Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Should Obama repeal the Hyde Amendment?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 04:02 PM
Original message
Poll question: Should Obama repeal the Hyde Amendment?
Edited on Mon Mar-22-10 04:07 PM by defendandprotect
We also hope that the Democratic party recalls that preserving abortion rights is a plank in the party platform. Unfortunately, with this legislation, women’s reproductive rights were sacrificed for corporate profits. There’s no other way to say it. And the party alone is not to blame. It could not have happened without the cooperation of pro-choice groups, who failed to mobilize and did little but issue press releases and fundraise in the wake of the biggest assault on women’s reproductive rights in 35 years. Their complete capitulation is symptomatic of the crisis that the passage of this bill has triggered on the left. Liberal interest groups across the board sacrificed the interests of their members, and, in the end, acted as little more than enforcers for PhRMA and the insurance companies, or sat mute in exchange for personal sinecures and carve-outs.

But it is a national shame that a Democratic President who pledged the repeal of the Hyde Amendment would proudly issue an executive order affirming it. How far we’ve come since 2007, when Barack Obama swore that his first act in office would be to sign the Freedom of Choice Act.

And finally, most of all, we hope that members of both parties find the courage to stand up to the corporate lobbyists who dominated this process–because if left unchecked, their pernicious influence will continue to infect every aspect of ourgovernment to the detriment of its citizens. We who are voters must clearly communicate in November that we will accept nothing less because the fight cannot end until we as a nation decide to take on the corporate interests that are corrupting our political institutions and strangling their ability to provide affordable healthcare to everyone.



http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2010/03/22/fdl-statement-on-the-passage-of-the-health-care-bill/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 04:05 PM
Response to Original message
1. How can he repeal something passed by the Congress.
Last time I checked he doesn't have the authority to "undo" the actions of the Legislature.

Now if Congress proposed legislation undoing the Hyde Amendment then Obama should sign it in a heartbeat however IMHO the ball is in Congresss' court.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 04:08 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. This way . . .
But it is a national shame that a Democratic President who pledged the repeal of the Hyde Amendment would proudly issue an executive order affirming it. How far we’ve come since 2007, when Barack Obama swore that his first act in office would be to sign the Freedom of Choice Act.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 04:22 PM
Response to Reply #3
7. To sign something PASSED BY CONGRESS.
Get it passed by Congress and we'll talk.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
katandmoon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 04:10 PM
Response to Reply #1
5. He can issue Executive Orders. That's what Bill Clinton did in 1992 to allow federal employee health
plans to cover abortion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 04:24 PM
Response to Reply #5
9. Executive orders don't override statute laws.
I wonder, how many of the people who are Obama-bashing are doing it because they don't understand how the law works?

Silly me, I already know the answer: a whole hell of a lot of them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 10:51 PM
Response to Reply #9
24. They're telling you what Obama SAID . . . presumably he needs an updating on Congress
and our laws?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 10:58 PM
Response to Reply #24
26. And what did Obama say?
Some comment about signing a law that has to be passed by Congress? Relevant to a discussion of executive orders... how? Obama knows how the law works, having been a constitutional law professor. It's the anonymous internet forum commentators whose credentials I question.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 11:24 PM
Response to Reply #26
31. Here's more info on that PLEDGE to work to overturn Hyde Amendment ....
Edited on Mon Mar-22-10 11:27 PM by defendandprotect
From the article posted . . .

But it is a national shame that a Democratic President who pledged the repeal of the Hyde Amendment would proudly issue an executive order affirming it. How far we’ve come since 2007, when Barack Obama swore that his first act in office would be to sign the Freedom of Choice Act.


Yes, and he's a Constitutional law professor who suggested he "saw no need" to impeach Bush!!!

What "anonymous internet forum commentators whose credentials I question" -- ????

Who might that be?



MEANWHILE, HERE'S HOW NARAL UNDERSTOOD HIS PLEDGE . . .

NOW, NARAL displeased with Obama-Stupak deal
Updated 10:20 p.m.
By Garance Franke-Ruta
Washington, Post

The president of the National Organization for Women said her group is "incensed" about the impasse-breaking deal between President Obama and a group of anti-abortion Catholic Democrats that seems likely to allow historic health-care reform legislation to pass the House later Sunday night, saying the planned presidential executive order "breaks faith with women."

Other reproductive rights groups, as well as abortion opponents, are also displeased with the compromise.

In 2007, then-Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign had promised abortion-rights supporters that he would work to overturn the Hyde Amendment, which NOW President Terry O'Neill said Sunday would instead be given fresh weight by Obama's executive order.

"Through this order, the president has announced he will lend the weight of his office and the entire executive branch to the antiabortion measures included in the Senate bill, which the House is now prepared to pass," she said.

"Obama does not support the Hyde Amendment," his campaign staff told RH Reality Check in response to a questionnaire from the reproductive rights group. "He believes that the federal government should not use its dollars to intrude on a poor woman's decision whether to carry to term or to terminate her pregnancy and selectively withhold benefits because she seeks to exercise her right of reproductive choice in a manner the government disfavors."

On the 35th anniversary of Roe v. Wade in 2008, the landmark Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion, he again laid out his commitment to abortion rights: "I will continue to defend this right by passing the Freedom of Choice Act as president," he said. That act would bar discrimination against exercising abortion rights in benefits, facilities, services or information.

MORE . . .
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2010/03/now-naral-displeased-with-obam.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 11:48 PM
Response to Reply #24
43. No, you do....
D&P.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue-Jay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 04:07 PM
Response to Original message
2. Doesn't work that way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 04:09 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. "Freedom of Choice Act" --
But it is a national shame that a Democratic President who pledged the repeal of the Hyde Amendment would proudly issue an executive order affirming it. How far we’ve come since 2007, when Barack Obama swore that his first act in office would be to sign the Freedom of Choice Act.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
katandmoon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 04:11 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. I think we've learned since then how expendable Obama's campaign promises are.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 10:52 PM
Response to Reply #6
25. Agree -- but I really didn't know about this at all . . . amazing!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kaleva Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-10 12:14 AM
Response to Reply #4
44. Ah, he didn't say what you say he said
Edited on Tue Mar-23-10 12:28 AM by Kaleva
"On the 35th anniversary of Roe v. Wade in 2008, the landmark Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion, he again laid out his commitment to abortion rights: "I will continue to defend this right by passing the Freedom of Choice Act as president," he said. That act would bar discrimination against exercising abortion rights in benefits, facilities, services or information."

Where in the above do you read that President Obama says his first act in office would be to sign the Freedom of Choice Act? Assuming he serves two terms, President Obama has 6 years to make good on his campaign promise.

Edit: I did find a source which states that Obama did say that the first thing he'd do as president would be to sign FOCA. However, to the best of my knowledge, the bill hasn't been introduced in the 111th Congress in either the House or Senate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue-Jay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-10 01:05 AM
Response to Reply #4
47. You addressed nothing.
No president can wave a magic wand and make things go away.

You know that, right?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ozymanithrax Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 04:23 PM
Response to Original message
8. Obama can not repeal the Hyde ammendment...
All his exectuive order is really saying is that we will follow the law.

Damn, how many of us would have liked Bush to sign such a fucking exectuive order.

In order to repeal the Hyde ammendment, you need to have congress do that.

And there are way too many anti-woman-pro-theocratic-barefoot-and-pregnant Democrats in the House and Senate to do that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kestrel91316 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 04:35 PM
Response to Original message
10. It is not the president's prerogative to up and repeal laws he doesn't like.
However, should the CONGRESS vote to repeal it, then of course he should sign.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tesha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 05:07 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. Alternatively, he could direct *HIS* Justice Department to come up with a case...
Edited on Mon Mar-22-10 05:13 PM by Tesha
...to prove it unconstitutional in some way, perhaps under
"equal protection" grounds. Don't you think there's some
poor woman/armed forces woman/etc. who could be
drafted as the plaintiff?

But Obama made a lot of campaign promises that he has no
intention whatsoever of spending one dime of his political
capital supporting; this is just one of many.

Tesha
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kestrel91316 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 05:36 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. Thank you for pointing out, once again, that you would have preferred McCain/Palin.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
muffin1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 05:40 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. jesus h. christ
on a fucking cracker. No one here preferred McCain/Palin. We simply want Obama to follow through on what he promised and we voted for.

That meme needs to be retired. Seriously.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tesha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 06:55 PM
Response to Reply #13
16. Oh my! Standard reply #3! How creative of you! (NT)
Edited on Mon Mar-22-10 06:55 PM by Tesha
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 11:01 PM
Response to Reply #13
27. No . . . we prefer someone who WOULD work to overturn the Hyde Amendment . . .
Maybe Al Franken one day soon?!!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Unvanguard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 07:15 PM
Response to Reply #12
19. That's not the Justice Department's job, now or ever.
Citizens sue the government; the government does not sue itself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tesha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 07:27 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. You never noticed Marbury v Madison, I take it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Unvanguard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 07:32 PM
Response to Reply #20
22. Of course I've heard of Marbury v. Madison.
You do not seem to understand it very well, however.

From your own link: "This case resulted from a petition to the Supreme Court by William Marbury"

It was a challenge by an individual to a policy of the government. Perfectly legitimate, perfectly ordinary. Jefferson's administration defended its policy: it did not aid Marbury in challenging itself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lyric Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 04:48 PM
Response to Original message
11. It doesn't NEED to be repealed. They just need to stop re-authorizing it every year!
Edited on Mon Mar-22-10 04:50 PM by Lyric
It's not a "law" in the way that we ordinarily understand laws. It's just a rider--a VOLUNTARY rider--that gets attached to the Department of Health and Human Services' budget appropriation every year. There is no statute that requires it. We don't HAVE to attach it. We do it because nobody cares enough about poor women to spend the political capital required to NOT do it.

That's why the Stupak and Nelson amendments are so VERY dangerous. If language like that is placed into the bill, then it DOES become settled law. Most people have no idea that Hyde is NOT a permanent statute, and that it would be simple (legally) to just stop attaching the damned thing to the HHS budget bill. It would be complicated politically, of course, but simple from a legal standpoint.

Obama's executive order is an entirely different can of worms. His EO could mean that the Hyde restrictions remain in place even if the Hyde rider itself ISN'T attached to the bill. So long as that EO remains in effect, then Hyde COULD be considered a settled statute. It would be easy to fix the problem--just revoke the EO--but again, nobody is willing to spend any political capital to help poor women.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 11:07 PM
Response to Reply #11
29. Aha . . . thank you for some light on issue --
But "ouch" on the last paragraph -- !!

:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Canuckistanian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 11:29 PM
Response to Reply #11
35. +1
Edited on Mon Mar-22-10 11:30 PM by Canuckistanian
There was a post explaining this very subject yesterday.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7976852

on edit: It was you!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kaleva Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-10 12:32 AM
Response to Reply #11
46. A very informative post!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Unvanguard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 05:38 PM
Response to Original message
14. Congress should repeal the Hyde Amendment, but since that's totally hopeless
it's not worth fighting a costly political fight over it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tesha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 07:03 PM
Response to Reply #14
17. Yes, after all, it's only a question of women's rights; why bother, ehh? (NT)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Unvanguard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 07:12 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. Women's rights would not be advanced one iota by fighting a losing fight to repeal Hyde.
Probably the contrary, actually, especially insofar as it hands to the Republicans an immensely useful wedge issue on a silver platter. The Stupak amendment passed 240-194, and that went considerably beyond Hyde; a repeal attempt would probably get considerably fewer than 194 votes in the House, and it would be easily filibustered in the Senate even if it could muster 51 votes.

The importance of an issue is not in itself an argument for fighting a costly political battle over it. A further necessary element is some real prospect of success, and there is none here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tesha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 07:29 PM
Response to Reply #18
21. ...says the man from Pennsylvania.
'Bet you'll want women's votes in 2010 and '12, though.

Tesha
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Unvanguard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 07:37 PM
Response to Reply #21
23. That is not even a semblance of an argument. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 11:26 PM
Response to Reply #23
32. Well, no. It is the whole of yours. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Unvanguard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 11:28 PM
Response to Reply #32
34. Technically, it is an ad hominem fallacy.
Edited on Mon Mar-22-10 11:29 PM by Unvanguard
If either you or the poster who originally replied to me actually has a politically plausible way of getting rid of the Hyde restriction, I'd love to hear it. Self-righteous grandstanding, however, only bores me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 11:35 PM
Response to Reply #34
40. Boredom is a form of privilege, no?
And it's funny because, it has been shown over and over again that a society is only as successful as it treats its women well.

So, from your position of benighted male privilege, explain to me why taking care of American women is not worth the political capital?

Thanks.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Unvanguard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 11:41 PM
Response to Reply #40
42. Please don't put words in my mouth.
Edited on Mon Mar-22-10 11:42 PM by Unvanguard
I think repealing the Hyde Amendment would be a substantial victory for social justice. If we could pull it off, I'd probably back doing so, even if there were negative political consequences (as there almost certainly would be).

However, as I have said repeatedly and explicitly, we can't actually pull it off. Not a chance. It would not pass either house of Congress, period.

I reiterate my challenge: if you are actually interested in having a reasonable discussion, rather than simply baselessly accusing me of being a privileged male who doesn't care about women's rights, suggest a plausible way of actually bringing about a repeal. Put up or shut up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-10 01:31 PM
Response to Reply #42
53. No game is ever one with one play. And yes, your casual discarding
Edited on Tue Mar-23-10 01:31 PM by EFerrari
of this ongoing fight as somehow not viable is offensive. Shut up? I don't think so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Unvanguard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-10 02:37 PM
Response to Reply #53
56. Yes, you're right: some battles take time.
Edited on Tue Mar-23-10 02:38 PM by Unvanguard
If you want to change the political context, to engage in that build-up "play" so to speak, fine: work on electing more pro-choice Democrats, work on changing people's minds on this issue. I support that fully; I try to do it myself.

But that is not the same thing as engaging in a costly and pointless legislative fight. It's pretty clear that such a fight would fail: I've already said why. If you want to maintain this line of argument, you have to either explain specifically (a) how even a lost fight would be a good thing, in general or for women's and reproductive rights in particular, or (b) how such evidence as the overwhelming House vote for the Stupak amendment does not actually constitute compelling evidence that the legislative attempt would fail.

I've put my cards on the table: I've already said why I think the attempt would be all cost and no benefit, for Democrats and for women's rights. If you want to contest that, and especially if you want to resort to an ad hominem argument about my motives, you'll have to do better than empty posturing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-10 03:03 PM
Response to Reply #56
57. That you call my position "empty" doesn't make it so.
But thank you for the unsolicited assessment, advice and orders. :patriot:

lol
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ecstatic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 11:31 PM
Response to Reply #18
38. +1. If anything it would attract enough negative attention to put even more
rights in jeopardy (assuming RWers ride a fresh anti-abortion wave into office).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 11:08 PM
Response to Reply #14
30. This thing has been in place much too long . . . don't know how poor women
deal with it -- even women who have been raped trying to prove that they "qualify" - !!!!

Geez . . . what a pig Hyde was, in fact!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
scheming daemons Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 11:03 PM
Response to Original message
28. Gee... another anti-Obama screed by an FDL-er... how surprising..

:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 11:30 PM
Response to Reply #28
37. Maybe democracy and free speech here is too much for you?
Obama obviously made a pledge to work to overturn Hyde Amendment --

That's the topic . . . that's not what he's done so far --

but his executive order to pander to Stupak and anti-abortionists works in the

opposite direction --

Do you have any comment on the message, or are you stuck on the messenger?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ecstatic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 11:28 PM
Response to Original message
33. On January 19, 2017, right before passing the baton to the next Dem prez--sure...why not?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nemo137 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 11:30 PM
Response to Original message
36. The Hyde Amendment needs repealing
but given the level of fucking bullshit handholding needed to pass a law that simply maintains the Hyde Amendment status quo, and the ease of using misogyny as a political tool, and the bloc of conservadems in the house, I'm not terribly optimistic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hekate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 11:32 PM
Response to Original message
39. THE PRESIDENT IS NOT THE LEGISLATURE
Sheesh
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WeekendWarrior Donating Member (849 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 11:36 PM
Response to Original message
41. Not to be provocative or anything, but
what exactly is the argument that the feds SHOULD fund abortion?

Maybe things have changed, but in my day, planned parenthood would help with an unplanned pregnancy (or prenatal care, if you chose) for either a very low cost or free of charge. Why do we need federal funding?

Then again, I suppose if the feds fund pregnancy care, they should also fund abortion. But DO they fund pregnancy care?

I admit I'm clueless on this. Someone please educate me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hekate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-10 03:14 AM
Response to Reply #41
48. Women's health care is more complicated than men's. I will answer you seriously...
Edited on Tue Mar-23-10 03:18 AM by Hekate
Coming supplied with a uterus involves a huge amount of education and decision making, and you'd better hope that the women and girls in your family have had enough relevant education to make informed decisions. I once knew a woman who when she got pregnant with her third child (by her husband, okay?) wept to the doctor that she really didn't know how babies were made or how to make them stop coming and would he please, please tell her. She was absolutely humiliated. This lack of information was not her fault -- no one, including her own mother (much less her husband!) had ever told her. This was in the mid-60s, not the Victorian Era. She wasn't stupid; when I met her she was making straight-As in college, which she enrolled in as soon as that last kid was in kindergarten.

So right away you can tell that with our uteruses (uteri?) sometimes we want to be pregnant and sometimes we don't. We need to make informed decisions about what that entails and we need to have the means -- that is, contraceptives, birth control, IUDs, the Morning After Pill, Plan B, whatnot. (Europe has some nifty little devices for women who want to chart their own cycles, and they're not available here. Europeans wonder why Americans are so backward.) Most of these things require a physical exam and a prescription, though some of them (like the Morning After Pill and Plan B) should not need one (and again, Europeans wonder about us).

All female contraceptives cost money, and they cost money ongoingly. Did you know that many workplace insurance plans make women pay for their contraceptives out-of-pocket? The same insurance plans pay for the magic blue pills for men, so men can get stiff and hard and have major orgasms (you wouldn't believe the spam I get -- plus there's no avoiding the tv commercials) -- but for women to try to control their fertility, too bad.

Did you know that RW anti-choicers have defined nearly all contraceptives as abortifacients? They're not, but thanks to these religious fanatics there is a "conscience clause" for hospitals, doctors, nurses, and pharmacists who want to decide for women that they should not be using these perfectly legal things, even in case of rape.

A few years ago there was an essay in the Washington Post by an apparently upper-middle-class professional woman who had always been super-careful with her fertility, but even tho the kids were in college neither she nor her husband had had their tubes tied. Then one fine weekend... oops. There's a small window of opportunity to take Plan B, which can be dispensed OTC by a pharmacist, so she went to her pharmacist. No dice -- his "conscience" you know. She went to another one, and another, and yet another. By this time she was feeling a lot of emotions, like humiliation and rage. The essay made for some interesting "This could happen to YOU" reading.

There's more. In my 62 years I have known women to get pregnant while using every known form of birth control, including once, famously, tubal ligation. When I was quite young and my mom and her friends were all in their childbearing years, I used to sit quietly and listen to them, so this goes back a long way before it was me and my friends. My own daughter got pregnant while she was on The Pill, for gods' sake.

Planned pregnancy is no picnic. It makes tremendous demands on a woman's body, and for some it can be dangerous. A heart condition, compromised kidneys -- not safe. My mom had two early miscarriages, during which she hemorrhaged so badly she was hospitalized for both and nearly died from one of them. Fortunately our family doc knew her well, otherwise-- well I've heard of women being turned away from the hospital if there was some suspicion they might have tried to abort themselves, which was a felony. -- BTW, did you know that the idjits in the Utah legislature just passed a law, signed by the governor, that criminalizes miscarriage? on the theory that the woman who suffers one must have been at fault in some way? Soulless, heartless bastards.

Supposing everything goes pretty normally, a pregnant woman needs very nutritious food and supplements to make sure her baby develops in a healthy manner. She needs regular checkups and the advice that goes with them. An ultrasound is recommended, and it costs several hundred dollars. Usually the doc and the technician confirm a nice healthy spine and the gender -- gender being bonus information, but nice. It was really a thrill to see the DVD of my granddaughter before she was born.

Supposing it doesn't go well, and the ultrasound shows an anomaly like spina bifida, or an empty skull, or organs looping outside the body. None of these threatens the life of the mother, but two of them are definitely incompatible with life outside the womb, and one is a lifetime of severe disability. Who are you (or the Utah legislature) to tell the expectant parents what their decision should be, except that the doctor should help them make an informed one.

Unplanned pregnancy is not an "inconvenience." It's a lifetime of change. It's all of the above plus the emotions of knowing that this absolutely is not the right time to be having this or any baby. Women don't shilly-shally around for months making up their minds. Nearly all abortions are performed in the first trimester, before the zygote is even an inch long. If Plan B/the Morning After Pill are used, if there is a fertilized egg at all it is the size of the period at the end of this sentence.

Did you know that Mother Nature causes untold numbers of fertilized zygotes to be shed with the uterine lining every single month by millions of women who have no idea their egg got caught by a sperm? That fertilized zygote so fetishized by religious fanatics is not a pregnancy; it's a possibility.

Did you know that abortion services are not even available in 80% of the counties of the USA? That's the work of the fanatics operating on their self-imposed "conscience clause." In order to make their point they have blockaded clinics, bombed clinics, murdered doctors, followed staffers home, stalked the children of staffers and doctors... A woman with a dead baby inside of her that refuses to come out (it happens, and it is life-threatening) can't even get surgical help because (gasp, shock) that would be an "abortion." A woman who needs Plan B is shit out of luck in such counties, too. A woman who needs to make what should be an entirely private decision has to to figure out how to get away from work and family, husband, and kids, and gossipy neighbors, for at least a day in order to go to the nearest big city, which may be quite a long distance from home.

I've never had an abortion myself, but when I put myself in the shoes of other women, my heart goes out to them. It's a legal procedure and in any other civilized country they can get it.

You reference Planned Parenthood. They do good work, but abortions are only about 5% of what they do. I have supported them for something like 40 years because of their primary mission -- every child a wanted child. Their founder, Margaret Sanger, RN (1879-1966), was actually imprisoned for holding clinics where she dispensed contraceptives to women and for mailing contraceptive information through the US Post Office. In modern times PP clinics have also been vandalized, burned, blockaded, their doctors and staffs threatened. It takes incredible courage to do what they do.

They are a private organization, supported by donations from people like me. There is no way they can do everything that needs to be done, although they do their utmost.

Abortion and contraceptives, PAP smears and annual checkups, obstetrical and gynecological care, mammograms -- all these are on a continuum of female medical care. They aren't separate little bits that you can chop pieces out of and still call it complete. Comprehensive health care for women has to include all of these things in addition the stuff that men take for granted, i.e. heart checkups, colonoscopies, dental and eye care .

Women's bodies are complicated. Women's medical issues are complicated. If you have to ask it in the first place, there is no short answer to your question.

Any comprehensive health care plan MUST include all of our needs. Requiring women to write two insurance checks as has been proposed (one for the "abortion plan"), requiring women to pay for their contraceptives out of pocket (while providing Viagra for men, remember), is just rank discrimination.

Hekate





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WeekendWarrior Donating Member (849 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-10 06:58 AM
Response to Reply #48
49. I appreciate the information, but
Edited on Tue Mar-23-10 07:01 AM by WeekendWarrior
I'm not sure the question I've asked was really answered. I understand that women's health care is complicated. And I've had experience myself with planned parenthood and found them to be a wonderful organization. But I'm not asking about how complicated women's healthcare is. My interest lies in a single issue -- whether or not federal funds should be used for abortion or, for that matter, prenatal care.

YES, I do think that every insurance company should cover it, but don't they cover it now? And as far as I can tell the new reforms will not change that. Women will still be able to get abortions and all other care relating to pregnancy.

It seems to me that the fight here is about Medicaid, but there are provisions in the Hyde Amendment for rape, incest and life-threatening pregnancies, so I'm not sure what the demand is, since we do have organizations like planned parenthood to help out.

None of this has to do with blockades, etc. Those wackos are something that, unfortunately, need to be dealt with, but I'm not sure how the federal funding of abortion would change any of that.

As I said, I'm not trying to be provocative here. But despite your well-intentioned response, which I thank you for, I'm not quite sure you understood my actual question -- which was:

WHY should there be federal funding of abortion?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hekate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-10 11:38 AM
Response to Reply #49
50. Are women full human beings like men are? Then your answer is Hell Yes everything gets covered
Why should there be federal funding for ANY medical care at all? For men? I don't have a prostate. Why should I care about yours?

I am in full support of this new Bill, but it is far from finished. It is incomplete.

Women are 100% human beings with needs different from men's. We are not defective men with icky issues. We are over half the human race.

This incomplete Bill needs to be completed.

Hekate

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lars39 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-10 11:45 AM
Response to Reply #49
51. In answer to your last question...because it women't health care.
Full stop.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hekate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-10 01:21 PM
Response to Reply #51
52. Thank you Lars.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lars39 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-10 01:32 PM
Response to Reply #52
54. I really like your reply...you covered a lot of ground!
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hekate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-10 02:25 PM
Response to Reply #54
55. You're welcome. The fact that you read it makes it worth the time I put into it...

:hi:

Hekate
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maru Kitteh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-10 12:18 AM
Response to Original message
45. Nothing he did would make YOU happy anyway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu May 02nd 2024, 03:41 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC