home

Obama Promises Family Planning Aid To Be Acted On Next Week

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Obama Administration
Posted on Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 04:06:41 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit
So sez TPM:

Women's health advocates were dismayed this week to see the removal of family-planning aid from Congress' economic recovery bill after a push by Republicans to politicize a generally cut-and-dry issue of Medicaid waivers. (Time has some good background here.) But the dismay may not last long. A source present at today's White House signing ceremony for the Lilly Ledbetter bill tells me that President Obama gave assurances that the family planning aid would be done soon -- perhaps as soon as next week, when the House is set to take up a spending bill that would keep the government funded until October.

< Swatting the Mosquitoes | Blago Removed From Office By IL Senate >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Obama Promises Family Planning Aid To Be Acted On Next Week | 32 comments (32 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    word (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by CST on Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 04:10:17 PM EST
    Personally, I always thought it belonged in a health care bill more than an economic stimulus bill.

    I guess it doesn't really matter as long as it passes.

    He talked to Hillary? (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by oldpro on Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 04:25:21 PM EST
    Hmmm...

    One way or another, removing family planning wasn't gonna fly for long.  Not with Democrats and not with Hillary in the cabinet.  She can't go around the world and tout family planning with that balony being served at the White House.

    Huh? (none / 0) (#8)
    by squeaky on Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 04:35:10 PM EST
    If anything Hillary had a hand in releasing the gag order for federal money spent overseas.

    If you want to credit someone other than Obama for this not yet accomplished promise, I would think that Pelosi would be the first person to come to mind.

    Parent

    Huh? (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by oldpro on Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 04:54:45 PM EST
    I'm not crediting anyone for something that hasn't happened yet.

    Yes, of course Hillary "had a hand in" removing the gag order...and following that, my brand of logic takes me to imagine that she might have just possibly mentioned equity in domestic family planning as a corollary, to be addressed sooner or later, the Republicans and their objections notwithstanding.

    Parent

    HRC (none / 0) (#20)
    by jedimom on Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 07:22:05 PM EST
    I think she has her hands full right now and am not suggesting she is pushing this

    but this was one of her key issues and she did fight hard against Bush changing roolz on contraception yada yada, even wrote on HuffPo about it in fact as an essential right of women....

    frankly if she was doing anything other than state right now, which I dont think she is, betcha she would be pushing HOLC....

    Parent

    I won't conjecture (none / 0) (#25)
    by sj on Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 07:59:59 PM EST
    as to whether HRC had a hand in either action, but as far as this goes?

    frankly if she was doing anything other than state right now, which I dont think she is, betcha she would be pushing HOLC

    I submit that if she is indeed doing anything other than state right now, she is more than capable of juggling more than one ball at a time before handing it off.

    Parent

    Michelles first gathering... (none / 0) (#22)
    by jedimom on Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 07:23:10 PM EST
    everyone was at Michelle's gathering post-signing, pretty kewl :0)

    Parent
    Much better... (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by kdog on Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 05:44:34 PM EST
    I know my pipe-dreams about a very limited government and a very free country are exactly that...at least this spending gives poor and low-income people a hand, and isn't paying a failed bankers bonus.  Noble, still not sold it is  righteous though.

    I'd do a jig if there was a corresponding cut in the DEA/CIA/FBI/NSA/DOD budget...but that's another pipe-dream.

    Never belonged in the stimulus bill. . . (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by LarryInNYC on Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 07:50:34 PM EST
    glad to see they're taking care of it in a separate bill the proper way.

    Oh really? Yet funding for diabetes, cancer, (2.00 / 0) (#31)
    by masslib on Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 10:33:48 PM EST
    heart disease etc., belonged in the funding bill.  Please.  What a silly argument.  Health care funding and access is all over the funding bill, as it should be.

    Parent
    I really wish we could get to the point (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by Anne on Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 09:25:33 PM EST
    where we stop hiding important legislation in huge bills; I feel like we're adding ground veggies to the meatloaf so the kids won't realize they're eating something that's good for them.

    On its face, maybe it seems like a stretch to equate women's health issues with economic stimulus, but the truth is that a healthier population is a more productive one, and it's the reason why we should be striving to improve the overall health of the nation in any way we can.

    I don't know whose idea it was to put this particular item in the bill, but whoever decided it was the equivalent of a pork project in East Jesus, available to be tossed out as some kind of concession, is completely tone deaf on women's issues - and if that isn't addressed and the message isn't delivered that it should never, ever, be treated so cavalierly again, women are going to turn away in massive numbers.

    Whoever is responsible needs to get a gigantic, neon clue.

    If true, good for Obama (none / 0) (#2)
    by Spamlet on Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 04:11:12 PM EST


    So the Republicans won't complain (none / 0) (#3)
    by andgarden on Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 04:17:47 PM EST
    about it then?

    Seriously, please.

    I report (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 04:19:29 PM EST
    you decide.

    My hope is that the EXPECTATION that Obama will fix this NEXT WEEK is out there.

    Parent

    I'm waiting for Obey to supply (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by andgarden on Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 04:22:07 PM EST
    his bug spray.

    Parent
    Hopefully (none / 0) (#9)
    by squeaky on Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 04:36:00 PM EST
    Not too, way out there.

    Parent
    It may not matter (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Steve M on Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 04:44:28 PM EST
    Birth control is plenty popular, even if the Republican base doesn't like it.

    I wasn't a fan of removing it from the stimulus legislation, but it's true that allowing the Republicans to argue "this has nothing to do with economic stimulus!" is handing them a free argument.  If it's passed in a health care bill, the only thing they can say is that government shouldn't be in the family planning business, an argument they will lose.

    Parent

    Snowe and Collins will be (none / 0) (#27)
    by slr51 on Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 08:33:58 PM EST
    100% on board. They split on the stimulus - so by taking it up separately it has a better chance.

    Parent
    Not Surprised (none / 0) (#4)
    by squeaky on Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 04:17:48 PM EST
    It is not only pound foolish as the law stands now, it is also a labyrinthine process for the remaining 24 states to get on board with the Federal program. At least during BushCo it took up to two years for some states to get the required waiver to allow medicare funds for family planning, and that process in itself is a tremendous waste of money.

    Excellent (none / 0) (#10)
    by Wile ECoyote on Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 04:36:54 PM EST
    a bill like that should be able to stand on its own merit.  It need not be labeled as pork.

    I doubt the objection was really (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by Democratic Cat on Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 04:38:27 PM EST
    that it was pork. The republicans will raise a stink next time it comes up too.

    Parent
    Of Course They Will (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by daring grace on Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 04:51:39 PM EST
    Except it will be a different objection.

    Instead of "It's pork." or "They're trying to slip something through hidden in the stimulus bill" or "It's not stimulus related.", their objection will most likely be: "We don't want to spend money on this program that funds birth control and encourages promiscuity." Or whatever blah blah they want to raise to soothe the sensibilities of their constituents that they are the watchdogs of the nation's 'morality'.

    And most of the rest of us will applaud its passage and reply: "Yeah, whatever. Just so long as the health and wellbeing of America's families is protected."

    Parent

    Was it just a (none / 0) (#15)
    by JThomas on Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 05:06:31 PM EST
    head-fake by Pelosi and Obama the whole time? Who knows? But I agree that it was good to toss it out of the stimulus package if it could be dealt with in a regular spending bill.

    Anything that smacks of inefficient or wasteful spending needs to be out of the stimulus bill.
    And any spending bill for that matter.
    Good governance is what americans want these days.

    Parent

    You contradict yourself (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Democratic Cat on Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 05:36:59 PM EST
    You seem to say that it should not be in the stimulus bill because it smacks of wasteful spending.  But it's ok to put it into a regular spending bill.  Only then you say that anything that smacks of wasteful spending shouldn't be in any spending bill.

    I can't tell what you believe.

    Parent

    Ok, (5.00 / 0) (#32)
    by JThomas on Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 03:42:28 AM EST
    I was not clear....family planning is not a jobs stimulus item that belongs in the recovery plan. It is a regular spending item that belong is a regular spending bill.
    Anything that smells like pork should not be in either bill.


    Parent
    How does this stimulate the economy? (none / 0) (#18)
    by Slado on Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 07:17:28 PM EST
    Anyone?

    So you who favor this are basically admitting that this so called "stimulus" is simply and excuse to pass government programs that you agree with?

    Why not let all of these stand on their own?  Wait I know.  Because they wouldn't pass then or people would ask the simple question...Do we need this when the government is in record debt?

    Unbelievable.

    Unbelievable Is Right (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by squeaky on Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 07:22:40 PM EST
    Do you have any idea what this is about? Or are you just being a reflexive mosquito?

    Parent
    Certainly, unwanted pregnancies... (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Dadler on Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 07:51:29 PM EST
    ...are no drain on anyone, either the people involved or the economy those unwanted children are born into.  Connections, there are many, many connections in life.

    Parent
    Is there any government program that doesn't (none / 0) (#29)
    by Slado on Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 09:24:17 PM EST
    Stimulate?

    Why not let the government protect us from all the ills of society with tax dollars?

    Democrats never need an excuse to spend money and no government program is without it's moral justification.

    Point being is if dems think government programs that help us avoid all ills of society is the way to get the economy going then they should just say so instead of the rhetoric about infastructure and creating jobs.  A few thousand extra government jobs dolling out government money that is taken away from private buisness or taken on load through bonds isn't adding anything to the economy.

    Pork, not matter how much good it can do is still pork and we need to worry about the greater good, our economy, rather then every liberal pet project we can think of.

    Again, Unbelievable.

    Parent

    Here Is A Hint (none / 0) (#26)
    by squeaky on Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 08:26:55 PM EST
    Seriously (none / 0) (#14)
    by Slado on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 08:44:04 AM EST
    The drug war cost is a drop in the bucket compared to the other things the government spends it's money on.
    Military, Medicare, Social Security would be the first things the government could cut to put more money into the economy.....[emphasis mine]

    Reducing costs is tantamount to a cut, no?

    Parent

    Heh (none / 0) (#28)
    by Steve M on Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 08:47:58 PM EST
    Well, if you're going to take the silence between your first and second paragraphs as evidence that you're right, I'm going to wager that you're not very interested in an actual answer.

    Parent
    ohhh (none / 0) (#19)
    by jedimom on Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 07:19:13 PM EST
    now the regular spending bill is coming down?

    they better get ahead of this Housing thing like yesterday!! the GOP Senate is making housing their first amendment to the stimulus bill..

    I had hoped housing would be first out of the gate, the TARP was funded dammit and they had months to prepare...

    Now the GOP will bog down the media reports with THEIR BS housing proposal and we will be on defense

    AND this as papers are reporting the TARP tranche two may need additional money from Congress..Billions MORE...

    CNBC is now reporting that the TARP/Bad Bank/Banking -housing rescue that was to be announced next week has hit a snag and they are at a dead end..

    this is not a good thing, they are laying the ground for a cluster frak here..why arent we in front of this?

    I am all for family planning, but now the spending bill is next week too? are they frakin kidding?? the public will freak...we need HOLC HOLC baby

    Obama Promises Family Planning Aid To Be Acted On Next Week | 32 comments (32 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment