You know, the Catholic Church certainly gets to enforce whatever rules they make - but this wouldn't bother me so much if they were consistent. After all, when was the last time a bishop singled out someone for supporting what the Church itself labeled an "unjust war" or for voting in support of the death penalty?
PROVIDENCE, R.I. - Roman Catholic Bishop Thomas Tobin has banned Rep. Patrick Kennedy from receiving Communion, the central sacrament of the church, in Rhode Island because of the congressman's support for abortion rights, Kennedy said in a newspaper interview published Sunday.
The decision by the outspoken prelate, reported on The Providence Journal's Web site, significantly escalates a bitter dispute between Tobin, an ultra orthodox bishop, and Kennedy, a son of the nation's most famous Roman Catholic family.
"The bishop instructed me not to take Communion and said that he has instructed the diocesan priests not to give me Communion," Kennedy told the paper in an interview conducted Friday.
Kennedy said the bishop had explained the penalty by telling him "that I am not a good practicing Catholic because of the positions that I've taken as a public official," particularly on abortion.
You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: (35)
PLAYS: (128)
November 21, 2009 C-SPAN
Senators Hatch and Brownback preaching the evils of abortion during the Senate health care debate.
Heather: The GOP does always love the fetus until its old enough to be cannon fodder, don't they? When these people finally have the same sense of moral outrage over those they send to die in useless wars rather than wanting to control women and send them back to the 1950's, maybe any of us can take their feigned outrage seriously.
You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: (1113)
PLAYS: (5074)
After Bill O'Reilly only shows the portion of The Daily Show clip where Jon Stewart curses at Bernard Goldberg rather than Stewart's entire response to Goldberg saying that "liberals don't have five kids--one of them has Down Syndrome--liberals certainly don't allow that to happen". Goldberg responded:
Who do you think is more likely to willingly and knowingly have a baby with Down Syndrome, a pro-choice woman or a pro-life woman; a woman for whom religion isn't terribly important or a woman for whom religion is important; a liberal woman or a conservative woman? The odds are that it's the pro-life, religious conservative woman that would make such a compassionate decision and the reason, the reason he's so upset is because he like most liberals think they have a monopoly on compassion and she shows that they don't.
Oh yeah, that’s entirely different Bernie. And nice hatchet job on editing the Daily Show segment O’Reilly or your audience would have known Stewart actually had a substantive response to Goldberg that made what he said tonight look just as stupid--not that it was really any different from what he said in the previous show.
This is such a stellar example of Republican hypocrisy, you'd be hard pressed to think of a better one:
The Republican National Committee will no longer offer employees an insurance plan that covers abortion after POLITICO reported Thursday that the anti-abortion RNC's policy has covered the procedure since 1991.
"Money from our loyal donors should not be used for this purpose," Chairman Michael Steele said in a statement to POLITICO. "I don't know why this policy existed in the past, but it will not exist under my administration. Consider this issue settled."
Steele has told the committee's director of administration to opt out of coverage for elective abortion in the policy it uses from Cigna.
Federal Election Commission Records show the RNC purchases its insurance from Cigna, and two sales agents for the company said that the RNC’s policy covers elective abortion.
Until Thursday, the RNC’s plan had covered elective abortion – a procedure the party’s own platform calls “a fundamental assault on innocent human life.”
Informed of the coverage, RNC spokeswoman Gail Gitcho told POLITICO earlier Thursday that the policy pre-dates the tenure of current RNC Chairman Michael Steele.
“The current policy has been in effect since 1991, and we are taking steps to address the issue,” Gitcho said.
The RNC moved quickly Wednesday to assuage any concerns its members might have.
In a letter obtained by POLITICO, RNC Chief of Staff Ken McKay writes to the 168 committeemen and committeewomen across the country that Steele "takes this issue very seriously."
He writes that the RNC has been evaluating its health insurance policy and will continue to do so.
But they'll still be writing checks to CIGNA for that modified policy, and CIGNA is still offering abortion on its plans - which means their premium dollars are funding abortion, right? At least, according to the Stupak amendment.
You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: (2066)
PLAYS: (7247)
Here's something you don't see every day. One of these talking heads stopped in their tracks for lying on the air. MSNBC's Dylan Ratigan calls out The Family Research Council's Cathy Ruse (what a name for a spokesperson, huh?) for lying about what affect the Stupak amendment would have on private insurance if passed.
After noting that The Family Research Council called the Stupak amendment a “huge victory for women", Ratigan asked her this:
Ratigan: Cathy, what was the victory?
Ruse: Well the victory is that the question is elective abortion and who should be forced to pay for those, the individual or the government. Before the Stupak amendment passed, Americans would be forced to pay for other people’s elective abortions.
Ratigan: That’s not true.
Ruse: It is true, under both the public option plan and…
Ratigan: No, that’s not true…
Ruse: …and under the federal subsidies…absolutely true. That’s why…
Ratigan: The objection was to the use of the exchange. I’ll have this debate but you have to operate in the factual reality which is you’re saying that all the private insurance being sold on a publicly established exchange cannot fund elective abortion, and that is not federal dollars paying for abortion—that federal dollars paying for an exchange upon which private insurance is sold where elective abortions are provided.
Ruse: The Stupak amendment did two things. It prohibits federal funding for covering elective abortions, but it allows private insurance to carry coverage of elective abortions so long as no federal tax dollars are involved. And let me just…
Ratigan: Cathy, you’re not dealing with—you can’t—just coming on television and lying is not journalism, nor is it actually beneficial to the country. Let’s talk about what we’re discussing which is the establishment of an exchange upon which private insurance that we bought and sold establishes federal dollars. Nancy you were going to say?
Keenan: Yeah listen, we know that about 80-85% of private insurance companies today privately cover abortion care, and what the Stupak amendment does, is basically means that women will not be able to purchase insurance coverage that covers abortions with their own money, with their own money in this new healthcare system. That’s the reality of the Stupak amendment and it is outrageous that they are saying that this is good for women or that this is somehow the status quo. This goes far beyond the status quo.
Maybe Tony Perkins should get himself someone else go to up against Dylan Ratigan if his group wants to continue to try to spread misinformation about what the Stupak amendment does, although I don’t think Perkins himself would have faired much better against Ratigan. Both Ratigan and Keenan go on to point out what the real purpose of the amendment is, which is to prevent private insurance from paying for any abortions, get Roe v Wade overturned and to derail health care reform.
In an interview with Ezra Klein in the Washington Post yesterday Jim Cooper (D-TN) championed his vote for the Health Care Bill, while distancing himself from his own vote in favor of restricting abortion rights with the Stupak-Pitts Amendment.
Before the Stupak amendment, many of my friends had not realized that the government gives a $250 billion annual subsidy to employer-sponsored health care. If you understand today’s system, the Hyde amendment bans direct subsidies of abortion. It does not ban indirect subsidies of abortion, in particular the $250 billion that goes to employer-based health care. The bishops never noticed that. But this is the way education works in a democracy. It’s not easy or simple. But when people begin making decisions, they learn about lots of things they never noticed before.
Ignoring the really condescending tone of that paragraph, that's still a bullshit reason. Now, I know that Cooper opposes subsidies to employer-based healthcare. But that's not the issue here. The issue is whether or not private insurance companies offering individual plans within an exchange can still offer coverage for one item that they generally already cover. Not everyone within this exchange is going to receive subsidies from the government, but if even one person receives $1 in subsidies, then the plan they're enrolled in would have to deny reproductive health coverage to everyone, even to those not receiving subsidies.
If everyone was so opposed to these "indirect subsidies" to abortion through employer-based healthcare, then why has there never been any serious attempt to cut if off before, even when the Republicans were in power? Why is there no serious effort to stop it now? What would be the substantive difference between that and what they're proposing in the future exchange? Why has Cooper never couched this argument in these terms before, that the problem is not employer-based healthcare or an insurance exchange themselves but the fact that it could remotely cover this one thing? He's always framed it in terms of the former rather than the latter.
Bottom line--if you're against the government providing subsidies, whether through employer healthcare or an insurance exchange, then vote against the damn bill and stand by what you believe. Don't use the abortion issue to weasel out of it and say, "See, this is better now because we're not providing expensive subsidies" when you still are providing them for everything else. Where's the amendment banning subsidies from being used to purchase Viagra?
Big Tent Democrat at Talk Left (Memo To Jim Cooper: You Voted FOR The Stupak Amendment) catches Cooper trying to pull a fast one:
[EZRA KLEIN:] The argument over Stupak’s amendment was striking for how effectively it evaded questions of choice and focused on the Hyde amendment. They narrowed that debate very sharply.
[JIM COOPER:] They won the argument that their amendment was the continuation of current law.
(Emphasis supplied.) "They" must have held a gun to Jim Cooper's head when he voted FOR "their" amendment. Cooper appears to be part of the anti-choice majority that "they" say exists.
Instead, ask yourself these questions: Why is it that the moderates conservatives always get their way - at the expense of liberals, and of alleged Democratic party values? Why is the compromise always on our end? Why aren't people like Bart Stupak being told to "put on their big boy pants" and swallow compromise to get health care reform?
And why isn't some progressive politician introducing a bill to cut off funding for special education or any other services at Catholic schools? After all, how is providing the services from a trailer at the far end of the school parking lot not an "accounting trick"? Why aren't liberals aggressively challenging the tax-exempt status of the Catholic church?
I was under the impression we had freedom of religion in this country. Apparently, I was wrong.
WORCESTER - Opening up a major fissure in the US Senate race, Attorney General Martha Coakley said yesterday that she opposes the landmark health care bill approved by the House Saturday because it contains a provision restricting federal funding for abortion.
Coakley, in her boldest gamble of the campaign, said that fighting for women’s access to abortions was more important than passing the overall bill, despite its aim of providing coverage for 36 million people, establishing a public insurance option, and prohibiting insurers from discriminating against patients with preexisting conditions.
“To pretend that now the House has passed this bill is real progress - it’s at the expense of women’s access to reproductive rights," Coakley said in an interview, after making similar comments yesterday morning on Boston radio station WTKK-FM.
[...] Coakley’s opposition to the bill put her squarely at odds with her three rivals for the Democratic nomination, including US Representative Michael E. Capuano, who voted in favor of the plan and blasted Coakley’s stance yesterday, calling it “manna from heaven" for his campaign.
“I find it interesting and amazing, and she would have stood alone among all the prochoice members of Congress, all the members of the Massachusetts delegation," Capuano said in an interview. “She claims she wants to honor Ted Kennedy’s legacy on health care. It’s pretty clear that a major portion of this was his bill."
He went on: “If she’s not going to vote for any bill that’s not perfect, she wouldn’t vote for any bill in history. She would have voted against Medicare, the Civil Rights bill. . . . Realism is something you have to deal with in Washington."
Why is it that "realism" is always and inevitably at the expense of women, gays and minorities? Is that the new Democratic value?
UPDATE: Apparently Capuano has since changed his position, saying he'll vote against the bill if Stupak amendment stays.
You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: (1494)
PLAYS: (3499)
Rachel Maddow runs down the list for us of C-Street family members who also voted for Bart Stupak’s anti-abortion amendment yesterday. Nothing like having what amounts to a secretive religious cult making health care policy for women in the United States. As Rachel noted that list includes:
Rep. Bart Stupak D-MI
Rep. Joe Pitts R-PA
Rep. Ike Skelton D-MO
Rep. Mike McIntyre D-NC
Rep. John Tanner D-TN
Rep. Lincoln Davis D-TN
Rep. Dan Boren D-OK
Rep. Heath Shuler D-NC
Jeff Sharlet joined Rachel to discuss The C-Street Family's ever growing influence within the Democratic Party.
Maddow: What are Congressman Stupak and Congressman Pitts’ connections to C-Street and The Family? Is one of them more deeply involved than the other?
Sharlet: Yeah, well Congressman Pitts has been involved with The Family since 1976 and in the 1980’s he was instrumental in bringing anti-abortion politics into this kind of elite fundamentalism that until that point had been focused on economics and foreign affairs. Bart Stupak meanwhile has been living at C-Street since at least 2002 when he told the Los Angeles Times “we kind of don’t talk about what happens here”.
Maddow: Are there signs that The Family had anything to do with the Stupak-Pitts amendment? I mean this is quite a legislative coup that they’ve pulled off.
Sharlet: Well, you have to consider that Congressman Pitts is what The Family calls a core member. This is a little like being on the board of directors. You can go on line and find video of him talking about the objectives of the group is to create a god led government. He has worked over the years to prevent not only abortion but AIDS education overseas and so this has been a life-long project for him going back years and years and years. Stupak is a little bit newer to this issue and I think what you really have to question here is Pitts who’s been active in this for a long time and was bringing up these amendments I think in Stupak and his brother in The Family as it was called, found a Democrat to carry the issue for him.
You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: (56)
PLAYS: (85)
Clair McCaskill appeared on Morning Joe today to talk about the health care bill that just passed the House and what's next for the Senate. When asked to respond to Rachel Maddow’s comments on Meet the Press that the Stupak amendment is a poison pill that will lose a lot of support for Democrats by women if the amendment is not taken out in conference, Clair McCaskill said this.
McCaskill: Well, I am not sure that it is. Obviously, I have been a pro-choice candidate my entire political career, and obviously there is controversy always surrounding this issue. but we are talking about whether or not people that get public money can buy an insurance policy that has any coverage for abortion. And that is not the majority of America. The majority of America is not going to be getting subsidies from the government. The vast majority of America are going to continue to get their insurance at the workplace just like they do now.
And so, I am not sure that this is going to be enough to kill the bill, and frankly, once again, this is an example of having to govern with moderates. We can't just turn our back on the fact that the reason we are in majority, is because states like Indiana, and Arkansas, and Louisiana, and Missouri, and North Carolina, and Virginia sent Democrats to the Senate.
Since when does “moderate” have to mean anti-choice? Here’s McCaskill’s contact information if you’re as unhappy about this as I am.
If, indeed, the Stupak language makes it into the Senate bill, it would be a major blow to pro-choice advocates. It would also seemingly ensure that the restrictions on abortion access would survive conference committee with the House and end up in the final piece of legislation. If that is the case it sets up a major showdown, once again, in the people's chamber. Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.), for one, has insisted she and 40 additional colleagues will oppose any final bill that includes the Stupak amendment.
"There's going to be a firestorm here," DeGette told The Washington Post. "Women are going to realize that a Democratic-controlled House has passed legislation that would prohibit women paying for abortions with their own funds. . . . We're not going to let this into law."
Update: Well what do you know. Looks like Sen. McCaskill may be having a change of heart from this morning.
You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: (1222)
PLAYS: (3786)
I want to propose a new amendment be added during the conference committee when the House and Senate get together to merge the health-care reform bills. I know the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops will love it, since they are officially members of Congress now. Here it is.
All pro-life male members of Congress who ejaculate without the express intent of making a baby will be considered to have had an abortion. (This will include airport-bathroom encounters.) Under this new rule, the male pro-life members then must fall in line with the same restrictions to health care as women will have to under the Stupak Amendment. Then starting in 2013, all pro-life men in America will be covered under this provision as well.
Out of the 56 women in the Democratic caucus, only two voted for Stupak. All 17 Republican women voted for it.
What this adds up to is that 97% of the Democrats who voted for the Stupak amendment were male. 90% of the Republicans were male.
I would have to guess that if more than 17% of the congress were women, there would be a little bit less likelihood that women's rights would be so often used as a handy tool to placate neanderthals.
If men want to lead this country in the debate about abortion, then they should show real leadership and take responsibility for their behavior. Are you with me, Bishops? A woman can't just stand around and get pregnant. She needs our seed to be planted in her garden, so why should a woman be held to a higher standard than a man? Is that the democracy and freedom our troops are fighting for?
I'm sure the USCCB will gladly jump on board with this because they are in the sex business and are considered the world's No. 1 experts in that field. They understand better than any living person how a baby is made -- after all, they are Bishops. Imagination is a wonderful thing and can inform and educate people who have never experienced sex. Wow, who knew?
You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: (1563)
PLAYS: (5094)
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.
