But with what, exactly? At this point all I can say is that the Democratic party party threw women that have been a big part of their base for years under the bus. Women, if they have the money for extra insurance plans or can pay cash, now have only slightly more reproductive rights than pets and farm animals. Arguably even less than animals, since the government doesn't regulate the reproductive health coverage of animals, as far as I know? The Stupak amendment was a disgrace. One that will drive out the kind of allies that believe in things like equality, only to draw in more of the other sides' Christian crazy that was dominating the mess that became the modern day GOP. I really do not want anything to do with that insanity. Dems had better fix it fast because that was ugly. As for the already far too compromised healthcare reform, I'll leave you with this:

The House Public Plan: Yes, It's Worth It

Jacob S. Hacker, Diane Archer

Jacob S. Hacker is the Stanley B. Resor Professor of Political Science at Yale University, author of The Great Risk Shift: The New Economic Insecurity and the Decline of the American Dream, and an occasional contributor to The Treatment.

Diane Archer is the director of the Health Care Project at the Institute for America's Future and the founder and past president of the Medicare Rights Center.

How short memories are in Washington. A few weeks ago, when it looked possible that Nancy Pelosi could marshal enough Democratic support to create a “robust” public insurance option with rates tied to Medicare’s, everyone was talking about the big savings and reduced premiums that a series of estimates by the CBO showed this option could create. Then, the concern was that the public insurance plan would put private insurers out of business by using the government’s bargaining power to drive too hard a bargain with providers, creating an “un-level” playing field.

Now, however, the punditocracy is abuzz about the latest CBO estimates that show that the public plan eventually embraced by Pelosi--one that would negotiate rates with providers, rather than base them on Medicare’s--might actually charge higher premiums than the average private plan. No matter that the CBO estimates clearly state that the higher projected premiums reflect its expectation that the public plan will disproportionately enroll less healthy Americans--which might be seen as a virtue, since these are folks private insurance tends to serve most poorly. And no matter that a subsequent CBO letter to the House stated that even a public plan with negotiated rates would still place “downward pressure on the premiums of private plans.” Suddenly, in the commentariat, the public plan isn’t a fearsome predator. It’s a complacent kitten. Initially not worth having because it would be too strong, it’s now, according to critics, not worth having because it would be too weak.

In truth, both the initial fears and current dismissals are overblown. (Read On)

All I can say is that I am not sure this is worth it. Not at the price the crazies extracted from women.