Catholic "pro-life" activist calls Stupak amendment a "'Terrible defeat' for pro-lifers"

[madfloridian]

Just goes to show you, doesn't it. No matter how hard you try, you just can't please everyone.

When you try too hard and compromise with extremists....they just move the goalposts and complain that they are not satisfied.

Stupak amendment: 'Terrible defeat' for pro-lifers

It is amazing why they consider it a "defeat". It is because it is not extreme enough, and it allows abortions in cases of rape and incest.

A Catholic pro-life activist is criticizing the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and others who have declared passage of the Stupak amendment to the House healthcare bill a pro-life victory.

Catholic bishops and other right-to-life groups have praised House approval of the Stupak amendment that bans federal funding of abortion in the public health insurance option, but Judie Brown of the American Life League (ALL) says the amendment is a "terrible defeat" for pro-lifers. Brown reports that the Stupak amendment would still permit taxpayers to pay for some abortions.

"It will allow taxpayers to pay for abortions in the cases of rape, incest, life of the mother, and quite possibly even more than that," the ALL president contends. "And the bigger problem with the Stupak amendment is that while it may be viewed by some people as being an incredible victory for the pro-life movement, the fact of the matter is it does not bode well for us being able to protect human beings in the long term."

Brown argues that the Stupak amendment allows individuals to separately purchase plans that cover abortion, "expands access to abortifacient contraception, expands funding for Planned Parenthood, has provisions for euthanasia, and has no conscience protection for healthcare workers."

Perhaps our party should stand for one of their main constituencies...women. The right for women to have abortions paid for was in the 2008 Democratic platform.

"We will never put ideology above women’s health."

"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."

http://www.dnc.org/a/party/platform.html

What happened between 2008 and this week when our party had 64 Democrats vote for an amendment that went expressly against the 2008 platform?

Who allowed this to happen by not standing up and speaking out when it was going on? Why was the Speaker of the House meeting with Catholic bishops that Friday night before the vote?

The Democrats put it in writing that they would never put ideology "above women's health", that they would advocate for safe and legal abortions "regardless of ability to pay."

Anti-choice groups are not especially happy..because it does no good to compromise with extremists.

Now pro-choice women are feeling betrayed.

[tonysam]

1. "Beggars can't be choosers."

The Stupak Amendment is perfectly agreeable to the vast majority of those opposed to abortion. If any health care reform passes Congress, which I doubt, there will be restrictions on abortion funding, which is legal, even with exceptions for rape, incest, and life-threatening conditions of pregnant women.

After all, poor women have somehow been able to get abortions for the past 33 years, presumably because abortion providers have some kind of sliding scale for payment. That would make the most sense to me, anyway. The big problem for people with limited income is the number of clinics providing abortions.

That's what critics of Stupak really need to be focusing on rather than complaining about something that's been a reality for a third of a century.

[madfloridian]

2. Not my point, really.

Our party just screwed up by going against the party platform to please extremist anti-women-rights groups.

That is my point.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

3. The person you're arguing with is pretty pro-RRC, btw.

Just FYI.

The RCC and anti-choice religious orgs can go fuck themselves at this point. AFAIAC, they are attempting to force me into practicing a religion I left long ago. And you can't do that shit here in the US.

[madfloridian]

5. I agree.

I never thought our party would treat women like this with a big majority.

It's shameful.

[JoeyT]

44. Depends on who's doing the begging and who's doing the choosing.

"After all, poor women have somehow been able to get abortions for the past 33 years"
And you know this because you're a poor woman, right? Well below the poverty level, I mean. Paying for an abortion or buying food for the next three months poor. If not, I'd suggest you know not what you speak of.

Speaking as a guy that's volunteered to walk women into clinics, there'd be a lot more clinics if pro-lifers were held to the same standard other protesters are.

[lukasahero]

4. As I sit here wondering what country and what century we're living in,

I can find no words to effectively communicate my confusion over how a woman can put these sentences together in the same breath and not cause her own spontaneous combustion:

"It will allow taxpayers to pay for abortions in the cases of ... life of the mother... does not bode well for us being able to protect human beings in the long term."

Jesus wept.

[Blue State Blues]

12. It's obvious

women are not human beings. Therefore, women don't have human rights ... or civil rights. Makes perfect sense.

(I am being sarcastic.)

[lukasahero]

15. Ouch

The fact that you actually felt you had to add the disclaimer about sarcasm is kind of a sad commentary on the state of affairs around here lately. :(

[madfloridian]

6. Where are the male Democrats who have professed to be pro-choice?

I have not seen any of them speaking out on this.

It is almost as though they approved.

[aquart]

9. "Democratics"?

[madfloridian]

10. I fixed it.

Thank you for noticing.

[madfloridian]

7. CA Catholic Daily mentions Lynn Woolsey for criticizing bishops' role...

in the health care planning.

California Catholic Daily

"Now that the U.S. House has narrowly approved a national healthcare bill, abortion advocates are taking aim at Catholic bishops and seeking to exact political retribution on pro-life legislators who insisted on a provision banning federal abortion funding as a condition of their support.

In an item published Nov. 9 by Politico.com under the heading “IRS should scrutinize bishops,” Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-San Rafael, asks of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, “Who elected them to Congress?” and suggests the Church’s tax-exempt status should be reviewed. Woolsey said the bishops’ support of the Stupak amendment “was more than mere advocacy” and said the bishops “managed to bully members of Congress to vote for added restrictions on a perfectly legal surgical procedure.”

More from the post:

In the meantime, the Associated Press moved a story published in newspapers across the country under the heading, “The Influence Game: Bishops shape health care bill.” Among other things, the AP story reported that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco, telephoned Rome to speak with former Washington, D.C., Archbishop Theodore McCarrick on Friday, Nov. 6, the day before the House narrowly approved the Stupak Amendment. Cardinal McCarrick served as Archbishop of Washington from 2001-2006.

“Catholic bishops have emerged as a formidable force in the health care overhaul fight, using their clout with millions of Catholics and working behind the scenes in Congress to get strong abortion restrictions into the House bill,” said the AP. “They don't spend a dime on what is legally defined as lobbying, but lawmakers and insiders recognize that the bishops' voices matter -- and they move votes. Representatives for the bishops were in House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's Capitol suite negotiating with top officials last Friday evening as they reached final terms of the agreement. Earlier in the day, Pelosi, a Catholic and an abortion rights supporter, had been on the phone to Rome with Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick, Washington's former archbishop, on the subject.”

According to the AP, Boston Archbishop Cardinal Sean O'Malley made a private appeal to President Barack Obama on federal abortion funding “near the church altar at the early September funeral for Sen. Edward M. Kennedy.” The AP also said that bishops across the U.S. “quietly called their congressmen and senators to weigh in.”

[madfloridian]

8. "Here we are playing nice guy again, we didn't want to make a fuss."

Interesting comments from Katha Pollitt's article at The Nation:

What makes the Stupak fiasco especially pathetic is the fumbling response from prochoicers. Missouri Democrat Claire McCaskill would not be in the Senate today were it not for prochoice and feminist supporters like EMILY's List. How does she thank us? By telling Joe Scarborough that Stupak isn't so bad, that it won't affect "the majority of America"--just low-income women--and that it's "an example of having to govern with moderates." So people who'll tip healthcare reform into the trash unless it blocks abortion access are the moderates now! (McCaskill took it back later that day, but the damage was done.) If I ever give that woman another dime, shoot me.

The big prochoice and feminist organizations are up in arms--NOW and Planned Parenthood want to see healthcare reform voted down if Stupak is retained--but writing in the Daily Beast, Dana Goldstein nicely captures the bewilderment of leaders caught by surprise. "It's the feeling that you've been rolled," said Eleanor Smeal, of Feminist Majority. Or haven't been paying attention. Smeal was onto something, though, when she told Goldstein, "Here we are playing nice guy again, we didn't want to make a fuss." Consciously or unconsciously, by not organizing in advance to insist on coverage of abortion, prochoicers set themselves up to be out-maneuvered. In fact, as Sharon Lerner reported on TheNation.com, Democrats stood by while antichoicers kept contraception out of the reform bill's list of basic benefits all insurers must cover. So much for the "common ground" approach where we all agree that birth control is the way to lower the abortion rate.

Enough already. Prochoicers have been taking one for the team since 1976, when Congress passed the Hyde amendment, which Jimmy Carter would later defend with the immortal comment, "There are many things in life that are not fair." Time for the theocrats and male chauvinists to give something up for the greater good--to say nothing of the twenty prochoicers, all men, who supported Stupak out of sheer careerism. After all, if it weren't for prochoicers, there wouldn't be much of a team for them to play on.

Yes, women's groups apparently did set themselves up to be "out-maneuvered", and they were indeed.

Whose team is it anyway?

[AngryOldDem]

11. Judie Brown and the American Life League are extemists in the extreme...

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/american-life-league

<<Founded by Judie and Paul Brown with help from right-wing strategist Paul Weyrich, the American Life League (ALL) is a spin-off from the National Right to Life Committee with a more grassroots orientation. ALL is closely aligned with the Catholic Church and opposes birth control, stem cell research and euthanasia. ALL was an enthusiastic backer of the extreme anti-abortion tactics promoted by Operation Rescue.

ALL's early networking created the foundation for the outspoken anti-abortion movement in the 1980s and the established movement as it exists now.
ALL helped to establish the "rescue" movement, which made the use of aggressive tactics to disrupt reproductive health services commonplace.
These tactics, adopted and popularized by ALL, include "sidewalk counseling," clinic blockades, and the systematic harassing and intimidation of patients, clinics and doctors.
According to Brown these activities are "free speech" and in 1994 ALL filed charges over the Freedom of Access to Clinics Act (FACE) in American Life League v. Reno. ALL lost in the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court refused to hear the case.<<

She won't be fully satisfied until Roe is overturned and abortion is made a criminal offense. She is unapologetic that her concern begins and ends with the fetus.

[madfloridian]

13. More from the DNC platform.

"We oppose the current administration's consistent attempts to undermine a woman's ability to make her own life choices and obtain reproductive health care including birth control. We will end health care discrimination against contraception and provide compassionate care to rape victims. We will never put ideology above women's health."

I notice abortion is not mentioned, yet it is mentioned under the section called 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."

http://www.dnc.org/a/party/platform.html

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

14. The Dems cave in on this is disgusting and pathetic. k&r

[debbierlus]

16. They had to come out ULTRA extreme to make the Stupak amendment appear to be the compromise

The talking point will be:

The right and some blue dogs don't think the Stupak amendment goes far enough. This is their compromise position, and anything weaker will be voted against.

Plan on it.

Called on 11/12/09

[kctim]

17. Maybe its because I'm missing something, but I don't get it

Women can still choose to get an abortion, but their rights are somehow being stripped of them because somebody else won't pay for it?

[madfloridian]

19. Yes, you are missing something really really important.

I don't think I am calm enough to explain it to you rationally right now.

[Hekate]

20. How about: "You can still choose to get a triple-bypass, but you have to pay for it."

Abortion is a medical procedure, and sometimes it is necessary to the life and health of the woman involved.

Please understand, the same people who went for Stupak don't want CONTRACEPTION covered, either.

Hekate

[kctim]

22. I know I have to pay for a triple bypass

unless its life and death, then they would operate on me and bill me later, just as they would if a womans life was threatened during a pregnancy.
Do you think govt should pay for contraception, viagra and that kind of stuff? Sorry, but I do not.

Look, I always vote for a womans right to choose. I always mind my own business about such a personal thing for them. My opinion means nothing because I am a dude. I have protested with women on this and marched with them in support of their right to choose. And I am not religious at all.
But I just don't see how their rights are being taken from them because someone else does not pay for their decision. (Life threatening not included)

[madfloridian]

23. Most of DU is like that now. Not a clue about the ramifications of Stupak...

and his stupid amendment.

So you should feel very comfortable here.

This is most discriminatory act against women that Democrats have done in my lifetime.

But it's like okay because we are all Dems together, or some crap like that. Now ain't the cozy and comfy.

Women get screwed by the Democrats who promised to protect their rights....and this forum defends the action.

[kctim]

45. Then it should be easy enough for you to give answers

HOW is "this the most discriminatory act against women" and how does it not protect their rights, if the procedure is still available to them? Is it really because somebody else will not pay for it? Valid questions and I would like to know what I am missing.

So, please leave the emotions out of it and tell us about the "ramifications of Stupak" that we are missing.

[dflprincess]

38. You're missing this from the Democratic party platform

"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."

The Stupak amendment is in conflict with this.

BTW - I gather that, as you don't think abortion or contraception should be paid for, you have no problem with covering pregnancy and well baby care.

[kctim]

46. I absolutely do NOT dispute that

and MadF is correct in saying the party should stand for its platform. But somebody said it violates womens rights and sets them back 50 years or whatever, and I ask HOW it does. The Dem Party platform or any other party platform, does not give, grant or approve rights.

I believe it is govts responsibility to aide with any of those things only when they are life threatening.

[M_A]

18. we need to see some true progressive senators

who will not only strip Stupak from this sad excuse of a bill but will also add an amendment that negates Hyde across the board. that would really be change for the better.

[JNelson6563]

21. K&R

Well said MF, as usual. :hi:

[madfloridian]

25. Thanks, Julie. Been wondering about why HD hasn't spoken out?

Dean always professed to be pro-choice, so surprised he has made no comment.

[BobTheSubgenius]

24. If you want to "protect human beings in the long term", Judie...

...try to become one. It might prove of use in understanding the rest of us.

[Jackpine Radical]

26. There is a moral in this story. A moral about trying to compromise with absolutists.

Anti-choice fanatics, wingnuts, fundies of most stripes, etc. Reach a hand out to them and they'll bite it. There is just absolutely no point in trying to offer them something. The only thing that happens is that you find that you've sold out your principles and gotten nothing in return.

[madfloridian]

27. "sold out your principles and gotten nothing in return."

Exactly right.

[Kaleva]

29. Same can be said for left wingers who behave the same way as right wingers.

It's the extremists on either end of the spectrum who cannot accept compromise and there's no point in trying.

[madfloridian]

31. Hell, yes. Women are a very convenient compromise, aren't they?

Isn't it nice to have them to marginalize to get the right wing vote?

Our party is becoming the Republican party before our eyes.

Next time you see a woman, thank her for giving up her rights.

[Kaleva]

35. And yet, a large number of women would accept this compromise.

Congressmen like Stupak are in office because a significant percentage of women vote for them. If a majority of women in the 1st Congressional District of Michigan voted against Stupak in the next election, he'd lose for sure but that is not going to happen.

[madfloridian]

37. That is their personal decision.

To me it is about a party betrayal. It goes far deeper than abortion. I have not heard a single male Democrat go on TV and call this a shameful thing to do.

It is their right to have their "beloved" Stupak, as I have been told he is there...beloved.

Good for them.

It is a religion based amendment....done with Catholic bishops being taken from Stupak's office to Pelosi's.

I really am out of patience.

I am quite accepting now that the people here who are excusing this do not see a broader picture.

[Kaleva]

40. I don't have an issue looking at the broader picture

I do debate (argue) with those who seem to fixate on Stupak himself.

[madfloridian]

41. Stupak is assuming his views on women should be forced on us.

I have a real problem with him.

The fact that Pelosi allowed him to bring the bishops to her office Friday night gave him more power than he deserved.

Women are people, not little puppets he can manipulate like he is manipulating this party.

[Kaleva]

42. Why then don't you have a major issue with Pelosi?

Instead of Stupak, who is doing what he's always done since he's been in Congress and what a majority of the citizens in his district want him to do.

[madfloridian]

43. I do right now.

I usually respect her, but not right now.

[Kaleva]

28. The goal posts haven't been moved.

Some have always held the view that abortion ought to be illegal even in the case of rape, incest or when the life of the mother is at stake. For them, the Stupak Amendment doesn't go far enough and is thus a defeat.

[madfloridian]

32. Yes, the goal posts have been moved most definitely.

We are becoming the Republican party by letting women down.

DU is fine with it.

[waiting for hope]

30. I feel betrayed - by the party that I have thought

for over 20 years was the party that would protect a woman's right to choose.

[Gman]

33. Well, that's a nice counter balance to the purists here

that think the House legislation is horrible. Both extremes are represented.

[Betty]

34. saving the life of the mother isn't a good enough reason to abort?

so how can these assholes even think they are pro life when they are willing to see the mother die.

[dflprincess]

39. The Catholic church has never thought the mother's life should be saved

if it meant sacrificing a fetus. The only exception to this is in a case like an ectopic pregnancy when the fetus has no chance of making it to viablity, then the mother's welfare may be considered.

I am always amazed that anyone still listens to these assholes.

[upi402]

36. Dems will never learn. Tigers ARE cute, but you're still their food.

"Perhaps our party should stand for one of their main constituencies...women"

"Our" party? Do "we" even have an opposition party to corporatists and the loons who love them too much? I don't think most of the Democrats in office act in "our" best interest.

[jbnow]

47. I sort of don't get it. Pro-choice women are feeling betrayed by the

Stupak amendment?

OK, how should we feel if it is stripped? A lot luckier than millions of our sisters.

The House health care bill would do this
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33531099/ns/politics-health_care_reform/

For those at even lower incomes, the bill provides for an expansion of Medicaid, the state-federal health program for the poor. Adults up to 150 percent of poverty — individuals making up to $16,245 and a family of four up to $33,075 — would be covered, a provision estimated to add 15 million to Medicaid.

That's millions more women on Medicaid. No one argues that the Hyde amendment clearly bans any abortion coverage except for the same restrictions the Stupak amendment has... rape, incest and life of the mother.

So...if we got our way and the amendment was stripped... it would still leave new millions of those LEAST able to pay for an abortion without coverage.

Most of us could pay for an abortion if needed or at least put it on our credit card. The ones going on Medicaid would have a lot harder time with that.
So hurray, we protect all the women except the ones who need it most? I don't know how many women are already on medicaid...

The same restrictions on abortion apply to Medicare. Disabled women who get Medicare have paid into Medicare all their working life, continue to pay every month for the Medicare they are getting and many buy private supplemental insurance (medi-gap) with their own money too. The private insurance has the same restrictions because they are on Medicare.
Even if pregnancy and childbirth will worsen the health condition of the woman abortion isn't covered unless it could actually kill her. There is the added factor that disability can certainly make raising a child more difficult.

Then we have federal employees who pay a portion of their premiums and the military
People are saying women have never been so betrayed. Well yes, we sure as hell have.
http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/choice-action-center/in_your_state/who-decides/federal/index.html?templateName=allfederallawdetails

Every year since 1995, Congress has passed a spending bill that contains language barring federal employees from choosing a health plan that provides insurance coverage for abortion. The only exception is when the life of the woman would be endangered if the pregnancy were carried to term or where the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest.

The military health care is federal funds, OK, but this goes well beyond Hyde amendment

Retired and current military personnel and their dependents are also prohibited from obtaining coverage for abortion care through military health plans, even if a pregnancy resulted from an act of rape or incest. The plans only allow a narrow exception for abortion coverage where the life of the woman would be endangered if the pregnancy were carried to term.

The rape part is chilling considering the news. This is just a portion of the results from this first search page...
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&safe=off&num=30&newwindow=1&q=rape+women+military&aq=&aqi=&oq=rape+women+military&fp=1c443ffcb5a5cce1

#
Sexual assault in military 'jaw-dropping,' lawmaker says - CNN.com
Jul 31, 2008 ... "Women serving in the U.S. military today are more likely to be raped by a fellow soldier than killed by enemy fire in Iraq." ...
www.cnn.com/2008/US/07/31/military.../index.html - Cached - Similar
#
Sexual Abuse By Military Recruiters - CBS News
Aug 19, 2006 ... More Than 100 Women Raped Or Assaulted By Recruiters In Past Year. ... of the military, has had 722 recruiters accused of rape and sexual ...
www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/19/.../main1913849.shtml - Cached - Similar
#
The private war of women soldiers - Salon.com
Mar 7, 2007 ... Rape, sexual assault and harassment are nothing new to the military. They were a serious problem for the Women's Army Corps in Vietnam ...
www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/03/.../women_in_military/ - Cached - Similar
#
Think Progress » Harman: women in military 'more likely to be ...
Mar 31, 2008 ... “Women serving in the U.S. military are more likely to be raped by a fellow soldier than killed by enemy fire in Iraq. ...
thinkprogress.org/2008/03/31/harman-military-rape/ - Cached - Similar
#
Sex Abuse of Military Women / Alarming rates of harassment, rape ...
May 12, 1995 ... Sex Abuse of Military Women / Alarming rates of harassment, rape reported. Articles. Ninety percent of women under 50 who have served in the ...
www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/1995/05/12/...DTL - Cached
#
War Among Comrades: 1 in 3 Women Raped in the Military
Study finds that 1 in 3 women in the military are raped. This week, Veterans for Peace (VFP), a national organization of veterans working together for peace ...
www.care2.com/.../womens.../war-among-comrades-1-in-3-women-raped-in-the-military/ - Cached
#
BBC NEWS | Americas | Women at war face sexual violence
Apr 17, 2009 ... According to several studies of the US military funded by the Department of Veteran Affairs, 30% of military women are raped while serving ...
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8005198.stm - Cached

If they get pregnant they can just pay for it themselves by golly. We don't want to spend taxpayer money for abortion.
How sick is that?

So yes the Stupak amendment is bad...but it sure as hell isn't worse. Our concern should be a lot wider than just for the group it affects

[madfloridian]

48. Praise the Lord....Stupak amendment not as bad as it could be.

:sarcasm: