Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

NOW, NARAL displeased with Obama-Stupak deal

Updated 10:20 p.m.
By Garance Franke-Ruta
The president of the National Organization for Women said her group is "incensed" about the impasse-breaking deal between President Obama and a group of anti-abortion Catholic Democrats that seems likely to allow historic health-care reform legislation to pass the House later Sunday night, saying the planned presidential executive order "breaks faith with women."

Other reproductive rights groups, as well as abortion opponents, are also displeased with the compromise.

In 2007, then-Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign had promised abortion-rights supporters that he would work to overturn the Hyde Amendment, which NOW President Terry O'Neill said Sunday would instead be given fresh weight by Obama's executive order.

"Through this order, the president has announced he will lend the weight of his office and the entire executive branch to the antiabortion measures included in the Senate bill, which the House is now prepared to pass," she said.

"Obama does not support the Hyde Amendment," his campaign staff told RH Reality Check in response to a questionnaire from the reproductive rights group. "He believes that the federal government should not use its dollars to intrude on a poor woman's decision whether to carry to term or to terminate her pregnancy and selectively withhold benefits because she seeks to exercise her right of reproductive choice in a manner the government disfavors."

On the 35th anniversary of Roe v. Wade in 2008, the landmark Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion, he again laid out his commitment to abortion rights: "I will continue to defend this right by passing the Freedom of Choice Act as president," he said. That act would bar discrimination against exercising abortion rights in benefits, facilities, services or information.

But the deal struck with Rep. Bart Stupak (Mich.) and other antiabortion Democrats saw Obama promising to issue an order declaring: "The act maintains current Hyde Amendment restrictions governing abortion policy and extends those restrictions to the newly created health insurance exchanges."

Said O'Neill: "President Obama campaigned as a pro-choice president, but his actions today suggest that his commitment to reproductive health care is shaky at best. Contrary to language in the draft of the executive order and repeated assertions in the news, the Hyde Amendment is not settled law -- it is an illegitimate tack-on to an annual must-pass appropriations bill."

She added: "NOW has a longstanding objection to Hyde and, in fact, was looking forward to working with this president and Congress to bring an end to these restrictions. We see now that we have our work cut out for us far beyond what we ever anticipated. The message we have received today is that it is acceptable to negotiate health care on the backs of women, and we couldn't disagree more."

The National Right to Life Committee is no happier with the deal, and issued a statement saying it remains strongly opposed to the legislation and warning that "a lawmaker who votes for this bill is voting to require federal agencies to subsidize and administer health plans that will pay for elective abortion, and voting to undermine longstanding pro-life policies in other ways as well."

The group called the legislation a "pro-abortion bill" and said: "The executive order promised by President Obama was issued for political effect. It changes nothing. It does not correct any of the serious pro-abortion provisions in the bill."

The NRLC sees seven objectionable pro-abortion provisions in the legislation.

NARAL Pro-Choice America shared NOW's objections. "On a day when Americans are expected to see passage of legislation that will make health care more affordable for more than 30 million citizens, it is deeply disappointing that Bart Stupak and other anti-choice politicians would demand the restatement of the Hyde amendment, a discriminatory law that blocks low-income women from receiving full reproductive-health care," NARAL President Nancy Keenan said in a statement.

The Planned Parenthood Federation of America issued a statement of regret but did not go as far as NOW and NARAL in condemning the deal.

"We regret that a pro-choice president of a pro-choice nation was forced to sign an Executive Order that further codifies the proposed anti-choice language in the health-care reform bill, originally proposed by Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska," said Cecile Richards, president of PPFA. She also said her group is "grateful" that the executive order does not "include the complete and total ban on private health insurance coverage for abortion that Congressman Bart Stupak had insisted upon."

As a consequences of the deal, Frances Kissling, the former president of Catholics for Choice, called for abortion rights supporters to renew their push to repeal the Hyde Amendment.

"I hope the choice movement now decides to play hardball with Democrats, including the President, and insist that an all out effort to overturn the Hyde Amendment is required if Democratic office holders and candidates want our vote in 2012," she told The Post. "I for one have decided that I simply will not vote for another elected official until Hyde is overturned and I hope others will do the same. There is no reason for prochoice voters to accept Democratic pussyfooting around on repealing Hyde."

By Garance Franke-Ruta  |  March 21, 2010; 8:56 PM ET
Categories:  44 The Obama Presidency  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Tempers flare on House floor
Next: Rahm Emanuel defends health-care maneuvering on '60 Minutes'


Sooo.... the moral of the story is that you can't please either side, huh?


Deal with it, people, and get over yourselves!!!!

Posted by: vmfn1 | March 22, 2010 4:29 PM | Report abuse

re: "This is about illegals who will ultimately gain citizenship as a reward for being able to walk across a border, jump a fence or breed out 10 children in US hospitals for free."

Typical ignorant comment. We should let undocumented workers buy health insurance, but Obama caved into racist, anti-immigrant sentiment. He's forcing some people to buy insurance against their will and preventing other people from buying it voluntarily.

Furthermore, they are immigrating here en masse because American corporations are moving to Mexico, polluting the soil and groundwater, and making it impossible for them to grow food. Our policies are causing this. We profit mightily from their labor and we should legalize them, as Obama promised to do during the campaign. But he's a liar, so I don't expect much from him.

Posted by: sunnyday1 | March 22, 2010 1:20 PM | Report abuse

Under this bill, if you have private insurance that you pay for yourself, you cannot use it to cover an abortion. You have to pay separately with cash.

That's ridiculous. If you pay for your own insurance, the government cannot prevent the insurance company from covering a legal medical procedure.

Obama does not care about women's rights! He trampled on women's rights to pass this give away to the health insurance industry. These progressive groups need to get a clue and drop their support of him.

Posted by: sunnyday1 | March 22, 2010 1:06 PM | Report abuse

These progressive groups are too stupid to figure out that Obama is a big liar. They need to stop supporting him and giving him their money!

Posted by: sunnyday1 | March 22, 2010 12:57 PM | Report abuse

We give $3B to Israel and abortion is legal and government funded. Why can't the Republican party stop all funds to Israel until abortion is banned?

Posted by: repugnicant | March 22, 2010 12:56 PM | Report abuse

Why doesn't this organization just start a nonprofit abortion fund that all the people that want to pay for birth control abortions can make contributions and leave the rest of us out of the sordid mess of using abortion as a method of birth control.

The same reason theleft wing nuts and so called progressives (communists in my opinion) don't do the same for all the bleeding hearts who swoon at the sight of someone paying for their lifestyle with taxpayer money, why should they pay or go to the trouble of creating pools for the people they want to have free everything when they can just elect a president who has the same ideals and charge the taxpayer for it. That's why. That one was easy.

Posted by: mmg16 | March 22, 2010 11:04 AM | Report abuse

OH PAlease, this isn't about all Americans, this is about the people that couldn't even spell vote that voted this traitor into office. This is about illegals who will ultimately gain citizenship as a reward for being able to walk across a border, jump a fence or breed out 10 children in US hospitals for free. This is about votes guys, and nothingmore. He's a crook and this bill should be reversed because he bought the votes illegally, not because the majority of the people who voted for it believed in it. This is the biggest sham against American's freedom and the Constitution that has ever been presented to the American people as a legitimate law. This is about people who are too stuipid to finish school, too lazy to work, to zonked out on drugs to care, please don't think for a moment he had the middle class worker in mind. The rich don't care, it's an entitlement for all of the above, and the middle class will pay for it while again, the rich, the stupid etc., get more checks in the mail. When are people going to have some pride in themselves, get an education, a job and for pity sakes quit looking to society to pay their way through life? I can't wait to vote him and this band of theives out of office.

Posted by: mmg16 | March 22, 2010 11:00 AM | Report abuse

This so-called "deal" is a joke. Under Roe v. Wade, the law and guarantees federal funding for abortion ; this is why the Hyde ammendment was enacted in the first adjust the law to prohibit federal funding of abortion. Stupak's "deal" is nothing but an exectuive order from Obama promising to maintain the policy of the Hyde ammendment. An executive order is a joke that can be overturned on a whim at any time. Stupak sold out. Period.

Posted by: JohnR22 | March 22, 2010 10:21 AM | Report abuse

I'm pro-choice, I think a choice should be included in the insurance exchange for abortion, but that said, I believe people should pay for it on their own. A large pool of pro-choice women will buy into a plan that includes that option, and should do so with their own money. The sticky part is with giving people subsidies to pay for health care, but my guess is that there would be a separate plan or rider that wouldn't have subsidies issued for it. I wouldn't have my wife have an abortion, but I think other people should be able to do what they want here. People like to act like they care so much about kids, but they don't teach 'em anything, and look at all the hateful rhetoric out there. These are people with kids saying this stuff, in general. Act like adults and mind your own business. There's a reason why it's law.

Posted by: fbutler1 | March 22, 2010 10:20 AM | Report abuse

An Executive Order can take effect with the stroke of a pen and just as easily be rescinded with the stroke of a pen.

Posted by: asmith1 | March 22, 2010 10:07 AM | Report abuse

The RIGHT to get an abortion is not the same as the requirement that someone else PAY FOR IT.

Posted by: humbleandfree

This bill doesn't and never did modify the Hyde amendment. The only reason it became an "issue" was because Republicans can read the polls and saw the 60% oppose federal funds used for abortion. Then it was just a matter of repeating over and over to non-thinking people like you that this subsidizes abortions.

It didn't take a rocket scientist to read the Stupak amendment and figure out he was trying to go beyond funding abortions. He was trying to institute a set of rules that would keep health insurance companies from even offering the coverage. Once Stupak figured out there was no way that would happen he needed to have some cover to default back to the Hyde amendment which he had claimed was his intention from the beginning.

The GOP doesn't care what the reasons people have for opposing the bill: Death panel, public option, no public option, doesn't subsidize abortions, does subsidize abortion, communist, socialist, ... whatever they can think of.

It never mattered whether it was true or not. Sen Grassley didn't have any problem standing up in Iowa and claiming there were death panels. He knew full well there weren't any and admitted later on a Sunday talk circuit.

I listened to Sen Hatch on the floor claim he didn't know what was in the Bill and then a few minutes later say he was opposed to 90% of it and in favor of 10%. Neat trick when you don't know what's in the Bill.

Posted by: James10 | March 22, 2010 9:54 AM | Report abuse

I don't know if it's fate or just mere irony that the uh face of their opposition is named Boehner. The "eh" in there is about the only silent thing about that blowhard.

Posted by: Nymous | March 22, 2010 9:41 AM | Report abuse

democrats are TRAITORS

Posted by: Imarkex


My good buddy Imarkex!

Imarkex is the guy that has no problem killing Jew babies along with all his other pro-life buddies. They aren't going to lift a finger to stop the $ Billions of US taxpayer foreign aid going to the Jewish State of Israel. Elective abortions are perfectly legal in the state of Israel and performed by their socialist health care system.

But Imarkex and his pro-life friends insist on shoveling billions every year to Israel.

And most certainly Imarkex and his pro-life friends are going to continue to buy communists Chinese made goods from a country the has a forced abortion policy.

You wouldn't expect Imarkex and his pro-life buddies to give up is little trinkets for Jewish or Chinese babies. No. No. No.

When St. Pete asks Imarkex about he funneled billions to kill little Jew babies and little Chinese babies you know what Imarkex is going to say: "democrats are TRAITORS"

I wonder what ol' St. Peter is going to say in return.... hmmm.

Posted by: James10 | March 22, 2010 9:40 AM | Report abuse

The RIGHT to get an abortion is not the same as the requirement that someone else PAY FOR IT. Face it NOW, most abortions are not "health care", they are delayed contraception or month after "oops" antedotes. A woman can still have an abortion - she just has to pay for it. Why isn't NOW thrilled that many poor woman can now have a CHOICE - they have health insurance, and pre-natal care, and obstetrics, and well baby care -- they are all covered. Those REAL health care expenses are many times more than the cost of an abortion. SO - the health care plan actually increases a young poor woman's CHOICE.

Posted by: humbleandfree | March 22, 2010 9:35 AM | Report abuse

I don't believe this sham outrage for a minute. The pro-abortion lobby knows full well that Obama is not just a friend, he is their hero -- and executive orders come and go at the will of the executive.

Remember, Obama's very first executive order, issued one day before the 37th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, nullified the Mexico City policy to allow U.S. taxpayer funds to be used for abortions throughout the world. Gotta get rid of those yellow, brown and black and poor people, you know!

Hillary has been pushing that line (and the notion that abortion is part of "women's health," even tho well more than half the babies killed are girls) ever since.

What this demonstrates is that the "pro-life" Democrats like Stupak and Casey are fakes, willing to lie to get pro-life votes.

The GOP is little better, admittedly, but being a hypocrite (voting pro-life while not believing it) is better for unborn children than being an outright abortion enabler.

May God have mercy on all of us.

Posted by: chrisinwien | March 22, 2010 9:16 AM | Report abuse

to Sparky15

Hey Sparky boy, you are a poster child for NARAL. Keep up the good work.

Posted by: Mark35 | March 22, 2010 8:37 AM | Report abuse

This Bill will be known as the Obama-Stupid Stupak Bill!

Posted by: CayC | March 22, 2010 8:35 AM | Report abuse

So all the rest of us should be held hostage by NOW's single mindedness
Oh, brother.

Please, tell us how abortion rights play into the greater social structure thereby insuring domestic rights and social equality, ie, the ability to make a decision regarding personal health care free of government interference in regard to the most basic of human rights, reproduction, which is a defining factor of the overall social code and thereby the very infrastructure of the United States, determing its success or failure. That is, not only abortion, but race equality or sexual preference rights, the right to self-determination is the very foundation of American success...

And you don't know.

We do.


Indicative of the problems -- both right, and "left-progressive," ie, none-too-bright.

And "none-too-bright" can't run a country.

Posted by: thegreatpotatospamof2003 | March 22, 2010 8:33 AM | Report abuse

Problem is for all his liberalism when it comes to gays and abortion Obama is all most a right winger.

Posted by: FLvet | March 22, 2010 8:23 AM | Report abuse

So all the rest of us should be held hostage by NOW's single mindedness? How utterly Republican an idea. One step at a time. To call the Democrats traitors is to say that only women who seek abortions, but cannot pay, matter to NOW. Even this liberal chokes on that bile.

Posted by: therev1 | March 22, 2010 8:07 AM | Report abuse

So Obama signed an Executive Order that gave the abortion opponents some of what they wanted in order to pass that bill, eh?

How's that Executive Order to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay workin' out for y'all?

Posted by: LNER4472 | March 22, 2010 8:01 AM | Report abuse

Abortion is a sin but that doesn't stop the blk welfare gutter trash from opening their legs every 5 seconds.

Posted by: Sparky15 | March 22, 2010 7:43 AM | Report abuse

The NRLC makes an excellent point. Since the exec. order does nothing except make it appear that he's turning his back on his supporters, why bother? Do Not Sign.

If spouse says "you must clean the house" and I say "I'll do the dishes" and spouse says "that's unacceptable", why should I do the dishes?

Posted by: MAL9000 | March 22, 2010 7:41 AM | Report abuse

This just shows the HYPOCRISY of the Roman Catholic Church and Stupak:

They, ultimately, don't have any serious, unshakable philosophical or theological ground on the prevention of abortions --- done at legal stages. They MERELY demand that poor and uneducated women do not get help in their legal abortions.

The hypocrisy is not the subtle, clever, or complex kind that even high school students don't understand. It is very obvious.

And it actually make sense, for these people and their institutions to be illogically consistent like this: they are also those who are against preventive measures like condom use and sex education to prevent unwanted pregnancies.

If "just say no" had worked, the opium fields of Aghanistan, the Coca plantations in South America, as well as teen prenancies would all have disappeared by now, after so many generations of preaching from these people and their institutions.

Posted by: HerLao | March 22, 2010 7:32 AM | Report abuse

Why doesn't this organization just start a nonprofit abortion fund that all the people that want to pay for birth control abortions can make contributions and leave the rest of us out of the sordid mess of using abortion as a method of birth control. I think this "reform" bill will not fix the real problems in health care costs but for those who care, this bill still allows for abortion if a woman is raped or the pregnancy threatens her life.

Posted by: Georgetowner1 | March 22, 2010 6:29 AM | Report abuse

NOW will just have to get over it. Women's Rights has got to mean more than just pressing the "Death Button" an your unborn child.

A woman's choice starts way before she gets to the point of being shocked that she is three months pregant. There are all sorts of choices way before she gets to that point: choice to use birth control, choice to be selective about intimate partners, choice to use EPT (Early Pregnancy Test) kit, choice to use morning after pill if need be.

But the choice to kill a little person who has the same features you and I have (i.e., head, arms, legs, fingers, etc...) is just morbid. We have got to hold women accountable in our society.

Posted by: RealTexan1 | March 22, 2010 5:36 AM | Report abuse

This is just posturing by NOW and NARAL to make it appear that Stupak got something legitimate out of the process. They know that Obama still has their interests at heart.

Posted by: TJ44 | March 22, 2010 5:09 AM | Report abuse

If anyone still believes anything Obama says, he/she is a stupid person. He tells nothing but lies. In fact, the dems have told nothing but lies. This pathetic Obamacare bill will be our ruination. Poor people HAVE insurance - it is called Medicaide and this Obamacare will be no better than Mdicaide. Tell me how we can afford to buy insurance when we do not have a job. When the states can not afford Medicaide we will go to jail for not having insurance. I believe that is unconstitutional, but it is in the bill!! When they have enough of us in jail and it gets too expensive, I guess Obama will just turn on the gas.

Posted by: annnort | March 22, 2010 4:45 AM | Report abuse

I am a woman who is strongly pro-choice and have always supported NOW and NAREL in all its efforts. I will not condemn the compromises the President and the Congress made to enact this legislation, however.
We can all continue the good fight against the Hyde amendment and any other impediments to safe and legal choices for women's reproductive rights. Now was the time for action to lay the groundwork for that fight and quality healthcare for all women and their families in America.

Posted by: talitha1 | March 22, 2010 3:23 AM | Report abuse

democrats are TRAITORS

Posted by: Imarkex | March 22, 2010 1:13 AM | Report abuse

People get carried away in pursuit of their own particular ideology. I am pro choice. But I am also a nurse. Health care reform was never going to pass if paying for elective abortions with federal money was forced into it. Low income women need health care more than most segments of society. It would not have been a gift to them to push for federally paid for abortions if it meant that they wouldn't get health care. Pregnancy is an important part of a woman's health needs, but it is not the only part. Women also get diabetes, heart disease, cancer and a host of other conditions for which they need access to medical care. At this point in time the country is not ready to pay for elective abortions with federal money. It was a tough fight to get health care without it. Thank heaven that we got health care. So very much suffering is going to be relieved. Thank heaven.

Posted by: karela | March 22, 2010 12:27 AM | Report abuse

Another pro-choice voter here, and I put affordable care for mothers and children ahead of affordable abortion. Thank you Mr. Stupak for your wise compromise, and thank you to the legislators who made this law.

Posted by: pundito | March 22, 2010 12:23 AM | Report abuse

I don't know what a "true Catholic" is anymore -- one who supports the cover-up of sexual abuses by the church's leader?

Posted by: seaduck2001 | March 22, 2010 12:08 AM | Report abuse

Kissling is not a true Catholic anymore, nor her froup. You can't be a pro-choice Catholic. Once you become pro-choice/pro-abortion you are no longer Catholic as you are rejecting the teachings and tenents of the Church. Hope they aren't wasting an hour of their time every Sunday.

Posted by: DaMan2 | March 21, 2010 11:59 PM | Report abuse

I am very strongly pro-choice, but compromise was necessary for the greater good.

Posted by: seaduck2001 | March 21, 2010 11:57 PM | Report abuse

Neither NOW nor NARAL should be surprised as President Obama would sell his mother for a vote.

Posted by: LeeHinAlexandria | March 21, 2010 11:24 PM | Report abuse

NARAL deserves it. As they say, What comes around goes around. During the presidential campaign, NARAL forgot Hillary Clinton, a woman that helped them, for a well-spoken, self centered man, Mr. Obama. Were they stupid? No, no. they wanted to be politically correct and on the right site. So they go it.

By the way, I am Hispanic and mulato, like President Obama. I was born in the Dominican Republic from a single mother with zero education and now I have a Ph.D. I believe I can speak out without being deemed racist.

Remember, English is my second language.

Thank you


Posted by: scv3456 | March 21, 2010 11:13 PM | Report abuse

I am strongly pro-choice, but expanding health care to the many Americans without it is a larger, greater good. Sometimes, we have to compromise, and I for one would rather have this bill than none at all.

Posted by: karen2311 | March 21, 2010 11:12 PM | Report abuse

Please Democrats...

Lets recognize that now women are not suffering from Pre-Existing Conditions by reason of their gender... Let's all recognize that now poor women and their children will have the opportunity to get health care... Let's all recognize that this was what was necessary to get this bill passed (despite Stupak's claim that it would have passed anyway)... It was what had to be done....

Nothing has changed... the Hyde Amendment has been the law for a while... it will continue to be the law... at least we are not going backward as Stupak was demanding

Posted by: CalifObserver | March 21, 2010 11:09 PM | Report abuse

Reproductive rights means that a woman has the right to say no to sex. That's not always the case. It's recognizing that a woman can say no, and not be beaten or punished, and ask her partner wear a condom, and not get beaten or punished. It means when she gets pregnant, she has the right to all the available health care, such as OBGYNs, midwives and birthing attendants, that will lead her through the birth of her child, and that she will have the right give birth in a hospital, and to healthcare for her and her child when they leave the hospital.There's so much wrapped up in it that's hard to see because it's not necessarily the reality that we see everyday--we have to remember that there are people who don't have the care we take for granted--like being able to say no.

Posted by: melanie8 | March 21, 2010 11:00 PM | Report abuse

Well NOW, at least they can get birth people need to push that .....

Posted by: mark0004 | March 21, 2010 10:48 PM | Report abuse

"Reproductive rights" is an incorrect term. The correct term is "infanticide." Let's call it what it is.

NARAL and NOW are in favor of killing babies in their mother's wombs.

Posted by: InTheMiddle | March 21, 2010 10:46 PM | Report abuse

If NOW and NARAL are unhappy, then maybe the dems did something right after all. Shocking.

Posted by: VAtrailerTrash | March 21, 2010 10:38 PM | Report abuse

Let NARAL and NOW lay off for a while. The bill had to be passed. There are people who can't go to the doctor to save their lives, not just their mental well-being. They have a higher claim on our concern at this point.

Posted by: Matthew_DC | March 21, 2010 10:34 PM | Report abuse

Hyde is a legislative act that cannot be touched by executive order, or any legislative act that does not specifically repeal it. There is abortion language in the bill, specifically stating federal funds will not be used to fund abortions in the U.S. or in U.S. foreign assistance. The executive order was a necessary move to assure Stupak and others that abortion would, indeed, not be covered. It was the insurance Stupak et al needed. Hyde is still firmly in place. As long as it is, federal monies will not fund abortions. Period.

Posted by: melanie8 | March 21, 2010 10:32 PM | Report abuse

I'm not surprised this bill will pass on the backs of a woman's right to choose. And once again, the poor women of America will pay the largest price. At the same time I also have to acknowledge that healthcare for the majority of Americans is something we need desperately so despite my disappointment, I think my sentiments are more along the lines of what Planned Parenthood had to say.

But I look forward to the day when women really are equal in the hearts of all citizens in this country. We still have a lot of work to do!

Posted by: chaosorcommunity | March 21, 2010 10:28 PM | Report abuse

NARAL could care less about women.

NARAL publicly opposed the first female candidate for President, Hillary Clinton, in favor of the male candidate.

This group needs to be put out of business - and any woman who gives money to this organization is doing so to the detriment of all American women.

And I am Pro-Choice - but Pro-Woman first.

Posted by: mgd1 | March 21, 2010 10:20 PM | Report abuse

What are these folks unhappy about??

ABORTION IS NOW LAW OF THE LAND. So much for the Hyde Ammendment. Not sure what Stupak was thinking getting that Executive Order from Obama which isn't worth the paper it will be printed on. Legislative Law pre-empts Executive Orders.

Another question I have is if this bill doesn't contain abortion language in it, WHY THEN DID THE PRESIDENT NEED TO SIGN AN EXECUTIVE ORDER TO PRECLUDE IT??? OOPS

Posted by: rigoman33 | March 21, 2010 9:58 PM | Report abuse

What are these folks unhappy about??

ABORTION IS NOW LAW OF THE LAND. So much for the Hyde Ammendment. Not sure what Stupak was thinking getting that Executive Order from Obama which isn't worth the paper it will be printed on. Legislative Law pre-empts Executive Orders.

Another question I have is if this bill doesn't contain abortion language in it, WHY THEN DID THE PRESIDENT NEED TO SIGN AN EXECUTIVE ORDER TO PRECLUDE IT??? OOPS

Posted by: rigoman33 | March 21, 2010 9:58 PM | Report abuse

Perhaps next we'll hear from some association of children who favor the timely execution of parents who are spending their inheritance. Life will be bookended by situations in which a person is liable to be viewed by his most powerful relatives as a nuisance rather than a benefactor: a mother's womb, and retirement.

Posted by: douglaslbarber | March 21, 2010 9:46 PM | Report abuse

"The president of the National Organization for Women said her group is "incensed" about the impasse-breaking deal between President Obama and a group of anti-abortion Catholic Democrats"

They needed to get to 216. End of story.

Posted by: davidscott1 | March 21, 2010 9:46 PM | Report abuse

I think they are trying to say "stop killing millions of innocent people".

Hitler, Stalin, and Mao would be proud of NARAL and NOW.

Posted by: krankyman | March 21, 2010 9:40 PM | Report abuse

Another lie by the president and democrats, the planned executive order on abortion, will not Trump the law in the health care bill.

Posted by: xthat | March 21, 2010 9:40 PM | Report abuse

Yes, it sucks, but it is necessary. Pass it now and we will fix it later, after replacing certain Congressmen.

Posted by: raschumacher | March 21, 2010 9:24 PM | Report abuse

A woman for president was too much for the Democrats, as they chose Obama over Hillary. Now we see the trend continue...learn your place, I think they are trying to say.

Posted by: JohnnyGee | March 21, 2010 9:22 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company