Sources: Budget deal includes D.C. abortion rider, money for school vouchers

[cal04]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dc-wire/post/sources-budget-deal-includes-dc-abortion-rider-money-for-school-vouchers/2011/04/08/AF3ET24C_blog.html

By Ben Pershing

The spending deal agreed to Friday night to avert a government shutdown includes a provision banning the District from spending its own funds to provide abortions to low-income women as well as funding to continue a controversial school voucher program, according to Democratic and Republican sources familiar with the agreement.

The inclusion of the abortion policy “rider” represents a victory for Republicans, who previously imposed such a ban when they controlled Congress and who included the provision in the version of the continuing resolution passed by the House in February. And it marks a sharp defeat for D.C. leaders, who fought to keep the ban out of a deal.

Leading Democrats said repeatedly in the hours leading up to the deal that they would not accept a larger prohibition on federal funding for Planned Parenthood, and they appear to have been successful in that goal. But District activists have feared for weeks that Democrats might concede on the D.C. ban in order to pave the way for excluding the Planned Parenthood ban.

Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) wrote a letter to President Obama last month expressing her fear that the District rider would be used as “a bargaining chip” and warning: “If any D.C. riders are included in the CR, that acquiescence by Democrats will make it nearly impossible to argue that they should be kept out of the fiscal year 2012 and fiscal year 2013 spending bills.”


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_spending_showdown

Anti-abortion lawmakers succeeded in winning a provision to ban the use of federal or local government funds to pay for abortions in the District of Columbia.

One of Boehner's priorities, a program that lets District of Columbia students use federally funded vouchers to attend private schools, was included.

[proud2BlibKansan]

1. So what did the Democrats get?

[Paulie]

2. A pat on the head

Good fucking poodles they are.

[proud2BlibKansan]

7. I was thinking maybe a bag of chips

But they probably appreciate the pat on the head more.

[theglammistress]

3. So pissed

I'm not surprised, though. Nothing surprises me anymore.

[roguevalley]

13. I would love for Harry Truman to still be around. You would be

able to see the steam rising from Missouri. These fucks including the president are hell bound when they die for sticking it AGAIN to the poor.

[Angry Dragon]

5. fucked..............

[proud2BlibKansan]

8. ..

:thumbsup:

[FLAprogressive]

9. The appearance of looking like adults.....which looks great inside the Beltway.

[Hippo_Tron]

12. $38 billion in cuts instead of $61 billion in cuts

Considering their initial offer was $10 billion, that's slightly more than half way towards the GOP. Of course it's all crap policy because we should be spending rather than cutting until we are out of recession and people have jobs.

[Autumn]

17. Little Timmy gets to see the Washington Monument

or something like that.

[ReturnoftheDjedi]

18. Planned Parenthood, Healthcare Reform Funding, Financial Reform Funding, EPA Regulatory Ability

and the list goes on...

[nashville_brook]

4. what's the difference btwn the DC abortion ban and making it illegal?

[TheWraith]

11. The fact that it's not illegal?

All that the rider--which is probably going to get stripped in conference committee--says is that DC can't use government funds for abortions. Nothing in there preventing the use of private funds.

[Luminous Animal]

14. Yay for rich people! The poor people get fucked over time and time again because

they've little local control.

[Freddie Stubbs]

16. $$$

[Logical]

6. Are we sure there is a rider? n-t

[Paulie]

10. Yes because dems in congress love to give in to 75% of regressive insanity

And if they didn't they will once the press says they did else they think they will look "weak"

[suffragette]

15. So D.C. is not allowed representation and is banned from spending its own money

to provide women legal health care access.

Restrictive on both counts.