Fascinating throwaway remark on the pro-sepsis HR3962 in Obama's interview with Jake Tapper:
"I laid out a very simple principle, which is this is a health care bill, not an abortion bill," Obama said. "And we're not looking to change what is the principle that has been in place for a very long time, which is federal dollars are not used to subsidize abortions."
Saying the bill cannot change the status quo regarding the ban on federally funded abortions, the president said, "There are strong feelings on both sides" about an amendment passed Saturday and added to the legislation, "and what that tells me is that there needs to be some more work before we get to the point where we're not changing the status quo."
Translation:
1. "We're not looking to change...." [No translation needed. Actually.]
2. "There are strong feelings..." Translation: It's all about f-e-e-e-lings, and not policy or justice. We saw this infantilizing and demeaning strategy over and over again in the primaries.
3. "There needs to be some more work before we get to the point where we're not changing the status quo...." Translation: Conservatives and Blue Dogs like Stupak will always be permitted to drag the Overton Window
right. Nobody will ever be permitted to drag the Overton Window left.
NOTE Digby seems surprised and angry that Obama and the Dems would throw women under the bus. Nobody could have predicted. Well, except for those who paid attention in 2008.
UPDATE Oh, and if you go over to Digby's to comment, don't be an asshole. Leave that to me, mkay? Thanks.
- lambert's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- 1+[CSE]+#b94+
Front page
Comments
jinx!
and my headline is better than your headline.
Is it?
I really wanted to get the Overton Window
in there. I could use yours, though.
First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi
overton window is good
and more substantive than mine
hello all...
I was approved at Corrente a long time ago but never received my password, so I never logged in before.
Lambert, I've been reading here for a while and noticed your remarks at Violet's place. I enjoyed reading your comments on the PUMA thread and your interest in the 30% Solution.
I think Obama's inability to do anything but doublespeak is truly remarkable. The headline says the complete opposite of what Obama is actually saying. If you really read his remarks carefully, I see no basis whatsoever for his alleged objection to the Stupak Amendment. He wants no federal dollars to go to abortion, and that's what the Stupak Amendment will do. So what's the problem?
The other thing I find interesting (in a horrible way of course) is that Obama never feels the need to give any specifics on any policy decision. What work supposedly needs to be done? The bill is already DINO
-misogynist-perfect. No real public option, no chance for single-payer ever, and as an extra bonus, extraordinarily punitive to all the have-nots in society, especially teh wimminz, natch.
Never vote for people who hate you.
ERA Now!
The Widdershins
A feature, not a bug
DDay:
Alrighty, then.
First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi
"this is a health care bill, not an abortion bill..."
I heard the comment, last night, and though I'm not surprised, I was still stunned he said it. Immediately afterwards, you could see he realized he'd said something incredibly stupid, so he just kept talking. This is something I've always noticed about him.
'Cause, a woman's right to choose obviously isn't a health issue, right?
Just like his campaign, this is another example of letting everyone else do the dirty work for him, because this president doesn't do details, obviously. He'd already said this is above his pay grade. Bless his heart.
To watch the House pass a meaningless bill -- one even more meaningless than what was originally proposed, and one which they quite literally eked out a victory on -- to thundering ovation shows just how much stuck in neutral we are.
This is a Republican bill, plain and simple; always has been. That is, it's a Republican bill insofar as something like this could have very easily been proposed by Republicans during Bush's administration and no one would have blinked.
But, we've always been at war with Eastasia...
When I first told my husband about this,
he said, "Oh, is this the Republican bill?"
I hasten to add that he is a very well-informed person. It just sounds no different than what any modern Republican Congress and President would come up with.
Meanwhile, as every feminist in America starts having heart attacks over the Stupak Amendment, Obama's response is to mouth some platitudes, do a photo-op at Fort Hood, then run away to Asia.
This guy is so predictable. Just pick the worst thing that a Democratic President could do, and he'll do it.
Never vote for people who hate you.
ERA Now!
The Widdershins
Yep
Imagine the Republicans had come up with a bill that ameliorated pre-existing conditions (I won't say end 'til I see that the insurance companies can't game it), expanded Medicaid with onerous conditions for women, and set up a "free market" alternative to socialized medicine. The access bloggers would be on the barricades. Now, not so much.
Who was it who said the Democratic Party was now run by the country club Republicans? They were right.
NOTE Hi, Damon!
First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi
The goal is Griswold not Roe
Keep that in mind during all this abortion talk. This legislation is looking more and more like the roadmap toward challenging Griswold is being laid out. Perhaps not legally, but practically. If you have pharmacists refusing birth control AND insurance companies not paying for contraceptives, well...
I used to be appalled by progressives' in ability to see half a step ahead. But given the fact that the progressive business model relies on having people screwed over, I now view these sorts of things as orchestrated, not bungled. Imagine how much of a cash cow saving Griswold will be for progressives.
Only tyrants rig elections.
That's what I was thinking: contraception
We all know the anti-choice movement is not about "life," but instead forcing women and girls to bear pregnancies against their will, making them unable to exercise the basic right of autonomy. To me, the red flag showed up years ago when the movement called the emergency contraception pill "abortive." That framing allows them to further and further encroach upon basic rights and civil liberties. Just earlier this year there was the manufactured hysteria over contraceptives being included in the stimulus bill, which Obama agreed to remove.
I feel that the goal is to make both unenforceable
through legislation like this health "insurance" reform bill, and efforts to amend state Constitutions with "Personhood" additions, and the failure to overturn Bush's "conscience" clause (which Obama is on record as supporting). In case you're wondering
, "personhood" means the fetus/embryo is a legal person, not the incubator, er, woman who is pregnant or taking birth control pills.
The wingnuts also rely on Roe v. Wade to fire up their base. It won't be overturned by the Supreme Court, IMHO.
Never vote for people who hate you.
ERA Now!
The Widdershins