Tweet
The executive order Obama released today effectively rescinds rights the Supreme Court previously extended to over half the people in America.
Looking strictly at numbers (rather than degrees of evil), that’s far more than the proportion of Americans FDR disenfranchised when he interned Japanese Americans.
Obama’s EO disenfranchises a far greater proportion of Americans than were cruelly and wholly disenfranchised under slavery.
In terms of sheer proportion of the population of America disenfranchised by their Presidents, our nation last saw so many robbed of their freedoms over the decades during which the American army largely exterminated the Native Americans.
What a cruel and bitter joke identity politics has played upon us all. Today America’s first person of color in the Oval Office robbed a greater part of our neighbors of their rights than at any time since the Great White Fathers in their White House made war upon the First Peoples.
Today when Obama decreed women must lose their reproductive freedom, who gained? This morning Jane had the answer:
Women’s reproductive rights are being sacrificed for corporate profits. There’s no other way to say it.
Hey – at least Obama’s consistent. He’s the finance and insurance sectors’ faithful servant. The Hamilton Project chose their candidate wisely.
47 Comments
hey dr kirk — does canada still honor the reproductive rights of women?
Hey Suz!
Yep – Canada is a civilized nation, eh?
If folks would rec this, that would be grand! Tweets and sharing on FB also would be lovely.
Twitter whore./s Funny I saw it there first.
Rec’d and thanks Kirk.
recommended
moi? {g}
thanks, ES and newtonusr.
It’s hard to trump the extermination of the first people, but I suppose Obama deserves the distinction. It’s truly a gigantic leap backwards. I suppose the Leninist see this a the first step to a workers’ paradise.
Excellent. Please comment on the protections offered in the EO to those who refuse reproductive services to women. Thanks.
Great diary.
And may I saw, Dr. Murphy, that you were the person who opened my eyes on Obama and the Hamilton Project. Not sure if you are aware, but I followed your great diary (to which you have a link above) with two others on the Hamilton Project.
You were absolutely correct that Obama’s work for Bob Rubin and the Goldman Sachs funded Hamilton Project as early as April, 2006, give him away for what he is: Bob Rubin’s hand-picked salesman for unpopular causes (the wars, the bailouts, the insurance sellout disguised as “health insurance reform). Everyone should read your perceptive and early diary.
There’s no question but that Obama intended to do everything he’s doing right now, including continue, escalate, expand and extend our wars on Iraq and Afghanistan, pass this toxic HCR Billl that passes for healthcare reform, privatize Social Security, cut Medicare, run roughshod over people’s Civil Liberties and more. Inotherwords, Obama’s continuing many, if not most of G. W. Bush’s stupid, vicious policies, and it was clear that he was going to do that, because of his war votes and his vote for the FISA Bill. What was there for people not to see before voting for Obama?
You’re right. I blame John McCain for foisting Sarah Palin on us as the worstest worst case scenario any of us could imagine, at least at that moment. Not that any of us would have voted Republican under any circumstances; it was more along the lines of holy shit, we can’t let this happen. I went from lukewarm support of Obama to crying and singing kumbayah when he was elected. They suckered me good. But it’s the very last time. After 30 years of working very hard to elect Democrats, I am done. No more time, no more money, no more energy. This healthcare bill and the Executive Order sealed the deal for me.
Same here… I saw many of the same clues (plus a few of my own), but the thought of Palin and McCain sent shivers down my spine.
I won’t make that mistake again, though…
All those raging feminists — Digby, Katha Pollit, Joan Walsh, I’m talking to you — who are ecstatic over this bill, need the stripes ripped off their uniforms. They need to be demoted to private immediately, and others need to take their place who will fight for women’s rights.
I can’t recall a more sickening sight in my fifty years as a feminist in this country.
I want addresses so I can send these ladies some coat hangers.
Word. It’s astonishing. The class war apparently trumps every other thing.
We are still here.
This bill is just awful, it is a rollback on part of our development of society (not just womens’ rights, but assuredly including womens’ rights) and I do not believe the issue is decided, or that the fight against this insanity has ended.
Thanks for your thinking on the matter this morning. All of us who saw what just happened, and have not become deluded such that we see the event as some sort of “victory” or “progress” – all of us big or small – need to remain together in a sense of solidarity. We may have lost a fight, but in defeat, we don’t have to forget or forgive.
And, yes, the phrase “class war” is utterly appropriate. What this bill that passed exposes ultimately is the value system dominating our political ruling class and plutocracy. And its a greedy, piggish value system.
I saw it coming, I ask you, what else could we do? REALISTICALLY?
If Obama stirs ‘them’ up too much, he is a dead man, we all know that. So realistically, what would you do differently? I think I would be more bold, but I also think I would have done a lot of the same things too. Not because they were right, I would know they were not, but because I knew I needed to to stay alive.
So lets drop the rose colored fairy tail glasses and deal with reality. Tell us what would you do?
This is more than a thought exercise, I know Obama does use the wisdom of the crowds. If he didn’t he would never have gotten elected, we would be on our second Clinton presidency right now.
I don’t think the supreme court has ever held that there is a consitutional right to purchase insurance to pay for a medical procedure. Certainly it has held that certain medical procedures cannot be denied to those who are willing and capable of paying for them, but I don’t think any constitutional “right to insure” exists.
Joan Walsh is a feminist!? Wow, I didn’t know that. She was busy agreeing with Chris Matthews about abortion during the debate, supporting his campaign. Who labels these people? She is a feminist compared to what? FOX noise? I don’t see it. I think she is very conservative.
It is disgusting. Totally and utterly disgusting.
And, it will not stand.
We are currently working to develop a national campaign to roar back at ALL of those who believe women’s bodies are political bargaining chips to be utilized for their own political expediency.
This Ends Now campaign launches in a week with website launching
Our facebook group is growing with nearly 3,000 members. Please join us – I will be posting the separate video and text when the President signs this atrocity.
Please join us – here is the link to our group – when you join you will be updated for the official campaign launch – also invite your friends.
Thank you all -
http://www.facebook.com/#!/group.php?gid=292932589774
(see my comment below) – formatting issues
i met obama in 2005, and absolutely adored him. i couldn’t even speak, all i could say was “sir, it’s an honor to meet you.” but 3 years later, as a constituent of and seeing his dramatic transformation during his 4-year tenure in the IL senate–from relatively progressive fighter to centrist BS spouter, i decided long before the primaries even, not vote for him or any democrat in 2008 (except Kucinich). i celebrated Obama’s victory in Chicago and in DC, but only because of the historical significance.
any one with an independent, un-biased mind should have seen this coming by 2006, and what really kills me is how much of a traitor to his own ideals he really is. what makes obama’s transformation into a centrist neoliberal all the more painful is that he KNOWS what he is doing is completely wrong. It’s not like the other people who have preceded him, who had no exposure to the philosophies of alternative thought like Edward Said and Rashid Khalidi. Never before has there been someone so well acquainted and supportive of progressive ideals in such a position of power, that, if he wanted, could truly deliver that transformative change he speaks of so much. And yet, he does not. Because he’s been bought and paid for, or there is something much more sinister going on that we are unaware of.
This background is also why so many people continue to cling to the theory, even today, that maybe “this is all part of the plan! you’ll see! obama is playing chess!” Because it is so unbelievable to see a Democrat, but more than anything, THIS democrat, doing what he is doing. It also has to be the reason why it is so hard for liberals/progressive to go against him, because it simply does not register to them that this guy could actually be for the powerful special interests and not for the people, and not the beacon of hope and change they thought they were getting. How could he? He is from a working class background! He’s black! He’s a community organizer!
Eventually, these people are going to find out, the hard way. But for now, the neocons and their allies have to be thrilled, because Obama is the ultimate trojan horse used against progressives unlike anything they’ve ever thought of before. Never has dissent to pro-right-wing policies been silenced so swiftly and thoroughly as it is at this time – whether in war, health care, foreign policy in general, womens reproductive rights, torture (Guantanamo still open!) or the economy – like Vader in Star Wars, all it took the Emperor to destroy the Jedi was to use one of their own against them.
God help us all.
Wonderful diary. Might have been even better if Dr Murphy actually explained what he meant or made an argument in support of his meaning.
What rights were revoked?
Joan Walsh is anti-choice? The articles on Salon slant pro-choice, but they may not reflect her opinion. Thanks for the info. I no longer consider her even a nominal feminist, if she is not pro-choice.
Nice. Glad to see someone took this analogy and ran with it. P&L blog traces the trajectory of Obama’s evolution on abortion politics, if anyone needs more talking points.
apparently, hidden somewhere in the penumbras of the bill of rights is the ever sacrocanct “right to purchase insurance for all constitutionally protected medical procedues.”
Answers to your question by Terry O’Neill, President of NOW:
You’re welcome.
I don’t wish to trivialize Dr Murphy’s argument in advance of having it laid out.
Thank you, CarolynC, but pointing out what the bill allows isn’t quite the same as explaining what rights Obama has revoked.
Fair enough, but I’ll be shocked if the argument isn’t “by making abortion practically unaffordable to millions of women, this bill denies them their constitutional rights.” And, assuming that is the argument, it deserves to be trivialized.
Segregated reproductive health services. I mean, duh.
I’m sorry, I don’t understand what you mean (I’m really not being disingenuous). You mean a prohibition on certain insurance policies covering a medical procedure that is only offered to women? That’s not really segregated health services, that’s segregated insurance coverage.
And I’d point out, abortion insurance is still legal.
Here’s the text from BO’s EO:
“Section 2. Strict Compliance with Prohibitions on Abortion Funding in Health Insurance Exchanges. The Act specifically prohibits the use of tax credits and cost-sharing reduction payments to pay for abortion services (except in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the woman would be endangered) in the health insurance exchanges that will be operational in 2014. The Act also imposes strict payment and accounting requirements to ensure that Federal funds are not used for abortion services in exchange plans (except in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the woman would be endangered) and requires state health insurance commissioners to ensure that exchange plan funds are segregated by insurance companies in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, OMB funds management circulars, and accounting guidance provided by the Government Accountability Office.
I hereby direct the Director of OMB and the Secretary of HHS to develop, within 180 days of the date of this Executive Order, a model set of segregation guidelines for state health insurance commissioners to use when determining whether exchange plans are complying with the Act’s segregation requirements, established in Section 1303 of the Act, for enrollees receiving Federal financial assistance. The guidelines shall also offer technical information that states should follow to conduct independent regular audits of insurance companies that participate in the health insurance exchanges. In developing these model guidelines, the Director of OMB and the Secretary of HHS shall consult with executive agencies and offices that have relevant expertise in accounting principles, including, but not limited to, the Department of the Treasury, and with the Government Accountability Office. Upon completion of those model guidelines, the Secretary of HHS should promptly initiate a rulemaking to issue regulations, which will have the force of law, to interpret the Act’s segregation requirements, and shall provide guidance to state health insurance commissioners on how to comply with the model guidelines.”
Roe v Wade established women’s right to reprodcutive freedom – including elective termination of pregnancy. Barack Obama’s EO precludes them from exercising that freedom in the health care he compells them to purchase.
A tiny minority of women have the disposable income to pay for elective termination. For all the rest, BO’s EO effectively revokes their capacity to exercise the rights afforded them by Roe v Wade.
Rights rendered inoperable are rights revoked.
Of course, male sophists will no doubt differ: but why should they care? Their rights aren’t threatened.
What about abortion riders? Abortion insurance is still legal.
Not to mention that BO’s executive order has no legal effect to the extent it is contradicted by the health care legislation, and that the health care legislation has no legal effect to the extent it is unconstitutional.
Passionate advocacy is no excuse for hyperbole. The abortion restrictions are bad policy, but they are not a revocation of anyone’s rights.
This isn’t a very good argument.
Beside all of the other problems with it, you can’t even know if it’s even remotely true. The contention that only a small portion of Americans can find the cash for an abortion, and you don’t mention what the cost might be, is something that you can’t back up.
Rec’d at work and now at home. I’ll tweet it, too.
The Hyde Amendment, in the form of new and improved overly broad Executive Order, now applies to private sector plans, both on and off the exchange, thereby diminishing women’s reproductive rights in the US.
If you can’t see that, it’s because you don’t want to see it.
Kelly, I understand what you’re saying just fine. It’s quite possible that the EO will make it more burdensome to pay for abortions.
I don’t understand that Obama has “revoked more Americans rights than any President…”.
If there’s no more to the argument than the EO, Dr Murphy is about as out of line as whomever it was hissed “babykiller” at Stupak.
The argument put forth would be valid if every women in the US had at least one abortion in their lifetime which is not the case by a long shot.
Hi Kirk and all;
I would like to recommend this post….how do I do that?
If you are logged in, there is a recommend link in between comments and spotlight at the end of the post but before the comments. Click on it and it recommends it.
Guys,
All the ‘uncooked baby lover’ sites are screaming that the EO means nothing, that Stupak & his dozen-ish sold out & bent over like a cheap dirty ho’ and that he will have to move out of Michigan to survive…
Is the EO an empty gesture or not? Which one is it?
BTW: Aren’t over 80% of abortions 1st trimester, and cost less than $500 or so to perform? Really guys, how many people really can’t come up with that money for something so huge as an unwanted pregnancy? Excuse my ignorance, but aren’t these issues largely symbolic?
Legally, an executive order can’t override legislation, and legislation can’t override the supreme court’s interpretation of the constitution.
No abortion procedures or abortion payment methods that were legal prior to the bill will be illegal after it becomes law. The law does not make abortion insurance illegal, nor does it make abortions more expensive. What the law does do, is create a new class of insurance plans, and prohibit some of them from covering abortions.
Practically, this will make it more difficult (but not impossibly so) for some women to obtain abortion insurance. Making it slightly more onerous to obtain insurance for a constitutionally protected medical procedure is not even remotely similar to “revoking” someone’s right to obtain such procedure.