Can someone explain to me why Rep. Stupak and Sen. Nelson's attacks on a woman's legal reproductive rights are not being called into question over nothing more than their push to inject conservative ideology into the health-care bill? And why are the media not highlighting this at all?

It's a complete and utter media bias against women. Liberals are being portrayed by the media elites as being against the Senate health-care bill on the grounds of ideology because of the exclusion of the public option, but any serious person knows our beef is with the actual legislation of the bill and how it will help Americans. The public option is a tool that could create real competition against the health care insurance industry, and is its own cost-control mechanism. We also loved the Medicare buy-in at fifty five, but that fig leaf which was yanked out from under us -- a fact missing from the Sunday talk shows.

What function does the Stupak amendment or Nelson's anti-abortion compromise actually serve in the implementing of health-care reform for America, except to target the health-care concerns of women across America?

Barbara Boxer's compromise gives states the right to opt out of actually having health-care providers cover abortions and all medical issues that arise for women who deal with this issue. That's a huge step backwards for women in America.

Does allowing all those "pro-life" state legislatures like South Dakota's to completely opt-out of any requirement to offer coverage for abortion sound like an improvement to you? Do we all relish the inevitable, bloody state-by-state abortion battles?

On Meet The Press, David Gregory didn't even bother to have one female on the panel to discuss what is happening to their rights, as Taylor Marsh observed:

Well, as with the late Tim Russert, once again with David Gregory on “Meet the Press,” women are not seen or heard at a time when abortion politics has been at the center of the healthcare debate. (I’ve been covering this reality for years.) That women also pay more for health insurance evidently doesn’t meet the “Meet the Press” standards for being included in the debate. That says it all, not only about the continuing If It’s Sunday, It’s Misogyny...

Yeah, why would the opinion of a woman be needed when talking about abortion rights anyway?

Because we're getting so much of this news as it breaks, it's hard to get all the context. But it sure sounds like they're only pursuing another way to pass the bill in response to the Republicans' hypocritical attacks - which only gives credence to said attacks:

House leaders have decided to take a separate vote on the Senate health-care bill, rejecting an earlier, much-criticized strategy that would have permitted them to "deem" the unpopular measure passed without an explicit vote.

Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) said Saturday that the House would take three votes Sunday: first, on a resolution that will set the terms of debate; second, on a package of amendments to the Senate bill that have been demanded by House members; and third, on the Senate bill itself.

Van Hollen, who has been working on the issue with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), said House leaders concluded that that order -- approving the amendments before approving the Senate bill -- makes clear that the House intends to modify the Senate bill and not approve the Senate bill itself.

"Our objective all along was to make it clear that the House is amending the Senate bill, and we found another way of accomplishing that," Van Hollen said in an interview.

Wow. On Monday, Catholic Bishops released a letter opposing the Senate health care reform bill because it didn't contain the Stupak language. While they acknowledged differences with the Catholic Health Association, their message was clear: they were speaking as the official and authoritative voice of the Catholic Church.

This analysis of the flaws in the legislation is not completely shared by the leaders of the Catholic Health Association. They believe, moreover, that the defects that they do recognize can be corrected after the passage of the final bill. The bishops, however, judge that the flaws are so fundamental that they vitiate the good that the bill intends to promote. Assurances that the moral objections to the legislation can be met only after the bill is passed seem a little like asking us, in Midwestern parlance, to buy a pig in a poke.

In a clear break with the bishops, 60 leaders of religious orders representing 59,000 nuns have joined with the Catholic Health Association to support the Senate bill as written.

The letter says that "despite false claims to the contrary, the Senate bill will not provide taxpayer funding for elective abortions." The letter says the legislation also will help support pregnant women and "this is the real pro-life stance."

Continue reading »

The Progressive Electorate: And the Democratic establishment can kiss my DFH a$$, too

William K. Wolfrum Chronicles: ""Lazy-ass Americans like being unemployed." A talking point winner for the GOP

The Big Picture: Dylan Ratigan talks reform with Rob Johnson & Josh Rosner

Seeing the Forest: Conservatives caused huge deficits, blame Obama

Sensen No Sen: A sphincter-puckering moment for Rumsfeld...and Cheney

Andy Borowitz: GOP lawmaker demands recall of car that drove him to a gay club!

UPDATE: White House says "no such signal" was being sent.

What is this, the Mafia? What's the big frickin' secret? Via Greg Sargent at the Plumline:

White House aides have privately told Dem Congressional aides that the White House supports the House passing the Senate health reform bill with a reconciliation fix, something that could give a bit more momentum to that approach, according to two Congressional staffers familiar with the discussions.

The private communications will lend a bit of cheer to those who had hoped the White House would use its heft to help Congress break its logjam by endorsing a specific route to getting reform done.

Obama and the White House have not publicly stated a preference on how they’d like Congressional Dems to proceed. But White House aides have privately made it clear to the Dem leadership that they support the approach many Dems are coalescing behind: The House passing the Senate bill, with fixes made by the Senate via reconciliation, the sources say.

“In staff level discussions, the White House has made it clear that it supports making changes to the Senate bill through reconciliation because that is the only way to pass comprehensive health care reform,” one of the Dem Congressional aides familiar with ongoing talks tells me.

DOWNLOADS: 1565

PLAYS: 264

Embed

Nancy Pelosi held a conference call today on health care and spent about 30 minutes discussing what's happening now and taking Q's. (I think it's important to get these conference calls up to our readers.)

The HOUSE does not trust the Senate and will not move forward unless Harry Reid gets the Senate rolling first. She's not alone. The Senate has lost the trust of the American people completely. She reaffirmed that the Senate bill has no chance of passing the HOUSE as is.

Brian writes:

Pelosi has insisted for some time now that the Senate health care bill can not pass the House unamended, but that she can probably round up the votes if the Senate and the House both pass a sidecar bill making a number of pre-emptive changes to it.

"Don't even ask us to consider passing the Senate bill until the other legislation has passed both houses so that we're sure that it has happened, and that we know that what we would be voting for would be as effected by a reconciliation bill or whatever parliamentary initiative they have at their disposable," Pelosi said on a conference call this afternoon.

Senate aides have complained that her plan presents them with a big parliamentary difficulty: they don't know if they can pass legislation amending a bill that hasn't been signed into law yet.

Pelosi says that's simply not true.

"No. It is not an obstacle to this path forward."

She talks about repealing the anti-trust exemption, fixing the excise tax and the public option, "reconciliation' as well as some other issues about HCR. I didn't have time to write up a detailed review on today's call so please listen to the above audio.

She was surprisingly confident today about getting something done and says we're close. We'll see. She didn't want to talk for the Senate at all either.

And the operator was awful handling the call because a lot of us had questions and she didn't translate that to the Speaker so it appeared that there were hardly any questions coming in for the Speaker, That led to question hogs.(LOL) I was going to either ask about the public option or the Stupak amendment.

DOWNLOADS: (502)

PLAYS: (659)

Embed

Is there a bigger fool than Lanny Davis? When will this DLC Democrat stop saying on Fox News that he's a liberal, pack his bags and move on already? He's typical of the kind of Democrat who has no backbone and would rather cry to O'Reilly about health care than to continue to fight for it.

Davis: This is a No Spin Zone fact that we lost in Massachusetts's because we lost the debate on health care...blah, blah, blah...

My God, he has no self respect. He uses BillO's own terminology to validate Bill and his own opinions. You know Lanny, it is personal with pols like yourself. You're more interested in being a pundit with face time than anything else. MA's loss doesn't mean America is against health-care reform. The new DFA poll in MA said they were mad that there was no public option and that it didn't go far enough.

We had Research 2000 poll voters immediately after the Election ended: Even Scott Brown voters want Democrats to be bolder and they want healthcare reform that includes a public option.

You read that right. By a margin of three-to-two, former Obama voters who voted for Republican Scott Brown yesterday said the Senate healthcare bill "doesn't go far enough." Six-to-one Obama voters who stayed home agreed. And to top it off, 80% of all voters still want the choice of a public option in the bill.

Lanny, why don't you use your face time and blast your BFF Joe Lieberman, who helped destroy the Senate health care bill -- which is the bill that America hates -- instead of whining about the pure-hard-left. People like yourself will always keep progressives from victories.

Joe. My. God.: Pending senate health care vote fosters more wingnut calls for Civil War

Wall St. Cheat Sheet: Credit Suisse circumvents Iran sanctions to make money

Bay Area Houston: Speaking of giving somebody 'the bird'...

Dissident Voice: Among the most important corporate media censored news stories of the past decade, one must be that over one million people have died because of the United States military invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Runnin' Scared: War on Christmas not as warlike this year

Brad DeLong: Ten economic paragraphs worth reading

I've been writing for weeks that the House needs to step up and improve the Senate health care bill in conference. They are co-equal branches and when a bill is to be merged, there are usually compromises made. Sen. Conrad screamed out on FNS and said that if the House tinkers with their precious bill, it won't pass.

CONRAD: It is very clear that the bill, the final bill, to pass in the United States Senate is going to be -- have to be very close to the bill that has been negotiated here. Otherwise you will not get 60 votes in the United States Senate.

My sources on the Hill have told me that Nancy Pelosi doesn't have the votes from progressives to pass the Senate bill as it stands. I know the White House doesn't want to play hardball now, but we do. What will Lieberman say if they do make changes to strengthen the bill? Will he be the man that killed health care reform to Americans?

mcjoan had an article posted yesterday that said the progressives appeared to be caving.

It's beginning to look like the House is going to cave into Lieberman and Nelson, too. TPMDC And co-chair of the Progressive Caucus Raul Grijalva seals it.

In the interview, Grijalva confirmed that House Dems were beginning to discuss the idea of revising the Senate bill in conference to move up the implementation date for insurance coverage and make it more in line with the earlier date in the House bill. I asked Grijalva if he could support the bill if such a change were made, even if it lacked a public option or other similar concessions sought by liberals. "It would sweeten it somewhat," Grijalva said, "if they speed up the coverage mechanism."

He added: "That would be something I’d have to look at very closely."

Asked if he was suggesting that he’s open to supporting such an outcome, Grijalva answered in the affirmative, but insisted that he would have to evaluate the changes in conference before making any decision. He said House liberals would continue to push for a public component and a repeal of the anti-trust exemption for insurance companies. And he demanded that conference negotiations not merely "rubber stamp" the Senate Bill.

Moving up implementation dates would help, and that appears to be a House leadership might use as a "key arguing point" in the upcoming conference.

But today a new Politico piece paints somewhat different picture: House Dems: We won't roll over

House Democrats insisted Tuesday they have no plans to roll over for the Senate in upcoming negotiations on a health reform bill, even as they acknowledged it would be all but impossible to reinsert a public insurance option or force the so-called millionaire's tax on the Senate.

Either move would disrupt Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s no-margin-for-error 60-vote majority. But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her leadership team seem to have their sights set on lower-profile - but no-less important differences, like boosting affordability credits in the final bill and starting the insurance exchange a year earlier, which they did in the House.

Members will return the next week, and aides said they would still like to pass a bill by the State of the Union at the end of January or the beginning of February. But leadership staff in the House said that that doesn't mean they're prepared to just accept the Senate bill. {..}

"We want to move a bill by the State of the Union, but we want to do it because we're ready, not because we have to," an aide said.

Here are a few key points that can be fixed in conference, but please add your own...read on

Again, I've been writing that the House needs to stand up and be counted and they seem to be listening to our calls not to roll over for the Senate. I've contacted several members of the House for comment and will get back to you soon on that.

There's plenty of info on-line that explains what's wrong with the Senate bill, but here's a few key points. Add to the list in the comments.

* National exchange (rather than state exchanges)

* Public option

* Repeal anti-trust exemption

* Wealthy surtax, rather than middle-class insurance tax

* Better affordability provisions in House bill, including level of subsidies and Medicaid to 150% poverty.

* Repeal Stupak language.