
Pro-choice Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) says she's confident an abortion amendment to the Senate health care bill--written by Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) and modeled on the restrictive abortion provision in the House legislation--does not have the votes to pass
"I don't believe it's going to pass, whether it's today or tomorrow," Stabenow said at a press event this morning. "I truly believe that the votes are there in order to stop it."
"I believe it goes too far," Stabenow went on. "I believe that we made a commitment entering this debate that this was a debate about expanding coverage--expanding coverage--for women."
Stabenow hasn't seen the actual language. "It's my understanding from talking to Sen. Nelson yesterday that it would parallel the Stupak language," she said. That means it would likely prevent millions of people receiving government assistance to buy health insurance from purchasing policies that pay for abortions. Nelson has said that he'll filibuster the bill if his amendment--or something like it--don't win the day. We'll be looking at this, and all major health care developments, very closely.
Mateo123
December 7, 2009 1:11 PM
This is not exactly ground-breaking news. Nelson should not be surprised. There are several pro-choice Republicans that will likely vote against the amendment, not to mention that LIEberman and Landriu and some other "moderates" will oppose it, too.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
David Dunham
December 7, 2009 1:17 PM
There is an important point that the pro-choice groups are missing with respect to passing health care reform. If the fight over abortion language results in the Democrats in the Senate not getting the 60 votes needed to pass a health care bill, the chances of the Democrats losing Congress in 2010 will be greater because the public will blame the Democrats for getting nothing done. In addition, failing to pass health care reform will hurt Obama's standing as president and make him more likely to lose to a Republican in 2012. Obama in 2012 may not have the benefit of having a rapidly recovering eceonomy as Bill Clinton did in 1996.
With respect to the abortion issue, the consequences of having a Republican Congress elected in 2010 and a Republican president elected in 2012 would be that the new president would very likely get to appoint to the Supreme Court a replacement for Ginsberg, Stevens or Breyer (I hear they will not retire simply to let Obama replace them), and the Court would then have a 5-4 majority that would proceed quickly to overrule Roe v. Wade the first chance they get. If Roe is overturned, the old anti-abortion laws still on the books in a clear majority of states around the country would come back into effect, and abortion would be illegal immediately in most states in the US. And once Roe is overruled, the odds are it's never coming back because it is a controversial decision that is not clearly grounded in the specific language of the Constitution. In addition, the Republican president and Congress might well pass a federal law to outlaw abortion, and a more anti-abortion Supreme Court might uphold it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lifeofreilly
December 7, 2009 1:30 PM in reply to David Dunham
All it means is that Dems will likely have to bring over Snowe and/or Collins to pass the bill. They're both pro-choice. Snowe is actually more constructive on the bill from top to bottom than Nelson is. She'd be a better ally anyway.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
December 8, 2009 9:05 AM in reply to David Dunham
If the outcome you are suggesting were to occur, the Republicans would quickly find themselves out of power. The majority of Americans support first trimester abortions and would act to restore them -- including a pro-choice Constitutional amendment if necessary. Further, the current generation does not know what it is like to live without having abortion available when unintended pregnancies occur. Once they face the damage done to women and unwanted children choice would again become a driving political force.
If we were to acquiesce in the chiseling against choice which is occurring there would be no political party supporting women as the moral equal of men and able to make their own moral decisions concerning abortion. The scenario you describe would lead to sharp short term set-back for women and families which would have a force available to reverse it. If both parties are taken over by anti-choice forces, the prospects for choice would be much dimmer.
Give up choice now, so you don't have to give it up later is not the world's most persuasive argument.
As a Democratic activist and seeing the damage done by the Republicans is so many areas, I did some grunt work for three Democratic politicians who were anti-choice so we could gain a majority. But that majority has been used against choice. After this betrayal do not expect me to make the same error again.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jolly ranchero
December 7, 2009 1:26 PM
Down goes health care! Down goes health care!
Too many greedy bastards, too many undisciplined Dems for this to work. Color me unimpressed.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lifeofreilly
December 7, 2009 1:33 PM
Sticking to your guns about not restricting women's rights doesn't strike me as unprincipled. In fact, quite the contrary.
And it seems that the vast majority of the caucus agrees, plus a few Republicans. Late last week, Republican Susan Collins said the language in the bill AS WRITTEN keeps federal dollars from being used for abortion. So she, too, is likely to vote against Nelson.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
David Dunham
December 7, 2009 1:56 PM
I think we are in fact very unlikely in the end to get either Snowe's and Collins' support for the health care reform bill and they will support a fillibuster. The Republican Senate leadership will get their votes by promising them important committee chair positions if the Republicans retake the Senate in 2010, which the defeat of health care reform will make more likely. Republicans always do what is in their self interest, and Snowe's and Collins' self interest is to become big players in a Republican Senate majority starting in 2011.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mjshep
December 7, 2009 2:10 PM in reply to David Dunham
A Republican majority in the Senate in 2011 is an utter fantasy. Especially if HCR passes. Snowe and Collins know that.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
David Dunham
December 7, 2009 2:12 PM in reply to mjshep
If HCR is defeated, a Republican majority in the Senate in 2011 is very likely, especially with the economy doing badly. Snowe and Collins now that very well!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
December 8, 2009 9:07 AM in reply to David Dunham
A Republican majority is very likely unless Obama can get more jobs going.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rbeats
December 7, 2009 2:24 PM
And people say religion is a force of good in the world.
The fact this single issue could lead to the destruction of any sort of rational and meaningful health care reform really just solidifies my view that religion is a barbaric impediment on the advancement of prosperity and knowledge for mankind.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SocialJusticeForAll
December 8, 2009 8:40 AM
President Obama said eloquently, It is time for change. History shows lofty words of the Constitution, its Amendments and the Supreme Court are all right to say, but one must remember that sometimes they bear no fruit. Abortion may be legal but it is still wrong. When laws permitted slavery, they were wrong. When laws permitted child labor, they were wrong. When laws permitted a lack of suffrage to women, they were wrong. When laws allowed domestic violence they were wrong. Each of those wrongs had to be addressed through strong and forceful means. I, for one, will not stand aside and allow the laws of this land to run rampant over the rights of innocent unborn people. When Hilter used power to kill innocent Jewish and Slavic people, it was wrong. Abortion is wrong. American people do not want to fund abortion as part of healthcare. It is time to put personal preferences and voting histories aside and vote to adopt the Nelson-Hatch language as part of healthcare reform. Michigan needs leadership. Michigan needs change.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
December 8, 2009 9:16 AM in reply to SocialJusticeForAll
Your assumption that a fertilized human egg is a human being is wrong and leads to morally disastrous results -- harming actual women and children. At most a fetus is a potential human being -- some 50% of fertilized eggs are miscarried -- naturally aborted -- because the particular combination of DNA and/or the conditions of the womb were not going to produce a body capable of housing a human spirit. There are times when it is wrong to create a person due to conditions outside the womb and that is where the woman makes the choice -- is this a good time to bring a child into existence or not?
Your personal sloppy thinking does not entitle you to impose your particular personal moral beliefs on everyone else. Just because an egg plus a sperm plus a womb have the potential to produce a human being does not make it moral to treat a fertilized human egg as a human being because it has the potential to be made into one. The error in the logic of treating something on the basis of what it has the potential to become is utterly clear. If you do not believe me, lie down and I will bury you -- you have the potential to become dead.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SocialJusticeForAll
December 8, 2009 1:43 PM
If things unborn have no right to exist then why is it illegal to even touch an eagle, condor or tortoise egg? What connection do these eggs have to the born animal?
Fertility and pregnancy are natural.
What about the right to life for innocent, unborn women? Who is the voice for the unborn humans in this debate? Who sees the unborn wilting when they die during an abortion?
Abortion hurts women and the unborn.
We all result from clumps of stems cells. No one can predict the future of these cells. Before Roe, public and medical consensus was that life began at conception. I believe the medical part still holds true. Public opinion has also shifted to choose life.
Healthcare is about promoting life.
Abortion is not heathcare. Americans do not want to fund abortion as part of healthcare.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?