If you have "no place to go," come here!

Marching orders from Kip Sullivan

Elicited by lets here. Read, mark, and inwardly digest.

Note especially what Kip says about "implicit" pre-emption of state single payer plans.

NOTE I guess we'll just have to secede, then. Remind me what Versailles is doing for me?

No votes yet


madamab's picture
Submitted by madamab on

From Kip's comment:

Suggestion: I urge you to note in future commentary that your nine reasons apply with equal force to the House bill, in fact, with equal force to all versions of the Senate and House bills since the first drafts were published last June. The damage done to the freedom to choose an abortion since June should add to our outrage about these bills, but the abortion provisions should not be the reason for opposing them (which is the position taken by HCAN founding member Planned Parenthood). Similarly, the stripping of the “public option” from the Senate bill should not have been the determinative factor for anyone in deciding to oppose this bill.

That is a completely false and offensive comparison.

The abortion restrictions in the bill will negatively impact MILLIONS OF WOMEN. Yes, that is a damn good f*cking reason to oppose this bill.

The PO, OTOH, is a phantom that would probably (as Kip argues eloquently) not really end up affecting anyone.

Can someone please asplain to this dumb broad how the two are remotely similar?

madamab's picture
Submitted by madamab on

any bill negatively affecting women's civil rights is bad just on that basis alone.

So I don't see how comparing it with the phantom Public Option proves his point.

sisterkenney's picture
Submitted by sisterkenney on

the idea that if say, women's health was protected, would THAT make it a good bill...or, if the PO was preserved, would THAT make it a good bill? And, I'm thinking that the single issues of women's health and PO promotion, were just examples of how some people could be convinced that otherwise, the Insurance Profitability bill would be OK. Just my reading. Probably poorly stated on his part.

madamab's picture
Submitted by madamab on

If so, it was very poorly stated indeed. A better way to state it would have been:

Of all the many outrages in this bill, simply ameliorating one of them (such as removing the "coathanger amendments") would not be a good enough reason to support the bill. The entire bill is based on the preservation of for-profit insurance, which is an unacceptable first premise.

That would have certainly kept my blood from boiling over in a feminist rage.

But I really can't take him on what he might have meant. I can only take him on what he said.


Valhalla's picture
Submitted by Valhalla on

sisterkenny did. That the bill (bills actually) suck and we should be against them, period. What I think though is that even if either bill were good, we should still be against them if either the Nelson deal or the Stupak amendment were attached, because women's reproductive rights simply shouldn't be held hostage. The fact that they're being held hostage here for intolerable crap is just the double fucking pony bingo icing on the cake.

Submitted by hipparchia on

you could always ask him directly, instead of just speculating.

Submitted by hipparchia on

question for abortion supporters: if the antiabortion language were removed, would you then support the bill?

question for po supporters: if the public option were put back in, would you then support the bill?

if your answer to either or both of these questions is "no, it would still be a sucky bill and i would still be against it for other reasons" then it doesn't make any sense to draw your line in the sand at the po and/or abortion.

that was my interpretation when i read his comment. did not even occur to me to think of any other interpretation.

jumpjet's picture
Submitted by jumpjet on

We proceed with single-payer in the states regardless. If we have to go to court for it, so be it. I bet we could win.

lizpolaris's picture
Submitted by lizpolaris on

that to even the most progressive men in the US, women will always be the 'nigger of the world,' as Lennon put it.

It's always disheartening to encounter this fact so brutally in an argument that I would otherwise agree with. I always shake my head and wonder what year it is. It feels to me that women had more status as people during the early 80's. Now we're just dirt again along with our snotty, germy children to the majority of liberal, progressive men.

Thanks again for the reminder, Kip! Feel free to toss in comments about the abortion issue whenever you need a strawman or something...

madamab's picture
Submitted by madamab on

And don'tcha love how he throws in the whole "Planned Parenthood says the same thing!" argument to soften the blow?

Planned Parenthood also endorsed Barack Obama in the primaries, and they were co-founders of HCAN'T. Until they change leadership like NOW, they can kiss my radical feminist *ss!

The condescension from Progressive Doodz is unbelievable, isn't it? And I believe it's completely unconscious - a reflex, like breathing or buying that Venti Mocha skinny latte in the morning.

Maybe if Kip visits here, he will understand to how totally off the mark he is with this argument.

Thank goodness lambert gets it. Lambert, thanks for providing a place for us rebellious female types to hang out. :-)

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

... the specific impacts of the bill on abortion rights/access?

Here in MA, Martha Coakley got a lot of goodwill for opposing the bill because of the abortion restrictions, but now that she's the nominee, she's in favor of the current bill.

It would be helpful to know specifically what bill supporters are supporting vis-a-vis Sharia law American-style.

BDBlue's picture
Submitted by BDBlue on

about her. I thought she was already in and she was simply refusing to be the only member of her party to vote against it (I've kind of lost track of these kinds of things since I'm not all that invested in your Senate campaign). If, however, she's still just a candidate, I'm less forgiving of her changing her position. It's hard to break with your entire party on one of your first votes, it's not nearly as hard to simply say you're against a bill that you don't have to vote on. Of course, maybe she's just anticipating the vote she's going to have to make and knows she's going to cave and is being up front about it. Or, maybe she just sucks. Guess only time will tell.

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

His initial comments on the bill were horrible, and hers were very promising. He walked back some of his crap and he impressed me more in the debates that he'd (mostly) fight the good fight.

I've seen Coakley in person and have reason to believe she'd be at least a little better than some Dems, but it's a drag to see her cave right now, when she looked to be a bold advocate for women's rights.

Valhalla's picture
Submitted by Valhalla on

she's as good as in, because there's no way she's going to lose the actual election to a Republican, not here in Mass. The Globe seemed to think she'd likely be voting on it somehow, although I didn't really follow all the timing and conference stuff. And I very sure the Legacy-D party isn't waiting until she's actually sworn in to start punching her around.

I'm still very unhappy with her, regardless. And with myself, since I'd decided just a few weeks before that that was it, I'm not voting for single more Democrat ever, bc even voting for just the 'good' ones enables the whole dysfunctional lot of them. After she came out against Stupak, I changed my mind and thought I'd take one more shot.

Not that the alternatives were anything to write home about, Capuano voted for the House bill with Stupak (although he later switched and said he'd vote against it if the final version still included the amenment; however I will be flabbergasted if he doesn't vote for the final bill regardless which sharia version results); Khazei and Pagilucca both said they'd support the Stupak version from the get go because hcr is so important blah blah who cares about those icky girlz anyway blah blah.

Submitted by Anne on

separating women’s reproductive health-related concerns and rights from the universe of health care legislation, especially legislation that purports to be for “all” Americans.

I also have a hard time dealing with this big knot of resentment in my gut that we, as women, are being asked to put any aspect of our health, and any measure of the rights that have been so hard-fought, at risk for some still amorphous and largely-unexplained legislation that has political triumphalism at its core, and some not-yet-determined-to-be-credible claim to be for the greater good, which is the stick with which they keep trying to beat us into guilty submission.

Don’t get me wrong: Kip Sullivan has been doing yeoman’s work deconstructing and enlightening and presenting the crisis in health care in terms we can all make sense of, and I have referred to his work, sent people to the PNHP website and considered it a go-to source for all kinds of information.

As much as I have learned from Kip, I would love for him to engage us here on this particular aspect of the battle; I don’t want to assume I know what his comments meant.

And besides, I think it's entirely possible he might have something he can learn from us.

Valley Girl's picture
Submitted by Valley Girl on

I asked Kip- he sent me this

Just in case it isn't clear what I intended to say about Planned Parenthood’s 11th hour decision to oppose the Senate health “reform” bill, let me offer some background on my relation with Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood is a member of Health Care for America Now and played a key role in getting HCAN started. A decade ago my wife and I listed Planned Parenthood of MN and the Dakotas among the beneficiaries of our will and have, until just last year, annually given Planned Parenthood at all its levels several hundred dollars a year. We care about many issues, but abortion rights is among our highest priorities. (We have listed only one other organization in our will – a local legal aid office, because I used to be a staff attorney with the New York Legal Aid Society).

Universal coverage through a single-payer system is also a huge priority for us. About 18 months ago, shortly after we discovered Planned Parenthood Federation’s role in forming HCAN and its membership in HCAN, we wrote the Planned Parenthood Federation and stated we would give no more money to the Federation if they didn't get out of HCAN or persuade HCAN to stop trashing single-payer and stop supporting an insurance industry bailout. We also wrote Planned Parenthood of MN and the Dakotas and made the same demand: If they didn't get out of Take Action MN, the HCAN affiliate here, or persuade Take Action to stop trashing single-payer and stop supporting an insurance industry bailout, we would stop making annual contributions and, moreover, we would cut them out of our will. We have a meeting set for next Monday morning with one of the PP of MN and Dakotas' officers to discuss exactly this issue.

So, to make it crystal clear what I meant to say about Planned Parenthood, here is a revised version of the sentence in my comment at FDL: "The damage done to the freedom to choose an abortion since June should add to our outrage about the House and Senate health care ‘reform’ bills. But progressives should have opposed these bills prior to the addition of the Stupak amendment to the House bill. HCAN founding member Planned Parenthood should not have waited until access to abortions was restricted before deciding to oppose the Senate bill. I urge anyone who is thinking about giving money to any HCAN member organization, including Planned Parenthood, to refuse to do so until it gets out of HCAN or persuades HCAN to stop opposing single-payer and stop supporting an insurance industry bailout. If this seems harsh, consider how easy it would be for Planned Parenthood to regain our support. We're not even demanding that Planned Parenthood support single-payer, God forbid. All we're asking is that they get out of HCAN if they can't persuade HCAN to stop trashing single-payer and to stop supporting a bailout for the insurance industry."

madamab's picture
Submitted by madamab on

That is an excellent response!

I am very glad that he didn't mean it the way it sounded. Sometimes the written word is rather opaque.


Valhalla's picture
Submitted by Valhalla on

When someone suggested we simply ask Kip what he meant, I didn't volunteer because frankly, if it was standard "progressive" disgust for all things related to females, I just didn't want to know. I don't recommend or condone blissful denial (we've seen how grave the damage is that results from that), but after feeling so battered for 2 years now, I decided on this one thing yes, I was going to carve out a cave of denial for myself and just not risk another punch in the gut.

Thanks for wading in where I feared to tread, VG! I'm very glad to hear Kip's clarification, and I wholeheartedly agree, we shouldn ever have even gotten to the point where Stupak or Nelson should have come up. Ptooie on the lot of them.

Submitted by Anne on

And thanks to Kip for expanding on his original comments; it's more than refreshing to get that level of communication in response to a concern than to get bitch-slapped and screamed at for even asking.

madamab's picture
Submitted by madamab on

Unfortunately, in some circles, getting the latter response is far more common than getting the former.

Kip Sullivan is obviously a class act. I am always glad to be wrong in a case like this.