Women in Poverty New Victim of Bi-Partisanship

This is getting insane. Another concession to the GOP who do not run congress. The victim this time? women in poverty. The GOP has been complaining about expanding family planning to the poor int he stimulus bill. Waxman put in the expansion provision-but at Obama's behest it was dropped tonight. Progressives must find a way to leverage the power brokers on issues like this. Im calling my congressperson. I suggest you do too. This stimulus ,as the hill notes, has low enthusiasm from liberals, blue dogs, and the gop. Maybe a few weeks mroe till the final vote is our friend to get the bill the DEMOCRATS deserve as well as the nation. number to congress 1-877-851-6437
<Officials: Family planning money may be dropped By DAVID ESPO and ANDREW TAYLOR, Associated Press Writers David Espo And Andrew Taylor, Associated Press Writers 2 hrs 57 mins ago WASHINGTON - House Democrats are likely to jettison family planning funds for the low-income from an $825 billion economic stimulus bill, officials said late Monday, following a personal appeal from President Barack Obama at a time the administration is courting Republican critics of the legislation. Several officials said a final decision was expected on Tuesday, coinciding with Obama's scheduled visit to the Capitol for separate meetings with House and Senate Republicans. The provision has emerged as a point of contention among Republicans, who criticize it as an example of wasteful spending that would neither create jobs nor otherwise improve the economy. Under the provision, states no longer would be required to obtain federal permission to offer family planning services -- including contraceptives -- under Medicaid, the health program for the low-income.> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090127/ap_o n_go_co/obama_stimulus/print

Tags: Congress, obama (all tags)



Re: Women in Poverty New Victim of Bi-Partisanship


by Jess81 2009-01-26 10:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Women in Poverty New Victim of Bi-Partisanship
thanks-make sure to calll congress today. this is unacceptable. dems won. gop lost or so i thought
by art3 2009-01-26 11:06PM | 0 recs
Thanks for this diary.

Hopefully, it will call more of us into action. After 8 long years of Dumbya Bush preventing women from accessing the health care they need, I don't want to see Obama continue the "Bush Legacy". We voted for change, so now's the time to make it happen!

by atdleft 2009-01-27 05:11AM | 0 recs
As much as I appreciate the sentiment...

...something like this deserves its own bill.  In a stimulus package, a family planning provision is pretty much just pork, or close enough.

While they're just being contrarian, the Republicans are right in that the family planning measure "would neither create jobs nor otherwise improve the economy," at least directly (long term, of course, it would leave us better off, but nuance isn't most peoples' strong suit).

If the difference between passing the package with 60 votes and passing it with 80 votes (meaning that Republicans take ownership of it as well and preventing it from being an issue in the mid-term elections) is penny-ante stuff like this that can be resolved later with their own (less mission critical) bills, then I say "get an axe."

by Dracomicron 2009-01-27 04:22AM | 0 recs

Anyone who actually reads the bill can see it's already packed with agenda items that are at best borderline stimulative. 1 billion for catching up with deadbeat dads isn't going to stimulate much - it's good Progressive spending, but it's not stimulative. Raising Pell grants by $500 is of questionable value, etc.

These are great items to spend money on, and I'm ecstatic that they're in there. But I fail to see how it's a crisis every time something gets yanked. There has to be some give and take. The bill will still be the most wildly progressive piece of legislation in the past 20 years.

by Neef 2009-01-27 04:44AM | 0 recs
I'm guessing

But I think maybe there are some things in the bill put in there to draw Republican attention, get them to whine. (Something they are very good at) Which then could be dropped with the pronouncement of see we listened to you, even though we really didn't have to.

While I think the monies for family planning are needed I see it quickly coming back in a early health care bill.

by jsfox 2009-01-27 04:50AM | 0 recs
That's an important point

This is not the Healthcare Reform bill. People are treating the stimulus like it's the last bill we'll ever get passed.

by Neef 2009-01-27 06:46AM | 0 recs
Re: That's an important point

Perfect characterization.  We're used to being steamrolled.  Time for that to change.

by fogiv 2009-01-27 07:50AM | 0 recs
well certainly..screw women

but make sure ACORN gets funding.

by Teacher1956 2009-01-27 03:01PM | 0 recs
Re: As much as I appreciate the sentiment...

I agree.

I read that Dems still plan on funding this, Obama just asked it not be in this bill, since it doesn't really apply to the goals of the stimulus. We should be fighting for more mass transit in the stimulus bill.

Family planning should be part of the health care package.

by Lolis 2009-01-27 04:46AM | 0 recs

perfect, ACORN gets funding but poor women get pregnant and get farther tied down to the cycle of poverty.

Quick, as a "new feminist"  I have to remember that women wait and the new women's movement is not NOW, but LATER.

by Teacher1956 2009-01-27 03:03PM | 0 recs
Excuse me...

But how is this "pork"? How is saving women's lives "pork"? How is preventing unwanted pregnancies "pork"? I'm so sick & tired of seeing spineless Dems cave into the CReeps, even when they don't have to!

Why can't the poor get any stimulus? Or is it OK now to throw them under the bus?

by atdleft 2009-01-27 05:09AM | 0 recs

As the respondants before you were so quick to pick up, this is "pork" in that it does not apply to the overall goal of the stimulus bill.

These changes would be welcome, and most likely would be more at home in a health care bill.  But right now, if they're impeding progress, the world won't end if they get taken off the table for now.

by Dracomicron 2009-01-27 05:36AM | 0 recs

Tell that to all those woman who are facing unwanted pregnancies or desperately need birth control knowledge.

by eddieb 2009-01-27 05:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Nice!

No one here is saying this isn't a worthwhile program. It clearly is, but the goal of the stimulus bill is to try and create some jobs and by doing so, increase consumer confidence and get some spending going. The family planning bill, while worthwhile, doesn't belong in here and might give the GOP cover to scuttle the bill.

by Mayor McCheese 2009-01-27 06:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Nice!

Doesn't family planning programs involve Hiring people provide the services? You said "the goal of the stimulus bill is to try and create some jobs and by doing so, increase consumer confidence and get some spending going". why do you think that these programs wouldn't provide jobs? Your argument contadicts itself. A job is a job even if it is about family planning for the poor.

by eddieb 2009-01-27 08:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Nice!

What in this legistlation suggests that they will hire more people?

by Mayor McCheese 2009-01-27 10:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Nice!

only jobs that help men are jobs.  Jobs that help women are a frill.

by Teacher1956 2009-01-27 03:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Sigh... go ahead and sigh
it might bring needed oxygen.  
In the meantime, try and learn.... women get pregnant.  It then becomes very hard to climb out of poverty, get good jobs, pay for day-care etc.. they end up in a downward cycle of poverty, often stuck for years on welfare.  Family planning has EVERYTHING to do with the intentions of this bill.
by Teacher1956 2009-01-27 03:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Excuse me...

How does this provide "Stimulus" to the poor?

by Mayor McCheese 2009-01-27 06:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Excuse me...

This program doesn't stimulate the poor it helps them with education and serices dearly needed. The jobs created are those needed to provide those services and these positions will contribute  to the overall stimulus program. Make sense to me.

by eddieb 2009-01-27 08:16AM | 0 recs
I would hope...

...a stimulus bill would set its sights higher than "directly pay for a couple jobs."

Sorry, your argument does not hold water.

by Dracomicron 2009-01-27 08:36AM | 0 recs
Re: I would hope...
Where do you get a "Couple of jobs" from?
Millions of dollars would create hundreds and hundreds if not thousands of 20k-25k jobs. Here in Fl teachers earn about 25k to start! There are plenty of qualified people just dying for work like this. I find your arrogance towards teaching and teachers offensive. I'm sure my argument doesn't hold water in wingnut land but We progressives will hold water for real people and meaningful real jobs.
by eddieb 2009-01-27 09:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Excuse me...

The goal of a "stimulus bill" should be just that: stimulating the economy. Again, no one is denying that educational programs for the poor are a good idea. But this bill is direly needed to prevent total collapse of the economy, and quickly.  Education should be taken up in another bill.

by Mayor McCheese 2009-01-27 10:58AM | 0 recs
There's a good deal

of stimulus for the poor:

20 billion in food stamps
1.5 billion homeless assistance
1 billion for low-income heating
1 billion community development block grants
4.2 billion for Neighborhood Stabilization (de-ghettoization)
5 billion for public housing repair, etc.

There's more, but that's 30 billion right there. Unfortunately there's barely a word written about the great stuff that's in the bill, and volumes of writing about what's not.

by Neef 2009-01-27 06:40AM | 0 recs
Re: There's a good deal

This is why we should avoid adding too many extraneous items. It happens all the time. Opponents seize on something that doesnt' fit, call it "pork" and then have a justification to oppose it, and the media goes right along with it.

by Mayor McCheese 2009-01-27 07:08AM | 0 recs
Re: There's a good deal

So what! I don't remember the repigs getting upset when Dems complained. You know Drug companys not having to compete with generics. I seem to recall someone who just said "We won". Screw the repigs call their bluff, let them vote against the stimulus. They know if they do we will wipe them out in the next election. There will be no repiglican party in congress in 2011

by eddieb 2009-01-27 08:50AM | 0 recs
eddie eddie eddie

you are forgetting the only goal here... to prop up and defend everything Obama does.  People who would have had screaming fits if a president Hillary Clinton did this suddenly find it perfect as is everything Obama does.

by Teacher1956 2009-01-27 03:10PM | 0 recs
Re: As much as I appreciate the sentiment...

Spot on. It's a worthwhile program, but it isn't "Stimulative" and it's presence could possibly doom a stimulus bill. Let's pass this in its own right.

by Mayor McCheese 2009-01-27 06:28AM | 0 recs
Bull S**t

You seem to be afraid of a Repiglican bluff! The Repigs know that they if they kill this bill they're doomed. Jesus they were just crushed in the election, remember WE WON!

by eddieb 2009-01-27 09:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Bull S**t

Yes we won. And as winners, we have to act responsibly for the good of the entire nation. Jamming the stimulus bill with unrelated matters like this jeopardizes its chances and endagers all we have fought so hard to win.

by Mayor McCheese 2009-01-27 11:02AM | 0 recs
are you a member of &quot;LA.T.E.R.&quot;

that is the new Obama approved version of N.O.W.

Actually the measure would improve the economy as 51 percent of the population is a pretty important constituency and without family planning funds, many of them become more deeply indebted and tied in to the cycle of poverty.
Of course women should wait, it's only 2009 and we can't expect to be treated equally yet.

by Teacher1956 2009-01-27 03:00PM | 0 recs
Women in Poverty vs the eternal tax cuts

I am constantly flabbergasted with the Democratic obsession with one sided Bi-partisanship. No matter how hard they try the repugs are never satisfied  until every newspaper in the country has a story which includes the phrase "Democrats Cave again !". Am I wrong? If this is an attempt at stratigy by throwing repigs a Bone. What was the purpose of caving on tax cuts? Why won't they accept the fact that There aren't enough bones in all the grave yards in the world to appease these wingnuts.

by eddieb 2009-01-27 05:49AM | 0 recs
1 sided bipartisanship vs. 'repigs'

Methinks that there's middle ground between steamrolling everything we want in one bill and getting steamrollered ourselves.

Your characterization of the other guys as "repigs" is a pretty good indication that some of us go too far, too.

by Dracomicron 2009-01-27 08:01AM | 0 recs
Re: 1 sided bipartisanship vs. 'repigs'

Repiglican befits these guys I didn't give them this moniker they EARNED it. And just how is this MINORITY party going to accomplish this steamrolling? They were just thrashed, losing seats in the last two elections. What the hell should we be afraid of? Dems NO LONGER HAVE TO CAVE to be bipartisan, it's the REPIGS turn to cave.

by eddieb 2009-01-27 09:15AM | 0 recs
Women in Poverty New Victims

Someone needs to remind the Repigs they had no problem with wasting Millions of our tax dollars on useless "Abstinance only programs". Also, since when does hiring people to teach people about womens health deserve such scorn? A job is a job and as far as I know thats what a big part of the stimulus package is all about.

by eddieb 2009-01-27 06:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Women in Poverty New Victims

no, only construction jobs are jobs and as Reich says those will be filled with people who never did the work before, screw the unions.

by Teacher1956 2009-01-27 03:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Women in Poverty New Victims

Excuse me, adults are trying to have a conversation here.

by Jess81 2009-01-27 03:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Women in Poverty New Victim of Bi-Partisanship

I agree with this move.

I'm one of those who is always on board with all those constitutional amendment/bill/rules changes that say that a bill should be about one thing, and one thing only - not something that people can pile unrelated spending on to.

While family planning funding is a worthy cause - and the Obama administration agrees that it is a worthy cause - it probably isn't going to stimulate the economy all that much.  This is an economic stimulus bill; the point is to create jobs, get people back to work, and pump money back into the economy.

We should create a separate bill for family planning funding, or attach it to the comprehensive health care reform bill.  If the Obama administration isn't behind that, then I'll join you in your criticism.  But not including a non-stimulative, yet worthy, program in a stimulus bill is, to me, good government - a way of telling the people that things are going to be different around here.

by mistersite 2009-01-27 07:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Women in Poverty New Victim of Bi-Partisanship

Kinda like separate but equal! Right? Family planning provides jobs just like the banking and auto industry.  I think we should focus on demanding that the repuglicans accept separating all the concessions Obama and the Dems made to them into a seperate bill. I rest my case!

by eddieb 2009-01-27 09:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Women in Poverty New Victim of Bi-Partisanship

No, nothing like separate but equal, and your injecting that particular phrase into this debate (where it really doesn't belong) isn't going to help the discussion.  Family planning doesn't create jobs in the same way as, say, a road construction project - which not only creates jobs for the people pouring the concrete, but also for the civil engineers who design the road, the people who make the concrete and the rebar, and the people who maintain the trucks, to say nothing of the money all those people spend on groceries and clothes and other things when they've got steady work.  One road construction dollar pays off much more than a dollar in the long run.  In terms of stimulus, funding for family planning doesn't do what we need stimulus money to do - to create as many new jobs as we can and get money back into the economy.

by mistersite 2009-01-27 11:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Women in Poverty New Victim of Bi-Partisanship

A road construction project would create jobs for men and would do very little to create good paying jobs for women.

by feelfree 2009-01-27 02:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Women in Poverty New Victim of Bi-Partisanship

This is true.

I think what's happening is people are thinking back to the last time we had to do this, which was the 1930's, and modeling our response on what The New Deal looked like, which isn't necessarily the right solution, just in terms of where the money should go.  Road construction and giant dams aren't going to put enough people to work in today's economy.

by Jess81 2009-01-27 02:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Women in Poverty New Victim of Bi-Partisanship

That's true, but to some extent we're doing this to ourselves. Look at all th Progressives screaming for "road, rail infrastructure!". Well, screaming may be a bit harsh, but it's a "thing".

I actually don't think women will fare too badly. My mother was a social worker for years, and most of her co-workers were women. The social programs like food stamps are going to produce a lot of jobs in that sector, the school provisions should get teachers hired (or keep them).

It does bring up an interesting question though, what industry is more likely to affect women?

by Neef 2009-01-27 03:16PM | 0 recs

all those poor married women will be so much better off when they can stay at home and cook and clean while their husband go off to their brand new construction jobs.

by Teacher1956 2009-01-27 03:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Women in Poverty New Victim of Bi-Partisanship

As programs are eliminated I think you will find programs impacting women and children will be easily sacrificed for bipartisanship. I agree with you, a job is a job. Job creation should be across the board, However banking, auto industry, etc. which will not be sacrificed are jobs where men outnumber women and earn more than women doing comparable work.

by feelfree 2009-01-27 02:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Women in Poverty New Victim of Bi-Partisanship

well , Obama has 99 problems but a bi*ch ain't one.

by Teacher1956 2009-01-27 03:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Women in Poverty New Victim of Bi-Partisanship
the gop leadership told their emmbers to vote no on the bill. so tell me again why are the dems in congress groveling to the right/ u should see them on tv cheering othe nxing of this family plannign provision from the bill. and yet they stills ay no to the bill. so put it back in. they wont play time to act like like the dems won.
by art3 2009-01-27 08:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Women in Poverty New Victim of Bi-Partisanship

I understand the point people are making here - that it's not strictly stimulus (although fewer unwanted pregnancies for poor people sure qualifies as economic relief) and that it can be attacked as pork, and yadda yadda yadda.

But it's never going to stop.  It's not as if the bill is going to be less vulnerable to attack once this provision is out, or the next, or the one after that.  I'm sure there's money for the NEA in there, so here comes another round of culture wars.  Any money to scientists can be referred to by whatever their goofiest sounding current project is, so that will be attacked.  Building parks, high-speed internet, all these things I've seen attacked by the GOP within the past 24 hours.

Either the bill allocates all 800 billion to fixing potholes, and nothing else, or this is just going to go on until the Democrats draw a line somewhere.  This seems like a decent place to draw it.  It helps families, saves the government money in the long run, and is a basically a human right.

by Jess81 2009-01-27 11:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Women in Poverty New Victim of Bi-Partisanship

There is in fact NEA money in there. There should not be. We should really be focusing on a large, public works/R&D oriented bill that will get as many people working again in as short a time possible. Saving money in the long term, as family planning will do is a good thing but it won't help the economy at this  stage.

by Mayor McCheese 2009-01-27 11:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Women in Poverty New Victim of Bi-Partisanship

Artists have to eat too.  People act like everyone who's out of work is a construction worker.

by Jess81 2009-01-27 02:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Women in Poverty New Victim of Bi-Partisanship

That's a pretty good point, actually.

I'm fine with the NEA money. The point is that the stimulus get spent, and none of the musicians I know are socking it away in IRAs.

by Neef 2009-01-27 02:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Women in Poverty New Victim of Bi-Partisanship

Now that I think about it, wasn't the NEA part of FDR's original "alphabet soup"?  Commissioned tons of artists to make huge murals to put on brand new public works.

by Jess81 2009-01-27 06:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Women in Poverty New Victim of Bi-Partisanship

I haven't read about massive numbers of artists or makers or art supplies being laid off though. The point is we need to deliver as much bang for the buck and ASAP. I support funding for the arts, but it isn't urgent. Insufficient infrastructure spending can result in death, as we saw in Minnesota. Insufficient art spending results in "Starving artists",which is often the case no matter no good the economy is.

by Mayor McCheese 2009-01-28 04:33AM | 0 recs
Planned Parenthood Call to Arms
planned parenthood ust sent out emails to all members to go to action and contact congress asap to fight for family planning. if we have to fight now for this with the dems in power-what will happen to all the other things later?
by art3 2009-01-27 03:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Sweet Jesus

 can't we all agree that getting the stimulus package is a separate matter and that family planning can be handled on another bill without wringing our hands over whether Obama is an elitist and a misogynist??? I mean, seriously, are we that bone-headed?

by QTG 2009-01-27 05:06PM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads