http://www.freep.com/article/20100322/NEWS15/3220310/1318/ There is finally a decision of the House passing the Health Care Bill....It is done. There is joy, anger, and even indifferance or undecided. It should have been passed.. by all accounts the Democrats had the votes, and had the seats...But something unforeseen,...something unimagined (at least somewhat) had occurred was that there would be question and strife from within... STUPAK eventually bended because a copy of the order requires the Department of Health and Human Services to write guidelines for states to prevent use of federal funds for abortions. The notion does not make any side happy, but religion was proven to impact how HCR played out...Something to ponder...
This was the stupidest argument of the entire bill. Everyone wanted one thing: for the current law (the Hyde Amendment) to remain the law going forward. No one agreed on how to best do that. In the end, Obama made an executive order that just reaffirms what's alreadu in the bill: that the current law remains the law. And everyone was happy. Such a stupid argument over nothing.
It was important enough that without the critical attention, the Health Bill would NOT have been possible. No one on either side of the abortion issue is completely happy, and does this disparately impact pro-life Democratic congressman? The sad thing is they may get it bad from both sides... Are they 2nd class Democratic representatives due to their clinging to religion?...Not being lock and step seriously endangered Health Care Reform from within afterall... It seems like moderate Democrats are "needed" to ensure "victory", but pro-lifers are chastised and condemned or their idea condemned severely...We don't have to look far if you know what I mean... The bottom line is pro-lifers made HCR happen since they got special attention and clarification from Obama...Without this and kiss HCR bye-bye...The hardliners can't stand it, but they must realize they have to amicably address religion in regards to legislation, current and future...
Certainly - I just meant that everyone really wanted the same thing. They just all disagreed on what language resulted in that same thing, which is what made it so silly. No one wanted new restrictions on privately financed abortions. No one was asking for taxpayer funded abortions. It was just a matter of how to word it such that both sides were satisfied that neither of those things would happen.
The Pro-lifers are pissed about this due to the potential leading to funding regardless of the Executive Order... NOW look who is pissed... http://www.now.org/press/03-10/03-21a.html President Obama Breaks Faith with Women Statement of NOW President Terry O'Neill March 21, 2010 The National Organization for Women is incensed that President Barack Obama agreed today to issue an executive order designed to appease a handful of anti-choice Democrats who have held up health care reform in an effort to restrict women's access to abortion. Through this order, the president has announced he will lend the weight of his office and the entire executive branch to the anti-abortion measures included in the Senate bill, which the House is now prepared to pass. President Obama campaigned as a pro-choice president, but his actions today suggest that his commitment to reproductive health care is shaky at best. Contrary to language in the draft of the executive order and repeated assertions in the news, the Hyde Amendment is not settled law -- it is an illegitimate tack-on to an annual must-pass appropriations bill. NOW has a longstanding objection to Hyde and, in fact, was looking forward to working with this president and Congress to bring an end to these restrictions. We see now that we have our work cut out for us far beyond what we ever anticipated. The message we have received today is that it is acceptable to negotiate health care on the backs of women, and we couldn't disagree more. /end If you can't make any side happy, make them both unhappy...A win/win for Obama..
Absolutely - the extremes on both sides insist that the law wrt abortions is changing, which is what made it so complicated. The reality from legal experts is that it isn't, but people simply don't want to believe the truth. We've seen plenty of that with this debate.
as major has pointed out, this was a non issue from the beginnning. a bunch of grandstanding by pro-lifers and the pro choicers on a fringe issue. i'm pretty sure most insurance plans don't cover elective abortion anyway
Not really. Religion has a hand in many things that go on in Washington. Nothing new. Nothing unexpected. Just more wholesale regrettable decision-making.
I think major stated himself well, but I don't like the wording "non issue", because it was clearly an issue when Obama had his lawyer meet with STUPAK on this to sell the bill... I'm in sales, and I learned sometimes you have to emphasize and state something that the buyer wants to hear, regardless of whether they were already going to get it...This was crucial. Communication baby..
Nothing new...Nothing unexpected (I guess in hindsight), but this really, really reaffirms you gotta deal with it...You crazy athiest you...
its not an issue in actual real world application. stupak is an issue because he has a vote, and he grandstanded
I don't think standing by personal convictions is grandstanding...and it's not just him, there are other Democratic pro-life representatives. Some hardliners (lock in step type) can't stand it, or marginalize it but you need them and you need to give them due attention...and we now know without them, HCR would have died... It's a pull to center in action for all to see...Great exhibit.
Of course it is. Abortion is not a religious issue in and of itself. Religious and non-religious people alike have opinions on the subject that vary across the board.
