Now, if you can guess why any media outlet—even one headed by Tina Brown—would give Siskind the time of day as a “voice for all women,” you’ll have earned a whole damn box of cookies. Because neither the Cookie Monster nor I can figure that one out.

Crazy sells, especially when it comes wrapped in a former-stockbroker-from-Westchester shell.

I can only assume with Tina Brown that Camille Paglia was not available.

Now isn’t abortion the one woman’s issue The New Agenda doesn’t give a hoot about?

The New Agenda does not take a position on reproductive rights. Choice is an issue which has been used to divide more than unite. The New Agenda focuses on the many issues which unite us

Jebus.  That hypocrite won’t stop till Nurse Ratched installed as dictator for life.

if you can guess why any media outlet—even one headed by Tina Brown—would give Siskind the time of day as a “voice for all women,” you’ll have earned a whole damn box of cookies

Hello Amy? Tina again. We need a short piece for the Beast, and the heads of NOW, Emily’s List, and Planned Parenthood are too busy—can you do it? You can? Brilliant! Yes, of course, you have oversight over the comments—don’t we always accomodate you?—-

—All right, thanks again, Amy, you’re always there when we need you——yes, I’m sure Wall Street didn’t appreciate you the way we do—all right, Cami—er, Amy, I really must get back to work, but it’s been lovel—-yes, all right. All right. I will say hello if I see Hil—Yes. Bye now. Bye, Amy. Ta.

Good Lord, sometimes I hate myself, but at least that editorial hole is filled.

Cyg, thanks for that quote. I posted it as part of a longer comment over at the Beastly Tina. We’ll see if it survives.

Hillary phoned Obama and Pelosi to congratulate them on getting the bill passed in the house and Bill met with the Senate Dems today to urge them to get it HCR passed. So, yeah, I think we all owe the PUMAs a very big apology.

Betty, your “following an elephant with a broom” comment to the ironically named “smartwoman” made my freaking day!

I have changed my mind about the Stupak amendment.  After reading the diary on DKos of a woman whose fetus was pronounced dead and had to shell out $1500 for an abortion, I saw the light.  I now think Progressives should fillibuster a bill that includes it.

Great comments by Oblo and Betty at the Daily beast, esp the “Walmart store-brand crack” crack.

I now think Progressives should fillibuster a bill that includes it.

I’m glad people are opposing it, Glix (Well, people with credibility on choice issues, unlike Siskind). It’s a stupid amendment. But there’s no way it will be included in a final bill—if there is a final bill—so the filibuster question is moot, in my opinion.

The compromise position—maintaining the status quo for federal funding of abortion—will win the day if we get a bill at all. Even if they have to stick some reinforcement of the Hyde principle in there to mollify the Blue Cross Dems, there’s no way they’ll expand the limits on choice to include private insurance policies purchased without subsidies, as is being alleged in some quarters.

The president doesn’t want that. The insurance companies don’t want that. And the pro-choice Dems don’t want it. Nagahappen.

I also think the issue of insurers dropping abortion coverage from all policies to conform with a public option requirement is a bit of a red herring. I worked in the insurance industry for many years, and every really big client entity got to tweak their policy terms a bit.

For example, many large Catholic hospital groups already opt out of abortion coverage, and that didn’t affect the coverage of other companies accessing the same basic insurance plan platforms. The insurance companies will be more than willing to trot out compliant federal plans to access those sweet federal subsidies. 

I’m not saying I’m happy about this situation or that there’s nothing to be concerned about. I’m glad the pro-choice congresscritters are raising hell. I’m just saying the likelihood of a HCR bill FURTHER undermining abortions rights is practically nil, and the people screaming about Obama’s secret plan to bring back back-alley abortions under the guise of HCR are completely full of shit. In my opinion.

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).

Those Republican women in the House certainly helped to advance women’s rights - esp. the right to choose - when it came time to vote on the HCR bill, didn’t they?  Perhaps a few more Michele Bachmanns in office would satisfy Ms. Siskind.

PUMAs will stop being tiresome lying idiots. As we’ve all observed, Siskind is the worst of the lot because she seems to have been given some kind of patina of respectability, absent any actual history of feminist activism or achievement. I would LOVE to know how much she has given to PPFA, NARAL, or any of the local abortion funds that are run across the U.S. to help poor women.

Jesus Fucking Christ On a Raft, now there is someone cheerleading on that thread calling herself “smartsmartwoman.” I shit you not. Worst. Sockpuppet. Ever. “Now With Extra Smart!”

Geez, Betty, tone down the hate, would ya?

Seriously, though. It’s like learning a new language, what with the new meanings for words and all. A reasoned argument and facts = hate. It made me feel like the Hungarian in the smoke shop saying, with the help of a maliciously faulty translation book, “I waaant to fondle your buttocks!”

Amy Siskind, a PUMA by any other name.

Just had to come buy and give you a high five for your work on that DB thread.