Under the bus: The Planned Parenthood concession Obama and Reid did make
UPDATE 4/12, 8:52a: It has also occurred to me that this concession by Obama and the Democrats demonstrates their bond with Planned Parenthood is not impermeable. I’m sure PP was not at all happy about this. But apparently Obama/Democrats felt forced to give Republicans a bone on PP.
4/11, 1:20p: While pro-lifers lament Planned Parenthood wasn’t defunded in the final 2011 budget, Harry Reid and Barack Obama threw 7 Senate Democrats under the bus in the process.
Reid and Obama agreed to let the Senate have an up or down vote on defunding PP. We already know such a vote will fail, since 41 Democrats signed a letter on April 4 saying they’d oppose such a measure, making it bullet-proof.
But House Majority Leader John Boehner’s strategy is to force so-called Democrat moderates to go on the record, potentially getting ammo for the 2012 elections.
“Clearly a handful of ‘pro-life’ Democrats’ are in the toughest spot on the vote,” LifeNews.com’s Steve Ertelt wrote me. “ Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Joe Manchin of West Virginia, and Bob Casey of Pennsylvania all face tough re-election matchups in 2012, and if any of the 3 cave in to PP and vote against yanking its taxpayer funding will face an even more intense opposition from pro-life voters.”
Such a vote would also make a primary challenger that much more likely. Of note is none of those 3 senators signed the aforementioned letter.
Ertelt continued, “Other Democrats who are pro-abortion but are looking at very competitive Senate races are also going to be watched very closely by pro-life groups. Claire McCaskill of Missouri, Bill Nelson of Florida, Jon Tester of Montana, and Sherrod Brown of Ohio are 4 who will see more motivated pro-life voters working to re-elect them if they vote for funding this massive abortion business.”
Of note is all 4 of those senators signed the aforementioned letter. I’m sure they never expected they’d have to put their votes where their mouths were.
Actually, Obama and Reid also threw PP under the bus by agreeing to Boehner’s demand. A vote in the Senate to defund PP keeps it in the news, further tarnishing its brand.
Ertelt called Boehner’s strategy “brilliant,” explaining it will give pro-lifers fodder for the 2012 elections. “It sets up the pro-life movement to know where these and other senators stand for use in defeating them in the 2012 elections,” wrote Ertelt. “It gives us the ability to make the changes we need to capture the Senate and vote next time around to defund PP. Without this vote, it would have been more difficult to know where we stand and where we need to go to make this happen.”
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
“Brilliant” in the pro-life sense.
Fiscally, not so much.
Hi Jill,
Did you hear that Stupak is now lobbying for a group? And what do you know, one of their clients is PP of Maryland. So much for his pro-life position.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/weigel/archive/2011/04/11/bart-stupak-cashes-in.aspx
I 100% agree with this assessment.
It is not enough to just defund PP.
Congressional investigations are warranted and then indictements and prosecutions for those who ‘conspired’ to knowingly violate federal law.
There maybe a few republicans who get busted but the vast majority of the culprits will be democRATs.
The ‘dead babies r us’ mob are corrupt to the core. If this can of worms is ever exposed to the light of day it will keep a legion of federal prosecutors busy for a decade.
I think you’ll find that the majority of voters won’t feel defunding PP to be an important issue and your railing against it will actually increase PP’s support.
A lot of commentary from the right has concluded that Boehner caved. We won’t know until we see what his next move is. I’m not holding my breath on this, but I have seen skilled negotiators snooker their counterparts who are left grumbling and protesting but unable to do anything about it. Perhaps in the coming months we will see a checkmate move from Boehner on the subjects near and dear to us, that he hasn’t given up on things like PP defunding and Obamacare and will spring it on Reid and Obama when they are most vulnerable.
bro ken is right in that defunding PP isn’t enough. Heads should roll and some PP officials would look just right when donned in prison stripes.
Reality:
Wishful thinking. In the upcoming months we will exposing PP’s criminal activities and people will start getting the message. Overcoming a pro PP main stream media does take some time, but we are determined.
Reality 5:25PM
Then there will be no need for taxpayer funding, right?
A lot of commentary from the right has concluded that Boehner caved. We won’t know until we see what his next move is.
As Warren Buffett said, “If you’ve been in the game 30 minutes and don’t know who the sucker is, you’re the sucker.”
Yeah, good luck with that Jerry. To most people it’ll be a case of ‘meh, typical government funded organisation, always a few dodgy characters who’ll get cleaned out’.
Not quite Mary, nice try though :-) There is a need for funding because of all the good work PP do. Defunding them is just not necessary for any reason in the grand scheme of things. Especially when the rich continue to get tax cuts.
If the economy stinks in 2012, then Obama loses.
If the economy is doing better in 2012, then Obama wins.
Maybe there are some polls I haven’t seen, but abortion hasn’t been a top issue in Presidential elections for quite some time, and it is hard to imagine that it will be in 2012.
Maybe it makes a small impact in one of the races above…again, as the quote goes, “it’s the economy stupid!”
If the economy stinks in 2012, then Obama loses.
If the economy is doing better in 2012, then Obama wins.
With statistical precision.
Maybe there are some polls I haven’t seen, but abortion hasn’t been a top issue in Presidential elections for quite some time, and it is hard to imagine that it will be in 2012.
This is an interesting observation. I’ve personally verified that the Koch Foundation, for example, has not provided any funding to so-called conservative social issues groups, such as pro-life. All of their money goes towards economic issues, taxes and policy.
My conclusion is that, although the Republican “center” is willing to allow pro-life groups to carry water for them, they will not allow pro-life to force the center any farther to the right on what they see as religious/ideological issues.
Reality,
I’ve noticed its mainly celebrities and rich liberals who support PP. What’s a few million dollars to them? Certainly they will be more than happy to put their money where their mouths are and cough up donations to keep PP open. Certainly supporters across the country, such as yourself, will be happy to make monthly donations.
Any number of charities survive and function very efficiently on donations only. Certainly PP, with its multimillionaire supporters should have no problem.
Mary
…and the rich could certainly have telethons to support each other if taxes are raised on them.
Lefties see Planned Parenthood as abortion and a host of other services
Righties see Planned Parenthood as abortion
The debate will never be honest until the two sides can at least figure out what they are arguing over.
“Maybe there are some polls I haven’t seen, but abortion hasn’t been a top issue in Presidential elections for quite some time, and it is hard to imagine that it will be in 2012.”
Hmmm. then I wonder why Obama worked so hard (Kmeic, etc.) to look like a moderate on abortion?? Why did he lie and say he didn’t vote against the Born-Alive Protection Act?
The position of the Democratic Party: abortion any time, any reason and preferably taxpayer-funded is EXTREME and is not supported by the majority of Americans.
Denise –
If you can find a poll that shows that it is a major issue come election time, I’d be happy to see it. I’m not saying I’m going to be right on this – I’m just saying that it seems to me that when it comes down to it, abortion isn’t going to be much of a factor given the key issues in the last several elections.
Furthermore, the strong predictor of an election is the economy, plain and simple
EGV,
The rich have telethons? Your point is what EGV?
That graphic of the bus is cool! Seriously
Mary –
You said that the Dems could just have rich people pay for planned parenthood. I’m saying the GOP could just have rich people pay each other.
My point is, both parties have a few things that are pretty much non-negotiable. I’d argue right now that the right would fight more over tax increases on the rich than they would on abortion. I’d argue that Planned Parenthood is one of those things that the Dems have drawn the line in the sand over (as documented recently on this site). Just thinking that either party is going to drop the issue…isn’t going to happen.
I’d argue right now that the right would fight more over tax increases on the rich than they would on abortion.
Word.
I’d argue that Planned Parenthood is one of those things that the Dems have drawn the line in the sand over (as documented recently on this site).
Yes.
On Friday, April 8, Fox News commentator Chris Wallace said, referring to Planned Parenthood, “So, you’re going to shut down the government over a policy that’s been in place for over 40 years?”
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201104080034
Clearly, the Republican leadership didn’t want that fight but the Democrats, according to Wallace, were prepared Friday to bring it.
Ex-RINO, You have been disappointed so many times by the Republican party not making any headway in the pro-life cause that it has made you gun shy. I feel the same frustration level as you but have not abandoned their platform. I do see the pendulum swinging pro-life though. I admit that in the past they haven’t shown the gonchos want to fight hard enough for what is right. But now is a time in our history when all we need is for them not to join the left in blocking us.
I’d argue that Planned Parenthood is one of those things that the Dems have drawn the line in the sand over (as documented recently on this site).
Yes.
And it will be to their demise
And it will be to their demise
I. don’t. care.
“Lefties see Planned Parenthood as abortion and a host of other services
Righties see Planned Parenthood as abortion
The debate will never be honest until the two sides can at least figure out what they are arguing over.”
Ex-GOP – I see PP as abortion and a host of other services that can be and are provided at low cost by a host of other health centers (which also provide them in a more comprehensive setting). The only distinguishing factor is abortion. That’s what we’re arguing over. Liberals have tried to make this about pap smears and perhaps most laughably, mammograms. It’s funny – I don’t see any controversy surrounding community health clinics or cancer screening programs. I think everyone knows what they’re arguing over but one side wants to distract by saying the other wants to cut women off from a service not even provided by the agency in question.
And it will be to their demise
I. don’t. care.
That is your perogative
“I’d argue that Planned Parenthood is one of those things that the Dems have drawn the line in the sand over (as documented recently on this site).”
Just like the democRATs drew the line in the sand over slavery.
The democRATs started a civil war to preserve slavery, a ‘policy that had been in effect for over 100 years’.
This same democRAT party drew a line in the sand when it came to civil rights. It was not a republican sherrif who turned his attack dogs loose on peaceful civil rights marchers.
I doubt that a majority or even a plurality of Americans were opposed to slavery when the civil war commenced. Certainly a majority were not willing to go to war to end it and even fewer were willing to die.
The abolitionist labored for more than 100 years to end slavery and most of these same people labored to recongnize the equality of women and extend to them the right to vote. Most of these people were what would today be characaterized by the loons on the left as ‘t-baggers, biblethumbers, terrorists.’
Most elections are decided by less than 5% of the votes cast.
That is why b o invested so heavily in seducing naive and weak minded religious people. He had to embezzle that 5% a half percentage point at a time from short sighted and idealistic nincompoops.
That ‘sledding’ will be quite a bit tougher the next time around. Some of those gullible citizens have sobered up and experienced the pain of b o’s hope and change.
Thinking that abortion is not going to be at the forefront of the next election is the same media spin the pro aborts love to as some sort of rally cry. Let’s see, what issue held up and almost caused Obamacare not to pass (before being sold out and rammed through) well that would be abortion. What issue almost had the government shut down? Abortion! Both times abortion was never mentioned during the process, but it was always one of the top issues. Prolifers knew that, prochoice thought it could act as if it did not have a chance. Yet in the end, the news could no longer skirt the issue and Abortion ended up being the sticking point. So go ahead and try to tell yourselves or others that abortion will not have much of an impact in the next election, the culture of life knows better!
Ex:
“If the economy stinks in 2012, then Obama loses.
If the economy is doing better in 2012, then Obama wins.”
Did you see Obama whining the other day about not being anonymous etc.? I wonder if he has the heart to really go all out this next time around.
Of course, in addition to the economy another factor emerges: spin. If things are not a flaming disaster, economically speaking, the spinmeisters on Team Obama (ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, New York Times etc) will be going to bat for their guy big time–making it look like we are on the “path to recovery/Obama ‘saved’ us from economic collapse” and so on.
mp:
A lot of commentary from the right has concluded that Boehner caved. We won’t know until we see what his next move is.
As Warren Buffett said, “If you’ve been in the game 30 minutes and don’t know who the sucker is, you’re the sucker.”
What do you mean? Are you certain all of the bargaining chips have been played (from both sides)?
Anyone who has been in any kind of protracted negotiations that carry over for months knows that it ain’t over till its over. I think we, the public, won’t know the score for some time yet. It could be re Buffet the players know who the sucker is already but we don’t.
As long as the ostriches keep crying ‘no one cares about abortion’ we will continue to gain ground and fence sitters will continue to wake up to what’s really going on in the abortion industry. Abortion fans, just keep hitting the snooze alarm.
Shh…sleep little sheeple, sleep…
“Jill Stanek also praised Boehner’s maneuvering, saying he was able to get Democrats on record and set up election battles to defeat pro-abortion senators.”
I hate to tell you Jill, but Boehner is not a friend, he is an enemy of the movement. Boehner should have “died on the hill” on the issue of defunding of PP, just like Reid said that he would do for the other side. Even if the Senate votes to defund PP (very unlikely), do you think the President will sign the bill into law?
Jill, you need to call out Boehner for the coward that he is. Insurrecta Nex held a sit-in at his office back in February (6 arrests) because we knew that he would betray the babies. Now he has betrayed the babies, and the pro-life movement is still “praising” him? Something is terribly wrong.
Jerry – quite frankly, I don’t see how anybody would WANT to be President!
We’ll see what happens…unfortunately, elections these days are more of a marketing campaign than an exchange of ideas. Whoever has a message that sticks and a candidate that is appealing will probably win.
Ex-GOP: If the economy stinks in 2012, then Obama loses.
If the economy is doing better in 2012, then Obama wins.
Yes, that’s pretty much the deal. You overlay a chart of the stock market with Presidential popularity and you see a vast amount of positive correlation.
However, it’s harder to “game the system” or “muscle the markets” than it was in past election cycles. Used to be, the rule was, “take your pain early,” i.e. have interest rates high in the first couple years, so as to bring down inflation, and then ease up and crank the money supply as election time neared. But now, IMO anyway, there are competing concerns and less room to maneuver with monetary policy.
If I was Obama, I’d do everything in my power to cut energy costs, and whether it’s by demonstrable effect of gov’t action or by the usual BS of gov’t statistics, lessen the unemployment rate.
Presidential elections are modeled with a high degree of precision using economic variables.
http://www.macroadvisers.com/content/electionwatch102008b.pdf