What has happened to DU? Has it been taken over by aliens? How can "liberals" defend Stupak?"

[saracat]

For days now posters have been not only defending the Stupac Amendment but mocking and vilifying anyone who does not agree with them. They have attacked valuable constituencies such as NOW, Planned Parenthood and Naral. They have implied that Rep.Diana Degrette and the Pro-Choice caucus as well as Sen. McCaskill don't know how to properly read a amendment.They say Rachel Maddow is "spinning" the news.

Why is there such contempt for one of our loyalist support groups? And why should any Democrats be defending Stupak with such ferocity? I do not understand it.

The argument seems to be that some insist Stupak does "nothing".To believe that I would have to believe either that all the Pro-Choice groups and the Pro-Choice Caucus as well as Sen. McCaskill and Rachel Maddow all are either illiterate or creating an issue where there is none. I would also have to "believe " that Rep. Stupak deliberately conceived of a amendment that did "nothing" and he was so insistent that this amendment that did nothing be included in the House HCR that he held HCR hostage for its passing. Further more, I would have to believe that the House was committed to argue vociferously and eventually pass and amendment that did "nothing".

Does this make sense to anyone? Anyone at all? And now, even the President has weighed in on this amendment that does "nothing" and said its language is problematic.

Can someone please tell me why good Democrats would conceive of such a stupid idea and then attempt to defend it against all rationale?

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

1. Nobody is defending it. Stop being ridiculous. n/t

[DainBramaged]

3. What are you the fucking hall monitor now?

Why don't you leave people alone?

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

7. Go with Christ, brah.

[bluetrain]

12. No such entity.

[Fire1]

161. Why? Cause YOU say so? WTF! n/t

[Forkboy]

197. Why should people believe there is?

Because someone else says so?

[mindwalker_i]

64. There used to be, but

He's dead, Jim.

[gleaner]

193. She is stating her opinion......

Last time I checked that is why we all come here. To state our opinions and try to inform each other. I don't understand your post. How is she not leaving you alone. She started a thread, she wrote a post you didn't like, but you came over to read it. No one forced you or pursued you to held you down and made you read it.

If you don't want to read about a certain subject, then don't read about it. If you don't like the posts by a specific individual, then block them. She does, however have the right to state what she thinks within the rules of the board and the parameters set for us when we post. That is what she did, and what I hope she will continue to do. You cannot actually expect people not to write, or think or say what they feel because there may be a possibility that we are supposed to pick out of thin air that someone may not like it. That is more of a Republican expectation isn't it? They are the ones who put such a premium on everyone thinking alike and walking in lockstep. Democrats prize diversity, or at least they used to.

I am seeing way too much of posters telling OPs what they can and cannot do. She is not the hall monitor. We are supposed to be adult enough that we don't need one, and we certainly don't need anyone trying to censor us. Also, respect and good manners when we post would be appreciated, don't you think?

[bc3000]

207. And so was he...Opposing reform because of Stupak is ridiculous

There are plenty of good reasons to oppose this bill.

But insurance is rarely used for abortions anyway. It's a very inexpensive procedure, and would usually fall under the deductibles of most plans. An uninsured abortion is a hell of a lot cheaper than a fully insured pregnancy, so you're already saving money.

Personally, I think they should be fully covered. I think everything should be covered in a single payer system. I'm not sure I will support the eventual reform laws, but I think it's kind of silly for people to let conservatives defeat their wider goals by throwing in an emotional red herring like this. You're letting them work you.

[gleaner]

211. Yup, he was ...

but it seems that you make your point more readily if you state your opinion politely and with respect for the sensibilities of the OP. People are not persuaded to the rightness of an issue with abusive words. They see the abuse and that is what they take away from the encounter.

Most insurance plans don't pay for abortions at all, due to the machinations of the pro lifers. That may be why it is not used "very much" for abortions. They don't pay for contraceptives either, so it tends to put people who don't have much money in a kind of a bind, don't you think? I don't know how expensive they are or are not. Do you have a dollar figure from an abortion provider that you could give me? Then I would be better able to assess your argument. I have seen the pregnancy coverage on a private insurance policy and they do not pay anywhere near what it actually costs. They also do not pay the costs of raising the child, which the parents may not be able to do either. So this is not as cut and dried as you make it sound. Also there are some levels of poverty where you cannot afford what another person would consider to be a "cheap" procedure. Cheap is relative. It depends on how much you have to start with and how much you have to do with it simply to put food on the table and support yourself. You may be well off and able to afford lots of extras, but not everyone is. So what is the amount you consider "cheap?" Your basic bottom line figure for the cost of an abortion.

Besides, the health insurance companies are not particularly logical. Take your pregnancy analogy and reduce it to something as small as a flu shot. Private insurance companies do not pay for flu shots or other immunizations, even though many of us get pneumonia when we get the flu and have to go to the hospital. That can cost them an arm and a leg, but they still don't pay for flu shots. You can extend that to a lot of other areas too. They will buy a walker but they won't pay for a pair of orthopedic shoes which might prevent the need for a walker. They will pay for an eye exam, but they won't help with the cost of a pair of prescription eyeglasses which could conceivably save someone's vision. There are many other things it is common for them to refuse payment for. You really have to read your policy to see what all they are. Prepare for some rude surprises when you do.

I don't know where in my post you got the idea that I support the Stupack amendment. I have been pro choice since I was a kid and will continue to be. A woman's body belongs to her, period the end. I also favor a single payer plan. I have Medicare and using that as a template already in place, adding what you would need to cover the public at large and then charging on a sliding scale based on ability to pay, seems like a no brainer to me. But if there is one thing all this foofora has taught me is that it seems to be the no brainers who are making the laws.

My reason for posting is that I don't like to see OPs being given a bad time for expressing what they believe. You have your opinion and though I disagree with you on the "ease" of obtaining an abortion, I have tried to do so in a polite and civil manner. Doesn't mean I'm going to back down if I am ever attacked, it just means that I don't like to see OPs intimidated or ill used. Whatever we think, we are all in this together. I think it would be a good thing if we all remembered that and acted accordingly.

[texastoast]

4. I beg to differ

I've been reading these posts since Sunday and there are a bunch of posters who are defending it and telling the wimenfolk (and sympathetic menfolk) to calm down.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

9. Show me a single post where anyone agrees with it and says it was a great idea.

The only things I've seen are people defending it as a necessary evil, which is hardly the same thing as "supporting" it.

[saracat]

14. The posts are there. We aren't allowed to call out but a search should show you.

There was a huge argument comparing abortions to elective plastic surgery and the poster summed it up saying they wouldn't pay for the equivilent of a nose job. Seriously. Many posters have also defended the hyde Amendment and said that the wouldn't support federal dollars paying for abortions.

[tonysam]

152. Nobody supports it. Prove it. People are pointing out REALITY

My belief is the bloggers, many of whom aren't the brightest bulbs in the world, went on a tizzy over Stupak, not realizing poor women have NEVER, since 1976, had abortions "on demand" financed by the federal government, or in most state governments, and that it was legal.

[saracat]

206. Gee, I guess Rep Degette and sen. McCaskill, the Pro-Choice Caucus and Rachel Maddow among

others aren't very bright either. Neither is President Obama , who also has some problems with this.Or the 40+ congresspersons who will not support HCR unless this amndement is removed. But I am sure you are right.It is just the stupid bloggers.:sarcasm:

[texastoast]

26. Support does not equal "a great idea"

Defending it is supporting it. Part of the problem does not equal the solution. It is especially horrible to women.

[CTyankee]

149. Sure I was just reading one. Do your homework before you post. nt

[dflprincess]

169. Evil is evil

even when some deem it "necessary".

[AllTooEasy]

185. when the decision is between health care for poor people or none at all

[dflprincess]

189. Many poor people already qualify for existing programs

it's the middle class that is being squeezed more and more by the health insurers and they don't get a lot of help from this bill.

In theory, the group that could benefit the most are those with preexisting conditions but a good many of those people won't qualify for subsidies and there is nothing to stop the insurance companies from jacking the prices up so high on those people over the next few years that all they will be able to afford is a high premium policy with out of pockets that are so high they still won't be able to see a doctor.

[saracat]

5. I spent a large portion of yesterday arguing with those who defended it.

It seems many agree that abortions are like "plastic surgery" and "women should pay for their own fix" and the idea that Stupac does absolutely "nothing" and all who complained were alarmists were central to many arguments.Sad but true. Some of that reasoning persists today.

[Ineeda]

17. This is true. I argued with one too. Might have been the same thread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8747108

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

61. OK, yeah, there's some serious asshattery in that thread.

My apologies. I was wrong.

[saracat]

96. Here is some more!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6979980#6981577

[NoUsername]

94. Wow.

People actually said that women should "pay for their own fix?" "Their OWN fix?" Unfuckingreal. Last I checked, it takes to two to get pregnant. Hmm...I wonder how those same people would feel if the woman carried the baby to term and then sued for child support? I guessing they think the "bitch" doesn't deserve a dime because it was irresponsible of her not to take care of the "problem" before it was born.

Gee, I really hope the people that argued women should "pay for their own fix" would also argue that men should pay for a vasectomy out of their own pocket rather than expecting insurance to pay for it. I hope they also wouldn't have a problem with women not having sex with any man that hasn't had a vasectomy (and has the papers to prove so) as anything less than that would be irresponsible.

Sometimes I think DU is a LOT closer to FR than a lot of people want to think it is. Take the hardcore, diehard, "my party does no wrong and don't you dare criticize it", throw in some hatred of women and minorities and damn, it's starting to look like the only difference between the two is the letter behind the name of the candidates they support.

[SandWalker1984]

184. Insurance will cover Viagra for men but no birth control pills for women

Explain the logic in THAT.

[AllTooEasy]

186. you are talking about PRIVATE insurance companies, not...

a public plan paid for by everyone. Private insurance can be tailored for individuals and priced accordingly. Public plans aren't, and therefore rules are different.

By the way, my godmother had birth control pills paid for by her insurance company. I don't know the insurance company, but it came through her job at IBM. My company, General Dynamics, doesn't have a plan that insures viagra, vasetomies, birth control pills, or any form of contraception unless medically necessary.

Point, you can't lump all private insurance companies together.

[sybylla]

165. And they are as willing to have men pay for their own "fix" as well, I presume.

So the Stupak amendment should cover viagra and surgical pregnancy prevention, too.

[truedelphi]

182. When their daugther hemorrhages from a miscarriage, and the attending ER resident does not

Want to admit her to the hospital for the needed D & C, and she dies at home, they will wake up.

But before then, before it personally affects them, they won't.

[me b zola]

76. There are a handful of posters

~at least one of them is a long time poster who claims to be pro-choice, that have been in many of the threads defending Stupak-Pitts and demeaning those opposed to it. They have had links and info out the kazoo provided to them, yet they continue to pretend as though the facts don't exist.

[Lerkfish]

156. indeed they are. put me down as a witness

[freddie mertz]

171. There are scores of them. Some just claim it is no different from Hyde

Which is the same as saying it is no big whoop and that anyone who complains about it is wrong.

An they are using the worst demonizing language against anyone who tries to engage with them.

It is quiet beyond the fringe for a site called "Democratic Underground." It's stuff you'd expect to see on puke forums.

As for names, I could list a dozen or more. But I won't, for reasons of personal survival.

Some have whole threads devoted to marginalizing or minimizing the impact of Stoopidpak for rather transparent reasons.

So they are easy enough to find if you want to.

[Jax]

172. Your posts have never helped President Obama but that is your point

pathetic.

He can handle disagreement.

Mentally weak sycophants. Transparent.

Alyce

[DainBramaged]

2. How do Liberals begrudge the poor soda?

:shrug:


There is a very good chance they aren't Liberals.............

[Bluebear]

6. Your original question is the most pertinent.

[DJ13]

8. "Win at any cost"

"We'll fix it later"

Later never comes, but people want the easy way out.

[SPedigrees]

74. "Later" came for medicare. It was full of holes when first enacted.

Would the outcome have been better for all of us today if Congress had refused to vote for a less than "perfect" bill?

[dflprincess]

174. Just like we're being told the time is "not right" for single payer

The time has never been right for progressive change. It only happens when we have leaders who have enough courage to make it happen. Instead we now have a Congress and President who tell us we have to settle for crumbs - even though the majority of the public wants meaninful reform.

[noamnety]

10. What I've learned.

liberals believe some of the most pressing issues we absolutely need to be addressing are job losses, foreclosures, and poverty. Each of these are considered a "crisis" ... unless pregnant women are facing those issues, in which case they are "inconveniences."

[Mari333]

11. party line people. follow the leaders, dont question , ever

just do what the leaders tell you to do. dont question. be good. follow the party line.

you are getting sleeeeepy sleeeeepy...follow the party line....sleeeeepyyyyy sleeeepppyyyy

[BeHereNow]

18. LOL!!! SO true-

Scary part is, they don't even recognize the fact that they are JUST like the
Bush/Cheney bots they claim to differ from.
Every one needs to read Hoffer again.
"The True Believer."
DU is swarming with them these days....
BHN

[Mari333]

25. I had to leave for 2 days to collect myself

I never thought I would see so many robots on here. I remember, when Bush was in office, people thought for themselves. Now, not so much.

[BeHereNow]

48. Yeah, I took a rather long break too... then I activated my "ignore" list.

Love it love it- the ignore feature!!!
Hang in there with me gal!
BHN

[Mari333]

75. oh hell Ive been here for years and years

Im not leaving. the pompom party loyalists wont push me out. I miss the days when the only party loyalists were on Free Republic, who followed their leaders blindly with no question.
But, oh well!!

[tekisui]

145. Thanks for staying.

I find it harder to stay with each passing day.

[pmorlan1]

195. Party over country

I agree with you and Mari333. The "Party" people also like to pretend that they are politically sophisticated and those who disagree with their Party line view do so only out of ignorance. They actually buy the fairy tale that the process is more important than the outcome of the process. It's incredible. They're so focused on WINNING that they don't care about what they actually WIN. Just like the Republican sheep who let Bush and Co. scare them into believing they had to give up their rights to be protected, these people believe that if you don't support everything the Dems. do that you will be responsible for allowing the Scary Republicans back into office. The "fear card" works on both of these groups and the politicos in both Parties know it.

[Jamastiene]

52. We have always been at war with Eastasia.

We have always been at war with Eastasia.
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
We have always been at war with Eastasia.
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
We have always been at war with Eastasia.
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.We have always been at war with Eastasia.
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.We have always been at war with Eastasia.
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.We have always been at war with Eastasia.
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
We have always been at war with Eastasia.
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
We have always been at war with Eastasia.
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
We have always been at war with Eastasia.
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.We have always been at war with Eastasia.
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.

[BrklynLiberal]

214. PERFECT!!!!!

[sybylla]

166. Except it's not the party line.

It's the Blue Dog line. The party line would be pro-choice and equality in all aspects of this bill. That's the party platform.

[ProSense]

13. This sounds like a strawman. Where are the OPs defending the Stupak amendment? n/t

[saracat]

16. And you know Pro that I can't call out. I have quoted from some but I won't go there.

[BeHereNow]

21. Ah, I am so happy I elected to use the "ignore" feature...

I see you have responded to one of my ignore selections...
BHN

[BrklynLiberal]

216. LOL. Isn't it satisfying when you see a response to a post that you can tell was outrageous,and you

already have them on IGNORE? It save so many points on my blood pressure :D

[bluetrain]

19. There are plenty of OPs praising the passage of this bill.

[ProSense]

22. Where are the OPs praising Stupak?

I can't find them.

[bluetrain]

30. Stupak is part of the bill. It was passed as a whole. Approval of the bill means

approval of Stupak.

[ProSense]

35. Nonsense. n/t

[bluetrain]

38. Mighty debate skills you have.

[BrklynLiberal]

215. Try using the search option at the top of the page...

[PVnRT]

141. Not much praise, plenty of posters defending the amendment as "no big deal"

I know you'll choose to simply ignore those posts, however.

[robinlynne]

29. not ops but there are posters everywhere. They are not from here.

[saracat]

95. Here is a thread with a lot of support from several posters

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6979980#6981577

[Joe the Revelator]

15. Oh look, its Saracat with another Democratic purity test

I agree with you on this one, but the purity tests are straight bullshit.

[bluetrain]

20. Selling women down the river is bullshit.

[madfloridian]

40. Oh look, it's madfloridian with more purity tests. I say good for saracat.

And I am fed up with the ones here who are willing to trade off women's rights...and yes they were traded off.

[saracat]

44. Hey mad flo! This will make them nervous.Your tests are way harder than mine!

And now they don't even admit the controversy exists!

[voc]

86. +1

[Luminous Animal]

56. I'll hop on the pruity test train.

I suppose if some nutjob offered up an amendment that barred sickle-cell anemia from being covered by insurance, you'd belittle the protesters, eh?

[pmorlan1]

196. Party Purity Tests

Oh look, its Saracat with another Democratic purity test
Posted by Joe the Revelator

I agree with you on this one, but the purity tests are straight bullshit.

Yeah, the Party Purity Tests are BS. I like it when people actually think for themselves and don't rely on the politicos to tell them how to think. I like it when people don't fall for the BS fearmongering that occurs when you object to what the Party leadership is pushing.

[pnwmom]

23. I'm not defending Stupak. But I'm still glad the House bill passed, warts and all. n/t

[bluetrain]

34. Revoking the autonomy of half the population is not a wart;

it's a freaking flesh eating disease.

[pnwmom]

98. I'm in that half of the population, and the ability to get an abortion is just

one health concern. Neither my daughter nor I are limited to our uteruses. The health care bill give would improve our situation far more than it would limit it.

[Luminous Animal]

105. This is not about you.

And it is not a health care bill. It is a health insurance bill.

[pnwmom]

110. I'm in the half of the population that the poster was talking about, just as much

as anyone is. So this is just as much about me as about anyone. Including you.

[Luminous Animal]

112. You may be in half but you are not of half.

I'm past menopause, it won't effect me, personally, at all. That's not the point. It affects women and their ability to act as their own agent. It is a civil rights issue which has been affirmed, year after year, as part of the Democratic platform.

[pnwmom]

136. I never said I was. nt

[winyanstaz]

173. you are correct...don't listen to the hair-splitters..

This bill effects everyone that gives a shit about civil rights.

[Luminous Animal]

58. Not me. Women are not expendable.

Their autonomy not negotiable.

[pnwmom]

101. How much would a woman spend on abortions in the course of her life?

Even if she had to have five abortions, this is a tiny drop in the bucket of lifetime healthcare costs.

[Luminous Animal]

104. Why does that matter?

What does cost have to do with it? Abortion is basic reproductive health care available to one half of the population.

The vaccines for tuberculosis, polio, diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, and measles cost about $20 per kid. Should we stop insurance coverage for them because they are cheap?

[pnwmom]

107. Cost has everything to do with it, if you don't have access to insurance now.

I have relatives who are uninsurable -- at any cost. My husband and I have good insurance, but only if he is able to keep his job -- and it has lifetime limits that could easily be exceeded. We have many friends whose COBRA is about to run out.

All of these situations would be solved if Congress passes something like what the House just passed. Millions of women will be far better off in the face of illness, even if the bill doesn't include abortion coverage.

[Luminous Animal]

113. Millions of women will be worse off.

[pnwmom]

134. Yeah, right. Show me any woman whose abortion costs will be a significant

fraction of her overall healthcare costs over the course of her life.

[Luminous Animal]

137. Yep. Every woman has a lifetime to save up for an abortion

that she may need in a matter of weeks.

Vaccines are cheap. We should cut them out, too. After all, they will only be a fraction of their overall health care costs over the course of their lives.

[pnwmom]

139. If the vaccines were the only thing that was in the way of passing the bill,

I'd feel exactly the same way.

[saracat]

148. What about if taking away a women's right to vote were the only way of passing the bill?

Would you feel the same? Or what about if it required the overturn of Loving V Viginaia and made it illegal for persons of different race to marry? Okay with that? Overturning the child labor laws? okay with that?

[pnwmom]

153. That isn't equivalent at all. You can literally put a price tag on the cost of an abortion.

Or on vaccines, and see that it isn't high compared to the rest of the value to women in the health care bill.

You can't put a price tag on the value of the vote.

[saracat]

208. you can't put a value on a woman's life and my point was there are many that would

think giving up woemms right to vote would be a small price to pay for HCR. My point was weshould not be retrogressing on anything.And we most certainly don't need to compromise woman's health care. This would compromise women's health care unless they were fortunate enough to be able to afford additional supplements.

[dflprincess]

178. The fact that abortion is relatively cheap and infrequent

makes more of an argument for including it in coverage.

[noiretextatique]

199. it most certainly does

except the xtians in the house are too obsessed with punishing women for getting pregnant.

[treestar]

158. Because thoes are contagious diseases

[me b zola]

78. I'm glad that the bill passed too

But I am working the phones and e-mails as hard to get Stupak-Pitts removed as I did for the PO and passage of the bill.

[pnwmom]

102. And that is the best plan. Better than complaining here. n/t

[Luminous Animal]

106. Then I suggest you quit wasting your time whining.

[pnwmom]

109. I said I'm GLAD the bill passed. That isn't whining; that's celebrating. n/t

[Luminous Animal]

111. You are whining about other people having a political discussion

about the ramifications of this bill.

Discussion is an important part of political engagement but you try to disparage your fellow Democrats by characterizing it as "complaining".

[pnwmom]

133. No, you're projecting. n/t

[Luminous Animal]

135. Well, no actually, I was turning the table.

But thanks for playing.

[PVnRT]

142. "Better than complaining here"

Your quote. You can deny it all you want, but that is exactly what you said.

[me b zola]

191. I'll still speak out here as well. n/t

[marybourg]

24. I just responded on a thread where DUers thought that the term "pro life" was fair and

balanced. Apparently we do have a fair number of anti-choice (to put it in its mildest terms) people here.

[saracat]

65. We have some RW Dems. I don't consider them Dems.

[Individualist]

67. +1

[Luminous Animal]

69. From the 2008 Democratic Party Platform

Choice
The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right
to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay, and we oppose any and all
efforts to weaken or undermine that right.

(Ooops!)

[Soylent Brice]

177. this should be posted as its own OP.

lotta short term memory sufferers 'round these parts lately...

[robinlynne]

27. They are not good Democrats. simple. they are visitors.

[saracat]

31. Well, some of them are long time "visitors" then.

[keepCAblue]

187. not "visitors"...INFILTRATORS. n/t

[amerstates]

28. well, since 30 to 35% of Democrats are pro life - who represents them?

30 to 35% of Democrats are prolife and the 40 that voted for Stupek's amendment answer to those constituents also.

Like it or not, support for the wide open abortion laws we have now is tanking all over America.

Keep thinking people aren't changing their minds and we get left in the dust.

Try winning a single election without prolife Democrats on board!

[dbonds]

33. Did you just pull some statistics out your ass?

I seriously doubt those numbers.

[varelse]

146. You're not the only one

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/05/abortion-poll-roundup.html

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/05/more-about-unbearable-lightness-of.html

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/05/is-public-opinion-changing-on-abortion.html

[robinlynne]

41. here's one now, Saracat.

[saracat]

51. Yes but others have been much worse.

[robinlynne]

42. blue dogs represent them. the very same blue dogs we are working to unseat.

[AllTooEasy]

190. if you unseat them, they will be replaced by Repukes in those conservative districts/states

I much prefer a conservative Dem to a Repuke, by farrrrrrrrrrrrrr

[madfloridian]

43. I am pro-life. Most of us are pro-life. BUT I am pro-choice.

That is the difference.

Fed up with excuses for what the party did.

[Jamastiene]

54. Who represents them?

The majority of the party now. There is nobody left to represent the rest of us.

[supernova]

57. Try getting your face out of our uteruses!

This fetus fetish has got to go.

I'm so glad this amendment doesn't have the numbers in the Senate. It shouldn't.

[eShirl]

59. In other words, when constitutional rights are unpopular we should just dump them.

Nice.

[Luminous Animal]

60. Wasn't 20% earlier in the day?

Didn't you post that 20% of Dems are anti-abortion earlier today? Where did the extra 10-15% crawl out from?

[marybourg]

81. I'm pro life, but it's women's lives I'm pro, not embryo's & fetus'.

I suspect we're all pro-life. But real Dems are also pro-choice.

[marybourg]

83. See reply #69 above. nt.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

164. enjoy your stay n/t

[Waiting For Everyman]

179. Who represents them? The CATHOLIC BISHOPS & PROTESTANT RR.

But it's a distinction without a difference, really, since they're in bed with each other completely. So's the taliban, but that's off the subject.

They're well-represented. Dems' "representation" isn't needed, they've got more than they ought to have already.

And their issue doesn't belong in politics anyway. (I say that as a Christian - the "escaped hostage of the RR back in the early 1980s, thrown out of two very different 'mainstream' churches decades apart variety". I figure it's conclusive that "the church" doesn't want me back, and the feeling's mutual.)

They blather on about what they don't want their taxes to support. (As if their taxes are somehow more special than anybody else's, and religious groups are tax exempt anyway.)

Well I don't want to support 7-figure bonuses for way-overpaid idiot-psychotics either. I'll care about their morality on funding when they care about mine.

(When hell freezes over.) :evilgrin:

[T Wolf]

181. Try winning any election without pro-choice Democrats on board and see what happens. You will get

the opportunity next year, and in 2012.

[keepCAblue]

188. 22 posts. Yup, another "visitor" n/t

[H2O Man]

32. Recommended.

[Kaleva]

36. I defend Stupak himself but not all of his actions

Overall, he's a good, loyal Dem who votes and supports the party line well over 90% of the time. He opposed NAFTA, is against the death penalty, has a stellar record on environmental issues and is known has a friend of unions.

[saracat]

47. I see. it is just on trivial issues like this and his membership in the FAMILY

that he is different from the rest of us. :eyes: I suppose one might say that this is the "price one pays" for his "support" on other issues?:sarcasm:

[robinlynne]

49. Thank goodness you put that sarcasm thingie there. I was about to......

[Kaleva]

55. The alternative is a Repub who'll never vote the Dem Party line.

A liberal wouldn't have a chance here in a district that is socially conservative.

[saracat]

62. Really? But we will never know because they will never run one! And if

what you say is true, so what? I would rather try for a socially liberal Republican then because our majority doesn't mean squat. Truman once said "faced with voting for a republican and a republican, voters will vote for the republican every time.". I'sd rather the real thing than the faux copy.

[Kaleva]

71. A socially liberal Republican wouldn't stand a chance here either

Stupak faces no credible opposition here from within the Party as the base itself tends to be socially conservative. Not as conservative as the Republican base but more to the right then in many other districts across this nation.

[saracat]

82. My point was, who cares? He is egregious enough that it won't matter who replaces him.

Someone who blackmails his own party in support of an ideology is as bad as it gets.

[voc]

108. +1

[waiting for hope]

37. K&R

And I'll post from Page 50 of the Democratic Party platform for 2008

Choice

The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman's right to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay, and we oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.

Problematic is correct - it goes against the platform.

[Atticus]

39. It's bad enough that what you are saying is true.

For good measure, though, some now deny that Stupak had any defenders or apologists here.

"Who you gonna believe---me or your lyin' eyes?"

[BrklynLiberal]

217. LOL. Well said.

:thumbsup:

[David Zephyr]

45. There is no good reason except some people just want to "win" whatever that is.

You know already from all these years how pro-choice I am.

This cop out is maddening and a betrayal to women, especially poor women and girls.

Grrr...

[Odin2005]

46. DU has always been full of misogyny apologists. Nothing new.

[Kaleva]

50. Not everyone here is a liberal. Conservative Dems can be members.

Even pro-life Dems can be members according to the rules. They may not always have fun here at DU but they can be members.

[saracat]

53. That is true and really the democratic party should act to eliminate them not .

encourage them.they have proved what they are with Stupak. They blackmailed their own party by holding HCR hostage to anti abortion legislation to satisfy their religious fervor and blood lust.

[Luminous Animal]

63. Problem is, many of the DUers defending the passage of the

amendment, claim that they are pro-choice. I don't think they understand what that means.

[saracat]

66. +1 I agree. They also defend Hyde!

[Atticus]

70. I think they are suffering from a disorder normally associated with GOP operatives .

The condition is characterized by arrogance and frequent pronouncements such as "Words mean what we say they mean" and "Forget what they know---what can they prove?"

[SPedigrees]

77. I certainly do understand what pro-choice means.

However, choice is not being threatened here. The federal govt has NEVER paid for abortions, so nothing is being taken away. Roe v Wade stands, and abortion on demand is available in every state.

The issue here is health insurance reform and the creation of a public option. Virtually anyone can afford an abortion, but if your private insurance co denies you a kidney transplant and you are in renal failure, you will die. Very few people can afford the expensive treatments that private insur cos deny payment for on a daily basis, sending families into bankruptcy.

[Luminous Animal]

80. Virtually anyone cannot afford abortion.

1) In fact, scraping up money is large reason why women end up having 2nd trimester abortions. But, if I accept your argument (which obviously I don't), would you also advocate excluding other health care procedures because they are cheap?
2) Choice is indeed being threatened. And I do not give a flying crap about the Hyde Amendment. The federal government has regular subsidized abortion through medicaid grants. The state of California, whose Medi-Cal system is augmented by federal funds, subsidizes abortions. Poor and working class women, those most likely accessing the insurance exchange or the public option, will be barred from accessing a legal health service. It is no different than creating a two-tier system for inexpensive flu shots.
3) And yes, this is supposed to be health insurance reform (although, Obama, used to call it health care reform) and 90% of insurance companies in the U.S. offer abortion coverage. In fact, if most of the anti-abortionists are already subsidizing abortion through their private insurance risk pool. Stupak and his supporters have turned this into an anti-abortion insurance program and are forcing women into substandard coverage.

[noiretextatique]

200. just unbelievable

"virtually anyone can afford an abortion" :wtf:

[saracat]

205. Ain't that a pip?"Let them eat cake". Since when did Democrats become

Marie Antoinette clones? ( And yeah, I actually do know she really wasn't like that.Just making a point!)

[noiretextatique]

222. we are seeing the effects of years of republicon propaganda

and democratic triangulation. nothing and no one is safe from being thrown under the bus by the so-called pragmatists. blacks, latinos, women, GLBT, workers: we are all expendable to them. go team :eyes:

[me b zola]

84. The facts have been posted all over DU, but here ya go in case you've missed them

Rep. Diane Degette (D-CO01) - A principled objection to the Stupak Amendment
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x400719

Gillibrand Battles Stupak Health Care Measure
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x401225

NOW (National Organization for Women) releases statement on the House Health bill

November 8, 2009

The House of Representatives has dealt the worst blow to women's fundamental right to self-determination in order to buy a few votes for reform of the profit-driven health insurance industry. We must protect the rights we fought for in Roe v. Wade. We cannot and will not support a health care bill that strips millions of women of their existing access to abortion.

Birth control and abortion are integral aspects of women's health care needs. Health care reform should not be a vehicle to obliterate a woman's fundamental right to choose.

The Stupak Amendment goes far beyond the abusive Hyde Amendment, which has denied federal funding of abortion since 1976. The Stupak Amendment, if incorporated into the final version of health insurance reform legislation, will:

*Prevent women receiving tax subsidies from using their own money to purchase private insurance that covers abortion;

*Prevent women participating in the public health insurance exchange, administered by private insurance companies, from using 100 percent of their own money to purchase private insurance that covers abortion;

*Prevent low-income women from accessing abortion entirely, in many cases.

NOW calls on the Senate to pass a health care bill that respects women's constitutionally protected right to abortion and calls on President Obama to refuse to sign any health care bill that restricts women's access to affordable, quality reproductive health care.

http://www.now.org/press/11-09/11-08.html
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8743339

We don't have to choose between health insurance reform and giving away a woman's access to reproductive health.

[saracat]

89. Seriously?"Anyone can afford an abortion" And the posssibility that toxemia might not be covered

doesn't bother you? Women die from those as well and the induced abortion is possibly not covered. Even now, often venal insurance companies want the baby dead for weeks before a D + C which is called an elective abortion.And if you think choice isn't being threatened, I direct you to the very excellemt journals of madfloridian right here on DU. Read those and then tell me if you think choice isn't being threatened. But I appreciate the fact that you are honest about not giving a damn about poor women and whether they have abortions or not!

[fascisthunter]

167. anyone can afford an abortion?

what neighborhood do you live in?

[Kaleva]

79. I don't think anyone knows what that means.

Taken to the extreme, pro-choice would be that a woman can have an abortion at anytime during the pregnancy and for whatever reason. The extreme pro-life position is that abortions ought to be illegal even in the case of rape, incest or the life of the mother was at stake. As only a small minority support either extreme position, claiming to be either pro-choice or pro-life doesn't really tell others clearly where they stand on the issue.

[me b zola]

88. If it weren't for busy-bodies

~who the hell knows what those sneaky women would do if left alone to make personal medical decisions with her doctor. It's a good damned thing that you are here to protect civilization from the evil that all women are capable of if not monitored.










:grr: :sarcasm: :grr:

[Luminous Animal]

90. Pretending that the extremes matter, muddies the waters.

The powers that be are very very good at presenting fringe views on an equal footing with the majority. Witness the birther brouhaha.

It's really quite simple.

Pro-choice recognizes that women are autonomous human beings capable of directing and controlling their own reproductive choices from giving birth, to birth control, to abortion. This is the overwhelming standard view that is unambiguous on the part of the vast majority of those who profess to be pro-choice.

Anti-abortion activists do not believe that women are autonomous human beings that have the right to control their own reproduction in regards to abortion. This is the overwhelming standard view that is unambiguous on the part of the vast majority of those who profess to be anti-abortion.

[Kaleva]

92. Only a minority support the extreme positions.

The majority are in that that muddy middle where the labels are not quite that clear.

[Luminous Animal]

100. And I disagree.

The middle is not muddy at all. It's the fringe that muddies the dialog and the media likes to elevate because they are sexier than the middle. It is the fringe that some politicians like to exploit so that they can foment fear of the "other.

The majority; that is, the middle, is mostly pro-choice. And it means, just that. Reproductive choice... Access to adequate and affordable birth control and reproductive services. The whole shebang... informative sex education, birth control, prenatal care, adoption services, and abortion for those who want one. Some reject abortion as a choice for themselves but would not impose that choice on another. Some may work as advocates to expand education, access to birth control, and pre-natal care. Some may work as activists to keep abortion legal or to provide clinic defense. Some vote for pro-choice candidates. Some may do nothing but simply abide with their convictions.

I have never met a person who who views abortion as not a viable reproductive choice for any woman, who is anything but anti-abortion as a reproductive choice. Some may pray to their god to overturn Roe v Wade, some may block clinics, some will picket, Some will vote for anti-abortion candidates. Some may do nothing but simply abide with their convictions.

This is not rocket science.

Either you believe that a woman is her own agent and believe that she should have adequate access to modern medicine to control her own reproductive destiny.

Or you believe that a woman is her own agent, up to a point, and believe that she should have adequate access to modern medicine to control her own reproductive destiny, bar one, and that the state has an interest in forcing her to give birth.

[Marlana]

114. "I have never met a person who who views abortion as not a viable reproductive choice for any woman"

I have. I have two male cousins and their wives, all four think abortion should be illegal in all cases, even to save the life of the mother (though I'm sure they would make an exception for their wives or themselves). One of my cousins even thinks the woman who has the abortion and the doctor who preforms it should be executed. They are all totally nuts, but there are people out there who think like that.

[Luminous Animal]

116. Perhaps, I wasn't clear.

I meant that anti-abortion is just that. Its proponents reject abortion as a viable reproductive choice. Some may make allowance for rape, incest, & probable death of the mother (having empathy, apparently for choice when a women faces opprobrium or death, even then infantalizing her choice), some may reject all abortions but all agree that abortion is NOT a viable reproductive choice.

[Marlana]

117. I understand what you meant.

No problem there, you just wrote that you had never met anyone who wanted to see abortion banned in all cases and I was just saying I had. I'm not disagreeing with what you wrote at all.

[Luminous Animal]

127. Got it! I actually have "met" people who want to ban abortion in all cases.

They were on the other side of the clinic defense line. But, probably fortunately, I've never had a conversation with any of them. Clinic defense training demands that defenders have no verbal interaction with the attackers.

[JoeyT]

115. That's not really "extreme" pro-choice.

Extreme pro-choice would be demanding the right to abort a pregnancy up until the 75th trimester.

[noiretextatique]

202. there is no "extreme" pro-choice position

if you believe women are actually real, thinking people.

[sam sarrha]

68. those liberals also live with the Family..

[Captain Hilts]

72. Because sexism is okay here. nt

[regnaD kciN]

73. I don't see anyone "defending Stupak"...

...unless you define "defending Stupak" as "being unwilling to kill the entire HCR effort over it" (as, apparently, N.O.W. is demanding). :eyes:

[Malikshah]

85. On the one hand there are those that lack empathy in any ideology. Then there

are those that feel politics is a game (some variant of chess) who "respect" folks even though they vote for despicable things or are their ideological opposites just because they're "good at the game."

Then there are those who live life by the "I've got mine" mantra but are occasionally uncomfortable by it

My attitude is not to define oneself by one's party but by one's action. One's action comes from the way they look at themselves, those around them, and those they do not even know.

Labels are too constricting in the end.

As for defending Stupak--regardless of the chess move proponents and their arguments or semantic games, in the end they need to own it and accept the fact that some may call them on it. Their defense of it can also be called out and they better have a valid argument or that too will be called out.

[donheld]

87. Defending that amendment is indefensible.

[Sebass1271]

91. I haven't defended it.

[madrchsod]

93. until november we had a common enemy...bush

then we were fighting over the candidates and it has`t been the same. now it`s eating our own.

the grand hotel..people come and people go..... nothing ever changes

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

97. Womens' rights are mere bargaining chips for the party "purists" that defend a bad bill.

[saracat]

99. You are correct and they are the actual "purists" demanding lockstep ,loyalty while they demean

others as purists for merely demading they respect their own party platform!

[pmorlan1]

198. Bingo

You are correct.

[MilesColtrane]

103. IF the Senate passes a bill and IF Stupak is still in after Conference Committee...

...then every member of Congress who call themselves a Democrat should vote it down without hesitation.

Strangling HCR in the cradle though is shortsighted. Everyone who voted yes on the House bill knows they will get a chance to approve a final version if the Senate comes through.

[Nikki Stone1]

118. The same way a lot of them defend rapists.

As long as the penis gets its way, nothing else matters.

[saracat]

123. What is sad is the support from women.

[1]

119. i haven't seen anyone defend stupak here...

what i have seen is people defending the house bill (and all of its warts) over doing nothing.

what i have seen is people trying to inform that stupak does not at all change abortion rights. those rights all still remain, same as they are now. stupak only addresses funding.

i have seen no defense of stupak...

[saracat]

121. There are some in the thread below

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

And BTW, defending the funding issue is defending Stupak!

[1]

124. your link doesn't work. i get a 404.

and i don't think i was clear in my post above (or you misunderstood it) so i'll say it again.

i have seen people informing that stupak in no way changes abortion rights. stupak is about funding. stupak changes funding, but in no way changes any rights.

is that more clear?

[Luminous Animal]

126. I see. It is only a right if you can personally afford it.

90% of insurance companies already offer abortion coverage. That is, women a enjoy a right to health care coverage that is equal to what is offered to men... coverage that will insure all of their health care needs. Stupak's amendment relegates that coverage to a suspect class. Women are barred from the concept of universal health insurance.

[1]

130. wow. you need to look up the word "right." then look up the word "distinction."

nowhere is it ever defined that a right must be offered to you gratis.

a right is a right. you have a right to an abortion. where in your concept of rights do you get that your abortion must be free.

you need to read some more. distinguish between the concepts of rights and funding.

stupak says nothing about rights. stupak addresses funding.

mix them up all you want in your brain, if you want. they are not connected.


women are not "barred from the concept of universal health insurance" as you say. first of all, because there is no concept of universal health insurance. that aside, you do not want to go down the path of tit-for-tat about the benefits of health coverage, because a woman's needs are far greater than a man's. this whole argument is silly.


stupak does not in any way change abortion law. that is a fact. if you want to complain about funding, ok. that is a separate issue. but it has nothing to do with rights.

[Luminous Animal]

132. It wouldn't be free. You would still have to pay for the insurance.

Rights are based on equal access. Abortions are part of reproductive health care for women. To put barriers up to access that health care is to deny equal access. Redlining certain neighborhoods in regards to access for mortgages never explicitly said anything about rights, either. But the practice effectively denied a segment of society access to a service available to other segments of society and it was deemed institutional discrimination.

As for universal? Mandating that everyone carry insurance, whether subsidized or not, is universal insurance.

[1]

138. but you are wrong. you have a right to an abortion. you do not have a "right" to healthcare...

no such rights exist. they can, by law, force you to buy insurance. a law, not a right. nothing "universal" about that.

equal access is not changed. you still have equal access to your abortion...

[Luminous Animal]

154. You don't have a right to buy a house

but discriminatory practices are illegal.

[winyanstaz]

175. First off...NO where in the constitution is the Federal government given the right..

to FORCE anyone to buy insurance or to practice healthcare.
Secondly..YES..every human being on this planet has a RIGHT for healthcare if we as citizens want it. This is OUR frikking government and FOR us and BY us.
And as to equal access that is just bullshit. You will need a way to pay out of your own pocket and that is beyond the reach of the poor as well as minors that may be pregnant due to rape etc.

You need to read the Constition and tell us exactly where it says the Government can FORCE people to buy insurance or put chemicals into their bodies.

ALL rights not spelled out in the Constitution are RETAINED by the people.

[saracat]

128. Same link works in this thread post 96 upthread.

[1]

131. no. the link in #96 works, the link above does not. just fyi, no big thing...

[mullard12ax7]

183. Got your eyes closed?

Yep.

[villager]

120. well put, Saracat! And yes, these troublingly pro-"Family" (in the "C street" sense)

posters are spewing pixels right and left.

their language is indeed sneering and patronizing, and they are convinced -- AM radio style -- they, and they alone, have it all figured out, and everyone else is wrong.

[saracat]

122. There is another by an old fvorite that 'breaks it down " for us and explains how we are wrong.

Stunningly familiar rhetoric. Rinse and repeat.

[villager]

159. Saw that, too. Fairly condescending -- puts it in "lay language" for us little people....

n/t

[The Magistrate]

125. The Stupak Amendment, Ma'am, Is An Abomination Which Must Be Stripped From The Bill

Defense of it should be opposed vigorously.

[saracat]

129. Thank you Sir. And oppose it vigorously I do!

[freddie mertz]

140. K & R. What we have seen is sickening and revealing.

The knee-jerkers ASSUMED the president and centrist Dems like McCaskill would line up behind the Stupak amendment.

Then they didn't, throwing that mob into a tailspin of increasingly desperate denial, self-contradiction, and vitriol against the "true" Democrats here.

As an unmasking trick, at least, it has proved remarkably effective.

[Duncan]

143. self deleted

[Duncan]

144. self delete

[Hell Hath No Fury]

147. If this health insurance reform bill --

gets passed with something like Stupak attached, that is it, I walk from the Party. I am done. Plain and simple. :( And I will send every mucky-muck with the DNC a copy of my voter documenst showing my change.

[dionysus]

150. on edit, the number of cranks defending it is miniscule

[redqueen]

157. Why do you hate hyperbole? (nt)

[tonysam]

151. Nobody is "defending" Stupak. Some of us are trying to inject some reality

into all of the hoopla over it.

The federal government can limit financing or subsidies to pay for abortions. Period. There is nothing that can be done about it until there is a USSC that says otherwise or Congress overrules the Hyde Amendment, neither of which will happen.

[Lerkfish]

155. grasshopper, the answer is contained in the question

How can "liberals" defend Stupak?"


they can't. they aren't liberals.

[earth mom]

160. DU has gone over to the dark side. This is not a dem site any more. nt

[spiritual_gunfighter]

163. Seems that way lately

I barely recognize it anymore.

[winyanstaz]

176. It will be but only if Dems stand up and fight for it..

[spiritual_gunfighter]

162. Are we sure they are "good" Democrats? n/t

[polmaven]

168. And...when did we start referring to

being anti-choice as being "pro-life"?

I am at work, so I have been able only to browse the responses, but I have seen so many referring to the supporters of Stupak as being pro-life!

No....they are anti-choice...There is a BIG difference.

[winyanstaz]

170. I have to say..thank you for this excellent post.

Exactly! Seems like DU has a large share of wolves in dem clothing...either that or a lot of dems have bought shares in the insurance industry.
I always thought Democrats fought for ALL Americans and that included women and women's healthcare. Now I am wondering how this party has lost its way so far.

[Desertrose]

180. I don't think it lost its way as much as it was...

basically hijacked.

Those who are now called liberal or progressive used to be your average Dem.


Both parties are basically corporate parties. Profit is always the bottom line and people...well, they don't count unless they are being good little consumers. Hence we are sold the product of health insurance all wrapped up in to look like health CARE.



This site is SO different from the way it was back in '01. Unrecognizable, actually.

[AllTooEasy]

192. Let's just drop the amendment and start over from scratch

...just like Michael Steele wants to.

[kath]

194. Not been taken over by aliens, but by fokkin' DLCers

who are in no way "good Democrats", but Repugs in disguise.

[Tx4obama]

201. If the Dems start tossing out the dems that don't believe in using tax-payer dollars

If the Dems start tossing out the dems that don't believe in using tax-payer dollars for abortions then the dem tent is going to get smaller!

Since when did 'not supporting using federal dollars to fund abortion' mean that someone is not a true democrat?

I support a woman's right to have an abortion - WITH HER OWN MONEY not the taxpayers money.

Stupak has NOTHING at all to the with the RIGHT of a woman to have an abortion.

Stupak is AN INSURANCE ISSUE!

[saracat]

204. Rinse and repeat.Say that often enough and maybe it will become true.

if women are forced to purchase insurance, they should have the same coverage as all other purchsers and not be exempted for biology.Or morality. And BTW, wasn't this called Heath Care Reform?

[natrat]

203. yes they are aliens, dlc/junta scumbag political operatives related to agent mike

FUCK YOU AGENT MIKE you pos

[BrklynLiberal]

209. An excellent question...and some of the responses that you are getting are disappointing...

I think part of it is that many people are convinced that since THEY will never need to have an abortion, this is not an important issue.

Must we really quote Pastor Neimoller yet once again???

First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak out for me.

[Ter]

210. Many of us are hard-core pro-choice

But simply don't want the government to pay for it. What do the polls on abortion say about this?

[saracat]

212. If you don't want the government to pay for it, why don't you?

And this isn't about the government paying for it anyway. If you had followed the argument you would no that. I will say, if you are against the government paying for it but not against the government paying for all other health conditions, you aren't hard core pro-choice. you are not. you define a dfifference between this as health care for women and other procedures.
My guess is you really don't support abortion but like to "think" you support choice because you kid yourself that you are not imposing your moral code on others. But you are.

[BrklynLiberal]

213. You are 100% correct...

"Hard-core pro-choice" would not support such limitations..particularly when it comes to how to pay for one's choice. If you believe that only those that can afford to pay for it themselves will get the medical attention they need...that is NOT pro-choice.
That is mysogynistic, racist and classist.

[Ter]

219. It's a choice

Therefore it's not medical attention that's necessary. And really, throwing out the "racist" word? Now all of a sudden I am white. Unbelievable.

[Ter]

218. I didn't say I was 100% pro-choice

I said I was hardcore pro-choice, there's a difference. I support a woman's right to choose. Hell, I even oppose parental notification. That puts me at odds with the majority of people. But I can't support the government paying for it with the people's tax funds, it's just not right. I'm sorry, I may be in the minority on this issue here but I'm in the majority everywhere else.

[1]

220. nothing has happened to du. aside from the total rise in "drama queen," "omg!" posters like you...

you need to relax. smoke some of your medical or have a drink or something.

omg! omg! omg! enough already.

du is just fine. you, on the other hand, seem to be losing it. or should i say loosing it, so the posters here will understand.

chill. hcr is going to be what it is. like it? don't like it? shout at the moon!

you need to relax. it is out of your hands. your have registered your complaints. they are going to move on. i suggest you do too.

peace...

[saracat]

223. Funny, the phrase "Drama Queen " itself is routinely used to denigrate either female or gay posters

when they object to being marginalized. I guess they should just tow the line and STFU so others can "move on".We are viewed as impediments to be removed instead of valuable constituencies. Many of us will remember this at the polls if this is not corrected.

Thanks for a wonderful illustration of the lack importance this issue has to many.this "drama Queen" proudly supports all the Pro-Choice groups and the Pro-Choice Caucus and many Democratic Groups in expressing concern for a potential devaluation of women's reproductive health care.

[ProgressOnTheMove]

221. I've supported the pass of the bill in help of the sick not in support of Stupak at all...

Maxine Waters was in turmoil in voting for the bill she has all her constituents who are desperate need of a HCR and at the same time she is very womens rights. I don't feel her vote means she hates women, I am in the same quandary she is over the bill. It was a step forwards and step back at the same time, it can be corrected i conference my hopes are there.

[saracat]

224. i understand support of the Bill. It is support of Stupak that is in question. Maxine does not

support Stupak.

[ProgressOnTheMove]

225. I just got paranoid that my suppor of the bill was seen that way, no worries.

[jpak]

226. Answer - they are fucking troll assholes

the end

[B Calm]

227. How can DU members not defend The Democratic Principles?

The Democratic Principles

Where We Stand

In keeping with our party's grand tradition, we reaffirm Jefferson's belief in individual liberty and capacity for self-government. We endorse Jackson's credo of equal opportunity for all, special privileges for none. We embrace Roosevelt's thirst for innovation and Kennedy's summons to civic duty. And we intend to carry on Clinton's insistence upon new means to achieve progressive ideals.

As New Democrats, we believe in a Third Way that rejects the old left-right debate and affirms America's basic bargain: opportunity for all, responsibility from all, and community of all.

We believe in free enterprise to stimulate economic innovation and growth and in public activism to ensure that everyone can share in America's prosperity.

We believe that government's proper role in the New Economy is to equip working Americans with new tools for economic success and security.

We believe in expanding trade and investment because we must be a party of economic progress, not economic reaction.

We believe that global markets demand global rules and institutions to ensure fair competition and to provide checks and balances on private power.

We believe that fiscal discipline is fundamental to sustained economic growth as well as responsible government.

We believe that a progressive tax system is the only fair way to pay for government.

We believe the Democratic Party's mission is to expand opportunity, not government.

We believe that education must be America's great equalizer, and we will not abandon our public schools or tolerate their failure.

We believe that all Americans must have access to health insurance in a system that balances governmental and individual responsibility.

We believe in preventing crime and punishing criminals and that America's criminal justice system should be rooted in and responsive to the communities it serves.

We believe in a new social compact that requires and rewards work in exchange for public assistance and that ensures that no family with a full-time worker will live in poverty.

We believe that public policies should reinforce marriage, promote family, demand parental responsibility, and discourage out-of-wedlock births.

We believe in shifting the focus of America's anti-poverty and social insurance programs from transferring wealth to creating wealth.

We believe in replacing top-down bureaucracy with more flexible public institutions that enable citizens and communities to solve their own problems.

We believe government should harness the forces of choice and competition to achieve public goals.

We believe in enhancing the role that civic entrepreneurs, voluntary groups, and religious institutions play in tackling America's social ills.

We believe in strengthening environmental protection by giving communities the flexibility to tackle new challenges that cannot be solved with top-down mandates.

We believe government must combat discrimination on the basis of race, creed, gender, or sexual orientation; defend civil liberties; and stay out of our private lives.

We believe that the common civic ideals Americans share transcend group differences and forge unity from diversity.

We believe that abortion should be safe, legal, and rare.

We believe in progressive internationalism -- the bold exercise of U.S. leadership to foster peace, prosperity, and democracy.

We believe that the United States must maintain a strong, technologically superior defense to protect our interests and values.

Finally, we believe that American citizenship entails responsibilities as well as rights, and we mean to ask our citizens to give something back to their communities and their country.


Democratic Leadership Council