Herseth Sandlin's opposition to the health reform bill has nothing to do with choice

by: Chris Bowers

Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 18:27


Steve Hildebrand is threatening to run a primary challenge against Blue Dog co-chair Stephanie Herseth Sandlin if she votes against the health reform bill:

Senior Obama campaign official Steve Hildebrand is eyeing a Democratic primary challenge to South Dakota Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, a decision he said hinges largely on whether she votes against health care reform later this week.(...)

"I want to see how she votes on health care," Hildebrand said. "If the vote is very, very close and we lose it or come close to losing it, I will take a serious look at challenging her."

In response, Jane Hamsher argues that Herseth Sandlin's opposition to the health reform bill is because of choice (emphasis in original):

Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin holds down a tough seat for pro-choice Democrats. She's in an R+9 district, and that's a tough thing to do for a pro-choice woman.

But the Democratic establishment are now out to torpedo any woman who sticks up for choice.  Steve Hildebrand - Obama's Deputy Campaign Manager,  who called up rich donors and told them to cut off 527s during the campaign - is threatening to primary her if she defends a womans' right to choose from Ben Nelson's assault: (...)

Let's just be very clear about what's happening here. There were forty-one members of Congress who signed Diana DeGette's letter saying "We will not vote for a conference report that contains language that restricts women's right to choose any further than current law."

And now, if any of these women wants to keep that pledge to defend choice, Obama's deputy campaign manager - the guy that controls the cash - is threatening to run them out of office for doing so.

Um, Herseth Sandlin's opposition to the health reform bill has nothing to do with choice:

  • On November 6th, 2009, Herseth Sandlin issued a press release opposing the House health reform bill.  Not only does the press release not mention reproductive rights or women's health in any way, but this was a day before the Stupak amendment was even voted on.

  • On January 20th, more than a month after the Nelson language was added to the Senate health reform bill, Herseth Sandlin issued a press release opposing the bill.  Once again, reproductive rights and women's health were not mentioned in the release.

  • On February 22nd, two months after the Nelson language was added to the Senate bill, Herseth Sandlin sent out another press release stating her opposition to the bill, and that she was undecided on the reconciliation package.  Again, choice was not mentioned.

  • On March 4th, Herseth Sandlin came out against using reconciliation for health reform reconciliation package.  Again, choice was not mentioned as a reason for her opposition.

  • The phrase "pro-choice" does not appear anywhere on Sandlin's website.  Neither does "reproductive rights" or "right to choose." These are not strong indications that choice is a top issue for her.

  • However, Herseth Sandlin did find time to vote in favor of this bill, just like all great champions of choice:

    (H.R. 1388) On a motion to add language to a bill funding local community service and volunteer efforts that would prohibit the volunteers from discussing or promoting abortions, and from engaging in lobbying, union organizing, political activity, voter registration or religious teaching

    Herseth Sandlin may have a decent record on choice, but she clearly isn't above compromising on it from time to time.

In the many instances where she stated her opposition to various health reform bills, Stephanie Herseth Sandlin has never even mentioned reproductive rights.  In fact, she opposed the bill before the Stupak amendment passed or the Nelson language was added.  She is not an outspoken defender of reproductive rights, and has compromised on it in the past.

If you oppose the health care package because of the reproductive rights language in it, great.  But that is not why Stephanie Herseth Sandlin opposes it, and it is not the basis of Hildebrand's threatened primary challenge.

Chris Bowers :: Herseth Sandlin's opposition to the health reform bill has nothing to do with choice

Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
So what is her basis? .. (0.00 / 0)
and just who is Hildebrand gonna primary her with?  himself?

She has a bunch of reasons (0.00 / 0)
It isn't bipartisan, the use of the reconciliation process itself, and mainly that it costs too much money.

and yes, I read the article correctly, Hildebrand is threatening a personal primary challenge.


[ Parent ]
Do you know ... (0.00 / 0)
She has a bunch of reasons ... It isn't bipartisan, the use of the reconciliation process itself, and mainly that it costs too much money.

Did she vote for the Iraq war? .. because if she did .. what you just mentioned is BS reasons on her part .. not saying she's found religion on choice .. just trying to get the true reason


[ Parent ]
Co-chairperson of the Blue Dogs (4.00 / 1)
Nuff said. Not exactly a Prarie Populist our Steph.

[ Parent ]
takedowns of Jane Hamsher (0.00 / 0)
when's your piece on why Kucinich is a "little prick" running?

A substantive response (n/t) (0.00 / 0)


[ Parent ]
as opposed to your playing ombudsman to Firedoglake (0.00 / 0)
because you disagree with their stance on the 2010 Make Aetna Executives Even Richer Act

[ Parent ]
Yeah, that's it (4.00 / 1)
You nailed it. That's my rationale. Rather than, say, that there is no evidence Herseth Sandline is opposing the bill because of choice.  Its not like a just wrote a post on that or anything.

I despise FDL so much, I have only linked to them in glowing terms several times today. Man, I really hate them, and my hatred is so deep it immediately invalidates all of my arguments.


[ Parent ]
then why was this so important that it merited a front page article? (0.00 / 0)
why do you care, sir

[ Parent ]
Now who's acting like the ombudsman? (4.00 / 3)
Why do you care what I write about?  You seemed annoyed that I cared what Jane wrote about.

But, if you must know, I was intrigued by Jane's claim that Herseth Sandlin was actually opposing the bill because of choice.  If that was true, it would change my opinion of Herseth Sandline.

So, I looked it up, and found out that choice had nothing to do with Herseth Sandlin's opposition. And so I wrote about it.  


[ Parent ]
because I usually like this blog and enjoy active posts with lively threads (0.00 / 0)
and I feel like this is just needling

[ Parent ]
Generally Open Left and FDL are bound at the hip (4.00 / 2)
on HCR and in particular the role of Kucinich. Well okay, I have expressed my opposition to what I consider the OL/FDL Purists in pretty strict terms while understanding that most of them are arguing in good faith. But what Jane did in this piece was simply dishonest and smacking of desperation and Chris was right to call her out on those grounds.

I was tempted to respond directly to Jane this morning but decided it was useless, the FirePups were not going to listen to me. But it is at least possible that some of them will listen to a cry of "Bullshit" from natural ally Bowers.

Every week it seems that FDL is retreating more and more into the kind of Bunker Mode familiar to us old enough to have observed the New Left of the 70s.


[ Parent ]
Because Herseth-Sandlin sucks (4.00 / 1)
and she shouldn't be getting any credit for a position she doesn't hold.

John McCain won't insure children

[ Parent ]
About Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin (0.00 / 1)
Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin holds down a tough seat for pro-choice Democrats. She's in an R+9 district, and that's a tough thing to do for a pro-choice woman.But the Democratic establishment are now out to torpedo any woman who sticks up for choice.  Steve Hildebrand - Obama's Deputy Campaign Manager,  who called up rich donors and told them to cut off 527s during the campaign - is threatening to primary her if she defends a womans' right to choose from Ben Nelson's assaul..
DentaSmile MD

http://www.articlesbase.com/he...


[ Parent ]
Running for what? Re-election? (0.00 / 0)
I don't follow.

[ Parent ]
Why'd you troll-rate me? I said nothing wrong. (0.00 / 0)


[ Parent ]
Oh, I misread your comment. nvm (0.00 / 0)


[ Parent ]
Why is she above "takedowns?" (4.00 / 3)
Serious question, not meant combatively.

Jane made assertions. Chris finds the facts do not support the assertions and publishes a thoughtful, non-invective filled rebuttal. I fail to see the problem here.

Is there some reason why Jane should be exempt from reasonable, critical review? That seems to be the assertion implied here.

Comrades! All Hail Pelosi and Obama!
Onward to a greater socialist utopia!


[ Parent ]
Hildebrand (4.00 / 2)
Hildebrand's challenge has nothing to do with healthcare.

He's been whispering about a primary challenge for years, and outright told an audience in California last September that he would vote for a Republican if it mean insuring Herseth's defeat.

Hildebrand believes Herseth undermined his campaign strategy, gay marriage being the biggest but not only flashpoint, for Daschle in 2004 and has publicly nursed a grudge over it since.

This primary challenge threat is about wounding Herseth. There's little chance Hildebrand could overcome Herseth's advantage in the rural areas (Herseth carried them massively in a 2002 Primary) to win a primary, and even less he could win the general in this environment.

I should point out: John Thune is currently unopposed, two weeks before the registration deadline.  


That's fine (0.00 / 0)
I didn't endorse Hildebrand.

Just pointed out that Herseth's opposition isn't about choice.


[ Parent ]
Fair enough (0.00 / 0)
And I agree with you about Herseth's opposition.

I just wanted to provide a bit of background on the potential primary. I apologize, I should've made that clearer.  


[ Parent ]
So Hildebrand ... (0.00 / 0)
is threatening a primary ... because he holds a grudge from years ago? .. shocking!!  as Mjm seems to imply  .. it's an empty threat

[ Parent ]
Read the link in the very first line (0.00 / 0)
Hildebrand would run an el-cheapo campaign, taking a max of $100 and only from South Dakota residents. He feels he could run a winning campaign on what he'd raise. My thought is that a run for the Senate would require lots more moola.

He mentions having donated $500 to Stephanie and asking for a refund when she voted against gay issues.


[ Parent ]
Correct. (4.00 / 3)
And those who are claiming her opposition is based in favor of reproductive rights are trying to pull the wool over everyone's eyes.

If you oppose the health care bill, then that is your right, but don't try to trick people into thinking that the opposition is rooted in some brave stand for Choice.  It's not, and the tactic is offensive.

PTDB! After that, pass Grayson's Public Option Act!


Absence of proof is not proof of absence. (4.00 / 1)
Being opposed to reconciliation is just as implausible as being opposed to the abortion restrictions.

She's always opposed the health care bill (0.00 / 0)
And has never mentioned choice. Here's the press release that Chris mentioned, which (as Chris said) was issued prior to the vote on Stupak:
U.S. Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin today announced that while the House health care bill includes a number of good provisions, it is not the right answer for South Dakota because it could unintentionally threaten existing access to health care in our state, and it does not include sufficient cost-containment and deficit reduction measures.  She will oppose the bill, which is scheduled to be on the House floor Saturday evening.

Herseth Sandlin said, "It's critical that we control rising health care costs, increase quality and value within our health care system, and improve access to health care and affordable health insurance coverage.  The strength of our communities in South Dakota depends on the health of our people."

She continued, "Unfortunately, the House bill misses a critical opportunity to address access, quality and costs on the one hand, and solidify our fiscal future on the other hand.  I am convinced this Congress and the President will achieve fundamental reform because our country must fix what's broken in our health care system. There is simply too much at stake for South Dakota's families and businesses, who have either seen their premiums rise sharply year after year, or who still have no access to an affordable plan."

Herseth Sandlin added, "While the House bill does not yet represent the right formula for South Dakota I remain optimistic that, with the House and Senate working together with the President, we will achieve a good bill for South Dakota during this Congress. The time has come for fundamental reform that meets the twin goals of improved access, affordability and coverage, but also fiscal responsibility over the long-term.  We need to fix what's broken in the system."

Herseth Sandlin pointed to the potential impact of the House bill on Medicaid provisions on South Dakota's state budget, and the reductions in payments for long-term care under Medicare as areas of serious concern.

Underlying her concerns about access is a concern about the effect of the House bill on the nation's long term deficit, and more specifically, its failure to start bringing down the deficit and health care costs in the long term. Herseth Sandlin noted that skyrocketing long-term costs will bankrupt the Medicare trust fund by 2017.

The House bill does include a number of good provisions which enjoy strong support among South Dakotans.  Herseth Sandlin said, "I strongly support provisions in this bill to require insurance companies to cover people with preexisting conditions, and end the insurance companies' ability to cancel coverage when someone becomes sick.  These practices must end.  In addition, I support establishing health insurance exchanges to provide a transparent and competitive marketplace for individuals and businesses to buy more affordable health care plans."


There's a lot of stuff in there, but nothing about abortion rights. She does have some characteristically inaccurate Blue Dog Deficit Peacock talking points, such as "its failure to start bringing down the deficit and health care costs in the long term."

This just in: Stephanie Herseth sucks. Other than voting for Speaker Pelosi, I can't think of anything useful that she provides. And I'm not sure that makes up for her going around reinforcing Republican talking points all the time.


[ Parent ]
Start a Petition »





Donate to Open Left


blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
USER MENU

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search