Democrat v. Democrat

Indeed, square. As always, follow the money. Here is where some actual reporting (aligning the abortion complainers like Stupak with the money they are taking from health care lobbying interests) would have some real value.
.
How about it, Amy?

I'm afraid you won't get the point across to anyone who could write this as straight reporting:

"...the biggest obstacle to passing health reform turned out to be not the tea party protests or August town halls or Michelle Bachmann Super Bowl of Freedom..."

.
Stick with snark, Amy. You're pretty good at it and it doesn't require understanding much about the political realities of the world around you.

Decon,

Trouble is the pro-choice is also absolute. Why do you claim it is just the pro-life?

To answer your question we are for Health Care for everyone including the unborn. To say we can't have it unless we have abortion then claim that it is the pro-life group who is holding things up is disingenuous at best.

Will you go for the Health Care bill with the amendment? No? Made my point.

…so we both agree to fully support HC for all newborns, regardless of income, yes? If yes, there's an agreement here. But again, what about pregnancies with deformities or caused by rape? Who pays for the prenatal care? Seriously, I'd like to know your answer.

"...we are for Health Care for everyone including the unborn.."

I heard the unborn have a pretty good plan - shelter, security, free meals, and no bills to pay. It's called a WOMB.

Decon,

Rape, the amendment doesn't prevent Fed. money for abortion in such cases.

Prenatal care ? I thought it was part of the Health Care plan. Am I wrong about that? If so it is really a pit of a plan.

As far as deformities go, I am not for abortion.

nfl,

The womb is a safe place if your not aborted. Seriously we are talking about prenatal care, which not only talking about the mother and her visits to her doctor while she is pregnant, but other such proceedures that today are done to the baby while in the womb.

If you want to have serous discussion, can we please leave the smart a$$ responses out of it?

All,

If the amendment had followed the conventions of the Hyde amendment, there would likely be no problem. The fact that this amendment would have a variety of other consequences, intended or not, such as de facto illegalization of abortion for the poor makes it unacceptable.

I also don't believe that the pro-choice side has drawn a hard line on the issue, unlike that of the pro-life side. I contend that it is, or should be, the mutual goal of both sides to reduce the need for and number of abortions through education, both safer sex practices and abstinence.

Hopefully, AllThings, you'll see my point if you read the second part of 4.2.

decon,

The Hyde amendment is fine with me if we can make it work.

Both sides draw hard lines. Education is fine, abstinance is fine but doesn't work in a pinch if you know what I mean. Certainly more support for the mother is called for,. social stigma needs to be reduced. It makes no sense to acknowledge that sex takes place and support abortion as a solution, yet the womnn face social disgrace for being pregnant.

nfloghorn has a point about male responsibility. That is a major cultural problem that no one seems to want to address. Sex is a cultural problem in the US today. The answer can not be unrestricted abortion

…hmm, allthings and nfl, agreed on reducing stigma and increasing male responsibility. Maybe some middle ground can be found after all. Amy has brought that up before. I hope she'll offer more ideas to ponder.

decon,

I am not dogmatic in my approach among other things there could be, like we have in TX, the State Attorney General, goes after dead beat dads and garnishes their wages, and sends the money on to the mothers. Why not have similar programs Nationally?

I know a lot of men will say I didn't want that woman to have that baby so why should I pay? But if it is a woman's right to choose then lets give them a chance if they choose to carry to term.

If only the Conference of Bshops cared as much about the welfare of born children. You know... All those kids who were abused by priests who were shuttled around from parish to parish when parents would complain about little Jimmy being fondled by Father Ray.

I agree with the abuse angle, yet I don't completely follow it. Catholic priests don't corner the market on faith-based sleazebags who prey on children. If the bishops and all other faith leaders would place greater responsibility on the males who impregnate the females then we might get somewhere...especially with congressmen.

How many conferees in the Conference of Bishops have tax dollars to be used subsidizing middle class women who might buy health care policies covering abortion in the exchange?

They did not...have...sexual relations with that woman...or, I s'pose, any woman.

Crist vs. Rubio: Coming Soon to a Florida theater near you.

Congrads on making the Featured Comment / home page.

Again I point out the poll question. How many Americans would not support health care if the Amendment were not withdrawn?

...the point is whether or not Americans in general believe that this is an issue mostly tangential to health care reform.

hmmm... The solution is less babies? See there is a big differance betweenm you and me. I do not call it fretting.There is no excuse for children going hungry in America period. I fight for your cause, can you fight for mine?

Better yet might be not spending money on politics.

Hmm...my two cents:

The energy and funds spent...

...by the Beltway pro-choice lobby could be even better spent persuading Americans that this is not what their tax dollars would be used to promote (link to rightist scoundrels demonizing "loose" women):

Abortion as Birth Control
.
Abortion is no longer primarily an act of teenage desperation; instead, more and more it is the calculated choice of adults unwilling to accept responsibility for their behavior. Abortion is becoming more “rare” among the nation's teens, but a larger percentage of women in their mid to late 20s –– women who are supposed to be responsible, mature and informed –– are, to put it bluntly, using abortion as a form of birth control.
.
According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, 6 million American women become pregnant every year — almost half of them unmarried. The abortion rate for unmarried women is four times greater than that of married women. Obviously, these women engage in irresponsible and risky sexual behavior with men who are poor candidates for marriage and even worse candidates for fatherhood. Of those 3 million unmarried pregnant women, almost half have an abortion and almost half become single mothers. Very few of them marry the father of their child or give the child up for adoption.
.
In summary, over the past couple of decades, abortion has enabled women to engage in sexual activity without marriage or any other commitment –– regardless of whether either person is able or willing to commit to a permanent relationship and regardless of whether either person is willing or able to take responsibility for the consequences. That's the driving force behind the so-called “pro-choice” movement.
.
Dr. Janice Shaw Crouse is Senior Fellow of Concerned Women for America's Beverly LaHaye Institute.

This is what we're up against.
.
To argue past these people is to forfeit the debate, IMO.
.
Who in the Democratic party are the standard-bearers against this frame? Who in the Beltway lobby speaks to this rhetoric at all?
.
Who's getting up on their elected perches, and telling Americans that abortion isn't about promiscuous women defying their communities' moral codes? Who is standing their ground on the position that public funds should be available for abortion, because tax-payer support does not mean promoting irresponsible, immoral behavior in young women?
.
(I say this not to criticize Ivy_B -far from it-- but to point out that the two sides keep talking past each other, with the result being that the anti-choicers are winning the public debate.)
.
When we argue the issue in terms ("over 500,000 families have a child who went hungry") that lie outside the rightists' core proposition, I believe that we're avoiding the real fight.
.
We have to be able to look ordinary folks in the eye and say

"Young women who get pregnant in bad situations and have abortions are taking responsibility for their actions. It's the responsible thing to do. Abortion is about saving women from all the things that can go wrong in people's lives, from medical concerns to future-ruining mistakes to family survival. That's why it's legal in the United States and around the developed world, because people have always known that these things happen to us when we expect them least. That's why public money should be available to help women do the responsible thing in bad situations, however they ended up in that doctor's office --because s sometimes it's the only responsible decision to make."

Nothing less will do until this issue is confronted head on, in my opinion. People understand "Girls Gone Wild", but child hunger statistics? Not so much.
.
If the professional liars in the pro-life lobby can get away with doing this --with persuading most Americans who aren't firmly convinced to their core that abortion is murder that abortion encourages irresponsibility and immorality, then we're going to lose, period.
.
If the debate were had honestly, on its merits, Americans would be confronted by this debate:

Q: In terms of pregnancy and birth, do you know when a baby is a baby, exactly?
.
A (anti-abortion): From the moment sperm touches egg.
.
A (pro-conscience): I don't know. I don't think that we can know that for sure.
.
Q: If you were in a burning hospital with a test-tube full of 10,000 fertilized eggs on the one hand, and a single newborn baby on the other, and you had to choose one to save, which would it be? The test-tube with 10,000 potential babies, or the one live baby?
.
A (anti-abortion): I don't know. I don't think that we can know that for sure.
.
A (pro-conscience): The baby.

If that were the sober discussion, whose side do you really think most Americans would be on?
.
Instead, they are presented with "Concerned Women for America" telling them a story about something that concerns their lives every day, i.e. young women having sex and making Moms and Dads uncomfortable, and a pro-choice lobby that seemingly would rather talk to itself than deal with that story.
.
Thanks for reading and considering this, commenters.

If the debate were had honestly, on its merits, Americans would be confronted by this debate:

LOL
.
Jeez Louise...Department of Redundancy Department?
.
I should really take more than five minutes to write these things...and more than two seconds to read them.
.
Sorry, I'll try to be a better writer, for now just enjoy the comedy.

Thank you Stuart. Long ago I gave up on groups like NARAL and you are right, there is no national voice presenting a coherent statement of the pro-choice or pro-conscience position. I am old enough to remember the days before Roe v. Wade and it was a bad time. It's been too long and too many people have no idea.

Nah, it's simpler than all that, free. It;s good, old-fashioned capitalism. This has nothing to do with abortion and everything to do with who is providing funding to members of Congress from both sides of the aisle.
.
When being a Congressional rep requires 7-day-a-week fundraising for the next election, these pols will do or say anything to reap piles of money (as the story on reps from both parties spewing pharma lobbyist talking points in the Congressional record, verbatim, proves).
.
It's all about the money, as usual.

palin....
Is capitalism the buzzword sent out to the liberal masses today?

Capitalism has nothing to do with which Democrat has been bought off. It seems that folks here continually bash Repubs as corrupt for supposedly doing the bidding of corporations when in fact as seen here the Democrats are at least equally guilty. A surprise to Demos only.

free, it is certainly no surprise to me (nor, Im suspect, most other posters here you would qualify as "liberal") that there are corrupt Dems.
.
Look at Evan Bayh whose wife sits on the board of a major health insurance giant.
.
Again, it actually is all about money. And that is capitalism, whether you like it or not.
.
And it is likely to never change because both parties are against real campaign finance reform.

palinatowel:

Campaign finance reform will never happen. Term limits and smaller government may be an answer. If you have bigger government there is always somebody to buy. And Mandatory 10 years of no lobbying the federal government for anyone leaving any WH administration, Congressional exposure or agency. After they have finished screwing up let them go home and annoy their wife (husband), children or mothers for a living.

Palinin.....

PS That's Repub and Demo alike. I am no happier seeing Strom Thurmond serve since the Civil War than John Dingel since the invention of the wheel.

I see you decided to share the IQ of 53. Neither of you can afford the drop