Contraceptives Provision Removed from Stimulus Plan
In an admirable move, President Obama has contacted Henry Waxman, whose committee was responsible for placing the contraceptives fuding in the stimulus package, and had him remove the provision. MSNBC reports:
From NBC’s Mike Viqueira
The provision within the stimulus that would allocate money for contraceptive programs through Medicaid will be pulled out of the package.NBC News confirms that the president called Henry Waxman, the chairman of the committee that inserted the contraception provision into the stimulus during the mark up last week, to ask him to remove the measure from the bill, according to a Democratic leadership source.
In short, the idea has simply become too controversial. Speaker Nancy Pelosi‘s defense of the program over the weekend, where she indicated that it would be a money saver, was not well received.
So that provision is out.
Complicating matters, both Minority Leader John Boehner and No. 2 Eric Cantor have told House Republicans that “all Republicans should vote against the stimulus” if it remains “in its current form,” according to a GOP leadership aide.
They spoke inside their weekly conference meeting, behind closed doors. Afterward, both men came to the on camera stake out. The House will begin debate on the stimulus package late today, with no votes expected until tomorrow. Debate is expected to begin somewhere close to 5 p.m. ET.
I am glad that House Minority Leader John Boehner voiced his concern after meetings with Obama and other top officials. I hope that this is the first of many sincere gestures by President Obama to minority Republicans. With a little luck, this will send a message to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi that she should have been doing the same over the past two years.
Comments are closed.
Good…..this is the democratic process in action. We’re going to need to keep up the pressure, advance reasoned argument, and perform personal actions for the cause of life.
We are also going to need to act in charity, not decry someone with labels which corner them into a certain response, and congratulate when compromise is shown possible.
If only all sides would have the same high moral standards when US taxpayer money funds death in Gaza.
That’s good news.
MM: as a number of commentators have been arguing, especially (but not exclusively) since the inauguration (e.g. Larison), in many ways Obama represents more of the same when it comes to our foreign policy (US hegemony, etc.).
While I generally support conservative answers to public policy questions, I often don’t see a *considerable* difference between those answers and their liberal counterparts, in terms of the fundamental, underlying premises.
Unfortunately, I’m not sure what we can do about it, concretely.
If only all sides would have the same high moral standards when US taxpayer money funds death in Gaza.
Unfortunately, both parties’ leaders tend to support Israel without thinking much of it.
This is really good news. Good for Obama.
Good on him! Let’s hope that this is the start of a pattern…
Shouldn’t the headline read, “ALL IS FORGIVEN!!!” Regretably we will likely have more loses in this area, but a victory is a victory. Hopefully people will be able to maintain some form of equilibrium throughout the next 8 years. Or perhaps the country could have an epiphany and decide that it actually opposes abortion and other components of the autonomous individual rather than just finding abhorent and socially destructive behavior distasteful.
Not to be a curmudgeon on the point, but Obama couldn’t really afford to have Republicans offer the excuse (presumably sincerely held, no need to assume malice) that they wouldn’t support the stimulus bill over this. If the bill were to succeed (with said provision) Republicans wouldn’t be hurt by their opposition to the bill, and if the bill failed they could claim they also opposed it because it was bad policy. As it stands right now, Republicans are debating the costs of supporting or not supporting the bill. Admittedly, this is a nakedly political analysis.
“Unfortunately, both parties’ leaders tend to support Israel without thinking much of it.”
Exactly.
Chris:
In many respects, you are right. Obama will end the worst abuses of the Bush administration (torture etc.) and his outreach to the Muslim world is laudible and should generate some goodwill– but on the larger picture, the militarism is still very much alive. I haven’t seen any signs yet that he will bring some balance to the Israel-Palestine conflict, but we can always hope.
I am surprised no one has suggested that Obama is taking the money away for contraception so there will be more unwanted babies to abort.
Actually, I believe that Obama will carry through on his promise to reduce abortions without criminalizing abortion. He will placate the abortion industry by assigning unemployed abortionists to –as is so widely predicted a next step — kill the sick, elderly, and disabled. This will also be of great value in bringing the cost of Medicaid and Medicare under control, particularly if “elderly” is defined as 65 or older.
David Nichols writes : “I am surprised no one has suggested that Obama is taking the money away for contraception so there will be more unwanted babies to abort.”
Since 90% of all procured abortions are by means of abortifacients, the money taken away directly saves babies from being killed by means of abortion. Besides, to even argue for contraceptives on such grounds is objectively sinful.
“Hooray!!! They didn’t fund abortion and contraceptives in an ‘economic stimulus’” bill!!!
Has it really come to that?
Since 90% of all procured abortions are by means of abortifacients, the money taken away directly saves babies from being killed by means of abortion. Besides, to even argue for contraceptives on such grounds is objectively sinful.
love the girls,
Are you arguing from the viewpoint that the pill is an abortifacient? Even if it may prevent implantation (it’s still being debated), nobody knows with what frequency that occurs. So I am not sure how you come up with your 90% figure (if I understand the point you are trying to make at all).
You can’t be talking about pharmaceutical abortion, at least by the definition of the medical profession, since pharmaceutical abortion accounts for nowhere near 90% of abortions (although I think true pharmaceutical abortion will continue to increase).
If 90% of procured abortions are from the pill, shouldn’t McCain’s position on contraception have been an issue in the presidential campaign? If he favored contraception, stem-cell research, and opposed abortion, and if surgical abortions account for only 10% of the total, then McCain and Obama weren’t at all far apart on life issues.
“Hooray!!! They didn’t fund abortion and contraceptives in an ‘economic stimulus’” bill!!!
TeutonicTim,
I don’t think abortion funding was ever involved. Also, for those seeing the glass half full, it is not what “they” didn’t do. It is what Obama did.
The Dems will put the contraceptives into a future spending bill (there will be plenty of those). B.O. didn’t suddenly become virtuous. He just couldn’t explain how contraceptives stimulate the economy.
David Nichols writes : “I am not sure how you come up with your 90% figure”
From American Life League.
__________________
David Nichols writes : “Are you arguing from the viewpoint that the pill is an abortifacient?”
Among other so called contraceptives.
http://www.catholicdestination.com/article_info.php?articles_id=51
_____________
David Nichols writes : “it’s still being debated”
You mean the abortion advocates continue to use their same worn out lies. But nothing new there. Eh?
B.O. didn’t suddenly become virtuous. He just couldn’t explain how contraceptives stimulate the economy.
Assuming, of course, that he isn’t virtuous to begin with.
President Obama is to be commended for what he did, but his record on abortion speaks for itself.
I don’t think abortion funding was ever involved.
I’m pretty sure Planned Parenthood is an abortion pushing organization. Funding them is unacceptable.
I’m pretty sure Planned Parenthood is an abortion pushing organization. Funding them is unacceptable.
Planned Parenthood already receives a great deal of government funds. However, it does not spend them on abortions.
Note that the Provider Conscience Regulation, which the Bush administration put through at the last minute, applies only to institutions (hospitals, pharmacies, doctors’ offices, clinics, and so on) receiving government funding. It would seem, then, that all of the “unconscionable” things the regulation would protect individual workers from being required to do are taking place in government-funded medical settings.
MM: as a number of commentators have been arguing, especially (but not exclusively) since the inauguration (e.g. Larison), in many ways Obama represents more of the same when it comes to our foreign policy (US hegemony, etc.).
While I generally support conservative answers to public policy questions, I often don’t see a *considerable* difference between those answers and their liberal counterparts, in terms of the fundamental, underlying premises.
As MM said there is definitely truth to this. A few things to point out, though.
1) Many of us who voted for Obama knew that his tendencies were in the same ballpark as the past several administrations, but knew that some real differences do in fact exist. Even a slight difference is better than what we had.
2) We americans can debate back and forth whether or not Obama is “much different” than Bush till we’re blue in the face, but we have to remember to seek out the views of those who have been on the receiving end of u.s. violence as to whether or not Obama’s reign will be much of a difference. And when you look at those voices, there is certainly still much ambiguity and cynicism, but it seems that the vast majority of marginalized peoples are quite pleased that Obama, and not McCain, is calling the shots.
3) I find it much easier to take seriously the critique that “Obama is not that much different than Bush” if it is coming from someone who actually opposed Bush’s policies in the first place (take Chomsky or Zinn, for example). For a Bush supporter to make those claims inspires the response “who cares what you think?”
Iafrate:
To your points-
1. Many-but most were not present on this blog. Or if they were, they kept awfully silent about it. While many McCain supporters expressed publicly their dissatisfaction with portions of McCain’s “pro-life” credentials, Obama supporters failed to do the same on his foreign policy.
2. How many foreign victims have a clear understanding of the distinctions between their foreign policies? I’m sure they assumed a different party meant an entirely different way of acting, but their assumptions are not evidence of anything then the opinions of foreign media outlets. And I’m sure the people in Gaza and Pakistan are very pleased indeed.
3. Ad hominem response. Besides, it’s not just Bush supporters saying it. For a president who campaigned against Clinton on the idea of a far more radical foreign policy shift, the past week has been underwhelming.
For a Bush supporter to make those claims inspires the response “who cares what you think?”
Perhaps it does, Michael, but we should be quick to cast such “inspirations” into the pit of hell from which they came.
In any case, as Michael Denton noted, it’s *not* just Bush supporters who say such things… I referred to Daniel Larison, a conservative who opposed the war in Iraq… if you haven’t read him, you might be surprised at the level of agreement you have. I was also thinking of Andrew Bacevich, another conservative who opposed the war in Iraq and has written extensively on the militarization of American politics (on both sides of the aisle) and culture.
The following is from The Economist: “To make matters worse, he has kept George Bush’s defence secretary, Robert Gates, in his job. ‘Not a single member of Obama’s foreign-policy [and] national-security team opposed the war,’ fumes Katrina vanden Heuvel, the editor of the Nation, a lefty magazine, adding that Mr Gates is ‘a terrible pick.’”
I don’t think Katrina was a Bush supporter.
I may have missed your coverage on this bill, but it may indicate that the Dems plan on taking away contraceptive funding with one hand and give with the other:
http://www.americanpapist.com/2009/01/worse-than-foca-prevention-first-act.html
I think pro-life organizations generally don’t take a position on contraception. National Right to Life explicitly excludes it from their areas of interest. As I have said elsewhere, if Catholics now insist on fighting abortion and contraception to help prevent unwanted pregnancies, the search for common ground is going to be a lot more difficult.
Planned Parenthood already receives a great deal of government funds. However, it does not spend them on abortions.
Bull-dookey. That’s organizations purpose is abortion, so ANY money helping them to fulfill their purpose, even if it’s used to pay their electric bill is inappropriate funding.
Many-but most were not present on this blog. Or if they were, they kept awfully silent about it.
Name one blogger at VN who refused to acknowledge that Obama was not an ideal candidate from a Catholic perspective, and who did acknowledge militaristic tendencies as the campaign wore on. Name one.
How many foreign victims have a clear understanding of the distinctions between their foreign policies?
I see. People from other countries are stupid, and fall for partisan promises without looking at the reality of candidates’ proposals. Ahh, but Americans on the other hand…
Ad hominem response.
It’s not “ad hominem” at all. I simply don’t recognize that argument from someone who supports the very policies that are supposedly being continued under Obama because they agree with them.
Perhaps it does, Michael, but we should be quick to cast such “inspirations” into the pit of hell from which they came.
Charming.
In any case, as Michael Denton noted, it’s *not* just Bush supporters who say such things…
Of course. I also noted it. I also said I agree in many respects.
I just don’t care when someone like yourself makes that argument as an accusation against Obama when you probably in fact agree with Obama’s continuation of the War on Terror, for example.
When you reject an argument not because of inaccuracy or illogicality, but because of who makes it, that’s ad hominem. Google it sometime.
When you reject an argument not because of inaccuracy or illogicality, but because of who makes it, that’s ad hominem.
But as I said, I’m not rejecting the argument. I acknowledge and agree with the argument. I don’t find the person making the argument relevant.
Whatever . . . you don’t “recognize” the argument even though you agree with it? Weird.
“Perhaps it does, Michael, but we should be quick to cast such “inspirations” into the pit of hell from which they came.”
Charming.
Do you disagree, Michael? Should Catholics dismiss one another with a “who cares what you think?” because they disagree with one another?
I don’t find the person making the argument relevant.
Relevant to what? You might recognize this as an opportunity to, you know, actually persuade someone. Maybe you could see this as an opening to win someone over to your view, rather than alienate. Maybe you could recognize that I see some plausibility Bacevich & Larison’s arguments, and therefore that I’m open to persuasion, rather than being a combox enemy who must be antagonized at all costs.
Condoms, that’s what ails this country.