Wednesday, March 24, 2010

Health Scare

So. About that health reform.

Can I admit that I stopped following it months ago? Can I admit that, more than frustrating, I find the debates on health care utterly uninteresting? I simply can't pay attention. It's like arguing with a parrot who can only respond in one of three wise cracks, only far less amusing. We Abortioneers go through this time and again. You come at them with the knowledge, they retort with the yakety yak. YAWN.

That said, I proceed with my confession to admit that when the bill was signed, I had no idea what was in it. I Google it on occasion to see if anything interesting pops up, but what I've learned amounts to "Obama rules" and "It's better than nothing". What I do know, however, without having to watch CSPAN or read regurgitated AP articles, is that anti-abortion congresspeople just won't let up. What's the deal with this executive order? What does an executive order even mean? I had to ask my politically savvy BF, who informed me that it means dick and does not hold water in many cases. It sound to me like the antis calling for blood where it is not warranted or necessary. So what does this E.O. actually mean for abortion? Probably nothing, right? The Hyde amendment is still firmly in place (God bless it), and Lady Abortion is still dangling by a thread. I guess this just reaffirms what I already knew: our country sucks and always will.

As a self-proclaimed ignoramus on this issue, please enlighten me. But what I figure is we're sticking to the status quo and fighting in the trenches as per usual. I'm happy to do that, but at this point making myself angry by indulging anti banter is just not the way. Discuss, dear Abortioneers!


  1. I'm not sure I agree with the BF! Here's how I understood it:

    The Hyde Amendment prohibiting federal spending on abortion was bad enough to begin with, but it was a budgetary amendment that had to be approved with each year's federal budget and (theoretically, though so far never in practice) could be deleted from the budget. An executive order can only be reversed by a president, and if Obama sold out reproductive justice this way, then when will we get a president to reverse that? It's unclear whether the E.O. could stand all on its own if Hyde were to hypothetically be reversed, but it is possibly bad.

    Then, there's this: Not only does the executive order "reassert Hyde," it also expands it by applying restrictions to private spending on abortion - i.e. Sen. Ben Nelson's "two-check rule" amendment saying that you'd have to buy a separate policy for abortion and pay for it yourself. Bloody likely!

    All along people have been pretending that both the Nelson and Stupak amendments were "preserving the [already shitty] status quo" when really they were not. It's hard to tell whether those people were dumb, lying, or some of each, and now again with the claim that the EO is just about the status quo.

    So far the clearest explanation I've seen, which also admits that we don't yet know all of the ramifications, is here:

  2. Check out the Center for Reproduction Rights Fact Sheet at:
    "On Sunday, March 21, 2010, as part of the negotiations over the healthcare reform bill, President Barack Obama promised to issue a new Executive Order on abortion restrictions upon passage of the bill by the House..."


This is not a debate forum -- there are hundreds of other sites for that. This is a safe space for abortion care providers and one that respects the full spectrum of reproductive choices; comments that are not in that spirit will either wind up in the spam filter or languish in the moderation queue.