Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

President Obama Has Refused to Stand Up for Women, Plain and Simple

Posted by Melissa McEwan, Shakesville at 9:45 AM on November 10, 2009.


The president's "toe the line" approach is not acceptable this time.
pregnantprisoner

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get PEEK in your
mailbox!

 

I can't put it any more plainly than that. And, no -- it's not hyperbole. I wish it were.

The White House on Monday signaled it would keep its distance in the increasingly vocal debate over whether health insurance reform should include language related to abortion.

When asked whether the president supported Rep. Bart Stupak's (D-Mich.) amendment to prohibit the public insurance plan from covering abortion services, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs dodged the question -- multiple times.

"Well, ask me that right before Christmas and the end of the New Year," Gibbs said during today's press briefing, noting the president still expected to sign a healthcare bill before the year's end.

The press secretary later clarified, "We will work on this and continue to seek consensus and common ground."

FUCK THAT.

There is no fucking "common ground" between people who believe in women's right to autonomy over their own bodies and people who believe that women's bodies are property of the government, or their doctors, or their husbands, or anyone else who gets a vote on whether they have to be pregnant even if they don't want to be.

Either you stand on the side of women's equality and independence or you don't.

It is fucking ludicrous that our DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT refuses to take a stand on this issue.

And this mealy-mouthed bullshit —"I laid out a very simple principle, which is this is a health care bill, not an abortion bill"—is contemptibly craven. I'm absolutely fucking livid that a man who had the audacity to claim to be a champion of women's right to choose would abandon women in this way. Not that I'm surprised. Of course I'm not surprised. I always knew this was bullshit. A lack of surprise makes me no less furious about the depth of his callous disregard for women.

That? Is also not hyperbole: "In case you are wondering about the real life effects of playing cheap politics with pregnancy, read this.

And this. ... All women will be losing coverage for necessary abortions when a wanted pregnancy goes wrong. It only has an exemption for the life of the mother, but not for her her health, nor for severe and fatal fetal abnormalities. Click those links for what that means in real life."Women's real lives—something our president evidently doesn't give a fuck about. Or might. Y'know, depending on which way the wind is blowingin December.

For the record: This isn't me hysterical. Nor overwrought. Nor upset. Nor reactionary. Nor irrational. Nor hypersensitive. Nor any other word one might use to dismiss a feminist in this moment.

This is me angry and brimming with contempt.


UPDATE: Oh, pardon me: He is taking a stand, after all—by asking the Dems do THE ABSOLUTE MINIMUM POSSIBLE for women:

President Obama suggested Monday that he was not comfortable with abortion restrictions inserted into the House version of major health care legislation, and he prodded Congress to revise them.

"There needs to be some more work before we get to the point where we're not changing the status quo" on abortion, Mr. Obama said in an interview with ABC News. "And that's the goal."

On the one hand, Mr. Obama said, "we're not looking to change what is the principle that has been in place for a very long time, which is federal dollars are not used to subsidize abortions."

On the other hand, he said, he wanted to make sure "we're not restricting women's insurance choices," because he had promised that "if you're happy and satisfied with the insurance that you have, it's not going to change."

Which, naturally, means fuck-all for the poor women currently without healthcare for whom government-subsidized health insurance will be the only option, i.e. the very health insurance at the center of the Stupak Amendment.

So the president's Very Principled Stand is to firmly plant his feet in between expanding abortion rights for women who most need it and the status quo. Bravo.

Did I mention I'm angry and brimming with contempt...?

Digg!

Tagged as: abortion, women's rights, stupak, stupak amendment

Melissa McEwan writes and edits the blog Shakespeare's Sister.


Hard-liners Peddle Zombie Lies About Immigrants and Crime
A new report flies in the face of 100 years of data showing immigrants are less likely to commit serious crimes than the native-born.
Post by Walter Ewing. November 22, 2009.
Senate Votes to Move Forward on Health-Care Bill: McCain Accuses Reid of Criminal Scheme
In debate leading to vote, McCain compared Reid to Madoff, Hatch invoked socialism, and Lincoln promised trouble ahead
Post by Adele Stan. November 21, 2009.
ACORN: Another Super Villain with Super Powers
For the trembling patriots of the right.
Post by Steve M.. November 21, 2009.
Advertisement
Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Tools: [Post a new comment] [Login] [Signup] View:
makaainana
Posted by: Makaainana on Nov 10, 2009 10:20 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My voted for President Obama is a huge disappointment. I don't know who else I would have voted for, but he sure doesn't remember any of his campaign promises, the ones I voted for.

To get something from this President you have to be his ENEMY. He accommodates and bends for them and ignores those who voted for him. His philosophy seems to be keep your enemies close and take your friends for granted.

This waffle on abortion is typical. He's done it on Guantanamo, torture, rendition, the wars, domestic spying and now on abortion RIGHTS.

He's a one term mistake. If he had the courage to back up his campaign words he would have been a great President.

Unfortunately he has turned into a politician.

AUWE, AUWE

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Obama Against Stupak Amendment Posted by: Natasha_W
The unpatriot/home Insecurity acts are still in place
Posted by: weathered on Nov 10, 2009 10:31 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
and you're concerned w/nuance?

Dorothy and Toto we're beheaded the night bushcon stole the election from Gore and this isn't Kansas,

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Entirely Predictable
Posted by: laoma on Nov 10, 2009 10:42 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Look, good friends, Obama's actions up to this point have been entirely predictable since he was a candidate. I voted for him also, but am not dismayed at what he has been doing because I expected him to do this. There were only 2 reasons to vote for Obama: one, there was no one else; and two, to break the historic barrier for a person of color in the White House. There should have been no other expectations. Why? The fact that Obama surrounded himself with the same political creatures that created the financial and political messes that we are in now, was evidence enough that CHANGE was only lip service. He's an Ivy League elitist similar to those who manufactured the COLD WAR and perpetuated the fears of communism. He's well-spoken, 'educated' - as if being a Harvard trained lawyer qualifies as educated - and he's charismatic, but actions will always speak louder than words in politics. He's not a sell out or a turncoat, because he never was. The point now, is to organize and get them out of there. MoveOn.org has started to make some movement in this direction.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

So, when are we going to mount a SERIOUS
Posted by: moloko velocet on Nov 10, 2009 10:49 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...Grass-Roots effort (just like we did with BamBam) to institute a viable third party; with a viable, "progressive" third-party candidate to defeat both this one-term disappointing corporate pimp, and the bat-shit crazy, theocratic reich-wing in 2012!!??

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It seems reasonable to me
Posted by: Frank J. Burris on Nov 10, 2009 11:07 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm pro-choice and I think it's reasonable to restrict abortion coverage with a publicly-funded insurance system, except in cases of rape and incest. I don't like my tax dollars going towards capital punishment and killing Arabs, so I understand how pro-lifers wouldn't want their tax dollars going towards abortion costs.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Completely Irrational Posted by: laoma
» RE: Completely Irrational Posted by: Frank J. Burris
» An Elective Procedure Posted by: felipe
Always nice to hear from the children
Posted by: jebpgh on Nov 10, 2009 11:14 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Wow, you mean it doesn't just change overnight? I guess it is too much to hope for that the people who just a year ago understood the depths of our challenge have now somehow forgotten. We are in the deepest global economic crisis since the Great Depression, we have an effective unemployment rate approaching 20%, our president receives more death threats in a week than his predecessors received in four years, he is stuck trying to lead an administration where over 200 of his policy appointees are bottled up in the Senate and where literally none of his judiciary nominees will get past a filibuster. He has to find a way to extricate our troops from two horrible wars and he has to find a way to balance the fact that the Democrats are now a very broad coalition of both liberals and conservatives. He has committed to getting a national health plan in place, complete with problems, which still has a long way to go and may be stopped by opponents in the Senate and all you can do is yell FUCK?

Better still, go get a third party cranked up - good luck with that. You can become the NDP of the United States - no victories but great slogans.

Get off your butts and work for change - lobby your congressmen who supported the anti-choice amendment. Tell them - like I did - that it will be when hell freezes over if they can expect any help from progressives again to work their campaigns. Run progressives in primaries - kill the blue dogs. But running your mouths about President Obama and how he disappointed you? Boohoo. Boohoo.

Grow up.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I think that Americans are finally ready for a 3rd and 4th party
Posted by: desidid on Nov 10, 2009 11:49 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As conservatives orchestrate a move to form the tea party so should liberals move to form a fourth party that is formidable enough that even if we have to move back to the Democratic party we have a mandate and platform that we stand firm on. My only hope is that illegal immigration isn't part of that platform or I will have no political refuge. And if it is part of the platform it will have been throughly discussed within the party so that all sides are heard not just one.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Stupack will be written out of the bill...
Posted by: Tim Brown on Nov 10, 2009 1:06 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...at least that's what the dems who voted for the house bill are counting on. My guess is that the dems wanted to get a bill passed and into reconciliation, so they swallowed the stupack amendment to get it there, with the assurance that this would be pulled once they sit down with senators and reconcile the two bills.

I'm guessing here, but it seems that the white house kept its opinions muted in order to get the house bill passed and they don't want to give republicans anything to further delay the senate bill.

I hold no illusions about the political sentiments of our president. He is not the liberal hero that some wanted, but he is also not the political coward some now imagine either. He is patient. And he also holds the veto. I don't think he'll let it out of committee, but if it does I believe that he'll use that veto to kill the bill rather than abandon his party and his principles.

Politically, he needs a "big win" and he's calculated that he can live with certain things in this first instantiation of health care, as long as it contains some form of public option and does not undermine current abortion law.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Someone explain
Posted by: Don_Algon on Nov 10, 2009 1:08 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obama said that he intended to give healthcare to everyone and that's what he is giving in this current bill. How is abortion a healthcare issue? Should American tax payers pay for someone's abortion and why?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Someone explain Posted by: shermhead
» RE: Someone explain Posted by: cmaciain
» RE: Someone explain Posted by: Frank J. Burris
» RE: Someone explain Posted by: sui_generis
Your comment...
Posted by: shermhead on Nov 10, 2009 1:14 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Is so completely ignorant not only does it not deserve a detailed response, it would be nice of others to even give it a 1 rating.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Good grief.
Posted by: theScale on Nov 10, 2009 1:50 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The author sounds just like those sensationalist right wing pundits like Glen Beck and Rush Limbaugh. Grow up. What the hell do you want? Would you rather have McCain/Palin in office? How screwed up would a woman's right to choose if that had happened?

Obama is trying to stabilize the economy and repair a catastrophic mess left by that bumbling idiot Bush. It's 10 months into his term. Give him s freaking break.

Again, you sound like those idiot right wing pundits who are already saying his presidency is a complete failure less than one year into his first term. Get a clue!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I Love Melissa McEwan
Posted by: citizenjoe on Nov 11, 2009 8:32 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I agree with every word and I love the way she expresses herself, esp:

"And this mealy-mouthed bullshit —"I laid out a very simple principle, which is this is a health care bill, not an abortion bill"—is contemptibly craven. I'm absolutely fucking livid that a man who had the audacity to claim to be a champion of women's right to choose would abandon women in this way. "

Obama is a sleazely lying manipulative extreme rightest masquerading as the peoples man. We should also be aware of Alternet's Adele Stan who is one of Obama's little slippery minions. She should not have a job with Alternet.
Get her, Melissa, you can do it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Obama Against Stupak Amendment
Posted by: Natasha_W on Nov 11, 2009 9:51 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Melissa McEwan your quote:"I laid out a very simple principle, which is this is a health care bill, not an abortion bill. Melissa, Melissa, Melissa, you should have posted President Barack Obama's complete statement. Your incomplete post makes you as bad as FOX News.

President Barack Obama weighed in on the Stupak/Pitts Amendment to the Affordable Health Care for America Act last night in an interview. Among his comments, the President said,"I laid out a very simple principle, which is this is a health care bill, not an abortion bill...And we're not looking to change what is the principle that has been in place for a very long time, which is federal dollars are not used to subsidize abortions...I want to make sure that the provision that emerges meets that test that we are not in some way sneaking in funding for abortions, but, on the other hand, that we're not restricting women's insurance choices."

http://www.msmagazine.com/news/uswirestory.asp?ID=12067

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» The whole quote is even worse! Posted by: citizenjoe
» RE: The whole quote is even worse! Posted by: sui_generis
» occasionally Posted by: citizenjoe
SOON WE'LL SEE THE MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN
Posted by: gtr2 on Nov 11, 2009 10:15 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Most likely is that this amendment won't be allowed to stand. But if the fight is carried to Obama's veto power, we will see the man behind the curtain. The influence of "C Street" and the wacko "Family" in both parties cannot be underestimated. Who is really in control in Washington? The fate of this amendment will be instructive. Either way, time for a new party that really "walks the walk" on war, the environment, healthcare, etc.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I am very glad you ran this story.
Posted by: godsbreath64 on Nov 11, 2009 1:37 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Melissa, I don't think I can add more. But find myself reassured that someone else is calling chump change out on this.

White men can't pump. Right.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]