A despicable, ideological move by Senate Democrats…because it makes sense, right?
From OneNewsNow:
Senate Democrats have attached a provision to the Iraq supplemental bill that would allow university healthcare centers and some Planned Parenthood facilities to receive a discount on abortion drugs such as RU-486. Presidential hopeful Senator Barack Obama (D-Illinois) introduced a similar stand-alone bill (S. 2347) in November “to restore and protect access to discount drug prices for university-based and safety-net clinics.”
From CitizenLink:
Thanks to a Democrat maneuver, Planned Parenthood will receive a discount from drug manufacturers in a bill designed to fund our troops.
On Wednesday, the U.S. Senate voted on an amendment to the War Supplemental Appropriations Bill. Democrats, led by Sen. Barack Obama, had inserted language to help Planned Parenthood into the domestic-spending portion of this troop-funding bill. The Senate passed the amendment 75-22.
The provision allows for groups like Planned Parenthood and university health centers to receive discounted prices from drug manufacturers for drugs like the morning-after pill, which may cause an early abortion.
“Planned Parenthood should not be receiving any federal assistance, and certainly not in a bill that’s designed to help our troops,” said Ashley Horne, federal policy analyst for Focus on the Family Action.
Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider, received $330 million in taxpayer money last year.
Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider, received $330 million in taxpayer money last year.
Ugh. A good reason to stop paying taxes.
Let’s hope Bush stays true to his promise from the State of the Union at the beginning of this year of not signing any bill that has frivolous ride-ons attached to it.
Take a look at this link, it seems that Antiwar groups wanted Democrates to defeat this bill.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/23/AR2007052301477.html
[...] Policraticus has the details. PermaLink | | Trackback/Pingback (0) [...]
Ugh. A good reason to stop paying taxes.
But what about universal health care?
You are missing the key point– it is attached to a war bill. Funny how some people object to including one specific culture of death element in a larger culture of death bill, isn’t it?
MM-
Yeah, we get it. Dems opposing killing terrorists, but are delighted beyond belief to snuff out unborn children.
You apparently fail to recognize that regardless of whether it was wise to invade Iraq in the first place, the failure to fund the war bill: (1) would require the premature withdrawal of our troops; and (2) that early withdrawal would almost certainly lead to civil war and genocide in Iraq.
In short, you’re mixes apples and oranges here (as usual).
MM,
I agree with you that the Planned Parenthood bit is situated in a bill that aids bloodshed. However, I find it despicable that it was slipped in there by the Democrats and that many Republicans still voted in favor of the overall bill.
“I find it despicable that it was slipped in there by the Democrats and that many Republicans still voted in favor of the overall bill.”
Amen to that. If we can get a list of the 75, we should call them out, Dem and Republican alike.
But what about universal health care?
I would be HAPPY to pay taxes for universal health care and improved mass transportation. However, I do HATE paying taxes when we it is used to kill other human beings (i.e. Planned Parenthood and war spending). I oppose paying taxes, especially when 21% of the budget goes to defense spending and killing others abroad.
Katerina you should only pay 79% of your taxes with a note requesting the 21% used on war back on moral principle.
Grouped By Vote Position
YEAs —75
Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Bond (R-MO)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Coleman (R-MN)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dole (R-NC)
Domenici (R-NM)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Hagel (R-NE)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Inouye (D-HI)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Martinez (R-FL)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Obama (D-IL)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Stevens (R-AK)
Sununu (R-NH)
Tester (D-MT)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Warner (R-VA)
Webb (D-VA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wicker (R-MS)
Wyden (D-OR)
NAYs —22
Alexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Bennett (R-UT)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Cochran (R-MS)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
DeMint (R-SC)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hatch (R-UT)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lugar (R-IN)
McConnell (R-KY)
Sessions (R-AL)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Not Voting – 3
Coburn (R-OK)
Kennedy (D-MA)
McCain (R-AZ)
I am calling my senators right now to let them have it.
Adding unrelated provisions to bills really irks me. This one in particular.
Yeah I just emailed one of mine.
“You are missing the key point– it is attached to a war bill. ”
One that Senator Obama voted for, I would note (that warmonger!)
You know what, Feddie and Blackadder, I’m going to enjoy watching the egg on your faces, and on the faces of all the other right-wing nut-jobs who are howling for persistence in the “surge” and John McCain’s 100-year occupation of Iraq when a “religiously conservative” (and “moderate” Muslim) ayatollah issues his fatwa and FORCES American troops out of Iraq:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080522/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_sistani_s_edicts
Then I guess we’ll have to listen to all your caterwauling about “ungrateful Shiahs” who “support the terrorists”–when the chief “terrorists” in that geo-political morass are the interloping invaders, the occupiers who are preventing the “civil war” that you seem to think the Iraqis are longing for US to prevent (when they could damned well do it themselves, if they really WANTED to)!
Digby-
So, what would you do? You’re the president on January 23, 2009. What do you do about Iraq?
Use the THREAT of a precipitous American withdrawal in Iraq to FORCE Iran to negotiate with us on the basis of their beginning to seriously undertake their responsiblities for regional stability–including the avoidance of full-scale “civil war” in Iraq–which they have every reason not to want. And then begin a carefully-staged but full withdrawal.
Also, forget about the false “threat” of Iran’s nuclear armaments. That threat can be easily “contained”–particularly because we’d be dealing, to some limited (but growing) degree with an Iranian populace that is far more pro-American than the Soviet populace was.
The new Democratic President should arrange, through diplomatic intermediaries–as Nixon did, with Communist China–to go to Teheran to “normalize” America’s relationship with Iran during his second term. (Never forget that the Iranians attempted demarche with the Americans, in terms of help with Afghanistan, in the wake of 9/11 and were rebuffed by the diplomatically inept Dubya regime.)
FORCE the Israeli government into some sort of a “mutual security” pact with the United States, with the quid pro quo that, in return for our guaranteeing their security, that they will return to pre-1967 borders, allow the West to recreate a Palestinian state with full autonomy in Gaza and the West Bank, but, at the same time, inform the Palestinians that, in return for massive development aid and realization of their national aspirations, if they turn the renescent Palestinian State into a stalking horse for the destruction of the State of Israel, they will be retaliated against on such a scale as will wipe them off the face of the earth forever, as a people.
Additionally, I’d inform the monsters of depravity who govern Saudi Arabia that, as we try to wean ourselves off of their bloody oil, if they attempt to gouge with oil prices, we will slowly but surely force them to fend for themselves against the jihadis who are nipping at their heels–no more weapons, no more help with intelligence against their Fundamentalist foes, etc.
You are missing the key point– it is attached to a war bill. Funny how some people object to including one specific culture of death element in a larger culture of death bill, isn’t it?
Yes.
Somebody on some other thread mentioned Obama directly allowing abortions on military bases abroad to prove his proximity to abortion. My answer to that is straightforward: shut down these accursed military bases, and remove the US armed forces from these places. It then becomes no longer an issue.
Sadly, this thread exposes yet again the blinkered vision of the “support our troops unreservedly but oppose abortion vigorously” crowd.
Sadly, this thread exposes yet again the blinkered vision of the “support our troops unreservedly but oppose abortion vigorously” crowd.
MM, Feddie’s own post at his blog, mirroring this one, reveals precisely that in the post’s title:
Dems/Obama seek to “support our troops” by funding Murder, Inc.
Of course it does not occur to Fed that since the Iraq War is not justified, they are participating in murder, murder that is just as intrinsically evil as abortion.
I’ve been wanting to hear a means of withdrawal from Iraq for a while for those who oppose staying in Iraq, because it seems that leaving at this point would result in large scale fatalities. Assuming that is an accurate assesment (I know it’s a big assumption I can’t back up but I need to see it disproved first) it seems that we would have to stay until some semblance of stability occurs. Digbydolben’s is the first suggestion I’ve seen about it. However, I think the point of the post-that the rider is truly despicable-remains, and I’m disgusted that my senator voted for it.
Morning’s Minion: I don’t think that it’s legitimate to equate supporting funding the troops in Iraq, which appears to be a necessity to prevent anarchy and future bloodshed, with the chosen destruction of innocent human beings in abortion.
Mr. Ragekj:
What would you have said had the British Empire forcefully intervened in OUR civil war “to prevent anarchy and future bloodshed”? Can’t you understand that ours is a racist and patronizing attitude when we dictate a people’s political fate to them? The IRAQI PEOPLE do NOT WANT US IN THEIR COUNTRY–no matter what are the consequences to them in terms of “anarchy and future bloodshed.” It is only a handful of American cronies and war profiteers who are propping up the Malaki government and us: the great majority of Iraqi people, in poll after poll, have said they want us OUT NOW.
PLEASE go up and read the article I linked to in my comment above: the LEADER of the Shiah faith in Iraq is now quietly issuing fatwas telling his devotees that it is canonically legal to slaughter American soldiers, in order to drive America from the “sacred soil” of Iraq!
Sometimes I think you “neo-conservatives” and Republicans are the most incorrigibly ignorant and blindly chauvinist people on the face of the earth!
The policies you urge–blind to all the lessons of modern post-colonial history–are leading a great nation into a military-political catastrophe from which she may never recover. With the sinking dollar, the over-extended military forces, the enormous loss of credibility and respect, the undermining of republican democracy by the erosion of separation of powers and civil liberties, it is no longer Iraq’s survival which is in question, but America’s!
Apparently all the resident Obama lovers missed the part about Obama introducing a standalone bill trying to accomplish exactly the same thing.
Considering how few bills he’s actually authored, it’s interesting to note what he chooses to spend his energy on.
I guess I’m just forgetting that he’s the supposed “catholic” candidate!
I don’t think that it’s legitimate to equate supporting funding the troops in Iraq, which appears to be a necessity to prevent anarchy and future bloodshed, with the chosen destruction of innocent human beings in abortion.
If the Iraq War is indeed an unjust war, which you must at least hold out as a legitimate possibility because the Vatican opposed the war from the beginning, then you must also admit that equating the war with abortion is also legitimate. Unjust killing is unjust killing.
I think that depends, Michael. It is not at all clear that because the war was unjust to initiate, therefore all actions by the military now are rendered unjust a priori and all funding in support of troops is equivalent to the funding in direct support of abortion.
The difference has been the same all along: unjust killing is unjust killing, but in the case of abortion no deliberation is needed to render the judgment that it is unjust; in the case of the occupation of Iraq and related military activity, it is not nearly as straightforward to render the judgment of unjust killing, and the issue of funding becomes even more complex. While I tend to agree that funding the war perpetuates an unjust campaign, any reasonable person can understand the complexity involved when funding also terminates in measures to protect and nourish soldiers. To skip over these complexities to a neat equation is a disservice.
Pax Christi,
The difference has been the same all along: unjust killing is unjust killing, but in the case of abortion no deliberation is needed to render the judgment that it is unjust; in the case of the occupation of Iraq and related military activity, it is not nearly as straightforward to render the judgment of unjust killing…
You are right — in the case of abortion no “deliberation” is necessary, unlike war, in which deliberation must occur through traditional just war teaching. But this deliberation occurred. The war was, and continues to be, in clear violation of just war teaching. It is not a complex case. Ratzinger, et al. repeatedly gave us short answers to the question of whether the war is or is not just: and they said of course not. The “deliberation” you refer to was, in this case, quite easy. The killing involved is unjust, and it is just as unjust as abortion.
Weren’t PP and college students complaining last year that a congressional act had eliminated such a discount for contraceptive pills? Does this restore that lost discount?
BlazeAMDG is right in pointing out the supreme irony here. Anti-war advocates were calling on the Democrats to oppose this bill because it did not tie further funding to a commitment for withdrawal.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-tasini/no-more-blank-checks-vot_b_43834.html
Previous versions of this bill had contained language with a specific timetable, but that language was removed so the bill would pass. The only provision to end the war contained in this bill is $3 million for a study to determine how the troops could be redeployed out of Iraq. http://www.nationaljournal.com/congressdaily/cda_20080516_8031.php
Obama lost an opportunity to prove himself here. He is fond of pointing out that he opposed the war from the start, but when it comes time to stand with the true progressives and vote “No” on a bill that furthers the war, he fails to follow his principles. Given that the bill is likely to be vetoed anyway, I’m doubly disappointed in his decision.
BlazeAMDG is astute to point out the irony here. Anti-war advocates were calling on the Democrats to oppose this bill because it did not tie further funding to a commitment for withdrawal. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-tasini/no-more-blank-checks-vot_b_43834.html
Previous versions of this bill had contained language with a specific timetable, but that language was removed so the bill would have a better chance of passing a Bush veto. The only provision to end the war contained in this bill is $3 million for a study to determine how the troops could be redeployed out of Iraq. Yet $10 billion in domestic spending was tacked on anyway, increasing the chance of a veto and negating the effect of removing the requirement for withdrawal. http://www.nationaljournal.com/congressdaily/cda_20080516_8031.php
Obama lost an opportunity to prove himself here. He is fond of pointing out that he opposed the war from the start, but when it comes time to stand with the true progressives and vote “No” on a bill that furthers the war, he fails to follow his principles. Given that the bill is likely to be vetoed anyway, I’m doubly disappointed in his decision.
X-Cathedra pretty much nailed what I was trying to say-thanks. Oh, and I’m not a neocon. I agree we shouldn’t have gone in to begin with, I’m opposed to other forms of military intervention, and I accept the Church teaching of Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI on the invasion of Iraq. I understand that we aren’t welcome in Iraq, I simply wonder what the best means of leaving Iraq while preventing more bloodshed are. And I really did appreciate your proposed withdrawal plan, digbydolben. Let’s keep this discussion charitable.