I wish everyone would watch this and read this. It is unthinkable that women will be denied the ability to get an abortion, and even more unthinkable that a Democratic president will sign the bill if it passes, but it sure looks like it’s about to happen. Bipartisanship!

8 thoughts on “HR3

  1. I understand the seriousness of the situation, but in a way, the “choice” people have gotten themselves in this corner. For years it has been clear that this was the most important thing to them, and it has been the only thing they were really willing to organize and fight for. Going back all the way to Clinton time, they did not stand up for any progressive cause – abolishing AFDC, repealing Glass-Steagal, NAFTA, none of it. Now they are silent on the huge issues like the wars and Social Security.

    The other side has torn down the structure of the New Deal and the Great Society a piece of the time, and the pro-choice movement has been AWOL on every struggle. They allowed this situation to develop until the other side has grown so powerful that they can do whatever they want, and there is nobody left with the guts to stand up on the progressive side.

  2. I’d say the “choice people: got themselves into this corner by not standing up to the progressives who would stand up for any other cause but women’s autonomy.

    If women had said to the men who said “choice” was a second class issue “OK, bud, no sex for you till you’re either punished for it too or you stand next to me on this every time” there would never have even been the Hyde amendment, much less all the clawback of women’s rights over their own bodies since then.

  3. Right on, Susie.

    Pragmatic realist: you’re full of it. The reason women’s rights disappear is because nobody, including I suspect you, stands up for them. Not because women don’t stand up for everything else. Hell, that’s a big part of the problem. Women do practically nothing but support everyone else, and then they’re out of time, money, and energy when it comes to themselves.

    And while I’m being grumpy, I’ll just add that trading sex for anything is pretty damn Old School. You have sex because you want sex. You demand respect for your rights because you’re a human being. Neither one is for sale.

  4. Not trading sex. Refusing to participate in a one-down relationship with someone who supposedly “loves” you, but doesn’t mind seeing only you punished for what you both do.

    If refusing this kind of unequal relationship is “trading sex”, what are women who put up with it doing?

  5. Not only “bipartisanship” but the absolute refusal of any of the Dems calling attention to this to say they’ll oppose Obama if he signs the bill. Quoting from the link to Mike Stark at DK:

    With that in mind, I decided to ask the people in the room if they were willing to withhold their support from the President if he signed the bill if it reached his desk. Nadler dodged the question, saying it was premature. I pointed out that there was a reason he called the press conference: that he didn’t wan’t to see this bill become law. He stayed silent on the President.

    Soon afterward, the press conference ended. I approached Nancy Keenan, President of National NARAL. I asked her if this bill was important enough for NARAL to tell Obama they’d sit out the election if Obama signed it. She said she has confidence in the President and his pro-choice commitment. I pointed out Stupak and the Executive Order the President issued after the health care bill passed. Keenan continued to defend the President.

    It was odd for me to watch several Representatives criticize Republicans in extraordinary terms and demonstrate that they had a full understanding of exactly how pernicious and dangerous HR3 is to women, but then refuse to draw a line in the sand where it matters most: at the President’s desk.

    It may be “odd” to Stark, but it’s not odd to those of us that Obama’s rump Ds threw under the bus; we expect it. Both legacy parties are equally pernicious because they form a single entity. In fact, the only real differences between the two are cultural: The Rs are refreshingly honest about their desires to kill the weak and punish women; the Ds wring their hands and moan “Ain’t it awful” and write obfuscatory legislation but ultimately, their policy goals are the same, whether on forced pregnancy, war, the banksters, executive power, health care, or permanently higher disemployment.

  6. I don’t think “their goals are the same.” I think their PRIMARY goals are the same. Subtle but useful difference. The rest, we can chalk up to amorality and sheer cowardice.

Comments are closed.