I never cease to be amazed--and ashamed--how our Legislature has a problem with a legal procedure. This kowtowing to Neanderthals who just can't get over 'icky women's issues' needs to just stop.

And the hypocrisy of outside groups who themselves belong to HMOs that pay for abortion services does not escape me, either.

that would ban most abortion coverage from the public option and other insurance providers

What is this very curious phrase supposed to mean?

Another step towards the Democrats becoming the minority party again for a long time. Gosh, will they be surprised when don't show up at the polls in 2010.

Not knowing what version of the language will get to the bill, that "very curious phrase" (apt description!) means some variation within the range from "People who receive federal subsidies to help pay their insurance premiums cannot spend that money to buy a policy that covers abortion" to "People who receive federal subsidies to help pay their insurance premiums cannot spend that money to buy any policy from a company that offers a policy (even through a different branch of the insurance company) that covers abortion."

since the majority of medical insurance which covers the range of gynecological procedures also covers abortions, that "very curious phrase" basically means that the health reform bill will also restrict the availability of abortions.

Are you sure about that, Navarro? Every policy I've had in the past 20 years has covered most gynecological work but specifically excepted abortion. (I.e., covered procedures that could terminate a pregnancy, as long as they were performed because of some other diagnosis.)

I have said this before. Stupak;s insistence on abortion issues is really interesting. The guy represents a poor, cold, aging district that is as about as down in the dumps as you will find in this country, with HUGE federal spending keeping it going via medicare and medicaid, [over 25 % of the district is OVER 65; school systems are coming apart; alcohol and meth are rampant] and he gets all worked up over the abortion issue .... if he were really pro life, there are other issues in his district that are pretty critical.

Most of the vote counts I've seen put the number of hard "no" votes in the Democratic caucus at 25. The majority can lose no more than 40.

This isn't about abortion. It's about scoring some points with the anti-abortion electorate before scoring some serious cash with the insurance companies when they vote against the final bill.

With all these newly empowered Dems to be bought off in addition to the usual GOP purchase, special interests must be spending an absolute fortune, and in these tough economic times too!

If I were a Republican, I'd be pissed that an evil congressperson from the anti-life/anti-business/anti-American party was raking in what should be all my christian votes and business dough. LOL

F*ck Oligarchy, f*ck'em all.

So, can we agitate to defund defense, if we don't get all our troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan in the next six months?

I'm with you JMG. I'll probably stay at home for 2010. But, I know that the media will spin low "DemocRAT" voter turn out as a repudiation of Obamacare and Obama's librulism. I'm afraid the only real solution is for libruls to secede, causing a massive brain drain.

Now there's some bipartisanism these arrogant assholes can get behind: misogyny.

what a mean stoopid bunch.

Brad and Bart and the US Conf of Catholic Bishops... how many uteruses they got among 'em? God damn 'em to hell.

America always has to treat women like human garbage and animals to get dead reeking asses into heaven. It's one of the disgusting aspects of the United States of America.

I bet all of you who are complaining about the bishops not having uteruses (and you got my vote) also did not support the only presidential candidate with a uterus. It cracks me up all the whinning now when emily's list and all the organizations that should have done more to support Hillary kept their mouths shut. ANd boo hoo poor Maine and the gays there soooo disappointed that Obama did not come to their aid. Hmmmm who marched in Gay Pride Parades not afraid to show her support (Hillary) Who sat in a church for 20 years and didn;t hear anyone of the homophobic sermons by Wright but still refused to every march in a parade or show any real support Obummer. And as a teacher all of my friends are crying now that Arn Duncan and Obama are supporting merit based pay and trying to break up our unions. It was the one major difference between Hillary and Obama. She found merit based pay demeaning and all through his campaign he said he supported it.

by saying private plans that are part of the exchange can't cover abortion nearly guarantees that no policy will cover abortion except for the Hyde circumstances, period (or only via riders affordable by the very wealthy - funny how restrictions never impact them).

Screw it. Go ahead and kill the bill. Obama and the Dems don't deserve for such a Frankenstein's monster to be some kind of feather in their cap.

Gotta love those exceptions for "...except in case of rape or incest."

Because, you know, life begins at conception unless the conception occurred during rape.

Right.

Proving once again that the "pro-life" forces don't really care so much about human life as they do about punishing women's sexuality.

I bet all of you who are complaining about the bishops not having uteruses (and you got my vote) also did not support the only presidential candidate with a uterus.

You mean Sarah Palin? Hillary Clinton was never a presidential candidate -- she was a candidate for the Democratic nomination. Not quite the same thing. If you're going to make that argument, then a ficus plant was a presidential candidate in 2000 and Stephen Colbert had just as much chance of winning the presidency as John McCain.

But, hey, did you hear that eevul Obama hates Hillary so much that he forced her to be his secretary after the election? How dare he push her into a pink-collar, stereotypically female job like that.

Too bad Hillary fucked up all that goodwill by voting to illegally invade Iraq.

Too bad Hillary fucked up all that goodwill by voting to illegally invade Iraq.

Unlike Obama, who opposed the vote to illegally invade Iraq, helping him get elected. . . where he has kept us in Iraq and escalated Afghanistan, a situation likely no different at all than would exist under President H. Clinton.

your point, other than proving that allegedly progressive primary voters are easily fooled by form without regard to function?

If Hillary had voted appropriately on Iraq, she would have won the democratic nomination. She didn't, and she lost, because she could effectively be labeled as blindly signing onto an illegal invasion.

And progressive primary voters weren't fooled ... votes should have consequences. Hillary voted wrongly, and was treated accordingly.

sorry, but that argument amounts to "vote your real belief and get punished. but if you know how to lie to us effectively, we'll reward you."

it puts a premium on saying the right thing to get elected, regardless of how you'll really govern.

so Obama took the "right" position when Hillary took the "wrong" one; and we rewarded him by electing him. What has he actually done about the wars that is better than you think HRC would have done? Shouldn't governance, not campaign happy talk, be the relevant test?

In politics, even more than stock trading, "past performance is not a guarantee of future results." Personally, I'd rather know what I'm getting up front than have buyers remorse later. Had HRC governed exactly like Obama has on the war, at least we could say we knew what we were getting, and she had the moral benefit of consistency. With Obama, we thought we were getting someone better on war and peace issues, because we over-valued their respective positions on one vote at one past moment. It increasingly looks like we got played.

If Hillary truly voted her "real belief" that Iraq was stockpiling WMDs, while the entire civilized world knew this to be bullshit, then she's demonstrated either gullibility, naivete, or incompetence.

Alternatively, if she (likely) was playing to the popular position at the time, then all your claims of "belief" and "moral consistency" are empty, and she's as guilty of rhetoric over substance as the next candidate.

She gambled on jingoism, and lost.

... Which, incidentally, is a separate issue than the one you're trying to distract towards, namely, Obama's disappointment towards progressive causes. Your attempt to rehab Hillary as a progressive dream ticket is misplaced; and evoking her as "governing exactly as Obama" is hardly a way for me to overlook her disastrous voting history.

I'm not at all suggesting HRC was a progressive dream ticket. I think "m.e."'s point that got this started was that all of this concern with women's rights as part of the health-care bill might have been better served by backing Hillary. I don't know if that is true or not, other than symbolically. but your response was that she through all that away with her Iraq vote. My point is that the progressive electorate took entirely on faith that Obama would be any better; many of tried to point out at the time that using that vote as a way to distinguish between Obama and Clinton was a likely path to disappointment. I wish I had no opportunity to say "I told you so."

My wife and I gave more money and time to Obama in the general than we had to any prior politician at any level. But I supported Clinton in the primaries not because I thought she was perfect, but because I knew where the flaws were. With Obama I always had this unease because anyone with open eyes saw this overwhleming but amorphous desire to be nice to Republicans, to prove he could be above the fray, to be "bipartisan." From the beginning, my position was that this is not the right time in history for that approach because the present-day Republican party wont reciprocate; it will take advantage. Personally, I find a candidate who disappoints after talking a good game worse than a candidate I could assess going in and knew where she was strong and where she was weak. You apparently disagree - you'd rather be told pretty lies and diappointed later.

m.e.'s point, as much as there was one, was to score petty PUMA points. Your identification with a republican talking point certainly gives you little credibility in this subsequent discussion.

I appreciate your ability to put aside your mistrust of Obama and vote accordingly as a Dem. I would argue that I was motivated by a similar mistrust of Hillary, especially towards mideast foreign policy, and her demonstrated willingness to continue American militancy, especially when counterproductive.

And despite your petty bitchiness and smug "I told you so" glee, I do find it puzzling that you seriously expect me not to assess a candidate's record when casting my own vote. ... Or that there is some excessive merit in electing an evil I happen to be more familiar with than an unknown one.

Bush lied, people died, and Hillary went along. She's either unprincipled or ignorant, neither of which are reassuring at 3am.

The Hyde language is so mealy mouthed in the first place. Look, nobody likes abortion regardless of where you stand on the legality of it. The only logical reason to believe it should be illegal is if you believe it is murder. Thus, exceptions for rape or incest make no sense. Life of the mother, maybe as that's a trade-off of lives, I guess. With that possible exception it should be all or nothing. Stand behind your convictions or get out of the way.

It's a shame that these Democrats are selling out... All we can do is warn them as to who we'll donate to and vote for (pro-choice dems running against those who vote for Stupak, in primaries, at least), and hope they do the right thing.

As for the PUMA distraction, all I can say is I'll never vote for or against anyone or assume anything about their position on a given issue based on the candidate's genitalia... 'nuff said.

Yes you can have a choice of ins. plans but you cannot have a plan that allows for choice...it will not be allowed.

I'm surprised they allow birth control...they do don't they...is a visectomy covered?

The House bill is too expensive, not well thought out, strictly partisan, and if it passes will continue our countries path to full blown socialism. I am personally opposed to using any of my tax monies to fund any kind of abortion. Abortion is not a "reproductive health option". That is the secular humanist's definition of it. They do not even have the courage to admit it is terminating the life of a unborn human being. So far, since 1972, over 50 million unborn babies have been subject to the "reproductive health option". It has created a very profitable business for Planned Parenthood, which domestically gets over $300,000,000.. tax payers monies already. The House bill has provisions to allow them to place "health clinics" in our high schools. So when you read about a gang rape in Richmond CA, and you read about a woman dumping a live baby in a dumpster, you should not get too excited by it when we live in a culture that not only permits killing unborn children on demand, but wants to expand here and around the world. Peace and God Bless

Odd as it may seem,

None of this is "odd" to any woman who has been paying attention to the last two years.

Democrats don't give a rat's ass about abortion. They just want to get along with the other side.

Too bad Mr. Clinton illegally invaded Kosovo.

Dig out your copies of Obama's books. Compare the index for fathers and mothers.

I didn't vote for him in part because I concluded that he would be so willing to pander to RTL that he would gut the Democratic Party as a protector of women's right to choose. Gov. Kaine is a case in point.