Blogs and Stories
The Dems' Smart Abortion Move
Alex Brandon / AP Photo
House Democrats were right to sacrifice abortion protections to get health care passed. Peter Beinart on why that strategic tradeoff can save the bill—and the party's future.
The House’s passage of health-care reform is the clearest sign yet that the Democratic Party is, once again, for better and for worse, a big tent. By essentially sacrificing abortion and immigrant rights to get conservative Democrats to vote for expanded health-care coverage, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi restored the old hierarchy that between the 1930s and the 1960s helped Democrats establish dominance on Capitol Hill. Today, to a degree we haven’t seen since then, the Democratic Party is about economic protection first, and cultural freedom second.
Her action was a long time in coming. Once upon a time, the Democratic Party was a big tent—a big, ugly, tent. In Congress, liberals coexisted with all manner of racists, nativists, misogynists and morons. “History shows that nations composed of a mongrel race lose their strength and become weak, lazy and indifferent,” declared Georgia Democratic Senator Herman Talmadge in 1955, in a statement that placed him firmly in the mainstream among Southern Democrats at the time. In 1964, less than two-thirds of the Democrats in Congress voted for the Civil Rights Act.
For cultural liberals, the health-care vote was ugly. They had better get used to it: Big parties are ugly. But if you want to rebuild the American welfare state, there is no alternative.
Yet it was that big, ugly Democratic Party that from Franklin Roosevelt to Lyndon Johnson pushed through Social Security, the Wagner Act, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Tennessee Valley Authority, Food Stamps, Head Start, Medicare and Medicaid (with occasional help from the then-extant progressive wing of the GOP). Some of the Democratic bigots opposed these economic reforms, to be sure. But others backed them; they genuinely wanted to curb the savagery and chaos of unfettered capitalism. They just wanted to preserve white, male supremacy too.
This was the devil’s pact that defined the Democratic Party for more than three decades, until the civil rights and women’s movement forced party leaders to choose. They reluctantly chose racial and gender equality, and so the racists and the misogynists drifted away. The Democratic Party became culturally liberal: pro-affirmative action, pro-choice, and smaller, since the old racists and sexists, now repackaged as racial and sexual conservatives, flocked to the GOP. Starting in 1968, Democrats began consistently losing the presidency. And in 1994, the realignment finally trickled down to the House of Representatives, and the Democrats lost that, too.
• Dana Goldstein: How Abortion Splits the Reform Coalition
• Benjamin Sarlin: 6 Senators Stalling Health Care
• Matthew Yglesias: The Next Health Care Minefield
• Paul Begala: Forget BipartisanshipSo Democrats accommodated themselves to a different kind of devil’s pact. Ideologically, the party was now more pure. But politically, it lacked the power to carry on FDR and LBJ’s work, or even preserve their gains. In the 1970s and 1980s, the liberals who ran the national party imposed a series of litmus tests that alienated cultural conservatives, even those who might have supported greater regulation of the market and greater protections for the poor. And, in so doing, they kept the tent small—small but comfortable, almost pristine.
What Pelosi did last weekend has its roots in a rebellion against small-tentism that began in the mid-1980s, when a group of Southern and Western Democrats formed the Democratic Leadership Council, which campaigned inside the party for greater tolerance for cultural conservatives. Ideologically, the DLC incubated Bill Clinton, who spent the 1990s calling abortion a necessary evil and affirmative action a good idea taken too far, and enjoyed modest success in luring some conservative Democrats back. Then, in the Bush years, congressional barons like New York’s Charles Schumer began to aggressively recruit cultural conservatives to run in red states and districts. In Pennsylvania, they muscled a pro-choice candidate out of the way to clear room for anti-abortion Democrat Robert Casey, whose father had famously claimed that party bigwigs prevented him from discussing his opposition to abortion at the 1992 Democratic Convention. Barack Obama went even further, naming pro-lifer Tim Kaine as chairman of the Democratic Party.
But had big-tentism been merely a strategy by Democratic leaders, it would have failed. Just as important was the emergence, in the Bush years, of a new liberal grassroots—the “netroots”—which is generally hostile to single issue litmus tests, especially on culture war issues. While prior generations of liberal activists had often rallied under the banner of gender equality or civil rights, the netroots demanded that those causes be subsumed within a larger progressive agenda. And they showed a particular affinity for candidates willing to challenge corporate power—even candidates like Virginia’s James Webb and Montana’s Jon Tester, who sometimes ran afoul of liberal cultural orthodoxy.
Without this top-down and bottom-up shift, the House would not have passed health-care reform last Saturday night. It passed because the House contains dozens of culturally conservative Democrats, many of whom voted yes on reform. Had Democrats nominated cultural liberals for those seats, those seats would now be held by Republicans, who would certainly have voted no. And had Democrats tried to force those conservative Democrats to vote for a bill that permitted government funding of abortion, the Democrats themselves would have voted no.
For cultural liberals, it was ugly. They had better get used to it: Big parties are ugly. But if you want to rebuild the American welfare state, there is no alternative. A profound shift is under way, one that will likely endure even if Democrats lose seats in the midterm elections next year. The Republican Party is growing smaller and more ideologically pristine; the Democratic Party has grown larger and more untidy. Conservative activists seem positively thrilled by their party’s newfound purity. I hope they enjoy it. Meanwhile, in the messy real world, the party of FDR and LBJ is back.
Peter Beinart, Senior Political Writer for The Daily Beast, is Associate Professor of Journalism and Political Science at City University of New York and a Senior Fellow at the New America Foundation.
For more of The Daily Beast, become a fan on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.
For inquiries, please contact The Daily Beast at editorial@thedailybeast.com.
John Talks Joe
Lloyd Grove is editor at large for The Daily Beast. He is also a frequent contributor to New York magazine and was a contributing editor for Condé Nast Portfolio. He wrote a gossip column for the New York Daily News from 2003 to 2006. Prior to that, he wrote the Reliable Source column for the Washington Post, where he spent 23 years covering politics, the media, and other subjects.
The Right Dumps Carrie
Jacob Bernstein is a senior reporter at The Daily Beast. Previously, he was a features writer at WWD and W Magazine. He has also written for New York magazine, Paper, and The Huffington Post.
Geithner's Stock Plummeting
Jeff Madrick is a contributor to the New York Review of Books and a former economics columnist for the New York Times. He is editor of Challenge Magazine, visiting professor of humanities at Cooper Union, and senior fellow at the New School's Schwartz Center for Economic Policy Analysis. He is the author of Taking America, The End of Affluence (Random House) and The Case for Big Government.
China's Upper Hand
Peter Beinart, senior political writer for The Daily Beast, is a professor of journalism and political science at City University of New York and a senior fellow at the New America Foundation.
The Myth of the Wall's Fall
Peter Beinart, senior political writer for The Daily Beast, is a professor of journalism and political science at City University of New York and a senior fellow at the New America Foundation.
Behind the Democratic Wipeout
Peter Beinart, senior political writer for The Daily Beast, is a professor of journalism and political science at City University of New York and a senior fellow at the New America Foundation.
WHAT? Maybe we should kick Civil Rights under the bus while we're at it.
Killing human life IS uncivil.
I agree... Except 32-cell blastulas aren't "human life."
I agree. We're talking about war, right?
These two comments show the problem with the abortion debate. Those who opposed voting for black Americans, suffrage for women and other civil rights were bad guys, even if they didn't realize it. But people who believe abortion is murder simply hold a different definition of when an embryo becomes human.
I hate the labels "pro-choice" and "pro-life." Everyone believes in freedom to choose and life. No one believes in the freedom to choose murder. No one believes that killing non-human multi-celled creatures is murder, excepting maybe PETA.
It is a lot to ask of people that they pay for homicide, however indirect the payment might be. It is enough that they admit the issue is a matter of faith and conscience, and they allow people to consult their own conscience and do right, as God gives them to see the right.
Not that old saw again, Prick. Whether you like it or not, eggs and sperm are expendable because we (women) have 100,000 of them in our ovaries and men have MILLIONS of sperm. We are talking about POTENTIAL human beings, not 'live babies'. It is only women who have abortions, not men, so they should stay out of the argument. How about if we decided not to pay for prostate surgery?? After all it is only a man's problem so why should we (women) have to pay for this procedure?
Grow up and stop supporting a religious point of view that will affect every woman, religious or not.
I agree with the spirit of what you're saying, newswoman, but it may interest you to know that women are born with considerably fewer eggs than you seem to believe -- three or four hundred or so.
Chuckv, leaving people alone isn't most Christians' forte.
newswoman: from someone who believes in accessible and safe abortions on demand, you embody what is wrong with the so-called 'pro-choice' movement. firstly, this has nothing to do with a women's choice to do 'what she wants with her body'. if it was only about her body or her "eggs", there would be no debate. unfortunately, a fetus is involved. thats why i find the term pro-choice dated and silly. get some backbone and proudly call yourself 'pro-legalized abortion.'
secondly, no, you don't have to be a women to have and defend a legitimate view on abortion. just like you don't have to be a minority to have worthy opinions about civil rights. please don't pull the typical feminist move of trying to intellectually belittle men. it belittles your movement.
thirdly, your prostate surgery argument is just plain dumb. prostate surgery and... breast cancer surgery, for example, are two life saving surgeries that are gender specific. abortion usually isn't. if you want people to stay out of your choice but to pay for it, you are inviting just the sort of arguments you seem to want to avoid.
egg count...
A woman has her lifetime supply of eggs (about 7 million) in her ovaries before she is even born and each month loses some, so by the time she is born the number has dwindled down to approximately 1 million. This steady decline continues so that approximately 300,000 remain as a woman enters puberty and the supply of eggs is depleted by the time a woman enters menopause.
Eggs grow in fluid filled sacs in the ovary called follicles which contain cells that support the growth and development of the eggs as well as secreting the hormones necessary for ovulation. There is a huge discrepancy between the number of available eggs in the ovaries and the numbers that actually develops to maturity and are released during ovulation.
Typically a woman will ovulate around 400 times during her reproductive life span. The failure to have any ovulatory cycles is called anovulation and only having irregular ovulatory cycles is called oligo-ovulation. These are among the most common causes of infertility. These types of ovulatory disorders have many causes and can include problems with the central nervous system or the pituitary gland, problems with the developing follicles or ovary, or both.
"It is only women who have abortions, not men, so they should stay out of the argument." (newswoman).
If women confined themselves to aborting women, then perhaps men would have no place to complain. But seeing as how women are choosing to abort men as well, they have every right to participate in this discussion.
"Grow up and stop supporting a religious point of view that will affect every woman, religious or not." (newswoman).
There is no reference to religion in the post you are responding to, so your trashing of it is wholly unjustified.
32-cell blastulas aren't "human life"?
I've been trying to find a woman who carried one of those 32-cell blatulas to term and gave birth to an armadillo, pear tree or a rock, or something other than human life, and I haven't found anyone yet, nor have I or anyone else ever heard of one. Wonder why that is?
@prickly: it is. Yet I'm going to assume there is a type of human killing you do condone such as capital punishment, acts of war. I find very few people who actually are against murder, it's just which justification gets pulled out of pocket to embrace it. We're very strange that way.
Regardless if you support one you're on no moral ground to demonize the other.
You say "I find very few people who actually are against murder, it's just which justification gets pulled out of pocket to embrace it."
So does this mean that a person who kills because they are defending the lives of others has no more of a moral standing than somebody who goes on a killing spree? I believe there are obvious distinctions.
Abortion is different than war and capital punishment because in most cases (93%) it is done by an irresponsible woman who doesn't want to go through with the pregnancy because they consider it inconvenient. It is not done out of necessity (except in the remaining 7% of the time when the woman was raped or there were potential health risks).
I don't consider myself a supporter of capital punishment or war, but I certainly wouldn't demonize somebody who killed somebody in defense of their lives or anybody elses. This is very different than abortion, and those of us who believe it is morally wrong (an atrocity even) have every right to pressure our congressmen to keep our tax dollars from funding it.
I think the whole thing is funny.. You women had a chance to put a woman in the white house and you blew it. Yep, you were in charge and you leaned way over and let it get away. So who gives a rip what you want now. One of you on here will never have an abortion anyway. But you seem to be doing the most screaming. ROTFLO
@selahh: you have to admit you proved my point. Red herring and all.
That said, if we're going to get all religious about this as many people do on this topic, Jesus' example was not to defend himself in the face of his own murder. WWJD? Get whacked. And you have to admit he really won in the end, no?
I'm not putting myself on the pedestal here. But have you ever known anyone who has killed someone, even in self-defense or even as part of a killing sanctioning system? It's a nightmare for their life.
The systematic support of murder though in all its forms is where we as a people get lazy intellectually and morally and just become callous. I'll say it again, I don't see anyone being morally superior on this topic if they condone one, they need to take the beam out of their eye before snatching at the splinter in the eye of the other.
Hmm.. not quite sure I see the red herring. you can't just throw out logical fallacies arbitrarily. And I also don't see where I proved your point. It seems to me that your point was that you can't demonize one form of murder and not another, and I offered a scenario where I believe most people wouldn't demonize the murder. If a cop shoots and kills somebody who is on a killing rampage I am not sure that anyone would demonize him.
And if we're going to get all religious? Nothing in my statement was religious in nature. But since you brought it up, if you brush up on your gospels you would find out that Jesus knew before the men came to take him that it was what was going to happen and what had to happen. Of course he wasn't going to resist or even allow his Apostles to resist. This isn't necessarily (granted, it is open for debate), an example of how we are to act in the face of danger.
You must see the absurdity in your argument. Essentially you are saying that if you condone murder in one circumstance, in order to be morally and intellectually honest you must condone murder in ALL instances. So someone who condones capital punishment or acts of war is not allowed to be against abortion. Following your logic, "if you support one you're on no moral ground to demonize the other", then supporters of abortion are on no ground to demonize the acts of men who rape and murder women or people who go on shooting sprees. This is obviously absurd, and I suggest you back track and drop this argument from your arsenal.
@selahh: Your red herring was the self-defense argument, diverting the topic from murders that are politicized and controversial in the body politic. And no I didn't say you brought religion into it but I knew it would get you going, just playing.
And my point is valid and you haven't dealt with it: if you stand up *for* murder you've lost moral high ground defending another group *from* murder. The death of babies that are actually born yet on foreign soil for instance as being an acceptable part of collateral damage, for example.
A significant amount of others are rightfully going to look at one person's or a group's support for murder and think there is something fundamentally wrong with them, rightfully so. Justifications against killing are easy to peel away from an ethical standpoint.
I can only think of one institution that is consistent on it's take of murder, the Catholic Church. Strange, isn't it?
That is the absurdity of all of this. Murder always puts you on very troubling ground, regardless. If people would accept the responsibility that their stance means murder, we'd probably be able to find common ground. I just don't see that ability though, it's too hard.
I see. I suppose you could see that as a red herring if it weren't a direct response to your statement "if you support one you're on no moral ground to demonize the other". It seems as if you are talking about murder in general and any justification a person might use because there are many more than capital punishment and acts of war, especially when you look outside of our western society.
You didn't address my point. So since you are saying that you can't condone one form of murder and demonize another, does that mean if a person is against capital punishment, acts of war and abortion, to maintain moral highground you must demonize somebody who kills in defense of human life? Do you truly believe that there is no distinctions in the various types of killing? And to flip it around and follow your logic, if you support one or many of these(capital punishment, war, abortion) do you have to support all? This is exactly where your logic leads.
"if a person is against capital punishment, acts of war and abortion, to maintain moral highground you must demonize somebody who kills in defense of human life?"
I don't think demonizing is creating moral high ground, it might create the feelings and illusion of being on the moral highground. But demonizing creates another problem. It stunts real dialog and progress on better solutions.
"Do you truly believe that there is no distinctions in the various types of killing? And to flip it around and follow your logic, if you support one or many of these(capital punishment, war, abortion) do you have to support all?"
Are their distinctions? I have studied these three and it's terrible. I've changed my mind significantly with more information. If you support any of them, you need to examine the reality beyond trying simply justify your original viewpoint. Each kills innocents, even capital punishment as we and our systems aren't really objective or perfect.
Can I justify them? Yes, I can easily. We're all pretty creative and prone to want ourselves to be in the right. Often that means making others wrong instead. That's what is so dangerous.
It was a smart move by the Dems. Without this exemption, the health bill would not have passed. Only about 25% of Americans are in favor of our current abortion laws, which is abortion on demand. About 25% are in favor of banning abortion. The majority in the middle, including me, wants some serious restrictions on abortion, usually including restriction to abortion only for life of the mother, rape and incest. A clear majority also don't want their taxes to pay for abortion in any way.
As a Republican, I encourage you to stand by your beliefs and force your representatives to put the abortion provisions back in the bill. Vote down those who refuse to do so. And be certain to always demonize your opponents and lean heavily on the idea that anyone who disagrees with you is evil. We will pick up some Congressional seats in 2010, but we can always use more.
And a greater majority don't want to make welfare payments to single mothers with unintended pregnancies that want to terminate but can't afford it. And don't talk about birth control which is out of financial reach for poor women. It is totally false that birth control is free for poor women,
If a woman on welfare becomes pregnant and has to carry to term, welfare payments should be contingent upon putting the name of the father on the birth certificate. You men have been walking away from responsibility in this area for centuries. Put up or shut up.
judithk6:
I worked in a pharmacy, and yes birth control is available to poor women. Often times generics are covered Medicaid, and if they aren't on medicaid they can get generic monthly supplies for about $10-12. That's about 35 to 42 cents per day. It seems the facts show that your statement that birth control is out of financial reach for poor woman is totally false. Don't you hate it when facts screw up your argument?
judith - I adopted a child who was conceived as the result of rape. I also was a foster parent for many teenagers who had been sexually abused by a caretaker. As a board member of the Christian Civic League, a conservative group, I lobbied for more money for single mothers and more vigorous pursuit of deadbeat dads. All of these are common Republican activities. So how have you stepped up to the plate and actually done something?
Oh, by the way, daily birth control costs less than a cup of coffee. If you think that is too much, start a charity to provide free birth control for the poor. I will be happy to contribute.
Wow, Aslanleon, you're putting it right out there aren't you? Demonize, evil? Whatever happened to the ideals of compromise, respect for other's opinions and loving one another? I find, over and over again, that those who are "pro-life" are nothing more that hypocrites. When they need abortions, there is an excuse and a rationalization but when poor people need them, it's an abomination. First off, I disagree with your numbers...most people want abortion to be rare, safe and legal! But the same people who proclaim to want abortion made illegal are the same ones who are pro-war, anti-tax, anti-funding for after school programs, anti-immigration, anti anything that might benefit those who are burdened financially. You want more children born, you just don't want to hear about their problems, do you? Let's take immigration for example. The world's population is exploding...almost 7 billion...and by 2050 it will be 9 billion. Most of that growth is coming from Asia, Africa and South America. Thanks to climate change, which I know you don't believe in but hear me out, more and more people around the globe will be on the move due to draught. But you don't want them here, right? I could go on and on about the inconsistencies of your argument but I think I'll just leave it at what I already said. Hypocrites!
Well now, let's see whether the Dem's can govern, or whether they will be unable to govern, being torn apart by competing interests. The funny thing is, all the special interests that voted for the progressive Obama will eventually get their day in the sun, if they were willing to accomodate the others. But, are the Dem's that intelligent? Personally, I hope they are, but I have good reason to doubt it.
Lets talk race. How many of the US abortions are white, black, hispanic?
If funding can be provided to sustain life by removal, allowing pro-choice, who is for it...Can we grow babies without women having to carry them? What would the cost be and what would be the benefit. Human life is not defined by the medical capacity to prolong it or sustain it. The option needs to reflect removal and survival. We can do it. The debate is smoke and mirrors...
Those who cry out the loudest against abortion, they are the ones who were aborted in a previous life and the experience is stamped in their characters.
You see them picketing abortion clinics during the morning drive by hours. They look like zombies, marching up and down, a super serious, wrenched-from-the- pre-birth womb look on their faces.
Always, in any conversation, they slip in their personal driving force at the end. 'Would you like that to happen to you?" Because it happened to them!
From a file on 'hot button issues' @ the newly remodeled
michaelslevinson.com
What were you smoking this morning, Oliverecker? I never heard such drivel in my life from a supposedly same person.
Wow. That is really "out there." I would like to see all those against legal abortion (regardless of funding) cue up to take one of these unwanted children into their home. Then I would be much more inclined to listen to there point of view.
Children are a life sentence for those without the financial ability to support them. If you really feel unwed mothers and the working poor should take on additional responsability, why don't you do the same and take a poor family under your wing; pay for the kids' medical bills, school, clothing, etc. and then later, if the child is still going strong and wants to continue their education, then pay the 100K for them to get their degree.
I have three children and spent some of that time as a single mom. I love them all, but I wouldn't want even one of them to have an unwanted child.
Don't kid yourself. You are just sitting on the side lines unless you are actively involved in helping raise healthy emotionally sound children. If you really want to do something, become a big brother or sister, or mentor kids. Anything... just stop blowing steam and do something more useful than telling others what they should do.
procome- " I would like to see all those against legal abortion (regardless of funding) cue up to take one of these unwanted children into their home. Then I would be much more inclined to listen to there point of view." As noted elsewhere on the thread, been there, done that, have the t-shirt. I would be more inclined to listen to the pro abortion point of view if I had seen them in my foster care support group. They were completely absent.
Well there are approx. between one and two million couples waiting to adopt in the USA- so there are people willing and waiting to take responsibility for a child. I do't understand the argument that one can simply abort if she cannot financially take care of the child when there are so many others who WANT to raise that child. There are options! Its about taking responsibility even if its not ideal or convient. There are those willing to take on raising that child- if you are willing to stop being selfish for 9 months and give that child a chance at live.
And even if you are pro-choice- how can you expect those who feel so strongly against it to pay for it. Forcing someone to indirectly support a MORAL ISSUE is not right no matter which side or which issue.
reality sucks. this may be the first good thing the Dem's have ever accomplished. by-by to abortion as a drive by crime. something this horrendous should be very hard and expensive to come by. Pay to play
Exactly. We should keep the poor pure to my morals.
I am enlightened.
If only more political commentary were like this.
I have to agree. I hadn't considered this perspective before, but Peter is right. Prior to 1965, the democrats were a very diverse bunch, and we are seeing that diversity emerge again. We may be on the cusp of reclaiming a permanent governing majority again.
LOL, ChrisNbama. AS long as the wingnuts run your party, you will never reclaim a majority again, never mind permanent!
You're missing the entire point of the abortion debate in the first place. The issue behind the issue is, Do women possess political agency? Are women capable of making their own decisions about their own lives? If you think throwing agency to the wind is a good idea for the democratic party, I have to wonder who's side you're on.
I support you in your saying that women should have the right to make decisions regarding their own lives. Included in this of course includes women who are in the womb of other women.
The "entire point" of the abortion debate is whether or not women have political agency? Aside from ignoring the many pro-life women, this is equivalent to saying that getting power is more important than being right. If feminists supported male infanticide, would the "whole point" of that debate be whether or not women had political agency? The problem with the abortion issue is that both sides have valid arguments, and smug dismissiveness on either side is moral laziness. When moral laziness wins in cases like these, the stage is set for grotesque abuses commited with cavalier abandon, and institutional abuses of some sort or other are possible whether abortion completely banned or completely accessible. The current tension over the fine points might be seen as beneficial in that it keeps both sides on their toes morally.
---De facto, abortion is available with few restrictions, and that's unlikely to change, feminist fear-mongering notwithstanding. Pro-life extremists don't garner any more respect than pro-choice extremists. And the procedure is cheap enough so that having to pay for it, or getting someone else to pay for it, isn't much of an obstacle. For the most part, abortion's availability is due to feminists' political agency, and for nwreader to claim that the omission of free abortions in the healthcare bill deprives women of political agency requires a lot of solipsistic self-indulgence. But then, the "right" to solipsistic self-indulgence seems to be the hidden agenda of the more extreme feminists.
Bob808,
When's the last time you tried to get an abortion in a state like, say, South Dakota? I recently read that about 87% of counties in the U.S. have no abortion provider. Furthermore, an abortion typically costs hundreds of $$; that may not to sound like a lot to you, but to someone living at or below the poverty level, it is a substantial sum.
Using public money to pay for abortion has always been a hot-button issue. I do think they are stretching things by demanding that a private company not be permitted to provide a specific service because it the premiums would be payed out of public money. I support a woman's right to choose, but I do think it was more important to get the health care reform passed.
it stands t reason if the government can make them cover something they can make them not cover something. its called regulating a two way street.
Seems to me that, once again, liberals and moderates have forgotten they are the majority, and are staking out a defensive position out of gutless habit.
hithere3 A "gutless habit" may be the best way to describe abortion i have ever seen. thanks
Seems you enjoy talking to yourself more so than talking to other people. That's rather typical among people like you.
Agree completely. I'm a woman, and I hate the compromise, but it had to be made for the greater good. I DO hope women don't return to using metal coat hangers in dark alleys as they did in the 50's and 60's.
Accountability should also be heavily placed on the pro-lifers. How many of them have adopted children of all races? They should somehow be made to put their money where there mouth is -- especially the men!
your argument holds no water. what about the millions of people dying in the streets of Africa? i don't see the liberal billionaires like All gore and opera winfrey sending 90% of there savings to help. if all the liberals in the world could just live with 5 million instead of billion hunger and and death would be a thing of the past. so don't ask for one until you have given until it HERTS. Ill tell you what why dont you ask the kids in foster care if they would rather be dead?. for there own good.
Use spellcheck, Demsdisorder. I can't understand your comment.
Interesting you should mention that. It is mostly conservatives and religious people who do adopt the 'problem' babies. Also, in my foster care support group in a state with the third lowest church involvement, all but one of the couples were conservative and moderate Christians and Jews. My own role? I adopted a child who was conceived as the result of rape and was a foster parent for teenagers who were victims of sexual abuse. And how have you stepped up to the plate?
Here we go again with this notion that wer'e going to resort to mid evil methods. How about Accountability being placed on those who choose to give in to thier raging hormones? Just because you choose to give in to your unbridled passions does not stop the potential consequences of pregnacies. And please do not lecture me about rape and incest! If abortions were done strictly on those conditions alone, you would never know abortions existed because the vast majority of abortions are elective! If we are going to use the the argument that sex will happen regardless, then tell an officer when he or she pulls you over for speeding that "HEY! people are going to speed anyway, why are you harrasing me? Or better yet, open up the prisons and let the inmates out, after all, people are going to commit crimes anyway, why waste tax payers dollars taking care of them. Now you may think that's an extreme example, but the reasoning behind abortions has always been about quality and convienence. NOT womans health! Womens health does not begin or end with abortions. And when did you become an authority on racial adoptions? have you traveled extensively throughout this country and surveyed families that tried to adopt. You obviously do not know or either you refuse to accept the fact that the adoption sysytem in this country is extremely flawed. I stand a better chance of getting a mortgage for a million dollar piece of property that getting an adoption approved! As for your assertion about different races being adopted? Well I can only pressume your'e speaking of black and or hispanic children. Let me clue you in on something, Numerous attempts to adopt minority children (for a lack of a better term!) has most always been struck down by many family courts, because they (the courts) felt that the child would not "THRIVE" with a white family. And that it was more important that child be with his her own culture and enviornment. In other words, let them remain in the Ghetto with thier crack addicted parent. This would surely help him or her achieve lofty goals! GIVE ME A BREAK!
So...you're saying that the Democratic party was previously the ONLY party of lame social issues? I'd say that the GOP has been banking on the hatred and ignorance of the masses (i.e., social issues) for the last 25 years -- and to hail this latest assault on Women's reproductive rights as a "Great Development" just shows how the author is, frankly, talking out of his ass. I sincerely hope the abortion amendment dies a quick death.
This is exactly the kind of BS that will galvanize pro-choice forces to stop playing nicey-nice with the religious nutjobs -- Sorry, but we won't be relegated barefoot and pregnant to the kitchen without a serious fight. I am sick and tired of the intrusion of religion into secular life...time to strip churches of their tax-exempt status.
Wow. Did you even read the story?
It cracks me up how when people see something that could be negative about the party they are affiliated with, they jump directly to attacking the other party. This is the problem with the party system, SOME people in this country can't see past it. They can't see that both party's can have their good and bad sides.
And if there was a "Great Development", it was for the fight for healthcare, not for or against abortion. If you read the story you would know that despite what they wanted, the liberal democrats had to sacrifice abortion to get the support of the conservative democrats. It was one or the other, they couldn't have them both. It's already illegal to use federal funds for abortion, so it's really not changing all that much.
And wow... You know, nonreligious people love to demonize the religious people for being judgemental and trying to control how others live their lives. Well I for one have never seen such a disgusting display of hatred as the nonreligious demonstrate for the religious. Religous nutjobs? Blind and sweeping attack on religious peoples. And you would propose to force the religious to pay through their tax dollars for something they consider an atrocity? Looks like its you proposing America control them.
And, you won't be relegated barefoot and pregnant? I'm pretty sure it's every womans decision to get pregnant, with the exception of rape, so nobody is relegating you to anything. If you get pregnant you still have the right to get an abortion. You just have to pay for it. I believe there is something seriously wrong with those who get this upset about not getting a free solution to a problem they created for themselves.
You are right that most of the commenters did not read the article very carefully. They seem to have seen the topic and vented their pre-set positions. The point is that the Democrats have lost a large portion of their power by taking a strong pro-choice position. The question is: Should the Democrats get out of the pro-choice v. pro-life battle that drains so much of their ability to put through measures like health care reform or should they remain ideologically pure? Since I am a registered independent, that is not my battle.
Personally, I destest the tactics of the pro-lifers in this matter, they have been aching to make abortion part of the health reform debate, and they finally got Stupid to carry the ball for them. I am still hoping that the Senate will reject the amendment and that the house will reconsider the Stupid amendment. (I have also resorted to namecalling. It may not be productive, but it is fun.)
The Republicans are in deep trouble because they have chosen to reduce the size of their tent oever the years. I was a Young Republican and a member of the ACLU at one time. Freedom of Religion was more important to me than staying in the party. The ACLU is more conservative of the things I treasure most.
WHOA! HOLD ON! Daily Beast runs competing stories! Another Let Down by Amy Siskind or The Dem's Smart Abortion Move...which way is it going to be guys? Is Daily Beast FOR or AGAINST???
Are you new? The Daily Beast brings in stories from everywhere.
Which side is TDB on? The Daily Beast is decidedly for click-throughs and page viewings to sell ads to make money.
Stirring up controversy on both sides with even misleading headers is their editorial viewpoint. But clearly the bias is moderate to liberal with conservative thrown in to make it spicy.
Enjoy!
Agree.
Mostly this is a good trend - moderates in general want MUCH less to be charged to the government. Birth control is mostly not covered now. But why stop here, when do we have the Viagra discussion?
Bad will be when the procedure is necessary to save the mother's life but it is denied because it isn't covered by insurance. Hmm, what if 2 deaths result.
This was a 'smart' move by the Democrats only in the sense that it appears to give them more traction than they really have, and that only in the very short term.
But by throwing Progressives under the bus, they have severely undermined their base. Inside The Beltway Democrats have no clue and have rolled Obama.
They're all going to pay in the next election.
Women still have a choice. So it costs $300. Maybe some that use abortion as birth control will pick up a pack of condoms or pills instead. I know I'm tired of paying for everyone else's mistakes. Maybe if you have to pay for your own, you stop making so many.
I agree Mr. Beinart. I sit on the fence about abortion. I wish it was never necessary but sadly it is. The catastrophe that would result from all of the unwanted children or shattered lives makes abortion a very sad necessity. I am a parent and my love for my son knows no bounds but he arrived in my life essentially when I wanted and expected to.
I can and do understand the motives behind the anti abortion movement, but their argument is based purely in the spiritual and ignores both the realities of this world we live in and another human beings right to choose their own destiny.
Public funding for this issue should ( must ) be put in a seperate bill. There are any number of ways moneys can be funneled to provide assistance to women who cannot afford this procedure.
Health care effects every single one of us and cannot be stalled because of such a contentious issue.
Liberal Dude Nation story. bore
So long to the big tents. It seems to me that the political future is drawing a crowd to your party's tent from the midway. There are two politically active adults in my household. One who has been a staunch Republican in the past and one who has been a staunch Democrat. The Republican became so nauseated with the "no tax & spend" policy of the Bush administration and their egotistical excesses that little loyalty to the "party" is left. The Democrat is rapidly losing faith in the Democratic policy as they seem to be more of the same in a different color tent. We are both out in the midway now, our allegiance no longer guarenteed. I'm not surprised to find growing numbers out here with us. Abortion is just one of the wedge issues that both parties use to draw us to their tent. It's getting harder to keep the midway crowd in front of one tent for long. I wonder how much longer it will be until the party sideshows fail to draw a crowd. People are increasingly frustrated and angry. The parties continue posturing at their peril.
To birdseyeview - This is one of the few good comments I've seen in a long time. A Republican who can get along with a Democrat because both see that all of us are headed down the wrong road. In my humble opinion, this nation will soon be broken. The dollar will have little if any value throughout the world. Maybe then we'll find ourselves compelled to get along and work together.
Historically women are used ... and here we go again using them for someone else's gain.
According to author's logic, the only way for the Democratic Party to "rebuild America's welfare system" is for the party to be dominated by a right-wing minority -- the same minority that has successfully whittled away at the public option on behalf of insurance companies and that stuck a knife in the backs of millions of women too poor to afford an abortion. This is absurd.
There is also an assumption that today's right-leaning pro-business Democrat has the same sense of noblesse oblige as a Democrat from Roosevelt's or Johnson's eras; this is simply not the case, as the battle over health care has clearly demonstrated. The entire "reform" effort is a windfall for insurance companies and does nothing to control the skyrocketing costs of health care or to significantly expand coverage to those with none.
The democrats had to cave because Christian fundamentalists hold the country's politics hostage on the issue of abortion...To end this problem overturn Roe vs Wade so that the argument goes back to the states where in most instances abortion rights would survive...Even South Dakota rejected abortion restrictions in 2008 when put on the ballot.
I'm pro-choice, but I agree with leaving funding for elective abortions out of taxpayer subsidized health care plans. Regardless about how *I* feel about the issue, it isn't right to expect people who disagree to pay tax dollars to support them. Instead those of us who do believe in choice can subsidize help for women who can't afford to pay by donating to our local clinics, Planned Parenthood, etc. An elective abortion isn't typically that expensive anyway. If this compromise helps get universal health care coverage then by all means - leave it out.
I agree completely
I hope we're also leaving out Viagra then. But seriously, can we pick and choose what we're willing to pay tax dollars for? A tax-payer's cafeteria plan maybe?
What a bunch of self righteous left wing balony.
The party that claims to be for equal rights has repeatedly been the party of "special rights'. The aborted baby gets no rights. Those who believe in traditional marriage get no rights. Those that are citizens get no rights. Only those that will further their power get rights.
Disgusting.
What are you blubbering on about? What rights are we denying people who marry traditionally? What rights are we denying citizens? It's funny that your side wants to take away or restrict rights, while we want to expand rights.
With the exception of gay rights to marry (which I support by the way), it is true that the left wing is the one to push "special rights". Why is that when you fill out an application for a job or for school you are asked what race you are? Is it right that a minority could get a job or get into a school over a white person who is more qualified (before I get attacked for being racist, I'm not saying that whites are always better qualified, just that this is a possible scenario) because of affirmative action? This is not equal rights, it is special rights.
That's right, affirmative action is special rights, base on the premise that not all Americans were afforded equal opportunity. History have shown that, special rights/affirmative action is not a new phenomena, those who had/have the advantage ( four years and continuing) called this special rights, heritage, and tradition. Perhaps it is not the perfect method to right past and continuing (peculiar inhumanity done by man) wrong. But something had to be done immediately, because the excluded and their descended have waited too long for justice.
Dr. King illustrated this point in his book: Why we can't wait. Perhaps you might want to read this and understand truly the premise for affirmative action.
Side-Bar. I know this thread is focus on the healthcare reform. But I just had to response to selahh comment. Affirmative action is a sore spot for me.
This will anger the Left's fringe pro-abortionists.
Now if the Dems can remove the other egregious rules, they will make progress.
Obama will do anything for a vote, but this time dropping abortion makes sense, finally.
Where is my reply to nwreader? Please don't tell me it has been aborted !
;>)).
LOL. Wait nine months. 8>)
We have to look at the big picture, the greater good, i.e., there are clearly far too many humans on the planet and we're killing off wild animals like gangbusters while allowing our fellow domesticated animals to proliferate, thus distractically altering the balance of nature. The UN and the US should take the leadership role in encouraging free universal birth control and abortion for any female who desires it, no questions asked, rather than catering to the so-called "pro-life" zealots, who clearly don't care at all about life if they want humans to continue to breed indiscriminately in the face of planetary environmental disaster.
Or male birth control. After maybe 2 weeks of minor disconfiture a vasectomy lifts the whole thing right off your shoulders, for the rest of your life. Your wife can get off the pill, which being testosterone or some such made her hairy besides.
They can be reversed, too, but its a hassle. So if you really WANT to have kids someday, and they have to be your own blood, then hold off until you've sired your heart's desire, and THEN cut those strings.
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.
Please log in to leave comments.