Look at that, Obama went on FOX News after all, as it was reported he would! I guess I was right, White House denials don't exactly hold a lot of water.
Anyway, on the substance of the interview (almost had to link to FOXNews.com there), there was nothing spectacular except improving FOX's ratings, although there is a nit I want to pick with him and members of Congress over the Stupak and Hyde amendments.
GARRETT: Will you sign legislation on health care that includes the Stupak language?
OBAMA: You know, I think that there is a balance to be achieved that is consistent with the Hyde amendment -- what existed before we reformed health care.
I believe in the basic idea that federal dollars shouldn't pay for abortions. But I also think we shouldn't restrict women's choices, so, I think there's some negotiations going on, not just on the Democratic side, but I think among people of good will on both sides, to see if we can arrive at something that meets that criteria and I'm confident we can do that.
This goal- essentially, we should use Hyde as our baseline and if we get back to that, all is well- was repeated by Sen. Boxer immediately after the Stupak vote:
This amendment is unfair and discriminatory toward women. It singles them out as a group and would deny women access to a legal medical procedure by dictating what a woman can do with her own private funds. We've had a compromise in place for decades that has been fair. Anything that disrupts that compromise is a huge step back for women.
What I question is why that is our goal. I understand that as an organizing mechanism, if I'm trying to defeat Stupak, I should reassure colleagues that the pre-Stupak bill won't change Hyde to get them to vote against Stupak. Fine. But there's a difference between that and endorsing Hyde as a great, sacred compromise in the public realm. Here's what they should be saying instead: "you know, Major, I think the Hyde amendment is a terrible restriction on the rights of women. But the health care reform bill without the Stupak amendment will NOT affect existing Hyde regulations." Period.
This is an opportunity to talk about how restrictive Hyde is, not endorse it, and no one is taking advantage of it- not our national pro-choice organizations, not many of the most pro-choice members of Congress. I'm not saying the votes are there to repeal Hyde. I am saying this is an opportunity to explain to Americans around the country how screwed up women's reproductive health for a huge percentage of the workforce. I didn't even know the entire federal workforce, their families, military personnel, and women in DC are denied coverage under Hyde until this vote happened. It's also an opportunity to educate the views of pro-choice members of Congress, because as Rep. DeGette told Paul Rosenberg, referring to her colleagues, "So they thought, 'Well if this is just Hyde, then no big deal.'" That is crazy that even pro-choice members of Congress would think that.
We have some work to do, and endorsing Hyde as acceptable should not be the goal.
Fundraising Note: Open Left's incredibly not heavy-handed fundraiser continues, with this brief reminder as I bring you an example of one new aspect of our site, ongoing interview-based reporting on current political developments and their deeper backgrounds. You can DONATE HERE before reading, and feel even better about what you're about to read, knowing you've just helped make more of the same possible well into the new year ahead. We're now over $14,000, enough to take us through mid-April. Our goal is $18,000, enough to take us through late May. This is not a lot of money in the grand scheme of things. If you think progressive infrastructure is important, that's a lot of bang for the buck. If you don't think progressive infrastructure is important, then you're probably reading the wrong blog.After passage of the Stupak-Pitts Amendment and the House Health Care Reform bill, Congresswoman Diana DeGette, Democratic Deputy Whip and Co-chair of the Pro-Choice Caucus, announced she had sent a letter to Speaker Pelosi signed by over 40 members saying they would not support a final bill with Stupak's language in it. While the controversy over Stupak's Amendment had ebbed and swelled this week, DeGette's letter remains a firm backstop to all other efforts to remove Stupak's language... if one believes that its signers will stick by their guns. So Open Left decided to ask her for her view of how things developed, leading to her drafting and circulating the letter, and why it should be taken seriously. We also asked about her closely-related concern for stem-cell research. Not just a leading congressional advocate, she's the author of Sex, Science, and Stem Cells: Inside the Right Wing Assault on Reason.
Open Left:As co-chair of the Pro-Choice Caucus, what's your explanation of how Stupak-Pitts caught people by surprise?
Congresswoman Diana DeGette: What happened was Bart really moved the goal post, because in the Energy and Commerce Committee in the summer he offered several of his amendments and we defeated all of them. So after that he said that he demendad that the Speaker allow him to offer his amendment on the floor, although he wasn't clear which one. When the bill came up and he said that if he was not allowed to offer his amendment, then he would have 40 votes against the rule. So we went out and very industriously got enough votes to pass the rule. And so the Speaker said, 'You know we've got the votes to pass the rule. So I'm not going to support your amendment being in order.'
Then he said, this was like last Thursday or Friday, at the 11th hour, she said 'We've got the votes the votes for the rule, and it's not going to be in order,' and he said, 'Well, fine, if you don't include my amendment in the rule to bring the bill to the floor, then we're all going to vote against the bill. So he sifted the goal post. And what happened was-and the way it would have worked is that his language would have been a part of the rule to bring the bill to the floor, so all of us would have had to vote for it. We would have all had to vote for the biggest expansion of retrictins on a woman's right to choose in our lifetime.
Open Left:Was it just that he had never indicated that he might do that before and people just weren't expecting it, or...
Congresswoman DeGette: Right. Right. No, no, I mean, he's a Democrat, so we did what we needed to do and then he shifted, so he had never threatened to do that before. And so then the Speaker said to him, she said 'We're not going to give you your amendment in the rule. He said, 'Fine, we're just going to vote against the bill.'
I saw too, she was looking at the votes she had for final passage, and if they didn't vote for it, the bill would have died. So she said, 'Okay, I'll give you your amendment on the floor.' Which the pro-choice caucus said, 'We're not going to vote for a rule that contains this awful language.' And so when she said, 'I'll put it on the floor,' we said, 'Fine, we'll just fight against the amendment.'
I think a couple of things happened. Number one, a lot of people did not realize that this wasn't just Hyde, because Congressman Stupak unto this day keeps saying he's just putting Hyde in there. But this is unprecedented, because now it says people with their own money-either in the exchange or the public option--cannot buy insurance policies that buy abortion. So that's a expansion.
Hyde says that no federal funding. Somehow he thinks that if there's public money and private money, that then the private money's tainted by the public money. So, that's not in current law.
Open Left:So do you believe that that confusion is what accounts for the margin that he was able to win on?
Legally, Act Blue can't operate on a state level in Colorado as current law prohibits an intermediary transfer of funds. So, I created what's known in Colorado as a Small Donor Committee. In the works for almost a year, finally the i's are all dotted; the t's are all crossed. The SquareState Small Donor Committee is here.
We've done pontificating, pointed out the failed policies of the extreme right wing, mobilized voters, coordinated grassroots action, and even fundraised for federal races. It's time to help those local candidates we want to see in office in our somewhat square state. Let's show (current CO-GOP chair)Dick Wadhams that this isn't the same state the last time he was here. All the progress made in the last few years, we're just getting started.
After passage of the Stupak-Pitts Amendment and the House Health Care Reform bill, Congresswoman Diana DeGette, Democratic Deputy Whip and Co-chair of the Pro-Choice Caucus, announced 
