Interview: Marjorie Dannenfelser, Susan B Anthony’s List, on ObamaCare and Blue Dogs

posted at 11:36 am on March 8, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

Earlier this morning, I interviewed Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of Susan B Anthony’s List, a pro-life advocacy group that has actively opposed the ObamaCare initiative since it began last summer. Last week, they began polling constituents in the districts of proclaimed pro-life Democrats in Congress to determine their position on federal funding of abortions, and made a significant if not terribly surprising discovery:

At least three-in-five voters in these eight congressional districts agreed that “Abortion and abortion funding have no place in healthcare legislation.” Additionally, more than 70% of voters agreed in four of the districts surveyed (Ohio-06, Ohio-16, Indiana-08, and Indiana-09).

At least two-thirds of voters in each Congressional District opposed “using tax dollars to pay for abortions” and in all districts majorities “strongly opposed.” Furthermore, in three districts opposition reached 80% (Ohio-06, Ohio-16, and Indiana-08).

As these Democrats consider passing the Senate version of ObamaCare, which sets up a potential mandate for federal funding in its legislative language, Susan B Anthony’s List wants to campaign for both education and action on ObamaCare in these districts — and possibly more, as new polling gets conducted in as many as 20 districts. I asked Marjorie about this new campaign and about ObamaCare’s impact on pro-life advocacy in our interview today:


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

The Dems lie about covering cost of abortions

seven on March 8, 2010 at 11:39 AM

Polls show two-thirds oppose federal abortion funding.

It’s a good thing then that the bill does nut propose fedral abortion funding.

factoid on March 8, 2010 at 11:43 AM

seven on March 8, 2010 at 11:39 AM

And pretty much everything else.

It would be easier to list what Democrats actually tell the truth about. I can’t think of anything off of the top of my head.

NoDonkey on March 8, 2010 at 11:43 AM

It’s a good thing then that the bill does nut propose fedral abortion funding.

factoid on March 8, 2010 at 11:43 AM

Which bill is it that you are refering to?

VegasRick on March 8, 2010 at 11:46 AM

It’s a good thing then that the bill does nut propose fedral abortion funding.

factoid on March 8, 2010 at 11:43 AM

It doesn’t propose it, it mandates that abortion be funded…and that providers provide it.

Ignore the Obama propaganda and read the bill that they actually will vote on. You will find that the propaganda bears no relation to the actual bill.

landlines on March 8, 2010 at 11:51 AM

I fail to understand why an abortion, which is an elective procedure to terminate a non-illness (ie women’s bodies are intended to reproduce), should be included at all in healthcare insurance. Back in the day, you were grateful to get a legal one and you paid for it yourself. Likewise, get your own g.d. birth control. If you can’t afford to pay, you shouldn’t play.

As far as rape victims, I would like to know how many rape victims 1) are not using birth control at the time of their assault and 2) just happened to be raped during the narrow fertility window of a few days. I’m thinking not many. As victims of crime, they can demand restitution from their assaulter. If he’s not found, I guess they can join the ranks of the rest of victims of unsolved crimes – deal with it privately and don’t drag taxpapers into it.

disa on March 8, 2010 at 11:58 AM

All who vote for this abomination will have blood on their hands.

Kissmygrits on March 8, 2010 at 12:03 PM

I fail to understand why an abortion, which is an elective procedure to terminate a non-illness (ie women’s bodies are intended to reproduce), should be included at all in healthcare insurance.

Because it involves her health. Ask any woman who’s gone through childbirth how healthy she felt immediately afterwords.

Dark-Star on March 8, 2010 at 12:04 PM

Sans Stupak, Lipinski’s A ‘No’ [Robert Costa]

From John McCormack:

Add Congressman Dan Lipinski of Illinois to the coalition of pro-life Democrats standing firmly with Bart Stupak in the fight over taxpayer-funding of abortion in the health care bill. Asked if the congressman is “open to voting for a health care bill that lacks the Stupak amendment,” Lipinski’s spokesman Nathaniel Zimmer replied in an email to THE WEEKLY STANDARD: “No. Congressman Lipinski will not vote for a health care bill that provides federal funding for abortion.”

NRO

Wethal on March 8, 2010 at 12:04 PM

Ack, hit submit too soon. I would like to add that I agree this should not be mandated at a federal level. Let the states hash out the abortion issue. And both the life-at-all-costs fundies and the abortion-always feminazis can go tap dance in a minefield, as far as their agendas of enforcing their views on the entire nation.

Dark-Star on March 8, 2010 at 12:06 PM

factoid on March 8, 2010 at 11:43 AM

You lie!

DanMan on March 8, 2010 at 12:06 PM

Along the lines of the Will-Reich thread, because sex for us rube-Americans is a completely involuntary activity–like dogs in heat–the Dems propose paying for the consequences of that voluntary conduct.

BuckeyeSam on March 8, 2010 at 12:09 PM

Will the bill also cover tattoo removal, because like ya know, I was like drunk and stuff when I got it, and it was like late at night and stuff and I totally want it anymore and it was a mistake and whatever.

I have a right to get my tattoo removed and have the government pay for it.

Bishop on March 8, 2010 at 12:15 PM

BuckeyeSam on March 8, 2010 at 12:09 PM

Really? Or are they just proposing removing the subsidies for it?

I can’t imagine they’re actually considering such a thing, since a good portion of their voting block comes from ‘minorities’ breeding more Democrat welfare votes.

Dark-Star on March 8, 2010 at 12:17 PM

Dark-Star on March 8, 2010 at 12:04 PM

If I don’t eat that affects my health. Why won’t my health insurance buy me my Big Mac?

Abortion is entirely elective unless it’s life threatening, which is less than 1% of the time. It’s a normal human process.

Whereas childbirth is a health issue.

NoDonkey on March 8, 2010 at 12:19 PM

deal with it privately and don’t drag taxpapers into it.

disa on March 8, 2010 at 11:58 AM

For cases of rape, Plan B (the morning after pill) is available at most pharmacies at a cost of $10-$50. No prescription is required if the woman is over 17. If she is under 17, a doctor’s prescription is required. The pill must be taken within 72 hours to be effective.

Most of this info is from a Planned Parenthood site.

GnuBreed on March 8, 2010 at 12:20 PM

The Hyde Amendment has been placed in appropriation bills for more than 30 years. Congress is about to be controlled by Republicans.

There are so many reasons to oppose Obamacare, but the Hyde Amendment disappearing, thus causing federal funding is not one of them.

Trent1289 on March 8, 2010 at 12:25 PM

Abortion is entirely elective unless it’s life threatening, which is less than 1% of the time. It’s a normal human process.

Whereas childbirth is a health issue.

NoDonkey on March 8, 2010 at 12:19 PM

Those who dance must pay the fiddler, wether he stays for the whole event or is dismissed partway through.

Insurance is supposed to protect you from painful/bad/unhealthy things that aren’t your fault. If something goes wrong during the process of pregnancy/childbirth, you can ask for help. But if it doesn’t, you should pay for the 100% voluntary choice you made. People used to have a half-dozen kids (or more) and had to pay every last dime of their expenses out of their own d**n pocket – why must modern society subsidize them seven ways from Sunday?

Dark-Star on March 8, 2010 at 12:25 PM

Dark-Star on March 8, 2010 at 12:25 PM

Completely agree.

Shielding people from the consequences of their actions, increases the actions.

Lefties continually preach about using birth control, yet they want responsible people to pick up the tab when slatterns fail to use it or to use it properly.

NoDonkey on March 8, 2010 at 12:28 PM

Lefties continually preach about using birth control, yet they want responsible people to pick up the tab when slatterns fail to use it or to use it properly.

NoDonkey on March 8, 2010 at 12:28 PM

+1. I would actually be in favor of free, publicly-funded abortions if the recipient had to have their tubes tied as a condition of using them. Everyone should, IMHO, entitled to one mistake…but not a whole litter of them.

Dark-Star on March 8, 2010 at 12:31 PM

America still has a conscience. To bad it’s not contageous on these leftwing, communists.

capejasmine on March 8, 2010 at 12:36 PM

60 MILLION babies have been MURDERED (aborted) in the US since Roe v. Wade.

60 MILLION babies

Of those 60 MILLION that were murdered (aborted):
1% (600,000) were due to rape, incest, etc and another
1% 600,000) were due to birth defects

Of the 60 MILLION babies, 98% of the babies were MURDERED (aborted) strictly due to the “inconvenience”.

ms on March 8, 2010 at 12:42 PM

Dark-Star on March 8, 2010 at 12:31 PM

Just sick….The one actually paying for the ‘mistake’ is the innocent human life that is destroyed. And children come in families, not ‘litters’. You want to pay to ‘clean up’ someone elses ‘mistake’, knock yourself out, but leave me out of your goulish plans. I don’t want that innocent blood on my hands.

pannw on March 8, 2010 at 12:42 PM

I would actually be in favor of free, publicly-funded abortions if the recipient had to have their tubes tied as a condition of using them.

Dark-Star on March 8, 2010 at 12:31 PM

Great idea! Here are some other ideas you might like:

1) Mandatory abortions for anyone having more than one child, as in China
2) Dumping sterilants into municipal water supplies to keep the population under control
3) Castration of “selecte” males based on race, financial standing or other traits.

Are you a disciple of Paul Erlich by any chance?

UltimateBob on March 8, 2010 at 12:49 PM

pannw on March 8, 2010 at 12:42 PM

A simple “I don’t agree” would have sufficed.

Dark-Star on March 8, 2010 at 12:53 PM

Because it involves her health. Ask any woman who’s gone through childbirth how healthy she felt immediately afterwords.

Pretty darned healthy, thanks. I spent my WHOLE pregnancy praying to the porcelain god several times a day, and that stopped the moment the baby was born. Hallelujah.

Yeah, I felt great!

Bob's Kid on March 8, 2010 at 12:53 PM

I would actually be in favor of free, publicly-funded abortions if the recipient had to have their tubes tied as a condition of using them. Everyone should, IMHO, entitled to one mistake…but not a whole litter of them.

Dark-Star on March 8, 2010 at 12:31 PM

Sad that you don’t seem to comprehend what you wrote…

CCRWM on March 8, 2010 at 12:55 PM

Sad that you don’t seem to comprehend what you wrote…

CCRWM on March 8, 2010 at 12:55 PM

The only one not comprehending is you, and that’s because you’re intentionally being a dunce for the sake of snark.

Want a free abortion of convenience? Fine. Accept the terms that go with it so taxpayers aren’t constantly bailing you out, or take responsibility for your own kid already.

Dark-Star on March 8, 2010 at 12:59 PM

Dark-Star on March 8, 2010 at 12:53 PM

I disagree. You equated innocent human beings to pets. That is sick.

pannw on March 8, 2010 at 1:02 PM

I disagree. You equated innocent human beings to pets. That is sick.

pannw on March 8, 2010 at 1:02 PM

I used a term to take a shot at people who intentionally have kids on the public dime.

If you think that equates people to pets, you’ve been listening to too much talk radio or Faux News.

Dark-Star on March 8, 2010 at 1:04 PM

Dark-Star on March 8, 2010 at 1:04 PM

Oh, it was more than that and you know it and if you don’t you are worse off than you seem. Entitled to ‘one mistake’. Fix it but get the tubes tied… litter… You sound like you’re talking about a client with a dog at the local animal shelter.

These aren’t mistakes; they are human beings we are talking about. Innocent human beings you are more than willing to butcher, so long as you can spay the woman… sickening!

pannw on March 8, 2010 at 1:11 PM

Will somebody get a hankie for the sad sack with absolutely no reading comprehension?

Dark-Star on March 8, 2010 at 1:13 PM

+1. I would actually be in favor of free, publicly-funded abortions if the recipient had to have their tubes tied as a condition of using them. Everyone should, IMHO, entitled to one mistake…but not a whole litter of them.

Dark-Star on March 8, 2010 at 12:31 PM

Read what you wrote. Your words. The only sad sack here is the one who views innocent human beings and women as no more significant than animals.

Now you can cry that we just don’t understand what you wrote, but the sad fact is, you don’t even see how callously you view human life. You want to stop women having children in order to increase their share of the government dole, fine. Then argue to take the children away, or throw the women into debtors prison if they can’t support them, whatever; I don’t care, but do not argue that the answer is to butcher the innocent human being on the alter of planned parenthood, especially at my expense.

pannw on March 8, 2010 at 1:26 PM

Trent1289 on March 8, 2010 at 12:25 PM

The Camel’s nose under the tent is the Federal Board that will determine what must be in an acceptable insurance policy. If they determine that abortion must be covered then the Hyde amendment is toast and abortion will be covered.

chemman on March 8, 2010 at 1:26 PM

I’m hoping we don’t end up with socialized medicine just because public funding of abortion was waved in the face of the “moderates” before being whisked away.

Count to 10 on March 8, 2010 at 1:27 PM

Dark-Star on March 8, 2010 at 12:31 PM

You are a pathetic creature. You have no idea what motivates pro-lifers. It is NOT about money. It is about casual treatment of human life. Human Life is Precious. The idea to eliminate federal funding of abortions is to make people responsible for their actions and place hurdles on “choice/convenience” abortions. Nobody that I know disputes funding medically necessary / life threatening / criminal situations.

antisocial on March 8, 2010 at 1:30 PM

antisocial on March 8, 2010 at 1:30 PM

Your username fits quite well for the situation…I merely propose a compromise and the life-at-all-costs crowd goes bats**t insane on me.

I’d hoped I’d receive a better response than I do on lefty sites, where ANY challenge to on-demand abortion qualifies you as a ‘forced birther’, because apparently I’m somehow responsible for the sluttery of others. Guess not.

How about THIS then – knock the whole thing down to the state level, except for the ‘medically necessary’ and rape exemptions. That includes funding.

Dark-Star on March 8, 2010 at 1:39 PM

The Camel’s nose under the tent is the Federal Board that will determine what must be in an acceptable insurance policy. If they determine that abortion must be covered then the Hyde amendment is toast and abortion will be covered.

chemman on March 8, 2010 at 1:26 PM

Agencies and boards don’t and can’t overrule statues. They can interpret, when expressly authorized to do so by Congress, but if there’s a law that says ” you can’t do X” an agency guideline, regulation or order can’t countermand the statute.

Trent1289 on March 8, 2010 at 1:52 PM

Agencies and boards don’t and can’t overrule statues. They can interpret, when expressly authorized to do so by Congress, but if there’s a law that says ” you can’t do X” an agency guideline, regulation or order can’t countermand the statute.

Trent1289 on March 8, 2010 at 1:52 PM

Unless members of Congress enabled the agency with the clearly implied, or openly expressed, intent of restating existing law through expert regulation. The FEC and FCC can be sued on the basis that their regulations exceed what Congress itself could legislate under the Bill of Rights; but not on the grounds that new FEC or FCC regulations supersede legislation that existed at the time the FEC or FCC were created. Sebelius’ statements are part of the record the Court could apply to declare the Congress empowered the new Health Insurance Czar to overrule the Hyde Amendment.

Chris_Balsz on March 8, 2010 at 2:12 PM

Only Two Thirds Oppose Federally funded Abortions? I would have thought it would have been a higher percentage oppose.

Dr Evil on March 8, 2010 at 2:13 PM

I merely propose a compromise and the life-at-all-costs crowd goes bats**t insane on me.

Dark-Star on March 8, 2010 at 1:39 PM

I take it you’re familiar with “Solomon’s choice.”

Your “compromise” still results in a government-funded dead baby, just like Solomon’s “compromise” would have.

At least Solomon was wise enough to know that the baby’s life would and should actually be protected at all costs by a truly loving mother, whether adoptive or non-adoptive.

Edouard on March 8, 2010 at 4:22 PM

I fail to understand why an abortion, which is an elective procedure to terminate a non-illness (ie women’s bodies are intended to reproduce), should be included at all in healthcare insurance.

Because it involves her health. Ask any woman who’s gone through childbirth how healthy she felt immediately afterwords.

Dark-Star on March 8, 2010 at 12:04 PM

And that is always the case? It is common that most women who become pregnant also enjoy a period where they have a glow of health. The birth is a moment of joy. What you are saying is that an unwanted pregancy is no different than a night out on the town with too much to drink and the next day they don’t feel to well, but if they somehow get detoxed before the morning, they will feel great, ready to do it again since there is no unhealthy feeling the next morming or consequnces, but having the child was like having a bad car accident that you would suffer from for the rest of your life.

Now let me share something that is amazing and if you think it is a bit far fetch, re read what you wrote and obviously believe.
A couple of decades ago I suffered a grandmal seizure that effectively rendered me dead. In fact that was what surprised me. I knew I was dead. What followed as a feeling of peace that I have never felt in such a profound way. I was floating in a warm comfortale place, with a pinkish light sounded me. I am a highly intellegent person, but one that does believe in an after life and infact I was there, but that is not the point. What was this transition that I felt that I was aware of. After a great deal of thought, I would like to think it was the process of moving to that next life, but I think it really was perhaps my earliest memory, one that my dying brain found, one from before I was born, one that was so early in my awareness that I had room to still be floating. It was a feeling of warmth, of what we feel as profound love, with what we feel as unimaginably peaceful. Now imagine that at that moment an abortionist shoved a vacumme probe into me. What would I have felt as my hands, arm, legs, inside organs, were ripped from me, or a chemical that began buring my skin form me or any other method that began to destroy me. Keep in mind that in this memory if it was that, I was very aware of myself, that I felt my surrounding, the warmth, that I was processing thought. Would I had been a clump of cells being removed or would I have experienced being put to death, my body removed in a way no different from the most barbaric sacrifices the world has known.

Franklyn on March 9, 2010 at 3:45 AM