TPMDC

DeGette: Stupak Agenda Is Much Wider Restrictions On Abortion

Spread the word. Share this article on Facebook!

Share

Rep. Diana DeGette (D-CO)

Share

Twitter Fark Reddit Send to a Friend

Send to a friend!

To email:    Your Name:    Your email:

As co-chair of the Congressional Pro-Choice Caucus, Rep. Diana DeGette (D-CO) is leading the fight in the House to strip the Stupak amendment, which would forbid millions of women from buying comprehensive insurance policies that cover abortion, from the final health care bill. And she takes issue with Stupak's interpretation of the events leading up to the vote that completely changed the stakes of reform debate.

"Basically Congressman Stupak moved the goalposts, and I think it really took [House] Speaker [Nancy Pelosi] and other people by surprise," DeGette told me in an exclusive interview.

She says, after his abortion amendments went down in the House Energy and Commerce Committee (a panel on which she also sits), he demanded he get another crack at it when the Rules Committee set the contours of the floor debate.

"After we defeated him in committee," she said, "he said that he wanted to have an amendment in order on the floor... and that if he didn't have his amendment made in order then he had 40 people to vote against the rule."

'The rule' is a matter of arcane House procedure, but basically it defines the floor debate. Importantly, though, an amendment that's tacked on to the rule becomes incorporated in the underlying bill (in this case, the House health care bill), and Stupak wanted to add an abortion amendment into the bill on the evening before it passed in historic fashion. Apparently, though, his numbers were off. Pelosi had the votes to pass the rule without his changes.

"The Speaker said to Bart, we have the votes to pass the rule, so we're going to pass the rule without your amendment," DeGette told me.

"Then Bart said, if you don't give me the amendment in the rule, we're going to kill the bill."

There his calculation appears to have been correct, and it sent leadership scrambling to find a solution: give his amendment an up-or-down vote on the floor. With a unified pro-life Republican caucus, and dozens of pro-life Dems, and the Conference of Catholic Bishops behind pushing hard, Stupak was all-but a shoo-in.

"This all happened Friday night, so then on Saturday morning we arrived, and most of the members hadn't been involved in this, and Bart told them this was just the Hyde amendment, and many of them were confused," DeGette said. "The Bishops were really cranking up the heat on a lot of our colleagues. The Speaker was really afraid that she would lose the whole bill about this."

And the rest is history.

DeGette said that she supports the Capps amendment, which would create an accounting mechanism to segregate federal funds from private funds in the exchanges, but she's willing to negotiate. Stupak feels differently.

"Congressman Stupak keeps saying this just puts Hyde into the health care bill," DeGette says. "But in fact it goes much, much further than that. This would be the biggest restriciton on women's right to choose in my career.... It shows a complete lack of understanding of what's happening when somebody has an abortion. Either these pregnancies are unplanned, or they're planned pregnancies that have gone horribly wrong."

"We would be willing to talk about improving that language," DeGette says. "Congressman Ellsworth talked about strengthening the language about separating funds."

But, she says, forbidding some women from buying plans that cover abortions is beyond the pale.

"Let's think about Medicaid, that's federal funds and its a federal program,"

Seventeen states have given abortion coverage to women with their own state money, and we don't stop that.

The other thing several people have pointed out--nobody's ever said that anybody who gets tax assistance can't have insurance that covers abortion. The logical extension of what bart is saying, is let's say you're a coroporation and you get tax assistance for your health care, then you can't get abortions... I think that's the longterm agenda.

Rep. Stupak has not agreed to an interview.

Comments (11) | Join the Conversation!

Recommend Recommend (0)

November 13, 2009 6:13 PM   

What is the justification for not considering the Catholic Bishops Conference a lobbying group and requiring them to register as such? If they want to dictate policy to the rest of us, let them surrender their tax exemption. They've been catered to for much too long.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 13, 2009 6:23 PM    in reply to Mimi katz

What is the justification for not considering the Catholic Bishops Conference a lobbying group and requiring them to register as such?

Indeed, it is hard to see why they should not. That said, do you know for certain that they are not registered as such? I know of at least one Catholic religious order with a registered lobby in Congress, so it is possible that the bishops also have a registered lobby as well. In any event, I certainly agree with you that this looks like political lobbying to me and should be treated as such.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 13, 2009 6:28 PM   

Why does everything have to be about abortion? I fancy myself to be just as anti-abortion as Rep. Stupak; I would love to see a good floor vote to restrict abortion just as much as the next pro-lifer. What I do not love, however, is when a Democrat plays right into the hands of the Republican obstructionists by injecting the abortion issue into a debate that does not need to include it. Health-reform debates should be about health-reform, not about abortion. This is the sort of nonsense that I expect from the Republican party, not the Democrats.

Meanwhile, I am as pious a Catholic as the bishops can claim in their flock, but I am more than disappointed with them on this stunt. Our Church has been urging Congress to pass universal health reform for over five decades now. Why, on the eve of its consummation, should we wish to scuttle the best chance we have had in the last half century just so that we can start another mini-skirmish in the abortion war? For pity's sake...

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 13, 2009 6:38 PM    in reply to A Missouri voter

I'm a Catholic who rarely attends Mass because I can't stomach the diatribes on abortion and gays not to mention the lunacy that every single marital sex act must be for the purpose of conception. It just drives me crazy.

However, when I am visiting my elderly mother I go to Mass so I found myself at the Cathedral near her home two weeks ago and got the bishop preaching against the healthcare bill. Yeah, he want on about abortion but essentially left the impression that the Church opposed the heatlhcare bill. Period.

Even I was astounded that they would go that far. He had nothing good to say about the bill. He had nothing to say about the tens of millions of Americans without healthcare. All he said was call your elected officials and oppose the healthcare bill.

Again, this was no parish priest going off on his own. This was the bishop.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 13, 2009 6:59 PM    in reply to A Missouri voter

Thank you. You and Rep. Stupak have every right to your beliefs, but this was a bullshit move on his part, and he knows it. And the Catholic Church really needs to stay out of political debates, whether it's abortion, gay marriage, or anything else.

I don't recall seeing them ever interjecting themselves into debates about the Iraq War (which they supposedly opposed) or the death penalty (which they supposedly oppose). I don't recall them throwing their weight behind increasing spending on social welfare programs, such as welfare or food stamps or SCHIP, which one would think they would support. No, it's only two issues they care enough about to try to influence members of Congress: abortion and gay marriage. That's it.

Enough is enough. They need to stop involving themselves in the political process, or have their tax exemptions stripped.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 13, 2009 9:37 PM   

I curse all the gods.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 14, 2009 5:57 AM    in reply to runfastandwin

Amen !

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 14, 2009 12:23 AM   

The Catholic Church is a rigidly hierarchical organization, with its behavior flowing from the top down. When Pope Benedict won the election, it was mused whether his reign would be a caretaker one, given his age, or an activist one. Things like this very public Church assault on abortion rights, tell me it's an activist one with Benedict striving to spread his own conservative beliefs throughout his flock, and the countries they inhabit, by extension.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 14, 2009 8:10 PM   

With a unified pro-life Republican caucus, and dozens of pro-life Dems, and the Conference of Catholic Bishops behind pushing hard, Stupak was all-but a shoo-in.

I'm pro-life and pro-choice. If you mean anti-choice, say anti-choice.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 14, 2009 9:43 PM    in reply to username99

amen, sister.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 17, 2009 11:24 AM   

For Stupak to say this is just a redux of the Hyde Amendment is shameful. They guy is either criminally stupid or blatantly lying. Either way, not good.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Leave a comment

Your response:

Follow us!

Most Popular

TPM Stories Now Surging on