Déjà Vu? Abortion Contretempts Still Threaten Health Bill

I HATE THIS MAN SOME ONE CHECK HIS DAMB TAX RETUNS. TALK TO EXINTERNS SOMETHING PLEASE.

While I'm no parliamentarian, some quick research does suggest that an enrollment corrections concurrent resolution may only avoid a filibuster in the Senate if the changes are purely technical (i.e., fixing a typo, as was actually the case in Public Citizen v. Clerk). If the changes are substantive, it can be debated, which means it would take 60 votes in the Senate.

See, for instance, "Enrollment of Legislation: Relevant Congressional Procedures", Congressional Research Service, May 7, 2008, available at http://congressnow.gallerywatch.com/docs/Enrollment_CRS.pdf (citing Floyd M. Riddick and Alan S. Frumin, Riddick’s Senate Procedure, 101st Cong., 2nd sess.,
S. Doc. 101-28 (Washington: GPO, 1992), pg 826).

In the House, a concurrent resolution directing changes in enrollment is not privileged and, while typically considered by unanimous consent, may also be taken up according to the provisions of a special rule or under suspension of the rules. In the Senate, a House concurrent resolution to make changes is privileged, though if the change is substantive, it has been held that unanimous consent is required for its consideration; a Senate concurrent resolution to make changes is privileged in the Senate only if the changes are technical in nature. A Senate concurrent resolution making substantive changes would not be privileged and, if any Senator objected to its consideration, would need to be referred to committee or go over under the rule.

See also, Gold, Martin, Senate Procedure and Practice 130 (2nd ed. 2008), available at http://books.google.com/books?id=R5PorsjIfOgC&pg=PA130 .

It's "contretemps," not "contretempts."

If you take out the leaners, there is 10 unknown votes out there and for HCR to pass they'd need eight of the ten.

Stupak's block has 11 "no" votes, so that shows you why they're still being negotiated with. I'd call their bluff - but I think Pelosi will cave, as she did for the first House vote.

I'd love to have enough votes so you could tell Stupak and his block to go fornicate with themselves, but needing eight out of ten is a tough lift if you go without Stupak and his cabal.

Agreed. Stupak is proving that anti-abortion forces are willing to see thousands of born Americans die rather than have women able to buy insurance for abortions with their own money inside the exchanges. Just how many abortions do you think that such a prohibition would stop? He pridefully wants to claim to protect fetuses and ignores the consequence of his method fighting for that will cost the lives of thousands of his fellow Americans. If he goes through with this, it is clear that he values his own moral purity far more than he does the lives of his fellow Americans.

By the way, do you post on any other issue than abortion? Looking at your past posts I would conclude not.

http://firedoglake.com/2010/03/19/stupak-abortion-language-to-be-substituted-for-senate-language-in-deal-to-secure-health-care-votes/

"But that's a risk pro-choice members aren't prepared to see their leadership take."

Please. Both chambers could pass the Stupak amendment right now and Diane "lard ass" De Gette wouldn't utter a fucking peep in protest. She will jettison all of her principles and forget all of her promises just like every other so-called "progressive" has(or pretty much every Democrat that has switched a vote or complained about the bill has) in order to give Obama a "win"(the first "win" in recent memory that will guarantee a whole bunch of Dems lose come November). If it comes down to Stupak, and all indications are that it probably will (Pelosi wouldn't be bargaining with him the day before the vote otherwise), she won't vote no, and everyone knows it. Spineless people like her and Raul Grijalva and Dennis "I slammed this bill as terrible two days before I switched my vote" Kucinich and Luis Guiterriez and the entirety of the Progressive "we won't vote for the bill if it doesn't have a public option, we promise" Caucus can only cave so many times before people quit taking their threats seriously.

The Republicans had 6 plus years to do something about
abortion, they had the White house, the Senate, the House
and the Supreme court and they did nothing because they
need this issue to stay on the stove and move it to the
front burner when it's to their advantage.. Republicans
will never, never, change this law. Corporation "free
Speech" was changed by Mr Roberts court, but not abortion,
wake up Democrats they use this as their favorite wedge along
with the NRA (No Real Answers)

Stupak KNOWS the Bill does not fund abortion. He wants further restrictions. He is in bed with his "C" Street buddies and if this Bill goes down, he is fine with that. If Pelosi caves to him she can can write off much of the progressive base that was essential in the '08 election. Women in this country are paying more attention to this healthcare Bill than any other group and women are the most disappointed in Obama and the Democrats capitulation on this Bill. It could have been SO MUCH BETTER.

I think what we are seeing in the country right now among the pro-lifers is their last ditch effort. With the non-prescription morning after pill and the evolution of drug induced abortion with a confirmed pregnancy, abotion is going to become almost a completely confidential private matter in most cases. As actual surgical procedures become more rare, the ability to make this a major issue is going to fade. Self-rightous control zealots like Stupak will loose their issue. For crying out loud, the Catholic Hospitals, The Nuns and even other enities of the Catholic have publicly endorsed this Bill as it stands. He is not defending a principal. He is on a POLITICAL CRUSADE FOR "C" Steet.