Stupak: A Pac With Seven Stupid People

Update: If the line is busy when you call, Tweet Your Rep.

The Stupak-Ellsworth-Pitts-Kaptur-Dahlkemper-Lipinski-Smith Amendment, to the health care reform bill (H.R. 3962)is being voted on today. Reportedly, it prevents federal funding of abortion and health insurance plans which include abortion coverage(Hyde Amendment). Supposedly, it will not affect coverage of abortion in non-subsidized health plans, and will not bar anyone from purchasing a supplemental abortion policy with their own funds. [More...]

Planned Parenthood breaks it down. At 2pm (ET), the House just began four more hours of debate on the bill.

Ezra reports it says:

The amendment will prohibit federal funds for abortion services in the public option. It also prohibits individuals who receive affordability credits from purchasing a plan that provides elective abortions. However, it allows individuals, both who receive affordability credits and who do not, to separately purchase with their own funds plans that cover elective abortions. It also clarifies that private plans may still offer elective abortions.

Without it, the Blue Dogs say they won't vote for the health care bill. Meaning the Health Care bill might not pass. If the Stupak Amendment passes, the blue dogs will vote for the health care bill, and it will be just another sacrifice women -- particularly poor women -- will have to make.

< Rep. Barney Frank Present at Marijuana Bust | Stupak: Amendment Passes on Recorded Vote, 64 Dems Voted For It >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Frankly I don't think.... (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by trillian on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 01:25:13 PM EST
    ...this week tea of a bill is worth the sacrifice.

    Just say NO! to weak tea with poison pills! (none / 0) (#25)
    by jawbone on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 03:54:35 PM EST
    A bad bill is possibly, make that likely, much, much worse than no bill. No bill permits the Dems to take another try at real actual health CARE reform, instead of BHIP (Big Health Industry Players) welfare reform.

    I've been without a PC for a couple months now, waiting for a decent deal (I think the retailers are trying to use this downturn to retrain consumers to expect to pay list or close to it, by gum), so I don't have ready access to all the in's and out's of the recent debate and changes for this debacle, but it seems to be right on course to be a bad, bad bill. Very, very bad bill.

    Let it die. Then, Medicare for All...with a robust private option.

    This mess will create such ill will, well deserved imho, for the Dems they will suffer greatly at the polls. But the lesson the Dems seem to have taken from the Nov. 4 voting is that they need to move more to the right and give the finger to their base.  Thanks a lot, ostensible Dems--NOT!

    If FDR had been lumbered with they type of Dem, we'd have no or a very weak Soc Sec system; if LBJ had these guys? Would we even have a civil rights bill, much less Medicare and other Great Society programs??

    Fie on them all. At least from this unterbussen.


    Sellout (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Athena on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 01:35:15 PM EST
    Getting to 218 by bowing to the Catholic Church and their medieval views on women is reprehensible.  If only we had a female Speaker of the House.....

    Leveraging the federal plan to hijack the options available in private plans is a big checkmate for the blue dogs.  

    It seems to me (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by nycstray on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 01:37:38 PM EST
    women, particularly poor and middle class women, are going to get royally scr*wed no matter what with this bill if this is true:

    Where's the Birth Control?

    Suddenly, healthcare reform seems to be on the mend. The public option returned from the brink of death. The town hall fever broke as inexplicably as it began. And Congress is in the process of remedying discriminatory insurance-company practices based on pre-existing conditions and gender. But just as the prognosis for our healthcare system is beginning to look sunnier, yet another complication has emerged: so far, reform legislation has failed to require insurers to cover some basic preventive services for women, or prevent providers from charging extra for them.

    None of the bills emerging from the House and Senate require insurers to cover all the elements of a standard gynecological "well visit," leaving essential care such as pelvic exams, domestic violence screening, counseling about sexually transmitted diseases, and, perhaps most startlingly, the provision of birth control off the list of basic benefits all insurers must cover. Nor are these services protected from "cost sharing," which means that, depending on what's in the bill that emerges from the Senate, and, later, the contents of a final bill, women could wind up having to pay for some of these services out of their own pockets. So far, mammograms and Pap tests are covered in every version of the legislation.

    I'm already seeing some of the less expensive/almost affordable plans in CA not covering OB/GYN until deductibles are paid. 2500-5000k. So now we're at no preventive and let's throw in no abortions also?

    Are we really a majority in this country?

    May we remind the majority that (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by Cream City on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 04:25:14 PM EST
    this is their promise -- the Democratic Party platform plank:

    The Democratic Party stands behind the right of every woman to choose, consistent with Roe v. Wade, and regardless of ability to pay. We believe it is a fundamental constitutional liberty that individual Americans - not government - can best take responsibility for making the most difficult and intensely personal decisions regarding reproduction.

    Those who do not uphold this in the House bill are NOT Democrats.  So the message in 2010 is this:  Vote for them again if you will, but then you also are NOT a Democrat.

    And I don't want to hear that this is for "purists."  That is for fringe issues out on the edge of the platform.  Instead, reproductive rights have been central in the platform of the party for decades.  If not so any longer, well, then . . . this is not your mother's Democratic Party anymore.  As we knew. . . .


    Sen. Kyl sounded nuts when he sd. why (none / 0) (#7)
    by oculus on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 01:45:15 PM EST
    cover obstetrics, as he didn't need it.  Who knew how many supporters he has in the House.

    Apparently Sessions equated us with (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by nycstray on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 01:49:27 PM EST
    smokers today . . .

    I'm so F*cking p*ssed off with all of this sh*t. I can't handle following this today, so I'm going into the kitchen to relax.


    We are entirely expendable. (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by oculus on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 01:51:14 PM EST
    I'll have what you're having + make mine a double (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Ellie on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 06:15:48 PM EST
    Did my due diligence. I'm just watching the aftermath.

    Next time I get a plea for funds I'm telling them I'm capriciously spending it on a Girls Gone Wild vaycay just so I can get an abortion.


    So, one way or another, more and more (5.00 / 4) (#23)
    by Anne on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 03:20:11 PM EST
    women actually will not have the choice guaranteed to them, and once again, it will be poor women who suffer the most.  

    Too bad the economic considerations that require that not one federal cent be spent on this area of women's health do not extend to the area of government-sanctioned war, huh?  Lots of death and killing there, but I guess that's okay.  

    This reform effort was already less-than-acceptable, but now, between the insurance companies calling the shots on what areas of women's health will and won't be covered, and the members of Congress who want to impose their own beliefs on everyone, I'm hard-pressed to understand why any woman should support it at all.

    And I'm even more perplexed at how little push-back there has been from any corner of the Democratic caucus, from the party in general or from the so-called women's advocacy groups.  But then, I keep forgetting we have nowhere else to go, and are supposed to be grateful we still have accommodations, even if they are under the bus.

    Two years ago, I would never have imagined that my reaction to much of what is coming out of the Democratic Party these days would be utter disgust accompanied by a louder and louder "F**K You!"

    But, here we are.

    Well why the heck not (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by cawaltz on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 04:03:52 PM EST
    it isn't like they stripped low cost birth control out of the stimulus bill or something......oh wait.......

    Democrat's (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by mmc9431 on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 04:12:43 PM EST
    Have been running away from abortion for years now. They fear supporting abortion as much as sensible gun regulation. Remember the fumble bumble answer Obama came up with during the campaign! It's very hard to pander to the Evangelicals and be pro choice at the same time.

    Yes, I remember at the Big Orange (5.00 / 4) (#32)
    by Cream City on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 04:30:56 PM EST
    site when some of us opposed Kos, et al., on their support of running candidates for Congress who are against women's reproductive rights.  That's when I realized that a lot of so-called Democrats even then were really just refugee Republicans looking for a new power base.  So they perverted the Dems -- who were willing to be perverted for power, too.

    But power for what?  To act like Republicans.  No difference?  No thanks.  No way.


    Closeted Republican's (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by mmc9431 on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 06:09:10 PM EST
    Too many of the problems that we're dealing with over Democrat's not being Democrat's, goes right back to our pathetic primary system. Our Democratic nominee for president was selected by a large degree by the red states! Then you throw in caucus's that really aren't representative of the party members and this is what you end up with.

    Voters need to be much more assertive as to what kind of candidate they nominate. Don't let them get away with canned political responses that are nothing but double talk.

    Candidates don't even bother to answer questions or make commitments at the debates.

    We're never going to get the people we want as long as they aren't held accountable.


    A Case(y Jr) in point (none / 0) (#36)
    by Ellie on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 06:01:21 PM EST
    We pesky women were supposed to rally around him because even though he was "pro" life, he'd vote like a Good Dem When It Counted.

    Once in, he began warbling that personhood began at conception and went beyond that to attack medically based education, contraception, period.

    These jackasses don't understand that reproductive rights and sexual health don't begin and end with the handpuppets of egg and sperm doing their Punch & Judy show.

    This is a way to axe more and more people out of coverage but with the phonily genteel Ladies First.

    Men have reproductive plumbing too. Men also get breast cancer.

    The bitter irony is that this will speed the inevitable vulnerability, as well, of yer basic nutsacks, prostrate screens, weens and beans ...


    Exactly the one, Casey, that (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by Cream City on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 06:04:13 PM EST
    brought it to the inflection point on that site, yes.  We were bad, bad people if we didn't agree that winning and power were more important than principle.  Of course, that only meant our principles were supposed to go for the sake of winning and power.  

    'Twas a harbinger of 2008, hmmm?


    "More and better Democrats" (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by shoephone on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 06:07:30 PM EST
    was always a smokescreen for simply "more", but not "better". Not that most fanatics at the Orange Place could tell the difference.

    My ut*rus (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by nycstray on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 06:19:31 PM EST
    has p*nis envy . . .

    And me, I'm just angry (none / 0) (#44)
    by shoephone on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 06:38:38 PM EST
    Nothing new, when it comes to the Dumbocratic Party.

    The link Oculus provided in today's earlier thread on the HC debate is very important information. It shows that the November 1997 congressional revision to the Hyde Amendment provides for federal funding for abortion (through Medicaid) in certain cases, such as: pregnanacy as a result of rape or incest.

    Hyopcrisy reigns.


    I'm not shocked at all (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 06:32:32 PM EST
    As someone of the "women's studies" brand I figured it was a given that I would have this shoved down my throat.  What reason would I have had to think that legislators wouldn't pass such legislation when with every passing day they are grow more and more reluctant to say I even have the right to consider an abortion?

    I e mailed my GOP Rep.--Brian Bilbray. (none / 0) (#2)
    by oculus on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 01:26:59 PM EST
    Auto reply sd. he will consider my input before he cast his vote.  

    He's also my rep. I get those fairly regularly (none / 0) (#12)
    by iceblinkjm on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 01:54:33 PM EST
    and have yet to hear anything else. I still don't understand how my 'hood falls in his district....

    Dem. state legislature gerrymandered to (none / 0) (#14)
    by oculus on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 01:59:01 PM EST
    create "safe" Dem. districts.  Suddenly you and I were represented by Randy "Duke" Cunningham.  Still ticks me off.

    Bilbray (none / 0) (#30)
    by mikeel on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 04:21:40 PM EST
    I don't think it's worth persuading any Republican.  So I didn't call or email his office.

    Just a futile effort.


    More complicated than that (none / 0) (#33)
    by andgarden on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 04:31:45 PM EST
    Ds and Rs agreed among themselves to protect all incumbents in exchange for 2/3s "emergency" passage through the legislature and the consolidation of the gains Dems made in the 90s and 00s (about 5 seats). Dems could have been more aggressive, but the maps could have been put on the ballot, and nobody wanted to deal with that. From the standpoint of the 2008 election, the current map resembles a Republican gerrymander. Indeed, Obama won your Congressional district (intended to be solid Republican) by a few points.

    If the Democrats have the opportunity to draw a map they like next cycle, the Republicans will be reduced to about 10 districts in California, and that's not a bad thing at all.


    The Dems. in the CA Legislature redrew (none / 0) (#47)
    by oculus on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 12:10:13 AM EST
    my former district, which was formerly majority Democratic.  

    The former 23rd? (none / 0) (#48)
    by andgarden on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 03:53:12 PM EST
    Will it pass?? (none / 0) (#5)
    by Steve M on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 01:40:35 PM EST
    A bill prohibiting private insurance from covering abortion would clearly be unconstitutional.  If a bill has the effect of forcing most private insurers to drop abortion coverage, it's not as clear, but it certainly seems like there's an argument.

    Not if it is only 7 (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 01:47:16 PM EST
    Therein lies the problem. It is more than 7.

    You'd think (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by cawaltz on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 04:08:16 PM EST
    and yet somehow I think insurance companies will be hunky dory with not covering abortion. Furthermore, the Supreme Court upheld that they didn't have to carry birth control.

    I hope all the women who excoriated women who questioned the veracity of Democrats being more pro women than Republicans like the consequences of not paying attention when yet more control over their bodies gets chipped away.


    Chipped? Axed. (none / 0) (#46)
    by oculus on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 12:07:59 AM EST
    I haven't read the langugage (none / 0) (#11)
    by andgarden on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 01:52:47 PM EST
    But I don't see the problem with attaching conditions to accepting the money.

    Really? (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by Steve M on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 02:03:37 PM EST
    Let me explain the problem to you.  If you create a legal requirement that individuals carry insurance regardless of their economic wherewithal, then their only alternative to accepting whatever conditions government places on the subsidies is paying a hefty fine, or whatever other penalty the government chooses to impose.  So it's problematic to characterize it as a voluntary "don't take the subsidy if you don't like the conditions" transaction.

    OK. You have officially redeemed yourself. (none / 0) (#17)
    by oculus on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 02:05:08 PM EST
    Hooray for me (none / 0) (#20)
    by Steve M on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 02:21:11 PM EST
    but what of Tate Forcier?

    Saith he: (none / 0) (#45)
    by oculus on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 12:06:52 AM EST
    "It hurts," Forcier said. "I've never lost this many games in my life. It's going to be my job to get this team back to play like it did before."

    Seems just as dead end (none / 0) (#18)
    by andgarden on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 02:14:20 PM EST
    as when the Republicans were trying to claim that the whole scheme was unconstitutional. The Government has to have an ability to say what will and will not be in the subsidized plans.

    Well (none / 0) (#19)
    by Steve M on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 02:20:43 PM EST
    the "right not to have insurance" is not a fundamental right.

    That's true, and it seems to me (none / 0) (#24)
    by andgarden on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 03:37:37 PM EST
    cuts against what you're saying.

    I dunno (none / 0) (#21)
    by CST on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 02:35:15 PM EST
    there is a big difference between saying something must be covered and something must not be covered.

    Is there any other service that the gov't prohibits coverage of?  This seems like a whole different can of worms.

    Especially when we are talking about credits for outside insurance and not just the public option.


    It may get cut in conference (none / 0) (#6)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 01:41:59 PM EST
    Boehner asked Waxman if Stupak language will survive conference with Senate if passed. Waxman said "no guarantees."

    Right. (none / 0) (#35)
    by s5 on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 05:31:46 PM EST
    We should still flood the phone lines against this horrible amendment, but if it does pass, there would need to be 60 votes in the Senate to amend the other bill. I seriously doubt there are, and I don't see this surviving in conference. We will see.

    Does anyone have a link to the text of the (none / 0) (#22)
    by steviez314 on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 03:06:49 PM EST
    actual amendment?

    Heh. That "warning" (none / 0) (#26)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 03:57:45 PM EST
    has always struck me as more of a come-on than a real warning.

    sorry, had to delete the comments (none / 0) (#34)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 04:48:01 PM EST
    due to the multiple words that attract spam like magnets.