The reasoning here is faulty. The question is never about a single issue, but a broad agenda informed but never fully determined by specific principles.

The dems blew their majority and the result was Renquist, Thomas, Scalia, Alito and Roberts. Maybe it was worth it, in order to break the stranglehold of race.

Is enforcing federal funding for abortion, which a very large plurality of citizens consider murder, worth sacrificing the principle of broad health care provisions for all?

Abortion is a "legal medical procedure." But so is a nose job. Let's keep things in perspective. Are we really thinking that publically funded abortions for unwanted pregnancies are so important that if we can't get them this go-round we should give up on having all Mom's get prenatal care or on-demand care for sick kids?

I lived in Canada several times and experienced what it meant for the whole society to have braod access to the same quality health care served up by the same hospitals and clinics. I am unwilling to see that go down the drain as a protest on Stupak.

I have lots of issues with the current bills, and with the wording in Stupak, too. Can we work to improve these and pass a good bill, rather than go down fighting for our highly contested principles.

Is enforcing federal funding for abortion, which a very large plurality of citizens consider murder, worth sacrificing the principle of broad health care provisions for all?

Wow. That's some crazy shit right there.

Who's this "all" that are being provided for, when over 51% of Americans have health care denied to them.

Further, even IF the Stupak Amendment had never been added (to a civil bill - by the Catholics! - lol), I'm pretty sure "all" wasn't going to happen, unless by "all" you mean 6 million people.

If the choice is this bill as is or nothing, nothing is preferred.

I'm a pro-choice woman of childbearing age, so I'm party of the "all" that would be losing out should the Stupack Amendment pass. I also have lived many years without any insurance at all, some years with mediocre insurance, and some years with excellent insurance.

If I have to give up the "right" for my insurance company to pay for my abortion (which would still be legal, and which I could still pay for) in order to get even mediocre healthcare for all (that word again!) Americans, I'll do it in a heartbeat. For one reason, one of the reasons women have abortions is their lack of availability to their general healthcare and prenatal care for the babies they would like to have.

We should absolutely try to reach a better bill. But no, in my world, "nothing" is not preferred.

Symbols are important in politics, but less so than substance. Democrats in the House of Representatives have chosen to (symbolically) coddle minions of the Roman Catholic Church Man Boy Love Association, to the detriment of those who venerate the provision of abortions to an extent comparable to the NRA's gun worship. The distress of the abortion rights uber alles Chicken Littles is real, and should not be discounted lightly.

As a practical matter, however, the sky is not falling. Abortion is an elective procedure which, at least during the first trimester, is relatively inexpensive. Moreover, the need for abortion is easily avoidable, at minimal expense--condoms typically cost less than $1.00 each.

As a practical matter, if women (and the men who would impregnate them) who cannot afford to self-insure a $300 to $500 procedure were to substitute masturbation, oral sex or same sex encounters for penile-vaginal sex, the gene pool would improve accordingly. Is that a bad thing?

I think Eagle for her nuanced agreement with my post.

I also respect Mara's preference for no bill rather than those presently before us, though I do not agree.

Mara, however, has never learned manners 101.

Mara, it does not help a conversation to characterize another person's contribution as you has.

It also does not help to demonize Roman Catholics. They are a very large and growing part of our democracy and deserve our respect even when we as a people cannot accommodate their demands.

More to the point, broad health care for all IS the principle that should be guiding us.

Of course we do not have anything like that now. Of course we will not get it from the current bill.

But the current bill, as it might be revised if we could take our attention momentarily away from Stupak, is an important step in the right direction. It will assure the coverage of a lot more than 6 million new citizens.

And the question is not the current bill "as is" or no bill -- the current bill has many flaws and the time for political pressure will be when the bill is in conference committee.

If people like you were actually willing to 'compromise'', that would be one thing. But you big money boys don't ever want to compromise on anything. You offer us 1% of what you promised, and then throw a hissy fit when we tell you to go fuck yourselves.

Er, there's also the huge number of women who are members of the Democratic party who will at minimum stay home from the 2010 elections and possibly beyond if this amendment stays in.

I suspect Phyllis Schlafly and her minions are poorly represented in the Democratic Party.

It also does not help to demonize Roman Catholics

I'm guessing you meant another commenter on this (and not my exclamation point as "demonizing"), and will let this one pass.

More to the point, broad health care for all IS the principle that should be guiding us.

Agreed. And the Stupak amendment is in direct opposition to this goal.

In fact, I'll bet the Stupak amendment's real goal was to derail the health care reform debate as it appears to be successfully doing.

Always look to see who profits. It ain't progressives here, unless you're willing to state that women's civil rights aren't part of your progressive platform...which would necessitate its name change I think.

You mean Beinart's not on the side of angels on this one? Huh. Who'da thunk it?

Tim, you are right. The purpose of getting a majority is to spend it.

I would hate to see Democrats spend their majority trying to go right to chase the center instead of spending their majority by pushing the center to the left.

And I'd actually like to see Democrats finally pass a health care bill after trying to do so for nearly 50 years!

He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself. Our site provides Rolex replica

This article and the comments below it remind me of a joke:

The Lone Ranger and Tonto are trapped in a dead-end canyon, surrounded by armies from every hostile Indian tribe.

"Looks like we're in a heap of trouble," the Lone Ranger says to his Indian sidekick, Tonto.

To which Tonto replies, "What do you mean 'WE', pale-face?"

Like several commenters above, there are probably a lot of women who feel that any health care plan is better than none, and that passage of health care reform is more important than any other issue. There are likely just as many who feel that the victories women and progressives achieved over the years in protecting women's reproductive rights were wasted if they can be used as a bargaining chip to be traded away for someone else's "greater good".

There are probably a lot of GLBTs who believe that repealing DOMA or DADT is a politically dangerous issue and should be approached slowly and carefully. And there are plenty in the GLBT community who are tired of having their lives subordinated to political wheeling and dealing, since every day they have to live under these ridiculous rules is one more day they are not recognized as full and equal citizens.

There are large groups of people who have been told to be patient as they watch our leaders ignore or barter away their demands for economic relief for people and not just the bankers. People who have been told military withdrawals and no "surges" or additional forces would be coming soon. People who are waiting for the closing of torture centers and the refutation of the use of torture for any reason. Groups are expecting to see the prosecution of criminals without concern for their position in government. Party-members are waiting for the reform of laws which allow the government to spy on its own people for any spurious reason. Frightened people await the correction of our harsh and unrealistic immigration policies which treat millions of hard-working Latinos as common criminals. Party-supporting unions have been told to have patience in waiting for the passage of a law which will give them a fair chance to organize workers against hostile employers... And on and on.

Large groups in the Democratic Party have seen their key beliefs belittled as pet peeves. They've been told to suck it up and wait for some magical day when all will be made right. They are accused of being too self-involved to see "the big picture".

When all these groups are counted together, they're likely to be a majority of the Party, if not the nation. Come November 2010, the Democratic establishment is going to rely on these large alienated groups to turn out to vote for this party that seems apathetic, if not hostile to their beliefs.

And when these rich, white, straight, insured, hawkish, right-leaning, religious males say, "Yes we can!" they might find themselves in a Big Tent, surrounded by an emptiness which whispers, "What do you mean, 'WE', Congressman?"

As a practical matter, however, the sky is not falling. Abortion is an elective procedure which, at least during the first trimester, is relatively inexpensive. Moreover, the need for abortion is easily avoidable, at minimal expense--condoms typically cost less than $1.00 each.