Obama trades women’s rights for…absolutely NOTHING

At least when the U.S. Senate sold out  women with the Nelson and Stupak amendments, they told us they had to do it to pass health care legislation for all Americans. (yeah, I know, that makes us women some kind of sub-American or object of barter.)

Now, without even any political or legislative benefit to receive in exchange, and without any legal requirement to do so, the Obama Administration has imposed a more restrictive abortion funding rule on high risk health insurance pools than is required for health insurance exchanges or Medicaid.

RH Reality Check has the details.

Women entering these plans are, by definition, those who have experienced serious medical conditions—so serious that insurers are unwilling to sell them insurance.  In other words, those who get pregnant are already at a heightened risk for needing an abortion for health reasons when compared to the general population.

I hope that this stupid and callous decision has nothing to do with this.


10 Comments on "Obama trades women’s rights for…absolutely NOTHING"

  1. The leadership of neither party cares about women’s rights – abortion is classic wedge politics. They use it to divvy up voters. Here’s teh key – when you see signs that the Democrats are behaving just as the Republicans have behaved, don’t say “betrayed!”, but rather “exposed!”

  2. If this is some kind of strategy, and these dim bulbs probably think it is, it’s even more terrible for the women who will suffer so these tools can score, what, political points with people who aren’t going to vote for them anyway?? “I know, let’s cover our own Brooks Brother’s *sses at the expense of women with cancer! Great idea brah!”

  3. As Rahm says, you have nowhere else to go. They don’t think twice or even once before betraying progressives, as they know you are not going to vote for Republicans.

    Politicians respond to stick, and not carrots. You have to punish them for bad behavior, but we are always told at election time that we must choose the lesser of evils, and so the cycle continues.

  4. I would agree that most politicians are motivated by fear and not by anything else: this applies the most to the most powerful politicians, (as opposed to volunteer state legislators) but it is still terrible. We just have to get enough power to make them fear us. Or get creative enough to make them think we have that power.

  5. LBJ was a southern senator with absolutely no record in civil rights. The issue meant nothing to him. FDR came into office just another well-bred aristocrat. Each responded to movements outside of party politics that scared him – FDR the labor movement, and LBJ feared that if he did not pass a civil rights movement, he might have a real revolution on his hands.

    Positive change does not start at the top and flow down – quite the opposite. Politicians – all politicians- respond to popular will expressed through organized movements. That is what scares them.

    The parties, especially the Democrats, swallow up movements and render them moot. That’s why positive change cannot happen via the parties. No matter the merits of a candidate, he cannot overcome the power of money inside the party.

  6. So, Mark, how exactly can positive change occur if not through the political parties? To state the obvious, change occurs through legislation passed in the Senate and House or through actions of the Executive. All the actors (except the senator from Vermont) belong to the two major political parties.

    I was active in the sixties in civil rights demonstrations. I don’t remember any Republicans in these demonstrations. (Sometimes they were in counter-demonstrations.) Anti-war demonstrators of the sixties and seventies were, like me, overwhelmingly Democrats. We weren’t swallowed up and rendered moot.

    How can the “I’m too pure to belong to a political party” posture lead to positive change? I’m not just trying to needle you. I’d really like to hear your answer.

  7. There are people who do the right thing simply because its the right thing to do, these people are just uncommon. Take for example Brian Schweitzer who rejected the Bush administration’s funding that came with the strings that you could teach only abstinence and not medically accurate information about how to reduce unintended pregnancy and replaced it with abstinence based programs that were based on sound science. Or Linda McCulloch’s refusal to allow tax payer dollars to be wasted on bonuses for political appointees. Or Denise Juneau’s vote against Otter Creek coal.

    These people didn’t do these things out of fear.

  8. Turner:I’ll stir up a memory for you: The people protesting outside the Democratic convention in Chicago in 1968 were not Democrats. The Democrats were inside the hall. The police bashed the heads of the protesters on behalf of the Democrats. For you to say that the protesters were Democrats demonstrates a lack of comprehension of the things that were going on back then.

    After all, it was the Democrats who started the war that was being protested.

    History aside, if you stand back far enough, and get away from the cosmetic and wedge issues, and look at the big ones – the war, the deficits, the defense budget, the wars, the free trade agreements, torture, rendition, Guantanamo … you find that these policies are all bipartisan. There is no difference between the parties.

    The only reasons I support Democrats are two: 1), at the local level there really are basic philosophical differences between them and Republicans, and 2) at the national level, they appoint slightly better judges.

  9. So, Mark, your answer to my question is that you do, after all, support Democrats. Thank you.

    I wasn’t in Chicago in 1968. If I had been I sure would’ve been protesting against Humphrey. Where I was in 1968 (Boulder, CO) I joined a group called New Party and we support Dick Gregory. I even flirted with SDS and a fringe group called the Motherf*ckers.

    But I was still definitely a Democrat. I was drawn to Democrats because my parents were working stiffs who got screwed over by rich people. As bad as today’s Democrats are, they’re a whole lot on the side of working stiffs than the Republcians.

  10. We must agree to disagree. My fundamental point is that by backing Democrats as the lesser of evils, you are really abdicating your vote. You are settling. It’s not about lesser evil, but rather a fundamental right to vote for things you want and people who will fight for those things. When the choice is people who say no, and people who say “meh”, I prefer the no’s, as they can be organized against and beaten.

    Those I support happen to be Democrats most often. But there aren’t many. I currently live in Boulder, and am given the choice of Bennet (meh), Romanoff (meh), Hickenlooper (*meh), or various Republicans. Or fishing. Fishing is good.

Comments are closed.