The AP summarizes the situation thus far, and where it could potentially go:

Buoyed by a presidential pep talk and intense rounds of negotiations, Senate Democrats hope to move closer to embracing a major health care bill this week by tackling the nettlesome issue of abortion. [...]

A government-run insurance program, or "public option," is one of the bill's most contentious issues. At the urging of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a group of moderate and liberal Senate Democrats met again Sunday to seek a compromise, after Obama's pep talk.

One idea calls for national nonprofit insurance plans to be administered by the Office of Personnel Management, which oversees the popular Federal Employees Health Benefits Program.

The proposal seems to appeal to a key Republican, Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine, who met with Obama at the White House on Saturday.

On Sunday, Snowe called the possible compromise "a positive development" because it would give consumers more options for buying insurance.

Snowe's potential support for the Democratic-crafted bill is crucial. Supporters need 60 votes to overcome filibusters, and the chamber's 40 Republicans hope to draw at least one Democrat to their side.

It could be Nelson, who says he will not support final passage of a health care bill unless it includes the tight abortion restrictions he wants. If so, Democrats would have to woo moderate Republicans such as Snowe.

So what's at stake if the Dems can't overcome a filibuster? The health care bill may suffer the same fate as the bill to strengthen the options currently provided by Indian Health Services, which is responsible for providing health care and social support for the indigenous community in the United States. However, IHS is plagued with shortfalls and necessary infrastructures and equipment simply aren't available when needed. A senate bill was proposed in 2008 to strengthen IHS services and plug some of the gaps in service - but this was quickly derailed by Sen. David Vitter. Racewire reports:

While native communities have a big stake in health care reform, they're also prone to becoming a political football. Last year, a Senate bill to strengthen IHS foundered when Sen. David Vitter injected a poison pill amendment specifically aimed at restricting access to abortion for native women. Vitter's amendment could be seen as symbolic in that it replicated the language of the Hyde Amendment's broad restrictions on federal funding for abortion services. That longstanding anti-choice policy disproportionately impacts all poor women.

Still, since the proposed amendment would codify Hyde in the IHS statute—and because native women suffer from huge health disparities and barriers to care, advocates argued that Vitter's move would subject native women to an especially discriminatory, more permanent and restrictive version of Hyde. Vitter figured that in attacking abortion rights, there was no better place to start than one of the most medically disenfranchised groups of women in America.

Last Friday, Senator Byron Dorgan submitted an amendment to reauthorize the Indian Health Care Improvement Act and added an amendment to offer contract medical care to supplement IHS services. On Saturday, Senator David Vitter submitted two amendments to restrict access to abortion services for Native Americans.

Beyond the question of abortion coverage, the public option still remains as the other key issue to be resolved. As Ezra Klein puts it:

Currently, insurance plans are regulated by the states, which means they're different in every state. That makes it hard for them to achieve certain efficiencies of scale or maximize their leverage against providers. But back in September, I noticed a promising provision in Max Baucus's draft that would allow for national insurance plans, so long as they met a minimum level of federal regulation. That seemed like a potentially huge change, but I never heard another word about it, so I let it go.

The compromise being discussed is built atop that provision. The idea is that the Office of Personnel Management would choose nonprofit plans that met national standards and offer them on every state exchange (unless states opted out). These plans would be private, but the OPM would act as an aggressive purchaser, ensuring that they met high standards and conducted themselves properly. It's a private option with a public filter, essentially. But more importantly, it's a menu of national, nonprofit plans, which would be much more interesting from a competitive standpoint than state-based, pubic plans.

But the fact remains that private plans are not public options, no matter how much extra scrutiny they're subjected to. Though the liberals in the room are listening to this compromise, sources close to the discussion tell me that the conversation is opening up beyond the insurance offerings.

Today might mark the Senate's vote on abortion coverage in the health care bill, according to Majority Whip Dick Durbin. This vote will determine what is put forth in the final bill to Obama, and while abortions rights advocates are hopeful, nothing is set in stone until the final votes are in on the outstanding amendments.

Feingold: Deal on public option 'getting closer' [Politico]
Public option compromise still in the works [Politico]
Senate to confront abortion in health care debate [AP]
Indian Health and Abortion Rights: A Dose of Hope Laced with Poison Pills [Racewire]
Latest amendment list [Politico]
The not-a-public-option compromise, and beyond [Washington Post]
Abortion vote could come Monday, Durbin says [Politico]

The film centers around two pregnant girls, Barb and Chris, whose stories are based on the real life experiences of several women. (Barb's story, Abcarian notes, is based on one woman, while Chris' story is a composite sketch of several women.) The two are followed as they make important decisions regarding their pregnancies, and their stories are interspersed with shots of "16- to 22-week-old fetuses floating in utero," as well as interviews and clips of discussing abortion, such as Bill Clinton, Gloria Allred, and Mother Teresa. Below is a trailer for the film:

South Dakota "A Woman's Right To Choose" - Movie Trailer from South Dakota, A Woman's Right To on Vimeo.

The afterschool special nature of the film is intentional, it seems, as the film was screened for 1000 girls in California last October , as part of a screening/forum designed to encourage discussion and debate. Watching a clip of the reaction of the teen screening is quite fascinating, as the girls take up both sides of the debate, though it seems that the anti-choice side is perhaps better represented:

South Dakota Teen Screen from South Dakota, A Woman's Right To on Vimeo.

I haven't seen the film yet, so it would be unfair for me to make an overall judgment on it, yet I do find it somewhat unsettling that an abortion documentary (or "dramumentary," rather) that sells itself as neutral is being promoted by the same company, Motive Entertainment, that marketed both "The Passion of the Christ" and Ben Stein's pro-intelligent design documentary, "Expelled."

The use of fetus pictures and clips of people thanking their mother for having them also ring quite familiar as typical practices of the anti-choice camp, and according to Abcarian, "Thus far, no high-profile abortion rights supporter has seen it," though Elisabeth Hasselbeck and James Dobson have, which sets off a few alarm bells, as well. As I said, I'll have to watch the entire film to really get a sense of its neutrality or lack thereof, but it seems that the filmmaker has already accomplished his goal: his movie has people talking.

Creators Of Abortion Film Say They Want Honest Debate [LATimes]

Monica Davey of the New York Times writes that before Tiller's murder, Carhart performed abortions up to 22 weeks at the Nebraska clinic. However, now that women can't go to Tiller, he says "there is a need" for later procedures, "and I feel deeply about it." He won't specify exactly how late he is willing to perform abortions — perhaps because anything after the 23rd week requires special consultation with him — but his fee schedule mentions procedures as late as the 27th week. Since he has begun providing this service, Operation Rescue has been directing at him some of the vitriol they once saved for Dr. Tiller. Says Operation Rescue president Troy Newman, "We're trying to get criminal charges against him, to get his license revoked, and to get legislators there to look at the law."

Apparently this includes accusing Carhart of the very same "crime" they once tried to pin on Tiller. In 2006, the organization successfully persuaded a grand jury to investigate Tiller's role in the death of a 19-year-old woman named Christin Gilbert. Gilbert had Down syndrome, and became pregnant after she was raped. She received a late-term abortion at Tiller's clinic, and, tragically, died of complications several days later. According to an MSNBC story at the time, Operation Rescue and its anti-abortion allies wanted Tiller charged with "involuntary manslaughter, mistreatment of a dependent adult, and failure to report abuse of a child." The jury found Tiller innocent — and now Operation Rescue is trying to claim that Carhart was actually responsible for Gilbert's death.

The organization put up a blog post in August titled "We Can LEGALLY Stop LeRoy Carhart From Taking Tiller's Place As The Nation's #1 Late-Term Abortionist." The post begins with a "quote" from the dead woman: "'LeRoy Carhart killed me and my baby.' –Christin Gilbert, if she could speak today…" The group that once tried to get Tiller indicted for the manslaughter of Gilbert now says,

That's where LeRoy Carhart comes in. He frequently worked at Tiller's mill-filling in for Tiller as needed-and he was the abortionist in charge of killing Christin's baby.

In fact, the post doesn't mention Tiller's role in the abortion, or in Gilbert's death, at all. Instead, it says,

At Tiller's mill, Carhart and the Tiller staff finally placed an emergency call to 911-begging the dispatcher to come with "No lights, no sirens!" Then they placed the 911 operator ON HOLD for forty-five critical seconds!

Meanwhile, Christin's life ebbed away.[...]

Christin died a horrible, agonizing death at the hands of LeRoy Carhart and the staff at George Tiller's infamous abortion mill.

So who "killed" Christin Gilbert? Apparently, whoever Operation Rescue wants to shut down at the moment. They write,

But now that George Tiller's mill is closed forever, LeRoy Carhart plans to "take his place" and open a new late-term abortion mill in Wichita-in addition to the filthy butchering mill he already operates in Nebraska.

And this is where Operation Rescue comes in.

At least Operation Rescue is careful to say "there is no need for violence against LeRoy Carhart or any abortionist." But others aren't so principled, and since Tiller's death, Carhart has fortified his clinic with a metal detector, new security cameras, and a security consultant. He also limits his travel to short trips and, on the rare occasions he eats out, stays less than 30 minutes. Carhart has to place himself under virtual house arrest because he performs a legal medical procedure — hopefully, this will at least keep him physically safe. Unfortunately, it won't protect him from those who seek to pin a rape victim's tragic death on anybody they don't like.

Abortion Battle Shifts To Clinic In Nebraska [NYT]
We Can LEGALLY Stop LeRoy Carhart From Taking Tiller's Place As The Nation's #1 Late-Term Abortionist [Operation Rescue]

Earlier: More Threats Emerge Against American Abortion Providers
What's Next For Tiller's Clinic, Scott Roeder, And Abortion In Kansas?

Senate Republican Whip Jon Kyl (Ariz.) said he expected that all but a few Republicans would support the Sen. Ben Nelson's (D-Neb) amendment, which would restrict access to abortions for women who receive federal subsidies.

But the amendment is likely to be subject to the Senate's 60-vote threshold, and Kyl does not expect 20 votes on the other side to back the controversial change.

"Most Republicans will but I don't think that will be enough to carry it through, it's a 60-vote margin," Kyl told The Hill Thursday afternoon.

Republicans control only 40 seats, which means Nelson would have to pick up the support of at least 19 Democrats (or 18 plus one of two independents), an unlikely scenario given strong opposition from the Democratic base.

The Republicans are shaking the filibuster stick, but in the immortal words of the Rock and Wyclef Jean: it doesn't matter!

Now, this doesn't mean that advocates for choice can rest on their laurels. Far from it. The new battle being waged is over Sen. Barbara Mikulski's amendment that ensures preventive care and screening:

The Mikulski "women's health amendment" to the Senate healthcare reform bill didn't include the word abortion. But opponents of abortion allege the amendment, which was passed today, leaves the door open for the Health Resources and Services Administration to include abortion as "preventive care" in its guidelines and therefore guarantee no-cost coverage for the procedure.

"Because today's bill as written has no exclusion for abortion in its language, there is no doubt that Sen. [Barbara] Mikulski's amendment opens the floodgates to massive public underwriting of abortion, a position Planned Parenthood has always favored," Family Research Council President Tony Perkins said in a statement. "Without the adoption of 'Stupak-Pitts' amendment language in the Senate version of the bill, it's now very clear that taxpayers will be forced to pay for abortions."

It's always something.

Nelson amendment expected to fall short even with GOP support [The Hill]
Abortion Fight Moves to Mikulski Amendment [US News]

In an op-ed in Salon (which appears in slightly abbreviated form in the LA Times, Ehrenreich writes that women's response to the Stupak Amendment, which "will snatch away all but the wealthiest women's right to choose," has been "muted" compared with the outcry against the new mammography guidelines. This is despite the fact that mammograms for women under 50 haven't been shown to decrease breast cancer mortality, and some evidence suggests they may even increase cancer risk. Ehrenreich writes,

It's not just that abortion is deemed a morally trickier issue than mammography. To some extent, pink-ribbon culture has replaced feminism as a focus of female identity and solidarity. When a corporation wants to signal that it's "woman friendly," what does it do? It stamps a pink ribbon on its widget and proclaims that some miniscule portion of the profits will go to breast cancer research. I've even seen a bottle of Shiraz called "Hope" with a pink ribbon on its label, but no information, alas, on how much you have to drink to achieve the promised effect. When Laura Bush traveled to Saudi Arabia in 2007, what grave issue did she take up with the locals? Not women's rights (to drive, to go outside without a man, etc.), but "breast cancer awareness." In the post-feminist United States, issues like rape, domestic violence, and unwanted pregnancy seem to be too edgy for much public discussion, but breast cancer is all apple pie.

On the one hand, Ehrenreich's comments seem like a somewhat heavy-handed indictment of modern feminism. She says, "Once upon a time, grassroots women challenged the establishment by figuratively burning their bras. Now, in some masochistic perversion of feminism, they are raising their voices to yell, 'Squeeze our tits!'" But just as not everything a woman does is empowering, not every extra-scientific position a group of women takes is a blow to feminism. Also, plenty of us have been far from muted on Stupak.

That said, however, there's good evidence that the breast cancer awareness movement as it currently exists isn't necessarily good for women. Though many fear that the new guidelines are simply an attempt by insurance companies to save money, Ehrenreich argues that the old guidelines actually pumped money into the pockets of oncologists, who offered chemotherapy for mammogram-detected cancers that might never have needed treating. Unfortunately, we don't yet know how to distinguish these cancers from those that do merit aggressive treatment — and the treatments we do have could be a lot better. Ehrenreich says,

What we really need is a new women's health movement, one that's sharp and skeptical enough to ask all the hard questions: What are the environmental (or possibly life-style) causes of the breast cancer epidemic? Why are existing treatments like chemotherapy so toxic and heavy-handed? And, if the old narrative of cancer's progression from "early" to "late" stages no longer holds, what is the course of this disease (or diseases)? What we don't need, no matter how pretty and pink, is a ladies' auxiliary to the cancer-industrial complex.

Ehrenreich's language is harsh, but as someone who suffered breast cancer herself, she knows whereof she speaks. And while research into cancer treatment is ongoing, the focus of breast cancer awareness could use a shift. Much of the focus is on women themselves — their responsibility to schedule regular mammograms, to lead a healthy lifestyle, and to perform self-exams (a practice also jettisoned under the new guidelines). It makes a certain amount of sense — individual women want to feel that they can have an effect on their health. But there may be systemic factors, like additives and pollutants, that contribute to breast cancer, and the pink-ribbon movement might do well to advocate for more research into those. And although mammograms can save lives, new screening options might be even better — cutting-edge research deserves just as much support as awareness and prevention currently get.

The "pink-ribbon breast cancer cult," as Ehrenreich calls it, may not be the sign of a large-scale failure of feminism. But women are being asked to accept a lot of symbolic gestures — like Sen. Dick Vitter's superfluous mammogram-access amendment — instead of the reproductive rights and truly life-saving treatments they actually need. Ehrenreich argues persuasively that rather than getting angry about new guidelines for a useful but flawed procedure, women should save their anger for what really matters — that we still don't know how to heal our breasts, and that the government is trying to control our wombs.

Slap On A Pink Ribbon, Call It A Day [Salon]
Can Mammograms Increase Cancer Risk For Some Women? [Time: Wellness Blog]
Annual Screening With Breast Ultrasound Or MRI Could Benefit Some Women [EurekAlert]
Targeted Breast Ultrasound Can Reduce Biopsies For Women Under 40 [EurekAlert]
David Vitter Will Protect Ladies From Medical Recommendations [Wonkette]

This shouldn't be difficult for Australians, according to White Ribbon Chairman Andrew O'Keefe: "Today we are challenging all men to swear, and let's face it swearing comes naturally to most Aussie men." •  According to police, Kevin M. Derks, 53, turned his Wisconsin home into a shrine to child porn. He covered "every flat surface" with pictures of young celebrities and computer printouts of young girls in various states of undress or being otherwise molested. He claims he turned to children after realizing that the world has gotten "worse and worse." •  The Federal government has issued a recall for more than 2 million cribs, following reports that four babies had suffocated in them. They say the crib has a detachable side which can break, and allow the child to become trapped in a space between the crib and the mattress. • An Alabama district attorney says he is considering charging a 14-year-old girl for arranging the rape of her classmate. The girl told reporters that she and her classmate had planned on having sex with three older teens, but the victim said no when the other boys joined in. • Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio recently forced a pregnant woman to give birth while cuffed at the wrists and ankles. The woman was transported to a medical center, where she gave birth in "forensic restraint." She was also not allowed to hold her child, or see her for 72 days. Arpaio claimed he "had no choice." • According to plastic surgeons, Venezuelans are so dedicated to looking good that many people are dipping into their savings or taking on debt to pay for the costly procedures. "The financial crisis has spurred people to spend more on themselves ... to console themselves in this crisis. I have not seen demand diminishing," said one doctor. • In efforts to combat reports of anti-choice centers manipulating pregnant woman, the Baltimore City Council is considering legislation that will require pregnancy centers to post signs if they do not offer abortions or birth control referrals. • 

The New York Times's David Kirkpatrick writes that despite the relatively small role abortion played in the 2008 election and in the Sotomayor confirmation hearings, it's hugely important in the healthcare debate. On the anti-choice side, Marjorie Dannenfelser of the Susan B. Anthony List says donations are up 50% from 2007, the last non-election year. She calls abortion coverage in healthcare reform "the biggest fulcrum of activism we have ever had." Ellen Malcolm, of the pro-choice group Emily's List, echoes her observation if not her ideology, saying the Stupak Amendment has touched off the biggest groundswell of support for her group since 1989's Webster vs. Reproductive Health Services. And Cecile Richards of Planned Parenthood says, "We have seen money coming in at every level. Congressman Stupak managed to crystallize this movement in a way that is hard to replicate."

Meanwhile, the debate over abortion and healthcare continues to rage in the Senate. According to Time's Jay Newton-Small, there probably aren't enough anti-choice votes to add a Stupak-like amendment to the Senate bill. But because Nancy Pelosi is reportedly considering just passing the Senate bill rather than trying to combine it with the House version, pressure on Senators is intense. Much of it focuses on anti-choice Democrat Bob Casey of Pennsylvania. Says Joy Yearout of the Susan B. Anthony List, "He's our No. 1 target to influence others. Casey ran as a pro-life Democrat and it's time he deliver for his constituents." Casey is reportedly considering an amendment that would improve counseling for pregnant women. While this probably won't satisfy anti-choicers, he says, "I just think that there's going to be enough momentum to get a bill passed that one issue - even one very important issue - will not prevent passage."

Despite the inflammatory language used by anti-choice groups (Richard Doerflinger of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops says, "We want everybody covered and nobody deliberately killed. It doesn't seem to us an unreasonable request for health care."), limiting abortion coverage may not actually be a key part of healthcare reform for most Americans. Although 46% say government benefits shouldn't cover abortion services (a position, we should note, that's compatible with less extreme restrictions than Stupak), just 3% of healthcare opponents cite abortion as their reason. It may still be true, as it was in the election, that abortion is becoming less of a wedge issue for voters. Unfortunately, it still seems like a wedge issue for lawmakers — perhaps because some feel beholden to an extremely vocal and extremely anti-choice minority. It would be a shame if the Senate, like the House, conceded to this minority by imposing abortion restrictions that, as Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand says, "will put the lives of women and girls at risk" — especially if these restrictions aren't even important to most people.

Health Bill Revives Abortion Groups [NYT]
Can Bob Casey Bridge The Abortion Divide On Health Care? [Time]
Abortion To Be New Flashpoint In Senate Bill [Wall Street Journal]

The two bills do have some common ground:

Both bills would require all Americans to carry health insurance, with government help to make premiums more affordable. They would ban insurance companies from denying coverage or charging more to people with health problems. They would set up new insurance markets for those who now have the hardest time finding and keeping coverage - self-employed people and small businesses. Americans insured through big employer plans would gain new consumer protections but wouldn't face major changes. Seniors would get better prescription coverage.

Thing is, the battles are getting increasingly more contentious as the debate continues. For Representative Patrick Kennedy, the national mud-wrestling match over abortion rights has turned personal:

A bitter dispute over abortion that prompted Rhode Island's Roman Catholic bishop to ask Rep. Patrick Kennedy not to receive Holy Communion has revealed the depth of the divide among Catholics over how politicians should reconcile their faith with their public duties.

Bishop Thomas Tobin on Sunday said he made the request because of the Democratic lawmaker's support for abortion rights. The news prompted debate among Catholics around the country and within the bishop's flock in the nation's most Catholic state about whether it was right for Tobin to publicly shame Kennedy for breaking with the church on what its leaders consider a paramount moral issue. [...]

Their dispute began in October when Kennedy criticized Catholic bishops for threatening to oppose an overhaul of the nation's health care system unless lawmakers included tighter restrictions on abortion, which have since been added to the House version of the bill. Tobin said he felt Kennedy made an unprovoked attack on the church and demanded an apology.

Since then, their feud has played out in public. Tobin, who has said he might have gone into politics were he not ordained, has written sharp public letters questioning Kennedy's faith and saying his position is scandalous and unacceptable to the church. Kennedy has said his disagreement with the church hierarchy does not make him any less of a Catholic.

This isn't the first time a question of Catholicism and politics made waves in public:

In 1984, former Democratic New York Gov. Mario Cuomo, a Catholic who supported abortion rights and was at the time a potential presidential candidate, delivered a speech at the University of Notre Dame explaining that Catholic lawmakers shouldn't be pressured by church leaders to work for anti-abortion legislation. He said Sunday it's dangerous for the church to pressure politicians because of the potential for unintended consequences.

"If you're required (by the church) to make everybody follow your Catholic role, then nobody would vote for Catholics because it's clear that when you get the authority, you're going to be guided by your faith," the former governor told The Associated Press.

Cuomo said there are two positions a politician can take: They can oppose church doctrine outright or, as he did, accept church teachings personally but refuse to carry them into the public arena where they would affect people of every faith.

"Don't ask me to make everybody live by it because they are not members of the church," Cuomo said. "If that were the operative rule, how could you get any Catholic politician in office? And would that be better for the Catholic church?"

Outside of religion, party politics are looming large over the horizon. Lawmakers are feeling major breaks between the Dems and the GOP, as well as splintering within their own parties:

A leading Senate Democrat said Monday his party is determined to push through a health care overhaul bill with or without Republican support because the "system is broken."

"We prefer to go at it with Republicans if we can reach compromises in some areas," said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y. "But we're not going to not pass a bill."

Schumer dueled with Republican Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison on a network morning news show in the wake of a key Senate vote Saturday night that advanced a 10-year, $959 billion health bill to full debate. Hutchison argued that "you're going to put taxes and mandates on business" that would be a drag on an economy still struggling to recover from recession.

Accusations around the political use of the task force recommendations on breast cancer screening have also become a dividing line between Democrats and Republicans:

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.), a breast cancer survivor, slammed Republicans on Sunday for trying to use controversial new mammogram guidelines as an argument against Democrats' health care legislation.

"The Republicans, and Ms. [Marsha] Blackburn, have for the first time politicized breast cancer," Wasserman Schultz said on ABC's "This Week," where Blackburn (R-Tenn.) was also a guest.

Obviously, an orderly fight ensued.

Health Care Hurdles [ABC News]
Schumer: Dems ready to go-it-alone on health care [AP]
Kennedy Abortion Flap Shows Catholic Rift [CBS News]
Dem: GOP has 'politicized breast cancer' [Politico]

Earlier: New Breast Cancer Screening Guidelines Spark Confusion, Criticism

Senator Reid unveiled his plan last night with both fanfare and steely resolve:

Reid's plan would expand coverage to 94 percent of Americans through a government-run health insurance option - allowing states to opt out - and other features, all while reducing future federal deficits by $130 billion over the next 10 years, according to a Congressional Budget Office report released late Wednesday. [...]

But Reid's plan contains considerable differences from House legislation passed earlier this month - with a more limited public option and different ways to pay for the bill. Reid included an excise tax on insurers who offer "Cadillac" health plans, not the "millionaire's tax" that's in the House bill.

And one of the biggest differences between the bills – on language restricting federal funding for abortion – could prove problematic for Reid. His bill doesn't include as many limits as the House bill and already is drawing fire from anti-abortion activists.

On the issue of abortion, the bill makes the following provisions:

The bill grants the secretary of Health and Human Services the authority to determine whether federal money is being used to fund abortions under the public plans, but doesn't ban those plans from offering the coverage. Reid's bill also explicitly requires insurers to separate private premiums from any public subsidies used to pay for that coverage to assure taxpayer dollars aren't used to fund the procedure - which is prohibited by the Hyde Amendment. [...]

There is a conscience clause that makes it perfectly acceptable for insurance companies to deny that coverage or health care providers to refuse carrying out the procedure. But the bill also requires each exchange to offer one plan that provides abortion coverage and one that doesn't - a major sticking point for critics of the original House language.

California Rep. Lois Capps, who tried to hatch a compromise on the Energy and Commerce Committee, commended Reid's language, saying, "I am pleased that the Senate has adopted a reasonable, common ground approach on this difficult question. It appears that their approach closely mirrors my language which was originally included in the House bill."

In a statement, she went on to point out that the bill "ensures that federal funds do not pay for abortions but allows continued access to this legal medical procedure."

We also have a date: Reid's version of the bill would start exchanges in 2014.

Reid, it should be noted, isn't fucking around with party holdouts.

At a special evening meeting of the Democratic caucus tonight, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid outlined, in broad strokes, the details of his health care bill, which the CBO has found, in a preliminary analysis, will expand coverage to 94 percent of Americans while reducing the deficit. And earlier in the day, during a separate meeting about floor procedure, Reid let three of his party's key skeptics know that if they join Republicans at any stage of the process to block the bill, he still retains the option of passing major parts of it through the filibuster proof budget reconciliation process.

In response to a question from TPMDC Nelson told reporters that, at a meeting this afternoon with Sens. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) and Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), Reid "talked about process, procedure, discussion about reconciliation and a whole host of issues of that sort."

"Nobody's really jumping up and down to push for reconciliation," Nelson said, "he's not threatening that, but anybody can conclude that if you don't move something on to the floor, that is one of the possibilities."

National Right to Life-rs are, of course, talking shit, but I'm going to ignore them in favor of reason and sanity. The real battle begins on Saturday.

Reid plan ups pressure on moderates [Politico]
Reid's restrictions on abortion [Politico]
Reid Outlines Bill For Caucus, Warns Conservative Dems That Reconciliation Is Still An Option [TPM]
National Right to Life blasts the Reid bill [Politico]

Last night, Mr. Stupak spent eight minutes regurgitating the same points.

But here's the thing: the reason why Stupak-Pitts is gaining so much attention and momentum is because it is expanding the scope of Hyde in such a way that it will impact the majority of women.

Talking Points Memo summarizes:

In other words, though the immediate impact of the Stupak amendment will be limited to the millions of women initially insured through a new insurance exchange, over time, as the exchanges grow, the insurance industry will scale down their abortion coverage options until they offer none at all.

"As a result, Stupak/Pitts can be expected to move the industry away from current norms of coverage for medically indicated abortions. In combination with the Hyde Amendment, Stupak/Pitts will impose a coverage exclusion for medically indicated abortions on such a widespread basis that the health benefit services industry can be expected to recalibrate product design downward across the board in order to accommodate the exclusion in selected markets."

Furthermore the study finds that the supposed fallback option for impacted women—a "rider" policy that provides supplemental coverage for abortions only—may not even be allowed under the terms of the law. "In our view, the terms and impact of the Amendment will work to defeat the development of a supplemental coverage market for medically indicated abortions. In any supplemental coverage arrangement, it is essential that the supplemental coverage be administered in conjunction with basic coverage. This intertwined administration approach is barred under Stupak/Pitts because of the prohibition against financial comingling."

Now some, like Ruth Marcus, seem to think that again, this isn't a big deal. The most important thing is going to be health insurance coverage, right?

The issue with that stance though is that while we know Stupak-Pitts is fucked-up, we don't know that this reform bill is good. We don't know how they will determine what constitutes affordable and we don't know when this exchange will start bringing costs down, though we may now be penalized for failing to purchase insurance. And to trade a right that was hard-won and continues to be fought for daily for a box of ifs, possibles, and maybes is too high of a price to pay.

Study: Stupak Amendment Will Eliminate Abortion Coverage 'Over Time For All Women' [TPMDC]
GWU School Of Public Health's Study Into The Effects Of The Stupak Amendment [TPM Documents]
Health reform's false abortion debate [Washington Post]

Pro-choicers had a signature drive, which allowed them to physically stack admissions of women's support and deliver it to the White House:

NARAL Pro-Choice America delivered a petition to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) on Monday urging him not to include controversial anti-abortion language in the Senate bill.

The group gathered 97,218 signatures in a 72-hour drive over the weekend imploring the senate majority leader not to include the Stupak-Pitts amendment in his final version of health care reform. The amendment, initially offered by Reps. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) and Joe Pitts (R-Pa.), would prevent private insurers from offering abortion coverage to anyone who receives government subsidies through a new insurance exchange.

Stephanie Simon of the Wall Street Journal committed a Guttmacher faux pas by using the organization's research to say that this change will not have a major impact on women:

Restrictions on abortion coverage approved in the House version of the health-care bill likely will affect the affordability of the procedure for only a small minority of women.

Although the bill has stirred passions on both sides of the abortion-rights debate — which are likely to be echoed when the Senate takes up its version — the practical effect of the restrictions will be limited, statistics suggest and some experts in family-planning issues say. [...]

Just 13% of abortions nationwide are billed to private insurance, according to a 2001 study by the Guttmacher Institute, which supports abortion rights but is cited as a reliable source of data by both sides in the abortion debate. An unknown number of people might seek reimbursement from their insurance company after the procedure. Applying the 13% figure to the most recent abortion data available suggests that fewer than 160,000 women a year rely on insurance to cover the cost of an abortion upfront.

As a reminder, the Institute has stated very clearly:

Among the many arguments being made in the debate over health care reform is the claim that because very few women use private insurance coverage to pay for abortion services, loss of this coverage would have minimal impact. Those making this argument cite a Guttmacher Institute statistic showing that 13% of all abortions in 2001 were directly billed to private insurance companies (see Table 3, page 20, here).

However, that statistic alone misrepresents the situation on three counts:

* Our study included all women who obtained abortions in 2001, including women on Medicaid and those who are uninsured. If one looked only at privately insured women, the percentage of procedures billed directly to insurance companies would be substantially higher than 13%.
* Perhaps even more importantly, the 13% statistic does not include women who pay for an abortion up front and then seek reimbursement from their insurance provider. This is common when a medical provider does not participate in a patient's insurance plan, as is often the case with small, specialized providers, including abortion providers.
* Lastly, some of the women whom our study identified as paying out of pocket likely had insurance coverage for abortion care, but may not have known they had it or chose not to use it for reasons of confidentiality. Given the stigma that still surrounds abortion, many women might not have wanted their insurer or employer-or their spouse or parent who may be the primary policyholder-to learn that they had obtained an abortion. That antiabortion activists who have worked for decades to perpetuate that stigma are now turning around and using it to argue why women should not be able to purchase insurance coverage for abortion is deeply cynical.

Over in Massachusetts, the Stupak-Pitts amendment galvanized the senate race, with each entrant trying to out-maneuver the other:

State Attorney General Martha Coakley, the front-runner in the Dec. 8 contest, laid down the first marker by declaring soon after the House vote last week that she would have voted against the bill because of the amendment restricting the sale of insurance policies covering abortion through the proposed national health insurance exchange - or to women who receive health care subsidies from the federal government.

Asked in an interview with a Boston radio station whether she would have voted for the bill, Coakley said, "I believe that I would not."

"I think that this particular amendment that was put in is really a poison pill for that bill, and it's taking two steps back," she said.

Massachusetts Rep. Michael Capuano, who is also seeking the Senate seat and who was one of 219 House Democrats who voted for the bill, quickly seized on her comment, calling it "manna from heaven" for his campaign.

"I'm proud that my vote helped keep health care reform with a public option alive, so that the fight for health care reform will go forward," Capuano said in a statement. "I believe it's what the people of Massachusetts expect and what Ted Kennedy would have demanded."

In essence, Coakley is arguing that she would have voted no outright, in protest of Stupak, while Capuano said he voted for a bill to keep dialogue going, while voting against the final bill if Stupak is still in there.

However, there is some hopeful news. It looks like some of the Dems are hatching a plot to preserve the public option:

Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), who requested the meeting with Reid, said progressives believe they have compromised enough on the public option – from a Medicare-for-all proposal to Reid's proposal to create a national government plan with a provision for states to opt-out.

"Most of us in the caucus want a strong public option, support the Reid way of doing it," Brown said. "And we're confident that over time, as the debate unfolds and we take amendment after amendment after amendment, that we can get 60 votes."

He acknowledged several moderates need convincing, but said there is little willingness among progressives to back down. [...]

A Senate aide said there were plans to discuss passing the health care bill through a procedural maneuver known as reconciliation – which favored by progressive activists because it would allow Democrats to circumvent the 60-vote filibuster threshold. A majority of the Democratic caucus supports the public option, and only 51 senators would be needed to approve the legislation under reconciliation.

Max Baucus is one of the moderate Dems that seems to believe that no matter what's in the bill, the most important thing to do push the Frankenbill to Obama:

"They wanted to talk about the importance of the public option being in the bill, which I understand," Baucus said. "But the main point is that we must pass health care reform hopefully by the end of this year. But we must pass it."

But as the public outcry over the Stupak-Pitts amendment has shown, the citizenry is becoming increasingly more concerned with the content of the bill, not just its existence.

NARAL delivers petition to Reid [Politico]
Limited Effect Seen in Abortion Clause [Wall Street Journal]
Misuse of Guttmacher Statistic on Insurance Coverage of Abortion [Guttmacher Institute]
Abortion key issue in Massachusetts race [Politico]
Senate liberals press Reid on public option [Politico]

Time magazine summarizes this dynamic beautifully: "In the end, all of the tea-party town halls, Glenn Beck rallies and "death panel" rumors may have less of a hand in bringing down health-care reform than an intraparty Democratic culture war."

The battle over abortion rights is more than a cultural conflict. While politicians choose to position the impact of the amendment differently, it still amounts to a frighteningly blatant assault on women's autonomy. The Time piece sheds some light onto the political wheeling and dealing that led to Stupak:

In mid-June, Stupak and 18 other pro-life Democrats sent a letter to Nancy Pelosi warning that they could not vote for the bill that had been introduced unless it was changed to prevent taxpayer funding of abortion. (The original health-reform bill introduced in the House contained no reference to abortion, which both pro-life and pro-choice activists read as allowing coverage of abortion through the so-called public option, a government-run alternative to private insurance plans that some individuals and small businesses would have access to.) They received no response.

A month later, five other pro-life Democrats led by Tim Ryan of Ohio sent another letter to Pelosi expressing their concerns as well, but suggesting a compromise to the abortion quandary. This time, Pelosi was interested and she gave Ryan the green light to develop language that ended up known as the Capps amendment, because Lois Capps of California introduced it during the House Energy and Commerce Committee's markup of health-reform legislation.

The provision extended the decades-old Hyde Amendment prohibitions against funding of abortions through Medicaid and federal employee health plans except in the case of rape, incest, or to save the woman's life to the medical care covered under the public option. In addition, Capps put forward a system in which an insurance plan could segregate private funds to pay for abortions from public subsidies, which could not.

At the time, Stupak's opposition to the Capps amendment - he was suspicious of it because it had been drafted without his group's input, by a pro-choice Democrat no less - seemed unimportant. Democratic leaders thought their solution would allow them to cobble together enough pro-life votes, and they were convinced that the amendment had taken abortion off the table.

Indeed, up until the last week before the House vote on health reform, both Pelosi and Stupak thought they each had the votes to get their way on abortion. As a result, when Indiana Congressman Brad Ellsworth, a pro-life Democrat, tried to draft an amendment tightening the Capps language in the last weeks before the House vote, both sides attacked him. Planned Parenthood said the effort, which attempted to strengthen the segregation of funds and ensure that no federal dollars could ever be designated to fund abortions in the exchange, could "tip the balance away from women's access to reproductive health care." And the Catholic bishops conference issued a memo calling the amendment "not a meaningful compromise."

The one-two punch took the life out of the Ellsworth amendment and denied pro-life Democrats the opportunity to vote for something less extreme than the final Stupak amendment. According to several members who voted for the Stupak amendment, they would have supported a more moderate compromise along the lines of the Ellsworth language if they had been given the chance. As it was, 10 of the 19 Democrats who signed the initial Stupak letter to Pelosi voted against health reform even after their demands on abortion were met.

While I am shaking my fist at my computer screen, Politico lobs this bomb:

Taxpayers currently provide deep subsidies for health insurance plans that cover abortion - a little-recognized fact responsible for much of the angst over an anti-abortion amendment attached to the House health care bill.

Stupak and his allies, including every House Republican, a quarter of the chamber's Democrats and the Vatican, say that it simply extends an existing prohibition on federal funding for abortion - an annually renewed policy called the Hyde amendment - to the health care exchange that would be established for the uninsured under the health care bill making its way through Congress.

But lawmakers who support abortion rights contend that, if the Stupak amendment's logic is extended to the $250 billion in tax breaks Americans get to buy coverage through employer-based plans, it could strip abortion coverage from tens of millions of women who already have it.

Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.), co-chairwoman of the Congressional Pro-Choice Caucus, said that the next step beyond Stupak for the anti-abortion movement will be to make sure that "if that federal wand has been waved over your insurance, then you don't get to get abortion coverage.

All of this calls Obama's motives into question - how does one "maintain the status quo" when we are obviously upending the status quo in favor of this craptacular amendment? Still, there are some who believe that this type of trade would have little impact on the day to day lives of women in America.

The New Republic calculates how many women would be heavily impacted by the amendment:

How many women would the Stupak amendment affect? It wouldn't immediately impinge on the roughly 60 million women ages 18-64 who presently get health insurance through their jobs or their spouses' jobs rather than Medicare. At least in the short term, nothing would change for these women because they wouldn't receive any federal funds. But most of them aren't reimbursed for abortion coverage under the current system. There's a debate about how many private health care plans cover abortion—estimates have ranged from 46 percent to nearly 87 percent. But, regardless of the number, the Guttmacher Institute found that only 13 percent of all abortions in 2001 were directly billed to private insurance companies. Some women may have filed for reimbursement on their own; others may have been reluctant to file claims because they didn't want their employers or spouses to know they had abortions; and other women were uninsured. Nevertheless, 74 percent of women who had abortions paid for them out of pocket.

That doesn't mean the Stupak amendment would maintain the status quo on abortion funding. It would restrict the choices of women who buy private health insurance on the new health-insurance exchange designed to provide affordable coverage. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that, under the House bill, 21 million Americans will buy insurance through the exchange by 2019. This group will include some of the 17 million women, ages 18-64, who are currently uninsured (and, obviously, don't receive any abortion coverage) and some of the 5.7 million women currently purchasing coverage through the market rather than through employers—including self-employed and unemployed women, and those whose jobs don't offer benefits.

It's some subset of this last group—the women who switch from private plans that now cover abortion to private plans on the federal exchange—who would be most affected by the changes. The overwhelming majority of people who buy private insurance on the exchange will be receiving federal affordability credits, and the Stupak amendment says that, if you receive a federal subsidy, you can't buy insurance that covers abortion. (The amendment allows women who are farsighted enough to plan for unplanned pregnancies to buy a single-service abortion-insurance "rider," but, in practice, past experience suggests these riders won't be readily available.) "The bottom line seems to be that abortion coverage, if it exists at all on the exchange, will be rare," says Adam Sonfield of the Guttmacher Institute. This may not be a great financial burden for the majority of women who have first-trimester abortions, which are relatively cheap—in 2006, the average cost of a first-trimester abortion was $413—but it could represent a more serious burden for women who have later-term abortions, which are more expensive.

(While much has been made of the 13% statistic, it is important to note that the Guttmacher institute disagrees with any framing of the statistic that would result in reducing the availability of abortion services and coverage. In a press release, they said: "Guttmacher's 13% statistic, therefore, should not be cited as evidence that insurance coverage for abortion is not widespread or to suggest that restricting such coverage would have an impact on only a small minority of women." While the TNR piece above states some of the Guttmacher caveats, the statistic is still what gets the most play.)

The most sensible take on the whole debate comes from this week's New Yorker, where Jeffrey Toobin puts our current bout of conservative hysterics into historical context:

Abortion is almost as old as childbirth. There has always been a need for some women to end their pregnancies. In modern times, the law's attitude toward that need has varied. In the United States, at the time the Constitution was adopted, abortions before "quickening" were both legal and commonplace, often performed by midwives. In the nineteenth century, under the influence of the ascendant medical profession, which opposed abortion (and wanted to control health care), states began to outlaw the procedure, and by the turn of the twentieth century it was all but uniformly illegal. The rise of the feminist movement led to widespread efforts to decriminalize abortion, and in 1973 the Supreme Court found, in Roe v. Wade, that the Constitution prohibited the states from outlawing it.

Throughout this long legal history, the one constant has been that women have continued to have abortions. The rate has declined slightly in recent years, but, according to the Guttmacher Institute, thirty-five per cent of all women of reproductive age in America today will have had an abortion by the time they are forty-five. It might be assumed that such a common procedure would be included in a nation's plan to protect the health of its citizens. In fact, the story of abortion during the past decade has been its separation from other medical services available to women. Abortion, as the academics like to say, is being marginalized.

It is being marginalized, and the sad part is that the effort is working - instead of looking at abortion as a part of medical coverage, we have allowed all kinds of political and religious posturing that do not contribute to the ultimate goal of health care reform: to improve access to care and coverage, not to create new restrictions. Toobin continues:

Yet it's not only with regard to insurance that abortion services are being treated like a second-class form of medicine. There is, for instance, the proliferation of "conscience clauses," which allow medical professionals to refuse to conduct procedures that they disapprove of. Shortly after Roe, Congress passed the first major conscience clause, which stated that medical professionals and hospitals that receive certain federal funds did not have to provide abortions or sterilizations if they objected on "the basis of religious beliefs or moral convictions." The Bush Administration sought to dramatically expand the clauses to cover not only doctors and nurses but anyone who works in a hospital, including pharmacists, and to increase the range of practices that might be rejected-a step that could potentially include such services as the dispensing of birth control. President Obama has said that he will revise or overturn the policy.

The President is pro-choice, and he has signaled some misgivings about the Stupak amendment. But, like many modern pro-choice Democrats, he has worked so hard to be respectful of his opponents on this issue that he sometimes seems to cede them the moral high ground. In his book "The Audacity of Hope," he describes the "undeniably difficult issue of abortion" and ponders "the middle-aged feminist who still mourns her abortion." Elsewhere, he announces, "Abortion vexes." The opponents of abortion aren't vexed-they are mobilized, focused, and driven to succeed.

Toobin's conclusion is one we would all do well to remember:

Every diminished of that right diminishes women. With stakes of such magnitude, it is wise to weigh carefully the difference between compromise and surrender.

Abortion fight is excuse to kill reform, Pelosi says [Politico]
Can the Dems Overcome Their Abortion Split on Health Care? [Time]
Abortion deal spins a very tangled web [Politico]
Stupak is as Stupak Does [The New Republic]
Misuse of Guttmacher Statistic on Insurance Coverage of Abortion [Guttmacher Institute]

We have no idea if we can get riders, or what they will cost.

Abortion-rights activists say the option of buying additional coverage for abortion - a so-called rider - is a false promise. They cite the examples of Oklahoma and North Dakota, where riders have had negligible use even though allowed under state laws that otherwise ban insurance coverage of elective abortions.

"Abortion coverage should be part of the regular package," Crane said. "Women don't expect unplanned pregnancies and don't expect their wanted pregnancies to go wrong. ... They don't anticipate needing abortion coverage so they wouldn't buy a rider."

Kristin Binns of WellPoint, Inc., which oversees health plans serving 35 million Americans, said it's impossible for the insurance industry at this stage to estimate how much such riders would cost and the extent to which they might be offered.

"We don't have a clue," she said.

The Republicans' crap-ass plan still covers abortion...by accident.

The Republican National Committee's health insurance plan covers elective abortion – a procedure the party's own platform calls "a fundamental assault on innocent human life."

Federal Election Commission Records show the RNC purchases its insurance from Cigna. Two sales agents for the company said that the RNC's policy covers elective abortion.

Informed of the coverage, RNC spokeswoman Gail Gitcho told POLITICO that the policy pre-dates the tenure of current RNC Chairman Michael Steele.

"The current policy has been in effect since 1991, and we are taking steps to address the issue," Gitcho said.

While many women do opt to pay cash for their abortions, that is not the end of the story.

Stupak says one reason his amendment's impact would be limited is because only a small fraction of abortions - 13 percent by Guttmacher Institute estimates - are paid for directly by private insurance. The vast majority are paid for in cash, even by women with abortion coverage who do so out of privacy concerns.

However, Dr. Willie Parker, an abortion provider in Washington, D.C., noted that insurance coverage could be vital for women with health problems who need hospital abortions costing many thousands of dollars, compared to roughly $400 to $800 for a first-trimester abortion in a clinic.

"The cash option was a challenge for many women even in more reasonable economic times," Parker said. "I see that becoming worse as people have to make hard decisions because abortion is not considered part of health care."

There are issues trying to play to both sides.

Other lawmakers said, in effect, that they voted for the Stupak amendment but didn't really mean it, because they expected the amendment to be stripped out later, either in the Senate or in a conference committee.

As a result, Democratic leaders are in some danger of having the worst of both worlds: letting a compromise pass, thereby angering their liberal wing, while appearing cynical in suggesting that they now intend to drive it out of the bill, thereby angering the party's moderates and the bishops. That's a problem with consequences: The simple math in the House suggests the health bill wouldn't have passed without the votes of the moderates who came to the "yes" side after the Stupak amendment.

If we become apathetic about our right to choose, we will lose that right.

The pro-choice, pro-health reform advocates I spoke with this week remained confident that they would be able to nudge Congress to soften the Stupak-Pitts restraints in a final health care reform compromise. They took heart from the fact that a vigorous public insurance option - an idea pronounced a dead letter not so many months ago - did at last make it into the House's legislation. But there's one key difference: the American public widely supported the public option, polls showed this fall. The support for abortion rights now isn't so solid.

A Pew Research Center survey released last month showed Americans' support for abortion rights is at a striking low - down to 47 percent - after hovering consistently just above 50 percent since at least the mid-1990s. And despite the passionate outrage expressed by high-profile abortion rights supporters this week, most of the pro-choice public just doesn't appear to be all that fired up about fighting for the freedom to choose anymore. According to the Pew poll, only 15 percent of people overall say abortion is a "critical" issue today, and even among those described as liberal Democrats, that proportion has dropped 26 points, from 34 percent to 8 percent, since 2006.

Stupak-Pitts passed not just because a group of Catholic bishops bore down on Democratic lawmakers. It passed because it could.

Tough choices for women on abortion coverage [MSNBC]
RNC insurance plan covers abortion [Politico]
Abortion Upends Health-Bill Alliance [WSJ]
‘Mad Men,' Maddening Times [NY Times]

As activists continue to drum up support to keep the amendment out of the final bill, the rapid splintering of support demonstrates how deeply the worth and value of a progressive reproductive rights platform has been devalued over the years. Politicians have skillfully learned to speak to both belief systems by leaving their words intentionally vague, while knowing that those who want to believe will read into the words and assume a certain position. Politico writes:

By playing down divisions over abortion and emphasizing shared goals - such as reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies in the United States - members of the president's party have sought to blur the lines of one of the country's most furious and enduring debates.

"They're looking for an easy way out. And there is no easy way out when it comes to right or wrong or true or false," said former Boston Mayor Ray Flynn, an abortion opponent who served as ambassador to the Vatican during the Clinton administration. "On some of these issues, there's just no compromise."

The House health care bill wasn't supposed to become a referendum on abortion rights. But Rep. Bart Stupak, a Democrat from Michigan, reshaped the legislative landscape when he offered an amendment restricting the sale of insurance policies covering abortion through the proposed national health insurance exchange - or to women who receive health care subsidies from the federal government.

The Administration continues to try to hedge its bets, meeting with various groups in hopes of hashing out a compromise. Still, there is the sense that many rank-and-file Democrats feel that this trade is fair.

Kate Michelman (former president of NARAL Pro-Choice America) and Frances Kissling (former president of Catholics for Choice) outline why this is problematic in an op-ed in today's New York Times:

Many House members who support abortion rights decided reluctantly to accept this ban, which is embodied in the Stupak-Pitts amendment. They say the tradeoff was necessary to advance the right to guaranteed health care. They say they will fight another day for a woman's right to choose.

Perhaps. But they can't ignore the underlying shift that has taken place in recent years. The Democratic majority has abandoned its platform and subordinated women's health to short-term political success. In doing so, these so-called friends of women's rights have arguably done more to undermine reproductive rights than some of abortion's staunchest foes. That Senate Democrats are poised to allow similar anti-abortion language in their bill simply underscores the degree of the damage that has been done.

We are coming close to the point where we are past having faith, and rapidly approaching broken trust. Call it the Wimpy principle. J. Wellingon Wimpy was a character in the old Popeye's cartoon, whose famous line was "I'd gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today." However, Wimpy was focused on hamburgers, and acquiring as many as possible. When Tuesday rolled around, Wimpy managed to vanish, having never intended to repay the debt.

A coalition fails when members start to wonder when it will be their turn to benefit. And as Democrats went out trying to acquire votes, they started making Tuesday promises. They spoke to as many constituencies as they could find, courting women, racial minorities, gay and lesbian voters by saying they cared about their issues and were willing to fight for their needs - if those people elected them.

So they did, and now they sit and wait.

The Democratic Wimpys these people vote for every few years would do well to remember they have continued to buying them hamburgers, year after year. And they will continue to do so - after the Dems pay what they owe.

'No easy way out' for Democrats on abortion [Politico]
Rahm, Liberal Women's Groups, Have 'Frank Exchange' on Anti-Abortion Amendment [ABC News]
J. Wellington Wimpy [Wikipedia]

Contender: Amy Siskind

Outlet: The Daily Beast

Known Biases: Patron Saint of the PUMAs

Best Known for: Being Pro-Palin post-HRC

Can't Stand Stupak-Pitts because:

She feels like Obama has been selling out women since the campaign trail.

Women's love affair with Obama started in 2007. Some loved the idea of him-while not questioning his ideas. So when some women leaders heard the candidate say things like "sweetie" or "you're likable enough," or saw Obama's speechwriter Jon Favreau groping the breast of a cardboard cutout of Hillary Clinton on Facebook (no comment), these leaders ignored the signs of subtle misogyny. The National Organization for Women (under its former leader) endorsed its first all-male ticket. And NARAL endorsed Obama over Sen. Clinton, even though she had a proven track record on reproductive rights. In January 2009, Ms. Magazine's cover featured a now-infamous image of Obama in a superman pose sporting a t-shirt that reads: This is What a Feminist Looks Like.

With these women leaders behind him, President Obama felt he could be himself. He appointed fewer women into his cabinet than President Bill Clinton. He surrounded himself with czars, more than 90% of whom are male. He appointed Larry Summers, of "girls are inferior in math and science" fame, to a key economic post. He played basketball, golfed and fished with men and men only. He had beers with Skip Gates, but ignored it when Rihanna was almost strangled to death. And so on.

The love affair started to fade with Obama's off-handed response during an MSNBC interview questioning his all-male outings: "I think this is bunk." That remark gave women a reason to take a closer look at the inner workings of Obama and his ideas. And just as Betty Friedan described the subtlety of sexism as "the problem that has no name," "bunk" revealed that the boys club was still alive and well at the White House.

Best Shot:

The sleeping giant-America's majority constituency-is awakening. Note how few men are speaking out about the fact that a major issue for women was thrown under the bus to get a deal done: That women were not valued. It is the women leaders doing the talking and the typing.

Wants to take action by:

Lesson one-we need more women in leadership roles. Women's organizations need to drop partisanship and work together to get more women into public office for both parties. Sisters, we cannot count on either party to represent our interests; we can only count on ourselves. (And when our women leaders do, on occasion, get it wrong-as Speaker Pelosi did this past weekend-we need an ample bench of women politicians surrounding her, and strong advocacy groups to steer her right).

Lesson two-with this awakening, there will be a quest to get a woman into the White House in 2012. Find us a woman leader who might have her personal beliefs, but will agree to keep them as just that, and you might just have a deal!

Contender: Kate Harding

Outlet: Salon's Broadsheet

Known Biases: Fat activism, unapologetic feminism

Best Known for: Baby flavored donuts All around awesomeness.

Best Shot:

Our supposed allies who still keep trying to convince us that one more nibble won't amount to anything much. Only this time, we're not buying it. We are ready to go there. As Smeal told Goldstein, "We didn't want to make a fuss, we agreed to a compromise that was already over-generous. And then, bango! These guys go in there like gangbusters. Pelosi was held up, like by bandits. Now the women are saying, 'That's it, it's enough.'" And it's not just the women — or just the staunchest pro-choicers — who are fed up with Democrats who act exactly like Republicans did before their party moved so far right it landed on a different planet. Kos himself (who's taken plenty of criticism over the years, including some from me quite recently, for exhorting women to ignore the nibbles for the greater good), is reminding people today that donations to the DCCC will support Democrats who "voted for the Stupak-Pitts coathanger amendment," as well as anti-healthcare reform ones. Moveon.org is also going after Democrats who voted against the bill. And gay rights activists have launched a "Don't Ask, Don't Give" campaign, encouraging progressives "to no longer donate to the DNC, Organizing for America, or the Obama campaign until the President and the Democratic party keep their promises to the gay community, our families, and our friends." Suddenly, for a host of different reasons, progressives are sending the message that we will not support these people if they keep breaking their promises and acting against our interests.

It's an exciting moment, and there's a chance to make a real difference if this latest swell of righteous indignation doesn't lead directly to the same old shit: Some of us panic about losing a Democratic majority and start hollering at others to quit being so picky and oversensitive about our "single issues" and take one for the team. (Again. Still. Always.) If we can work together as a bona fide progressive movement, rather than a bunch of competing groups who will all ultimately settle for holding our noses and blocking the worst Republicans, we might actually force the Democrats to give us more than empty shout-outs on the campaign trail. But if some of us will sacrifice gay rights for a chance at advancing our own agendas, and others will sacrifice reproductive rights for a chance at advancing theirs, and a ludicrous number of self-identified progressives will sacrifice pretty much everything they claim to believe in, just because the words "Democratic majority" sound so much better than the alternative, then nothing will change.

Can't Stand Stupak Pitts because:

Since the healthcare reform bill passed the House with the Stupak-Pitts amendment intact on Saturday night, feminists have been up in arms about the latest assault on access to abortion, and so-called progressive men have been telling us to calm down and look at the big picture. In other words: same old, same old.

Wants to take action by:

Really, when those are the options, there's only one logical conclusion: This is not our party. We've known that for too long, and yet the Democrats have known too well that they could bank on our money and our votes as long as the GOP remained even more not our party. But something's changed. Sixty-four Democrats voted to block women's access to legal medical services. That may not be quite as repulsive as some Republican shenanigans, but the difference is only one of degree. If the point of women voting for "moderate" Democrats is to avoid a majority that's actively hostile to women, then those who voted for the Stupak-Pitts amendment just proved that there's no point at all. And progressive women have finally had enough. We are ready to go there. Are Democrats ready to try getting elected without us?

Judge's Call: Siskind goes for body blows, but has no artistic savoir faire. All her moves are recycled. Harding plows in with passion, wearing down her opponent before trying for the TKO.

Winner: Kate Harding, for taking the long view of both problem and solution.

Loser: The Democratic Party - because when two different factions of women are calling for blood, there's going to be some drama at election time.

How Obama Sold Women Out [Daily Beast]
Face it: The Democratic Party is not for women [Salon]