Pro-Choice Forces Throw Down Gauntlet to Democrats
November 14th, 2009 by Robert Franklin, Esq.I wrote recently about the false and misleading claims of pro-choice advocates like Kate Michelman and Frances Kissling regarding the so-called Stupak Amendment to the House health care bill. The amendment, if enacted, would prohibit federal subsidies for insurance policies that cover abortion services. Michelman, Kissling and others have claimed here that the legislation would prohibit any and all insurance policies from covering abortions, a claim that is simply false (New York Times, 11/12/09).
That all raises the question of why they're making these false claims about a bill that has been widely reported on. In other words, why lie when the truth is so easily available?
Clearly enough, they're trying to demonstrate political influence. The House bill passed with the Stupak amendment firmly attached. Michelman, et al are trying to get pro-choice folks in a hot lather so they'll call congresspeople and senators and deep-six the abortion language in the final bill.
Will it work? My prediction is it won't. In the first place, lying about the effects of a proposed bill isn't the best way of defeating it. When your supporters find out the truth, it's a big let down. But that's not the main reason why I think the abortion restrictions will survive.
Michelman and Kissling warn ominously,
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.
They then throw down the gautlet.
If Democrats do not commit themselves to defeating the amendment, then they will face an uncompromising effort by Democratic women to defeat them, regardless of the cost to the party’s precious majority.
But will they? After all, the Democratic Party long ago made a clear political calculation to move away from abortion politics to court the "values voter." That meant supporting candidates who were willing to separate themselves from no-compromise postions and embrace restrictions on abortion rights. Having helped elect those candidates, it should come as no surprise that initiatives like the Stupak Amendment pass.
And the reason the party supported those soft-on-choice candidates is that it's paid no political price for doing so. That was the calculation, and so far it's proved to be the right one. Last month's poll by the Pew Research Center showed support for abortion rights at a 15-year low of 47%.
That could be an aberration, but beyond abstract notions of support for - or opposition to - abortion, the dynamics of voting in a two-party system militate in favor of Democrats' soft-peddling choice. The simple fact is that, when a pro-chioce voter walks into the voting booth, he/she sees the name of a Democrat who may be less enthusiastic about abortion rights than the voter is. But that voter also sees the name of a Republican who favors repeal of Roe v. Wade altogether.
Given that there are no other parties with viable candidates, the pro-choice voter has little trouble making up his/her mind. Ralph Nader can tell you all about that. In 2000, polls immediately before election day had him garnering between 7% and 9% of the vote. In fact it turned out to be 2.7%. The polls weren't that far off; many people really did support Nader. But when it came time to actually punch that card and help George Bush in the process, most of them just couldn't bring themselves to do it.
My guess is that the same will be true in November 2010. The pro-choice voters that Michelman and Kissling are trying to stir up may well remember the Stupak Amendment when they walk into the voting booth. But then they'll have to decide between the modestly pro-choice Democrat and the rabidly anti-choice Republican.
The Democrats are betting they know what decision those voters will make. So far they've been right. Abortion rights advocates are making a show of their political muscle, but I think the time has passed when they can do this type of heavy lifting.
"));
19 queries. 0.336 seconds.
November 14th, 2009 at 4:43 pm
I've written before that men have no reproductive rights whatsoever, and that women are the sole arbiters of reproduction. This discrimination against men can not be denied...
Also, if you are married you will have noticed that it is the "woman" that controls when and how often the couple has sex. Men truly have no sexual or reproductive rights whatsoever.
November 14th, 2009 at 5:25 pm
Some types of idologies, like fascism, go down with a thud. Others, like communism, go out with a wimper. I suspect feminism will be more like the latter than the former.
It is not that women do not or will not have real power but the heady years of the second wave are giving away to a new reality that they must exist in a world where there are competing interests. The won the battle for equality but they are destined to lose the battle for special privlidges. In the end they will have to climb off the pedistal and into the mosh pit with the rest of us.
November 14th, 2009 at 6:12 pm
More like the former.
There are only three things which can end feminism: The collapse of the civilization containing it, the resurgence of a patriarchal religion within the civilization, or revolt by the men in reaction to the inequalities.
Any of the changes in that list are going to be one heck of a event.
November 14th, 2009 at 6:14 pm
Primary Colors
Keep in mind, Glenn, that the biggest threat to an incumbent is in the
PRIMARY election where they can be kicked out by a challenger in their own party due to pro-choicer swing votes. Then in the general election, they can lose to the republican challenger on a host of other issues.
This is similar to what happened, in reverse, in the last presidential election where McCain was nominated due to massive Democrat and moderate turnout in open primaries and then, when the general election was held, they all swung for Obama and many conservatives stayed home.
November 14th, 2009 at 6:17 pm
NE....said it well.....it just never gets disscussed in the media or anywhere.. ...men have no rights when it comes to reproductive rights...i still remember reading on here what a judge told a man in court...something like when your sperm leaves your body..you loose all rights to it....also a radio personality called sperm little visa credit cards
November 14th, 2009 at 7:29 pm
Mr. Franklin,
You're doing it again ... willfully misinterpreting their words in the NYT op-ed to set up a straw-man argument.
To support your argument, you quoted in your previous blog post this operative sentence from the NYT op-ed:
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.
The operative part of this sentence is the following: "women who participate in the proposed health system".
Let us deconstruct this phrase. The words "proposed health system" clearly refer to the new system of health insurance exchanges that are envisioned and proposed in the underlying health care reform legislation.
That's significant, because, under the proposed legislation, only individual health insurance policies would be available through these proposed insurance exchanges -- as opposed to employer-based group health insurance policies.
That in turn is significant, because the total size of the individual healthy insurance market is much, much smaller than the group health insurance market.
And the "women who participate" phrasing clearly refers to women who may purchase individual health insurance policies through these proposed insurance exchanges -- necessarily envisioning that many women will continue to purchase insurance policies outside of this proposed system of health insurance exchanges.
In other words, the actual text of the Op-Ed sentence indicates that the number of policies affected by the Stupak amendment are (a) individual health insurance policies that are (b) purchased through the envisioned insurance exchanges and (c) are subsidized by the federal government. This is a long, long way from "any and all insurance policies".
So where did the Op-Ed authors assert anything about "any and all insurance policies"? Can you quote the relevant wording from the Op-Ed text?
You cannot, because there is no such wording in the Op-Ed.
The only way you could come to your false interpretation of the Op-Ed is by not reading and accepting their word choices for what they are -- the very same courtesy that you have previously in this forum asked for your own writing -- and by ignoring salient facts about the proposed new system of insurance exchanges and the existing individual insurance market.
Like you, I do disagree with feminists on a number of issues, and I also do agree with them on many others. However, in this matter, it is clear to me that the authors of the Op-Ed are not guilty of making the wild or inflated claims that you accuse them of.
I decline to speculate why you would choose to set up what is, clearly, a straw-man argument based on your erroneous reading of the Op-Ed text.
But I am surprised, and dismayed, that you would do so, and that you would continue to do so even after your error was previously pointed out to you.
November 14th, 2009 at 7:38 pm
Thank you for helping to clarify a complicated issue Knock Knock. Robert Franklin is a prolific poster, many I agree with but others seem to fail due to a rush to judgement and lack of attention which seems likely here.
November 14th, 2009 at 7:49 pm
Other than the fact that men have no reproductive rights, I don't see what this post has to do with men's rights.
November 14th, 2009 at 8:27 pm
Were you refering to my post Marc? I was just stating what someone told me today after I told them that men had no reproductive rights. He said that if I had noticed in marriage that it is the woman who controls when and how often there is sex in the relationship... I found that interesting and added it to my post...
November 14th, 2009 at 9:05 pm
No I'm referring to the whole thing, Robert's post.
November 14th, 2009 at 9:06 pm
On the other hand it isn't my blog, and I've seen plenty of posts about baseball.
November 15th, 2009 at 12:27 am
"In the end they will have to climb off the pedistal and into the mosh pit with the rest of us."
Let me know if you need a DJ!!
November 15th, 2009 at 10:36 am
Knock Knock - Words mean what they mean. When people write op-eds for a paper that's as widely read as the NYT, they tend to choose their words carefully. My guess is that Michelman and Kissling did exactly that. And they chose words that at best mislead and in fact are overtly false. They used the words "proposed health system" which frankly and obviously refer not to part of the system, as you imagine, but to the, well, proposed health system, which of course encompasses many things - Medicare, the VA, employer-based coverage, etc. You choose to believe that the word "system" means only part of the system. That is self-evidently incorrect.
November 15th, 2009 at 12:53 pm
Mr. Franklin,
Is that it? The entire basis for your accusations devolves down on to ... the meaning of a single word, namely "system"?
If so, that's pretty paltry evidence for accusations as serious as the one you're making, and not particularly convincing of the op-ed author's intent, in my view.
I would advise that you give this particular accusation a rest, at least until and unless you have more clear and convincing evidence than a single word in a 600+ word op-ed piece.
November 16th, 2009 at 9:38 am
# NE Says:
November 14th, 2009 at 4:43 pm
Also, if you are married you will have noticed that it is the "woman" that controls when and how often the couple has sex.
---
That's not true. Since both partners have to agree to sex, men have precisely the same option as women: to say no.
Men take back sexual control by having pride and respect for themselves. In other words not begging for sex, and maybe even saying no to sex if it is being done as some kind of manipulation (as in a "good boy" clap on the back for some activity).
The maddest I have ever seen any of my previous girlfriends get is when I started caressing her in a way that she knew I wanted sex. When she said that she wasn't feeling up to it I said "fine" and rolled over and turned out the light.
She went ballistic! Obviously, she just wanted me to plead and whine. It was just an attention-getting ploy to make things all about her.
Men take back sexual control when they put pride and self-respect above sex.
When a (well-adjusted) woman is with a man she respects and who respects himself she will actually initiate sex pretty close to 50%.