immigrants and illegal immigrants)and some on the right (who find the unborn equally wholesome and pure...to the point they want to save my sperm). And you may be partially right, that to a small (yet still too large) degree, maybe we don't really want to help them, we just want to use them as invective against each other.


[ Parent ]
The Religious Right (4.00 / 3)
was born from the ashes of Jim Crow.

Having lost the fight to keep African Americans in their place, the Right retreated to its racially segregated "Bible schools" to lick its wounds and figure out how to pick a fight it could win this time.

They chose women and gays, and the Culture War was born.

But a funny thing happened, they didn't win this fight, either.


Montani semper liberi


[ Parent ]
Well if that's true (0.00 / 0)
it's sure moved a helluva long way:

http://www.cbn.com/spiritualli...

You might be right that the civil rights movement was a provateur for the religous right. But I would be surprised if it was a major one, as 1) the civil rights movement itself had a strong religous element to it, 2) none of the RR's demands ever involved race, and 3) what about the the religous right in the North, Midwest, and so forth, and what about the broad swath of conservatives outside the religous right. I don't mean to paint the RR as innocent do-gooders, and I'm sure they reflected the attitudes of their time and place...I'm just not sure they were motivated by racism.

So I think it had less to do with race, and more to do with prayer in schools, abortion, etc. And you know, Sadie I'm sure you would agree, that a considerable part of it was originally out of objections to greater opportunities for women...an expanded role for women in society, such as professional careers, etc. I'm not going to disagree with that. But the reaction to abortion was different, and largely for the reason I describe above. And that's why, over 35 years later, the RR is still against abortion, and much of the rest of America has moderate opinions on it...even as things like resistance to women in the workplace has all but vanished.


[ Parent ]
The civil rights movement (4.00 / 2)
grew out of the normal church, not the Religious Right.

If you really don't know about the history, you should start here:

http://www.thenation.com/doc/2...

Here's a sample

But for Falwell, the "questions of the day" did not always relate to abortion and homosexuality--nor did they begin there. Decades before the forces that now make up the Christian right declared their culture war, Falwell was a rabid segregationist who railed against the civil rights movement from the pulpit of the abandoned backwater bottling plant he converted into Thomas Road Baptist Church. This opening episode of Falwell's life, studiously overlooked by his friends, naïvely unacknowledged by many of his chroniclers, and puzzlingly and glaringly omitted in the obituaries of the Washington Post and New York Times, is essential to understanding his historical significance in galvanizing the Christian right. Indeed, it was race--not abortion or the attendant suite of so-called "values" issues--that propelled Falwell and his evangelical allies into political activism.


Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
I didn't say it grew out of the RR (0.00 / 0)
The particular point I was making there was that the CRM itself had heavily religous tones, and so that would tend to be a connection point, not a repellant, for social conservatives who might one day be a part of the RR.

And what you refer to in your quote is Falwell; I wouldn't use that to judge an entire movement. Again, I'm sure the rank and file had the prejudices of their time-and I'm not trying to diminish that-but that's a lot different than saying they were motivated by race to form a movement. Those are completely separate things.

And I say that as someone who grew up in the RR in the '70s and '80s, and knew people from the Deep South. They didn't hate blacks, although I do think some were probably afraid of them.


[ Parent ]
You didn't read the article. (0.00 / 0)
Anti-civil rights is how the Religious Rights got its start, and it is the basis of the movement to this day.

The only thing that has changed is the target, from blacks to women and gays.

Montani semper liberi


[ Parent ]
I did read it (0.00 / 0)
and I'm telling you that its not accurate. To say that racism is "the basis of the [religous right] today" is so stupendously off the mark, quite frankly it saps your credibility.

I think we all have a lot of leeway in how we come up with our opinions, but we can't just make stuff up.


[ Parent ]
"Not accurate." (0.00 / 0)
And I take it you are a historian of late twentieth century American political movements?

I don't think so. I think you are someone who grew up brainwashed by this stuff and can't see it for what it is.

Luckily the rest of us can.

Montani semper liberi


[ Parent ]
No, I'm someone who lived the actual events (0.00 / 0)
and knew the people.

There is a lot you can criticize them for; but being motivated by racism is not one of them. As it was, the church I remember actually held several joint sessions with a black church in Oakcliff (Dallas) in 1981-1982. And trust me, our church was very conservative and very insular.

That insularity is a big part of what drove me away in my late teens. I realized these people were afraid to engage with the larger world because then they might have to change their worldview, or at least part of it. And it was a lot easier, and there was much more short-term satisfaction, to simply cloak that fear in self-righteous condemnations of everyone else. I got sick of that cowardice...I wanted to at least try and find the truth, not hide in fear behind half-truths & lies.

But I've learned that liberals and lefty's have our own insularity.
 


[ Parent ]
Can't settle this (4.00 / 1)
Unfortunately, it boils down to a belief that abortion is murder.  Not murder in quotes but really murder. And probably contraception is murder but that becomes less of a sure thing and more statistical.

Reducing the number of murders is not something that effects the argument.  Nor does the notion of the quality of life of the chld or the mother.  Nor does the idea that God gives people free choic and murder or lots of other sins may be wrong but they are certainly the choice of human beings.

Big issues often can't be settled.  It is not sort of a slavery but no slavery.  It is not a weakly enforced prohibition but no prohibition (except for some counties in Texas and parts of the "bush" of Alaska).  It is not limited abortion but ... we shall see.

And these folks care as little about the legal rights of Roe v. Wade as anti-slavery folks cared about Dredd Scott.


[ Parent ]
But they don't really believe that. (4.00 / 3)
If they did, they would call for the death penalty for women who get abortions.

They know it's not murder, they just call it that in an attempt to claim the moral high ground.

Montani semper liberi


[ Parent ]
How do you know what all of those people believe? (4.00 / 1)
You got some kind of psychic powers?

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."


[ Parent ]
Where are they calling (0.00 / 0)
for the death penalty for women who get abortions? Got a link for that?

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
Point is this: you tend to paint some folks with a very broad brush (0.00 / 0)
Holding every single person with whom you have a problem as a "believer" of the same warped religious views you despise.

Show me the link that proves all christain fundies beliver what you claim they believe.

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."


[ Parent ]
Rightwingers believe in the death penalty. (0.00 / 0)
Yes or no?

Yes. They are the only ones who support the death penalty. They believe that the penalty for murder should be death.

Therefore, if forced childbirthers (a sub-species of rightwingers) actually believed abortion was murder, they would call for the death penalty.

The fact that they do not is a tell, it means they know damn well abortion is not murder.

They like to bandy around the word murder to cover for the fact that their position is, in effect, state-sanctioned rape.

Montani semper liberi


[ Parent ]
Maybe they are just biding their time (0.00 / 0)
Democrats are not the only ones that practice incrementalism.

But, I suppose you know better and I should just be quiet.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."


[ Parent ]
And, in fact, they don't even call for the death penalty for the doctors (0.00 / 0)
who, in this picture, would be "contract killers"

[ Parent ]
I'd rec twice if i could (0.00 / 0)


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."


[ Parent ]
So you are a forced childbirther, too? (0.00 / 0)
Good to know.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
Nope (0.00 / 0)
and please stop using name calling as substitute for rational argument.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."


[ Parent ]
There is no rational argument (0.00 / 0)
to be had with people who believe they have the right to commandeer someone else's body for their own purposes. It's simply not a rational position.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
Please show me where I support (0.00 / 0)
what you claim I support.

Where do I express a wish to claim the "right to commandeer someone else's body for their own purposes."


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."


[ Parent ]
Yes you are being very passive aggressive it's true. (0.00 / 0)
But you are consistently weighing in in defense of the forced childbirthers.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
I disagree that all of those you claim are "forced childbirthers" (4.00 / 1)
are actually supporting that position. You continue to insist that I am supporting that position, yet offer little more than your contention that such is the case.

Having this discussion with you is like arguing with fundamentalists, ultimately the argument comes down to: "I know more about what you are saying than you do, so just take my word for it: you support what I disdain."



"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."


[ Parent ]
Forced childbirthers (0.00 / 0)
do not support forced childbirth.

Umm okay.

Walking away from the crazy man now . . .

Montani semper liberi


[ Parent ]
Your logic is flawless (0.00 / 0)
Yet, fact free. I still see no evidence, other than your contention, that I support taking over other people's bodies to serve my own purposes. Care to offer some?  


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."


[ Parent ]
Motives? (4.00 / 2)
He's a forced childbirther. What is lower than that?

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
People who use loaded terms to label their opponents (4.00 / 1)
so that they can write them off without any thought required are not much better.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."


[ Parent ]
ED treatment should be banned from any healthcare reform bill (4.00 / 3)
because who needs erections???

In general (4.00 / 2)
I don't like tit for tat, but how would they like it if ED treatment were put in the same boat as reproductive freedom?

What if it were available only at stand-alone clinics, often a day's drive or more from where men lived, and they had to run a gauntlet of protesters to get to them? Not to mention having to worry about the clinic being blown up, or their doctors being shot. What if pharmacists could, without warning, without fear of punishment, simply refuse to fill their prescriptions whenever they wanted to?

I don't think they would like it.

Montani semper liberi


[ Parent ]
Stupak's a nut... (4.00 / 4)
He really is.  He's a great progressive on every issue (especially the environment) except for guns and abortion.  The guns thing makes sense 'cos he's from Michigan's upper peninsula, I guess he must be a staunch Catholic or something, 'cos his views on abortion are significantly at odds with his other progressive views.

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!


AFAIK he's an evangelical, (4.00 / 2)
given that he lived at the C Street house with Ensign and Coburn and Zach Wamp and co.  The Family/The Fellowship is a distinctly evangelical organization; I don't think that serious Catholics would care for it, though I've been surprised before.

[ Parent ]
A creepy cultist! (4.00 / 1)
Even better.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
The Family (4.00 / 2)
Have'nt read all comments, but Stupak is a member of The Family and as such he is committed to that side of the aisle.  He is a religious nut who poses as a Democrat.   I hope that he is primaried and is ousted soon.  He is good on the environment, but that is all.  He is a disgrace.  

So, Stupak is up for reelection... (4.00 / 1)
How about a primary challenge?

Or organizing to deny him donations and campaign workers?

Or cutting a scary black and white  ad, or two?

Why let this regressive DINO off easy?


The Abortion Lobby Always Gets What It Wants (0.00 / 0)
Why are some willing to kill a bill over publicly funded abortions, but not the non-robust, non-public, "robust", "public" option? If this bill were really worth supporting shouldn't we want to bring as many self-decribed pro-lifers on board as possible?

I am totally in favor of health care reform.
I am diametrically opposed to health insurance reform.


Maybe we could add a union-busting clause, too! (4.00 / 2)
let's rogroll the Chamber of Commerce onto the bill, too!  Perhaps we could attach an Iran War resolution, and get it up to 90 votes in the Senate!

[ Parent ]
Healthcare Is A Pro-Life Issue (0.00 / 0)
Neither union-busting clauses nor Iran War resolutions will bring pro-lifers to our side.  

I am totally in favor of health care reform.
I am diametrically opposed to health insurance reform.


[ Parent ]
Bringing people that would rather (4.00 / 3)
that women die from Ectopic pregnancies than endanger a blastocyst are not pro-life in any meaningful sense.

[ Parent ]
Maybe, But (0.00 / 0)
It should never be an issue that would kill a healthcare bill- unless publicly-funded abortions are more important than chemotherapy for cancer patients.


I am totally in favor of health care reform.
I am diametrically opposed to health insurance reform.


[ Parent ]
Why is death from cancer (4.00 / 1)
worse than from an ectopic pregnancy? Have you ever seen what happens with an ectopic pregnancy?

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
Funding Abortions With Public Money (0.00 / 0)
How many women are there with ectopic pregnancies every year? How many people are going without chemotherapy every year? Abortion creates a lot of loyal constituencies, but it is not the majoritarian issue that healthcare is.

I am totally in favor of health care reform.
I am diametrically opposed to health insurance reform.


[ Parent ]
Morality is not a matter of majoritarianism. (0.00 / 0)
The people who are letting cancer patients die are the same ones who let women with ectopic pregnancies die.

I don't know why you think they are your friends, or ever will be, but they are welcome to your sorry ass.

Montani semper liberi


[ Parent ]
When Has The Pro-Abortion Lobby Compromised? (0.00 / 0)
Environmentalists, populists, civil libertarians, poor people, medicare recipients, teachers, union workers, social security recipients, pro-peace supports, etc... all are forced to make concessions.

I am totally in favor of health care reform.
I am diametrically opposed to health insurance reform.


[ Parent ]
Cause Abortion Is: (4.00 / 3)
an easilyavailable medical procedure for those who need or want it

-has generous subsidies for the poor

-regulated to protect women from improper/incompetent procedures, not to make it more difficult to get

Seriously, on what planet do you spend most of your time?


[ Parent ]
A Comment About The Political Priorities Of The Democratic Party Is Hurting So Many Feelings (0.00 / 0)
Your comment has nothing to do with what I am talking about.

I am totally in favor of health care reform.
I am diametrically opposed to health insurance reform.


[ Parent ]
My Point (4.00 / 4)
Was that pro-choice advocates have compromised a lot over the past 35 years, and thanks to the Hyde Amendment abortion is already not funded (which hurts poor women), so this proposal is an attempt to force us to compromise on a compromise

[ Parent ]
"Abortion Lobby"? (4.00 / 2)
Concern troll is concerned.

[ Parent ]
Why Are Economic Populists Always Given The Backhand? (0.00 / 0)
I am glad that you recognize that I am trying to make a deeper point about who has a voice in the democratic party and who doesn't.

I am totally in favor of health care reform.
I am diametrically opposed to health insurance reform.


[ Parent ]
Since when does (4.00 / 2)
anti-choice = economic populism?

You want to sacrifice the health and well-being of over 50% of our country to play kissy face with Republicans? Forget that?

Montani semper liberi


[ Parent ]
You Misunderstood That Comment And My Original Comment (0.00 / 0)
Some economic populists are pro-life and some are not. As a constituency, their concerns seem to not be as important as the pro-abortion (I do that on purpose. It stimulates debate.) crowd.

I am totally in favor of health care reform.
I am diametrically opposed to health insurance reform.


[ Parent ]
Given that their (0.00 / 0)
number one concern is keeping people like me in our place, no, I have to say that is not terribly important to me.

Besides, there is no such thing as rightwing populism, really. It's just a ruse for the suckers.

Montani semper liberi


[ Parent ]
Why Do Economic Populists- (4.00 / 5)
-like to throw women/minorities/gays under a bus?

Or rather, why are you trying to hide behind economic populism in your effort to force women to give birth?


[ Parent ]
Bingo. (0.00 / 0)
we have a winner.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
Moderator, It Might Get Ugly (2.00 / 2)
Why does the pro-abortion lobby like to throw poor people/minorities/gays/hourly workers/kids/enlisted military personnel/veterans/small business owners under the bus?

How much money has the pro-abortion lobby given to Mary Landrieu?

I am totally in favor of health care reform.
I am diametrically opposed to health insurance reform.


[ Parent ]
Mary Landrieu???!!! (4.00 / 2)
Now, THERE'S an economic populist!  A progressive crusader, she.

[ Parent ]
You're Not Serious (0.00 / 0)
 

I am totally in favor of health care reform.
I am diametrically opposed to health insurance reform.


[ Parent ]
Bob Casey, Jr (0.00 / 0)
A pro-life politician who has been a surprisingly good senator in his 2+ years in office and received heavy support from the Abortion Lobby.  Pro-choice groups have also near-unanimously supported Democratic politicians over Republican politicians.

I'd also like you to present a case where a pro-choice group of legislators spiked a bill that would have benefited the groups you mentioned.  Otherwise, you're comparing apples to tang


[ Parent ]
The Democratic Party Is Dysfunctional (0.00 / 0)
Why is there no card check in EFCA?

I am totally in favor of health care reform.
I am diametrically opposed to health insurance reform.


[ Parent ]
The Democratic Party Is Dysfunctional (4.00 / 2)
Why don't I have a pony?

I was promised a pony.


[ Parent ]
Daddy won't save you. (0.00 / 0)
First rule of holes, when you're in one, stop digging.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
So, Why Haven't You Stopped Digging? (0.00 / 0)
You've already claimed that publicly-funded abortions are more important than chemotherapy. Are you now going to join your friend in claiming that Mary Landrieu is a populist?

I am totally in favor of health care reform.
I am diametrically opposed to health insurance reform.


[ Parent ]
Wow (4.00 / 2)
I was shocked to see this post generated many comments.  I hadn't realized that abortion was controversial at Open Left.  I never would have guessed.

Very sad.


It Has More To Do With The Democratic Party Being Dysfunctional (0.00 / 0)
Abortion is not a majoritarian issue while healthcare should be.

I am totally in favor of health care reform.
I am diametrically opposed to health insurance reform.


[ Parent ]
I'm going to guess that you're ovaryless (4.00 / 2)


[ Parent ]
I'm Going To Guess That You're Testeless (0.00 / 0)
 

I am totally in favor of health care reform.
I am diametrically opposed to health insurance reform.


[ Parent ]
It's not the lack of ovaries (2.67 / 3)
that's your problem, it's the lack of a heart.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
bang downrating people he doesn't like (0.00 / 0)
I won't retaliate, but I will up-vote anyone who unfairly gets the 0 from him.

[ Parent ]
This Is Revealing (4.00 / 2)
Having Ovaries = Being directly affected by this issue; so being accused of lacking them is a way of saying "you're not affected by this, you won't fully understand / you don't have as much at stake"

Accusing someone of not having testes, aka having ovaries, is a way of implying that because you are affected by this issue, you're too emotional to rationally analyze it.  It was probably not a conscious implication, but your subconscious can reveal a lot about you


[ Parent ]
If you must know, I"m a queer male. (4.00 / 2)


[ Parent ]
Don't Really Care (0.00 / 0)
It shouldn't have been an issue. My argument is politics not policy.

I am totally in favor of health care reform.
I am diametrically opposed to health insurance reform.


[ Parent ]
Only you're moving on policy for political reasons (4.00 / 2)
in a way that clearly screws over a group that kind of forms a core constituency for Democrats.

[ Parent ]
Healthcare Is Not A Democratic Issue (0.00 / 0)
It's a majoritarian issue.

I am totally in favor of health care reform.
I am diametrically opposed to health insurance reform.


[ Parent ]
So are abortion rights (4.00 / 2)


[ Parent ]
We Are Almost There (0.00 / 0)
If we can support mandates, then we can support cutting funding for publicly-funded abortions.

I am totally in favor of health care reform.
I am diametrically opposed to health insurance reform.


[ Parent ]
Lost your logic (0.00 / 0)
What do "mandates" have to do with "cutting funding for publically funded abortions"?  


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."


[ Parent ]
I think I've figured it out (4.00 / 1)
bang is a radical utilitarian, and has concluded that abortion funding affects only those women who hae abortions, and that this is a smaller number than are affected by things like the mandate or chemotherapy or whatever, and therefore, we should be indifferent to abortion in the face of these other things, and is ignoring a whole lot of ancillary problems with such a position.

I think.


[ Parent ]
Selfishness, Narrow Mindedness (0.00 / 0)
Publicly-funded abortions should never be a reason to deny thousands, if not millions, of people from getting their chemotherapy.

I am totally in favor of health care reform.
I am diametrically opposed to health insurance reform.


[ Parent ]
You're pushing an idiotic false dichotomy (4.00 / 1)
the anti-abortion crap is a ruse.  The people that support it don't want any publicly funded heatlthcare at all.  Not to mention that you are hardly anyone to say what someone else's rights should be.

The point of what they are doing is to make it harder for private plans to cover abortion and contraception.  The point would to be putting a block on any subsidy going that way at all.  It's an effort to defund women's health, which is getting shut down at an alarmingly increasing rate.  The right wingers have managed to literally close down an abortion clinic through murder, and we're sitting here pretending that we can negotiate with them.


[ Parent ]
The Abortion Lobby Wants Us To Believe That Billy Graham Was A Republican (0.00 / 0)
The problem with partisans is that they always equate someone who's not totally in line with their orthodoxy as a member of the other party. The abortion lobby thinks that all pro-choicers vote democratic.

I am totally in favor of health care reform.
I am diametrically opposed to health insurance reform.


[ Parent ]
I don't think its that simple (0.00 / 0)
But yours is as good a description as possible.

I try to avoid utilitarian approaches to my fellow human beings.

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."


[ Parent ]
Both Are Compromises (0.00 / 0)
The pro-abortion lobby wants to force compromises on the rest of us, but it won't make any concessions of any kind.

I am totally in favor of health care reform.
I am diametrically opposed to health insurance reform.


[ Parent ]
You don't know what you are talking about (0.00 / 0)
the NOW isn't the one that puts the mandates in the bill.  And if you had a real pubic option, which anyone could actually buy into, it would be horrifically ineffective policy without a mandate.  

Why aren't you pissed about the Wyden amendment getting killed, rather than mandates?  And, really, why are you making this strained and smug argument about abortion?  


[ Parent ]
Women Are Going To Suffer (0.00 / 0)
The abortion lobby supports a bill without a "real public option."

I am totally in favor of health care reform.
I am diametrically opposed to health insurance reform.


[ Parent ]
Also, you were talking about this in terms of political expediency (4.00 / 4)
Blowing up the Democratic coalition is not politically expedient for any of the people involved in writing this bill.  

[ Parent ]
The Democratic Party Is Dysfunctional (0.00 / 0)
The democratic party thinks that the abortion lobby is the entire coalition.

I am totally in favor of health care reform.
I am diametrically opposed to health insurance reform.


[ Parent ]
What legislation have the Democrats pushed on abortion in, (4.00 / 1)
I don't know, THE LAST TWENTY YEARS?  What the hell are you actually complaining about?

[ Parent ]
You Lie!* (4.00 / 2)
Firstly, women make up the majority of the population.

More concretely, from a May Gallup poll with less favorable numbers than later polls, '56% say abortions should be "legal under certain circumstances," 26% say "legal under any," and 18% say "illegal in all."'

*Actually you just might be ignorant, but new meme is new


[ Parent ]
Publicly Funded Abortions (0.00 / 0)
"legal under certain circumstances,"

Give me the chemotherapy.

I am totally in favor of health care reform.
I am diametrically opposed to health insurance reform.


[ Parent ]
Already Illegal (4.00 / 2)
Sadly, it is already illegal to use federal funds to help poor women.  So your point is moot.

[ Parent ]
I Haven't Made My Point Yet, But We Are Getting Closer (0.00 / 0)
If that's the case then this amendment shouldn't be so controversial.

I am totally in favor of health care reform.
I am diametrically opposed to health insurance reform.


[ Parent ]
It's Another Way (4.00 / 2)
Of forcing pro-choice advocates to make concession after concession after concession.  Abortion rights and access has deteriorated in this country over the past 35 years, with the Cahart II ruling being the most disgusting example.  Regardless of the symbolic-ness of the amendment (Chris' description implies that it would be even more draconian than Hyde), it would be yet another instance of giving away the cows to save the farm.

Personally, I think we should include amendments preventing people being treated with federal funds from owning firearms, having the right to organize, or using contraception.  Hey, Health Care is a Majoritarian Issue, which means shut-up and do as I command.

Bring me my ponies!!


[ Parent ]
We Might Have Arrived At My Point (0.00 / 0)
Why did the pro-abortion lobby help force mandates on the uninsured?

I am totally in favor of health care reform.
I am diametrically opposed to health insurance reform.


[ Parent ]
Really? (4.00 / 3)
You're going to, with a straight face, argue that it's the "abortion lobby's" fault that the health care bill might have individual mandates that aren't coupled with the appropriate subsidies?  No, it's not the tons of money pouring into the coffers of "centrist" Democrats, nor the intense political pressure put on the Democrats by incredibly powerful corporate groups.  It's not the actions of Harry Reid, Max Baucus, and Kent Conrad (2 of whom, btw, are pro-life) that have jeopardized affordable universal coverage.

It's those damn dirty women and their obsession with controlling their own uteruses.  Damn them, if only they had endorsed massive subsidies for.... wait, Planned Parenthood did that? .  Oh, well, uh, they didn't do enough!  They should have pushed for single payer and... wait, NOW did that?  As recently as this September?

Oh well, I'm sure it's the abortion lobby's fault somehow


[ Parent ]
THe Pro-Abortion Lobby Gets What It Wants (0.00 / 0)
The pro-abortion lobby supported and still supports a bad bill as long as its pet issue isn't touched.

I am totally in favor of health care reform.
I am diametrically opposed to health insurance reform.


[ Parent ]
I remember the primary wars. (4.00 / 1)
It's sad but when it comes to women and women's issues, we have some knuckle-draggers among us.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
We cannot let this bill die because of abortion (0.00 / 0)
Just give these guys what they want on abortion and pass the bill.  

Did you read the post? (4.00 / 3)
The haters do not have the votes.

Nice to know you would sacrifice me, though, thanks.

Montani semper liberi


[ Parent ]
yeah I know right (4.00 / 1)
let the guys have what they want & keep on restricting our healthcare.  I mean, it's not like we are fighting for quality healthcare for everyone.  Obviously reproductive freedom is just a throw away.

[ Parent ]
We should just shut up (0.00 / 0)
and fix them a sandwich.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
In Which I Godwin The Thread (4.00 / 2)
Thanks Neville Chamberlain, we'll be sure to give your advice the attention it deserves.

[ Parent ]
Choice (4.00 / 2)
As a guy who is actually quasi-sympathetic to the pro-life, let me explain to the less enlightened why choice is the only reasonable option once you think it through.

#1 A single cell is not a human being.

One or two fertilized cells give us the quantum physics of morality.  If you let the cell divide and grow, you get (one or more) human beings.  If you kill the cell, you do not.

However, if you have two cells joined together, you can kill one and still get a person.  If you don't kill one, you also get a human.  Sometimes the cells separate, in which case you get two humans: identical twins.  If you then kill one cell, you get one less human.

So killing a single cell can either prevent a human from being born, or not, depending upon how the cells are connected.

Obviously, this is not a human early on in the pregnancy.  Humanness develops slowly over time.

#2 Roe v. Wade

Roe v. Wade divides up the pregnancy into three trimesters and treats each separately.  In my entirely non-legal opinion, you can think of this as

First trimester: fetus is not a human
Second trimester: fetus is somewhat human
Third trimester: fetus is human, but in a special situation

There is no need to overturn Row v. Wade to get the correct morality.

#3 The fetus and mother are co-joined

Sometimes identical twins don't fully separate and we get co-joined twins, or "Siamese twins".  When this happens, the parents are at times forced to make a terrible decision, as the two might share a heart or other vital organs.  Sometimes, one can be sacrificed to let the other live.  Everyone understands such decisions are horrible and no one believes a government bureaucrat should get in the way of such terrible choices.

A pregnant woman is in a similar situation with her unborn child.  I agree that a child a few days before birth is morally every bit as much a human being as one a few days after.  However, the association with the mother is completely different.  The health of one directly effects the health of the other.

Sometimes medical emergencies come up and the mother's life is put at risk due to the unborn baby.  When this happens, it is sometimes necessary to abort the child in order to save the baby.  Sometimes these decisions have to be made very quickly, therefor it is imperative that the mother, doctor and family have the law firmly on their side.  Anything that slows down the medical determination could be health threatening.

So let me make this abundantly clear in the more moral language I can muster up.  If my wife or daughter become pregnant and some medical emergency comes up in the third trimester, there is no fucking way I'm letting anyone sacrifice the woman I love for some theoretical morality or government bureaucracy.  No lawfully required grand gesture to attempt to save the unborn will be tolerated if it risks my loved one.  If my loved one begs I might concede (I might have no choice), but no one else gets a say.

#4 Free Society

In a free society we have to let individuals make the hard choices in the complexity of their own lives.  We have to accept we will not agree with all those choices.  Many people make decisions every day I disagree with, abortions make up only a small sliver of that.  But have no right to make those decisions for them and nor does anyone else.

Abortions these days are actually difficult to get in some cases.  A year or so back I read a case where a woman expecting twins ran into complications.  One was dying but the other was healthy.  If the dying one was extracted the other could live, but once the unhealthy one died nature would abort both.  She desperately wanted those children and would do anything to save the one she could.

Guess what, abortions could not be performed in her hospital.  Only a clinic many miles away could do it, and they didn't have all the other medical equipment or expertise required.  Although they tried, the baby died and nature aborted both before they could perform the necessary operation.

This is what happens when you don't treat people as adults.  Once you think it all through, the only side that makes any sense whatsoever is pure choice.


The problem here is with (0.00 / 0)
the word "think." Forced childbirthers don't think.

They don't have to because they know already that women are sinful and evil, eager to kill our children the first chance we get unless men step in to prevent it.

You cannot reason with people like this, they are crazy.

Montani semper liberi


[ Parent ]
Sweet Jesus (0.00 / 0)
did I say crazy? I mean CRAZY.

Look what Digby found:

http://amygdalagf.blogspot.com...

Montani semper liberi


[ Parent ]
The Regressive Block | 178 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox