TPMDC
Dirty Dozen: Does Stupak Really Have The Votes Needed To Sink Health Care?
Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI)
Share
Send to a friend!
Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) is holding health care reform hostage over the issue of abortion. He says he can flip about a dozen "yes" votes on health care (including his own) to "no" votes if nothing is done about the Senate bill's abortion language--which he and other pro-life Dems oppose.
House Democratic leadership is negotiating with Stupak, suggesting they think there might be something to his threat--and, of course, they recall November when his bid to insert restrictive abortion language in the House health care bill prevailed. So who are the Stupak-12?
It's hard to say for sure--Stupak hasn't named names. But it is possible to whittle down a list of likely suspects.
Back in November, 64 Democrats voted for Stupak's abortion amendment. Of them, more than 20 ultimately voted against the final health care bill, suggesting their problems with health care reform extend beyond abortion. That leaves 40-plus members who might conceivably flip from "yes" to "no" over the issue of abortion.
But at the time of the vote on the Stupak amendment, things were moving quickly, and many members were reportedly unclear what they were voting on. They also didn't know that the Senate bill would ultimately tighten it own abortion-funding restrictions. How to whittle that list down?
Back on June 25 of last year, 19 Democrats, including Stupak, sent a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi insisting "we cannot support any health care reform proposal unless it explicitly excludes abortion from the scope of any government-defined or subsidized health insurance plan." Of them, nine went on to vote for the House health care bill. One of them--Rep. Jack Murtha (D-PA)--died earlier this year. The remaining eight are: Stupak, Solomon Ortiz (D-TX), Jerry Costello (D-IL), James Oberstar (D-MN), Steve Driehaus (D-OH), Marcy Kaptur (D-OH), Paul Kanjorski (D-PA), and Kathleen Dahlkemper (D-PA).
That's only eight, though. Who are the others?
The anti-abortion website Lifenews points to 10 Democrats who they suspect walk with Stupak: Reps. Jerry Costello (D-IL), Kathy Dahlkemper (D-PA), Joe Donnelly (D-IN), Steve Dreihaus (D-OH), Brad Ellsworth (D-IN), Marcy Kaptur (D-OH), Dale Kildee (D-MI), Dan Lipinski (D-IL), Jim Oberstar (D-MN), and Charlie Wilson (D-OH).
There's quite a bit of overlap here, but the new names are Donnelly, Ellsworth, Kildee, Lipinski, and Wilson. However, Kildee's office tells me that his name doesn't belong on the list--he's still reviewing the Senate language.
These members are resolutely pro-life, but they're not necessarily all dead set against the Senate bill. Last week, Oberstar spokesman John Schadl told me his boss "has concerns about the [Senate] language--he felt the Stupak language was better at upholding the idea that we should not be expanding abortion services, that we should preserve the status quo." However, according to Schadl, Oberstar is convinced there's a way to reach compromise.
So there's some flexibility here. And with leadership and the White House teaming up to twist arm, it's hard to imagine all of Stupak supporters will stick together. But at the same time, there's some indication that when Stupak says 12, he's not far off. A full list of the potential Stupak-followers below.
Solomon Ortiz (D-TX)
Jerry Costello (D-IL)
James Oberstar (D-MN)
Steve Driehaus (D-OH)
Marcy Kaptur (D-OH)
Paul Kanjorski (D-PA)
Kathleen Dahlkemper (D-PA).
Joe Donnelly (D-IN)
Brad Ellsworth (D-IN)
Dan Lipinski (D-IL)
Charlie Wilson (D-OH)
Comments (130) | Join the Conversation!
Leave a comment
Follow us!
Most Popular
TPM Stories Now Surging on Digg.com
TPM Top News
© 2010 TPM Media LLC. All Rights Reserved.
KeithL
March 8, 2010 10:15 AM
I'll soon know who I may be supporting primaries against. I wonder if any of these other folks are members of The Family?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
March 8, 2010 12:09 PM in reply to KeithL
Now, can somebody help me out here? Is health care reform about holding costs down and covering ALL AMERICANS or is it about expanding coverage for abortions?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wyt
March 8, 2010 12:20 PM in reply to JorgeOrwell
It's about aborting Christian Conservatives, since they more often grow up to require more expensive health care, due to the widespread spousal and child abuse, unsafe sex, drinking, crystal, tobacco and oxycontin use, and casual shootings within the family that characterize this particularly-immoral cohort.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
March 8, 2010 12:32 PM in reply to wyt
So it is about abortion. Hmmm....
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
human
March 8, 2010 12:51 PM in reply to JorgeOrwell
No, the Senate bill prohibits federal funding for abortions, just like they always have--you're just an ignorant jackoff.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
March 8, 2010 1:28 PM in reply to human
Oh, then what's all the fuss? Should be simple. Its a done deal. Time to move on. Now, let's concentrate on the PUBLIC OPTION.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Powkat
March 8, 2010 1:16 PM in reply to JorgeOrwell
It's about anti-abortion zealots who, after 37 years of trying, are not able to repeal Rove vs Wade. They are using HCR to force their views (which they cannot sell to their colleagues or the public) into law.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
March 8, 2010 1:32 PM in reply to Powkat
So, its not about covering ALL Americans with a national health plan and bringing our nation's health care expenditures down from 17% of GDP.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
May 5, 2010 12:24 PM in reply to JorgeOrwell
When you refuse to cover all the health needs of 50% of the country's population your concern for the health needs of Americans rings a little hollow.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
KeithL
March 8, 2010 10:18 AM
I'll soon know who I may be supporting primaries against. I wonder if any of these other folks are members of The Family?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Progressive Party
March 8, 2010 7:41 PM in reply to KeithL
Rep Heath Shuler(D-NC-11) who is a memeber of the family,lives at C Street and voted no on HCR.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Walter Mitty
March 8, 2010 10:19 AM
Stupek will never agree to a separate vote because he knows it would fail, and that he only has leverage here because the GOP is voting party line. If there was a stand-alone bill with his language it would lose some pro-choice GOP supporters. In the Senate it wouldn't get 50 because I don't think there is nine Dems who would sign on, and even if there was there is 3-4 pro-choice GOP senators.
Stupek is leveraging the total HCR bill for his C-Street masters.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
March 8, 2010 10:40 AM in reply to Walter Mitty
There are no pro-choice GOP'ers in the House.
It's not possible to change the senate abortion language in the main bill and you can't add it to the reconciliation sidecar. So, he's not negotiating in good faith because he knows leadership can't amend the Senate bill.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cwnidog
March 8, 2010 11:07 AM in reply to FreeRider
True. You beat me to pointing out that he's just looking for cover for his eventual "no" vote.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
masanf
March 8, 2010 10:24 AM
Christ, give it up with the Family bullshit already. It is a sign of how desperate the left is that they actually think anyone outside of a small cult that watches Rachel Maddow actually gives a shit about "The Family".
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dorn76
March 8, 2010 10:49 AM in reply to masanf
Even though my names not "Christ", I'll take a shot.
It's not the Left that's desperate here, bub. Did you hear Lindsey Graham yesterday pleading with Democrats "Please don't do this", or Orrin Hatch blabbing about how it will be "Katie bar the door" if this passes?
You guys got nothing left, and you know it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
March 8, 2010 10:55 AM in reply to Dorn76
I love how Republicans threaten that reconciliation will start a war between the parties and make Republicans unwilling to work with Democrats.
Q: And how would that be different from what we have today?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dorn76
March 8, 2010 11:09 AM in reply to FreeRider
A. The Dems would have a sunstantive victory, and the Repubes would be utterly exposed as the whining children they are.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
concerned parent
March 8, 2010 11:24 AM in reply to FreeRider
Would this mean Obama would stop coming up with gop solutions to put into bills? One could only hope. The right would love a war, then they could say the dems were out to get christians.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
March 8, 2010 11:35 AM in reply to concerned parent
One such GOP solution was higher reimbursement rates for doctors who treat medicaid patients so that more doctors would treat them. That's a good idea but I'm sure you want it out of the bill because the GOP proposed it, right?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rbe1
March 8, 2010 11:46 AM in reply to FreeRider
And you would finance these higher doctor fees, how ?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
March 8, 2010 11:50 AM in reply to rbe1
Read the bill. It's explained.
Insurance is worthless if doctors don't accept it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
EastWest
March 8, 2010 11:57 AM in reply to FreeRider
Very, very true. I've seen this with my wife's and my own parents and Medicare. It's not easy finding a doctor who will take new Medicare patients, and reimbursement rates are a huge part of the problem. It's much worse for Medicaid patients, who tend to be the ones most in need of adequate medical care.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
March 8, 2010 12:10 PM in reply to EastWest
All of this is why we need single payer.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
EastWest
March 8, 2010 12:11 PM in reply to AJM
!!!!!!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
glblank
March 8, 2010 7:02 PM in reply to EastWest
Medicaid patients generally get shuffled through a small set of MDs who basically rubber stamp all requests and put in the minimal amount of time possible and generally don't show up in the top half of local quality assessments.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Powkat
March 8, 2010 1:19 PM in reply to FreeRider
Or, get rid of the expensive and unnecessary Medicare Advantage plans. One more way the insurance companies have forced themselves between patients and doctors.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
March 8, 2010 1:28 PM in reply to Powkat
That's what the alleged "massive cuts in Medicare" are: cuts to the Federal subsidies to the mega-wealthy insurance monopoly. In other words, they won't provide health coverage unless the taxpayer pays for all of it. And only then if the taxpayer monies pass through the insurance monopoly so they can take their cut off the top for being unnecessary pass-through.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
March 8, 2010 11:54 AM in reply to concerned parent
Currently, I am unaware of any Republicans behaving like Christians.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
March 8, 2010 12:03 PM in reply to AJM
Their general attitude seems to be "How DARE Lazarus beg like that?!?"
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Joekuh
March 8, 2010 12:26 PM in reply to AJM
Sad, but true. They only bring religion up when they can 1. rile their base up or 2. get votes. As a person of faith, I absolutely abhore that.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
March 8, 2010 1:24 PM in reply to Joekuh
Everyone who has the courage to get up and go on living every day has faith. They may not, however, ascribe to a theology; a religion.
I.e., "Faith-based" is a religiodeceit intended to shove religion down the throats of everyone else by pretending it is "religion-neutral" vanilla "faith" when it actually means RELIGION-based.
The finer point: faith and religion are not the same thing. That I have faith that a thing is true does not mean that the thing is true -- however genuine the faith.
So instead of being a "person of faith" -- which also applies to atheists -- why not drop the deceit and be honest: you adhere to a religon.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Joekuh
March 8, 2010 3:12 PM in reply to JNagarya
Here's my theory to your point, I'll use abortion as an example. I personally believe that abortion is wrong, so I'm pro-life. But I also know that people have different ideals than I do, and are free to make choices. So I'm pro-choice as well. And will defend someone's right to have abortion, if they make that choice. Faith calls for you to have a higher set of morals. It DOES NOT call for you to impose those morals on anyone else.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
March 9, 2010 3:24 AM in reply to Joekuh
We agree. Except that though personally opposed to abortion, I'm pro-choice not only because I havent the right to impose my view, but also for practical reason: there are often health concern NECESSITIES which REQUIRE the procedure.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
BeeClone
March 8, 2010 12:32 PM in reply to Dorn76
The Republicans are just trying to save the Democrats all those seats they will lose if this health reform is signed into law. lol
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Marinus van der Lubbe
March 8, 2010 10:57 AM in reply to masanf
CHRSIST'S SAKE!! Obviously a lot of people in Michigan are when they look at Stupak now in his egocentric publicity run-up for governor and look at his C Street role.
Just because you have a hissy fit, asshole, perhaps you should wonder what ultra religious wing nuts have in store for your civil rights in the future. And you never produced any proof of WHAT YOU WERE CALLED OUT FOR LAST WEEK. You just make shit up...
Christ's sake!!!
Youre pretty laughable. You show your dumbass bonafides everytime you post. No one in here take you seriously. Christ's sake!!! Back up your assertions. It's simple. Tell the truth, touch hole.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
March 8, 2010 11:09 AM in reply to Marinus van der Lubbe
truth is not part of masanf's vocabulary. masanf has no interest in the truth. he's got nothing to ofer = just like his party has nothing to offer. i really don't know why he bothers to come here - he gets his ass kicked every time. a glutton for punishment
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
EastWest
March 8, 2010 11:43 AM in reply to masanf
Masanf, you sound just like those Rs who want everybody to forget about the war crimes of Bush/Cheney. "Give it up, already!" You're acting just like a little kid saying, "Cookie jar? I dunno. And don't look in the closet!"
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
March 8, 2010 12:11 PM in reply to EastWest
C Street = Adulterers Anonymous
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Leftflank
March 8, 2010 12:37 PM in reply to masanf
Translation: please quit looking into our secretive ways, there's nothing to see. Trust us. Oh, & Rachel Maddow is kicking our asses but were to wimpy to admit it.
THE FAMILY & the GOP donation chart is about all you need to know about the right-wing, bottom to top.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
masanf
March 8, 2010 12:47 PM in reply to Leftflank
Secretive ways? Give me a fucking break. The hubbub you people make over a group of people who may share some religious values is fucking hilarious. The Fellowship is a damn prayer group. You act as if it is the Skull and Bones. As I stated earlier, if this so-called "Family" was pro-abortion, the left wouldn't utter one fucking word in protest over its existence. But take up a position that is anathema to left-wing orthodoxy, and all of sudden Congressmen in a prayer group are transformed into the Illuminati.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
human
March 8, 2010 12:59 PM in reply to masanf
no, if it was pro-choice you hypocritical jackoffs would be screaming to high heaven about how a "pro-abortion socialist" Democrat was getting a sweetheart deal on a luxurious townhouse room with meals and maid service blocks from the capital for only $600 fucking dollars a month--funded by some shady organization with an agenda and an obvious quid pro quo situation.
Got it? No of course you don't, because you're just a jackoff fuckwit who likes to make a fool of himself on a daily basis here, dragging your filthy ass across every thread.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Leftflank
March 8, 2010 1:39 PM in reply to human
Dude, I was going to reply to Mr. hurt feelings but you pretty much set him straight. I will say that it's easy to tell when you've hit a nerve. The truth hurts so bad.
Thanks.
Oh, & I notice angry guy did'nt respond to the Rachel part. It's easier to argue vague BS than admit Rachel is ripping them a new one on a daily basis. Maybe he'd like to talk family values next or hypocrisy.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
March 8, 2010 1:45 PM in reply to masanf
"left-wing orthodoxy"
There are pro-choice REPUBLICANS. Are they "left-wing" too?
Get it through your fucking blind stupidity: NO ONE is FOR abortion. No one goes out and gets pregnant just so they can have an abortion.
There is pro-CHOICE, ASSHOLE, because there are LEGITIMATE HEALTH REASONS for the procedure. And YOU, asshole, DO NOT have the right to inspect others' private medical records in order to determine whether the individual agrees with your ignorant's religiodogma or not.
And YOU, asshole, DO NOT have the right to shove your ignorant's bigotry down everyone else's throats. HOWEVER, as YOU claim to be some sort of pious Christian, then YOU are NOT ALLOWED by the rules you are COMMANDED to obey to be CONSTANTLY RUDE by shoving shit PEOPLE DO NOT WANT TO HEAR into their faces ANYWAY.
If you REFUSE to respect others, then you cannot DEMAND respect.
Do us all a favor -- beginning with yourself: Show us you know how to GO AWAY.
Or, in the alternative, whenever you get the urge to interject your religiobigot demagoguery, STFU.
If you had the least clue, so knew what you were talking about, you wouldn't be spewing the knee-jerk orthodox right-wing religiobigot lie against FREEDOM OF CHOICE, while at the same time defending the nonexistent freedom to be religiobigots bent upon restricting OTHERS' RIGHTS and private health choices based solely upon your religiobigotry.
FREEDOM OF RELIGION, ASSHOLE, INCLUDES freedom FROM religiom. Get it through your ignorant, rude thuggery: You've been REPEATEDLY shown the door on that issue. So DROP IT, or if you can't control yourself, then show us you know how to GO AWAY.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
EastWest
March 8, 2010 2:01 PM in reply to JNagarya
That was freaking awesome. ~ thumbs up ~
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Joekuh
March 8, 2010 3:16 PM in reply to JNagarya
" FREEDOM OF RELIGION, ASSHOLE, INCLUDES freedom FROM religion. "
Well said. That SHOULD be one of the major tenets our country is based on.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
March 9, 2010 3:28 AM in reply to Joekuh
The earliest state constitutions included provisions protecting freedom of conscience -- and prohibiting the use of "my" taxes to build "your" church and pay "your" preacher.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cwnidog
March 8, 2010 3:43 PM in reply to JNagarya
Oooh, I love a good rant. Well done, I guess it helps to be right.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Barry Champlain
March 8, 2010 2:12 PM in reply to masanf
So then, you're admitting that (supposedly) unlike The Family, Skull and Bones really is a secret society with an agenda that's harmful to the country?
That's a start. There may be hope for you nazis and theocrats, yet.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JZ
March 8, 2010 10:41 AM
Brad Ellsworth, eh? I might actually be missing Evan Byah already.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
VictorLH
March 8, 2010 10:47 AM
Why? The fact he is a member of an extremist cult and lied about it is relevant. Everyone should know about him and the others in particular the GOP nuts who he has conspired with.
Once all is said and done, Democrats need to get rid of this fanatic.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
VictorLH
March 8, 2010 10:49 AM in reply to VictorLH
Sigh, for some reason my above post did not end up as a reply to masanf. Please consider it as such.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DCCyclone
March 8, 2010 10:53 AM
Brad Ellsworth is on the record as being much more flexible on the abortion language than Stupak. He was the lead negotiator advocating more flexible language than Stupak or the U.S. Catholic Bishops considered acceptable, so there's no question Ellsworth doesn't demand the Stupak language as a condition of his support. Yes Ellsworth voted for the Stupak amendment, but like so many Dems who voted for that amendment, it wasn't a condition of his support for the House bill.
What's up in the air is whether Ellsworth would consider the Senate bill language sufficient, and since it's so different in form from either the Ellsworth language that was rejected or the Stupak provision of the House bill, it's impossible to guess based on the language itself. My best guess is that Ellsworth ultimately would go along with the Senate bill language, simply on the basis that if it was good enough for Ben Nelson, the odds are good it's good enough for Ellsworth. But really someone needs to ASK Ellsworth or his staff that question. All of them need to be asked directly, but Ellsworth's very public flexibility on the House bill should make him a priority target.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
March 8, 2010 10:59 AM in reply to DCCyclone
Ellsworth wants to be appointed Democratic nominee for the Senate. He won't advance that agenda if he helps tank HCR over language legal scholars say preserves the status quo on abortion funding.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
masanf
March 8, 2010 12:41 PM in reply to FreeRider
Legal scholars? Which legal scholars are those?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
March 8, 2010 12:43 PM in reply to masanf
The ones who tell trolls like you to fuck off.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
March 8, 2010 1:54 PM in reply to masanf
ASSHOLE: Federal LAW ALREADY PROHIBITS the use of Federal tax dollars for ABORTION. How many fucking times, and by how many, must that be said before you GET it and stop telling the lie that Stupak isn't LYING on the point?
Christ, ASSHOLE: it is virtually impossible to enact ANY Federal law without ALSO tacking on the prohibition against using Federal monies for abortion. All becaseu you fanatics are INCAPABLE of keeping your religiosmut TO YOURSELVES instead of undermining our system of laws in effort to advance your precious TOTALITARIAN DELUSION.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
benintn
March 8, 2010 4:51 PM in reply to masanf
Marci Hamilton of the Cardoza School of Law. Jeffrey Rosen at George Washington University. Doug Kmiec of Pepperdine Law and more recently UC Berkeley. Folks like that.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
gjdodger
March 8, 2010 10:57 AM
Brian, you can Marion Berry to your list. He says he'll vote no. He also says it will pass, anyway. http://arkansasnews.com/2010/03/06/one-of-our-lame-ducks-balks/
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
EastWest
March 8, 2010 11:45 AM in reply to gjdodger
Something about the name, Marion Barry that seems to afflict the IQ of folks owning it....
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
TJ21
March 8, 2010 11:03 AM
Stupak has no course of action to insert his language into the Senate bill. This is a fruitless endeavor which only serves the primary legislative goal of the Republican Party: obstruction.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DCCyclone
March 8, 2010 2:20 PM in reply to TJ21
TJ21, Stupak knows that. What he wants is more restrictive language than the Senate bill to be passed as either free-standing bill, or as a rider to some other completely different bill, that would amend the Senate bill-turned-law. The problem is Congressional Democrats need to come up with language that both satisfies Stupak or enough of his anti-abortion Democratic colleagues for the Senate bill to pass the House, AND can get a "yes" vote promise from enough Democratic Senators to pass the Senate. The Senate vote count is actually trickier but made potentially easier by the new abortion language (whatever it is) being freestanding, in that you'll get all the anti-abortion Rethugs voting for it, and you realistically need only 20something Democrats to vote for it to get to 60 for cloture. The trick is getting some pro-choice Democrats to promise in good faith to vote for the language in exchange for the House first passing the Senate bill as-is.
And that's the whole problem, that the abortion "fix" can't be done in the reconciliation sidebar, and Stupak has to take people's word for it that whatever new language he likes will PASS later.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
TJ21
March 8, 2010 9:31 PM in reply to DCCyclone
Thanks for the heads up and clarification. But it still seems like ideological grandstanding to me. Do you think an ancillary or amending bill, even if its inserted into other legislation, could find the votes to pass the senate? Especially after the fact?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Elizabeth2
March 8, 2010 11:05 AM
My question to each of these legislators (fortunately, I suppose, I'm not a constituent of any of them):
---- If you place such a high value on the sanctity of life, what do you say to those who are already alive but will certainly die if our health care system doesn't change?
and
---- Are you so certain that passage of this bill, even with language you don't like, will lead to more abortions? Isn't it possible that without the sometimes-impossible responsibility of paying for preventive services, prenatal care, and medical care for the child to be born there might well be *fewer* abortions?
Bottom line: Do you really care about life? If not, what is the real reason you would take this stand, a position that has such dire consequences for so many "innocents" - both born and unborn?
And if anyone gets any answers to those questions, I would truly love to hear them!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
March 8, 2010 11:30 AM in reply to Elizabeth2
Me too Elizabeth!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Mimi katz
March 8, 2010 11:35 AM in reply to Elizabeth2
They only care about the pre-born, who are without sin. Once people are born they are on their own. That's always been their view.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Elizabeth2
March 8, 2010 12:12 PM in reply to Mimi katz
But I would dearly love to hear them admit it. I'd raised the question with some anti-choice/pro-death-penalty people I know but those folks, you know, have all sort of moral turpitude and stuff. But what about the newborn who needs critical care but happened to be born to folks without insurance -- how do you weigh that baby's life against the one that is only a week or so behind it? These folks should *at least* have a moment of extreme discomfort facing the hard questions that their choice raises.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
March 8, 2010 12:13 PM in reply to Mimi katz
Funny how life attaches at conception but original sin only attaches at birth. I'm guessing they are confused about the mechanics of the sex act.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
March 8, 2010 2:00 PM in reply to AJM
They should be all the more for CANCER, because that is in a sense a rapid splitting and proliferation of super-cells.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Iris
March 8, 2010 12:55 PM in reply to Elizabeth2
Here here
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
shooter242
March 8, 2010 11:18 AM
HCR done in by Democrats. I like it.
Keep up the good work.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
VictorLH
March 8, 2010 11:22 AM in reply to shooter242
Don't count your chickens before they hatch troll.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
EastWest
March 8, 2010 11:47 AM in reply to shooter242
Hey, shooter. Don't you have a scrotum to lick? Scat!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cwnidog
March 8, 2010 1:23 PM in reply to EastWest
Given his avatar, I suspect it's his own ...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Marinus van der Lubbe
March 8, 2010 1:37 PM in reply to cwnidog
Or he'll shove his nose up another dogs ass...either way, doesnt make him smarter or funnier.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Mintcon
March 8, 2010 11:28 AM
It's important to remind people what Stupak's amendment does. There is already no federal funding for abortions in the bill. In fact, it puts new restrictions on abortions through the Nelson language than the current status quo.
What Stupak wants is a one-drop rule. If a plan accepts a single federal dollar anywhere then it cannot offer anyone abortion coverage, even if the person pays for it entirely from their own funds. This is like saying that anyone who works for a company that received a federal contract can never get an abortion because some of that person's salary may have been paid with tax dollars. Or anyone who took the first-time home buyers tax credit can never get an abortion. It's just insane. Stupak is not negotiating in good faith.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CityGuy
March 8, 2010 12:01 PM in reply to Mintcon
Exactly. Stupak is just looking for a way to vote NO on HCR. "Pro-life" is just an excuse for him.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Joekuh
March 8, 2010 12:29 PM in reply to Mintcon
Is there some proof of this somewhere? That's the dumbest idea I've ever heard (if its true.) !
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Mintcon
March 8, 2010 12:40 PM in reply to Joekuh
This is what Stupak wants. Read the first line of the Amendment. Journalists have been parroting his party line (no funding for abortion) without noticing the distinction between direct and indirect funding. This would be the first ever indirect ban of federal funding for anything. It goes way beyond the Hyde Amendments. It's time journalists got this right.
There is no federal funding for abortion in HCR. If you worry about indirect funding, well, the transportation bill pays for abortions because people who drive on roads may drive to clinics. It's just insanity.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
terje
March 8, 2010 2:12 PM in reply to Mintcon
Sadly, it is not true that "This would be the first ever indirect ban of federal funding for anything."
The right wing has been using the cudgel of federal funds to restrict separately funded activities they object to for many years. This was the basis of Bush's "Mexico City" ban on funds to international family planning and aid groups that provided abortion counseling or services (even when those funds were from entirely non-US government sources) - a policy that was immediately overturned by President Obama's executive order when he took office. Similarly, federal HIV prevention funds (or other federal dollars) could not go to any organization that provided needle exchange (even to provide important support services like HIV testing). Bush's international HIV prevention funding imposed severe funding restrictions on organizations that did work with sex workers, forcing them to choose between working with prostitutes or receiving government funding. There are countless other examples.
The right wing has long ago decided that using the federal checkbook to make social policy is a legitimate strategy, trying to financially starve organizations that provide services they disapprove of.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Mintcon
March 8, 2010 4:13 PM in reply to terje
Of course. Total lapse on my part.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
March 8, 2010 2:12 PM in reply to Mintcon
This would be the first ever indirect ban of federal funding for anything.
_____
Not quite correct: Federal anti-discrimination law applies to the entirety of the entity, even if the money only passes through it. As example: if a college receives Federal monies, either directly, or indirectly as a student's tuition, then one cannot discriminate anywhere on the campus.
Rhenquist authored a line of cases that ignored the text in the law which expressly stipulated that fact, most well known being Grove Hall. In it he asserted that the law prohibited discrimination only by the financial aid office. That line of cases was overturned by Congress with the "Civil Rights Restoration Act" of 1986/86.
Which act, not so incidentally, only got the support of Republicans because each amendment to each Federal anti-discrimination law, though in exactly the same language, and though all were in the exact same "Act," had to include their express prohibition against using Federal funding for abortion.
Got that, "masanf"? This was an "Act" overturning the false narrowing of the scope of anti-discrimination law -- but it had to include anti-abortion language, even though that language was entirely irrelevant to the purpose of the "Act".
And that has been the reality since at latest 1985/86.
Stupak is a "Christian" LIAR who, like you, flouts the Commandment, "Thou shalt not LIE."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
justaJ0e
March 8, 2010 11:45 AM
I know this is silly, but every time I hear the name "Stupak" ... my first thought is that it is an acronym for some lobbyist group. Something like, The "Stupid Political Action Committee" or StuPAC.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
March 8, 2010 12:02 PM
The president was just brilliant a few minutes ago . check it out
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
EastWest
March 8, 2010 12:10 PM in reply to lousgirl84
Here I go agreeing with you again. Bad habit, I know, and I promise to stop doing it....
But he was good. The bully pulpit is one of the strongest weapons any President has. Bush, with all his bumbling idiocy, made good use of it. Clinton was brilliant at it. Obama should be - and often is - better still.
He's already getting good press from it, but good or bad - the main point is that he is getting press attention while on this tour. As long as he's controlling the message, and as long as it's his sound bites on the tubez, he's winning.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cwnidog
March 8, 2010 1:28 PM in reply to lousgirl84
I'd agree with that. Geez, we're setting dangerous precedents today ;-). But when you're right, you're right.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Jackster
March 8, 2010 12:04 PM
The bizarre irony of Stupak for me is that he was chair of a committee that grilled HIC exec's. The piece I saw was that he was rather firm with them and their practices.
It baffles me that regardless of what he discovered, that he would let them off the hook on religious grounds.
So you ask, why am I surprised?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
March 8, 2010 12:21 PM in reply to Jackster
Stupak is just like the folks who want to kill the bill because there's no public option.
They are one-issue ideologues who are willing to leave 31 million uninsured and toss all the good things in this bill over their personal fetish which will mean very little to very few.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
EastWest
March 8, 2010 12:31 PM in reply to FreeRider
I don't think you'll find many of those. Right now, everybody involved realizes the "moderates" and weak leadership have permanently killed any real hope of a strong public option, single-payer, and many other solid progressive ideas.
If you really want to get into it about how badly watered-down the final result is (Health Insurance Reform, vs. Health Care Reform), I'm up for it. But it would be counter-productive and a waste of time.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
March 8, 2010 12:45 PM in reply to EastWest
ANY debate with firebaggers like you is a waste of time.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
NR
March 8, 2010 1:19 PM in reply to FreeRider
Yeah, people who want real health care reform and not a TARP for the insurance industry are so tiresome.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
EastWest
March 8, 2010 1:32 PM in reply to NR
Don't you just hate those pesky progressives? It's so much better being a weak-kneed DLC moderate, isn't it?
I mean, just look at all they've accomplished! ~crickets....~
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
March 8, 2010 2:48 PM in reply to NR
You said it!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
EastWest
March 8, 2010 4:05 PM in reply to FreeRider
And since you agree that your DLC "leaders" have so completely failed to accomplish anything, isn't it time to start backing the progressives?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
March 8, 2010 4:13 PM in reply to EastWest
Since you say that the DLC has all the power in the party and calls all the shots, shouldn't you be backing the DLC?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Joekuh
March 8, 2010 12:36 PM in reply to FreeRider
You dont chop a 100+ year old tree down with one swing. That's what I take this bill as. One chop toward the goal.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
March 8, 2010 12:53 PM in reply to Joekuh
I agree with you. However, the nutbags on the right say it's the end of democracy as we know it and the nutbags on the left say it's proof that Obama is a corporate whore and it is the insurance company's wet dream.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
EastWest
March 8, 2010 1:41 PM in reply to FreeRider
And the weaklings in the middle just want to pretend like their emporer really does have a new suit.
Why is it that you people are so hateful, FreeLoader? You and your boy Rahm are so quick to make enemies of the very people who got Obama elected in the first place. Do you really think that by running to the right - er, middle! - I mean, the middle - you're really doing anything for this country?
You're not. You're alienating the people the Dems need in 2010. The same people you'll need in 2012. That's just so stupidly short-sighted of you.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
March 8, 2010 2:19 PM in reply to EastWest
The moderates in the middle happen to be the vast majority, punk.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
March 8, 2010 2:26 PM in reply to EastWest
And it wouldn't be stupidly short-sighted for those alleged "progressives" to alienate themselves?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
EastWest
March 8, 2010 4:02 PM in reply to JNagarya
Ooh, punk. I'm crushed.
Your statement is so blindly illogical it almost resists parsing. But to try: The timid DLC "moderates" constantly whine and point fingers at the progressives. You blame them for everything from the failure of the P/O to - oh, I don't know - to the Haitian earthquake. And when they tell you how utterly, mindlessly stupid you're being, your response is to rant something about how they're alienating themselves.
Weak. Just like your knees.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
March 9, 2010 3:33 AM in reply to EastWest
You are alienating yourselves. Why not just say, "I'm sitting this out", because that is what you're doing. Unless you get it all, you want everyone, including yourself, to get NOTHING.
Because you tell yourself (and others) that OTHERS CONTROL YOUR decision-making it appears to you necessary to blame those others for your decisions.
Tell us: what in the bill/s do you SUPPORT?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
March 8, 2010 3:30 PM in reply to EastWest
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
masanf
March 8, 2010 12:41 PM
Lipinski's spokesman emailed the Weekly Standard and told them that he would not vote for the bill if it had the Senate abortion language. So that is another confirmed no.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
human
March 8, 2010 1:01 PM in reply to masanf
I can tell the thought of even more people going broke and dying really arouses you--I guess your insurance doesn't cover your much needed viagra, so you gotta make due with other methods.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
March 8, 2010 2:37 PM in reply to human
"masanf" is obviously one of those fake Christians who puts Ca$h before Christ, thus being in fact wholly contrary to Christ.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
RadioNumber
March 8, 2010 12:43 PM
The democrats either need to call the "Fifth Column" democrat's bluff or add language to the bill in order to offer some ablution to these democrats. If the bill gets tied up any longer with obstructionist flak, it will begin a symbolic castration of power for the progressives and have long term ramifications for the party in general.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
LeeJo
March 8, 2010 12:56 PM
The "Stupid" amendment cannot be added to the Senate bill in the house. That bill must be passed exactly as it passed the Senate to avoid having to go back to the Senate floor for further action. In the end it seems that when you read between the lines it appears as though Stupak is making a very good argument for retro-active abortion. Watch out Bart if you look over your shoulder you may see people sneaking up on you with coat hangers in hand!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Jackster
March 8, 2010 1:23 PM
So with the change of majority in the Senate, the house is acting like it doesn't effect them. They are unable to change the bill and send it back to the senate for more political hot potato. If the just passed the damned Senate bill it would go to the Prez....right?
Pass it and fix it, but for shit's sake stop your damned whining.
Otherwise we go through the politically dangerous waters of reconciliation. (at least for Dems)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
EastWest
March 8, 2010 1:44 PM in reply to Jackster
It's going through reconciliation, no matter what. And as somebody else posted above, Stupak's posturing is useless. All sides agree that his coat-hanger language isn't something that can be accomplished through reconciliation. It must be in a separate bill.
So, the bottom line is that if he really does have a dozen members willing to kill the entire thing over this - it's toast. The real question is, does he have a dozen?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
xargaw
March 8, 2010 1:26 PM
This will be the real test for Obama. Will he have the guts to play hardball with Stupak or will he allow HCR reform to fail because of one "C" Street Senator?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
March 8, 2010 2:01 PM in reply to xargaw
The REAL question is, will he have the guts to standd up to the insurance and pharma corporations to fight for a PUBLIC OPTION.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
EastWest
March 8, 2010 2:22 PM in reply to JorgeOrwell
Not to start a shit-storm, but I think the answer is no. At this point, barring some sort of uprising by the Progressive caucus(es), it's a pretty safe bet the P/O is dead. I wish it were otherwise.
What really must happen is for the Senate to pass a reconciliation package first and send it to the House. The House can then act on that, pass the Senate HIR bill, and send the lot off to the Pres for signature. It's not ideal, but it's doable.
Check out this post on Kos.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
March 8, 2010 2:40 PM in reply to EastWest
"the P/O is dead" -- for the moment.
Progress requires one step at a time -- unless you can levitate yourself in one motion to the intended end-point of your journay.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cinesimon
March 8, 2010 4:03 PM in reply to JNagarya
Agree.
The P/O will happen eventually - we need to get past this inherent dishonesty from the right wing before we can, as they have convinced a lot of Americans, extremely gullible and probably intellectually lazy but their votes are just as relevant as ours - that it's basically communism.
So, we need an upturn in the economy before we can get there I believe(that's going to be harder of course given that more and more of the workforce are getting less and less access to health care, and their shrinking incomes mean less healthy food - but it's bound to happen anyway).
One step at a time, indeed.
With an upturn in the economy, and continuing success with his foreign policy combined with better messaging than they've managed thus far, if Obama gets a 2nd term, I reckon he should be able to call for it then.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
EastWest
March 8, 2010 4:10 PM in reply to JNagarya
Yes, the P/O is dead for the moment. Considering how miserably the Dem "leadership" has failed this year - the year they pissed away the first 60-vote supermajority in decades - how do you envision them pulling a Lazarus with it?
Remember: At every opportunity, every step of the way, the Dems gave away important items. The Public Option was among the first to go. The spent an entire year giving things away. What did they get in return? Stupak's coat-hanger amendment. Nice.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
March 8, 2010 7:39 PM in reply to JNagarya
You do realize Medicare has only been weakened since in inception?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
March 9, 2010 3:36 AM in reply to JorgeOrwell
Someone published a response to that sort of nonsense which showed the chronology of both Social Security and Medicare as to how they were incrementally EXPANDED. So, no, Medicare is not weaker than it was. Unless you swallow the Republican lies spewed while pretending they actually support Medicare.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
March 9, 2010 11:39 AM in reply to JNagarya
Here is one example of the weakening of Medicare...
"With the passage of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, Medicare beneficiaries were given the option to receive their Medicare benefits through private health insurance plans, instead of through the Original Medicare plan (Parts A and B). These programs were known as "Medicare+Choice" or "Part C" plans. Pursuant to the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003, the compensation and business practices for insurers that offer these plans changed, and "Medicare+Choice" plans became known as "Medicare Advantage" (MA) plans. In addition to offering comparable coverage to Part A and Part B, Medicare Advantage plans may also offer Part D coverage."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_%28United_States%29
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
March 14, 2010 12:00 PM in reply to JorgeOrwell
Wikipedia is trustworthy. Just ask Microsoft.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
March 14, 2010 2:38 PM in reply to JNagarya
Yeah, I'm more of a WorldNetDaily guy. What was I thinking?!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
March 18, 2010 7:40 PM in reply to JorgeOrwell
I figured you to be more along the lines of CNS.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
March 8, 2010 7:55 PM in reply to EastWest
No, I think you are correct. I was hoping the Dems would prove me wrong and be different than their Republican counterparts, but it seems the lobby dollars are just too tempting for them as well.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Vic Arpeggio
March 8, 2010 2:47 PM
Marcy Kaptur! Super-progressive. Super disappointing. I know she's a devout Catholic (she's from my hometown of Toledo, OH), but even she has to see how blind she's being. Sigh.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
terje
March 8, 2010 4:46 PM in reply to Vic Arpeggio
I haven't seen any public statement from Kaptur saying that she would vote against HCR if it doesn't satisfy Stupak - has she said that? The Senate language could certainly be interpreted as addressing the concerns raised in the letter she signed onto last June.
Yes, she's anti-choice, but I strongly doubt she'll vote against HCR based on the Senate language -- unions and the House leadership should be able to keep that from happening. As you note, she's not a Blue Dog, she's progressive on most other issues, and she won't have any problems in her fairly urban & Democratic constituency voting for the bill (especially since she's already done it one before).
I would be shocked if she walked with Stupak.
I also wonder if any of the Dems who switch their vote like Stupak aren't vulnerable in a primary -- not necessarily from a pro-choice candidate (most of their districts tend to be blue-collarish and socially conservative). But if a Stupak, Kaptur, Kanjorski, Dahlkemper, Lipinski, etc -- really any of the names on the list of 12 above -- were to destroy health care reform because of abortion, wouldn't they invite an challenge backed by unions, economic progressives, and grassroots activists hammering them on health care and the way they stood with big business and Republicans against working families? (It wouldn't focus on abortion - although pro-choice groups would definitely join in the campaign to unseat them.)
Kanjorski already faces a serious primary challenge, Ellsworth really might find the party less excited about nominating him statewide in Indiana if he kills HCR (and he's already out for running for his Congressional seat again, since he withdrew his papers). Except for Stupak and Oberstar, most of the others already are past filing deadlines this year, but they could definitely be setting themselves up for a primary in 2 years - Lipinski has been proved to be vulnerable, a generation of ambitious young Latino officeholders could be looking at Ortiz in Texas, and every other one of them represents a district heavy with blue collar and union Democrats.
I think one of the most effective ways to keep these folks on board would be to start creating local noise about 2012 primary challenges, floating names of viable local candidates, and getting pro-HCR reform groups to let it be known that sinking this bill could sink their careers.
Now can't someone find some populist politician from the Upper Peninsula to start a campaign against Stupak? In a district with the heavy history of union power that his has, surely someone could make him sweat things a little bit.
If Bill Halter can run a credible campaign against Blanche Lincoln in a state like Arkansas, you'd think these folks representing traditionally Democratic districts should feel some heat back home.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SocialJusticeForAll
March 8, 2010 3:51 PM
Fix the Senate bill, pass HCR. http://www.nrlc.org/AHC/AbortionPolicyHCRBackgrounder.html
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
masanf
March 8, 2010 7:22 PM
Add Kathleen Dahlkemper to the listen of definite No's. It is becoming more obvious by the day that Bart Stupak doesn't bluff.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
acriticalthinker
March 22, 2010 2:33 PM
Esau sold his birthright for “some bread and lentil stew.” Genesis 25:34. (Look away now all you "dracula" libs). Stupak GAVE gave away his integrity and sold out the birthright of Americans that the founding fathers left for us in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution for a worthless promise from the President for an even more worthless piece of paper. The flimsiest of "fig leaf" of all time! Nancy Pelosi, President Obama, and pro-abortion Democrats had no qualms about making a fool of Stupak and using him, and the pro-life Democrats who were allied with Stupak, to accomplish their destructive purposes.
Stupak could have averted the social and fiscal disaster that must follow if the health care bill that was passed is not repealed. March 21, 2010—another day that will live in infamy. The “blood” of that bill–the babies who will be aborted and the devastating and crushing red ink that must follow--will be on Stupak's hands, and the hands of the other Democrats who followed his lead.
Lesson: NEVER, EVER, trust a Democrat. They will even stab another Democrat in the back just to get their vote.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
June 13, 2010 4:16 AM
Brad Ellsworth is on the record as being much more flexible on the abortion language than Stupak. He was the lead negotiator advocating more flexible language than Stupak or the U.S. Catholic Bishops considered acceptable, so there's no question Ellsworth doesn't demand the Stupak language as a condition of his support. Yes Ellsworth voted for the Stupak amendment, but like so many Dems who voted for that amendment, it wasn't a condition of his support for the House bill.
What's up in the air is whether Ellsworth would consider the Senate bill language sufficient, and since it's so different in form from either the Ellsworth language that was rejected or the Stupak provision of the House bill, it's impossible to guess based on the language itself. My best guess is that Ellsworth ultimately would go along with the Senate bill language, simply on the basis that if it was good enough for Ben Nelson, the odds are good it's good enough for Ellsworth. But really someone needs to ASK Ellsworth or his staff that question. All of them need to be asked directly, but Ellsworth's very public flexibility on the House bill should make him a priority target.
m65 kamagra
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
August 22, 2010 12:00 PM
Thank you for the mp3 dinle information your provide.mp3 indir
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?