Rep. Jim Cooper (Bluedog-TN) Defends Stupak Amendment
By scarce Tuesday Nov 10, 2009 5:00pmIn an interview with Ezra Klein in the Washington Post yesterday Jim Cooper (D-TN) championed his vote for the Health Care Bill, while distancing himself from his own vote in favor of restricting abortion rights with the Stupak-Pitts Amendment.
Before the Stupak amendment, many of my friends had not realized that the government gives a $250 billion annual subsidy to employer-sponsored health care. If you understand today’s system, the Hyde amendment bans direct subsidies of abortion. It does not ban indirect subsidies of abortion, in particular the $250 billion that goes to employer-based health care. The bishops never noticed that. But this is the way education works in a democracy. It’s not easy or simple. But when people begin making decisions, they learn about lots of things they never noticed before.
goldni at Silence Isn't Golden takes issue with Cooper's defense of his vote:
Ignoring the really condescending tone of that paragraph, that's still a bullshit reason. Now, I know that Cooper opposes subsidies to employer-based healthcare. But that's not the issue here. The issue is whether or not private insurance companies offering individual plans within an exchange can still offer coverage for one item that they generally already cover. Not everyone within this exchange is going to receive subsidies from the government, but if even one person receives $1 in subsidies, then the plan they're enrolled in would have to deny reproductive health coverage to everyone, even to those not receiving subsidies.
If everyone was so opposed to these "indirect subsidies" to abortion through employer-based healthcare, then why has there never been any serious attempt to cut if off before, even when the Republicans were in power? Why is there no serious effort to stop it now? What would be the substantive difference between that and what they're proposing in the future exchange? Why has Cooper never couched this argument in these terms before, that the problem is not employer-based healthcare or an insurance exchange themselves but the fact that it could remotely cover this one thing? He's always framed it in terms of the former rather than the latter.
Bottom line--if you're against the government providing subsidies, whether through employer healthcare or an insurance exchange, then vote against the damn bill and stand by what you believe. Don't use the abortion issue to weasel out of it and say, "See, this is better now because we're not providing expensive subsidies" when you still are providing them for everything else. Where's the amendment banning subsidies from being used to purchase Viagra?
Big Tent Democrat at Talk Left (Memo To Jim Cooper: You Voted FOR The Stupak Amendment) catches Cooper trying to pull a fast one:
[EZRA KLEIN:] The argument over Stupak’s amendment was striking for how effectively it evaded questions of choice and focused on the Hyde amendment. They narrowed that debate very sharply.
[JIM COOPER:] They won the argument that their amendment was the continuation of current law.
(Emphasis supplied.) "They" must have held a gun to Jim Cooper's head when he voted FOR "their" amendment. Cooper appears to be part of the anti-choice majority that "they" say exists.
Login or Register to post comments.
elimination of a woman's right to chose. They made no effort, nor provision, to make pre-natal healthcare free and universal for example.
Pro-life my a**, it is just more anti-choice shenanigans.
And the DNC better get their act together, these blue dogs are just republicans too chickenshit to run under the GOP banner now that the brand has been tainted. Keep it up Dems, and soon your brand will be just as damaged. Idiots...
............dribbling rahmocrateese. Mysognists PIGS!
amendment is an insult to woman everywhere.
... unless it offends Jim Cooper.
I'm feeling violent when listening to animated turds like Cooper.
"Your Catholic... You understand"--Jim Cooper (D-TN)
The He-Man Woman Hater's Club.
inserted itself into individual family dramas to force little girls under the age of 12 who have been raped to give birth to their rapists' children and possibly die in the process.
That's what I know about the Catholic church, Cooper!
What's next, the Antis going to pass a bill declaring birth control pills the same as abortion, thereby prohibiting coverage of birth control? That's what the Antis believe, and that's what they want.
The pathetic thing is is that it is cheaper for a woman to have an abortion than to give birth. So forcing women to give birth will increase health care costs. How many billions more will this cause the health insurance bill to cost to the American taxpayer?
And after forced birth, they'll move on to forced pregnancy. Mandatory regular pregnancy tests, and if a woman is unpregnant for longer than 6 months she'll get a stiff jail sentence until she sees the error of her ways. How else are we supposed to find the warm bodies to wage our apparently endless War On Everybody Who Doesn't Like Us?
because they keep changing the terms, and when you do not accept the offer as is, you therefore reject it, try this: Not only are we asking for single payer, but we want complete and completely subsidized birth control, including abortion, for all women. That's right, fully paid for by the government. If you do not vote for this version, now known as the Savannah Demand, no more sex between men and women until we get this bill passed. Take your Viagra and expand your sexual horizons. There are enough gay guys to go around. You should hope that at least a few of them will find you attractive enough to want you.
He said the Stupak Amendment was a surprise...last minute....????
We've been talking about it for a week and we're not voting. He needs to lay of the porn sites and look into some stuff.
Julia Anne Sweeney
Read/View the hall of shame: HTML links
PBS coming no now. Frontline: A rebroadcast of what it's like to be sick around the world.
I miss being in larger markets with multiple PBS affiliates.
Representative Cooper:
Women are legally entitled to reproductive health care - and that includes abortion. They are LEGALLY entitled to an abortion if they choose to have one.
Which of YOUR legal rights can women strip from you and your fellow misogynists?
You Bastard.
*
I wish everyone would stop making this stupid Stupak amendment a male/female issue. It's not. It is a Christian/rule-of-law thing.
Let me remind you all:
Kathy Dahlkemper (D-PA) co-sponsored the Stupak amendment.
Marcy Kaptur (D-OH09) supported it so much that she chose to stand with the above in their television interview shortly after the House bill passed.
You really think these women are woman haters? I don't think so.
If you think they all have one other thing in common--good old Jesus--you'd be on the right track.
The male/female rhetoric here is just ridiculous and isn't helping matters.
investigation by an ethics committee? Why, yes, it is. I don't think they are women haters, I think they are trying to ram their own personal beliefs down the throats of all other women, Like you're doing. This absolutely IS an issue that effects only women. And are you referring to Businessman Jesus or some other manifestation that you comfort yourself with? Don't you know that God helps those who help themselves? Quit leaning on him. You're pissing him off.
and not the Franken amendment had in mind when they did so? Love of women?
Spare me.
Are you referring to Al Franken, the U.S. Senator, from Minnesota and U.S. Representative, Bart Stupak & U.S. Representative, Joseph Pitts
I didn't know congress could vote on senate amendment(s) and vice versa... is this a trick question? :D
"And what do you suggest the men who voted for this amendment and not the Franken amendment had in mind when they did so?" ♥
but right here, my point is that when I have pointed out the gender of the people doing these anti-woman votes, I've tried to make it clear that it's specifically Republican and Blue Dog men I have issues with. Not all men.
And a certain political party full of men voted against an anti-rape bill in one chamber of Congress, and for an anti-choice bill in the other chamber of Congress. That was the point I was attempting to make.
What do you think the comment about putting the Speaker in her place was all about?
Why do you think male congressmen shouted down the women representatives when they tried to enter comments onto the record about how important and necessary the bill was for WOMEN?
They're filthy pigs - each and every one that was involved in any of the above referenced concerns - ESPECIALLY the Stupid amendment.
*
bullying the male Republican congressmen treated the women representatives when they tried to speak on behalf of all of us women and our needs.
No misogyny to be found here, no sireebob! *rolling eyes*
Let's SCRAP the whole shootin' match.
Get through the elections next year with BIGGER majorities in both House and Senate (thanks to Sarah Palin and Dick Armey.)
Then go at it again later with a goal of SINGLE PAYER health care... and oh yea... THE TEA BAGGER PARTY writes a check for the cost of EVERY ABORTION performed in the whole American Hemisphere.
ain't it...
The most Stupak amendment i've ever heard.
This is very much a male-female issue. No matter how many males say "we are pregnant" when in fact their offspring are living in their partners' bodies, they have an abysmal record of sharing responsibility for said offspring later on.
Sorry fellas but many of you are too ego-centered to really get how pregnancy and childbirth impact women's lives. I know because I gave birth four times, starting in 1961, when abortion was something people only whispered about and the phrase "reproductive rights" hadn't been invented. I am so, so glad that I got to be a mother and a grandmother, but I am also glad that younger women have more choices and am furious with the males (and females) who would diminish them.
My advice is that if you are against abortion, don't have one. That pretty much leaves males out of the decision-making, which is fine with me. Unless they have ensured that affordable health care is available for every reproductive need that women have, males have no business deciding anything about females.
...I'm a male
You do not have to be a women to support a woman's right(s). You just simply must be human... to support a human's right(s).
As far as the comment above... "The male/female rhetoric here is just ridiculous". For someone who seems to be very observant, you should also be able to contemplate the justified indignation that this demands... from the ultimate victims.
They can insult men all they want... it won't stop me from fighting for their individual rights. The odd thing is, if ya think about it, the issue before us... is... that it's not my business what woman/individual does with her, his or their bodies.
And you up there... yes I agree... your on the right track with regod to the instigating influence(s). IMO
After-all... wasn't it the blame game that got this all started 6000 years ago? ;)
Of course, the inevitability of an increase in back alley abortions and related deaths of women who cannot obtain decent health care is of no concern to these "humanitarians". After all, to them these women are deserving of their fate since they are nothing more than mere criminals who have violated the law.
Login or Register to post comments.