Roundup: The Obama Administration: For the Public Option Before They Were Against It... Sort Of?

Roundup: The Obama Administration: For the Public Option Before They Were Against It… Sort Of?

Oct 19, 2009, 11:00am

While the public wants a public option, and while the President-as-candidate campaigned on the promise of at least something akin to a public option, the Administration has, from day one of the health care reform process, done just about everything it could to say they are "for" a public option "kinda sorta" but "it's not the defining piece" of health reform. Huh?

Who stole the Change-Agents?

Can someone on the Obama Administration please make a decision about whether they are for or against the public option? While the public wants a public option, and while the President-as-candidate campaigned on the promise of at least something akin to a public option, the Administration has, from day one of the health care reform process, done just about everything it could to say they are "for" a public option "kinda sorta" but "it’s not the defining piece" of health reform (so….it’s not important??? To me this is like saying that water is not the defining factor in putting out a fire). This weekend, David Axelrod, Rahm Emanuel (as reported by Alternet) as well as other notables took the weekend talk shows to say so.

Is this leadership? I thought smart negotiators kept their cards close, pushed as hard as they could for what they wanted and only made the deal after they got as far as they could. Instead, the Administration keeps signaling to everyone and their great-grandmother that they won’t stand firm on a public option cause it really ain’t that important. I want to play poker with these guys cause it appears it might be easy to clean up.

Lawmakers in Michigan Push for Sex Education in Schools

Some form of leadership is evident today in Michigan at least, where lawmakers are pushing to require sex education in schools.

MLive.com reports today that:

Proposed legislation from the state would require districts to set up a sex education advisory board and train employees.

Districts
would have to provide factual and medically accurate information that
is age-appropriate at all grade levels. Topics would include family
planning, human sexuality and the emotional, physical, psychological,
hygienic, economic and socials aspects of family life.

Currently, sex education is optional curriculum that any district can choose to offer.

The push for sex ed comes in response to high rates of unintended pregnancy among teens. Since 2006, Michigan has had four percent increase in births for 15 to 19 year olds, according to Michigan NOW.

Parents who advocate abstinence-only curriculum would be able to opt out of any sex education classes under the proposed law.

October 19th, 2009

Another view on Belmont Abbey Baltimore Sun

Unveiling the evils of contraception The Cincinnati Enquirer

NYT Environment Reporter Floats Idea: Give Carbon Credits to Couples

That Limit Themselves to One Child CNSNews

Abortion rates falling Jamaica Observer

The Nobel Prize for Good Intentions Catholic Exchange

Going Green Means Having Fewer Kids AlterNet

Speaker addresses population concerns St. Cloud Times

Inmate-abortion fight continues Arizona Republic

Lawsuit challenges Illinois’ parental notification law for abortions Chicago Tribune