Recall that at a 2007 Planned Parenthood fundraiser presidential candidate Barack Obama said "reproductive care" (i.e., abortion) was "essential... basic... at the center and at the heart" of his healthcare plan....
Candidate Obama made some promises, and now PP aims to make him keep them. After the House's vote last night to exclude abortion from nationalized healthcare, PP CEO Cecile Richards issued an email alert today calling in some chips....
Cecile reminded Obama in the letter that abortion proponents voted for and contributed to Obama for such an evil time as this: to include abortion in socialized healthcare. "[W]e need strong and public support from the White House to help us," wrote Cecile.
A sample email PP is asking supporters to send to Obama gets more to the point: "You campaigned on a promise to put reproductive health care at the center of your health care reform plan. Now it's time for you to make good on that commitment."
I doubt Cecile's going to see "public support," but I'm sure the White House will pull out all stops behind the scenes to retain it.
Obama said that he was very pleased with the bill as is. They don't own him. It's ridiculous of them to try and bully politicians: "Don't forget who made you!"
Most of us are very happy without abortion, Planned Parenthood. Why don't you stick to congratulating the millions of women who will now receive prenatal care and who will not have more money because they won't have to pay medical bills?
Oh, wait...that would require you actually fitting the title of pro-choice.
I, for one, am celebrating this. My mom is celebrating it and I'm going to call my sister later and we'll have a squee moment (she's been advocating universal health for some time now).Posted by: Vannah at November 8, 2009 4:24 PM
...as Jed Clampett would say. Now NARAL and NOW are spitting tacks as well. Seems like they're no happier about the Stupak Amendment than is PP.
Apparently Nancy Pelosi would stop at nothing to get this bill passed, even selling out her biggest supporters. However, the speaker "basks" in her "victory".
Just wait till this goes to the Senate. We ain't seen nuthin yet!Posted by: Mary at November 8, 2009 4:31 PM
Vannah, I agree with you (mostly). I don't care if abortion is in the bill or not. Anyone who wants an abortion can find the money to have one. Whatever it costs is still a tiny fraction of what having a child would cost.
I do object to the fact that a woman can no longer buy private health insurance that would cover abortion. Seems like a bit of government overreaching to me, and the only example I can find in this Bill of someone's freedom being taken away.Posted by: Hal at November 8, 2009 4:32 PM
Message to Cecile and all other pro aborts..... Abortion is NOT health care!!!Posted by: Joanne at November 8, 2009 4:33 PM
I posted a late reply to your comment on 11/5's Proliferations.
You don't seem to be nearly as obnoxious as you used to be :)
I'm afraid I might be starting to like you.
But that doesn't mean I'm going to stop trying to get you saved.Posted by: Ed at November 8, 2009 5:02 PM
Hal, I agree with you. Health care reform is too important to be derailed by the obsession with abortion, on both sides. I also agree that carriers should be able to offer, and women able to purchase policies covering abortion.Posted by: Bystander at November 8, 2009 5:06 PM
They DO own him, thirty million dollars worth.
They want theirs.
I think it's awesome because I predict he will treat them just like he's treated his other useful idiots.
Under the bus with you, my pretties!Posted by: carder at November 8, 2009 6:02 PM
You mean right along with Rev.Wright? Even though Obama sat in Rev.Wright's church for 20 years he had no clue what the reverend said.Posted by: Mary at November 8, 2009 6:13 PM
It's my understanding that PP is lying about women not being able to buy private coverage that includes abortion. As far as I know, a woman will still be able to do this, as long as she uses her own money. What she will NOT be able to do is use government subsidies to purchase this insurance.Posted by: Mary at November 8, 2009 6:54 PM
I wish I could be so positive about Obama's response. I'm worried that he has placed too much of his campaigning and too much of his general effort into abortion to throw it under the bus now...
Still, I'm celebrating this weekend as a big win!Posted by: MaryRose at November 8, 2009 6:56 PM
With Obama you must remember you are dealing with a sociopath. He will pay whatever lip service he needs. People are a means to an end. He will throw these folks under the bus if necessary to get this bill rolling.
I have no doubt he supports abortion, but he also needed the support of these people and got it. They served their purpose and helped put him in power. Now they can join Rev.Wright.Posted by: Mary at November 8, 2009 7:19 PM
Mary, I could not agree more with your 7:19 post.Posted by: bethany at November 8, 2009 7:22 PM
(Side note) Three different Marys commented in a row - how weird (also, my name is Mary Rose, so it's even weirder that a Mary Rose posted right after me). If I had seen the first Mary, I would have posted under a different name so as not to cause confusion.Posted by: Mary at November 8, 2009 7:27 PM
I'm the poster "Mary" and Mary Rose is not me. Maybe you should identify yourself differently to avoid confusion or not get blamed for something I say!Posted by: Mary at November 8, 2009 7:30 PM
Hi Bethany 7:22PM
Thank you. Quite honestly I just sit back and watch for who ends up under the bus next.Posted by: Mary at November 8, 2009 7:33 PM
Well it happens so often you could almost make a drinking game out of it.Posted by: bethany at November 8, 2009 8:38 PM
There's absolutely no free lunch!
When will this be learned?Posted by: Phil Schembri is HisMan at November 8, 2009 8:47 PM
I don't freaking believe this. PP is going to turn to the benevolent leader Obama for help.
They remind me of the poor souls that froze and starved in Soviet dictator Josef Stalin's Siberian prisons but maintained that if only the benevolent "Uncle Joe" knew what was happening, he would come to their rescue.
Did they really think "Uncle Joe" didn't know about these prisons? You poor dumb schmucks, he's the one who sent you there!!
Does PP really believe all this happened without the knowledge and blessing of Barack Obama? To exactly who's tune do they think Nancy Pelosi dances to? Like those poor souls in Siberia does PP really believe Obama will now come to their rescue?
Hey PP, NARAL, and NOW, give our best to Rev. Wright.Posted by: Mary at November 8, 2009 8:59 PM
Lunch would be free
if you would buy it
for me. :)
Miss ya!!Posted by: carla at November 8, 2009 9:07 PM
Haha hi, all.
To Mary#2, This is a good point. I suppose that my concern is, does it actually benefit Obama to throw the pro-abort groups like PP and NARAL under the bus, or would it be more beneficial to his broad spectrum campaign to keep them under his wing?
That's my question, and overall concern. This is a man whose one strongest cause seems to have been abortion. Is he going to gain more by giving it up or by holding onto it for a while more?
I'm honestly unsure as to the answer. The public seems to be telling him to give it up, but is that enough? ... I don't know...Posted by: MaryRose at November 8, 2009 9:14 PM
Hi Mary Rose,
Obama's strongest cause is power and he will stop at nothing to get it. Sure he supports abortion and the $30 million I understand he got from PP wasn't chump change. If these groups have to be tossed aside for his ultimate goal, which is control of our health care system then so be it. What does he have to lose? Who else will these groups support?
Sure he can put on a song and dance that he wants the Stupak Amendment removed but if its not don't think that will change anything. If the bill gets through the Senate and winds up on his desk, it will be signed.
As I said, this all happened with Obama's knowledge and blessing, Pelosi didn't act on her own. Don't be surprised if Obama tries to come out of this smelling like a rose to these people. If they fall for it they're stupider than I thought they were.
I hope you're right! I know in my heart that we are winning the fight, ultimately, but the sooner we stop the genocide, the better! And this amendment is such a huge victory in the fight for the unborn!
I just keep thinking, yes, this bill has big problems still, but if we could get prenatal care to all those women who don't think they can do it, and if we can prevent them from getting any subsidy for abortion... How many lives can we save? :-D
Yes, I hope that he does throw NARAL, NOW, the NAF, the ACLU, Catholics for Choice, and PP (along with so many others) all under the bus. I really really do.Posted by: MaryRose at November 8, 2009 9:37 PM
MaryRose, PP gets plenty from the bill even if they don't get abortion covered by tax dollars. PP and PBHO know that even if Stupak stands, PP still walks away from the bill well funded and with a steady stream of new customers.
If you ask me, part of PP's raising a stink right now is to solicit "emergency" donations. Just like OFA put out the call today for contributions. Neither group misses the opportunity to profit from a "crisis."
How do they walk away with a steady stream of new customers? I'm a little confused as to how that could be? ... It seems to me like this would decrease their abortions if anything?Posted by: MaryRose at November 8, 2009 9:46 PM
Hola, Carla. Hola, HisMan. :)Posted by: Vannah at November 8, 2009 9:54 PM
What else is new? They need to keep the money coming in order to fund the murdering ... sad!Posted by: Abortion Support at November 8, 2009 10:04 PM
Vannah, dear, did you miss my post in which I told you that poor pregnant women and their (eventual) children are already eligible for state coverage?Posted by: xalisae at November 8, 2009 10:05 PM
Are you referring to their other "family planning" services?Posted by: MaryRose at November 8, 2009 10:08 PM
The bill is loaded with new grants and programs for women's health, family planning, etc. PP is sure to get in on those.
Take Section 317U for example. That's the Healthy Teen Initiative to Prevent Teen Pregnancy. One of its goals is "to improve rates of contraceptive use" (page 1402). If PP can get teens coming in for birth control, then PP will be the first place they turn if they want an abortion.
Then there's Section 2511 "School-Based Health Clinics." Those funds "may not be used to provide abortions" (p 1354) but I see nothing that prevents them from coordinating with offsite PP clinics for abortions. They just have to be creative in helping the teen find a way to pay for it if it's not covered in their insurance.
Those are just a few examples.
poor pregnant women and their (eventual) children are already eligible for state coverage
Posted by: xalisae at November 8, 2009 10:05 PM
Hey x, now those poor women who are pregnant for the first time or have a child under age 2 can look forward to home visits by a "trained nurse". One of the goals is to increase birth intervals. Will prenatal care or increasing birth interval (abortion) be top priority?Posted by: Fed Up at November 8, 2009 10:14 PM
Good point... I guess I still feel like, if more women are getting prenatal coverage, fewer women are likely to turn to abortion.
And honestly, I feel like until you're hooked into the system, it's easy to feel like you won't be approved for health care. In my state, all pregnant women are approved regardless of income. But we thought we'd be too far above the poverty line when we got pregnant with our first. We spent the first few months paying for our prenatal visits out of pocket until someone suggested that we just apply anyway. How surprised were we, to find out how little our income effected our eligibility!
I think a lot of women assume that for whatever reason they won't be eligible, or else just aren't aware enough of what programs are available. Of course, once you're in the system, they keep you informed of all sorts of other help you can get. But until then, it's easy to miss out on how much is out there.
I guess I feel like, if they already have insurance, and they KNOW they have insurance, then they're less likely to feel the desperation that often leads to abortion...
Maybe I'm just too optimistic.
There are many many problems with this bill. I get that. I guess I just feel like, this whole weekend shows that we ARE winning the fight for life....Posted by: MaryRose at November 8, 2009 10:23 PM
I guess I feel like, if they already have insurance, and they KNOW they have insurance, then they're less likely to feel the desperation that often leads to abortion
That's a great point, MaryRose. I guess it all depends on how much pressure to abort is put on them in various new programs. It troubles me that all the grants will be awarded by partisan political appointees (proaborts). All the new program guidelines and policies will be written by the same crowd. Will the "blob of cells" mentality prevail in the counseling provided in the new programs? Will the deception (like covering up statutory rape, etc) that PP is so famous for seep into the new programs?
I am too cynical perhaps. It's hard for me to imagine that a proabort agenda won't manifest itself in these new programs.
I just feel like, this whole weekend shows that we ARE winning the fight for life....
I agree with you that we're winning in mainstream society. It's the halls of Washington where I don't trust that we're winning. But I hope your optimism is on target and that I'm wrong :)
Good night. Have a pleasant evening :)
I tend to also be cynical about D.C.'s attitude, and goals, but I guess I ultimately feel like ... well ... they have to recognize our triumph eventually, right?
I am optimistic at heart, though.
Buena noche.Posted by: MaryRose at November 8, 2009 11:41 PM
Sorry, X, I didn't see it. Which thread is it on?Posted by: Vannah at November 9, 2009 12:05 AM
I've put it on a couple, Vannah. And it's the truth. You shouldn't be celebrating this. Even one of my liberal-leaning independent friends is afraid of this bill, and how blatant our representatives going against the wishes of so many people has become in passing it.Posted by: xalisae at November 9, 2009 12:21 AM
it wasn't necessary, definitely not in this current incarnation, anyway. Poor pregnant women already have access to care.Posted by: xalisae at November 9, 2009 12:44 AM
Here's the real Obama:
Posted by: Phil Schembri is HisMan
at November 9, 2009 12:58 AM
Phil, he's amazing isn't he? Been so long, we almost forgot what a true statesman and leader looks like.
Nice edits, too. Makes it look like he's saying he's a Muslim. Haha. Maybe he's not even a citizen. LOLPosted by: Hal at November 9, 2009 9:16 AM
I'll look into, X. :)
I can't right now because I'm really behind in my homework, but I'll read it when I finish this piece. I'm so glad that, even if this bill sinks, pregnant women get care. I think, for me, it's important to care for everyone and especially veterans/police officers/firemen and women, pregnant women, and children.
Thanks for the posts. :)Posted by: Vannah at November 9, 2009 9:28 AM
Okay...so let's say that Obama is a Muslim. I don't know for sure that he is, but even if he is, it's not against the law for a Muslim to be president. There's no law that says that you have to be any particular religion.Posted by: Vannah at November 9, 2009 9:33 AM
So your definition of a statesman is a liar?
If he is a Muslim he should say he's a Muslim and not claim to be a Christian.
Mr. Obama would have never been elected if he stated that he was a Muslim.....sheeeeeesh!Posted by: Phil Schembri is HisMan at November 9, 2009 10:48 PM