You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: (605)
PLAYS: (2136)
One of John Boehner's more childish moments on the House floor tonight, asking Charlie Rangel for assurances on what's going to come out of the Conference Committee in the final bill, and cutting him off before he has a chance to answer him.
Stupak probably doesn't have the votes will be joined by the Republicans and will probably get his amendment passed. Again, I ask: Why does someone's personal religious beliefs get to infringe on mine or anyone else's rights? Abortion is legal, in case anyone forgot.
WASHINGTON — The House opened debate on its health-care bill Saturday after Democratic leaders agreed to allow a vote on an amendment from antiabortion Democrats.
The agreement early Saturday could break a stalemate over abortion that was threatening the bill's prospects.
If the House approves the bill, it would be the first time a chamber of Congress has passed legislation aimed at guaranteeing near-universal access to health care.
A final vote on the health measure could come late Saturday or early Sunday morning. House Democratic leaders were still scrambling to come up with the 218 votes needed to pass the bill, and aides predicted the vote would be a cliffhanger.
[...] Abortion has divided Democrats, with antiabortion lawmakers saying they couldn't allow any federal funding of abortion under the new health-insurance exchanges the bill would establish.
Rep. Bart Stupak, an antiabortion Democrat from Michigan, explained his amendment before the House Rules Committee just after midnight Saturday. He said it provides that federal subsidies cannot be used to purchase a health plan including coverage for abortions other than in cases of rape or incest.
The amendment from Mr. Stupak and Rep. Joseph Pitts (R., Pa.) is set to come before the full House for a vote later Saturday.
The concession to allow a vote is significant because House Democrats aren't allowing votes on any other substantive amendments, save one Republican amendment that is an alternative to the Democrats' plan.
Nearly 90% of private health insurance policies now offer abortion coverage, and almost half of women with private insurance have it. But women covered under the new system would have to find supplemental insurance or pay out of pocket for an unanticipated procedure that can cost from hundreds to tens of thousands of dollars, depending on complexity. For anyone unable to afford it, this would amount to a de facto ban.
But here's the catch: The bill makes it so financially unattractive for insurance companies to offer abortion coverage - even if you pay for the insurance yourself - that they're likely to stop offering it except to the largest groups. Got it? This is not a minor amendment.
And unless it's rejected by the Senate or in conference, women have once again been stripped of the ability to get abortions.
All day long MSNBC has had on one pundit after another using the election in NY-23 as their springboard to make the case that the Dems are weak. There hasn't been a Democrat elected in that seat for more years than I've been alive, but that doesn't seem to enter into the equation.
The real story, though, is the fighting going on within the GOP. Rudy Giuliani was on with Chuck Todd and saying that the GOP will never win national elections if they never win in NY and California and so there needs to be a more inclusive Republican party. NY-23 didn't pan out that way for Rudy and he had to figure a way to lighten the blow. He said that Scozzafava was really a liberal and implied that he told Newt not to back her. He said the GOP needs moderates in the party, but they have to be 80% with them on issues and 20% against.
The reality is this: When people say “don’t judge a book by its cover”, you should take their advice. The “cover” on Scozzafava was that she was this progressive Republican because she was backed by the WFP, supported a woman’s right to choose and has been a supporter of marriage equality. But the “book” tells the whole story (as it usually does). Scozzafava has a few positions that are more liberal (on abortion and marriage equality) but most of her positions are, at best, moderate-to-conservative. More often than not, however, she is a conservative.
This race is interesting to watch just to see the Villagers scurry around and try to make it a national story, but at least they could take the time and get their facts straight.
I'm not sure if the teabaggers will have much success in purifying their party, but it'll be interesting to see how the Villagers will react. My guess is they'll portray them as just folks exercising their patriotic duties, unlike those dirty fucking hippie traitors who ran a primary against the greatest man in America, Joe Lieberman.
The cable shows are covering these races as if the outcome will determine if Obama should step down as the president.
At a short press availability in his campaign office here, NY-23 Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman said that a GOTV volunteer’s tires had been slashed, and all but blamed Democrats for the dirty trick. “There are reports that they’re bringing in the troops and they’re bringing in ACORN,” said Hoffman. “I think the Democrats are doing anything they possibly can to steal this election away from the 23rd district.”
-- Update: Anton Troianovski of the Wall Street Journal followed up with the Plattsburgh police on this, and was told that the volunteer actually damaged his tire on a broken bottle. I asked Hoffman campaign manager Dan Tripp about this–he said he had no comment because the campaign had not heard this yet.
I just hope that all the major networks and newspapers assign a special reporter to look into these accusations by the teabaggers' darling. Certainly Fox will be running with them and everyone knows that the mainstream press has been remiss by failing to follow up on such important Fox investigations.
It's actually a smart move. Since Fox has intimidated the pants off of the other news organizations, they will bend over backwards to be "fair and balanced" thus lending credence to the ACORN meme.
As David Neiwert posted yesterday, a group of violent anti-abortion zealots planned to hold an online auction on eBay to help pay legal expenses for Scott Roeder, the man who murdered abortion provider, Dr. George Tiller at his Kansas church. Thankfully, eBay has stepped up to do the right thing and is blocking the auction:
An eBay auction planned by abortion opponents to raise money for the man accused of killing Wichita abortion doctor George Tiller will not be permitted, company officials said Tuesday.
"Based on the details we know about the anticipated listings, we believe these would violate our policy regarding offensive material," the company said in a statement to The Kansas City Star. "eBay will not permit the items in question to be posted to the eBay site, and they will be removed if they are posted."
It its statement, eBay said, “we do not allow items that encourage, promote, facilitate or instruct others to engage in illegal activity and will not be a platform for those who promote violence toward others.” Read on...
SANCHEZ: One of the things that we like to do in this segment is shine a light on lawmakers who gaffe or don't exactly tell the truth all the time. We begin "Fotos" today with Michele Bachmann.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BACHMANN: The bill orders these clinics protect patient privacy in student records. What does that mean? It means that parents will never know what kind of counsel and treatment that their children are receiving.
And, as a matter of fact, the bill goes on to say what's going to go on. Comprehensive primary health services, physicals, treatment of minor, acute, chronic medical conditions, referrals to follow up for specialty care -- is that abortion? Does that mean that someone's 13-year-old daughter could walk into a sex clinic, have a pregnancy test done, be taken away to the local Planned Parenthood abortion clinic, have their abortion, be back and go on home on the school bus that night? Mom and dad are never the wiser.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: If could, if could -- Bachmann is a Republican, by the way. And to be clear, we looked into this. Nothing that she is alleging in that sound bite you just heard is actually true, nothing. We checked.
School-based health clinics, or as Bachmann terms them, "sex clinics," have been around for some 30 years in the United States. And as far as we've been able to discover, not one of them has ever referred a student to an abortion provider without the knowledge of a parent, never happened. The actual bill that Bachmann is citing stipulates that school-based health clinics comply with all federal, state and local laws governing parental notification and parental consent.
You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: (79)
PLAYS: (320)
Chris Matthews thinks that the "nuts on the Internet" and the "bloggers huddling in their basements pushing revolution" are being read by Michelle Bachmann's staffers and feeding her conspiracy theories. I don't think Michelle Bachmann needs any help from the right wing blogs to be bat-shit crazy but possibly Matthews is reading Steve Benen over at Washington Monthly because he came pretty close to repeating this post verbatim.
In a speech on the House floor last night, Bachmann warned about the dangers of school-based health clinics, patient privacy, and student records.
"What does that mean? It means that parents will never know what kind of counsel and treatment that their children are receiving. And as a matter of fact, the bill goes on to say what's going to go on -- comprehensive primary health services, physicals, treatment of minor acute medical conditions, referrals to follow-up for specialty care -- is that abortion? Does that mean that someone's 13 year-old daughter could walk into a sex clinic, have a pregnancy test done, be taken away to the local Planned Parenthood abortion clinic, have their abortion, be back and go home on the school bus that night? Mom and dad are never the wiser."
I'm not sure why Bachmann thinks school-based health clinics deserve to be characterized as "sex clinics," though it does suggest the right-wing lawmaker has something of a dirty mind.
Media Matters Action Network noted, "Bachmann seems to be getting her information from fringe blogs like Free Republic and WorldNetDaily, both of which have recently promoted similar claims."
PolitiFact.com fact-checked the claim in August: "We see no language in the three main versions of the bill that would allow school-based clinics, which have a long history of providing basic health services to underprivileged students, to provide abortions. Nor would the clinics even be new -- they have been around for three decades. So we rate the claim Pants on Fire!"
You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: (1155)
PLAYS: (2354)
(h/t CSPAN Junkie for this video, which shows a different moral busybody in action.)
We always knew it would come to this. It's never really about abortion, it's about sex - and punishing the people who think they can act like sluts and get away with it instead of feeling God's wrath!
TALLAHASSEE -- A nationwide anti-abortion group launched an effort in Florida Friday to outlaw all abortions and certain types of birth control, including oral contraceptives and the morning-after pill.
The religion-infused movement, called "Personhood Florida," would define conception in Florida's constitution at the "biological beginnings," supporters said -- when the sperm meets the egg. The group filed its amendment today but the exact ballot language is still being worked out, said Secretary of State Spokeswoman Jennifer Krell-Davis.
The amendment seeks to outlaw all abortions, even in cases of rape and incest. Also criminalized: the morning-after pill and oral contraceptives taken by women, known as the pill. "There are some (birth control) methods that kill a child," said Pat McEwan, who is leading the Personhood Florida group.
The amendment faces extremely long odds. First, supporters must gather 676,811 signatures to make the ballot -- by Feb. 1, to go before voters in 2010.
And Florida has a 60-percent threshold for constitutional amendments to become law, a very difficult hurdle even for less radical ideas. In Colorado, the only state where the "personhood" amendment has appeared on the ballot, voters overwhelmingly rejected the idea by an almost three-to-one margin.
Even if adopted by voters, the amendment runs counter to Roe v. Wade, the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court opinion that held the U.S. Constitution grants women the basic right to an abortion.
Supporters say they're pushing the personhood amendment not only in Florida, but in a dozen other states.
The wheelchair-bound woman who was shouted down by that crowd of teabaggers at a New Jersey town-hall meeting on health-care reform hosted by Rep. Frank Pallone was on MSNBC yesterday with David Shuster and Alex Witt, and she provided a deeply disturbing portrait of what is transpiring at these gatherings.
The woman, Marianne Hoynes, described how the forum was invaded by organized teabaggers from New York, "so this wasn't even their town-hall meeting."
Hoynes: There was a large group of people who showed up that night for the purpose of making sure that questions couldn't be asked, and we couldn't hear information. I don't know how to describe it any other way.
... You know, you could tell that they were very organized. They came in groups, they had signs ready, which -- outside they were chanting, but as time went on, and certainly by the time we got into that room, which held about 500 people, they got more and more verbally violent -- I don't know how else to describe it.
They began by just screaming and yelling at Congressman Pallone that he should have been aborted, and that his mother should have had an abortion, that he was a domestic terrorist.
... What they did was completely un-democratic. I wanted to learn more about this health-care system. We were allowed to either ask a question or make a statement, and I wanted to share with Congressman Pallone what it was like to be sick in America today. And I had that right, I thought. They really tried to scream me down -- and everybody else, too, not just me. And I felt bullied, and I was not gonna take it. I was going to finish what I had to say, and it was very upsetting. It was very un-democratic, and very un-American.
Town-hall meetings are supposed to be exercises in democracy. But the teabaggers are turning them into exercises in para-fascist intimidation, eliminationism, and general thuggery.
WICHITA, Kan. – The suspect in the killing of abortion provider George Tiller is in talks with a prominent attorney who represents anti-abortion protesters and has long advocated justifiable homicide as a legal defense in such cases.
Scott Roeder, 51, has pleaded not guilty to first-degree murder and aggravated assault charges in the May 31 shooting death of Tiller in the foyer of his Wichita church. The Kansas City, Mo., man has refused to discuss his case, but he has told The Associated Press that Tiller's killing was justified to save "the lives of unborn children."
Roeder has court-appointed defense attorneys, but he apparently has now turned to Michael Hirsh, the lawyer who represented Paul Hill on appeal for killing a Florida abortion provider and his bodyguard in 1994. Hill was executed in 2003 after the Florida Supreme Court rejected Hirsh's argument that the judge should have allowed Hill to present to jurors his claim that the killings were justified to prevent abortions.
The Florida Supreme Court ruled in denying Hill's appeal that his motivation would not change the outcome of the case. "As a practical matter, permitting a defendant to vindicate his or her criminal activity in this manner would be an invitation for lawlessness," the justices wrote. Read on...
While the Justifiable Homicide defense in this case is a long shot, I agree with the Florida court's findings. It is clear that an acquittal in the Roeder case would unleash a flurry of violence against abortion providers and the women who seek to exercise their legal rights. The scary part is that this case is being tried in Kansas.
Surrounded by female activists and lawmakers, Virginia Democratic gubernatorial candidate R. Creigh Deeds on Monday launched an assault on his opponent's record of working to restrict abortions, calling it evidence that the Republican has the wrong priorities for the state.
The Women for Deeds event, at the Northern Virginia Community College campus in Annandale, was the first of three this week at which Deeds will highlight Republican Robert F. McDonnell's history on the issue. McDonnell introduced numerous bills on abortion during his 14 years as a delegate from Virginia Beach.
Deeds's message could energize a Democratic base that has been showing signs of sluggishness since last year's overwhelming victory in the presidential election. It could also chip away at McDonnell's campaign promises that he would focus on education, jobs and transportation if elected governor.
"It's easy in an election year to talk a good game about the governor you're going to be, and it's easy to talk about jobs and bipartisanship, but I think it's my obligation to draw distinctions where they exist," Deeds said.
[...]"Despite Creigh Deeds's ongoing attempts to divide Virginians, Bob McDonnell will continue to talk about bringing Virginians together to create jobs and opportunity," McDonnell spokesman Tucker Martin said.
Deeds said he had spent his 18 years as a state delegate and senator from rural Bath County working to improve education and promote economic development while McDonnell, who opposes abortion in all instances except when the life of the mother is in danger, had spent his time in public life "single-mindedly advancing his anti-choice agenda."
Well, I suppose we should have known. Apparently the big holdup with Max Baucus's Finance Committee bill is... abortion. (Yeah, I wondered what the hell that has to do with finance, too.)
But wait, it gets better! The Senate Republicans not only demand that abortions not be paid for with public funds (something already forbidden by the Hyde Amendment), they want to prevent private insurance plans from paying for them, too.
Wow. If the Dems knuckle under to this extortion, it'll be war.
Many supporters of health reform believe that systemic questions, such as whether or not reform will include a public insurance option, should inform the congressional and public debates. But the truth is that Americans, unsurprisingly, seem to be most concerned about coverage specifics. After reform, what procedures will and won’t be covered? Will my array of choices expand or contract?
Those fears have been artfully exploited by the increasingly enthusiastic and radical conservative anti-health reform movement. In response, today the White House launched “Health Insurance Reform Reality Check“, a website modeled after “Fight the Smears,” a campaign season effort to dispel rumors about Barack Obama’s background and positions.
The new site is built around a simplified, eight-point explanation of how consumers will benefit from health reform. Using this messaging, the administration plans a public relations push during the congressional recess, with a focus on drumming up grassroots support via the Obama’s team’s email list and outreach to the liberal blogosphere. But given the intensity of anti-reform protests over the last week, there is little doubt that the president seems to be on the defensive. The continued lack of one, concrete, completed health reform bill means that opponents of reform can grandstand on a number of hypothetical issues. For example, both the House tri-committee bill and the Senate HELP committee bill create an independent council of medical experts to advise HHS on what services will be covered in the new health exchanges. Conservatives have suggested that the council — which, of course, does not yet exist — will prevent terminally ill patients from receiving life support or continuing care, or will mandate abortion coverage.
Both of those outcomes are completely improbable. Neither are on the White House’s agenda. But by kicking some tough choices on coverage down the line, to after reform passes, Democrats have opened the door to this kind of scare-mongering. Uncertainty is uncomfortable, and opponents of reform — along with skeptical moderates — are exploiting that simple truth.
Nowhere is this more apparent than in the abortion debate. None of the health reform proposals in Congress threaten the Hyde Amendment, which currently prevents the federal government from funding abortions. But anti-choice legislators are not satisfied. Many women will receive government subsidies to buy health insurance after reform, and Republicans — including some senators in the all-powerful “Gang of Six” — would like those women to be banned from accessing abortion with those funds, whether they are covered through private insurance plans or a potential public option. This would be a significant curtailing of reproductive rights, since most private insurance plans currently do offer some abortion coverage.
In this case, the current reform proposals actually do maintain the oft-heralded “status quo:” Medicaid won’t cover abortion, but private insurance plans will. It is reform opponents who are pushing to change the way health care is delivered, by curtailing women’s ability to access abortion coverage in the private insurance market. This morning, a senior administration official, speaking on background, told me that some moderate Republicans are choosing to understand health insurance subsidies as tax credits, and thus, from a libertarian point of view, might support a woman’s right to access any health procedure she wishes with that “tax credit,” including abortion. And yet, this official affirmed that abortion is among the issues holding up the Senate Finance Committee — right alongside long term cost containment and debates over whether the federal or state governments will pay to expand Medicaid.
In other words, almost everything about health reform remains up in the air. Stay tuned.
