 |
 |
   Dan Savage, the brilliant and foul-mouthed sex columnist, has become one of the most important ethicists in America. Are we screwed?
 The federal government is supposed to issue new rules about debt levels for students in for-profit colleges. In the meantime, the states are working on their own regulations.
 Washingtons budget hawks want to decimate the federal workforce to shrink the deficit. It will have the opposite effect.
 There arent nearly enough counterterrorism experts to instruct all of Americas police. So we got these guys instead.
|
   |
|
|
March 20, 2010
THE EXECUTIVE ORDER OPTION.... With Speaker Pelosi having ruled out, at least for now, Rep. Bart Stupak's (D-Mich.) demands for a side vote on his odious anti-abortion amendment, there are limited options for resolving the dispute. One approach, of course, is not resolving it at all, and finding the necessary votes elsewhere. But over the last few hours, another possibility has become the focus of fairly intense interest.
If this sounds kind of familiar, it's because it came up several weeks ago, but was dismissed without much thought. Apparently, it's back, and is considered a credible solution to the impasse. Rep. James Oberstar, a pro-life Dem from Minnesota who intends to vote for the reform bill, has signaled an interest in this approach, though he said his colleagues will have to discuss exactly what an executive order might say. Well, yes, I suppose that is the tricky part. The idea would be a commitment from the White House on how, exactly, exchanges would be allowed to operate. In effect, the president would sign an order applying the Hyde Amendment to health care reform, leaving the status quo in place, which is allegedly what everyone wants anyway. An executive order would aim to satisfy the demands of Stupak and his cohorts without changing the specific language of the legislation that pro-choice lawmakers are willing to accept. Pro-choice Dems like Henry Waxman (Calif.) and Diana DeGette (Colo.) sound amenable to the executive order approach. DeGette told reporters, "If it simply states that there will be no federal funding of abortion in the bill, that's fine, because we've already agreed to that." House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) was asked whether the pro-life bloc would accept this option, and he replied, "I'm hopeful." This is moving very quickly, but it's probably a mistake to count on an as-yet-unwritten executive order as a magic bullet. If writing legislative language that satisfies Stupak proved impossible, writing executive order language may not be any easier. But it's at least an option, and it's gathering steam. Something to keep an eye on. —Steve Benen 3:35 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (14)
Comments
I know this has been said before, but I'll say it again because clearly this is a liberal soft spot: Stop using the framing of the conservatives! Stop calling anti-choice, anti-abortion people "pro-life." Call them what they are: anti-choice or anti-abortion work fine. If they were pro-life they wouldn't support capital punishment, endless wars, and cutting off all sorts of aid to virtually anyone who's already been born. Steve, PLEASE eliminate the term "pro-life" from your lexicon. Posted by: President Lindsay on March 20, 2010 at 3:50 PM | PERMALINKJudging buy what I'm hearing right now.... PASSED the Damn bill - pending vote tomorrow Posted by: johnr on March 20, 2010 at 3:53 PM | PERMALINK"PLEASE eliminate the term "pro-life" from your lexicon." Posted by: President Lindsay Sorry, Mr. President. The term "Pro Life" is now part of the lexicon, along with War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength. -Has been, since 1984. . . Posted by: DAY on March 20, 2010 at 3:59 PM | PERMALINKMy guess is that this is merely being made available to other pro-choice Stupak-block members who want more political cover to allow them to vote for the bill. I'm hopeful. Posted by: tommybones on March 20, 2010 at 4:03 PM | PERMALINKi consider it a bad sign that we continue to screw around with the Stupak and his blind followers. it means we don't have the votes, and it means we are likely to make bad deals as the clock winds down -- deals that either will scuttle the HCR because pro-choice Dems can't accept them, or which will only make governing harder by encouraging such extortion by the right-wing of the Democratic party in the future. just work on everyone else and tell Stupak he can can go fuck himself. No chance of an abortion from that. I can't help but think that if these ideologues didn't have themselves worked into a lather over abortion provisions that are nowhere to be found, they'd have invented something else that threatens the future of civiization. Hopefully it all gets done this weekend before the GOP noise machine and their DINO allies can coordinate the next big outrage. Posted by: JoeW on March 20, 2010 at 4:08 PM | PERMALINKOnce again, "I am a pro-choice democrat and I'm pro-life. Who the hell is anti-life? I'm insulted to be thrown in with the likes of Stupak. Lets stop calling anti-abortion, anti-choice, anti-women Democrats pro-life. Why are you agreeing to republican definitions?" Has anyone reminded Democrats that abortion is LEGAL and NECESSARY? Posted by: karen marie on March 20, 2010 at 4:30 PM | PERMALINKAborting America every which way... It will be interesting (in a sad sick way) to see how abortion will manage to wiggle its ugly head into the upcoming debates on global warming, financial reform, and immigration... One can easily imagine a future scenario where Stupak, flying high on religious airplane glue, sets his chin in opposition to carbon credits because Beck showed on his chalk board that they are directly related to abortion.
I dunno, zeit; I'm reading it as "something essentially meaningless to give cover to the Stupak defectors who want to be able to say they got something in addition to the Senate language they'd claimed was inadequate." Hope I'm not wrong about that. Posted by: shortstop on March 20, 2010 at 5:23 PM | PERMALINKI'm convinced Stupak is using the abortion non-issue as cover so he can vote against the bill. I'll be glad to be proven wrong, but I'll bet an executive order won't satisfy Stupak one wit. Consider this a test of my hypothesis. Posted by: JWK on March 20, 2010 at 5:27 PM | PERMALINKJWK: I don't think anyone thinks anything will move Stupak. They're working on his pals with this. Posted by: shortstop on March 20, 2010 at 5:30 PM | PERMALINKPLEASE make it clear that the Stupak amendment is not about preventing federal funding of abortions...it is about reversing Roe v Wade. The Hyde amendment already prevents federal funding of abortions. What Stupak is trying to do is prevent any ins company who receives federal funding of any kind to be forced to refuse coverage of abortion procedures. Got it? If you keep your ins...say with Blue Cross...that you've always had and suddenly develop a life threatening condition due to pregnancy which would require an abortion to save your life...it would normally have been covered...but with Stupak's amendment, because some low income person now also has Blue Cross and Blue Cross receives federal funding subsidy to help cover 'that' person...then you can no longer be covered for an abortion procedure. And because nearly all private ins companies will be receiving some form of federal funding then NONE of them will be able to cover abortion procedures for anyone...essentially reversing R v W. Get it? No ins company which gets any federal funding at all can cover abortion procedures for anybody even if you are paying your won premiums without assistance....(Another piece of legislation brought to you by "THE FAMILY") Stupak is too stupid to think of this sneaky bit of underhanded legislation by himself. An 'executive order' to state what is already covered under the Hyde amendment??? What idiocy. Posted by: bjobotts on March 20, 2010 at 7:31 PM | PERMALINKWhat these people want is nothing short of forcing a woman to take out a completely separate policy for abortion only, issued by a company that has nothing to do with the rest of her insurance coverage. Because we all know that women go about their lives intending to have an abortion. Why? So these sanctimonious, self-righteous assholes can point to it and scold her. Or worse yet, compile a database of such policyholders and harass them. They won't agree to any situation where abortion coverage is part of the general healthcare insurance program. Fuck these people. Posted by: bdop4 on March 21, 2010 at 8:06 AM | PERMALINKPost a comment
May 2011
April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003 December 2002 |
|
|
    |
|
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly
|
||||||||
