Nancy Pelousy who did everything she could to drive Hillary Clinton from the presidential race is endorsing the opponent of Big Pink endorsed, strong Hillary supporter, Martha Coakley in the Senate Massachusetts race. Coakley is a woman and further angered Pelousy when she stated “she would have voted against the landmark health care bill approved by the House over the weekend because it includes a provision restricting federal funding for providers of abortion services.”
Coakley’s male opponent attacked Coakley. Said Representative Capuano (the one Pelousy is endorsing), “I find it interesting and amazing and she would have stood alone among all the pro-choice members of Congress, all the members of the Massachusetts delegation,” Capuano said in an interview. “She claims she wants to honor Ted Kennedy’s legacy on health care. It’s pretty clear that a major portion of this was his bill.”
That exchanged occured on November 9, 2009. By November 10, 2009, Capuano flip-flopped.
U.S. Rep. Michael Capuano said Tuesday he would vote against a final health care bill that banned federal funds from paying for abortions despite backing a House proposal that does so last week. Capuano had ridiculed Senate campaign rival Attorney General Martha Coakley for saying she would not have voted for the House measure, calling it impractical.
The flip-flop by Capuano does not stop Pelousy from trying to kill another winning woman candidate. The excuse by Pelousy defenders is that Capuano is a member of the House of Representatives and therefore a pal. If the health scam bill vote comes after the Senate election and Capuano wins the Senate race (not likely) Pelousy would lose another absolutely needed vote. But Pelousy’s hate of Hillary supporter, and woman, Coakley does not stop this silly endorsement.
Kennedy/Kerry/Patrick could not stop Hillary from winning by double digits the Massachusetts primary and we doubt the Pelousy endorsement will hurt strong woman candidate Coakley. But the endorsement does say a great deal about Pelousy.
* * * * *
As silly and hateful as Pelousy is, NARAL takes the cake. Yesterday, Kate Michelman, the former president of NARAL, took the hypocrite prize. We have written about Michelman before:
The first fake boob: Kate Michelman.
This fake boob pretends to be a feminist leader who cares about issues important to women.
Kate Michelman is a former president of the pro-choice group NARAL (National Abortion Rights Action League). Michelman endorsed John Edwards early on then endorsed Obama when John Edwards quit. NARAL too ignored Hillary Clinton’s long history of championing women’s rights and in a Oprahesque moment endorsed Obama. No self-respecting woman should ever again support NARAL or Michelman. They pretend to care about women’s issues but they are faking it.
Michelman, writing about the Stupak abortion provision in the House health scam bill wrote an article called “Trading Women’s Rights For Political Power.” Isn’t that exactly what Michelman did when she endorsed Edwards, then “present” voting Obama?
A GRIM reality sits behind the joyful press statements from Washington Democrats. To secure passage of health care legislation in the House, the party chose a course that risks the well-being of millions of women for generations to come.
House Democrats voted to expand the current ban on public financing for abortion and to effectively prohibit women who participate in the proposed health system from obtaining private insurance that covers the full range of reproductive health options. Political calculation aside, the House Democrats reinforced the principle that a minority view on the morality of abortion can determine reproductive health policy for American women.
Many House members who support abortion rights decided reluctantly to accept this ban, which is embodied in the Stupak-Pitts amendment. They say the tradeoff was necessary to advance the right to guaranteed health care. They say they will fight another day for a woman’s right to choose.
Perhaps. But they can’t ignore the underlying shift that has taken place in recent years. The Democratic majority has abandoned its platform and subordinated women’s health to short-term political success. In doing so, these so-called friends of women’s rights have arguably done more to undermine reproductive rights than some of abortion’s staunchest foes. That Senate Democrats are poised to allow similar anti-abortion language in their bill simply underscores the degree of the damage that has been done.
Many women — ourselves included — warned the Democratic Party in 2004 that it was a mistake to build a Congressional majority by recruiting and electing candidates opposed to the party’s commitment to legal abortion and to public financing for the procedure.
Michelman had a chance to endorse a fighter for women’s rights but chose instead to endorse woman-hating Barack Obama who voted “present” on abortion rights. Abort Michelman and NARAL.
Only now does the OAF Michelman understand the Frankenstein monster she empowered:
Democrats were told to stop talking about abortion as a moral and legal right and to focus instead on comforting language about reducing the number of abortions. In this regard, President Obama was right on message when he declared in his health care speech to Congress in September that “under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions” — as if this happened to be a good and moral thing. (The tone of his statement made the point even more sharply than his words.)
The party has distanced itself from the abortion-rights movement in other ways. It has taken to calling Democrats who oppose a woman’s right to choose “pro-life” (and not “anti-choice”). The group Democrats for Life of America, whose Congressional members ultimately led the battle to exclude private insurance companies that cover abortions from health insurance exchanges, was invited to hold a press conference in Democratic Party offices. The party has promoted “pro-life progressives” like Sojourners, Catholics United and Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, organizations whose leaders have stated that abortions should be made “more difficult to get.”
This, then, is where we stand as party leaders celebrate passage of the House bill. When it comes to abortion, they seem to think all positions are of equal value so long as the party maintains a majority. But the party will eventually reap what it has sown.
Michelman and NARAL reap what they have sown.
* * * * *
At Crooks and Liars, Susie Madrak still does not understand that it is Obama and his Dimocrats that are responsible. Madrak blames “God-loving conservative politicians” instead of laying the blame on Obama’s crotch.
Madrak does get around to Dimocrats after blaming Republicans who have been honest and forthright, and true to their principles in opposition to abortion rights:
Thanks, Democrats, for standing up for women – again! So far this week, I’ve turned down two fund-raising calls for the state and national Democratic party. At first, I was just angry over the Stupak amendment, but now I know I’m going to have to save that money in case I need a gynecologist.
Madrak quotes from The Nation, those institutional enablers of the Frankenstein monster:
None of the bills emerging from the House and Senate require insurers to cover all the elements of a standard gynecological “well visit,” leaving essential care such as pelvic exams, domestic violence screening, counseling about sexually transmitted diseases, and, perhaps most startlingly, the provision of birth control off the list of basic benefits all insurers must cover. Nor are these services protected from “cost sharing,” which means that, depending on what’s in the bill that emerges from the Senate, and, later, the contents of a final bill, women could wind up having to pay for some of these services out of their own pockets. So far, mammograms and Pap tests are covered in every version of the legislation.
Got that? The Pap test itself will be covered – but not the visit to the gynecologist to get it.
Madrak notes the singular contribution of that great liberal Al Franken (one day we will publish our Al Franken expose, which has been written long ago):
Still, some Democrats involved in the health reform sausage-making process counsel patience. Noting that both Pap smears and mammograms should be covered by a reform bill, Senator Al Franken said, “There’s more we need to do for women’s health, but this is a huge step forward for American women, many of whom don’t get these recommended screenings right now. What we pass may not be perfect, but it will make progress in improving the lives and health of women.”
Oh, Al. What would Frannie say? More to the point, what would your daughter Thomasin say?
Madrak finally gets to the point we have made about the Obama Dimocratic Party and the Democratic Left:
As I said, I’ve already turned down two Democratic fundraising calls this week. I don’t know about you, but I’m just not feeling it these days. Why, if I didn’t know better, I’d swear the Democratic party just doesn’t care about women.
Read Big Pink Susie and get a clue.
* * * * *
Another Obama supporting, Hillary hating big time liberal shows his true colors – E.J. Dionne:
From the outraged comments of the abortion rights movement, you’d think that Rep. Bart Stupak’s amendment to the House version of the health care bill would all but overturn Roe v. Wade.
No, it wouldn’t. [snip]
What happens now? Democratic supporters of abortion rights need to accept that their House majority depends on a large cadre of anti-abortion colleagues. They can denounce that reality, or they can learn to live with it. [snip]
The truth is that even with the Stupak restrictions, health care reform would leave millions of Americans far better off than they are now — including millions of women. This skirmish over abortion cannot be allowed to destroy the opportunity to extend coverage to 35 million Americans. Killing health care reform would be bad for choice, and very bad for the right to life.
“Get to the back of the bus” is what Dionne is actually saying, “I know better than you women.”
* * * * *
We noticed more and more the use of “so-called” attached to “progressives”. Might we suggest our own apt phrase – PINOs (Progressives In Name Only). In an article which states what we have been saying since the presidential primaries Kate Harding writes “Face it: The Democratic Party is not for women.”
Since the healthcare reform bill passed the House with the Stupak-Pitts amendment intact on Saturday night, feminists have been up in arms about the latest assault on access to abortion, and so-called progressive men have been telling us to calm down and look at the big picture. In other words: same old, same old. In an e-mail, our own Rebecca Traister summed up the ongoing conflict between those who prioritize women’s rights and those who see them as a bargaining chip to be traded away as necessary:
This is the argument made over and over again: If the repro rights activists would just stop agitating about the pro-life Dems, we could get majorities, and things would improve for women and men everywhere. I get that argument. Most days, I believe it. And then I wake up to a Democratic majority that will only pass progressive healthcare legislation if it includes antiabortion provisions.
These trade-offs build on each other. Stupak did not happen in a vacuum. It’s part of a larger cycle. Is this the moment to stand up and say “no”? How could I say it is, especially when I am all too aware that if pro-choice Democrats were to revolt over this issue, they would be vilified and further alienated from a party that already allows the erosion of reproductive rights? We choose to play nice, our party trades on our freedoms. We choose to object, our party resents and blames us for failure. It’s not exactly a bright set of options for anyone who has gotten into this quandary simply because they fervently believe that the rights of half the population to control its own reproduction are fundamental to full and equal participation in our democracy.
Harding to her credit and credibility is/was a Hillary supporter. Those that supported Obama should get lost and shut up.
The problem is, there is never a good time to stand up and say “no,” because the fear is always that we’ll lose whatever ground we’ve gained. As I wrote recently (shortly before Dede Scozzafava dropped out of the NY-23 race), “That’s what’s really at the heart of this dust-up: Whether it’s more important to stand for something and lose or compromise and win — when ‘winning’ means installing someone who [as Kos put it] ‘would strengthen the part of the Democratic caucus that is actually the problem, rather than the solution.'” In that case, the candidate with a 100 percent pro-choice voting record dropped out, and the Democrat with a much weaker record of supporting reproductive rights won. I’m supposed to see this as a victory, because a Democrat now holds the seat — just as I’m supposed to see it as a victory that the healthcare reform bill passed the house, and never mind that little part that restricts access to abortion in unprecedented ways.
If feminists are upset that such “victories” keep coming at the expense of reproductive rights, well, that’s because we just don’t understand politics beyond our silly single issue! We need to listen to the reasonable, objective pragmatists who don’t get all hysterical and fluttery over negotiable details like healthcare for half the population. Jill at Feministe, Ann at Feministing, and Pilgrim Soul at The Pursuit of Harpyness, among others, all reported in their respective Stupak rants that they’ve been harangued by men about how this isn’t such a big deal, it won’t screw women over any differently than the Hyde Amendment has been screwing us over since 1976, it will be stripped out before the final bill anyway, and even if it’s not, the stakes are just too high to risk taking a stand for women’s rights! Don’t you want poor people to have insurance, you selfish bitches? Such men assume that somehow, we just don’t get it, because if we did, we’d shut our big mouths already. As Jill put it on Sunday, “What’s really chapping my hide today — almost as much as the amendment itself — is the number of ‘progressive’ dudes who have lectured me in the past 24 hours on How This All Works, and the number of progressive dudes who have just stayed silent.“
Harding must start to understand that quoting the head Kook, Kos, does her no credit. It was Kooks at DailyKooks that helped unleash the Frankenstein monster called Barack Obama. She does understand why we thought that the conservative Republicans who acted to oppose an essentially liberal Republican in the New York 23rd district acted wisely (that’s why we opposed Obama post nomination and continue to oppose the flim-flam man from Chicago).
Really, when those are the options, there’s only one logical conclusion: This is not our party. We’ve known that for too long, and yet the Democrats have known too well that they could bank on our money and our votes as long as the GOP remained even more not our party. But something’s changed. Sixty-four Democrats voted to block women’s access to legal medical services. That may not be quite as repulsive as some Republican shenanigans, but the difference is only one of degree. If the point of women voting for “moderate” Democrats is to avoid a majority that’s actively hostile to women, then those who voted for the Stupak-Pitts amendment just proved that there’s no point at all. And progressive women have finally had enough. We are ready to go there. Are Democrats ready to try getting elected without us?
The very people who attacked Hillary are the ones that continue to defend assaults on women. Next week Sarah Palin will be the target. But the targets will always be women because the PINOs and women like Nancy Pelousy and the Big Blog Boys have a deeply embedded misogyny that they do not even see.
We’ll continue to smash their faces into their misogyny and women hating. Every day more and more Democrats begin to see the truth.
Hillary-hate was and is woman-hate.