Hoyer Confirms Executive Order Under Discussion-moments ago

[kpete]

Source: Talking Points Memo

Hoyer Confirms Executive Order Under Discussion
moments ago

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer confirmed this afternoon that Democrats are discussing the potential of President Obama issuing an executive order on abortion when he signs the health care reform legislation.

Brian Beutler asked Hoyer (D-MD) if a significant number of pro-life Democrats would be amenable to that plan. "I'm hopeful," Hoyer replied.

The idea of an executive order or signing statement was floated several weeks ago, but never materialized.

Read more: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/live/countdown-to-reform-wire/?ref=fpblg

[Webster Green]

1. deleted

[EFerrari]

2. I must be stupid this morning. What would the order do?

And yes, I did read the link but can't decipher it.

[fascisthunter]

4. when you figure what's going on...

please let me know. I couldn't make out what is what by that link either.

[chowder66]

8. read below for your answer..

it's right there. It is reaffirming the no federal funding for abortion language already in the bill. It's for Stupak and friends since they can't decipher the bill.

[No Elephants]

32. Besides violate the Constitution?

[AldebTX]

3. Delete

[SourFlower]

5. To curtail it, protect it, or is this about federal funding?

[chowder66]

6. To underscore no federal funding to get votes...

I think. Just reaffirming what the bill already states to make those politicians who can't figure it out understand it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/20/AR2010032001480.html

[chowder66]

11. the leading abortion-rights Democrat, voiced support

Another article better explains this....

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2010/03/by-lori-montgomery-ben-pershin.html

[louis-t]

16. So they can go back to constituents and say

"see we got them to bend." :eyes:

[chowder66]

17. Whatever works....

If Obama has to write in all caps and use a laser pointer to show stupak and his cronies that the rule of law regarding federal funding is the same as it has been for 32 years then so be it.

It just takes up more time which we all know is what the party of no are happy doing at every turn.

[No Elephants]

33. If you're referring to the Hyde Amendment, you may want to check the wiki on it.

[benny05]

7. Terrible idea

Obama is caving again.

[Zoeisright]

10. I think that's a terrible idea too. It just gives these assholes more strength.

Caving indeed.

[defendandprotect]

26. Notice . . . strengthen anti-abortionists . . . Crush the left/progressives . . .!!! hmmm....

[DCBob]

12. Not really.. I think its just the Prez confirming that what is already there.

To give the pro-lifers some cover. No harm done.

[murielm99]

13. "No harm done???"

Yes, just dismiss the reproductive rights of women. No harm done.

I don't care what he is affirming or reaffirming. This is crap.

[DCBob]

14. You dont understand.. there is nothing in this bill that changes current abortion law..

The President is only confirming that.

[defendandprotect]

27. You don't understand that Dems should be moving to overturn the Hyde Amendment...

not CEMENT it into this terrible bill --

This is humoring, if not pandering to, anti-abortionists within the party!!

[No Elephants]

42. Please see Reply ##s 37 and 40.

[defendandprotect]

44. Okay . . .+ would take seriously your cautioning re Stupak and what he asks for/gets ...

Whether or not the Hyde Amendment applies to the Senate Bill, directly or indirectly, the Stupak Amendment would have gone further than the Hyde Amendment. The Stupak Amendment would have prohibited reimbursing a provider for ANYthing, if that provider performed an abortion, even if the patient paid for it with her own cash. It would also have taken an insurer out of the pool if the insurer covered abortion, even for someone paying for her health insurance in full out of her own funds. (Talk about BIG government!)

I'm sure people who want the bill passed, no matter what, will find ways to rationalize anything, no matter want. However, I wouldn't assume anything about Stupak's request before I knew exactly what the final bill says and what Executive Order Stupak wants Obama to sign.

Of course, I think Hyde was a misogynist --

and that POOR women especially should be given a CHOICE --

When people say "not with my money" -- I wonder if they ever think about where their money

actually goes! We're now financing the Vatican!!

:evilgrin:

[No Elephants]

35. No, YOU don't understand.

Please see Reply ##s 37 and 40.

Besides that, Muriel posted

I don't care what he is affirming or reaffirming. This is crap.

What part of that was ambiguous?

[No Elephants]

34. Really? Confirming what was already where? Can you cite the provision of the bill that

adopts the Hyde Amendment?

Really? No harm done in kowtowing to C Street anti-choicers whenever they yelp?

[defendandprotect]

9. Amazing how the nut-job right wing in the Dem Party can't be dismissed as entire LEFT can be -- !!!?

[Tansy_Gold]

15. Tha'ts because we're fucking retards, dontcha know?

:sarcasm:

[defendandprotect]

24. ....thanks for the reminder--!!!

[No Elephants]

41. Not exactly. It's because they think the left has nowhere else to go.

[defendandprotect]

45. And that, too -- !!! Boy, the LEFT is unwashed and unwanted, eh? --

[optimator]

18. an executive order to deny women equal rights

par for this administration.

[groundloop]

21. NO!!! An executive order declaring that the law isn't changing

Stupak is too damned ignorant to understand that the house and senate bills will carry the same provisions that have been in force for years. The executive order would just reinforce that, if it's even used.

[No Elephants]

36. Kindly cite the provision of the bill that supports your assertion. The bill, not something some

politician claimed. The bill.

[gtar100]

39. Stupak isn't ignorant; he's grandstanding.

[SkyDaddy7]

23. You know that comment is DISHONEST!

The law is what it is! The Executive Order, if there is going to be one, would not change a thing!

...However, it might be enough to pass the HCR Bill. If you are against the HCR Bill just say it and stop with dishonest comments.

[No Elephants]

37. Two separate issues:

1. Should the exeutive order issue. As to that, the answer is "no." I am tired of people in both Parties crapping on the Constitution.

Congress has the exclusive power under the Constitution to make decisions about spending money. Congress also has the exclusive power to legislate. Whether or not the order would merely restate the Senate bill---which I DOUBT--at a minimum, it would muddy the waters. As to whether it merely restates what is in the Senate bill, please see Reply 36. Please also see the wiki on the Hyde Amendment.

2. Are you for or against the bill. Aren't your comments about what the bill contains--as if you actually know what the bill says first hand--as dishonest as you accuse optimator of being?

[SkyDaddy7]

43. Seriously?

[defendandprotect]

25. Agree with you . .. they should be fighting to help poor women have CHOICE . . .

[John Q. Citizen]

19. An Obama Signing Statement? The more things change....

[DFLforever]

30. Signing statements have been used by Presidents since

Monroe.

They weren't invented by Bush 2...although he attempted to use them in extra-constitutional ways.

[No Elephants]

38. That is a very misleading statement, though technically accurate.

Prior to Bush, not one signing statement, repeat NOT ONE SIGNING statement purported to add or subtract anything from the legislation, or to say that the President was not obligated to obey the law. NOT ONE.

There was one signing statement--I've forgotten whose--which even said something like "I hate this law." But never did a signing statement do anything but comment.

So, it doesn't matter how many signing statements there were before Bush, or how long signing statements were a tradition. Bush was the first one to use the tradition of signing statements in an unconstitutional manner, an unfortunate precedent Obama has followed only once so far, but even once was once too many.

And, not for nuttin', but a signing statement, substantive or not, and an Executive Order are two different things.

[SlingBlade]

20. So THIS is what passes for Democratic principles now days huh.

Oh how far we've come. Obama and these lying DLC Dems have managed to do what
no Republican could have ever come close to.

Looks like their preparing a celebration, Wheres Old Man Bush ?

[Politicub]

22. I could spit nails about President Obama even considering such an EO

Why does he continue to woo the right while dissing the liberal left? I don't get it.

[RedSock]

31. ummmm, maybe because he's more right than left? (eom)

[aquart]

28. Saying WHAT, precisely?

[DFLforever]

29. Reaffirming Hyde?

[No Elephants]

40. The Hyde Amendment originally applied to Medicaid. According to wiki, it is not

self-executing, but must be added to each individual bill to which Congress wants the Hyde Amendment to apply. Indeed, Congress has added the Hyde Amendment to a number of individual bills. Whether those additions to prior bills cover the so-called health care reform bill to is a question and I don't believe you have done the necessary research and cross-referencing to answer that question definitively.

See http://www.aclu.org/reproductive-freedom/public-funding-abortion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyde_Amendment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyde_Amendment



Whether or not the Hyde Amendment applies to the Senate Bill, directly or indirectly, the Stupak Amendment would have gone further than the Hyde Amendment. The Stupak Amendment would have prohibited reimbursing a provider for ANYthing, if that provider performed an abortion, even if the patient paid for it with her own cash. It would also have taken an insurer out of the pool if the insurer covered abortion, even for someone paying for her health insurance in full out of her own funds. (Talk about BIG government!)

I'm sure people who want the bill passed, no matter what, will find ways to rationalize anything, no matter want. However, I wouldn't assume anything about Stupak's request before I knew exactly what the final bill says and what Executive Order Stupak wants Obama to sign.