Schakowsky: I Pledge To Vote Against Bill With Anti-Abortion Amendment
Further deepening the split among Dems over abortion, a well-respected House liberal is now publicly pledging to vote against any health care reform bill containing an anti-abortion amendment, a move that will make it tougher for other liberals not to follow suit.
Dem Rep. Jan Schakowsky’s office confirms to me that she won’t back the bill if it contains the Stupak amendment, a measure that would drastically scale back the availability of abortion, which many insurance plans now offer.
Some 41 House Dems have signed a letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi vowing a No vote on a bill with Stupak, but it’s not known who the signatories are. Schakowsky’s office confirmed that she’d signed the letter — and since her voice carries weight with House liberals, it could embolden others to publicly make the same commitment.
“If left as is the health care reform bill would be the largest repeal of anti-choice laws in nearly four decades,” Schakowsky said in a statement emailed my way. “I will continue to work with the Senate and the Conference Committee to make the bill acceptable, but cannot and will not support health care reform that blatantly discriminates against women.”
It’s worth noting again that it will be much tougher for pro-choice liberals to back down on this one than it was for progressives to accept the less-robust public option. In the public option fight, liberals could say they secured something; by contrast, Stupak is a significant step backward.
The White House and Dem leadership know pro-choice liberals won’t be able to accept Stupak as is, which is why the president is alreadly signaling that Stupak will be seriously revised. By going public, Schakowski is signaling to other pro-choice Dems to stand firm heading into conference negotiations with the Senate, so that they retain real leverage.
This blog’s homepage is here. RSS feed here. Twitter feed here. Email me here.
“t’s worth noting again that it will be much tougher for pro-choice liberals to back down on this one than it was for progressives to accept the less-robust public option. In the public option fight, liberals could say they secured something; by contrast, Stupak is a significant step backward. ”
Totally agree.
And we shouldn’t back down on this. I refuse to give up anything we fought for and won. No other group has ever been asked to give back a constitutionally guaranteed right and I’m dead tired of this one right – a woman’s right to privacy in her body – being chipped away all the time.
dammit
Tena — it will be revised, but the only way to make sure it will be SIGNIFICANTLY revised is for pro-choicers to stand firm
Since they are asking women to actually surrender at least some liberty they are guaranteed, they can shove it up their fundaments – I’m not backing down and I don’t think anyone else will.
I hope anyway.
I don’t think they’ll be able to get anything like Stupak out of the Senate, so I’m sincerely hoping and praying the House (conservative men) will drop their discrimination ploy. Oh I know, there were some Repub. women along for the ride as well, there always is.
Plus, it sounds like Obama is on the side of no change to the status quo, I bet he got an earful from Michelle, Hillary and all the other strong gals he put into his cabinet and positions of power.
A good article; spelling out what a retrograde nightmare the Stupak amendment really is:
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion/494751/print
Excerpt:
“And for the falsehood: Stupak claimed that his amendment “goes no farther than Hyde,” the amendment banning federal Medicaid funding for abortion care except in cases of rape, incest, or threat to the woman’s life. In fact, the amendment goes farther than Hyde in stipulating what kind of coverage a woman can purchase with private dollars. “It’s the equivalent of arguing that women who receive abortions should not use public buses or highways to travel to the abortion clinic,
In the Stupak amendment, the exceptions to the coverage ban read as follows: rape, incest or “where a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death.” “Given insurance companies’ dexterity in denying claims, we can predict what they’ll do with that language.” And in case you wonder what that leaves out entirely: “Cases that are excluded: where the health but not the life of the woman is threatened by the pregnancy, severe fetal abnormalities, mental illness or anguish that will lead to suicide or self-harm, and the numerous other reasons women need to have an abortion.” “
Greg: I read that the Catholic Bishops were key players in the Stupak Amendment. I was in Nova Scotia, Canada a few months ago and witnessed the Bishop of Antigonish hand over a cheque for $13m to compensate those children who were abused. Then a fortnight later I saw a report on CBC (Canada) which said that the Bishop of Antigonish was arrested in Ottawa (capital) for child porn on his computer. The immigration agent saw his passport and noted regular stamps of countries were pedophiles ply their trade. He is now awaiting trial.
On Sunday there was a BBC World program which featured an African Archbishop, a former women member of Parliament, Christopher Hitchens and Stephen Fry ( a homosecxual and actor). It was a fiery debate about the Church and its exploitation especially of the ignorant, the poor and children. At the start of the program the audience voted something like 400 for the Church, 1100 + for the opposition with 300 plus undecided. At the end the Church ended up with 200+ supporters, the opposition with 1400+ supporters and about 30 were undecided.
It is a long way to make this point: given the low esteem in which the Catholic Church is held how come our Bishops exert so much influence?
Some people are going to not like what I have to say on this but here goes nothing.
Federal funding subsidizes companies through tax write offs when they provide insurance to their employees right?
This is considered private insurance. This is the same insurance that provides for abortions no?
Would this new law affect all these also or only the choices in the exchange?
If this amendment is a requirement for many Dems to vote for this, they need to narrow it down to Govn’t subsidized plans only and not include plans in which individuals pay all the premiums.
Here’s where some will disagree with me.
I would think a deterrent for many women out there to not get pregnant is the financial burden that comes with it, not to mention all the responsibility that comes if you go through with the birth. If the financial burden of abortion becomes de-incentive’ized via Govn’t subsidies, I would think you could see a shift in the amount of abortions which I don’t think anyone is interested in seeing. I could be wrong or maybe I’m just not seeing this clearly.
Saw this coming. No way the final bill contains the Coathanger Amendment. I fully understand the concept of trying to make sure that there isn’t a backdoor opened to allow federal funding of abortions.
I don’t agree with it, but I accept that’s the law of the land right now. The ball on abortion rights doesn’t have to move forward as a part of HCR, but it sure as heck shouldn’t move backwards either.
They know they can’t pass this thing in a final vote the way it is. It won’t get completely stripped, unfortunately, but I think it will get trimmed back a good deal.
Why can’t they attach the usual Hyde amendment to the bill?
“No funds appropriated by this Act shall be available to pay for an abortion, or the administrative expenses in connection with any health plan under the Federal employees health benefits program which provides any benefits or coverage for abortions.
“SEC. 614. The provision of section 613 shall not apply where the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term, or the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest.”
“Why can’t they attach the usual Hyde amendment to the bill?”
They did. It didn’t go far enough for the American Taliban.
They did attach it? I don’t believe they did. Can you point to the actual text in the bill for our reference?
mike from A
I’ll try to go easy on you because we agree most of the time. Financial considerations in no way come into play in de-incentivising abortions. We all agree there should be fewer abortions but the best way is through education, birth control availability and dealing with, expressly teen pregnancies, in a realistic manner, ie. teens have ***.
The current law is a women’s right to choose what is best for herself and her family. It is never an easy choice and to take a step backward, as the Stupak Sepsis ammendment does, is an insult to women in this country, especially those of less than optimal financial means.
The fact that insurance companies offering abortion as part of comprehensive reproductive coverage are subsidied by the government, is an argument against the Stupak ammendment not for it. If a family pays say $8000 per year for insurance coverage and is subsidized say 50% of that, which 50% covers what may be a necessary abortion. There are other legitimate reasons for the proceedure besides, life of mother, rape or incest.
Their goal is to take the coverage out of all providers in the exchange, even if as a small business or individual you are funding the entire premium yourself. That will not fly with women in this country who believe we have the right to decide ourselves. This could eventually lead to no coverage at all in any insurance policy, a slippery slope indeed.
“Their goal is to take the coverage out of all providers in the exchange, even if as a small business or individual you are funding the entire premium yourself. That will not fly with women in this country who believe we have the right to decide ourselves. This could eventually lead to no coverage at all in any insurance policy, a slippery slope indeed.”
The above is also why I think this amendment is wrong.
It is a long way to make this point: given the low esteem in which the Catholic Church is held how come our Bishops exert so much influence?
This isn’t Britain and the Roman Catholic Church has a lot more influence here, as do conservative Christians generally.
The last gasp of the culture of death.
“I would think a deterrent for many women out there to not get pregnant is the financial burden that comes with it, not to mention all the responsibility that comes if you go through with the birth.”
LOL – do I really have to explain to you how that works? If you’ve got half your clothes off and you’ve got half his off, which one of you is going to stop and ask the other one who is protected? And – more importantly, who is going to tell the truth in that situation?
How about this…Dems attach an amendment that any organization with a cronic history of sexual abuse (health issue) against children can no longer have tax exempt status?
“It is a long way to make this point: given the low esteem in which the Catholic Church is held how come our Bishops exert so much influence?”
Alan, I cannot for the life of me understand American Catholics – I don’t get why the Catholic Church still has members in the US. We had a priest in Dallas who molested 75 young men. The church knew. And they fought it up one side and down the other when the Dallas Diocese got sued,and the bishop sure didn’t look good sitting in that trial.
I do not understand anymore what people are thinking, especially christians. Don’t get it anymore.
amen Tena
we are sick and tired of being sick and tired
“I cannot for the life of me understand American Catholics”
And someone steps in it yet again…
p.s. I am encouraged by Schakowsky’s stand in that she is a reliable WH transmitter
Mike from Arlington–the bottom-line problem with Stupak and every other curtailment is that slowly but surely, a safe abortion is becoming an option only for the rich. Just like it was pre-Roe. So financial disincentivization will lead to what desperate measures?
Kathleen- Exactly. Just like it was before.
Alan, I watched that BBC debate. Stephen Fry was devastatingly funny in cutting down the church at its knees. The audience just loved it. One can never such a civil discussion on teh teevee in US what with the tendency of all the participants, including the moderator, talking over each other.
Thanks Kathleen, you said much more succinctly than I did.
“And someone steps in it yet again…”
Excuse me?
I don’t like the Catholic Church one bit and I don’t understand American Catholics’ loyalty to it when they’ve been moving child molesting priests around to different diocese for decades.
Don’t like my attitude? Tough. And don’t throw Kennedy at me – I no longer trust organized religion at all.
And sbj, just so you’re clear: that goes for Buddhhism, which I learned the hard way is just another major organized religion that wants one thing: your money. I no longer believe that religion is a force for good.
Sorry.
I told you I probably wasn’t seeing things clearly.
“They did attach it? I don’t believe they did. Can you point to the actual text in the bill for our reference?”
It is Federal law, so it didn’t need to be attached as it was, just codified. That was the Ellsworth Amendment.
“”"Ellsworth’s proposal would make 5 key pro-life changes to the bill; effectively preventing federal tax dollars from being used to fund abortions and ensuring Americans have access to pro-life insurance options in the proposed Health Insurance Exchange:
* Explicitly prevents all federal tax dollars from being used to provide abortions in the public option;
* Prohibits any funds from the US Treasury from paying for abortion services in any of the plans purchased through the proposed Health Insurance Exchange-private or public;
* Establishes clear, strict rules for separating public funds from the premiums of private individuals (ensuring that no public funds are ever used to pay for an abortion in any health plan offered on the Health Insurance Exchange);
* Guarantees every American participating in the Health Insurance Exchange will always have access to a pro-life insurance option;
* Expands conscience protections to prevent the government from discriminating against pro-life health insurance plans.”"”
http://www.ellsworth.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=544&Itemid=1
That wasn’t far enough for them. They needed to force Americans to bow to their religious extremism.
On a historical sidenote (that seems apt to me in this comment thread), I just read in my newspaper that on this day in 1917 41 suffragists were arrested for picketing in front of the White House.
Here’s a little bit more of what we’re up against as women, and I am beyond my reproductive years and guided my daughters through their early reproductive years without having to make this decision. I don’t fight on my behalf but on others, just so we’re clear.
“We started down this road in 1976 when the Hyde Amendment passed and when, in 1980, the Supreme Court upheld the principle that the federal government had the right to enact policies that favored childbirth over abortion by restricting funding for abortion. Most Democrats saw that giving antiabortion taxpayers greater moral standing than women who choose abortion was a political power play. After all, taxpayers don’t get any other say in how their taxes are used. Pacifists’ dollars support war; anti-bailout Americans saw their taxes go to banks just this year. Except on the issue of abortion, if you want to be a tax resister, the only thing to do is not pay your taxes and go to jail.
Clearly, the antiabortion right was using poor and powerless women as surrogates for their inability to control all women’s access to abortion. Sadly, a few pro-choice Democrats agreed with the antiabortionists that abortion should be legal but was morally repugnant, and should not be supported with federal dollars. Joe Biden, Jimmy Carter and Al Gore (who later changed his mind) were in that camp.”
http://www.salon.com/news/healthcare_reform/index.html?story=/opinion/feature/2009/11/09/stupak
A good piece of advice for Blanche Lincoln from Steve Benen
“If I were a campaign strategist for Blanche Lincoln, I’d go a little further — I’d encourage her to become the biggest champion of bold, progressive health care reform in the Senate. I’d urge Lincoln to show some major leadership, get out way in front, and position herself as a Kennedy-like guardian of those suffering under the status quo.
Look, Lincoln isn’t going to out-conservative the Republican candidates in Arkansas. No matter how she votes on reform, the entire Attack Machine is going after her as some kind of radical leftist. It doesn’t matter if it doesn’t make sense, and it certainly doesn’t matter if she votes with Republicans on the big issues of the day for the next year.”
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_11/020890.php
“They needed to force Americans to bow to their religious extremism.”
Always. And yet if the whole country did bow down to their views, where would leave the gaggle of MEN making a living off the anti-woman crusade? Those guys’entire careers are built on fighting choice. If they ever won, then what would they do?
Yeah, sbj, it’s you. The Roman Catholic Church has promulgated, aided and abetted the sexual abuse of thousands of people, mostly minors, over a period of decades, with the perpetrators protected by the church hierarchy, including but not limited to the incumbent pope, his immediate predecessor and perhaps others even farther back. Moreover, that same hierarchy has in many cases attempted to bribe and/or intimidate complainants and witnesses.
As a Christian myself, I’m, like, WTF?!?
The Roman Catholic Church as an institution in America has proved itself to be nothing more than a continuing criminal enterprise as defined under the Racketeering-Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and should be investigated, prosecuted and sued accordingly.
If the Pope were a Christian, he would publicly confess the church’s sins, turn over all perpetrators to civil authorities along with all the evidence the church has of those perpetrators’ guilt, sell off the church’s wealth to make the victims whole and then abdicate and go live a life of solitary penance.
I’m not holding my breath.
Thanks, Ethan. You admit that the Hyde amendment was NOT attached – you should probably not say that it was when it wasn’t. The Ellsworth amendment had many problems, as you should know.
Tena:
“I don’t like the Catholic Church one bit and I don’t understand American Catholics’ loyalty to it when they’ve been moving child molesting priests around to different diocese for decades”
Claiming your bigotry? Very well.
The fact is that the Cayholic church in America is divided into dioceses, and each diocese is run by a bishop or archbishop who is a “Prince of the Church”, and is given leeway to pretty much run his diocese as he sees fit.
Now your archdiocese there in Dallas is known for it’s liberalism,(in the sense of it’s bishop hewing unto the temporal notions that roughly make up liberalism.) And a lot of this stemmed from Liberation Theology of the 60’s and 70’s… an Error that took Vatican II as license to advance anathemic notions such as ordained women, incelibate clergy and indeed openly homosexual clergy.
In certain dioceses, these heresies took root, and a moonbat in a Roman collar STILL being a moonbat nevertheless, they spread their error by promoting and advancing each other and seeded their fellow-travellers, like spores, throughout the nation.
But there’s a whole other side of the Catholic church, the conservative dioceses, the Archdiocese of Arlington among the most conservative of these, which has not seen NEAR these problems of clerical child abuse or shortage of seminarians that the “touchy-feelie” ones have.
You don’t like the Catholic church, but in all too many cases, the local diocese is what you have made of it.
“I don’t fight on my behalf but on others, just so we’re clear.”
You and me both.
bilgeman – let me make this clear: do not mistake me for someone who gives a f*u*c*k. I dislike religion; I particularly at this time dislike christianity. And inasmuch as the Catholic Church has made it perfectly clear through the ages that they don’t like me, e.g. women – I am returning the favor in spades.
Don’t waste your time. I’m not prejudiced, I’m not biased, I’m a dedicated secular humanist agnostic who doesn’t like organized religion and actually thinks it may be evil.
The fact is that the Cayholic church in America is divided into dioceses, and each diocese is run by a bishop or archbishop who is a “Prince of the Church”, and is given leeway to pretty much run his diocese as he sees fit.
Not when it comes to hiding child-raping priests. That policy was set by the Vatican.
TPM reporting a PPP Maine poll where the numbers are “Conservative challenger 59%, Snowe 31%, with a ±4.8% margin of error.”
Time for snowe to pull a specter ?
“That policy was set by the Vatican.”
Word up. Is there anything more damned absurd than believing that weird little man in red Prada slippers is somehow holier than anyone else?
At least in Buddhism you don’t get to be hierarchy without a reason and the reason involves a lot of pain and sacrifice. They may pick the Dalai Lama as a child, but that child doesn’t get much play time after that at all. That child began a life of ultimate sacrifice – it’s hard as hell to sit in meditation hour after hour day after day but that’s what it takes.
Not so much in christianity.
Time for snowe to pull a specter?
Only if there’s a credible conservative Mainer willing to run against Snowe. I don’t know if there is or not because I’m not familiar enough with Maine politics.
I know we’re in protest HuffPo mode today, but I found this. The guy supports his interpretations with an awful lof of numbers to boot. I promise I won’t link Arianna.
So, here’s the big takeaway: The overwhelming majority of uninsured U.S. residents are adult American citizens without children living in the south with moderately good health status. Oh, and one more thing: They’re predominantly white. I didn’t make a slide for that, but just trust me. The reason behind that is simple: There are many more white people in the U.S. than there are other persons of any other single race. So, the po’ white south makes up most of the uninsured. Chew on that for a while. Then ask yourself where the strongest opposition to health reform comes from (hint: it’s red states) and contemplate how much sense that makes.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/d-brad-wright/po-white-south-another-lo_b_350923.html
it’s hard as hell to sit in meditation hour after hour day after day but that’s what it takes.
Not so much in christianity
I’m not Roman Catholic, but it seems to me the ones in that denomination who live that sort of life generally join monastic orders of various sorts. The present cardinal in Boston is an extremely rare example of a monk (a Franciscan in his case) who was first made a bishop of a diocese, then the archbishop of an archdiocese, and now a cardinal of that same archdiocese.
“So, the po’ white south makes up most of the uninsured. Chew on that for a while. Then ask yourself where the strongest opposition to health reform comes from (hint: it’s red states) and contemplate how much sense that makes.”
Same as it ever was = at least since the GOP crawled down into the south and started stoking that cracker resentment for all it’s worth.
If the south could ever get lifted up out of poverty; if education was fixed; if we could get rid of the damn parasitic jakeleg evangelists who haunt the south, then maybe the south would leave 1866 once and for all.
“I’m not Roman Catholic, but it seems to me the ones in that denomination who live that sort of life generally join monastic orders of various sorts.”
They are. I was a member of a Tibetan sect and really, Tibet wasn’t heaven on earth -it was a theocracy run by monks who regularly went to actual war with each other over issues so esoteric it’s hard to even put them down here. There’s still a war between the Dalai Lama and the leader of the sect I joined – the New Kadampas, over the worship of a subdeity and dharma protector known as Dorje Shugden, to the point where there have been murders in northern India in the Dalai Lama’s court there.
They may have settled it – I don’t know.
I don’t care much at all for any organized religion, so I wasn’t really touting Buddhism, just observing something.
The power still always was with the heads of monestaries in Tibet and it depended on the head over whether their feudal peasant population did well or suffered.
I think you’re right about Catholicism and indeed most christian sects that recognize the validity of monasticism and still follow it.
But come on, Catholic Church – every single one of the Renaissance popes bought his position and had a large family of children.
The Medicis would just tell the pope which son they wanted an archbishopric for and presto – they’d be anointed, at the age of 14, and start getting the income. I love those popes for being patrons of the greatest artists this planet has ever seen. But religion wasn’t in it.
Whatever continuity the Catholic Church wants to lay claim to going back to Peter is crazy to start with.
“Is there anything more damned absurd than believing that weird little man in red Prada slippers is somehow holier than anyone else?”
You realize that you are regularly calling your own Democratic leaders absurd? You respect Pelosi even though she believes in absurd things?
Although Roe v. Wade legalized the killing of the unborn, it did not require that the government must provide the money or means to bring about each death.
Thanks for demonstrating you aren’t open to conversation on the matter, Matt.
to the point where there have been murders in northern India in the Dalai Lama’s court there
Nothing’s nastier than church politics, and no war is nastier than a religious one. Your experience points out again the wisdom of the founding fathers for insisting that the federal government have no input into religious questions or politics.
“You realize that you are regularly calling your own Democratic leaders absurd? You respect Pelosi even though she believes in absurd things?”
O for pete’s sake, sbj. Most of the country apparently believes in things I find absurd these days.
I don’t think everyone is crazy but me – but I also don’t think I’m crazy. I don’t like or trust organized religion. That puts me at odds with well over half the country.
Are you a frakking computer program? What’s with you and this constant thing about continuity and consistency (which, let me remind you, sbj – hope you’re listening – is the hobgoblin of little minds.)?
Tena – I loled @ your Prada slippers pope crack. Never mind the troll.
wow matt, you typed all that by yourself ?
amk- I think I stole that crack, amk. I’m glad you liked it, however.
“A foolish consistency…..”
“Are you a frakking computer program? What’s with you and this constant thing about continuity and consistency (which, let me remind you, sbj – hope you’re listening – is the hobgoblin of little minds.)?”
Ha! Funny.
I just have this “thing” with double standards, fairness, and hypocrisy. That makes you a very big target. I am not immune myself – but I don’t celebrate it.
A Wise Consistency
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=613
“The political benefits of not needing to be consistent are so overwhelming that there’s no interest in being philosophically consistent in one’s votes. It is a welcome convenience to be able to support whatever seems best for the moment, the congressional district, or one’s political party. Therefore, it’s quite advantageous to cling to the notion that consistency is a hobgoblin. For this reason, statesmanship in D.C. has come to mean one’s willingness to give up one’s own personal beliefs in order to serve the greater good– whatever that is. But it is not possible to preserve the rule of law or individual liberty if our convictions are no stronger than this. Otherwise something will replace our republic that was so carefully designed by the Founders. That something is not known, but we can be certain it will be less desirable than what we have.”
The White House has signed a Faustian bargin with the Repubs and the Blue Dogs and has now angered the progressives. Obama has been rather weak and displayed little in the way of firm leadership throughout this debate. Now he is paying for it. He needs the progressives far more than the Repubs or the Blue Dogs. The latter two groups are more vulnerable to presidential pressure.
I think the reform that passed the House is a dim reflection of what might have been. I actually wouldn’t mind if the whole thing failed if it meant that they would revisit the issue and do it right. The anti-abortion provisions seem likely to be ruled unConstitutional and the insurance industry still gets to loot, rape, and pillage most Americans. How is this a good thing?
sbj, there is by law No religious test for service in the government of the United States. Ideally none of us would even know what religion any of our government leaders ascribes to. I do not care what religion someone is as long as they don’t try to impose any piece of that religion on me.
Now the day when Nancy Pelosi pushes legislation that makes us all subject to some Catholic prohibition, you don’t have a argument or an inconsistency.
And you can frak right thew frak off.
NOw until the day when Nancy Pelosi pushes some legislation that makes us all subject to some Catholic prohibition, you have no argument.
You have no inconsistency. I don’t care what someone else believes – that is their business. What I believe is mine.
And you’re just weird.
“The White House has signed a Faustian bargin with the Repubs and the Blue Dogs and has now angered the progressives. Obama has been rather weak and displayed little in the way of firm leadership throughout this debate. Now he is paying for it. He needs the progressives far more than the Repubs or the Blue Dogs. The latter two groups are more vulnerable to presidential pressure.”
ROFLMAO!
The progressives cry “wolf” constantly and are always pissed off.
And Obama is so weak, such a bad politician, that he managed to get elected President of the United States with a name like Barack Hussein Obama and a biracial heritage.
Keep underestimating him. I love it.
Tena – A little play on your earlier crack.
pope wears prada.
Tena,
Yet the right wing consistently maintains the unsupportable fallacy that Obama is the liberalist of liberals ever. He has done almost nothing that the progressives have wanted and look how meaningless the house legislation is. If it were real reform, any American would get to exercise the public option instead of a tiny fraction and we would have 100% of our citizens covered. We will still have the specter of bankruptcies due to medical emergencies.
No wolf, just meaningless “reform.”
“I think the reform that passed the House is a dim reflection of what might have been. I actually wouldn’t mind if the whole thing failed if it meant that they would revisit the issue and do it right. The anti-abortion provisions seem likely to be ruled unConstitutional and the insurance industry still gets to loot, rape, and pillage most Americans. How is this a good thing?”
seconded
“And you can frak right thew frak off.”
Sigh. You’re high again, aren’t you?
“Sigh. You’re high again, aren’t you?”
If you’re going to base that on my typing errors then you’re really lame.
I thought you had typed that correctly! I base it on the quality of your writing. I know that when I am high my mind tends to wander a bit…
Am I right?
“Am I right?”
Dude, I don’t know what your mind does. I kow what my keyboard is doing lately.
and why do you keep wanting to make that an issue with me?
“Why do you keep wanting to make that an issue with me?”
I’ll assume, then, that I am correct.
If you would just let me know when you are high I want hold you to any standards of logic. Smoking marijuana can cause cognitive impairment.
sbj:
“If you would just let me know when you are high I want hold you to any standards of logic. Smoking marijuana can cause cognitive impairment”
And she’s a lawyer, no less.
Maybe it’s time we initiated random urinalysis for attorneys, you think?
Thin out the herd and maybe save some poor schlub from a prison sentence because his d!ldo lawyer was too high to adequately defend him.
So the anti-American “bilgeman”, who wants to destroy America because he doesn’t like gubmint, decides that maybe “Maybe it’s time we initiated random urinalysis for attorneys, you think?”
So how can an anti-government right winger suggest the expansion of government power?
It’s the Right Winger’s First Rule: Rules are for Other People.
I am 35 years old and I have a bad memory for names and #’s. I honestly suppose it is worse than other people’s memories. Sometimes I believe I’m missing quite a bit because of memory loss, but I don’t acknowledge what I’m losing because I can’t remember. Does anyone have any idea what could be causing this?