Perriello signed his own political termination papers tonight

A principled middle ground position on abortion? (0.00 / 0)

First, let me say that I would not have voted for the Stupak Amendment, as I understand it.

Second, it seems clear from the tenor of the debate that if the Stupak Amendment had NOT passed, HR 3962 would not have passed.  So someone who didn't like the content of the Stupak Amendment could well have voted for it because it would be the only way to get a bill out of the House at all.  The Stupak Amendment was thought by some Republicans to be a "poison pill" amendment that would ultimately cost Democrats the support of NARAL and others.  In fact, it probably bought the support of the last 10 or so Representatives necessary to get it over the hump.

Third, Tom did vote for the stimulus -- see http://clerk.house.gov/evs/200... when it first came up and http://clerk.house.gov/evs/200... on the conference report.  He did not vote for some of the bailouts, but he voted for the stimulus package, H.R. 1.

But to the abortion issue...

I watched Tom Perriello struggle with his views on abortion during the campaign.  Tom is a devout Catholic.  His Catholicism infuses much of his thinking about policy issues, as, for example, his reason for opposing torture in any form; he called it "blasphemy against the image of God."  I'm an Episcopalian, which some would suggest means I don't believe in anything except coffee hour, so I am not competent to say what a good Catholic ought to believe.  But Tom, from early on, was torn between his personal conviction that abortion was morally wrong and his respect for women and the decisions that they themselves must make.  Ultimately, following the example of Charlottesville's former Delegate Mitch Van Yahres (a Catholic), Tom became comfortable with the middle ground that he could in good conscience support a woman's right to make her own decision while continuing to seek ways to make abortions less common.  He supported, and continues to support, legislation to help provide women with contraception, pre-natal medical care, assistance with adoptions, etc., all of which will reduce the number of abortions consistent with respect for a woman's right to make that decision for herself.

Democratic Catholics have the greatest heartburn over when government financial support should go to those who seek abortions.  Some Democratic Catholics have decided, for reasons more related to Equal Protection, that if rich people can have abortions, it is fundamentally unjust to in effect deny poor women an abortion by refusing to allow public funding for abortions.  That is the NARAL purist's line.  Tom has not taken that view.  He has taken a middle ground, and has been consistent in doing so, that he would not support a health care bill that provided funding for abortions.  

Which gets to my question -- can there be a principled middle ground on abortion?  And to the question that you implicitly raise -- will Democratic activists forgive a Democrat who takes a principled middle ground on abortion, or will Democratic activists insist on absolutely fealty to the NARAL line?

I think that the answer is "Yes" and "Yes."

I think Tom will continue to excite volunteers -- as he did in 2008 -- with his principled votes on economic stimulus, torture, on climate change, and on health care.  When activists see Tom, they see someone worthy of respect -- someone who listens, who thinks, who doesn't demonize those who agree with him, who doesn't hew to a Party line, who pays attention to constituent service, who works hard for his district on the Transportation and Veterans' Affairs Committees, and who votes his principles.  

---

by: cvllelaw @ Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 05:29:15 AM CST

Writing as a devout Catholic, Tom's position is not sustainable under the teaching of "the preferential option for the poor" (4.00 / 1)

which tells us that the poor are to be given greater consideration than the rich. If abortion is legal, than there is no justification morally for restricting access to it based on the ability to pay.

Far too many right wing Catholics try to couch their political ideology in religious terms but when the theology is examined it fails or is inconsistently applied.

A principled middle ground would focus on reducing the need for abortions through better sex ed., that isn't restricted to abstinence, wide spread availability of effective contraception and financial support for unwed mothers to bring their children to term.  What to do to reduce the number of abortions for the large percentage of them that are sought by married women is still an open question.

Tom's position is political, his district demands it.

BTW, thanks for the correction, he was one of the very few Ds, along with Nye, to vote against the Obama budget.

---

by: martinlomasney @ Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 09:11:17 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Has Perriello done anything on torture since being in Congress? (0.00 / 0)

I ask because I'm not aware that he has, and an inquiry to his office on that subject went unanswered.

---

by: somethingblue @ Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 17:32:12 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Perriello's Potential Redemption (0.00 / 0)

Stupak himself predicted that had his amendment failed the bill would have passed anyway.  It's possible that the bill that comes back to the House after the Senate passes a bill won't have a Stupak-like provision.  If so, I bet Perriello would vote aye.  I also bet that Perriello won't have a more pro-choice primary opponent and that the GOP nominee for the seat would be far worse on women's issues.  Jane Hamsher has written very passionately at firedoglake about Planned Parenthood's nuanced dalliance with pols like Perriello.  When it comes to allocating contributions, I can see choosing others over Perriello, but when it comes to voting, dumping Perriello will hurt women more than it will hurt him.

---

by: jsrutstein @ Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 07:46:43 AM CST

We Don't Need To Act Like Wingnuts (4.00 / 2)

I personally am enjoying the way Republicans are conducting a civil war in their ranks between the wingnut rightie GOPers and the more reasonable Republicans. (That civil war resulted in another vote for health care reform from New York.)

I absolutely do not want my party to do the same thing. Tom Perriello is representing the district that elected him over an incumbent. He does not represent the those of us who are more leftist than the 5th district voters. That's called "representative government."

---

by: Elaine in Roanoke @ Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 08:27:13 AM CST

Note my diary did not predicted he would be primaried but that support wouldn't be there. (0.00 / 0)

And just like Creigh Deeds, Tom will lose without the enthusiastic support, as opposed to grudging acceptance, of pro-choice and other progressive voters, contributors and volunteers.

BTW, where's the line between wingnuttery and voting for laundry, i.e. voting for anyone with a D next to their name on the ballot, no matter how non-Democratic their voting record?

---

by: martinlomasney @ Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 09:22:16 AM CST

[ Parent ]

nuance is all (0.00 / 0)

I agree I don't want to act like a wingnut, demanding absolute purity on everything. At the same time, for me there are a few absolutely bedrock issues that I judge alleged Democrats on; in shorthand they are war and care for the less fortunate. The health care bill was the signature Democratic initiative, the one that guarantees not just the future health of Americans but the future health of the party...and, incidentally, the one Republicans vowed to make Obama's Waterloo.
So when my Congressman, Glenn Nye, voted against it, as far as I am concerned he became an unperson. He is not a Democrat--let him go to his little Republican friends that he voted with for cash and campaign workers.  

---

by: kathstack @ Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 09:34:39 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Well, I live in the fifth district (0.00 / 0)

... and this is an important issue to me. I was very disappointed by Perriello's vote on this, and I can't see voting for him in 2010. I don't see why I should apologize for that. If Perriello gets to vote his principles, then he should expect his constitutents to do so too.

---

by: somethingblue @ Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 17:51:53 PM CST

[ Parent ]

It isn't cut and dry... (0.00 / 0)

I disagree with the premise here. Perriello doesn't deserve to be targeted for his votes yet, and the general electorate is not going to respond to people shouting that he stood against abortion. I'm sorry, it just doesn't play well. His vote is nowhere close to a death sentence.


- Joel McDonald

Virginia Beach Progressives

---

by: Joel McDonald @ Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 11:28:54 AM CST

If only 1,000 women and/or progressives in and around Mr. Jefferson's country club stay home next November, Tom is toast. (0.00 / 0)

Tom's choosing to play to the evangelicals in his district. Just how many new conservatives votes does he thinks he's going to attract next November with this vote. He could have voted present or not voted on Stupak's amendment and avoided any progressive backlash.  The amendment was passing without his vote. Why risk offending NOW and other progressives unnecessarily?

---

by: martinlomasney @ Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 16:47:47 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Choosing to play to the evangelicals... (0.00 / 0)

Or voting his beliefs and conscience?  It is one thing for a Catholic (or one who believes in some degree of fetus/pre-born human rights) to support the so-called "right" of choice.  It is quite another to advocate and vote for public funding of that choice.  Abortion, in most cases, is an elective procedure -- more akin to cosmetic surgery than needed surgeries like heart bypass operations. Of course, non-elective abortions (e.g., implantation into the fallopian tubes) will (and should) be covered by health insurance.

If a woman wants an typical abortion today, it will cost a few hundred dollars.  After the Stupak Amendment, abortion will cost...a few hundred dollars...

Maybe I have interpreted the Stupak Amendment incorrectly in this regard, but I doubt it.    

---

by: RichardWard @ Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 08:07:01 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Richard you miss the point (0.00 / 0)

The Hyde amendment forbids federal funding of abortion.  But the Stupak amendment did a couple of insidious things.  First it suggested (falsely) that Dems lied when the assured there was no abortion funding in the bill.  They did not lie.  But now many will think so.

Second, and here's where you are totally wrong, Richard, it forbids any woman getting any federal subsidy (and that is most women) to get an abortion WITH HER OWN MONEY. And private insurers who work with the exchange can no longer offer private policies which include abortion coverage.  In other words, this amendment attempts to do an end run around the US Supreme Court and eliminate the possibility of privately financed abortion.


"One person, one vote" died at the hands of SCOTUS, January 21, 2010

---

by: KathyinBlacksburg @ Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 08:31:23 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Should have said... (0.00 / 0)

it indirectly "forbids."  It happens by restricting what insurers on the exchange can offer women privately. Private insurers who wish to be included in the exchange cannot offer their private plans including abortion services.  


"One person, one vote" died at the hands of SCOTUS, January 21, 2010

---

by: KathyinBlacksburg @ Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 09:12:27 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Check out here (0.00 / 0)

http://wonkroom.thinkprogress....

"One person, one vote" died at the hands of SCOTUS, January 21, 2010

---

by: KathyinBlacksburg @ Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 16:39:25 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Elaine, I respectfully disagree (0.00 / 0)

The Stupak Amendment does not (and cannot) prevent a woman from using her own funds for an abortion.  A woman using either a public health plan, or a plan purchased on the exchange can use her own funds, or another's funds, to purchase an abortion, just as what occurs today.  Such is clearly contemplated by the option in the Stupak Amendment for a woman to purchase a separate rider (or policy) that would cover abortion services, much like one would purchase a separate policy for dental services in many workplace policies today.  

See subsection (b) of Stupak Amendment at http://documents.nytimes.com/t...

(As an aside, I would argue that health care reform as it stands today would make abortion services even more available and accessible, as funds previously spent by the needy for non-elective health care (e.g., sick visits) would now be covered by insurance.)

As for your first point, both the Democratic and Republican viewpoints are defensible -- it is a gray area whether the previous plans directly and/or indirectly funded abortion.  I really don't think it is necessary to get to that issue.  Elective abortion is an elective procedure.  Most people would have problems paying for another's elective cosmetic surgery (e.g., rhinoplasty, breast enlargement); why would not more people object to paying for a controversial elective procedure which arguably ends a human life?

Cvllelaw, can you weigh in and add to my legal analysis?  I did not get to the Supreme Court/Constitutional arguments yet.  I see no way in which Congress can (legally) do an end-around of Roe v. Wade.  

--Rick

---

by: RichardWard @ Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 09:27:07 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Sorry Elaine/Kathy (0.00 / 0)

Responding to the wrong person.  Thanks for the clarification Kathy.  But do see section (b) of the Stupak Amendment.  It seems to permit the private plans to offer abortion services privately to any woman that purchases insurance from the exchange.  

--Rick  

---

by: RichardWard @ Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 09:30:45 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Did you really compare abortion with COSMETIC SURGERY!!!! Unbelievable (0.00 / 0)

None of the women on this blog called you on it. Stunning.

I know of no woman who would describe an abortion as comparable to a face lift. Especially since if you wait 9 months for a tummy tuck you not making a lifetime commitment to another human.

Can you say misogynist?

---

by: martinlomasney @ Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 18:12:45 PM CST

[ Parent ]

No, I called it more akin and controversial than cosmetic surgery (0.00 / 1)

I'm sorry if I offended anyone. It was not my intent.

But there is a big difference.  You need a heart bypass to survive.  You usually do not need an abortion or a rhinoplasty to survive, but in rare cases, they should both be covered by insurance (e.g., health of mother, cosmetic surgery needed because of accident, etc.).

This is why I make a strong distinction between elective abortion and non-elective abortions.  

If you think that "cosmetic surgery" is not a good example of an elective procedure as any, what else would you suggest?  I did not use the more controversial breast augmentation or tummy tuck example, but I will so now since you raise the issue.  

What is more controversial, paying for a woman's abortion, or paying for a tummy tuck?  I would say the former.  An abortion beyond reasonable scientific dispute ends an independent human life (if your definition of human life is independent human DNA in cell(s) capable of becoming a human person, which is the general scientific consensus).  I am sympathetic to arguments that an embryo/fetus is not fully human (as opposed to a human life), but to me, as to about half of our Country, that is a distinction with much of a real difference.

And I pose one last query.  If one believes that a fetus is a human person, does that really make one that gives value to that fetus a misogynist (hater of women or girls), especially when slightly less than half of those fetuses are human girls, and slightly more than half of aborted human fetuses are human girls.  

There's no need to fight this out here.  Just go to any "comments" section on any abortion article elsewhere, and you can see the same old tired arguments (incorporated herein in their entirety by reference, to use legalese).  

I hope that this site remains a different forum.  Be excellent to one another...

---

by: RichardWard @ Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 18:59:27 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Your comment is so appalling I (0.00 / 0)

will just leave it at that.  It's just one more outrageous characterization of women. I have never had an abortion.  But I will fiercely defend those who believe they must have one against the males who think they know best, but who only want to control women.  

Be excellent to one another?  Practice it yourself.  Stop stereotyping and portraying women who disagree with you on this.  Try honestly listening for once in your life. It is always about you and not the women.  Not once is it about them.

"One person, one vote" died at the hands of SCOTUS, January 21, 2010

---

by: KathyinBlacksburg @ Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 19:11:10 PM CST

[ Parent ]

oh well (0.00 / 0)

"outrageous characterization of women" -- where?
"stereotyping" -- where?
"portraying women" -- where?
"It is always about me" -- where?  My first post ever on this board was complementary of your respectful manner in which you handled the subject of abortion.  And clearly, the issue is not all about "me."

Misquote, mischaracterize, marginalize.  I'll leave it at this too (barring more plays from the playbook).  Again, I apologize if I have offended.  

---

by: RichardWard @ Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 19:26:03 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Camille Paglia said it most strikingly (0.00 / 0)

I am paraphrasing here...

A woman doesn't want an abortion like she wants a new car.  She wants an abortion like a fox caught in a trap wants to chew its leg off to escape the trap.

In counseling teenage girls who want abortions and who are asking the court for permission to have an abortion without parental notification (I sometimes get appointed to represent them), I have been struck by the uniformity of this reaction -- the belief that they are trapped, and that their future is ruined.  (Statistically, that is a highly likely outcome, some happy exceptions notwithstanding.)  Yes, it's an elective procedure in the sense that the girl is not likely to actually die if she doesn't have the abortion.  But not really.  

---

by: cvllelaw @ Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 20:18:56 PM CST

[ Parent ]

cosmetic surgery? (0.00 / 0)

what a ridiculous comparison and so totally insensitive to women.  Women do not treat such issues as trivially as you purport.  And it really is offensive.

"One person, one vote" died at the hands of SCOTUS, January 21, 2010

---

by: KathyinBlacksburg @ Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 18:17:14 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Nuts (0.00 / 0)

If you think that abortion is equivalent to a wart removal, you've lost your cotton-pickin' mind.

I've been reading your postings for several months now, and I do "get it" -- you're monothematical and abortion is your one, single, overriding, issue. It ain't mine, but people come in all flavours and I was willing to shut up. Till now. Your statement is the most offensive thing I've read in a long, long, time.

Go wash your mouth with lye soap.

---

by: libra @ Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 18:58:45 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I shut up for a couple of months (0.00 / 0)

while I watched Deeds self destruct on the issue.  Tried to persuade him to back off on the issue, yet he did not.  Do you really want to do that again?  This a Blue Commonwealth site discussing Tom's House seat, not an abortion rights site.  Do you really think a 100% pro-choice candidate has a chance in Tom's district?  

And you are now following the playbook.  Misquote, marginalize, trivialize, divide.  I have seen the playbook used many times, and people are beginning to see through it.  

And really, the most offensive thing you have read in a long, long time...(I'll stop there)

Abortion, in most cases, is an elective procedure -- more akin to cosmetic surgery than needed surgeries like heart bypass operations. Of course, non-elective abortions (e.g., implantation into the fallopian tubes) will (and should) be covered by health insurance.

---

by: RichardWard @ Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 19:08:35 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Would we have been better off (4.00 / 1)

without the Stupak Amendment with a bill that failed?

I don't know enough about the Stupak Amendment/Hyde Amendment issues to have a strong opinion on that, but I believe those who say that without the Stupak Amendment, the bill would have failed.

I think you really have to understand Tom to understand this vote.  He is a very principled guy, and he is not afraid to vote a particular way because he believes it to be right.  He is genuinely personally opposed to abortion, and he is genuinely disturbed by the notion of doing something that enables it.

I would hope that those progressives who are disturbed by this particular principled stand would recognize that it is in our best interests to have a Representative who votes his principles, particularly when those principles are generally progressive.  Unlike Glenn Nye, who does not seem to be giving progressives ANY reason to back him again, Tom has cast tough, unpopular, but principled votes FOR the stimulus package, FOR cap-and-trade, and now FOR health care reform.  If progressives can't recognize another progressive with those credentials, we are either too blind, too stupid, too obstinate or too arrogant to deserve a Representative of Tom's caliber.

---

by: cvllelaw @ Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 09:08:56 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Not just "generally progressive" (0.00 / 0)

But arguably more progressive than the "100% choice" stance on abortion, and the even more radical concept that such a "choice" should be funded, directly or indirectly, by the the public.  

---

by: RichardWard @ Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 09:37:05 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Who knows what a "progressive" is these days? (0.00 / 0)

We tend to use the word "progressive" when 10 years ago we would have said "liberal."

So what is a "progressive?"  Someone who wants progress?  And what do you call someone who is opposed to a progressive?  A Luddite?  I don't think the word means much these days, though everyone on our side of things wants to be thought of as "progressive."  It is no definition at all to say that "progressive" ideas are those espoused by those who call themselves "progressives."  But at some level, that is what we are reduced to.  According to Wikipedia, the best we can say is that progressivism "can include" attention to certain issues:

Modern issues for progressives can include: electoral reform (including instant runoff voting, proportional representation and fusion candidates), environmental conservation, pollution control and environmentalism, same-sex marriage, universal health care, abolition of the death penalty, affordable housing, a viable Social Security System, renewable energy, smart growth urban development, a living wage and pro-union policies, among many others.

We assume that liberal abortion policies are "progressive" because, well, a group of people who call themselves progressive like liberal abortion policies.  Maybe taxpayer funding for abortions is "progressive" under the same logic.  

Suppose that a different group of people who called themselves progressive -- who favored electoral reform, conservation, health care, and abolition of the death penalty -- decided that they did NOT like liberal abortion policies.  They regarded abortion, like the death penalty, as a vestige of a failed culture of death, and they believed that the progressive view is to promote life in all ways and in all policies.  Who could say that was not "progressive"?

---

by: cvllelaw @ Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 17:05:37 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I want my Progressive Party back (0.00 / 0)

I agree with you that we should not attack fellow Democrats (or even any other politician) on a principled position on abortion.  It is generally a losing tactic.  See McDonnell v. Deeds (Va. 2009).  Especially because, as your quote confirms, "choice" is not a core progressive value.  

In contrast, "choice" seems to be a somewhat core "liberal" value (a "civil liberty"), as a different Wikipedia article suggests.  See excerpt at bottom.

I am not a liberal, as that movement represents a "left-wing" ("I've got mine") conservativism that is nearly as repulsive to me as "right-wing" conservatism.  Both left-wing liberalism and right-wing conservatism seem to equally contribute to "[t]he decline of our culture into a culture of instant gratification and greed."  

The quotation is from Tom, see

http://www2.dailyprogress.com/...

Actually, just look at the majority of our politicians today.  "[I]nstant gratification and greed" has them pegged pretty well.  

Tom seems to be a rare exception to the general rule.  Should we really work against those like him?

From Wikipedia on Progressivism:

The term "progressive" is today often used in place of "liberal". Although the two are related in some ways, they are separate and distinct political ideologies. According to John Halpin, senior advisor on the staff of the Center for American Progress, "Progressivism is an orientation towards politics, It's not a long-standing ideology like liberalism, but an historically-grounded concept... that accepts the world as dynamic." Progressives see progressivism as an attitude towards the world of politics that is broader than conservatism vs. liberalism, and as an attempt to break free from what they consider to be a false and divisive dichotomy.

Cultural Liberalism is ultimately founded on a concept of natural rights and civil liberties, and the belief that the major purpose of the government is to protect those rights.  Liberals are often called "left-wing", as opposed to "right-wing" conservatives. The progressive school, as a unique branch of contemporary political thought, tends to advocate certain center-left or left-wing views that may conflict with mainstream liberal views, despite the fact that modern liberalism and progressivism may still both support many of the same policies (such as the concept of war as a general last resort).

American progressives tend to support interventionist economics: they advocate income redistribution, and they oppose the growing influence of corporations...Progressives are in agreement on an international scale with left-liberalism in that they support organized labor and trade unions, they usually wish to introduce a living wage, and they often support the creation of a universal health care system. Yet progressives tend to be more concerned with environmentalism than mainstream liberals, and are often more skeptical of the government, positioning themselves as whistleblowers and advocates of governmental reform. Finally, liberals are more likely to support the Democratic Party in America and a Labour party or Liberal Party in Europe and Australia, while progressives tend to feel disillusioned with any two-party system, and vote more often for third-party candidates.

---

by: RichardWard @ Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 18:24:26 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Yeh, it's "your" and "your" womb... (0.00 / 0)

"One person, one vote" died at the hands of SCOTUS, January 21, 2010

---

by: KathyinBlacksburg @ Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 19:12:49 PM CST

[ Parent ]

My point was not about "choice" as a progressive value... (0.00 / 0)

...as much as it was about the fact that no one really knows what a "progressive" value is.  If "progressivism" were to be defined by "progressive" Episcopalians, "choice" might be thought of as a "progressive" value.  If it is defined by "progressive" Catholics, "choice" might NOT be thought of as a "progressive" value.  

And the point about the intellectual bankruptcy of labels is made all the more clear when you recognize that someone who was regarded as "liberal" at the founding of the Republic was more of a libertarian, whereas someone who was "conservative" was more of an authoritarian.  A "liberal", or "Democrat" or "Democrat-Republican" 200 years ago favored decentralized power (think of Jefferson before he became President); a "conservative", or "Federalist", favored centralization of power in a strong national government (think of Hamilton).  But I digress...

---

by: cvllelaw @ Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 20:05:03 PM CST

[ Parent ]

what's radical about women having the same access to health care whether they are rich or poor? (4.00 / 1)

n/t

---

by: martinlomasney @ Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 18:01:58 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Really good point, Martin.n/t (0.00 / 0)

"One person, one vote" died at the hands of SCOTUS, January 21, 2010

---

by: KathyinBlacksburg @ Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 18:17:54 PM CST

[ Parent ]

My post was about the tactical wisdom of Tom voting for the Stupak amendment which would necessarly alienate a part of his base. (0.00 / 0)

He easily could have avoided a vote, e.g., voted present, not vote, take a walk. I can imagine a response to an inquiry on why he didn't vote being: "It was complicated language raised at the last minute and I didn't get satisfactory answers to all of my questions."

Congressman do this all the time on floor amendments.

So why did Periello not do this? I don't buy the "principled elected official" meme because I have no recollection of him raising this issue over the summer. He was reacting to Stupak's initiative.  So what's the political calculus?

Does he expect to pick up more pro-life votes and he loses pro-choice votes? Is that realistic?

Tough to figure.

---

by: martinlomasney @ Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 17:55:11 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Actually, he did. (0.00 / 0)

Tom made it very clear at the Town Hall meetings that he had (I was at two of the 21, and I saw news coverage of others) that he would oppose a bill that funded abortions.  When he announced that he would support HR 3962, he said that his three basic principles for the bill were:

1.  It had to bend the cost curve down, and be at least deficit-neutral.

2.  It had to look out for Medicare reimbursement rates in rural areas.

3.  It had to contain no funding for abortion.  Obviously, there are many different formulations of that, and the specific language of the Stupak Amendment was not before us during the Town Hall meetings, but the general statement is one that he has made consistently.

So if he has made the point consistently, do you think it is possible that he is in fact a "principled elected official?"  Or do you find that impossible as a matter of law?

Personally, having seen him wrestle over the last two years with how to move from a personal conviction against abortion to applying that principle in the public arena, I  believe the "principled elected official" meme.

---

by: cvllelaw @ Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 19:54:15 PM CST

[ Parent ]

So as a devout Catholic (0.00 / 0)

will he be applying the same reasoning to capital punishment? Vote "Nay" on any budget that includes funding for federal death row and executions? Because it seems to me that would be a prerequisite for the "principled" meme.

---

by: somethingblue @ Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 20:37:35 PM CST

[ Parent ]