Stupak Again

What will the White House do about Bart Stupak?

Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., today said he and 11 other House members will not vote for the health care bill unless it includes more stringent language to prevent federal funding from going toward abortion services [. . .] "I want to see health care pass. I agree... people are being priced out of the market. We must have health care but, boy, there are some principles and beliefs that some of us are not going to pass," he said.

My suggestion for solving the Stupak problem here.

Speaking for me only

< On President Obama | If The House Passes The Senate Bill First, Will There Be A Reconciliation Fix? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Since the President isn't talking about (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 11:19:02 AM EST
    Stupak/Pitts as something he wants removed from consideration, seems to me it will be included in the final bill unless Boxer et al. stand their ground.

    It's not in the Senate bill (none / 0) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 11:19:35 AM EST
    You seem to have lost the thread of the story.

    Rep. Stupak and other members of (none / 0) (#9)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 11:24:16 AM EST
    the House who agree with him say they will never vote for the Senate bill with Nelson abortion funding language.

    That's the thread (none / 0) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 11:26:30 AM EST
    Now, click my link and you will see how I propose addressing Stupak's concerns via a reconciliation fix.

    Note that you can not put in Stupak's provision via reconciliation.


    Maybe the Senate (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by lilburro on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 12:15:59 PM EST
    can "promise" to work on it later...

    "I'll respect you in the morning" (none / 0) (#29)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 12:33:37 PM EST
    Why would the Senate do that (none / 0) (#31)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 12:58:33 PM EST
    they already have restricting language- to make it worse simply to satisfy the House (and make no mistake the House Bill is far, far worse than the Senate bill with respect to Women)- is insane.

    Do bears have abortions in the woods? (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by Ellie on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 05:19:23 PM EST
    via digby, her latest update linking to this in The Nation only underscores the bafflement of why loons like Stupak (and other trifling impedimentia) are indulged while the "Left" (and the whopping majority siding with them) are virtually ignored except to slam for being crazed:

    But by that token, every government benefit a woman receives, whether monetary or in-kind, whether for healthcare or for something else, could be seen as subsidizing an abortion if she has one.

    If everyone thought like Bart Stupak, a woman seeking an abortion:

    (1) would not be able to take a public bus or commuter train to an abortion clinic, even if she paid her own fare;

    (2) would not be able to drive on public roads to a clinic, even if she drove her own car and paid for her own gas;

    (3) would not be able to walk on public sidewalks to the clinic, even though she paid property taxes;

    (4) would not be able to put her child in childcare while she was at the clinic if she received a tax credit that offset the cost of childcare;

    (5) would not be able to take medicine at the clinic that was researched or developed by the government, even if she paid for the medicine herself.

    Would anyone argue that the government is "subsidizing abortion" by building roads and sidewalks, offering public transportation, developing medicine and providing childcare? Similarly, making healthcare premiums more affordable, even for plans that include abortion coverage, would not mean that the government would be paying for abortion. ... (The World According to Stupak, by Jessica Arons, The Nation, March 2, 2010)

    I've lost track of whether this actually applies or not, so correct with extreme prejudice.

    Stupak says do it through reconciliation (none / 0) (#1)
    by Dan the Man on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 11:15:02 AM EST
    From your link

    Stupak said the abortion language can be included even through reconciliation, a process which does not require 60 votes but a simple majority of 51 senators to pass.

    "You can do it, if there's a will there's a way," he said. "That's just the excuse they're giving."

    He's wrong (none / 0) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 11:20:37 AM EST
    It runs in to the Byrd Rule.

    Indeed, a similar issue on Medicare was ruled out of order in 1995.


    Actually, he's right (none / 0) (#14)
    by andgarden on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 11:28:24 AM EST
    It's just a matter of ignoring the parliamentarian.

    Oh (none / 0) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 11:29:03 AM EST
    well that's true for everything.

    Right (none / 0) (#18)
    by andgarden on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 11:30:38 AM EST
    I'm never sure which level of kabuki we're operating at, though.

    In which case we'd find out what (none / 0) (#24)
    by oldpro on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 12:00:47 PM EST
    Joe Biden is really made of.

    It's really whomever the presiding officer (none / 0) (#30)
    by andgarden on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 12:50:48 PM EST
    happens to be at the relevant time. The Parliamentarian has not official role on the floor.

    Exactly...and it could well be Joe! (none / 0) (#41)
    by oldpro on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 07:44:29 PM EST
    My guess is... (none / 0) (#2)
    by Anne on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 11:17:02 AM EST
    they will cave, as usual.

    Anything for a "win," right?

    Cave how? (none / 0) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 11:19:49 AM EST
    I don't think so (none / 0) (#12)
    by cenobite on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 11:27:59 AM EST
    Stupak isn't a progressive who will roll over and beg for a belly rub when Emanuel scolds him.

    He'll tell Emanuel "no."


    She means caving to Stupak (none / 0) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 11:28:42 AM EST
    Stupak (none / 0) (#3)
    by kidneystones on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 11:17:36 AM EST
    is the symptom of a much simpler problem. Large, sweeping change at the national level is impossible.

    Rather than allow each state to improve coverage in ways each state deems best, Dems look for consensus and then trim back from there. What's left? The monstrosity of the current debate and double-digit un-employment.

    The problem isn't Stupak; it's a Dem establishment new and old that is going down in flames. President A plus foreign policy has lost South America. Clinton is getting sand kicked in her face across the globe. That's not an A plus performance by any measure.

    Stupak appears to know what he's doing. For that alone he's head and shoulder above the rest,  irrespective of what I may or may not think of his position.

    There's a real possibility that things haven't even started to look bad, yet. And you're handing out high marks for the first year?

    Anyone care to bet whether this increases Stupak's stature in the eyes of his constituents?

    Americans want jobs and if they have to wait to get them because Dems are more interested in crafting the fiction of a hcr win, then this gang of deadbeat Dems really should be sent to the political wilderness, cause the GOP certainly isn't going to look out for the average voter.


    Do I understand that... (none / 0) (#8)
    by christinep on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 11:21:12 AM EST
    the "let the states do it" suggestion is a variation of the old "states rights"/smaller government as opposed to a coordinated approach with minimum standards from the national government?

    You can read it (none / 0) (#22)
    by kidneystones on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 11:36:00 AM EST
    however you like. Russ Feingold and Kucinich questioned the wisdom of the one size fits all approach.

    I'm pleased to see you go into the defensive crouch so quickly. Pure pavlov.

    Don't flinch. Expect a whole lot of Scott Brown 'this is my truck' republicans in the House and Senate come November.

    HCR and Cap and Trade tied up Dems while the unemployed were ignored. Duncan Black called the 15 billion dollar jobs bill pure window dressing. Digby calls the Dem approach 'playing with fire'.

    If only they understood what a good job President Obama and Dems are doing working so hard to deliver a tax increase and new customers to the insurance industry.

    Like a job matters? Please. Carbon trading is what really counts. That's the pony Dems are riding into november. Yipee-kay-yay-kay-yo!


    Not defensive, (none / 0) (#28)
    by christinep on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 12:32:40 PM EST
    but offensive. Perhaps my comment was too polite.

    Nice try, (none / 0) (#37)
    by kidneystones on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 06:00:26 PM EST
    voters aren't buying, but this is probably your best shot, right?

    Not at all (none / 0) (#39)
    by christinep on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 06:30:51 PM EST
    And, I guess we will all know what the voters are buying this fall. Lets settle in for the long haul.

    Have at it, then (none / 0) (#40)
    by kidneystones on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 06:40:03 PM EST
    So far, all you've done is try to bind my comment to racist code words.  

    The moment you accused me of racism you were dead to me.

    Pretend you didn't.


    No accusation of racism said or intended (none / 0) (#42)
    by christinep on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 10:12:17 PM EST
    Please stop the baiting (it ain't pretty and it is quite off the mark)

    You followed me (none / 0) (#43)
    by kidneystones on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 10:35:06 PM EST
    and rec'd the more explicit suggestion that racism is the under-current that explains opposition to the bill.

    You're smart enough to know that an explicit accusation of racism gets folks banned here, but still trying to level the accusation all the same.

    Now you've been called on it.

    Run away!


    I do not accuse people of racism (none / 0) (#44)
    by christinep on Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 12:09:10 PM EST
    without proof. I did not accuse you. Frankly, I think that your comments evidence that you are far afield. Wherever you are coming from or whatever your attitude, it is way beyond civil. (Stop the bullying attempt. It does not work with me.)

    In this case (none / 0) (#32)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 01:00:01 PM EST
    the states already do it- any Medicaid funding from Abortion is via state sources, lots of states even some suprises (like Montana) provide Abortion funding.

    Your solution (none / 0) (#10)
    by cenobite on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 11:26:03 AM EST
    Is to completely eliminate insurance subsidies?

    How can that pass given it shafts the most important HCR constituent?

    By raising Medicaid eligiblity (none / 0) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 11:28:12 AM EST
    increasing the exemption level for the mandate and lowering the tax penalty that enforces the mandate.

    Let me be more specific (none / 0) (#21)
    by cenobite on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 11:34:31 AM EST
    That will take away billions of Federal dollars promised to the health insurance industry. How is this not a deal breaker for them?

    The health insurance lobby has gotten pretty much exactly what they want so far, and I believe they will not let this pass.


    I did not know they voted in the Congress (none / 0) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 11:42:21 AM EST
    Who do you think will vote No because of such a change?

    Once in a Lifetime HCR Opportunity (none / 0) (#15)
    by kidneystones on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 11:28:30 AM EST
    wins yawns at the NYT. Click through just so you can see how many other stories NYT readers are looking at right now. And that's the Dem base.

    Americans are sick to death of the Historic change and once in a lifetime hyperbole.

    As for the nuclear option, the only salient fact that's going to emerge from this boondoggle is that when it became clear, crystal clear, how few Americans approved of the Dem hcr proposals, Dems jammed the Trojan horse tax increase and health company dividend through anyway.

    I found the NYT link at Realclearpolitics. I knew I wouldn't read the op-ed, I just wanted to see what folks are reading. It ain't that.

    Not to late to stop digging Dems. Reconciliation is simply firing the second barrel into the face.

    Squeeze the trigger? Please don't.

    You know (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 01:01:26 PM EST
    the Civil Rights Act killed Democrats in the South- maybe they shouldn't have signed that either.

    Perfect analogy and you bring race into (none / 0) (#38)
    by kidneystones on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 06:05:07 PM EST
    the argument, too.

    This is a bill big health care wrote. It has no public option and compels people to purchase any junk insurance companies elect to sell.

    Keep it up, it's clear the talking points have been issued:

    opposition to the bill is like opposing the civil rights act.

    Charming. You folks don't have an actual argument in favor of this piece o crap, do you?


    257-11 (none / 0) (#19)
    by cawaltz on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 11:30:39 AM EST
    is 246 House Democrats. Nancy Pelosi should tell Stupak and his band of anti choice prima donnas to stuff it.

    She needs 216. She has 245(without the 11+1). She has 29 other people to bargain with besides Stupak and his cabal.

    This isn't a blank slate, though (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by andgarden on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 11:32:45 AM EST
    Compared to the first vote, she's already in the hole.

    If I read correctly she's in the hole by 1 (none / 0) (#26)
    by cawaltz on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 12:21:10 PM EST
    vote. I see no need to tell the majority of Democrats who are pro choice that they need to suck up to the minority 11 who aren't. Frankly, I think she's likely lose 11 were she to flip this for Stupak anyway. How many people spoke out after Stupak and Pitts there was a letter circulated with 41 names. So explain to me again why those 41 people's opinions are less important than Stupak and his coalition of 11?

    http://themoderatevoice.com/52438/house-democrats-say-they-will-not-vote-for-final-bill-if-stupak-am endment-is-in-it/


    Sigh (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 12:26:04 PM EST
    You are looking for ways to defeat the whole bill.

    andgarden is discussing what Pelosi will have to do to pass a bill.



    No he isn't If he were (none / 0) (#33)
    by cawaltz on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 01:01:10 PM EST
    then the 41 Dems who signed a letter stating they would not vote for the bill with Stupak Pitts in would be a consideration.

    As usual though those 41 Dems are supposed to capitulate to Stupak and his gang of 11? I don't think so.

    As I stated above I don't see why the Democratic Party should be held hostage by 11 ideologues who aren't even advocating doing something that is part and parcel of the Democratic platform.

    Why is Stupak and his concern more important then, for example Scott Murphy, who initially voted no but says he would reconsider and who voted no because of funding?


    Or Massa who voted no because he felt the public option wasn't "robust" enough?

    Why is it only the anti choice 11 that must be courted for their vote?


    I want to know why (none / 0) (#35)
    by cawaltz on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 01:11:29 PM EST
    Nancy Pelosi isn't trying to cut a deal with those who opposed health care because of Medicare cuts. Particularly since that was a fix the Senate made to the bill and is one of the popular excuses du jour that the GOP is using to excuse voting no on health care?

    Why is it all supposed to boil down to allowing anti choice people to run the show on health care.

    The votes can be found elsewhere.