You are currently browsing the daily archive for March 10, 2010.

I had discovered this intimate wink and nod to anti-choicers skimming the cover of a red upstate NY little paper yesterday. Something tells me this AP piece was custom taylored for a sympathetic audience and was distributed in selective markets by local papers. It doesn’t even try to appear balanced – it treats the HCR-choice exclusively from the point of view of the anti-choice crowd

A policy change on abortion, but how radical?

Major anti-abortion groups such as the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and the National Right to Life Committee say the Senate provisions expected to come before the House shortly are a backdoor taxpayer subsidy for abortion. Other abortion opponents disagree.

So, you see, we have here a discussion between “abortion opponents”. The other side is not considered.

The Q and A format gives the opportunity for these type of statements

Q: Would the Senate bill change the status quo?

A: Yes. The federal employee health benefits program is seen as the model for the new insurance marketplace, and none of the plans available to government workers may cover abortion, except as allowed by Hyde.

“It would be a pretty significant change,” said Kristen Day, executive director of Democrats for Life of America. Stupak and Nelson, both longtime abortion foes, serve on the group’s advisory board. Day said Stupak’s approach is preferable, because it closely follows existing law. But the Senate rejected it, forcing Nelson to develop his plan as a fallback.

And of course they are reaching for more – watch them get it – discretely

Abortion opponents have another major concern with $11 billion that Obama wants to pump into community health centers serving low-income people. Currently those funds are not explicitly covered by the Hyde amendment. White House health overhaul spokeswoman Linda Douglass says Obama is willing to clarify the language.

The shocking point that the article makes – and is suggested in the headline is that anti-choicers should support the bill.

I find it shocking – not that I don’ agree that this bill is anti-choice in all its versions – but that AP, once again is shilling for Obama.

I thought that the Obama-Murdoch alliance forged during the election has been terminated – but this definitely proves me wrong. The selective areas where this is spread, the message in the last paragraph smack of campaign:

Abortion opponent Rev. Derrick Harkins, pastor of the Nineteenth St. Baptist Church in Washington, said he believes it ultimately could hurt the anti-abortion cause if the health care bill collapses because of the divisive issue.

“You can’t be blanket pro-life and not address those things that encourage women to make the choice of having an abortion,” said Harkins, a board member of World Relief, the humanitarian arm of the National Association of Evangelicals. “If you are really looking to reduce the number of abortions in America, one of the things that will make that happen is to have comprehensive health care coverage.”

Click here to add text
Click here to add text

WaPo is dumping on Massa as per Rahm’s instructions

The Examiner has some interesting healthcare headlines on the side, next to the feature which probably reflects the market they want to capture

Washington Times has 2 Massa headlines – one with the WH/Rahm reaction (besides having WaPo ramping up the smears)

Asked whether naked politicking is standard practice, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs chuckled and told a reporter to e-mail the query to Mr. Emanuel, saying he hadn’t discussed the matter with him. Mr. Gibbs then took aim at Mr. Massa, accusing him of changing his story numerous times.

“The notion that somehow the White House had anything to do with the series of events that have caused him to not seek re-election and ultimately leave the House, the notion that somehow we were involved in that I think is … silly and ridiculous,” Mr. Gibbs said.

.In New York the break is over. They must think Paterson is powerless enough to call a special election, as they are back (I hope he proves them wrong)

Obama Times writes about Paterson’s # 2 making policy now

The Daily News about the aqueduct contract being scrapped

and Metro rehashes the whole sorry with a bizarre graphic back from Spitzer .

(I just has a flash to the time they knocked Spitzer down and the B0bots were celebrating because a black man was succeeding him – and that meant – they assumed a loss of a delegate for Hillary – a win for Obama)

Not Your Sweetie