Maybe It Really Is About Abortion…

The pro-life Susan B. Anthony List and Rep. Jim Jordan, head of the Republican Study Committee, just held a conference call in which Jordan said the fight is all about abortion. “The country’s broke. The vast majority of Americans, whether they’re pro-life or not, don’t want their tax dollars being spent to take the life of unborn children,” Jordan said. When asked about how no federal funds go to paying for abortions – Planned Parenthood carefully segregates the funds – Jordan scoffed: “Come on. Money is fungible, and for them to make that claim – it’s just common sense that money is fungible. We think that tax payers understand this and they don’t want their money to be used in this manner.”

Speaker Boehner said this morning that “almost all of the policy issues have been dealt with and there is no agreement on the spending limit.” But Jordan’s remarks would seem to contradict this claim. The Republican Study Committee represents 175 of the most conservative Republicans – a giant bloc without whom Boehner cannot pass anything.

Dick Durbin, the No. 2 Senate Democrat, told reporters this afternoon that after House and Senate negotiators came to an agreement on $38 billion in cuts, Boehner brought up this rider.  “[At] midnight last night it was down to one issue: Title X. They made a proposal to us and we said, ‘That’s unacceptable,’” Durbin said. “And then they spent the rest of the night — instead of saying, ‘Ok, can we re-approach that’ – saying, ‘Ok, let’s reopen the conversation on the numbers.’ You know that is maddening. At some point this has to come to a close.”

Durbin said the Senate is digging in its heels at $38 billion. The fact that Boehner asked for more money would hint that abortion isn’t really the sticking point, but Democratic aides say the issue isn’t money. “If it were a matter for a couple more billion in cuts in exchange for them dropping Title X, don’t you think we would’ve done that by now?” an aide said.

The debate over the substance of the rider also shows how important the issue has become. Boehner’s folks didn’t just offer the rider. They also discussed procedural votes in the Senate and alternatives where President Obama would be “signing things regardless of the outcome,” Durbin said. All of which Senate Democrats and the Administration rejected. “The ball’s in the Speaker’s court, our offer is out there,” Durbin said. And thus far, Boehner’s not moving and the clock is still ticking.

Subscribe to Jay Newton-Small on Facebook
Related Topics: shut down, Barack Obama, Budgets, Congress, Democratic Party, Harry Reid, John Boehner, Republican Party, Senate, Tea Party, White House
  • Latest on Swampland

    Pete Souza / White House

    Obama’s Persuasive Powers on Gay Marriage Manifest in Maryland

    When President Obama endorsed gay marriage earlier this month, the media grappled with two basic political questions: Was his personal “evolution” a case of  a politician transparently following a national trend toward accepting same-sex unions (accelerated, perhaps, by his chatty number two), and would it hurt his re-election chances by alienating socially conservative voters like black churchgoers? Sure, there was a recognition that it marked a gratifying moment for gay marriage advocates—as well as some grumbling about the President’s view that it remains a state issue, not a federal one. But by and large, there were few suggestions that one man, even the President, would shift public opinion on the issue or affect public policy. Based on a new Public Policy Polling survey out of Maryland, it seems this possibility was underestimated.

    Lewis Eisenberg, Major Romney Donor, Accuses Obama Of Demonizing Wall StreetHuffPost Politics

    Cherokee Zero

    Apparently, Massachusetts voters don’t mind that Elizabeth Warren foolishly identified herself as a Native American early in her academic career–it was, apparently, a case of family pride and wishful thinking about a Cherokee ancestor. That’s good. Warren may be the best public figure when it comes to explaining the depredations of the financial industry and [...]

  • Ivy_B

    Why can’t I keep my money from supporting people being killed in war? Is it because they are already alive before they go to war?

  • Ivy_B

    Even Richard Mellon Scaife disagrees with the efforts to defund Planned Parenthood. But Boehner has Randall Terry in his inner circle.

    http://www.americanindependent.com/171516/right-wing-philanthropist-opposes-gops-efforts-to-defund-planned-parenthood

  • Art Pepper

    Jay: I refer you to Alex’s previous post. “Someone is lying.” (Hint: Are Boehner’s lips moving?)

  • chupkar
  • hippooath

    It’s fracken shameful that GOP is using riders to extort more money and when that’s resolved they still try to stick the whole social conservative agenda in there.

    This is like the lame duck session all over again; more hostage taking for something they actually get paid to do. But at least the ideologue dumb@sses who think that they’re at war with the liberals slobber this cr@p up like this is how our political system should work.

  • square1

    Here is what I would do. I would introduce a “Fungibility of Money” rider that bans “fungible” federal funds from going to groups with explicit religious or morally dubious practices.

    No money to Planned Parenthood AND

    No money to any religious group to perform medical, counseling, educational, or other government-related services.

    They don’t want their tax dollars to go to groups that ALSO perform abortions?

    Well I don’t want my tax dollars to go to groups that ALSO perform religious services that I do not agree with.

    My guess is that this is a deal that Republicans can’t live with.

  • allthingsinaname

    “If it were a matter for a couple more billion in cuts in exchange for them dropping Title X, don’t you think we would’ve done that by now?” an aide said.”
    .
    There it is again couple of Billion for 75 million?
    .
    Absurd!

  • Ivy_B

    I could live with that. Cut out the office of faith based initiatives.

  • allthingsinaname

    That will learn them.

  • http://gum0nshoe.wordpress.com gumOnShoe

    My guess is that Republicans are looking at this like a football field.

    They have their endzone and the democrats have their endzone.

    The republican goal is to get as many concessions (drives down the field) as possible. They don’t care how they do it, so they keep changing what their bargainer position is. As long as they don’t cede ground, they continue to win, and the strategy continues to work.

    The thing is, I’m not sure if a shut down would daunt them from this strategy. They’ve been using this strategy since last year. Only, now they switched from defense to offence. They’ve crossed the “50-yard” line if you will.

    The sad thing is that I’m using a football metaphor to describe american politics. I hate football. But this just makes soooo much sense. The party of “patriots” would of course use a “Football” strategy. Clear as glass.

  • http://derekg.wordpress.com/ Derek

    @MicheleBachmann

    “I am ready for a big fight that will change the arc of history. The current fight in Washington is not that fight http://tiny.cc/whj7s #tcot”

    Looks like the nut bar, right-wing extremists are getting ready to fold. That must be very disappointing to Democrats who are cleaning up politically from the insanity.

  • shepherdwong

    Not a bad metaphor but, in football, there’s a price to be paid for lying and cheating. In politics, the refs don’t seem to mind at all. They seem to find it all pretty amusing, at least when it’s being done by team elephant.

  • http://gum0nshoe.wordpress.com gumOnShoe

    Additionally, Republicans would be happy if any of the Riders OR budget cuts came to pass. Arguing for both makes them look like hypocrites to us, and heroes to their base, which they are trying to get going for an election. Since their base carried them in 2010, maybe they are thinking their base can carry them in 2012 as well.
    ·
    Either way you look at it, this is all about scoring points more than drafting workable legislation or fixing problems. They just want the high way to themselves again.

  • http://driftingspecter.wordpress.com driftingspecter

    Oh come on people… by this argument all sorts of things the government does support abortion.

    If the salary for someone’s research position is funded by an NSF grant one could make the argument that, if they or their spouse has an abortion, the government is funding abortion since the money originated with the federal government. If a postal worker gets an abortion, the money probably came from a government paycheck. If a congressional staffer gets an abortion, that money probably came from a government paycheck as well… the list is literally endless!!

    Can we get off this obscene witch hunt and start acting like adults here!!!

  • gysgt213

    You are not in charge of us.

  • cat48

    This is what FrumForum reports. All the Riders are written by Lobbyists and do not allow ANY negotiating room for Obama on any of them. Yes, it is about Planned Parenthood funding. Their a wicked organization b/c an old white man doesn’t withhold birth control pills from young women who might have sex. So an old white man in the House is inflicting his Values on poor people. If you don’t get birth control and you have sex anyway, guess what might happen then old white man?? Yep, maybe, abortion. So your making it more likely to occur by denying birth control to the poor.

  • shepherdwong

    The other major difference being that, politics it’s no game. The futures of millions of lives are stake. Which sort of makes the referees’ bemusement and refusal to penalize the cheaters, more than a little sociopathic.

  • http://driftingspecter.wordpress.com driftingspecter

    >
    >> You are not in charge of us.
    >
    This is true… nor would I want to be in charge of a fool like you…

    You and yours just get in the way… so don’t get upset when you get stepped on and scraped off someone’s shoe onto a curb somewhere…

  • http://scrimbul.wordpress.com scrimbul

    I could agree with that.

  • Matt

    Odds are a deal gets done because the Democrats have already caved on most issues and the congressional Republicans are beginning to realize that they would get the blame for a shutdown if they continue to hold firm on defunding womens’ health clinics. We may see movement unless the lure of the Tea Party is too much for Boehner…
    http://www.sunstateactivist.org

  • shepherdwong

    … so don’t get upset when you get stepped on and scraped off someone’s shoe onto a curb somewhere…
    .
    …and the fascistic lizard-brain of the forced-birth zealots makes an appearance in the swamp.

  • textee

    Was this press release written by the abortion lobby for Jay Newton-Small or was it written by Jay Newton-Small for the abortion lobby?

    Newton-Small predictably, dutifully and falsely asserts: “no federal funds go to paying for abortions – Planned Parenthood carefully segregates the funds ….”

    If abortion enthusiasts donated money to al Qaeda to pay for abortions for al Qaeda girls, would those abortion enthusiasts be so stupid to think that the donations made by said abortion enthusiasts to al Qaeda wouldn’t free up funds to do killing other than the abortions?

  • shepherdwong

    No, it’s all Kabuki. But when Boehner goes crying to the Teatards that he did everything he could, it’s going to have to look convincing. Fortunately, Boehner can cry convincingly over just about anything.

  • gysgt213

    Drift. That was meant to be a joke. Obviously it was a bad one.

  • allthingsinaname

    I guess shep you didn’t bother to read his original post.

  • http://jcapan.wordpress.com jcapan

    Jay Rosen posted this awesome quote by muckraker Lincoln Steffens last month:

    I am not a scientist. I am a journalist. I did not gather with indifference all the facts and arrange them patiently for permanent preservation and laboratory analysis. I did not want to preserve, I wanted to destroy the facts. My purpose was [to] see if the shameful facts, spread out in all their shame, would not burn through our civic shamelessness and set fire to American pride. That was the journalism of it. I wanted to move and to convince.

    The Shame of the Cities, 1902

  • nflfoghorn

    Better to not blog and let people think you’re a fool than to type and remove all doubt.

  • paulejb

    allthings…@12.3,
    .
    Wong can read?

  • formerlyjames

    OK, let’s compromise. No abortions. Use of rubbers allowed. Knowing the right wing, we now need to negotiate taxation of rubbers.

  • allthingsinaname

    Paul,
    No that wasn’t my point. He accuses me of being emotionally involved.
    .
    I mean I am human, I always thought emotion came with the territory.

blog comments powered by Disqus