It's a pretty weak public option with an unconscionable amendment attached. Though Boxer seems to think it's dead in the Senate, thankfully.
I'm still not convinced the Stupak amendment is "unconscionable". At first glance it would seem to be (and that was my initial reaction, too), but I really don't think it takes anything away from anyone. The only people who are being denied coverage are people who don't currently have any coverage in the first place.
It's a pretty weak public option with an unconscionable amendment attached. Though Boxer seems to think it's dead in the Senate, thankfully.
I'm still not convinced the Stupak amendment is "unconscionable". At first glance it would seem to be (and that was my initial reaction, too), but I really don't think it takes anything away from anyone. The only people who are being denied coverage are people who don't currently have any coverage in the first place.
Codifying that in law is making it worse. Those people SHOULD have coverage for reproductive health, as it is a key portion of their overall health. It's just dumb and we'd be better off if everyone had access to all the available options.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Anyone who thinks that progressives are riding Obama's dick in the same way that conservatives were riding Bush's dick clearly don't actually keep up with the progressive community.
It's a pretty weak public option with an unconscionable amendment attached. Though Boxer seems to think it's dead in the Senate, thankfully.
I'm still not convinced the Stupak amendment is "unconscionable". At first glance it would seem to be (and that was my initial reaction, too), but I really don't think it takes anything away from anyone. The only people who are being denied coverage are people who don't currently have any coverage in the first place.
Codifying that in law is making it worse. Those people SHOULD have coverage for reproductive health, as it is a key portion of their overall health. It's just dumb and we'd be better off if everyone had access to all the available options.
Agreed. But "we'd be better off" is a whole helluva lot different than "the sky is falling the sky is falling!" Putting a legislative barrier in place of a monetary barrier is a step in the wrong direction. But I just don't see it as some monumental setback like it seems alot of people do.
TheCanMan on
0
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
It's a pretty weak public option with an unconscionable amendment attached. Though Boxer seems to think it's dead in the Senate, thankfully.
I'm still not convinced the Stupak amendment is "unconscionable". At first glance it would seem to be (and that was my initial reaction, too), but I really don't think it takes anything away from anyone. The only people who are being denied coverage are people who don't currently have any coverage in the first place.
Codifying that in law is making it worse. Those people SHOULD have coverage for reproductive health, as it is a key portion of their overall health. It's just dumb and we'd be better off if everyone had access to all the available options.
Agreed. But "we'd be better off" is a whole helluva lot different than "the sky is falling the sky is falling!" Putting a legislative barrier in place of a monetary barrier is a step in the wrong direction. But I just don't see it as some monumental setback like it seems alot of people do.
Excluding abortions isn't going to make me oppose the bill (and to be clear, I support the bill; I just think it's weak). But it's really hard to see the Stupac amendment as anything other than a middle finger to women.
It's a pretty weak public option with an unconscionable amendment attached. Though Boxer seems to think it's dead in the Senate, thankfully.
I'm still not convinced the Stupak amendment is "unconscionable". At first glance it would seem to be (and that was my initial reaction, too), but I really don't think it takes anything away from anyone. The only people who are being denied coverage are people who don't currently have any coverage in the first place.
Codifying that in law is making it worse. Those people SHOULD have coverage for reproductive health, as it is a key portion of their overall health. It's just dumb and we'd be better off if everyone had access to all the available options.
Agreed. But "we'd be better off" is a whole helluva lot different than "the sky is falling the sky is falling!" Putting a legislative barrier in place of a monetary barrier is a step in the wrong direction. But I just don't see it as some monumental setback like it seems alot of people do.
Excluding abortions isn't going to make me oppose the bill (and to be clear, I support the bill; I just think it's weak). But it's really hard to see the Stupac amendment as anything other than a middle finger to women.
That's because you're incapable of understanding the position of those who oppose abortion.
It's a pretty weak public option with an unconscionable amendment attached. Though Boxer seems to think it's dead in the Senate, thankfully.
I'm still not convinced the Stupak amendment is "unconscionable". At first glance it would seem to be (and that was my initial reaction, too), but I really don't think it takes anything away from anyone. The only people who are being denied coverage are people who don't currently have any coverage in the first place.
Codifying that in law is making it worse. Those people SHOULD have coverage for reproductive health, as it is a key portion of their overall health. It's just dumb and we'd be better off if everyone had access to all the available options.
Agreed. But "we'd be better off" is a whole helluva lot different than "the sky is falling the sky is falling!" Putting a legislative barrier in place of a monetary barrier is a step in the wrong direction. But I just don't see it as some monumental setback like it seems alot of people do.
Excluding abortions isn't going to make me oppose the bill (and to be clear, I support the bill; I just think it's weak). But it's really hard to see the Stupac amendment as anything other than a middle finger to women.
Well, I see it more as a middle finger to poor women specifically, but yes.
Among other things, we need way more female legislators. Both as an objective it's harder to ignore women's issues when there are a bunch of them in the damn room type of thing and also as Matt Yglesias keeps pointing out, a majority of Democrats are women, so presumably most of the Democratic talent should be there as well.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
I remember Obama pushing the public option pretty clearly in his speech to Congress. That was hardly surrogates talking for him.
If we're thinking of the same speech, that come after Congress and the White House were taken aback by the outcry in favor of the public option. At the time, everyone thought the PO was pretty much dead.
And yet here we are with a bill that contains a PO having just passed through the House and the Senate seemingly only being a single vote away from passing a bill with a PO. Yeah, he's just been a complete and utter failure on the whole healthcare reform thing.
To me, this is an argument that progressives should be louder, not quieter. This is an example of activists putting pressure on Obama, not Obama putting pressure on the legisature.
Putting pressure on Obama how? Seeing how the legislature is largely in the driver's seat, how would pressuring Obama even be all that substantive? The people who need pressure are douche bags like Lieberman and Stupak who are actively trying to make things worse because it lets them get off at night.
moniker on
0
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
To me, this is an argument that progressives should be louder, not quieter. This is an example of activists putting pressure on Obama, not Obama putting pressure on the legisature.
Putting pressure on Obama how? Seeing how the legislature is largely in the driver's seat, how would pressuring Obama even be all that substantive? The people who need pressure are douche bags like Lieberman and Stupak who are actively trying to make things worse because it lets them get off at night.[/QUOTE]
You say that as if I am against putting pressure on legislators, too. Both the president and Congress are susecptible to public pressure.
It's a pretty weak public option with an unconscionable amendment attached. Though Boxer seems to think it's dead in the Senate, thankfully.
I'm still not convinced the Stupak amendment is "unconscionable". At first glance it would seem to be (and that was my initial reaction, too), but I really don't think it takes anything away from anyone. The only people who are being denied coverage are people who don't currently have any coverage in the first place.
Codifying that in law is making it worse. Those people SHOULD have coverage for reproductive health, as it is a key portion of their overall health. It's just dumb and we'd be better off if everyone had access to all the available options.
Agreed. But "we'd be better off" is a whole helluva lot different than "the sky is falling the sky is falling!" Putting a legislative barrier in place of a monetary barrier is a step in the wrong direction. But I just don't see it as some monumental setback like it seems alot of people do.
Excluding abortions isn't going to make me oppose the bill (and to be clear, I support the bill; I just think it's weak). But it's really hard to see the Stupac amendment as anything other than a middle finger to poor, uninsured women.
Excluding abortions isn't going to make me oppose the bill (and to be clear, I support the bill; I just think it's weak). But it's really hard to see the Stupac amendment as anything other than a middle finger to women.
That's because you're incapable of understanding the position of those who oppose abortion.
That's a dumb thing to say. I fully understand that you believe a fetus is a person, I get it. The motivation for the amendment, though, is probably cynical politicking.
That's because you're incapable of understanding the position of those who oppose abortion.
Except that they already had legislative language that affirms their position prior to Stupak's amendment thanks to existing laws already on the books for decades and re-upped in the base bill. What his amendment means is that now even private monies can't be used also. Which goes way above and beyond simply not wanting federal funding of abortion.
moniker on
0
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
Excluding abortions isn't going to make me oppose the bill (and to be clear, I support the bill; I just think it's weak). But it's really hard to see the Stupac amendment as anything other than a middle finger to poor, uninsured women.
fixed.
Well. An affluent and insured woman might one day find herself poor and uninsured, but she will still be a woman.
It's a pretty weak public option with an unconscionable amendment attached. Though Boxer seems to think it's dead in the Senate, thankfully.
I'm still not convinced the Stupak amendment is "unconscionable". At first glance it would seem to be (and that was my initial reaction, too), but I really don't think it takes anything away from anyone. The only people who are being denied coverage are people who don't currently have any coverage in the first place.
Codifying that in law is making it worse. Those people SHOULD have coverage for reproductive health, as it is a key portion of their overall health. It's just dumb and we'd be better off if everyone had access to all the available options.
Agreed. But "we'd be better off" is a whole helluva lot different than "the sky is falling the sky is falling!" Putting a legislative barrier in place of a monetary barrier is a step in the wrong direction. But I just don't see it as some monumental setback like it seems alot of people do.
Excluding abortions isn't going to make me oppose the bill (and to be clear, I support the bill; I just think it's weak). But it's really hard to see the Stupac amendment as anything other than a middle finger to poor, uninsured women.
fixed.
o_O
Insured people get subsidies too. And the fact that a lot of private insurance plans do include reproductive health means that now those are either going to have to be changed, or you're going to get fuck all in terms of assistance.
That's because you're incapable of understanding the position of those who oppose abortion.
It's about availability, not morality. You'll find nearly every pro-choice person will show the same basic stand in that no one is "pro-abortion" and no one believes that the loss of a fetus is, inherently, a good thing. What we do believe is that women should have control of their bodies and their reproductive rights.
I'd have a lot more respect for anti-abortion groups if they addressed the social issue as opposed to attempting to legislate morality and limit the ability of a woman to plan her own life. Mistakes happen, and the stakes are simply too high.
The Stupak amendment makes us worrisome because it, in effect, denies equal rights of solidarity of one's personal body. I think the amendment is a horror due to the fact that it, essentially, limits reproductive care. For a mindset that wants the "fed" to get out of their income, "moral crusaders" are more than willing to expand government control over a female's body.
In a perfect world abortion would be legal, and no one would have abortions. This, I believe, is a much more worthwhile goal than forcing women to shove coat-hangers up there and poke around.
It's a pretty weak public option with an unconscionable amendment attached. Though Boxer seems to think it's dead in the Senate, thankfully.
I'm still not convinced the Stupak amendment is "unconscionable". At first glance it would seem to be (and that was my initial reaction, too), but I really don't think it takes anything away from anyone. The only people who are being denied coverage are people who don't currently have any coverage in the first place.
Codifying that in law is making it worse. Those people SHOULD have coverage for reproductive health, as it is a key portion of their overall health. It's just dumb and we'd be better off if everyone had access to all the available options.
Agreed. But "we'd be better off" is a whole helluva lot different than "the sky is falling the sky is falling!" Putting a legislative barrier in place of a monetary barrier is a step in the wrong direction. But I just don't see it as some monumental setback like it seems alot of people do.
Excluding abortions isn't going to make me oppose the bill (and to be clear, I support the bill; I just think it's weak). But it's really hard to see the Stupac amendment as anything other than a middle finger to women.
Well, I see it more as a middle finger to poor women specifically, but yes.
Among other things, we need way more female legislators. Both as an objective it's harder to ignore women's issues when there are a bunch of them in the damn room type of thing and also as Matt Yglesias keeps pointing out, a majority of Democrats are women, so presumably most of the Democratic talent should be there as well.
Wouldn't it just be easier to put posters of women on the walls? Are you saying we need more women just to bully the men into doing what they want? That's ridiculous.
If you want to get an abortion, great, but you're not going to do it on my dime.
That's because you're incapable of understanding the position of those who oppose abortion.
Except that they already had legislative language that affirms their position prior to Stupak's amendment thanks to existing laws already on the books for decades and re-upped in the base bill. What his amendment means is that now even private monies can't be used also. Which goes way above and beyond simply not wanting federal funding of abortion.
How is that inconsistent with the viewpoint that it's an unborn baby and not a lump of cells?
Excluding abortions isn't going to make me oppose the bill (and to be clear, I support the bill; I just think it's weak). But it's really hard to see the Stupac amendment as anything other than a middle finger to women.
That's because you're incapable of understanding the position of those who oppose abortion.
I think we understand it all too well; mostly it's "I oppose abortion until I need one."
It's a pretty weak public option with an unconscionable amendment attached. Though Boxer seems to think it's dead in the Senate, thankfully.
I'm still not convinced the Stupak amendment is "unconscionable". At first glance it would seem to be (and that was my initial reaction, too), but I really don't think it takes anything away from anyone. The only people who are being denied coverage are people who don't currently have any coverage in the first place.
Codifying that in law is making it worse. Those people SHOULD have coverage for reproductive health, as it is a key portion of their overall health. It's just dumb and we'd be better off if everyone had access to all the available options.
Agreed. But "we'd be better off" is a whole helluva lot different than "the sky is falling the sky is falling!" Putting a legislative barrier in place of a monetary barrier is a step in the wrong direction. But I just don't see it as some monumental setback like it seems alot of people do.
Excluding abortions isn't going to make me oppose the bill (and to be clear, I support the bill; I just think it's weak). But it's really hard to see the Stupac amendment as anything other than a middle finger to women.
Well, I see it more as a middle finger to poor women specifically, but yes.
Among other things, we need way more female legislators. Both as an objective it's harder to ignore women's issues when there are a bunch of them in the damn room type of thing and also as Matt Yglesias keeps pointing out, a majority of Democrats are women, so presumably most of the Democratic talent should be there as well.
Wouldn't it just be easier to put posters of women on the walls? Are you saying we need more women just to bully the men into doing what they want? That's ridiculous.
If you want to get an abortion, great, but you're not going to do it on my dime.
I'm saying it's easy for legislators to marginalize groups when there are unrepresentatively small numbers of that group in the legislature.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Well, I see it more as a middle finger to poor women specifically, but yes.
Among other things, we need way more female legislators. Both as an objective it's harder to ignore women's issues when there are a bunch of them in the damn room type of thing and also as Matt Yglesias keeps pointing out, a majority of Democrats are women, so presumably most of the Democratic talent should be there as well.
Wouldn't it just be easier to put posters of women on the walls? Are you saying we need more women just to bully the men into doing what they want? That's ridiculous.
If you want to get an abortion, great, but you're not going to do it on my dime.
If you want to have a war, great, but you're not going to do it on my dime. If you want to fund farm subsidies, great, but you're not going to do it on my dime.
Part of the social contract is sometimes having to pay for shit that you personally don't like. If you have objections to that, I hear you will run into no such institutions in Somalia.
Thanatos on
0
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
Wouldn't it just be easier to put posters of women on the walls? Are you saying we need more women just to bully the men into doing what they want? That's ridiculous.
Are you really contesting the idea that gender breakdown of the legislature should roughly reflect that of the general population? And are you really saying that women legislators viewing legislature from the perspective of a woman means "bullying the men"?
If you want to get an abortion, great, but you're not going to do it on my dime.
I for one believe in the sanctity of life. Cancer cells are also the children of God. If you want to get chemotherapy, great, but you're not doing it on my dime.
Excluding abortions isn't going to make me oppose the bill (and to be clear, I support the bill; I just think it's weak). But it's really hard to see the Stupac amendment as anything other than a middle finger to women.
That's because you're incapable of understanding the position of those who oppose abortion.
I think we understand it all too well; mostly it's "I oppose abortion until I need one."
You're not really much help, lobbing grenades from afar.
That's because you're incapable of understanding the position of those who oppose abortion.
Except that they already had legislative language that affirms their position prior to Stupak's amendment thanks to existing laws already on the books for decades and re-upped in the base bill. What his amendment means is that now even private monies can't be used also. Which goes way above and beyond simply not wanting federal funding of abortion.
How is that inconsistent with the viewpoint that it's an unborn baby and not a lump of cells?
In what way is that a response to what I wrote? You want to change the law so that abortion is illegal, fine. I disagree, but whatever. Changing the law so that women can't pay their own premiums out of their own purse to have that coverage is bullshit, however.
Excluding abortions isn't going to make me oppose the bill (and to be clear, I support the bill; I just think it's weak). But it's really hard to see the Stupac amendment as anything other than a middle finger to women.
That's because you're incapable of understanding the position of those who oppose abortion.
I think we understand it all too well; mostly it's "I oppose abortion until I need one."
You're not really much help, lobbing grenades from afar.
Yes, because "you're incapable of understanding the position of those who oppose abortion" is so very constructive.
Well, I see it more as a middle finger to poor women specifically, but yes.
Among other things, we need way more female legislators. Both as an objective it's harder to ignore women's issues when there are a bunch of them in the damn room type of thing and also as Matt Yglesias keeps pointing out, a majority of Democrats are women, so presumably most of the Democratic talent should be there as well.
Wouldn't it just be easier to put posters of women on the walls? Are you saying we need more women just to bully the men into doing what they want? That's ridiculous.
If you want to get an abortion, great, but you're not going to do it on my dime.
If you want to have a war, great, but you're not going to do it on my dime. If you want to fund farm subsidies, great, but you're not going to do it on my dime.
Part of the social contract is sometimes having to pay for shit that you personally don't like. If you have objections to that, I hear you will run into no such institutions in Somalia.
Except one is an action undertaken by an individual regarding their own health. The others are national actions that cannot be done without the government.
That's because you're incapable of understanding the position of those who oppose abortion.
Except that they already had legislative language that affirms their position prior to Stupak's amendment thanks to existing laws already on the books for decades and re-upped in the base bill. What his amendment means is that now even private monies can't be used also. Which goes way above and beyond simply not wanting federal funding of abortion.
How is that inconsistent with the viewpoint that it's an unborn baby and not a lump of cells?
In what way is that a response to what I wrote? You want to change the law so that abortion is illegal, fine. I disagree, but whatever. Changing the law so that women can't pay their own premiums out of their own purse to have that coverage is bullshit, however.
Unless you believe it to be killing a child. Then it's not bullshit so much as a way to trade off important votes. You get your healthcare if I get my abortion reductions.
If you want to have a war, great, but you're not going to do it on my dime. If you want to fund farm subsidies, great, but you're not going to do it on my dime.
Part of the social contract is sometimes having to pay for shit that you personally don't like. If you have objections to that, I hear you will run into no such institutions in Somalia.
Except one is an action undertaken by an individual regarding their own health. The others are national actions that cannot be done without the government.
ZERO parity in that analogy.
If you want to go to church, fine, but not on my dime (your religious institutions can pay taxes just like any other corporation). If you want to own a home, fine, but not on my dime (fuck your de facto mortgage subsidy).
Excluding abortions isn't going to make me oppose the bill (and to be clear, I support the bill; I just think it's weak). But it's really hard to see the Stupac amendment as anything other than a middle finger to women.
That's because you're incapable of understanding the position of those who oppose abortion.
I think we understand it all too well; mostly it's "I oppose abortion until I need one."
Very true. Don't red states have a higher per-capita abortion rate than their blue counterparts?
Excluding abortions isn't going to make me oppose the bill (and to be clear, I support the bill; I just think it's weak). But it's really hard to see the Stupac amendment as anything other than a middle finger to women.
That's because you're incapable of understanding the position of those who oppose abortion.
I think we understand it all too well; mostly it's "I oppose abortion until I need one."
You're not really much help, lobbing grenades from afar.
Yes, because "you're incapable of understanding the position of those who oppose abortion" is so very constructive.
It actually is. If you state definitively that you do not understand the opposing position, except from the POV of your own beliefs, then it's a little more constructive than prescribing hypocrisy to half the nation.
That's because you're incapable of understanding the position of those who oppose abortion.
Except that they already had legislative language that affirms their position prior to Stupak's amendment thanks to existing laws already on the books for decades and re-upped in the base bill. What his amendment means is that now even private monies can't be used also. Which goes way above and beyond simply not wanting federal funding of abortion.
How is that inconsistent with the viewpoint that it's an unborn baby and not a lump of cells?
In what way is that a response to what I wrote? You want to change the law so that abortion is illegal, fine. I disagree, but whatever. Changing the law so that women can't pay their own premiums out of their own purse to have that coverage is bullshit, however.
Unless you believe it to be killing a child. Then it's not bullshit so much as a way to trade off important votes. You get your healthcare if I get my abortion reductions.
edit: well, not you and me specifically
By barring people from spending their own money on legally available procedures.
You want to make abortion illegal, try and make it illegal. Don't put up catch-22 regulations.
moniker on
0
Options
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
Well, I see it more as a middle finger to poor women specifically, but yes.
Among other things, we need way more female legislators. Both as an objective it's harder to ignore women's issues when there are a bunch of them in the damn room type of thing and also as Matt Yglesias keeps pointing out, a majority of Democrats are women, so presumably most of the Democratic talent should be there as well.
Wouldn't it just be easier to put posters of women on the walls? Are you saying we need more women just to bully the men into doing what they want? That's ridiculous.
If you want to get an abortion, great, but you're not going to do it on my dime.
If you want to have a war, great, but you're not going to do it on my dime. If you want to fund farm subsidies, great, but you're not going to do it on my dime.
Part of the social contract is sometimes having to pay for shit that you personally don't like. If you have objections to that, I hear you will run into no such institutions in Somalia.
Except one is an action undertaken by an individual regarding their own health. The others are national actions that cannot be done without the government.
ZERO parity in that analogy.
Easily fixed.
You want your kids to learn godless science, great, but you're not going to do it on my dime.
or better yet
You want your grandma to have that hip replacement, great, but you're not going to do it on my dime.
...
If you want to have a war, great, but you're not going to do it on my dime. If you want to fund farm subsidies, great, but you're not going to do it on my dime.
Part of the social contract is sometimes having to pay for shit that you personally don't like. If you have objections to that, I hear you will run into no such institutions in Somalia.
Except one is an action undertaken by an individual regarding their own health. The others are national actions that cannot be done without the government.
ZERO parity in that analogy.
If you want to go to church, fine, but not on my dime (your religious institutions can pay taxes just like any other corporation). If you want to own a home, fine, but not on my dime (fuck your de facto mortgage subsidy).
Yeah, we already had the talk on whether retaining your income equates to a handout or subsidy. You and I aren't going to agree on that.
Well, I see it more as a middle finger to poor women specifically, but yes.
Among other things, we need way more female legislators. Both as an objective it's harder to ignore women's issues when there are a bunch of them in the damn room type of thing and also as Matt Yglesias keeps pointing out, a majority of Democrats are women, so presumably most of the Democratic talent should be there as well.
Wouldn't it just be easier to put posters of women on the walls? Are you saying we need more women just to bully the men into doing what they want? That's ridiculous.
If you want to get an abortion, great, but you're not going to do it on my dime.
If you want to have a war, great, but you're not going to do it on my dime. If you want to fund farm subsidies, great, but you're not going to do it on my dime.
Part of the social contract is sometimes having to pay for shit that you personally don't like. If you have objections to that, I hear you will run into no such institutions in Somalia.
Except one is an action undertaken by an individual regarding their own health. The others are national actions that cannot be done without the government.
ZERO parity in that analogy.
Easily fixed.
You want your kids to learn godless science, great, but you're not going to do it on my dime.
or better yet
You want your grandma to have that hip replacement, great, but you're not going to do it on my dime.
...
Excluding abortions isn't going to make me oppose the bill (and to be clear, I support the bill; I just think it's weak). But it's really hard to see the Stupac amendment as anything other than a middle finger to women.
That's because you're incapable of understanding the position of those who oppose abortion.
I think we understand it all too well; mostly it's "I oppose abortion until I need one."
This comment reminds me of that old article written by a clinic worker who regularly saw how some women in the picket line would occasionally use their services, and return to protesting, still convinced that abortion was wrong, but that their situation was different.
Excluding abortions isn't going to make me oppose the bill (and to be clear, I support the bill; I just think it's weak). But it's really hard to see the Stupac amendment as anything other than a middle finger to women.
That's because you're incapable of understanding the position of those who oppose abortion.
I think we understand it all too well; mostly it's "I oppose abortion until I need one."
Very true. Don't red states have a higher per-capita abortion rate than their blue counterparts?
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Posts
I'm still not convinced the Stupak amendment is "unconscionable". At first glance it would seem to be (and that was my initial reaction, too), but I really don't think it takes anything away from anyone. The only people who are being denied coverage are people who don't currently have any coverage in the first place.
Codifying that in law is making it worse. Those people SHOULD have coverage for reproductive health, as it is a key portion of their overall health. It's just dumb and we'd be better off if everyone had access to all the available options.
Agreed. But "we'd be better off" is a whole helluva lot different than "the sky is falling the sky is falling!" Putting a legislative barrier in place of a monetary barrier is a step in the wrong direction. But I just don't see it as some monumental setback like it seems alot of people do.
Excluding abortions isn't going to make me oppose the bill (and to be clear, I support the bill; I just think it's weak). But it's really hard to see the Stupac amendment as anything other than a middle finger to women.
That's because you're incapable of understanding the position of those who oppose abortion.
Well, I see it more as a middle finger to poor women specifically, but yes.
Among other things, we need way more female legislators. Both as an objective it's harder to ignore women's issues when there are a bunch of them in the damn room type of thing and also as Matt Yglesias keeps pointing out, a majority of Democrats are women, so presumably most of the Democratic talent should be there as well.
Putting pressure on Obama how? Seeing how the legislature is largely in the driver's seat, how would pressuring Obama even be all that substantive? The people who need pressure are douche bags like Lieberman and Stupak who are actively trying to make things worse because it lets them get off at night.
Putting pressure on Obama how? Seeing how the legislature is largely in the driver's seat, how would pressuring Obama even be all that substantive? The people who need pressure are douche bags like Lieberman and Stupak who are actively trying to make things worse because it lets them get off at night.[/QUOTE]
You say that as if I am against putting pressure on legislators, too. Both the president and Congress are susecptible to public pressure.
fixed.
Our first game is now available for free on Google Play: Frontier: Isle of the Seven Gods
That's a dumb thing to say. I fully understand that you believe a fetus is a person, I get it. The motivation for the amendment, though, is probably cynical politicking.
Except that they already had legislative language that affirms their position prior to Stupak's amendment thanks to existing laws already on the books for decades and re-upped in the base bill. What his amendment means is that now even private monies can't be used also. Which goes way above and beyond simply not wanting federal funding of abortion.
Well. An affluent and insured woman might one day find herself poor and uninsured, but she will still be a woman.
o_O
Insured people get subsidies too. And the fact that a lot of private insurance plans do include reproductive health means that now those are either going to have to be changed, or you're going to get fuck all in terms of assistance.
It's about availability, not morality. You'll find nearly every pro-choice person will show the same basic stand in that no one is "pro-abortion" and no one believes that the loss of a fetus is, inherently, a good thing. What we do believe is that women should have control of their bodies and their reproductive rights.
I'd have a lot more respect for anti-abortion groups if they addressed the social issue as opposed to attempting to legislate morality and limit the ability of a woman to plan her own life. Mistakes happen, and the stakes are simply too high.
The Stupak amendment makes us worrisome because it, in effect, denies equal rights of solidarity of one's personal body. I think the amendment is a horror due to the fact that it, essentially, limits reproductive care. For a mindset that wants the "fed" to get out of their income, "moral crusaders" are more than willing to expand government control over a female's body.
In a perfect world abortion would be legal, and no one would have abortions. This, I believe, is a much more worthwhile goal than forcing women to shove coat-hangers up there and poke around.
Wouldn't it just be easier to put posters of women on the walls? Are you saying we need more women just to bully the men into doing what they want? That's ridiculous.
If you want to get an abortion, great, but you're not going to do it on my dime.
How is that inconsistent with the viewpoint that it's an unborn baby and not a lump of cells?
Which was the case prior to the amendment. Now they aren't allowed to get it on their own dime either.
I'm saying it's easy for legislators to marginalize groups when there are unrepresentatively small numbers of that group in the legislature.
Part of the social contract is sometimes having to pay for shit that you personally don't like. If you have objections to that, I hear you will run into no such institutions in Somalia.
Are you really contesting the idea that gender breakdown of the legislature should roughly reflect that of the general population? And are you really saying that women legislators viewing legislature from the perspective of a woman means "bullying the men"?
I for one believe in the sanctity of life. Cancer cells are also the children of God. If you want to get chemotherapy, great, but you're not doing it on my dime.
Too bad that's not actually how taxes work.
You're not really much help, lobbing grenades from afar.
In what way is that a response to what I wrote? You want to change the law so that abortion is illegal, fine. I disagree, but whatever. Changing the law so that women can't pay their own premiums out of their own purse to have that coverage is bullshit, however.
Except one is an action undertaken by an individual regarding their own health. The others are national actions that cannot be done without the government.
ZERO parity in that analogy.
Unless you believe it to be killing a child. Then it's not bullshit so much as a way to trade off important votes. You get your healthcare if I get my abortion reductions.
edit: well, not you and me specifically
Very true. Don't red states have a higher per-capita abortion rate than their blue counterparts?
It actually is. If you state definitively that you do not understand the opposing position, except from the POV of your own beliefs, then it's a little more constructive than prescribing hypocrisy to half the nation.
By barring people from spending their own money on legally available procedures.
You want to make abortion illegal, try and make it illegal. Don't put up catch-22 regulations.
Easily fixed.
You want your kids to learn godless science, great, but you're not going to do it on my dime.
or better yet
You want your grandma to have that hip replacement, great, but you're not going to do it on my dime.
...
Yeah, we already had the talk on whether retaining your income equates to a handout or subsidy. You and I aren't going to agree on that.
A little better, yes.
This comment reminds me of that old article written by a clinic worker who regularly saw how some women in the picket line would occasionally use their services, and return to protesting, still convinced that abortion was wrong, but that their situation was different.
Yep.
Along with:
Higher crime rates and Higher consumption of pornography.
It rhymes with "shmashortion."
Well, I mean, there was an abortion amendment to the healthcare bill.